A forthcoming study in JAMA Health Forum is examining whether state policies that temporarily halted evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with changes in the number of children entering foster care across 60 jurisdictions in the United States. The research focuses on a question at the intersection of housing stability, child welfare and public policy: when families are protected from losing their homes, does that protection also reduce the likelihood that children will be removed from their households and placed in the foster care system?
The study is designed as a cohort analysis, a research approach that follows populations over time to investigate how an exposure or policy is related to later outcomes. In this case, the exposure is the implementation of a state eviction moratorium, while the outcome is foster care entry. By comparing patterns across jurisdictions and periods with different eviction protections, the investigators aim to determine whether changes in housing policy corresponded with changes in child welfare involvement. The study does not treat a policy association as proof that eviction moratoria directly caused changes in foster care entries, but its design can help identify population-level patterns that may be difficult to see in individual cases.
Eviction moratoria became one of the most consequential housing policies of the pandemic era. Introduced by states and, in some cases, local governments, these measures generally restricted landlords from removing tenants for nonpayment or other covered reasons during specified periods. The policies varied substantially in their eligibility requirements, duration, enforcement mechanisms and exemptions. Some offered broad temporary protection, while others applied only to households meeting particular health or economic criteria. That variation creates a natural setting for researchers to investigate how legal protections against displacement may have affected other systems, including child welfare.
The connection between eviction and foster care entry is complex. Losing a home can intensify financial stress, disrupt children’s education and medical care, separate families from support networks and increase the risk of homelessness. Housing instability may also make it more difficult for parents to comply with child welfare requirements, maintain safe living conditions or reunify with children already in care. At the same time, an eviction is not itself evidence of neglect or abuse, and most families facing housing hardship do not have children placed in foster care. The study therefore addresses a broader relationship between housing insecurity and family vulnerability rather than assuming that eviction directly determines child welfare outcomes.
Researchers studying this relationship must account for many factors that changed during the pandemic. Reports to child protective services declined in some periods when schools and other institutions were closed, reducing the number of professionals who might normally identify and report suspected maltreatment. Courts, social service agencies and foster care systems also operated under extraordinary constraints. Employment losses, emergency rental assistance, expanded unemployment benefits, public health restrictions and changes in family behavior may all have influenced foster care entries independently of eviction protections. A rigorous cohort analysis must therefore consider the timing and intensity of these overlapping changes when estimating the relationship between moratoria and child welfare outcomes.
The 60-jurisdiction scope is important because housing markets, state laws and child welfare systems differ widely across the country. A policy that prevented displacement in one state may have had a different practical effect in another, depending on rental costs, shelter availability, unemployment, legal aid access and the reach of emergency assistance. Foster care entry rates also reflect local reporting practices, agency capacity and court procedures. Examining multiple jurisdictions allows the investigators to assess whether an observed association is consistent across different settings rather than being driven by the experience of a single state or metropolitan area.
The study’s findings may be relevant to policymakers considering how housing interventions can function as public health and family-support measures. If eviction protections were associated with fewer foster care entries, the results could strengthen the case for treating housing stability as part of prevention policy rather than as an issue separate from child welfare. Such an interpretation would not mean that moratoria alone can resolve the causes of family separation. It could, however, support broader strategies involving rental assistance, legal representation for tenants, affordable housing, rapid rehousing and services designed to keep children safely with their families whenever possible.
The research also has limitations that readers will need to consider carefully. Because the analysis is observational, families and jurisdictions were not randomly assigned to receive eviction protection. States that adopted stronger or longer-lasting moratoria may have differed systematically from states that did not, including in their economic conditions, political environments, public health responses and social service infrastructure. Administrative data can reveal trends in foster care entry but may not capture every pathway through which housing instability affects families. The timing of policies and enforcement may also differ from the dates on which laws were formally announced. These issues make cautious interpretation essential, particularly when translating population-level associations into recommendations for individual families.
Even with those limitations, the study addresses a rapidly spreading area of research: the use of policy data to understand how social conditions shape children’s health and safety. Foster care entry is often discussed as a child welfare outcome, but it is also influenced by employment, housing, access to care and the availability of community support. By linking eviction policy with administrative records on foster care, the investigators are testing whether a legal intervention aimed primarily at preventing homelessness may have had consequences far beyond the landlord-tenant relationship. The analysis, led by Liwei Zhang, PhD, of the University of Georgia School of Social Work, is published in JAMA Health Forum under the DOI 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.2855.
Subject of Research: The association between state eviction moratoria and foster care entries across 60 US jurisdictions.
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.2855
References: Zhang L, et al. Study published in JAMA Health Forum. DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.2855.
Keywords: Child welfare, state law, homelessness, cohort studies, United States population, geographic regions.
