University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Hand to Home Project

(USC Thesis Other)

The Hand to Home Project

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: HAND TO HOME PROJECT !1
THE HAND TO HOME PROJECT
By
Valerie Flores, LCSW-S
A Capstone Project
Present to
The Faculty of the Suzanne Dwork-Peck School of Social Work
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Social Work (DSW)
August, 2020
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !2
Dedication:
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mother who encouraged me,
offered moral support, cooked for me when I was too tired and helped me in so many ways.
Words cannot express how much your support and all that you have done for me has been crucial
in getting to his point in both my professional and personal life.
My sweet Xochitl..I am so proud to be your mom and appreciate you for all your humor.
The time I have spent away or studying has been hard but you now have Dr. Mommy. Aim for
the stars my love!
Aron. Thank you for your support in encouraging to take the first steps on this journey
and for always being my sounding board. I am grateful for you in my life and your love is an
unbelievable blessing.
Dr. Crow Cruz! I have been so honored to walk this path with you from the first
semester, through many frustrations, creative ideas, and adventures. The future is bright with the
light of our innovations!
The craft of creating a capstone could not be done without the support of Dr. Ronald
Manderscheid, Dr. Diandra Bremond, Professor James Wind, and Professor Jane James.
Professor Wander your ability to inspire us to be think moonsteps is a lesson that I will continue
to carry forward. Dr. Rank your words of encouragement has made it helped me to believe in
myself even when I was not sure that I could myself. Professor Wind I am grateful to your
ability to decode all things finance. To all my professors thank you for planting the seeds of
innovation and creativity!
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !3
Executive Summary
The American Academy of Social Work Initiative forms the 13 Grand Challenges of
Social Work, the most important issues facing society. Their call to action is to address the
identified challenges in the next 10 years. The Grand Challenges of Stopping Family Violence
and Ending Homelessness are both central to the prototype presented in this paper.
Link to Grand Challenges: Stopping Family Violence and Ending Homelessness
The Grand Challenges of Stopping Family Violence and Ending Homelessness are
multifaceted and complex opportunities to change the lives of people. The Grand Challenge of
Stopping Family Violence focuses on violence, more specifically between intimate partners and
children, while the Grand Challenge of Ending Homelessness concentrates on poverty and
inequality that keep people from achieving stability. The overlap between these grand challenges
creates the perfect opportunity for change. For the purpose of brevity, this paper will focus on the
Grand Challenge of Stopping Family Violence with specific focus on the child welfare system.
Ending Homelessness is addressed as the secondary challenge.
Problem to be Addressed
The proposed solution is to address three main areas: (a) to prevent families who are
unstably housed from becoming involved in the child welfare system, (b) to change the
opportunities for those families, and (c) to prevent families from any future contact with the child
welfare system.
Solution
The proposed solution is the Hand to Home Project, a nonprofit agency that aims to
engage with unstably-housed families by offering 12 months of Peer Support Services and the
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !4
opportunity to purchase their own 3D-printed home. The Hand to Home agency will change the
ways families are supported as a peer will support each family on an individual and monthly
basis. As families gain the necessary skills for stability, they will be given the opportunity to use
a micro-finance loan to buy their own 3D-printed home at a cost of $20,000, far below the
median cost of a home.
The proposed solution is focused on (a) skill building, (b) supportive housing, and (c)
prevention. The skill building offered via the Peer Support Services can help families improve
their knowledge around parenting, financial, and other family skills. Skills will be tailored to the
needs of the family by their client support plan and monthly sessions themed to improve skill
attainment in finances, job seeking, and mental health. The solution focuses on the opportunity to
have affordable, permanent housing, which will guarantee stability and will allow families to
improve their financial situation by becoming homeowners. The prevention component of the
proposed innovation will allow families to remain together, keeping them from involvement in
the child welfare system.
Methodology/Tools
The tools utilized by the Hand to Home Project life skills training, permanent housing
opportunity, and 3D-printed technology. Families will be given one-on-one support to work on
their individualized goals. By participating in this program, families will become homeowners,
an asset not possible through existing services. The 3D-printed technology utilized for this
project is the Vulcan II printer, which is operated by a tablet with specialized software that runs
the printer to construct the homes.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !5
Aims for Implementation and Future Actions Steps
The aims for implementation are to initiate the pilot program, increase the use of Peer
Support Services, increase the use of 3D-printed homes, and scale up the pilot program to
expand to more families. The pilot program has eight phases: (a) project planning, (b) project
launch, (c) finance plan, (d) contracts, (e) agency launch, (f) client recruitment, (g) home
construction, and (i) project performance. At the present time, the project is in Phase 2, which is
the formation of a 503c nonprofit agency. The 503c paperwork was submitted in early July 2020.
The Peer Support Services aspect of this project challenges the idea that only a
professional can help raise individuals to a better life; Peer Support Services will demonstrate
that people can be supported by a peer and attain stability. A peer support specialist is a person
who had their own challenge with housing, mental health, or substance abuse but has remained
stable with their own challenge for a minimum of one year. The professional relationship
between a Peer Support Specialist and the client will be one grounded in personal experience and
knowledge.
The use of 3D-printed technology has been expanding in the last decade. As 3D-printed
technology continues to expand and become more widely available, it is important for services
and agencies to increase the use of the technology. The 3D model of home construction is
cheaper, quicker to construct, and an affordable means to housing for many individuals. A 3D
home can make a difference in the lives of families who will be able to move into an affordable,
permanent home and ultimately become homeowners. The future goals are to scale-up the
project within the city and to expand it throughout the state and into the entire nation.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !6
Implications
This project has implications for families at micro, mezzo, and macro levels. For families
at the micro level, the project presents an opportunity to achieve stability. Families who are
struggling with unstable housing will be able to achieve stability through the foundational step of
obtaining a forever home. Stable housing will allow families to keep their children in the same
school, invest into a home, while paying a reasonable amount of money that can be budgeted into
their finances to allow them to build savings and equity.
The implications at the mezzo level include changing the way agencies interact with
families and changing the look of the community with the use of 3D-printed homes. Families
will be able to change the way they are perceived in the community. The project challenges the
idea that people choose to be homeless or are not good parents because they cannot afford stable
housing for their children. Using 3D-printed homes will create change in how we consider
housing for at-risk families and how we obtain the construction of those homes.
At the macro level, the project presents an implication for a change to housing,
homeownership, changing housing from a privilege to a right, eliminating housing inequity, and
breaking the cycle of poverty for families. The issue of addressing affordable housing has been
attempted in the United States; however current methods fail to truly offer families homes they
can afford. The idea of homeownership occurs as a secondary issue for families who are unstably
housed, but this project advocates that housing is at the forefront of stability issues. All families
have the right to a home; affordable housing is not a privilege reserved for some and not others.
The housing inequity persists in the United States and can only be changed if we make homes
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !7
affordable and available. By doing so, we can truly eliminate the cycle of poverty for families
who deserve permanent and better housing.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !8
Table of Contents
Dedication: 2 .......................................................................................................................................
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mother who encouraged me, offered
moral support, cooked for me when I was too tired and helped me in so many ways. Words
cannot express how much your support and all that you have done for me has been crucial in
getting to his point in both my professional and personal life. 2 ........................................................
My sweet Xochitl..I am so proud to be your mom and appreciate you for all your humor. The
time I have spent away or studying has been hard but you now have Dr. Mommy. Aim for the
stars my love! 2 ...................................................................................................................................
Aron. Thank you for your support in encouraging to take the first steps on this journey and for
always being my sounding board. I am grateful for you in my life and your love is an
unbelievable blessing. 2 ......................................................................................................................
Dr. Crow Cruz! I have been so honored to walk this path with you from the first semester,
through many frustrations, creative ideas, and adventures. The future is bright with the light of
our innovations! 2 ...............................................................................................................................
The craft of creating a capstone could not be done without the support of Dr. Ronald
Manderscheid, Dr. Diandra Bremond, Professor James Wind, and Professor Jane James.
Professor Wander your ability to inspire us to be think moonsteps is a lesson that I will continue
to carry forward. Dr. Rank your words of encouragement has made it helped me to believe in
myself even when I was not sure that I could myself. Professor Wind I am grateful to your
ability to decode all things finance. To all my professors thank you for planting the seeds of
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !9
innovation and creativity! 2 ................................................................................................................
Executive Summary 3 .........................................................................................................................
Conceptual Framework 13 ..................................................................................................................
Statement of Problem 13 ................................................................................................................
Literature Review and Problem and Innovation 13 ........................................................................
Social Significance 18 ....................................................................................................................
Conceptual Framework with Logic Model 20 ....................................................................................
Logic Model Theories 20 ...............................................................................................................
Logic Model 21 ..............................................................................................................................
Problem of Practice and Innovative Solutions 22 ..............................................................................
Effect on the Grand Challenge 22 ..................................................................................................
Comparative Assessment of Other Opportunities for Innovation 27 .............................................
Alignment between Logic Model and Theory of Change 28 .........................................................
Project Structure and Methodology 31 ...............................................................................................
Description of Prototype 31 ............................................................................................................
Comparative Market Analysis 31 ...................................................................................................
Project Implementation Plan 32 .....................................................................................................
Financial Plans and Staging 34 .......................................................................................................
Project Impact Assessment Methods 36 .........................................................................................
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !10
Stakeholder and Engagement Plan 36 ............................................................................................
Communication Strategies 38 ........................................................................................................
Ethical Considerations 39 ...............................................................................................................
Conclusions, Actions, and Implications 39 .......................................................................................
Summary of Project Plans 39 .........................................................................................................
Current Practice for Project Conclusions 39 ..................................................................................
Project Implications for Practice and Further Action 40 ................................................................
Project Limitations 40 ....................................................................................................................
Conclusion 41 .....................................................................................................................................
References 43 .....................................................................................................................................
Appendices 56 ....................................................................................................................................
Appendix A Primary Research Interviews 57 .........................................................................................................
Appendix B Logic Model 63 ..................................................................................................................................
Appendix C Implementation Plan 64 ......................................................................................................................
Appendix D Implementation Barriers and Facilitators using EPIS Framework 67 ................................................
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !11
Appendix E Competitive Analysis 68 .....................................................................................................................
Appendix F Budget 69 ............................................................................................................................................
Appendix G Evaluation Plan 71 ..............................................................................................................................
Appendix H Evaluation Tools 73 ............................................................................................................................
Appendix I Gantt Chart 80 ....................................................................................................................................
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !12
List of Tables
Table 1. Agency Providers 30
.............................................................................................................
Table 2. Stakeholders 36
.....................................................................................................................
Table 3. Communication Plan 37
.......................................................................................................
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !13
Conceptual Framework
Statement of Problem
Families who are unstably housed must achieve stability and the attainment of their
psychosocial needs through permanent housing. This problem forms the nexus of the Grand
Challenges of Stopping Family and Ending Family Violence. Both Grand Challenges are
grounded in the concept of safety. The proposed innovation seeks to address both Grand
Challenges with a strong commitment to the safety of the entire family at its core.
Literature Review and Problem and Innovation
Current state. At the present time, the child welfare system is guided by federal law. Each
state has their own laws that provide the framework for local agencies’ policies. Agency policies
guide workers on the ground, ultimately ensuring laws regarding child welfare are enforced.
Current statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2020)
indicate there are 3.5 million allegations of child abuse and neglect every year; approximately
700,000 of these are confirmed cases of abuse and neglect. Families who are unstably housed
have a 1 in 6 chance of being placed outside of the home due to a housing problem, adding
another layer to the problem of child welfare (Fowler et al., 2017). Of those children currently in
the foster care system, two in five needed housing assistance prior to being placed outside of the
home (Fowler et al., 2017). Health care services to children and families is expected to cost $585
billion in the next 10 years (Children’s Heath, 2018).
A review of the current literature offers insight into the challenges faced by at-risk
families and next steps that inform the solution to families’ stability issues. The most important
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !14
trends are a need for improved housing supports and family engagement for families to become
co-collaborators in the .
Fowler et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of different housing options
for families and concluded there is an overlap between housing and the child welfare system.
The current state of housing requires changes to improve systematic efforts to relieve the housing
crisis for at-risk families. These changes include helping families on public housing waitlists,
partnerships between agencies, investing funds in prevention, and joining homeless services
networks to advocate for clients. Fowler et al. demonstrated a real need for housing support
beyond what is currently available for families when they become involved in the child welfare
system. One solution to the housing problem would be to offer solutions for permanent housing
for child welfare-involved families that includes housing plus case management or case
management by itself. Fowler et al. (2017) concluded there is a need for housing and support for
families who struggle with challenges of mental health/substance abuse.
Housing vouchers constitute a frequent support for families to prevent child
maltreatment. Pergamit et al. (2017) showed a reduction in child welfare involvement and cases
were closed sooner by giving families access to housing. Pergamit et al.’s research lent support
for housing as a solution to families who become involved in the child welfare system; however,
limitations exist related to the availability of housing and restrictions that are in place for
families who might be eligible for a voucher.
Claudia Reyes, a current child protective worker in the state of Texas, offered practical
insight during an interview held with the researcher (see Appendix A). Reyes stated the trend is
families who are unable to find affordable housing and child welfare agencies that have
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !15
inconsistent resources between jurisdictions to support families in need of housing. Reyes noted
there is no resource for housing in the community in which she works, and no resources her
agency can offer to families to improve their housing situation. Victor Ibarra, who works in a
different jurisdiction in the state of Texas, noted a similar trend in his area: families with unstable
housing do not have enough support. User 21219, a younger mother, noted she married her
boyfriend just to prove to the child welfare agency she had a place to stay and keep her child.
User 21219 wished to remain anonymous due to privacy concerns and an ongoing fear for her
safety.
There remains some uncertainty about which solution of housing vouchers, supportive
housing, or case management would be best; however, the literature does give support for stable
housing, noting that families who are housed are better able to close their cases and remain an
intact family (Rog et al, 2018). Cheng and Lo (2016) demonstrated a collaborative engagement
approach to working with families showed promise by considering the worker-parent
relationship. Highlights of such an partnership included engaging the family to be able to work
for a concentrated period of time and advocating for shorter cases.
Many former consumers of the child welfare system continue to live with fear that there
will be another investigation, according to research-led interviews. Former clients stated they had
not been given clear information about how they could be supported by their CPS worker or how
they could have accessed housing resources in their communities. The experience for many
families is traumatic and invasive, the effects of which linger for years after an investigation. The
approach used by social workers is a crucial component of how clients view success.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !16
Huebner et al. (2018) examined the use of peer mentoring to improve outcomes for
families involved in the child welfare system. Huebner et al.’s study focused on family mentors
working with families over an 8-year period. The results revealed that face-to-face visits resulted
in greater likelihood of reunification, increased rates of sobriety, and improved access to
treatment. Strengths of the study included a longitudinal perspective and the reinforcement of the
importance of support for child welfare-involved families. Huebner et al. recommended further
study on the quality of mentorship in a family mentoring relationship.
Overall, the literature illustrated current trends within the child welfare system such as
the need for stable housing and the need for engagement/support of families to have improved
outcomes. The literature demonstrated target areas for improvement. More emphasis was given
to parent engagement, stable long-term housing, and the lack of housing options for families.
Assessment. A few trends can be noted based on the current statistics of child abuse in the
United States combined with the research discussed in the literature review:
1. There is a need for housing support for families at risk of unstable housing;
2. Families who do not have resources necessary to provide stable housing have specific
needs, which may be met through the child welfare system;
3. There is a need for families to have the engagement and support of the child welfare
system.
Challenges associated with the child welfare system that as a large system the focus is largely on
on quantity over quality of services provided. Local agencies do not have the resources or
adequate supports to support families to overcome the challenges they face.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !17
Current practices. Two current practices within the child welfare system to aid families are the
most relevant to the proposed innovation. These two practices are the Family Unification
Program (FUP) and the Alternative Response program. FUP is a program which aims to provide
housing to families that are inadequately housed and are eligible for support (Fowler et al.,
2017). The program is funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but stops
short of helping families because it requires families to have a problem in order to get support
and there is no guarantee that the support will solve the problem. Fowler et al. (2017) concluded
that CPS cases tend to close as soon as the family gets into permanent housing, leaving the
family without sufficient monitoring. This is the standard practice for families who are in need of
housing; the limitation of this approach is that there is a need for greater support for other
challenges the family faces in addition to housing. FUP’s focus on housing is critical but the
program’s narrow focus on housing while ignores other needs the family has in sustaining their
family system.
The Alternative Response Program is the other current practice which informed this
proposed innovation. Alternative Response is a program within child welfare agencies that seeks
to reduce a child’s removal from the home by having a family team meeting and putting supports
in place ahead of possible challenges (Pergamit et al, 2017). The program has had some success
in decreasing the number of children removed from their homes and engaging families with a
family team meeting that allows every participant to have an equal voice in decision-making
(Pergamit et al, 2017). However, if housing is a concern, Alternative Response and FUP, the
traditional routes to housing, are the only programs available to families at risk. The program
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !18
offers no additional support for families with significant psychosocial challenges that may
contribute to their housing .
Social Significance
The social significance of this innovation is that it will have a positive impact for families
who are unstably housed through the expansion of the use of 3D printing technology. Families
will realize a cost savings and will be prevented from housing problems due to the introduction
of this innovation.
Insufficient and unstable housing is detrimental for families who are involved in the child
welfare system . Fowler et al. (2017) noted that one in six families experiencing housing
problems is likely to have an out-of-home placement and as many as two in five families with
children in foster care need housing assistance. Fowler et al. reporting findings from another
study that linked inadequate housing with increased psychological aggression, physical assault,
and neglect at rates exceeding that of child welfare-involved families. These findings show the
important link between at-risk families and aggression, which results in an increased safety risk
for children living in those homes. Offering long-term, stable housing can eliminate or drastically
improve the safety of the family unit.
The innovation will use 3D-printed technology to construct homes. This technology has
the possibility of changing the housing market. According to Ben Redwood (n.d.), a mechanical
engineer at 3D Hub, the advantages of this technology are that it is fast, single-step manufacture,
low cost, mitigates risk, has design freedom, customization, ease of access, and is sustainable.
These factors are all of importance to the innovation, but it is important to highlight key elements
about just how fast the homes can be constructed. Homes can typically be constructed in 24
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !19
hours and are highly sustainable, which means there will not be excess waste from construction
that occurs with typical construction. Additionally, the low cost of these homes, estimated to be
about $10,000, has the potential to disrupt the housing market for low-income families who pay
rent and are unable to make enough money to buy a home.
The current child welfare system costs the public an estimated $585 billion to provide
numerous services to families and their children. These services do not truly address the
challenges of being unstably housed or the psychosocial barriers families face. The proposed
innovation seeks to reduce the contact families who participate in the program have with the
child welfare system by 80% annually, which will also realize a significant cost saving for the
child welfare system by decreasing children’s entry into the foster care system. Additionally,
Fang et al. (2012) estimated that the lifetime cost of services for a victim of child abuse is
$210,012 per victim. The innovation will provide a supplementary savings for the prevention of
child abuse that can be funneled into education and resources in the community.
In recent years researchers sought to show the role of adverse childhood experiences over
a lifetime. Metzler et al. (2017) demonstrated that adverse childhood experiences connected to
multiple types of child abuse have a negative impact on adult employment status, lower
educational attainment level, links to poverty, and Medicaid usage. This results in poorer
outcomes for adults and their future children. The proposed intervention seeks to change this
trajectory by providing ways to help prevent children from exposure to abuse or neglect. The
impact will expand beyond the current generation and become preventative at the
intergenerational level, improving life opportunities across multiple generations. The social
significance of the proposed innovation is advantageous for society as a whole as it will decrease
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !20
long-term housing instability, use the benefit of 3D printing technology, save money, and prevent
future cases of abuse or neglect, resulting in savings of the lifetime costs associated with child
maltreatment.
Conceptual Framework with Logic Model
Logic Model Theories
Two theories are well suited to help understand the intended outcome for this innovation:
social norms theory and the theory of change model. Each model is helpful in understanding the
frame in which people view the issue of family instability. The two theories inform the logic
model for the proposed innovation.
Social norms theory views societal norms as flexible, with the ability to be change to
impact social problems (Cislaghi & Heise, 2018). The key norms that this author has related to
this project are (a) housing is a privilege not a right, (b) homelessness is a choice, and (c)
families can get better with professional help. The norm that housing is a privilege is what
continues to keep the current state of homelessness the same because the norm results in the
dichotomy of worthy versus unworthy. Families will be supported to increase stability not
because housing is a privilege but because they have the right to stable housing. The second
norm, the idea that homelessness is a choice because if they wanted to change their living
sitation they would choose to not be homeless, this program will give them the tools to become
independently housed. The social norm that people can only get better with professional help is
challenged by the use of peer support; peers can help families improve their family and housing
situations.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !21
The theory of change asserts that keeping families together within communities offers a
sustainable way to break reliance on the child welfare system and saves money through reducing
out-of-home placements (Fowler et al., 2017). The theory of change model supports the
innovation because the innovation is designed to prevent a family’s contact with the child
welfare system, which might be inevitable without the innovation. Ultimately, families and their
children are better living together. The reduction of costs associated with preventing contact with
the child welfare system improves outcomes for families and the larger society that also benefits
from family stability, (Fang et al, 2012).
Both the social norms theory and the theory of change are central to this innovation as
their purposes can be applied to break the reliance of families on the child welfare system and
change families lives by offering them the opportunity to change. Of the two theories, theory of
change may be easier for audiences to conceptualize with its focus on cost savings, a more
neutral point of view, and its easily agreeable action points. The social norms theory gets to the
root of the societal reason why the problem of housing stability persists for many U.S. families.
Logic Model
The logic model (see Appendix A) shows that the target population of this proposed
intervention is unstably housed families. The project will be connected to two main service areas:
peer support services that will be individualized to the client and a 3D-printed home. The
mediating outcomes support the family to wellness through peer support coaching using a client
service plan as a road map, by increasing support to the family to complete their plan and
purchase their own home. The overall outcome is to increase stability for families who are
unstably housed and to increase families’ financial capabilities at the same time. The ultimate
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !22
goal of the project is to reduce repeated episodes of involvement with the child welfare system
and decrease entry into the foster care system.
Problem of Practice and Innovative Solutions
Effect on the Grand Challenge
The proposed innovation is a nonprofit agency called the Hand to Home Project. The
project supports unstably housed families who (a) have children under the age of 18, (b) are
unstably housed, and (c) are willing to participate in 12 months of peer support services. The
agency will partner with clients to develop a client service plan, connect families to their peer
support specialist and, after completion of the 3D-printed home, will connect families to a micro-
finance loan with which to purchase their own home.
Connecting to peer support services includes three main areas: (a) ensuring that a
psychosocial assessment determines the roadmap for support, (b) families will be paired with a
peer support specialist to develop an individualized support plan, and (c) families will participate
in monthly psychoeducational groups with other participants in the group.
Families will be connected to the 3D-housing support as part of their peer support plan.
They will be supported to apply for a micro-finance loan that will allow them to pay for their
home. The use of micro-finance loans will support families who would not ordinarily qualify for
a traditional loan. Families will be connected to the Uplift Fund, who offers micro-finance loans
to help individuals and families purchase homes.
Innovation will contribute to improvement in the Grand Challenge. The proposed innovation is
expected to show improvement in the Grand Challenge of Stopping Family Violence by helping
improve family wellness, provide stable housing, and provide housing at an affordable rate. The
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !23
wellness and stability of the participants is paramount to the success of the program. The
program will focus on helping families to improve their financial health, emotional health, and
support to be able to complete the program. The program will contribute to a new model of how
to support and partner with at-risk families.
The current system of care leaves families with little money to be able to eat, have proper
clothing, or have transportation. The improvement for the Grand Challenge is to decrease the
likelihood of involvement with the child welfare system by providing an alternative way to
support families and to keep them out of the child welfare system. The goal of decreasing the
rates of children entering the foster care system has the potential to reconfigure a broken system
that has embedded structural and racial inequalities. These inequalities have contributed to
families’ difficulty in partnering with the system to reunite with their children.
Problem from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. There are multiple stakeholders who have an
interest in outcomes for families. Stakeholders include the child welfare system, families, local
housing authority offices, the general public, other housing agencies that work with these
families, and various non-profit agencies.
The prevention of families entering the child welfare system is at the heart of this
innovation. As subject matter experts on this issue, it will be important to collaborate with child
welfare agents as stakeholders who have a vested interest in the outcomes of this innovation.
Child welfare agents could be a future partner as the Hand to Home Projects will work directly
with agents’ primary referrals. Furthermore, the program may help the child welfare system
realize a cost savings in the future.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !24
The families who are at-risk for involvement with the child welfare system are a central
part of this project. These families may initially struggle with mistrust, ambivalence, and fear due
to a history of mistreatment by these agencies. It is essential for families to be able engage with
the help of peers who have successfully overcome their own challenges in order to raise the
volume of their collective voice.
The Housing Authority is considered to be the lead agency in supporting families with
housing. They are a valuable partner who could support with funding in the future. Primarily, the
Housing Authority can serve as an ally, but there is the possibility that this innovation will
disrupt the agency’s work.
The general public’s perceptions of families who are unstably housed may be negative.
Families may be seen as bad parents, failures, or lazy, which are norms that this project seeks to
address. It is important to answer potential opposition by offering transparency and inclusion in
the program when possible. The clear and consistent communication can help to alleviate
misperceptions or confusion about the aims of the program.
Numerous non-profit organizations are involved in advocating for the reform or
improvement of the child welfare system. A few such organization are Child Trends, Bikers
against Child Abuse, and TexProtects. These groups have the potential to be allies in reforming
engagement with families but they also have the potential to be against the innovation as it may
be counter to their view of the current system. This criticism can be handled by encouraging
organizations’ input and making organizations team members in the reform.
Innovation builds upon existing evidence.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !25
History. Historically, the child welfare system has had a primary focus on the safety of
children. In 1912, the Children’s Bureau was established to promote the safety of children. In
1935, the Social Security Act gave the Children’s Bureau the charge of “the care of homeless,
dependent, and neglected children, and those in danger of being delinquent” (Day, 2006, p.302).
In the following year, funding was provided to each state to manage their own program. This was
the beginning of child welfare in the United States, but it was not until 1962 when The Battered
Children Syndrome was published that national awareness of the scope of the problem was
increased. The medical community became mandated reporters and the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act of 1974 was enacted. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
provided federal funding for the issue of child abuse. When understanding this issue from a
historical perspective, it is clearly evident that the nation has trended to being slow to act and has
not always provided adequate funding to fully address the issue of children’s welfare.
Policy practice. Public policy sets the boundaries on an issue. The policies most pertinent
to the child welfare system are the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Families
First Preservation Act of 2018. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 laid the foundation
for the current functioning of the child welfare system with a large focus on moving families
swiftly to permanency and putting the emphasis on safety, well-being, and rights of children
(Summers et al., 2017). This move created numerous challenges for the current system as it does
not give parents enough time or resources to successfully get treatment and necessary and
appropriate housing. While the Adoption and Safe Families Act continues to be in place, there is
growing hope in the recent Families First Preservation Act of 2018. The Families First
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !26
Preservation Act focuses keeping families together with an emphasis on providing parents with
appropriate support (Summers et at., 2017).
On June 24, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order on strengthening the child
welfare system for America’s children (The White House, 2020). The order stated, “My
administration has been focused on prevention strategies that keep children safe while
strengthening families so that children do not enter foster care unnecessarily” (para. 3). The
President’s commentary shows a shift toward keeping families together and a focus on
decreasing entry into the foster care system. As the pendulum of current legislation shifts to
focus more on families, there is a prime opportunity for the proposed innovation to capitalize on
the current legal climate and focus on family preservation to create the necessary disruption.
Public discourse. Public discourse has a powerful role in getting necessary support for
issues surrounding the child welfare system. The current public discourse covers a range of
issues from the sex abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, the opioid crisis, fatalities due to
parent mental illness, racial disparities, and LBGTQ youth. The complexity of the public
discourse on the issue of adequate and stable housing must be factored into the role of norms
related to the issue. Such norms are, “parents with problems should not be able to parent,” and
“parents with a problem are bad parents and should not have their children.” This innovation
aims to disrupt those erroneous ways of thinking by giving families the tools to improve their
lives and ultimately break the cycle of intergenerational abuse.
Practice. The current practice related to the problem in this project is that the child
welfare system is failing to offer enough support to unstably housed families and has limited
options to support these families. The current housing issue is a result of unaffordable housing
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !27
and not enough emphasis on the prevention of housing challenges for families. This is due, in
part, to the current practice that does not offer families the ability to have their own home or puts
them on a waiting list for housing that can be years long, which is not a realistic solution.
Lengthy wait times may result in families not being able to avoid the inevitable and becoming
homeless.
Due to the invasive nature of a child protective services investigation where families
come under scrutiny, families are reluctant to engage with the child welfare system. Repairing
families’ assumptions about child welfare is a crucial element in helping families heal and
avoiding future allegations of abuse or neglect. Cheng and Lo (2016) stated the worker-client
relationship is correlated to better outcomes for families when the relationship is strong. This
innovation seeks to cultivate an engaging relationship with families to help them achieve
stability and successfully break the cycle of becoming involved in the child welfare system. The
current practice within the child welfare system is failing to offer support and real housing
options for at-risk families. This problem offered a building block for the innovation as it
informed the areas of focus for the innovation to address these challenges in an appropriate way.
Comparative Assessment of Other Opportunities for Innovation
The current opportunities that helped lay the foundation for this innovation are current
programs that show the ongoing need for housing, the ways in which the technology of 3D-
printed homes can meet families’ needs, the need to help families access treatment, and the need
for families to feel supported in their efforts.
The current solution to housing is that families will be placed on the list for a housing
voucher. Depending on one’s location, it can take years to move up the list to get to a point
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !28
where families have access to housing. Rising housing costs contribute to families’ inability to
purchase a home. The median cost of a home is $288,000, according to a 2019 NPR article
written by Amy Scott. Scott noted it can be nearly impossible for low-income families to afford
to buy their own home. The result is that families may often move between multiple settings
while staying on the local waitlist for years (Scott, 2019).
The technology of 3D-printing is not new. 3D-printing has found its way into a number of
areas including surgical procedures, masks, and housing on the planet Mars (Redwood, n.d). The
benefits of using 3D-printing is that it has the potential to provide housing at a fast and low-cost
rate. It is a technology that is continuing to expand, which could result in added savings to
individuals and agencies, and wider use of 3D-printed homes in general.
The use of peer support coaches in this model is a key component of this innovation
because as it will be important to provide support at crucial times in a parent’s recovery. A study
by Huebner et al. (2018) provided that having peer mentoring support was critical to child/parent
unification and case closure. This is an important building block for this innovation as peer
support coaches can support families to reunify, close cases, and help families to be able to get to
stability in their lives.
Alignment between Logic Model and Theory of Change
The innovation aligns with the logic model and the theory of change because the concept
provides families with peer support services and a 3D-printed home. Parents will have improved
ability to parent, stability in mental health, and financial capabilities, thus decreasing future
contact with the child welfare system and the risk of becoming permanently homeless. The
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !29
connection between families and their peer support specialists will develop families’ sense of
confidence and family autonomy to manage their own everyday problems.
Likelihood of success. The assessment of the likelihood for this innovation to succeed is based
on my evaluation of the following components of feasibility: the value test, execution, cost
drivers, and defensibility. The value of this innovation is that it can prevent families from
becoming involved with the child welfare system, decrease rates of entry into the foster care
system, and decrease the cost for multiple agencies that have regular contact with families who
are unstably housed. There will be a benefit to the families, children, and society in general as
families will not be separated or flounder around with instability due to a lack of housing. As the
current cost of the child welfare system is $585 billion, there will be the potential to save money
or reallocate funds toward a program or service that could improve other parts of society.
The question of execution is a key element when considering the likelihood of this
innovation’s success. The project can succeed in the current climate due to the affordability of
the homes provided and the ongoing role of support for families to improve their lives.
Collaboration with child welfare agencies and Icon Homes will be essential to supporting at-risk
families. Those families who are at-risk can be referred at any time by anyone, which will give
families who are struggling the opportunity to get help and support before they have an open
child welfare case.
The cost drivers of this project are staffing, construction of the homes, and land. The
anticipated costs include staffing, training, and ongoing support. It is important to have staff
trained in trauma-informed practice and focused on providing the best services possible while
engaging families who struggle to be trusted or want to work with staff. The other large cost
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !30
driver of this project is the constructions of homes. Icon Homes will be the main builder but they
will need to be paid for the homes prior to beginning construction. The current cost of one 3D-
printed home is $10,000, which includes the installation of electricity, plumbing, and a heating/
cooling system. The Hand to Home Project will pay for the construction of the home and then
connect families to the necessary financing to assume the cost. This project has the ability to
generate a profit for the agency to provide better innovation in housing through peer support
specialists. The other large cost driver is the purchase of land for the homes to build on, which
will be figured into families’ cost. These cost drivers are a normal part of the project that fall
within the expectations for programming.
The final element of feasibility is the defensibility of this innovation in terms of who can
copy it, disrupt it, or wish it to be unsuccessful. The idea of 3D-printing is not new, and it is used
across multiple jurisdictions, but the idea of using 3D-printed homes has only been popular in
recent years. In March 2020, a non-profit organization in Austin, Texas had three homes built as
part of a land project, demonstrating that these homes can truly be built, and at a cost far below
the market. Cost constitutes a positive for the project because it will translate to lower costs for
the intended users. There may be groups that would like to see this idea fail because it can reduce
housing costs for all people and thus decrease a group’s ability to make a profit on the
construction and sale of homes.
The likelihood of the success of this project was based on a careful evaluation of the
value test, execution, cost drivers, and defensibility. The analysis of the factors indicated the risk
is low and the likelihood of success is high. The expected result for both intended and
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !31
unintended beneficiaries is higher than the risk of the cost-drivers or challenges to execute this
plan.
Project Structure and Methodology
Description of Prototype
The prototype for this innovation is a business plan that includes all the stages of
development for this nonprofit agency. The prototype addresses the needs of families to be
supported in peer support and to become homeowners. The Hand to Home Project will be
advised by a board of directors who must be at least 75% racially diverse.
Comparative Market Analysis
The current housing market for unstably housed in the El Paso, Texas community where
the pilot program will occur has a continuum of care that provides services in two forms: housing
vouchers and subsidized homes. The main providers of these supports are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Agency Providers
The primary group served by these programs is families. Families need a place to live
together that is affordable and is a permanent home. Families who struggle with unstable housing
will separate at times due to a lack of a place to stay. Families have employment but struggle to
Agency Resident Health Condition Type of Assistance
Opportunity Center for
Homeless
Single Resident Mentally Ill Rental Assistance
Emergence Health Network Adults Mentally Ill Rental Assistance
Veteran’s Lodge Veterans Mentally Ill/
Disability
Rental Assistance
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !32
earn enough to pay rent; furthermore, they wait years to be able to get a voucher, only to find few
places where there are good schools and consistency for children. The financial strain leads to an
increase in child abuse and continues to feed the cycle of poverty.
The competitive analysis shows the difference between the Hand to Home Project and its
two closest competitors: Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Authority of El Paso (see
Appendix C). While there are some similarities between the competitors, the Hand to Home
Project offers a completely different product that is affordable to the consumer. The average cost
of getting a client into their own home is five years; with the Hand to Home Project this can be
accomplished in less than a year. Currently, these competitors are unable serve people in a timely
manner and put applicants on a waiting list. The competitors fail to support families without
additional support to manage the challenges families may be experiencing.
Project Implementation Plan
The Exploration Preparation Implementation Sustainment (EPIS) framework provides the
framework for implementation of the eight phases of this project (see Appendix B). The project
is currently at Phase 2, which is to form a nonprofit 503c and recruit a board. The EPIS model
was applied to consider the barriers and facilitators of the project at each of these phases. The
most important phases of the plan will be in hiring staff, solidifying the funding base, and
expanding the 3D-printed home community. The next phase will begin in January, 2021.
Analysis of obstacles. The obstacles expected to occur with this plan are funding, building
delays, and zoning. The funding for this plan should be sufficient to carry out all eight phases of
the plan. The funding plan is to diversify the sources of funding from personal donations, pay for
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !33
services, and federal funding. This will help mitigate the funding challenge as the project will not
rely on just one funding source.
A typical part of construction is building delays. One delay, which has already occurred,
is due to Covid-19; activities like building have been put on hold indefinitely due to the global
pandemic. It is important to be flexible; therefore, the additional time to accomplish construction
was built into the timeline. Zoning delays, which are connected to the delays in construction,
were also accounted for in the timeline.
Alternative pathways. While the implementation plan offers a reasonable roadmap for execution
of the innovation, there are alternative pathways to be considered for funding and for the housing
part of this program. The additional funding can come from local funds for housing or the
innovator may consider changing the plan into a program within the Housing Department of El
Paso. The alternative plan for housing is to find affordable housing that can be made available
for families at an affordable rate.
Leadership strategies. The primary leadership strategies that will be implemented will be to form
a coalition of support within the community, offer clients a safe place where they can get better,
and lead with integrity. The support of the community is important to build community
involvement and to help recruit clients. The clients who will be served come from a marginalized
population and may be mistrustful of traditional service providers, so it will be important that
they feel safe to engage in services and ultimately take back their lives. The most important
leadership strategy will be to lead with integrity and be transparent in all actions.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !34
Financial Plans and Staging
The Hand to Home Project will have a start-up cost of $1,812, 500 and the first full year of
operations will be $674,000 (see Appendix C). The start-up expenses are divided between
Personnel expenses ($793,500) and Operating expenses ($1,006,526). The projected revenue in
the first year is 1,012,500. This revenue will be generated from a combination of sources:
individual donations ($300,000), foundations ($600,000), government grants ($100,000),, and
fees for service ($12,500). The first full year of operations includes Personnel expenses
($793,500) and Operating expenses ($1,014, 326). The first year will generate a surplus of
($338,500) due to the expansion of Peer Support Specialists within the program.
Program expense. Personnel expenses and non-personnel costs comprise the program’s expenses.
The staff components are important for service to the customer and for the fundraising arm of the
program. The largest expense is for the land that will be used for building homes and the
purchase of laptops for staff. The agency will use a Program Summary Budget that will follow a
fiscal year from October to September. This budget was selected as it aligns with the fiscal year
of the federal government and will support grant writing as a revenue stream for the project.
Revenue plans. The plan to generate revenue for this innovation is to seek funding on three
levels: individual donors, federal funding, and cost for service. The goal is to raise 50% of the
start-up budget from individual donors and 50% from foundations. The funds will be raised in
the nine months prior to beginning the project. The goal is to be 100% funded in the year before
the homes are built and be fully funded at the beginning of fiscal year 2021. The agency will
apply for federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !35
Department of Health and Human Services at $50,000 each. This $100,000 generated from
grants will be utilized to continue the agency’s work.
Funding strategy. The short-term strategies that will be used to generate revenue are individual
donations, funding from foundations, and fee for services. It is estimated that the first 12 months
of the program will be focused on both individual donations and foundation funding. The
individual donation funding plan will occur through monthly fundraising events that will target
community members who would be interested in helping to fund the agency’s mission. A
kickstarter campaign will take place to raise individual funds. The initial fundraising activities
will be a Have a Ball Campaign, a Virtual Pajama Gala, Virtual Walk, and Virtual Scavenger
Hunt. These activities will be designed to occur on a virtual platform due to the Covid-19
pandemic and will be conducted to raise money for the agency.
The foundations to be targeted for grants are the Melville Charitable Trust, which focuses
on providing housing access, the Kresge Foundation, which focuses on housing linked to health,
and the Conrad Hilton Foundation, which has a focus on housing. While these foundations will
be the initial target of funding sources, there are several foundations that will be considered to
generate foundation revenue. The other part of the short-term plan is to include a $500 fee
toward the cost of each home. This fee will be way to generate additional funds once each home
has been built. The Peer Support Specialist service will be funded by a Medicaid reimbursement
for those families who have Medicaid.
In the long term, the Hand to Home Project will apply for larger federal grants from the
Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and Urban Development.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !36
Due to the complexity of application and strict guidelines, these funding sources are considered a
long-term strategy as it will take time to apply and receive funding through these agencies.
Project Impact Assessment Methods
The methods for assessment of this program will consist of a quasi-experimental
evaluation with the use of qualitative and quantitative data (see Appendix G). Participants will be
recruited from a convenience sample of applicants to the program. The recruitment of these
applicants will be via a flyer provided to multiple community agencies.
Qualitative data. Qualitative data will be taken from focus groups comprised of participants to
monitor participants’ progress in the program and the program’s impact. Focus groups will be
conducted at monthly intervals and compiled into a report that will be shared with stakeholders.
Quantitative data. Quantitative data will be completed by using several evaluation tools: the
General Anxiety Disorder-7 screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 screener
(PHQ-9), and the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS; see Appendix H). These
self-report documents will be tracked over the 12 months of Peer Support. Additionally, the Hand
to Home Project will track Client Service Plans and goal completion during the 12 months of
Peer Support Service.
Stakeholder and Engagement Plan
The engagement of stakeholders is essential for the development and expansion of the
program. The stakeholders for this innovation include the clients, child welfare agency, the local
housing authority, the City of El Paso, Icon Homes, and funders. These stakeholders can be
further divided into internal and external as seen in Table 2. Each stakeholder is shown with their
respective contribution to the project.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !37
Table 2 Stakeholders
The Hand to Home Project will have regular ongoing engagement with the stakeholders
through multiple forms of communication including in-person meetings and virtual gatherings.
The key to the successful engagement of the stakeholders is communication that is consistent and
clear. It is important that each stakeholder is engaged in a way that is appropriate for their
relationship with the agency.
Type of Stakeholder Name of Stakeholder
Role and
Contribution to
Project
Type of Engagement
Internal Clients Recipients of services
and Participation
Flyers, Newsletter,
Monthly meetings
Internal Staff Buy-in, offer training
and support to clients
Emails, phone calls
Internal Board of Directors Oversight, Decision
making, Guidance,
and Fundraising
Support
Meetings, quarterly
reports
External Child Welfare
Agency
Buy-in, support In person meetings,
External Housing Authority Buy-in, support In person meetings
External Icon Homes Partner, construction
of homes
Phone calls,emails,
text
External Funders Funding,
Communication,
Budgetary Structure
Quarterly reports and
invitations to tour the
work site.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !38
Communication Strategies
The communication plan for the Hand to Home Project will have four audiences: clients,
stakeholders, funders, and academics. Table 3 includes the goals, mode, and frequency of the
communication plan.
Table 3 Communication Plan
This communication will be supported by the “Where is your bed?” campaign, which
seeks to raise awareness in collaboration with the Hand to Home Project. The plan will have
three phases: launch, momentum, and peak. A year-long social media campaign will raise
awareness about families who are unstably housed by using cut-outs of beds beginning in
November 2020 during Homeless Awareness Month. This campaign will be used to encourage
Target
Audience
Goal
Level of
Communication
Mode Frequency
Clients To keep them
informed
Newsletter Social
Media
Weekly
Stakeholders To demonstrate
effectiveness and
maintain
communication
Journal Email Monthly
Funders To show
effectiveness of the
program and
generate more
funding
Report Email Quarterly
Academics To demonstrate
effectiveness of the
model
Submission to
Academic Journals
Electronic At the
conclusion of
the pilot
program
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !39
the community to talk about their housing situations on social media with the hashtag
#wheresyourbed? The concept will be launched to raise awareness, encourage people to share
their own experiences, and get support from the community for solving the issue of unstable
housing.
Ethical Considerations
The ethical consideration of this project is the formation of a community of 3D-printed
homes. Historically, low income housing communities are considered to be less desirable due to
high poverty and crime. It will be important in the expansion of the program that these homes are
not only in one area of one community but dispersed amongst multiple spaces in the community.
Conclusions, Actions, and Implications
Summary of Project Plans
The future plans of the Hand to Home Project are to implement all nine phases and
maintain a steady funding stream so the program can expand and scale up to include more
services. The project is currently implementing Phase 2 and will begin to implement all nine
phases. After the nine phases are implemented, the ongoing funding of the agency will be a
priority so that the agency can continue to offer services. The project will be able to scale up to
include more sites and more places beyond the pilot program community by building on existing
funding.
Current Practice for Project Conclusions
This project fits in the current environment as demonstrated in the literature. There is a
need for long-term housing solutions, support for families in engagement, and prevention
methods to help families not become involved in the child welfare system (Rivera et al, 2015).
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !40
Research shows the need for housing solutions that work for families in the child welfare system
(Rog et al 2015). Historically, families have negative interactions with child welfare agencies.
The Hand to Home Project will serve as a solution that allows families to receive support from
people that look like them and have been through situations similar to their own. The prevention
aspect of this project will allow families to have the opportunity to remain out of the Child
welfare system.
Project Implications for Practice and Further Action
The implications of this project affect families at the micro, mezzo, and macro level. For
families at the micro level, there is the opportunity to achieve stability. At the mezzo level, there
is an implication to change the way that agencies interact with families and change the look of
the community with the use of 3D-printed homes. At the macro level, there is the implication for
a change to housing and homeownership, changing housing from a privilege to a right,
eliminating housing inequity, and breaking the cycle of poverty for families.
Project Limitations
While the project has opportunities for success in the future there are still ethical, legal,
and financial limitations that should be considered for this project. The ethical consideration is
the use of Peer Support Specialists and offering a safe space for families. Peer Support
Specialists are employees who have maintained their own stability and will help support a peer.
It will be important to have agency guidelines that support the Peer Support Specialists in their
stability while they continue to support clients.
The legal challenges that may be a consideration include the formation of an agency that
will rely on contracts with Icon homes and the Uplift Fund, who will be obligated to fulfill the
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !41
terms of the contracts. As this agency is a newly formed non-profit agency, it will be important to
have the right legal guidance before entering into these contracts with larger organizations.
The financial limitation is the financial situation of the Hand to Home Project, which will
begin a strong fundraising campaign in the midst of a global pandemic. This limits the ways that
traditional in-person fundraising activities can be achieved; however, the pandemic has raised
awareness of the need to have housing when there is a quarantine and people need to stay home.
While there are some limitations for the proposed innovation, they are not insurmountable or
barriers too large to overcome. Each limitation has been considered and will be mitigated
through planning and the implementation process in a continuous fashion.
Risk. The risks that will be undertaken by this innovation are financing and the Covid-19 global
pandemic’s impact. The financing of the pilot program, which requires $1.8 million, is a
substantial amount of money to be generated through fundraising. However, this risk can be
mitigated by diversifying the funding sources to include grants, pay for service, and individual
donations. The fundraising and grant writing staff members will be focused on achieving these
goals. The recent Covid-19 pandemic is an ongoing challenge due to the closure of key parts of
the infrastructure. Implications of the pandemic include an effect on the start date of the project;
however, scheduling is accounted for in the timeline. All content meetings can be done virtually
if necessary, and provisions for technology to help clients access the components of the program
were added to the final budget.
Conclusion
In conclusion, to assess this project’s readiness, considerations were undertaken to
determine if the program is politically, financially, and operationally ready to begin. The political
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !42
arena for this innovation is ripe with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development showing
a great interest in the use of 3D-printed homes to solve the housing issue faced by many families.
In June 2020, President Trump announced a renewed commitment to keeping families intact
with an executive order focused on the child welfare system. The financial status of the program
is a current plan in place for funding with diverse funding sources. While raising the amount of
money necessary to operate the program is challenging, it is not impossible. The operational
status of this innovation is currently in Phase 2 and is prepared to accomplish Phases 3–9.
The literature review supported the trends of the increasing need for stable housing and
increased supportive engagement for families; such support is crucial to long-term housing
stability. The proposed innovation, Hand to Home Project, is grounded in research that aims to
support families in a holistic way by focusing on housing, peer support specialists, and engaging
families in an on-going continuous cycle. This innovation will improve outcomes for families to
prevent involvement with the child welfare system. The key to this project is in the stability it
offers for families to improve themselves and future generations who could be involved in the
child welfare system.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !43
References
Aarons, G. A., Green, A. E., Palinkas, L. A., Self-Brown, S., Whitaker, D. J., Lutzker, J. R.,
Silovsky, J. F., Hecht, D. B., & Chaffin, M. J. (2012). Dynamic adaptation process to
implement an evidence-based child maltreatment intervention. Implementation Science,
7, Article 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-32
Achenbach, J., Wager, J., & Bernstein, L. (2017, August 10). Trumps says opioid crisis is a
national emergency, pledges more money and attention. The Washington Post. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-declares-opioid-crisis-is-a-national-emergency-
pledges-more-money-and-attention/
2017/08/10/5aaaae32-7dfe-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html
Assanie, L., & Virmani, R. (2006, September/October). Incubating microfinance: The Texas
border experience. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/
documents/research/swe/2006/swe0605b.pdf
Bartlett, C., & Anderson, C. (2014). Bad news, bad times and violence: The link between
economic distress and aggression. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0034479
Bartlett, J., & Sacks, V . (2019, April 19). Adverse childhood experiences are different than child
trauma, and it’s critical to understand why. The Chronicle of Social Change. https://
www.childtrends.org/blog/adverse-childhood-experiences-different-than-child-trauma-
critical-to-understand-why
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !44
Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (Eds.). (2018). Dissemination and
implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (2nd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Chambers, R., Children's Health (9 July 2018). Children's Health Watch: Unstable Housing Will
Cost U.S. $111
Children's Health (9 July 2018). Children's Health Watch: Unstable Housing Will Cost U.S. $111
Billion Avoidable Healthcare costs. Retrieved on March 15, 2020 from https://nlihc.org/
resource/childrens-healthwatch- unstable-housing-will-cost-us-111-billion- avoidable-
healthcare-costs
Crutchfield, R., Harper, S., Fatemi, M., & Rodriguez, A. (2018). Family reunification in child
welfare practice: A pilot study of parent and staff experiences. Children and Youth
Services Review, 91(August), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.020
Cheng, T., & Lo, C. (2016). Linking worker-parent working alliance to parent progress in child
welfare: A longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 71(December), 10–
16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.028
Children’s Advocacy Centers of Texas. (n.d.). Child abuse in Texas. https://www.cactx.org/child-
abuse-in-texas
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !45
Chinman, M., Daniels, K., Smith, J., McCarthy, S., Medoff, D., Peeples, A., & Golderberg, R.
(2017). Provision of peer specialist services in V A patient aligned care teams: Protocol
for testing a cluster randomized implementation trial. Implementation Science, 12, Article
57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0587-7
Choi, A., Huang, H., & Ryan, J. (2012). Substance abuse treatment completion in child welfare:
Does substance abuse treatment completion matter in the decision to reunify families?
Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1639–1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2012.04.022
Cislaghi, B., & Heise, L. (2018). Theory and practice of social norms interventions: Eight
common pitfalls. Global Health, 15, Article 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12992-018-0398-x
Collins, C., Bai, R., Fischer, R., Crampton, D., Lalich, N., Liu, C., & Chan, T. (2020). Housing
instability and child welfare: Examining the delivery of innovative services in the context
of a randomized controlled trial. Child and Youth Services Review, 108(January), Article
104578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104578
Cortez-Neavel, B., Lucy, J., & Booker, D. (2019). Science Meet Policy ACES Uncovered:
Powerful Preventative Strategies to Promote Resilience and Brain Health for A Better
Texas Tomorrow. Retrieved on 17 February 2019 from https://www.dropbox.com/s/
n8qeiqjb4bkvjuz/ACEs%20Uncovered%20by%20TexProtects—January%202019.pdf?
dl=0
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !46
Covington, T. (2018, April 26). A steady march toward child fatality prevention. The Imprint:
Youth & Family News. https://imprintnews.org/child-welfare-2/steady-march-toward-
child-fatality-prevention
Cunningham, M., & Pergamit, M. (2014). Supportive housing for high-need families in the child
welfare system. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/metropolitan-
housing-and-communities-policy-center/projects/supportive-housing-families-child-
welfare-system
D’Andrade, A., Simon, J., Fabella, D., Castillo, L., Mejia, C., & Shuster, D. (2017). The
California Linkages Program: Doorway to housing support for child welfare-involved
parents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(1–2), 125–133. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ajcp.12099
Day, P. (2006). A new history of social welfare. Allyn and Bacon.
Diers, R. (2017, October). Using Cognitive Search to fight the opioid epidemic. Policy &
Practice, 14–16, 36. https://www.teamnorthwoods.com/Portals/0/in-the-news-pdfs/
2017-10-Policy-and-Practice-Next-Gen-Child-Welfare-Tech.pdf
Donadio, R (2019, February 21). The Catholic Church’s battle between rhetoric and reality. The
Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/02/pope-francis-calls-
concrete-change-vatican-how/583297/
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !47
Dworsky, A. (2014, November). Families at the nexus of housing and child welfare. State Policy
Advocacy and Reform Center. https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/
Families-at-the-Nexus-of-Housing-and-Child-Welfare.pdf
Fang, X., Brown, D., Florence, C., & Mercy, J. (2012). The economic burden of child
maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 26(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006
Field, T. (2018). It’s time to start counting kids who are LGBTQ in child welfare. Child Welfare.
96(1), xiii–xx.
Fong, R., Lubben, J., & Barth, R. (2018). Grand challenges for social work and society. Oxford
University Press.
Font, S., Sattler, K., & Gershoff, E. (2018). When home is still unsafe: From family reunification
to foster care reentry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(5), 1333–1343. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jomf.12499
Forsyth, C. (2017). The sociologist as storyteller: The broken foster care system used as
mitigation at criminal trial. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 134–137. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9350-x
Fowler, P., Brown, D., Schoeny, M., & Chung, S. (2018). Homelessness in the child welfare
system: A randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of housing subsidies on foster
care placements and costs. Child Abuse & Neglect, 83, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chiabu.2018.07.014
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !48
Fowler, P., Farrell, A., Marcal, K., Chung, S., & Hovmand, P. (2017). Housing and child welfare:
Emerging evidence and implications for scaling up services. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 60(1–2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12155
Fowler, P., Marcal, K., Chung, S., Brown, D., Jonson-Reid, M., & Hovmand, P. (2020). Scaling
up housing services within the child welfare system: Policy insights from simulation
models. Child Maltreatment, 21(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559519846431
Fowler, P., & Schoeny, M. (2017). Permanent housing for child welfare-involved families:
Impact on child maltreatment overview. American Journal of Community Psychology.
60(1–2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12146
He, A., & Phillips, J. (2017). Interagency collaborations: Strengthening substance abuse
resources in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 64, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chiabu.2016.12.011
Henry, C., Jigamian-Liner, N., Carnochan, S., Taylor, S., & Austin, M. (2018). Parental substance
abuse: How child welfare workers make the case for court intervention. Children and
Youth Services Review, 93, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.003
Horn, J. P. (n.d.). Parent peer support programs in in-home services. National Resource Center
for in-Home Services. https://clas.uiowa.edu/sites/clas.uiowa.edu.nrcfcp/files/
Parent%20Peer%20Support%20Issue%20Brief%20NRCIHS.pdf
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !49
Huebner, R., Hall, M., Smead, E., Willauer, T., & Posze, L. (2018). Peer mentoring services,
opportunities, and outcomes for child welfare families with substance abuse disorders.
Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.
2017.12.005
Kahn, N., & Hansen, M. (2017). Measuring racial disparities in foster care placement: A case
study of Texas. Children and Youth Services Review, 76(May), 213–226. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.03.009
Kettle, M. (2017). The tipping point: Fateful moments in child protection. Child and Family
Social Work, 22(S4), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12253
Kim, M., Garcia, A., Yang, S., & Jung, N. (2018). Area-socioeconomic disparities in mental
health services use among children involved in the child welfare system. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 82, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.018
Lambert, M., Johnson, L., & Wang, E. (2017). The impact of family group decision-making on
preventing removal. Children and Youth Services Review, 78(C), 89–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.005
Lee, J. S., & Logan-Greene, P. (2017). Patterns of family services needs and caregiver-child
relationships among families at risk of child welfare involvement. Child & Family Social
Work, 22(4), 1515–1524. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12375
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !50
Leopold, J., & Gold, A. (2019, May 29). The costs and potential savings of supportive housing
for child welfare-involved families. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/publication/100291/
the_costs_and_potential_savings_of_supportive_housing_for_child_welfare_involved_fa
milies_3.pdf
Marcal, K. (2018). The impact of housing instability on child maltreatment: A causal
investigation. Journal of Family Social Work, 21(4–5), 331–347. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10522158.2018.1469563
Metzler, M., Merrick, M., Klevens, J., Ports, K., & Ford, D. (2017). Adverse childhood
experiences and life opportunities: Shifting the narrative. Child and Youth Services
Review, 72(January), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.021
Meyers, J. (2008). A short history of child protection in America. Family Law Quarterly, 42(3),
449–463.
Mowbray, O., Ryan, J., Victor, B., Bushman, G., Yochum, C., & Perron, B. (2017). Longitudinal
trends in substance abuse and mental health service needs in child welfare. Children and
Youth Services Review, 73(February), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.
2016.11.029
National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare. (n.d.). The use of peers and recovery
specialists in child welfare settings. https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/peer19_brief.pdf
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !51
Palinkas, L., & Soyadan, H. (2012). Translation and implementation of evidence based practice.
Oxford University Press.
Pergamit, M., Cunningham, M., & Hanson, D. (2017). The impact of family reunification
housing vouchers on child welfare. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60(1–
2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12136
Putnam-Hornstein, E., Needell, B., & Rhodes, A. (2013). Understanding risk and protective
factors for child maltreatment: The value integrated, population-based data. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 37(2–3),116–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.08.006
Putnam-Hornstein, E., Webster, D., Needall, B., & Magruder, J. (2011). A public health approach
to child maltreatment surveillance: Evidence from a data linkage project in the United
States. Child Abuse Review, 20(4), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1191
Redleaf, D. (2019, January 27). After the hotline call. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/
ideas/archive/2019/01/problem-child-protective-services/580771/
Redwood, B. (n.d.). The advantages of 3D printing. 3D Hubs. https://www.3dhubs.com/
knowledge-base/advantages-3d-printing
Rivera, M., & Sullivan, R. (2015). Rethinking child welfare to keep families safe and together:
Effective housing-based supports to reduce child trauma, maltreatment recidivism, and
re-entry to foster care. Child Welfare, 94(4), 185–204.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !52
Rog, D., Henderson, K., & Greer, A. (2015). Family stability and child welfare involvement
among families served in permanent supportive housing. Child Welfare, 91(1), 189–208.
Roscoe, J., Lery, B., & Chambers, J. (2018). Understanding child protection decisions involving
parents with mental illness and substance abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 81, 235–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.005
Rostad, W. L., Rogers, T. M., & Chaffin, M. J. (2017). The influence of concrete support on child
welfare program engagement, progress, and recurrence. Children and Youth Services
Review, 72, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.014
Rufa, A., & Fowler, P. (2018). Housing decisions among homeless families involved in the child
welfare system. Housing Policy Debate. 28(2), 285–298. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10511482.2017.1365256
Sanders, C. (2019, May 16). Child abuse prevention essential, UAPB expert says. The Pine Bluff
Commercial. https://pbcommerical.com/news/20190516/child-abuse-prevention-
essential-uapb-expert-says
Scott, A. (2019, June 21). 1st-time homebuyers are getting squeezed out by investors. National
Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734357279/1st-time-homebuyers-are-
getting-squeezed-out-by-investors
Sentinel News Service. (2019, May 16). Members of Congress introduce bipartisan legislation to
assist with transition in child welfare funding. https://lasentinel.net/members-of-congress-
introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-assist-with-transition-in-child-welfare-funding.html
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !53
Sepulveda, K., & Williams, S. (2019). One in three children entered foster care in 2017 because
of parental drug abuse. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/one-in-three-children-
entered-foster-care-in-fy-2017-because-of-parental-drug-abuse
Serbati, S. (2017). “You won’t take away my children!” Families’ participation in child
protection. Lessons since a best practice. Children and Youth Services Review,
82(November), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.032
Stephens, T., & Aparcio, E. M. (2017). “It’s just broken branches:” Child welfare-affected
mothers’ dual experiences of insecurity and striving for resilience in the aftermath of
complex trauma and familial substance abuse. Children and Youth Review, 73(February),
248–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.11.035
Summers, A., Gatowski, S. I., & Gueller, M. (2017). Examining hearing quality in child abuse
and neglect cases: The relationship between breadth of discussion and cases outcome.
Children and Youth Services Review, 82(C), 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2017.10.018
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (2017). 2017 annual report & data book.
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About_DFPS/Annual_Report/2017/CPS/services.asp
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (2018). Family First Prevention Services
Act. http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Family_First/default.asp
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !54
Toros, K., DiNitto, D., & Tiko, A. (2018) Family Engagement in the child welfare system: A
scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 88(May), 598–607. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.011
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2020). Child
maltreatment 2018. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2018
Wadhwani, A. (2019, January 28) Driven by opioid crisis, more children in Tennessee living in
foster care; DCS seeks additional funding. The Nashville Tennessean. https://
www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/01/28/tennessee-opioid-crisis-kids-custody-foster-
care/2701274002/
Watkins, J. J. (2019, April 19). IUN child abuse and neglect forum to discuss childhood trauma,
opioid epidemic. nwi.com. https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/iun-child-abuse-and-
neglect-forum-to-discuss-childhood-trauma-opioid-epidemic/article_8cc8febd-
d081-57f7-a455-edcca1094aca.html
Watson, D., Young, J., Ahonen, E., Xu, H., Henderson, M., Shumam, V ., & Tolliver, R. (2014).
Development and testing of an implementation strategy for complex housing
intervention: protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Science, 9, Article138.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0138-4
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !55
The White House. (2020, June 24). Executive order on strengthening the child welfare system for
America’s children. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-
strengthening-child-welfare-system-americas-children/
The Zebra. (2020, May 8). 3D-printed homes: How 3D printers are building affordable housing.
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/3d-printed-homes/
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !56
Appendices
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !57
Appendix A Primary Research Interviews
Interviews and Key Takeaways
Name Organization Title Expertise/
Reason
Key Takeaways
(complete week 8)
1 Deborah
O’Callaghan
Family
Advocacy
Program-
Army
Chief of
Family
Advocacy
Ms. O’Callaghan is
an expert in child
abuse and know
about how a
certain part of the
population is
impacted by this
issue
• The role of politics in
getting to the bottom of the
issue.
• An increase in domestic
violence cases
• The role of leadership in
impacting the outcome
• The need for advocacy to
connect people to the
preventative side
• The role of stakeholders
like CPS in improving
outcomes
2 Lea Chavez DFPS Background
Investigator
Expertise on the
issue
• The extent to which the
BACA Motorcycle Club is
bringing awareness of
child abuse and providing
supports to foster children
• The fragmentation of the
agency sharing space with
other agencies
• The impact of state law FL/
CO are having on the
volume of background
checks.
• The lag time to complete
checks is 90 days
• The importance of the
politics of the issue.
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !58
3 Victor Ibarra DFPS CPS
Investigator
Expertise on the
issue
• The importance of having a
supportive supervisor
• The difficulty with getting
the truth from people
• An increasing trend in
substance abuse and
domestic violence
• The difficulty of helping
people access resources
like housing
• The sense that things are
changing in the agency for
the better.
Name Organization Title Expertise/
Reason
Key Takeaways
(complete week 8)
4 Claudia
Reyes
DFPS Former
Investigator
and
Supervisor
Expertise on the
issue
• The importance of a
supportive supervisor
• The role that Alternative
Response plays in keeping
children from being
removed/recidivism
• An increase in cases of
substance abuse, mental
health, and domestic
violence
• The need for a willingness
to listen to families by staff
• The lack of consistency
between different
jurisdictions.
5 User 2819 Adult
Female
Potential user • The lack of communication
by the CPS Investigator
• Not having a definitive
outcome and being in
limbo with possible career
consequences
• The need to be understood
by the worker
• The feeling like it’s not
possible to reach out and
get support
• Children have serious
mental health needs and
parent didn’t realize it
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !59
6 User 21219 Adult Male Potential user • Not understanding what
was happening with the
case during the
investigation
• Not being clear about
follow-up for child or safety
protocol.
• Failure to have a clear
understanding about law
enforcement’s role in the
investigation
• Being cleared but being
unsure if it could happen
again
• Parent wanting to have a
consequence for the
person who made a false
report.
Name Organization Title Expertise/
Reason
Key Takeaways
(complete week 8)
7 User 21219 Adult
Female
Potential user • No communication despite
multiple efforts to reach out.
• Used text message to help
keep in communication with
worker 2
nd
allegation
• No proof of law enforcement
outcome
• How does the process work
with other jurisdictions
(PR)?
• Parent was raised in foster
care and felt re-traumatized
by the investigations
8 User 21419 Adult
Female
Potential user
•
The fear of the process
•
The importance of
communicating with CPS
•
The uncertainty of how to
best work with the agency
•
The feeling of an
investigation being
retribution from the child’s
other parent.
•
Frustration that the situation
was already being taken
care of
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !60
9 User 21517 Adult
Female
Potential user • Feeling like there is never
an end to allegations
• Mixed information in
investigations
• Frustration at not having all
the providers on the same
page
• How difficult it is to keep
one’s mental health stable
and raising children with
their own challenges
• Constant fear that CPS will
knock on the door and a
new investigation will begin
all over
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !61
Name Organization Title Expertise/
Reason
Key Takeaways
(complete week 8)
11 Leader 2
advocacy
Madeline
McClure
TexProtect CEO and
Founder of
Experience in
leading around this
issue
•
The use of business
model to help with funding
and approach to outreach
to the people
•
The “artificial cap” on
intakes by having a 9
minute delay in response
time
•
Privatization of foster care
becoming more popular in
Texas and across the
country
•
Funding a bill is important
and it don’t go along with
it, see it
•
Media overdramatizes
incidents of child abuse
•
Important to consider the
continuum of child abuse
in solving the issue
12 Stakeholder
- Art Jaime
Runaway
Shelter
Chief
Operating
Officer
A stakeholder • An emphasis on the
cultural part of working
with this population
• A new Collaborative
Project is developing to
link providers
• The lack of housing
options for foster children
in the state
• The concept of “fostels:”
foster homes and hostels
to improve housing
options
• Funding is focused on
undocumented and
military youth
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !62
Section 2: Interview Questions
1. What are the trends that you have seen in child abuse/neglect cases?
2. What resources could make your job more effective?
3. How do you see the child welfare system in 10 years from now?
4. What could help clients the most?
5. Do you think that the current system in working? Not working?
6. What have been some success stories?
7. Why might making a change be challenging? Easy?
8. What is a typical day like for you?
9. What supports do you have/need?
10. What motivates you to do this work?
11. How did you become involved in this issue?
12. What was your experience? (User)
13. What could have been better? (User)
14. What supports could have been in place to help you? (User)
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !63
Appendix B Logic Model

HAND TO HOME PROJECT !64
Appendix C Implementation Plan
PROJECT TITLE START DATE END DATE
Hand to Home Project 08/01
PROJECT MANAGER
Valerie Flores 10/01
Number TASK NAME STATUS
START
DATE
END DATE
Phase 1
PROJECT PLANNING- This phase is to set up
the initial agency scope
In Progress 08/01 08/01
1.1 Scope & Goal Setting Complete
05/2020 8/20
1.2 Budget Complete
01/01 09/01
1.3 Communication Plan Complete
05/01 08/01
Phase 2
PROJECT LAUNCH & EXECUTION- The
formation of the agency
In Progress 09/01 03/01
2.1 Apply for 503 c status Complete
02/18
07/2020
2.2 Form Board In Progress
08/01 12/2020
2.2.1 Draft Articles of Incorporation In Progress
05/01 07/01
2.2.2 Draft Bylaws In Progress
05/01 07/01
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !65
Phase 3 FINANCE PLAN- Financial and Fundraising
Plans
On Hold 02/25 03/26
3.1 Grant Calendar Completed Not Started 10/01 06/02
3.2 Grants to be submitted Not Started 01/01 06/01
3.3 Fundraising Not Started
Phase 4 CONTRACTS-To formalize working
relationships with partners
On Hold 1/1/2021 01/04
4.1 Lift Fund Memorandum of Understanding Not Started 01/01 03/01
4.2 Contract Billing Not Started 01/01 03/01
4.3 Contract Payroll Not Started 01/01 03/01
Phase 5 AGENCY LAUNCH-Recruiting and Hiring
Staff
In Progress 09/01 03/01
5.1 Equipment Not Started 02/01 03/01
5.1.1 Laptops Not Started 02/25 03/26
5.1.2 Phone Not Started 02/01/2021 03/01
5.2 Hire Staff On Hold 01/01 04/01
5.2.1 Job Postings On Hold 01/01 03/01
5.2.2 Interview Not Started 03/01 03/31
5.2.3 Hire Not Started 02/01 03/21
5.2.4 Train Not Started 04/01 04/30
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !66
Phase 6 CLIENT RECRUITMENT- Recruiting Clients
and Hiring Staff
On Hold 02/25 03/26
6.1 Flyers Creation Complete 06/01 06/01
6.1.2 Flyer Distribution Not Started 03/01 4/20/2021
6.2 Selection Not Started 04/20/2021 5/1/2021
6.2.1 Interview Not Started 05/01 05/15/2021
6.2.2 Notification Not Started 5/20/2021 5/30/2021
Phase 7 HOME CONSTRUCTION- Building the homes In Progress 5/1/2021 06/01
7.1.2 Purchase Land Not Started 01/01 03/01
7.2 Contract with ICON HOMES for construction of 35
3D printed homes
In Progress 10/01 03/01
7.2.1 Permits Not Started 01/01 06/30
7.2.2 Construction Clearing Preparation Not Started 03/01/2021 03/31
7.3.1 Equipment to site Not Started 03/15 04/01
7.3.2 Build Not Started 04/01 06/30
7.3.3 Electrical work Not Started 05/01 06/30
7.3.4 Plumbing work Not Started 05/01 06/30
7.4.1 Landscaping 3D Printed Homes Not Started 06/01 06/30
Phase 8 PROJECT PERFORMANCE / MONITORING-
Monitor success of program
On Hold 02/25 03/26
8.1 Project Objectives In Progress 02/25 02/28
8.2 Quality Deliverables On Hold 02/26 03/03
8.4 Project Performance Not Started 04/01 04/01
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !67
Appendix D Implementation Barriers and Facilitators using EPIS Framework
Outer
Barriers
Outer Facilitators: Inner
Barriers
Inner
Facilitators:
Exploration: Low level of
intraorganizational
network
Legislative shift that
is pro family’s being
united
Identified funding
sources
Multiple client
advocacy agencies at
the state and federal
level
Icon Homes will
construct homes
New agency
without a
culture
Staff needs to
be hired
New agency that
can be molded as
needed
Preparation: Land for homes to be
built
Memorandum of
Understanding with
Icon Homes
Memorandum of
Understanding with
Uplift Fund
Leadership
Strategic plan
Hiring staff
Training staff
Procuring
equipment
Implementation: -stable funding
sources
-interagency
organization
-quality oversight
-intervention
-has the potential to
replace parts of the
current child welfare
system
-match values -New staff that
can set the
agency culture
Sustainment: no current academic
collaborations
Funding Plan needs to
be implemented
Need to have an
expanded network
-shift in the
sociopolitical
landscape
-staff turnover
plan
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !68
Appendix E Competitive Analysis
Direct Competitors
COMPETITOR 1 COMPETITOR 2
Company Profile Company
Highlights
Habitat for Humanity Public Housing
Key Competitive
Advantage
Well-known Funded by federal and
state
Target Market Market
Information
Low income, Vets, Persons with
Disabilities
Helps low income,
elderly, people with
disabilities
Market Share 10% 80%
Marketing
Strategy
Low cost for labor None
Products &
Services
Product
Information
Housing only Housing only
Pricing $20,000 Eligible criteria or
reduced cost of
housing
Distribution
Channels
Housing Department
Strengths SWOTT
Information
Low labor cost Wide scope of people
Weaknesses Specific to Housing only Housing based on
criteria,
Opportunities Provides housing, remodeling Housing
Threats Housing vouchers Funding sources
Trends High cost of housing, Need for
Low-cost housing
Increasing need for
more than target
population
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !69
Appendix F Budget
Hand to Home Project Start-up Budget
Heading Heading Description
REVENUE:
Individual Donations 800,000
Foundations 1,000,000
Fees for Service 12,500
Total Revenue 1,812,500
EXPENSES:
Personnel Expenses
Chief Executive Officer 100,000 Full Time staff
Peer Support Manager 50,000 Full time Staff
Administrative Assistant 45,000 Full Time Staff
Home Project Manager 45,000 Full time Staff
Development/ Fundraiser 55,000 Full time Staff
Grant Writer 50,000 Full time Staff
Total: 345,000
Benefits 103,500 30% of salaries
Total Personnel Expenses: 793,500
Operating Expenses:
Homes 700,000 35 total: 10 to be used a
show homes for staff until
program expands
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !70
Hand to Home Project First Year of Operations FY 2021-2022
Cost Total Cost Description
Revenue:
Individual Donations 300,000
Foundations 600,000
Fees for Service 12,500
Government Grants: 100,000
Total Revenue 1,012,500
Expenses:
Personnel Expenses
Chief Executive Officer 100,000 Full Time staff
Peer Support Managers 60,000 Full Time Staff
Peer Support Specialists 200,000 Full time Staff
Administrative Assistant 45,000 Full time staff
Home Project Manager 45,000 Full time staff
Grant Writer 50,000 Full time Staff
Total Expenses 500,000
Benefits 150,000 30% of salaries
Total Expenses
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !71
Appendix G Evaluation Plan
PROGRAM
GOALS:
Data Collection:
Quasi-
experimental
Timeline Responsibilit
y
Outcomes:
1) To determine
the impact of
housing on the
unstably housed,
Qualitative:
Focus groups 3
times (1 month,
3 months, 6
months, 9
months, 12
months)
Quantitative:
Treatment plans
goal completions
rates, self-
completed
questionnaires
Focus Group:
every 3 months
Treatment
Plans:
Monthly
Self-
Assessments
(PHQ9, C-
SSRS, GAD7)
Monthly
Peer Support
Manager
Number of sessions
that are provided by
Peer Support
Specialists
(individually and in
group)
Number of monthly
sessions that are
attended by families
Total number of
members impacted
by the housing
intervention
Number of families
who remain without
a referral to Child
Protective Services
during the duration
of the program
Monitor participants
stress level using
monitoring tools
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !72
PROGRAM
GOALS:
Data Collection:
Quasi-
experimental
Timeline Responsibilit
y
Outcomes:
2) To determine
the impact of
peer support on
health
Qualitative:
Focus groups 3
times (1 month,
3 months, 6
months, 9
months, 12
months)
Quantitative:
Treatment plans
goal completions
rates (monthly),
self-completed
questionnaires
(monthly
Focus Group:
every 3 months
Treatment
Plans:
Monthly
Self-
Assessments
(PHQ9, C-
SSRS, GAD7)
Monthly
Peer Support
Manager
Number of sessions
that are provided by
Peer Support
Specialists
(individually and in
group)
Number of monthly
sessions that are
attended by families
Total number of
members impacted
by the housing
intervention
Number of families
who remain without
a referral to Child
Protective Services
during the duration
of the program
Monitor participants
stress level using
monitoring tools
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !73
Appendix H Evaluation Tools
Quantitative Tools:
1. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9)
2. General Anxiety Disorder (GAD7)
3. Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS)
Reliability and Validity of Measurement Tools:
Qualitative Analysis:
Hand to Home Project Focus Group Questionnaire
(to be used at 3 month intervals of Peer Support Services)
Tools Validity Reliability Known Measure Correlation
Coefficient
PHQ9 Yes, criterion and
construct validity
Yes Yes Cronbach’s Alpha 0.89
GAD7 Yes, reliability
construct and
procedural validity
Yes Yes Cronbach’s Alpha 0.92
C-SSRS Yes, predictive and
incremental validity
Yes Yes Cronbach’s Alpha 0.80
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !74
Each group will include a set of 5–7 participants.
The questions will be aimed as followed:
1. Program impact on participant
2. Current housing status
3. Housing Impact scale of 1 (worst)–10 (best)
4. Peer Support Impact scale of 1 (worst)–10 (best)
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !75
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale
Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?
Add the score for each column Total Score (add your column scores) =
If you checked off any problems, how difficult have these made it for you to do your work, take
care of things at home, or get along with other people?
Not difficult at all ____ Somewhat difficult ____ Very difficult ____ Extremely difficult ____
Scoring
Not at all
Sure
Several Days Over half the
days
Nearly
everyday
1. Feeling nervous,
anxious, or on edge
1 2 3 4
2. Not being able to stop
or control worrying
1 2 3 4
3. Worrying too much
about different things
1 2 3 4
4. Trouble relaxing 1 2 3 4
5. Being so restless that
it's hard to sit still
1 2 3 4
6. Becoming easily
annoyed or irritable
1 2 3 4
7. Feeling afraid as if
something awful might
happen
1 2 3 4
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !76
Scores of 5, 10, and 15 are taken as the cut-off points for mild, moderate and severe anxiety,
respectively. When used as a screening tool, further evaluation is recommended when the score
is 10 or greater.
Using the threshold score of 10, the GAD-7 has a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 82% for
GAD. It is moderately good at screening three other common anxiety disorders - panic disorder
(sensitivity 74%, specificity 81%), social anxiety disorder (sensitivity 72%, specificity 80%) and
post-traumatic stress disorder (sensitivity 66%, specificity 81%).
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !77
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9)
Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?
Not at all Several Days More than
half the days
Nearly every
day
1. Little interest or pleasure in
doing things
0 1 2 3
2. Feeling down, depressed,
or hopeless
0 1 2 3
3. Trouble falling or staying
asleep, or sleeping too
much
0 1 2 3
4. Feeling tired or having
little energy
0 1 2 3
5. Poor appetite or overeating 0 1 2 3
6. Feeling bad about yourself
– or that you are a failure
or have let yourself or your
family down
0 1 2 3
7. Trouble concentrating on
things, such as reading the
newspaper or watching
television
0 1 2 3
8. Moving or speaking so
slowly that other people
could have noticed? Or the
opposite – being so fidgety
or restless that you have
been moving around a lot
more than usual
0 1 2 3
9. Thoughts that you would
be better off dead or of
hurting yourself in some
way
0 1 2 3
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !78
For office coding: Total Score _______ = ______ + ______ + ______ Total Score ______
If you checked off any problems, how difficult have these problems made it for you to do your
work, take care of things at home, or get along with other people?
Not difficult at all ____ Somewhat difficult ____Very difficult ____ Extremely difficult ____
Depression Scores
0–4 None-minimal; Patient may not need depression treatment.
5–9 Mild
10–14 Moderate
15–19 Moderately severe; Treat using antidepressants, psychotherapy or a combination of
treatment.
20–27 Severe; Seek medical treatment
HAND TO HOME PROJECT !79
CLINICAL TRIAGE AND WORKFLOW GUIDELINES FOR THE
C-SSRS
Answers on the C-SSRS provide the information needed to classify someone’s
suicidal ideation and behavior, and when combined with clinical judgment, can help
determine levels of risk and aid in making clinical decisions about care.
The C-SSRS has operationalized thresholds for imminent risk. No matter where the
Columbia is being used, the imminent risk answers are the same. Those answers are a
“yes” to items 4 or 5 for ideation severity (There is intent to act) within the past
month or a “yes” to having any behavior in the past 3 months.

HAND TO HOME PROJECT !80
Appendix I Gantt Chart
!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Grand Challenges of Stopping Family Violence and Ending Homelessness are multifaceted and complex opportunities to change the lives of people. The Grand Challenge of Stopping Family Violence focuses on violence, more specifically between intimate partners and children, while the Grand Challenge of Ending Homelessness concentrates on poverty and inequality that keep people from achieving stability. The overlap between these grand challenges creates the perfect opportunity for change. For the purpose of brevity, this paper will focus on the Grand Challenge of Stopping Family Violence with specific focus on the child welfare system. Ending Homelessness is addressed as the secondary challenge.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strength-Based Reporting: a trauma-informed practice for mandated reporters, to address behavioral health concerns in children at risk of child welfare involvement

PDF

Stigma-free pregnancy: a recruitment and retention strategy for healthcare systems to engage pregnant women with substance use disorder in collaborative care

PDF

The Behavior Correction Unit (BCU)

PDF

Homeless youth: Reaching the Hard-To-Reach

PDF

We are our neighbors' keeper: an innovative field kit of outreach and assessment tools to help end homelessness

PDF

Love Your Neighbor Collaborative: a multi-sector response to homelessness

PDF

Rethink Homelessness project

PDF

Climate work is social work: addressing environmental justice to facilitate achievement of the Grand Challenges for social work

PDF

Asset building through rewards-based system: innovative steps to retirement planning

PDF

The Rogue Challenge

PDF

Improving homeless access to emergency shelters through technology

PDF

Capstone proposal: utilizing trained medical interpreters: a workshop for medical providers

PDF

Arming Minorities Against Addiction & Disease (AMAAD)

PDF

Increasing access to mental health counseling for homeless youth: Peer2Peer Counseling Supports

PDF

Transitional housing and wellness center: a holistic approach to decreasing homelessness and mental illness in the Black community

PDF

Tobacco use change among formerly homeless supportive housing residents: socioecological barriers and facilitators to cessation

PDF

Social emotional learning the future of education

PDF

Closing the health gap: the case for integrated care services in outpatient dialysis centers

PDF

The Nonviolent Communication Program (NVC): the innovative step to combat prison violence

PDF

Reducing the prevalence of missed primary care appointments in community health centers

Asset Metadata

Creator Flores, Valerie Diana (author)

Core Title The Hand to Home Project

School Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Social Work

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 11/09/2020

Defense Date 07/24/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 3D printing,child welfare system,OAI-PMH Harvest,unstable housing

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Manderscheid, Ronald (committee chair), Bremond, Diandra (committee member), James, Jane (committee member)

Creator Email blueros_e@hotmail.com,valerie.flores@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-392799

Unique identifier UC11666397

Identifier etd-FloresVale-9104.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-392799 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FloresVale-9104.pdf

Dmrecord 392799

Document Type Capstone project

Rights Flores, Valerie Diana

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA