Overview of the Report on the Sites

Many youth have praised foster care for saving their lives. However, many youth who have left foster care are more likely than those in the general population to not finish high school, be unemployed, and be dependent on public assistance. Other negative outcomes associated with these youth include higher than average mental health problems, drug usage, and involvement with the criminal justice system. ¹

In September 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) awarded grants to five states—California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas—to design and implement programs to improve self-sufficiency and educational and employment outcomes for youth exiting from foster care. ETA’s solicitation required states to target the city or county with the largest number of foster care youth. These areas, which all have large foster care populations, are Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Houston. Foster youth in and around these cities are more likely to be a racial or ethnic minority (mainly African American), be a teen parent, have a disability, and drop out of high school.

Casey Family Programs is collaborating with ETA to evaluate the five foster care youth employment projects. The purposes of the evaluation, being conducted by the Institute for Educational Leadership and its partners, is to assess the effectiveness of the programs implemented by the five demonstration sites and to identify and capture effective practices for dissemination throughout the workforce development and child welfare systems.

Although at various stages of implementation, grantees have taken varied approaches to designing and implementing their programs. All sites, except Chicago, have designated centers where the enrolled foster youth receive services and referrals. Chicago operates their program out of 15 high schools that are part of their network of community-based alternative schools. The sites have committed to enrolling a specific number of youth, generally between 100-150 youth at each site. While some have faced challenges in recruiting and enrolling youth, it appears that all sites will be able to meet their enrollment goals and, in some sites, exceed these goals. The sites had collectively enrolled 321 youth, or 51 percent of the total project goal as of September 30, 2005, two quarters into the project.

All sites are implementing a set of services that provides youth with academic instruction and support, preparation for and exposure to the workplace, assistance in developing skills for self-sufficiency, and the supportive services youth need to succeed academically and in the work place. All sites offer more intensive case management services to the enrolled foster youth than they would typically receive from the child welfare system.

As of the second quarterly report in September 2005, the sites are engaging youth in a range of project activities such as work and internships, secondary and post-secondary education, English as a Second Language classes, job and college preparation, mentoring, parenting classes, and life skills training Participation in activities has increased steadily over the first two quarters for which data was reported. The sites are also making progress in meeting ETA performance goals for enrollment, placement, and retention in jobs and education, reduced recidivism, and high school/GED completion. Fundamental to these projects is the connection between the workforce development system and the child welfare system. In four of the five sites, the local provider represents one of these systems and must then connect with the other to meet the goals of the grant. Chicago, the exception, is a school-based program that works with local child welfare services but has not yet connected with local workforce development partners.

Early success in accomplishing connections between systems is mixed across sites. However, Houston and Los Angeles have strong partnerships that provide coordinated services through both systems to the foster youth. One key partner in service integration and partnerships is the foster youth being served. While it appears that most of the sites consider the needs and desires of the youth in their service plans, most of the sites lack a formalized feedback mechanism to develop and improve the program. The exception is the Detroit site, which actively engaged a project-specific Youth Advisory Board in designing the program and in improving it. In addition, the sites have not actively engaged the caregivers of the youth participants.

All sites are confronted with the difficult and complex nature of the participants’ lives, as well as the effects of the child welfare system in which they have lived. How successful the sites will be in overcoming these challenges remains to be seen as the sites mature and as they work with youth in foster care and alumni of care over a longer period of time. Some early observations and lessons from sites include:

• Previous experience with at-risk youth and in employment services is an important factor in program success.
• Frequent and structured opportunities for ongoing communication among lead agencies, community partners, and youth are critical to creating an effective program.
• To retain youth in the program, sites must immediately and consistently engage youth in activities that move them closer toward meeting their personal goals.
• Youth involvement as advisors and staff help to create a youth-friendly program and positive attitudes on the program and staff.
• An understanding of the community the program operates in is important to anticipating and resolving potential challenges and issues that may hinder a youth’s progress in the program such as loss of housing, child care, or transportation.
• It is necessary to recognize the unique needs of current and former foster youth in designing a program that meets their complex needs.
• Garnering community involvement and employment partnerships now will help sustain the program in the future.

It is too early and there are too many unknowns to predict which sites will sustain their programs. There is the potential that these projects will inform how both child welfare service providers and workforce development providers, including One-Stop centers, serve youth aging out of foster care.

Staff