Please summarize/rephrase each section. Focusing on rewriting and annotating.

The Study:

The present study leverages an experiment implemented within the child welfare system to test whether permanent housing plus housing case management reduces child maltreatment among families at risk of out-of-home placement compared to housing case management alone. The study informs theory and policy that assumes connection with affordable and higher quality housing serves as a platform on which to promote stability among high-risk families. In particular, the experiment evaluates the impact of FUP on child maltreatment over a one-year period. All families received housing case management and child welfare services, while half were also randomly assigned for FUP that provides housing subsidies through the public housing authority. Children and caregivers were surveyed at baseline after randomization and prior to receipt of vouchers, as well as at four time points across a 2.5-year follow-up period. Caregivers self-reported frequencies of abuse and neglect for all children in the home at each interview. Longitudinal analyses examined whether referral for permanent housing stabilized families. The two primary hypotheses of this study were: 1. Frequency of caregiver-reported psychological aggression, physical assault, and neglect would decrease over time, and declines in child maltreatment would be greater among families referred for permanent housing subsidies after controlling for family level risks at baseline. 2. Higher risk families at baseline would report greater declines in the frequency of child maltreatment when referred for permanent housing. In particular, caregivers experiencing depression, substance abuse, or living on the streets or in shelters at baseline, would exhibit the most improvement in child maltreating behaviors.

The method of the study:

A longitudinal randomized controlled trial implemented within the child welfare system tested the effects of the FUP on homelessness and child maltreatment. Random assignment referred child welfare-involved intact families to FUP plus the Housing Advocacy Program (HAP) or HAP alone on a 1:1 ratio. All families received child welfare services. Assessments conducted with caregivers and children occurred at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 30 months following referral. Participants included intact families under investigation for child abuse and neglect whose inadequate housing threatened child out-of-home placement. Families met general eligibility criteria for the HCV program. Thus, households included at least one U.S. citizen, reported annual gross incomes below 30% of the median income for similar family sizes in the Chicago area, and did not owe arrears to any public housing authority. Caregivers had no criminal histories that excluded them from public housing. A number of criteria excluded households from randomization. The child welfare system required all families to live within the geographic catchment area of the Chicago public housing authority when referred for FUP, and child welfare cases remained open at least 6 months after referral for housing. In addition, families working to 94 Am J Community Psychol (2017) 60:91-102 reunify with children already placed in foster care were immediately provided FUP without randomization, while the child welfare system opted not to use FUP for youth aging out of foster care. Although families could move to different parts of the state or country with or without a FUP voucher, households that lived outside of a 90-mile radius of the city at the time of recruitment were excluded from the survey. The final survey sample included 150 families with 372 children evenly divided by FUP plus HAP (n = 75 families, 196 children) and HAP alone (n = 75 families, 186 children). Procedures An experiment implemented within the child welfare system leveraged existing referral mechanisms to test study questions. Child welfare caseworkers identified intact families whose inadequate housing threatened out-of-home placement. Caseworkers referred families for permanent housing plus housing advocacy. Random assignment on a 1:1 ratio determined whether families received permanent housing plus advocacy or advocacy alone. Research staff conducted structured interviews with families at five time points over a 2.5-year period. Baseline assessments were collected approximately 2 months after referral for FUP and before families assigned to FUP moved in with vouchers. Follow-up surveys occurred for all families 12, 18, and 30 months after referral. Due to budget restrictions, 6-month assessments occurred only with the first cohort (65/150) of surveyed families. Structured interviews occurred in a convenient location for families most often in homes or current living arrangements. Twoperson teams assessed caregivers plus up to five children aged 0-15 years residing in the home at baseline. Interviewers were trained to ensure family privacy, while computer-assisted personal interviewing used headphones and allowed caregivers to enter responses directly into laptops for sensitive information including caregiver depression, substance abuse, and child maltreatment. Informed consent for study participation was collected from legal guardians prior to interviews. If children were temporarily separated from primary caregivers, the current caregiver was consented and interviewed; the child welfare system provided written consent when parental rights had been terminated. Caregivers were described the purpose of the study, risks, and protections created to protect confidentiality, as well as circumstances that required disclosure, including threats to the safety of children or oneself. Caregivers were compensated with $50 cash for their time. Study procedures received human subjects research approval from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, as well as data collection sites including the University of Chicago, DePaul University, and Washington University in St. Louis. Interventions Family Unification Program Families were randomly assigned to receive the FUP. The HUD-funded initiative connects child welfare-involved families with permanent housing vouchers. Specifically, the child welfare system identified and referred families whose inadequate housing threatened child out-of-home placement to local public housing authorities that served families through the Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher Program. Section 8 provided subsidies for use in approved rental units that ensured families paid no more than 30% of household income towards rent. The public housing authority also conducted inspections on rental units to ensure accommodations met minimal standards of safety and quality. Families chose housing and could move to more desirable units locally or anywhere in the country that accepted vouchers. Households retained housing vouchers until income exceeded eligibility thresholds or families failed to follow program rules, and thus, families frequently kept vouchers long past closure of child welfare cases. Thus, families with FUP accessed more permanent affordable housing that met quality standards. They also received housing advocacy