Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jun 22.
Published in final edited form as: J Soc Serv Res. 2023 Jun 22;49(2):252–261. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2023.2221285

The Association of Independent Living/Transitional Living Program Services to Educational Attainment among Older Foster Youth

Lionel Scott a, Tony White b
PMCID: PMC10584075  NIHMSID: NIHMS1917983  PMID: 37860219

Abstract

Among a sample of 312 older youth transitioning from foster care in the state of Missouri, this study examined whether participating in independent living (IL) classes and living in an IL or transitional living program (TLP) is associated with completing high school with a diploma or GED and entering college. Most of the youth reported participating in IL classes (80%), with 25% having lived in an IL/TLP between ages 17–19. Results of multinomial logistic regression analysis indicated that having lived in any type of IL/TLP was associated with greater odds of completing high school with a diploma or GED as well as entering college. Participating in IL classes was not associated with high school completion. but completion of IL classes was associated with greater odds of high school graduation with a diploma or GED. These findings lend support for the positive role that living in an IL/TL setting, or the completion of IL classes can play in the academic achievement of older youth transitioning from foster care. Future evaluation research is needed that elucidates specific components of IL services and transitional living programs that successfully address the academic needs of older foster youth and contribute to greater educational attainment.

Introduction

The transition to adulthood for a significant number of young adults is rocky, precarious, and rife with confusion, anxiety, and shifting norms and expectations (Putnam, 2015). For adolescents from vulnerable populations such as those exiting foster care, transitioning into adulthood can be especially challenging. Negative psychosocial outcomes among foster care youth and alumni are well documented. For example, the level of educational attainment (e.g., high school diploma, education beyond high school) among foster care youth and alumni is lower than their peers in the general population (e.g., Barrat & Berliner, 2013; White, O’Brien, Pecora, & Buher, 2015).

For older youth and young adults in the general population as well as those formerly in foster care, their level of educational attainment is a significant influencer of their economic, social, and physical well-being (Okpych & Courtney, 2014; Ross et al., 2018; Viner et al., 2012). For example, each step up the educational ladder, from less than high school completion to a bachelor’s degree or more, is associated with higher employment rates (Ross et al., 2018). This study examined the association of independent living (IL)/transitional living (TL) services to educational attainment among older youth transitioning from foster care in the state of Missouri.

Independent Living Programs and Education Outcomes

The enactment of the Chafee Independent Living Program through the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 increased the age at which young adults in foster care could receive IL services and education, financial, and other supports to 21 years (Foster Care Independence Act, 1999). In states where the age of eligibility for foster care is extended to age 21, The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 allows Chafee Independent Living Program services to be provided up to age 23 (Fernandez-Alcantara, 2019). Provided by the Chafee program are several transitional services that include “assistance in obtaining a high school diploma and post-secondary education”, training in the practice of “daily living skills” counseling, housing, etc. (Fernandez-Alcantara, 2019, p. 11). Because states are granted significant latitude, there is variation in the proportion of these services received by young adults as well as the number of IL services they receive (Okpych, 2015; Stott, 2013). In the state of Missouri where this study took place, youth gained access to IL services either through their case managers, independent living program (ILP) specialist, or life skills class facilitator (Missouri’s Children’s Division, 2003).

The study of Independent Living Programs (ILPs), receipt of IL services, and their association with psychosocial outcomes such as educational attainment has been the focus of several studies (e.g., Donkoh et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2019; Yelick, 2017). Analyzing data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), Okpych (2015) found that 50.2% of youth “received at least one” Chafee IL service (p. 79). Findings indicated that receipt of at least one Chafee IL service was greater among youth who were female, of multiracial and Hispanic ethnicity, had a disability of some kind (e.g., visual/hearing, physical), resided in areas that are rural and less dense in population, were in care for a longer period, and had been placed in non-kin foster homes (Kim et al., 2019; Okpych, 2015).

Studies have generally indicated a positive association between IL services and educational attainment. In a comparison between those who had received regular foster care and those who had gone through an ILP, Scannapieco et al. (1995) found that a significantly greater proportion of ILP recipients had graduated from high school. In a study of the effectiveness of ILPs in the state of North Carolina, results of a study by Lindsey and Admed (1999) showed that participants in ILPs were significantly more likely to have completed a “technical/vocational program or some college” and to be presently in college than non-ILP participants (p. 400). Georgiades (2005), in a study of 18- to 21-year-olds who had formerly been in foster care in District 11 of the state of Florida, found that a significantly greater proportion of those who had completed the ILP program had acquired their high school diploma or GED compared to those who had not.

In another study of outcomes among emancipating youth in southeastern Ohio who received ILP services, Kroner and Mares (2009) found that upon discharge, 60% of them had obtained a high school diploma or GED. In a more recent study that analyzed national data, results showed that receipt of IL services was associated to greater odds of completing high school with a diploma or GED as well as current or any education at the post-secondary level (Kim et al., 2019). In an experimental study examining the impact of a TLP in the State of Tennessee one year later, Courtney et al. (2019) found that being in the program had no significant impact on completion of high school with a diploma or GED certificate nor enrollment in a 2 or 4-year college.

Regarding the provision of transitional housing, previous reports have indicated that the percentage of foster youth who are served by housing funds from Chafee is normally below 50% (Pargamit et al., 2012). In a study of a small sample of youth who were formerly in foster care and had resided in a “Transition House”, findings indicated that residents consisted of significantly more African Americans (Jones, 2011, p. 21). Furthermore, at discharge from foster care, the likelihood of residing in transitional housing was significantly greater among African American youth than their Caucasian counterparts. Youth who were discharged from the transitional house were more likely to graduate from “residential high school” than youth in “other living arrangements” (Jones, 2011, p. 25). In a study of 18–27-year-old young adults who currently or formerly lived in a TLP in Northern California, findings indicated that 58% at follow-up were enrolled in a 2 or 4-year college/university (Lenz-Rashid, 2018).

This study is guided by the following research question: Is participating in IL classes and living in an IL/TL program associated with greater educational attainment? Based on findings from previous research, it was hypothesized that:

H1: Participation in IL classes and living in an IL/TL program will be associated with increased odds of completing high school with a diploma or GED.

H2: Participation in IL classes and living in an IL/TL program will be associated with increased odds of entering college.

Methods

Participants

Data comes from the VOYAGES project, a longitudinal study of older foster youth in the care and custody of the Missouri Children’s Division (McMillen, 2010). Participants were 404 youth who were in the care and custody of the Missouri Children’s Division (MCD), formerly known as the Division of Family Services (DFS). MCD maintained care responsibility or supervision and placement of all youth in the study. Participants self-identified as African American (51%), White, non-Hispanic (43%), mixed race (4%), American Indian (1%), and other (1%). Analyses for the present study focused on the 385 youth who self-identified as African American (n = 207; 117 females, 90 males) or White non-Hispanic (n = 178; 99 females, 79 males). The average age of participants was 16.99 (SD = .09) years.

The average entry age into MCD custody was 10.93 (SD = 4.44) years. Most participants entered custody only once (77.5%) and 22.2% entered custody two or more times. The percentage of participants who reported having lived at one place during the past 12 months was 38.8%. Others reported two placement changes (27.6%) or three or more placement changes (33.6%) in the past 12 months.

Procedures

Prospective participants were from eight counties, which included six counties in and around St. Louis and two counties in Southwest Missouri that were added to make the sample more ethnically representative of youth in the state’s foster care system. Youth who would be turning 17-years-old in the next 30 days were recruited from December 2001 to May 2003. The following exclusion criteria was used: (a) possessed a documented full-scale IQ score below 70, (b) had exited MCD custody, (c) possessed a chronic medical condition that made it difficult to communicate, (d) were placed more than 100 miles beyond the borders of any of the eight counties, and (e) were on continual run-away status through 45 days past their 17th birthday.

After the names and contact information of youths’ respective caseworkers were provided to the research team, the caseworkers were then contacted to provide informed consent. After the provision of informed consent, prospective foster care youth were contacted to request their participation. Of the 451 eligible youth contacted, 404 (90%) completed the baseline interview.

Data collection occurred at a total of nine data points, each subsequent interview occurring at approximately three-month intervals. The current study is based on 312 foster youth and alumni (African American = 179; non-Hispanic White = 133) who completed the baseline and final interviews. Participants were 19 years old at the time of the final interview. Those not retained in the final interview, based on attrition analysis, were more likely to be male, have exited care before age 19, have a history of juvenile detention, and meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Participants were interviewed by trained full-time professional interviewers in person at their place of residence and received $40 remuneration. All procedures were approved by a university Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Outcome variables

In the second to final interview, participants were asked the following questions: Have you graduated from high school? Received a GED? Started college? From these three questions, the following ordered education outcome variable was computed: 0=neither high school diploma nor GED; 1=either high school diploma or GED, did not enter college; and 2=entered college.

Predictor variables

Youth background characteristics assessed at baseline were race, gender, mental health status – lifetime and past-year mental disorder, placement type, and age of entry into state custody.

Lifetime and past-year mental disorder was assessed at baseline using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule-Version IV (DIS-IV; Robins, Cottler, Bucholz, & Compton, 1995), a structured diagnostic interview schedule designed to assess the recency, onset, and duration of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses. Lay interviewers administered the DIS-IV face-to-face. DSM-IV diagnoses assessed were Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder, Mania/Hypomania, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). If certain criteria were met, participants were classified as having a given diagnosis. The DIS has demonstrated adequate diagnostic reliability and predictive validity (Rogers, 1995).

Dichotomous measures of placement type at baseline were created, with kinship care (biological parents or relatives) as the reference category: (a) non-kin foster home, (b) semi-independent, and (c) congregate care. Participants placed in a group home, residential treatment program, shelter, detention facility, or in-patient psychiatric unit were identified as living in congregate care. Youth placed in Job Corps dormitories, or in supervised or unsupervised apartments were identified as living in semi-independent situations.

Participation in IL classes was assessed in the baseline and final interviews by the following item: “Have you ever participated in independent living classes run by DFS?” Response options were yes (1) or no (0). Youth who indicated participation in IL classes, were asked, “Did you finish or graduate?” with the response options being yes (1) or no (0). This study used responses from the final interview. Derived from a life history calendar completed after the final interview, the following was indicated: “Since the first interview, has the youth lived in any type of independent living/transitional living program?” The indication of yes was scored as 1, and no scored as 0.

Also derived from the life history calendar, the following variables were included as predictors: age at entry into state custody; leaving custody prior to age 19 (yes = 1, no = 0); and number of different placements between 17 to 19 years of age. Dummy codes were created for age at entry into state custody, which ranged from 0–16 years of age: 10–13 years old, and 14–16 years old, with 0–9 years old being the reference category. Dummy codes were also created for number of placements, which ranged from 0 to 20: medium (4 to 7), and high (8 or more), with low (3 or fewer) being the reference category.

Analysis

Data analysis proceeded in the following steps. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed to present a profile of participants on the primary study variables. Logistic regression analyses were then conducted to explore background factors associated with participation in IL classes and living in IL/TL program. Last, multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the association of participation in IL classes and living in an IL/TL program to completion of high school with a diploma or GED and entrance into college with the reference category being neither high school diploma nor GED. Multinomial logistic regression is a useful statistical tool for polytomous outcome variables (Monyai et al., 2015). The following variables were entered as covariates: gender, race, past-year mental disorder, lifetime mental disorder, placement type at baseline, leaving custody prior to age 19, age at entry into foster care, and number of placement changes between age 17 to 19. All statistical analyses were done using SPSS Version 25.

Results

A description of the sample is presented in Table 1. Sixty-one percent of the sample consisted of females. A significantly greater proportion of White youth met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for a lifetime mental disorder, were placed at baseline in the care of their biological parent(s) and non-kin, and left custody prior to age 19. A significantly greater proportion of African American youth were placed in kinship care and congregate care settings. Eighty percent of the sample reported participating in IL classes, with 74.1% reporting that they had finished or graduated from IL classes. Twenty-five percent of the sample lived in an IL/TL program between ages 17–19, with a significantly greater proportion of these youth being African American.

Table 1.

Description of the Sample

Variables White (n =133)
 African American (n = 179)
 Total (n = 312)
%/Average %/Average %/Average
Female 63.9% 58.7% 60.9%
Has a past-year mental disorder 38.6% 30.7% 34.1%
Has a lifetime mental disorder 68.9% 48.6% 57.2%
Placement Type
 Biological parent 11.3% 5.0% 7.7%
 Kinship care (other relative) 14.3% 23.5% 19.6%
 Non-kin care 38.3% 20.7% 28.2%
 Congregate Care 33.1% 46.9% 41.1%
 Semi-Independent 3.0% 3.9% 3.5%
Age Entered Custody
 0–9 years old 27.1% 37.4% 33.0%
 10–13 years old 30.1% 29.1% 29.5%
 14–16 years old 42.9% 33.5% 37.5%
Left custody prior to age 19 68.4% 44.7% 54.8%
# of Different Placements between Interview 1–9
 Low: 1–2 26.3% 34.6% 31.1%
 Medium: 3–4 26.3% 27.9% 27.2%
 High: 5 or more 47.4% 37.4% 41.7%
Ever Participated in IL Classes 75.9% 83.8% 80.4%
Finished/Graduated from IL Classes 72.3% 75.3% 74.1%
Lived in IL/TL Program 13.5% 33.5% 25%
Educational Attainment
Neither high school diploma nor GED 51.1% 48.0% 49.4%
Either high school diploma or GED, did not enter college 36.8% 31.3% 33.7%
Entered college 12.0% 20.7% 17.0%
Open in a new tab

Note: Percentages and averages in bold are significant at p ≤ .05.

Table 2 presents results of logistic regression analyses exploring factors associated with participation in IL classes and living in an IL/TL program. The first column shows findings for participation in IL classes. Results indicated that youth in non-kin foster homes and congregate care settings had three times greater odds than youth in kinship care of participating in IL classes. Youth who had left custody prior to age 19 had 70% lower odds of participating in IL classes than youth who remained in custody.

Table 2.

Factors Associated with Independent Living/Transitional Living Program Services

Variable Participated in Independent Living Classes
 Lived in Independent Living/Transitional Living Program
Odds Ratio 95% CI Odds Ratio 95% CI
Male Gender 1.07 0.56–2.06 0.86 0.47–1.59
African American 1.37 0.72–2.63 2.58** 1.32–5.08
Past-year Mental Disorder (ref: Yes) 0.97 0.44–2.23 0.52 0.22–1.20
Lifetime Mental Disorder (ref: Yes) 0.90 0.41–1.98 1.51 0.68–3.36
Placement Type (ref: Kinship Care)
 Non-kin Foster Home 3.41** 1.51–7.68 1.91 0.76–4.82
 Congregate Care 3.74*** 1.71–8.17 3.45** 1.47–8.13
 Semi-Independent 2.07 0.38–11.23 ⁻ ⁻
Age Entered Custody (ref: 0–9 years)
 10–13 years old 0.89 0.40–1.98 1.05 0.63–2.66
 14–16 years old 1.09 0.51–2.34 0.89 0.35–1.58
Left Custody prior to age 19 0.27*** 0.13–0.60 0.14*** 0.07–0.29
# Different Placements between interview 1–9 (refer: 1 or 2)
 Medium (3 to 4) 1.33 0.59–3.01 5.62*** 2.43–13.01
 High (5 or more) 1.79 0.77–4.15 3.15** 1.37–7.23
Model Fit
−2LL 267.96 276.31
Nagelkerke’s R2 0.18 0.31
Hosmer–Lemeshow Test 11.71, p = .16 9.48, p = .30
Open in a new tab
*

p ≤ .05.

**

p ≤ .01.

***

p ≤ .001.

The second column of Table 2 presents results for having lived in any type of IL/TL program between ages 17–19. Results indicated that African American youth had two-and-a-half times greater odds than White youth of living in any type of IL/TL program. Youth in congregate care settings had three times greater odds than youth in kinship care of living in any type of IL/TL program. Youth who had left custody prior to age 19 had 80% lower odds of living in any type of IL/TL program than those who were still in custody at age 19. Lastly, youth reporting 3 to 4 different placements between the baseline and final interviews had five times greater odds of living in any type of IL/TL program than those reporting 1 to 2 different placements. Those reporting five or more different placements had three times greater odds of living in any type of IL/TL program than those reporting 1 to 2 different placements.

Table 3 presents the results of multinomial logistic regression analysis, with neither high school diploma nor GED as the reference group. The likelihood ratio test for the final model [LR χ2(28) = 43.12, p=.03, Nagelkerke R2 = .15] indicated good model fit, and supported evidence of an association between the independent variables and the levels of educational attainment. In addition, none of the standard errors were equal to or above 2, indicating that there was not “high multicollinearity between independent variables” (Petrucci, 2009, p. 201). The first column presents results for either high school diploma or GED, did not enter college. Results indicated that having lived in any type of IL/TL program was associated with two-and-a-half times greater odds of completing high school with either a diploma or GED. The second column presents results for entering college. Results indicated that having lived in any type of IL/TL program was also associated with two-and-a-half times greater odds of entering college. One of the covariates was associated with entering college: gender. Males had significantly lower odds than females of entering college.

Table 3.

Multinomial Regression Predicting High School Completion and Entering College

Either High School Diploma or GED, Did Not Enter College*
 Entered College*
Odds Ratio (SE) 95% CI Odds Ratio (SE) 95% CI
Male Gender 0.89 (0.28) 0.52–1.54 0.37 (0.38)** 0.18–0.79
African American 0.82 (0.29) 0.47–1.44 1.32 (0.39) 0.62–2.83
Past-year Mental Disorder (ref: Yes) 0.69 (0.36) 0.34–1.38 0.68 (0.49) 0.26–1.77
Lifetime Mental Disorder (ref: Yes) 1.02 (0.34) 0.52–2.01 0.93 (0.46) 0.38–2.28
Placement Type (ref: Kinship Care)
 Non-kin Foster Home 1.41 (0.37) 0.68–2.91 1.45 (0.48) 0.57–3.73
 Congregate Care 0.79 (0.36) 0.39–1.61 0.93 (0.47) 0.37–2.33
 Semi-Independent 0.85 (0.81) 0.17–4.21 1.03 (1.03) 0.14–7.70
Age Entered Custody (ref: 0–9 years)
 10–13 years old 0.88 (0.34) 0.45–1.70 1.02 (0.43) 0.44–2.37
 14–16 years old 1.11 (0.33) 0.58–2.10 1.02 (0.42) 0.45–2.33
Left Custody prior to age 19 1.43 (0.33) 0.75–2.75 0.60 (0.43) 0.26–1.37
# Different Placements between Interview 1–9 (refer: 1 to 2)
 Medium (3 to 4) 0.58 (0.37) 0.28–1.21 0.80 (0.46) 0.33–1.96
 High (5 or more) 0.51 (0.36)+ 0.25–1.04 0.41 (0.47)+ 0.16–1.02
IL/TLP Services
 Participated in IL Classes 1.34 (0.35) 0.67–2.68 1.12 (0.48) 0.43–2.93
 Lived in IL/TL Program 2.76 (0.35)** 1.38–5.49 2.62 (0.42)* 1.14–6.02
Open in a new tab

CI = confidence interval.

SE = Standard errors.

*

The reference category was neither high school diploma nor GED.

+

p ≤ .10.

*

p ≤ .05.

**

p ≤ .01.

***

p ≤ .001.

Additional Analysis

Results did not indicate a significant association between participation in IL classes and level of educational attainment. Follow-up multinomial regression analysis was conducted among the 80.4% of foster youth who indicated ever participating in IL classes to explore whether those who reported finishing or graduating from IL classes were more likely to complete high school and enter college. All the covariates in the original analysis were entered. Results (not shown) indicated that finishing or graduating from IL classes was associated to greater odds (OR = 2.69, p = .006, CI = 1.32–5.47) of completing high school with either a diploma or GED. None of the covariates evolved as significant predictors. Finishing or graduating from IL classes was not significantly associated with entering college (OR = 1.92, p = .16, CI = 0.77–4.80). Gender as a covariate evolved as a significant predictor.

Discussion

This study examined the association of IL/TL services to educational attainment among older youth transitioning from foster care in the state of Missouri. The hypotheses posed about participation in IL classes were not supported. Participation in IL classes was not associated with educational attainment. Follow-up analysis, however, indicated that youth who reported completion or graduation from IL classes had greater odds of completing high school with a diploma or GED than those who had not completed or graduated from IL classes. Supporting the hypotheses posed, findings did indicate that those who had lived in any type of IL/TL program had greater odds of completing high school with a diploma or GED and greater odds of entering college.

Results from analyses of the association of youth background characteristics to IL/TL services showed that compared to youth in kinship care, those placed in non-kin foster homes and congregate care settings were more likely to report participating in IL classes. The finding pertaining to non-kin foster home placement is consistent with previous studies showing a greater likelihood of receiving at least one Chafee IL service among those in non-kin foster care (Kim et al., 2019; Lemon et al., 2005; Okpych, 2015). The finding that African American youth were more likely to report having lived in an independent or transitional living program is also consistent with previous studies of transitional or IL housing (Jones, 2011; Lemon et al., 2005). Independent and transitional living services and housing are likely targeted toward transitioning foster care youth in “nonrelative out-of-home placements,” particularly those in congregate care settings, due to their greater risks (Lemon et al., p. 266). As further suggested by Lemon et al., these youth are the ones more likely to self-refer to IL/TL services and housing and to “come to the attention of their caseworkers” (p. 266).

Previous research focusing on the association of IL/TL housing to educational attainment is not plenteous in the published empirical literature. However, the findings in this study are consistent with the few studies indicating that current or previous receipt of IL/TL housing is associated with high school completion and college enrollment (Jones, 2011; Lenz-Rashid, 2018). As suggested by Okpych (2015), every IL service is not equally applicable to every transitioning foster youth. Furthermore, all transitioning foster youth do not have a desire to live in a “supervised independent living placement (SILP)” or may not be ready to (Okpych, p. 77). Those who do so are more likely to have the resources and support that make educational attainment more tenable. As indicated by Lens-Rashid (2018), older transitional housing programs generally provide housing stability and opportunities to continue learning life and vocational skills that facilitates the completion of high school and post-secondary pursuits.

Concerning the receipt of IL services, the findings in this study differ from several previous studies that indicated a positive association between participation in IL services and educational attainment (e.g., Scannapieco et al., 1995: Lindsey & Admed, 1999; Kroner & Mares, 2009; Kim et al., 2019). This is likely due to the overwhelming percentage (80%) of transitioning foster youth in this study who reported participating in IL classes. However, findings did indicate that completing the IL classes was associated with greater odds of high school completion with a diploma or GED, which is consistent with the study of Georgiades (2005) among 18–21 year old, transitioning foster youth in a Florida district. In addition, Pecora (2012) found that “extensive” IL training compared to none was associated with 2.8 times greater likelihood of high school completion while in foster care, whereas “intermittent” IL training was associated with 1.8 times greater likelihood (p. 1125). These findings support the pertinence of extensive IL/TL services and the completion or graduation from ILPs.

Practice Implications

The importance of having an educational advocate that specifically focuses on the educational progress and success of transitioning foster youth cannot be understated. Prior research has shown that foster youth are less likely to have an educational advocate when compared to other populations of vulnerable youth (Geenen & Power, 2006). Regarding post-secondary education services and supports, most states (n = 46) in 2016 aided some transition-age youth in accessing job-related training and other post-secondary educational alternatives (Fryar, Jordan, & DeVooght, 2017). However, fewer states (n = 34) assigned educational advocates/liaisons while some of these youth matriculated at post-secondary educational institutions.

Innovative and successful programs identified by Fryar et al. (2017) include states where post-secondary education plans facilitated by social workers when foster youth are in 8th grade are monitored and reviewed every six months. Post-secondary plans that are created during middle school or in the initial high school years coupled with the assignment of advocates that monitor the educational status and progress of foster youth may improve the overall rate of high school graduation or GED completion. The point is that the educational attainment of transitioning foster youth must be front-and-center in IL/TL services. However, as noted by Dworsky et al. (2014), most ILPs with educational components have not been “rigorously evaluated” (p. 7).

Limitations and Conclusion

The current study had several limitations. First, the findings are based on a non-representative sample of youth transitioning from the foster care system in a Midwestern state. This precludes the generalizing of the findings beyond the study sample. Second, findings are based entirely on self-report, which is subject to problems of recall and response biases. Third, it is possible that the measures used in this paper were not a fair or optimal operationalization of receipt of IL services and placement in an independent or transitional housing program. Fourth, findings are based on data collected two decades ago and may not reflect how IL/TL services and housing are administered currently and their associated educational outcomes; this must be considered when reviewing and interpreting the findings.

Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the scant, yet burgeoning literature on the association of IL services and transitional living programs to the educational attainment of older youth transitioning from foster care. Results of this study indicate that participation in IL classes, in-and-of itself, is not associated with educational attainment. However, completion of IL classes was associated with high school completion. Perhaps no other group of youths and young adults is in greater need of educational resources and support than transitioning foster youth. Hence, it is critical that they receive the full range of available IL classes and services in their entirety to actuate better educational outcomes. Future research is needed to determine the degree to which the educational pursuits and outcomes of transitioning foster youth are a byproduct of systematic and structural disconnections between child welfare agencies, ILPs/TLPs and the classes/services provided. In addition, future research is needed that examines how individual attributes such as goal orientation and “willful decision making” and community-related attributes such as support and safety within the school system moderate the association of IL/TL services and educational attainment (e.g., Hines et al., 2005, p. 386).

A key finding in this study was that having lived in an IL/TL program was associated with high school completion and entering college. As stated by the Administration of Children & Families ([ACF], 2020), the intent of TL programs is to “temporarily” provide a “safety net” and “strong emotional support” for transitioning youth who are housing insecure and experience tremendous housing instability (p. 1). Funded by The Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), a comprehensive range of services are generally provided including money management, basic life skills resources, and development of “an adequate emergency preparedness and management plan” (ACF, 2020, p. 2). Although the effectiveness of IL/TL programs that youth in this study lived in cannot be determined, that greater educational attainment was evident among those who had lived in an IL/TL program indicates that the resources and support provided in such programs may be pertinent for academic success. Future evaluation research is necessary to determine which components and services of IL/TL programs are more contributory to educational attainment. Findings from such studies can be used to determine what services and programs necessitate more institutional and financial support.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH61404). Points of view and assertions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the National Institute of Mental Health or the District of Columbia Public Schools (Washington, DC).

Footnotes

1

The duties of independent living specialists include contract services oversight for Transitional Living and Chafee Programs in the geographic areas of their responsibility.

2

Choices was a program of the Children’s Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services designed for youth age 13 through 15, who were currently in out-of-home care and in the legal custody of the Division. The purpose of the program was to assist youth in becoming responsible young adults and helping them make better informed choices on their path to independence.

References

  1. Administration for Children & Families. (2020). Transitional living program fact sheet. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fysb/tlp_fact_sheet_september_2020pdf.pdf
  2. Ahrens KR, DuBois DL, Garrison M, Spencer R, Richardson LP, & Lozano P (2011). Qualitative exploration of relationships with important non-parental adults in the lives of youth in foster care. Children and youth services review, 33, 1012–1023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrens KR, DuBois DL, Richardson LP, Fan M-Y, & Lozano P (2008). Youth in foster care with adult mentors during adolescence have improved adult outcomes. Pediatrics, 121(2), e246–e252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrat VX, & Berliner B (2013). The invisible achievement gap: Education outcomes of students in foster care in California’s public schools. San Francisco: WestEd. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakeslee JE (2015). Measuring the support networks of transition-age foster youth: Preliminary validation of a social network assessment for research and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 52, 123–134. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyas JF, Wind LH, & Ruiz E (2013). Organizational tenure among child welfare workers, burnout, stress, and intent to leave: Does employment-based social capital make a difference? Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1657–1669. [Google Scholar]
  7. Casey Family Programs. (2007). Court-based education efforts for children in foster care: The experience of the Pima County Juvenile Court (Arizona). Reno: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coleman JS (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95–S120. [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins ME, Spencer R, & Ward R (2010). Supporting youth in transition from foster care: Formal and informal connections. Child Welfare, 89, 125–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Courtney ME, Valentine EJ, & Skemer M (2019). Experimental evaluation of transitional living services for system-involved youth: Implications for policy and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 396–408. [Google Scholar]
  11. Day A, Riebschleger J, Dworsky A, Damashek A, & Fogarty K (2012). Maximizing educational opportunities for youth aging out of foster care by engaging youth voices in a partnership for social change. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Donkoh C, Underhill K, & Montgomery P (2006). Protocol: Independent living programmes for improving outcomes for young people leaving the care system. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 1–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Duke T, Farruggia SP, & Germo GR (2017). “I don’t know where I would be right now if it wasn’t for them”: Emancipated foster care youth and their important non-parental adults. Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dworsky A, Smithgall C, & Courtney ME (2014). Supporting youth transitioning out of foster care (OPRE Report # 2014–66). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [Google Scholar]
  15. Erickson LD, & Phillips JW (2012). The effect of religious-based mentoring on educational attainment: More than just a spiritual high? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 568–587. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fernandes-Alcantara AL (2019). Youth transitioning from foster care: Background and federal programs. Congressional Research Service (RL34499). [Google Scholar]
  17. Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, H.R.3443, 106th Cong. (1999). https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/3443
  18. Franco J, & Durdella N (2018). The influence of social and family backgrounds on college transition experiences of foster youth. New Directions for Community Colleges, 181, 69–80. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fryar G, Jordan E, & DeVooght K (2017). Supporting young people transitioning from foster care: Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: Child Trends. [Google Scholar]
  20. Geenen S & Powers L (2006). Transition planning for foster youth. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 28, 4–15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Georgiades S (2005). A multi-outcome evaluation of an independent living program. Child and adolescent social work journal, 22(5–6), 417–439. [Google Scholar]
  22. Greeson JP (2013). Foster youth and the transition to adulthood: The theoretical and conceptual basis for natural mentoring. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
  23. Greeson JKP, Garcia AR, Kim M, & Courtney ME (2015). Foster youth and social support: The first RCT of independent living services. 25, 349–357. doi: 10.1177/1049731514534900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Greeson JK, Garcia AR, Kim M, Thompson AE, & Courtney ME (2015). Development & maintenance of social support among aged out foster youth who received independent living services: Results from the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs. Children and youth services review, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hines AM, Merdinger J, & Wyatt P (2005). Former foster youth attending college: Resilience and the transition to young adulthood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(3), 381–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones AS, Bowen E, & Ball A (2018). “School definitely failed me, the system failed me”: Identifying opportunities to impact educational outcomes for homeless and child welfare-involved youth. Children & Youth Services Review, 91, 66–76. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jones L (2011). The impact of transitional housing on the post-discharge functioning of former foster youth. Residential treatment for children & youth, 28(1), 17–38. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim H & Kao D (2014). A meta-analysis of turnover intention predictors among U.S. child welfare workers. Children & Youth Services Review, 47, 214–223. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim Y, Ju E, Rosenberg R, & Farmer EBM (2019). Estimating the effects of independent living services on educational attainment and employment of foster care youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 294–301. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kroner MJ, & Mares AS (2009). Lighthouse independent living program: Characteristics of youth served and their outcomes at discharge. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(5), 563–571. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lemon K, & Hines AM, & Merdinger J, (2005). From foster care to young adulthood: The role of independent living programs in supporting successful transitions. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 251–270. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lenz-Rashid S (2018). A transitional housing program for older foster youth: How do youth fare after exiting?. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 361–365. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindsey EW, & Ahmed FU (1999). The North Carolina independent living program: A comparison of outcomes for participants and nonparticipants. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(5), 389–412. [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu C, Vazquez C, Jones K, & Fong R (2019). The impact of independent living programs on foster youths’ educational outcomes: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  35. McDonald TP, Mariscal ES, Yan Y, & Brook J (2014). Substance use and abuse for youths in foster care: Results from the communities that care normative database. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 23, 262–268. [Google Scholar]
  36. McMillen JC (2010). Mental health service use of youth leaving foster care (voyages) 2001– 2003 [dataset]. Retrieved from National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Web site. http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mersky JP, & Janczewski C (2013). Adult well-being of foster care alumni: Comparisons to other child welfare recipients and a non-child welfare sample in a high-risk, urban setting. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 367–376. [Google Scholar]
  38. Missouri’s Children Division. (2003). General information – Missouri Department of Social Services. Retreived from https://dss.mo.gov/cd/cfsr/firstround-assessment.pdf
  39. Monyai S, Lesaoana M, Darikwa T, & Nyamugure P (2016). Application of multinomial logistic regression to educational factors of the 2009 General Household Survey in South Africa. Journal of Applied Statistics, 43(1), 128–139. [Google Scholar]
  40. National Working Group on Foster Care and Education (2018). Fostering success in education: National factsheet on the educational outcomes of children in foster care. Retrieved from https://foster-ed.org/fostering-success-in-education-national-factsheet-on-the-educational-outcomes-of-children-in-foster-care/ [Google Scholar]
  41. Okpych NJ (2015). Receipt of independent living services among older youth in foster care: An analysis of national data from the US. Children and Youth Services Review, 51, 74–86. [Google Scholar]
  42. Okpych NJ, & Courtney ME (2014). Does education pay for youth formerly in foster care? Comparison of employment outcomes with a national sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 43, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
  43. Okpych NJ, & Courtney ME (2017). Who goes to college? Social capital and other predictors of college enrollment for foster-care youth. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8, 563–593. [Google Scholar]
  44. Osgood DW, Foster EM, Flanagan C, & Ruth GR (2005). On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pargamit MR, McDaniel M, & Hawkins A (2012). Housing assistance for youth who have aged out of foster care: The role of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. The Urban Institute. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pecora PJ (2012). Maximizing educational achievement of youth in foster care and alumni: Factors associated with success. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1121–1129. [Google Scholar]
  47. Putnam RD (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York, NY, US: Simon & Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  48. Putnam RD, Frederick CB, & Snellman K (2012). Growing class gaps in social connectedness among American youth. Cambridge: Harvard Kennedy School of Government. [Google Scholar]
  49. Robins L, Cottler L, Bucholz K, & Compton W (1995). Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV. St. Louis, MO: Washington University in St. Louis. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ross M, Moore KA, Murphy K, Bateman N, DeMand A, & Sacks V (2018). Pathways to high-quality jobs for young adults. Child Trends. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Brookings_Child-Trends_Pathways-for-High-Quality-Jobs-FINAL.pdf
  51. Rogers R (1995). Diagnostic and structured interviewing: A handbook for psychologists. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rosenberg R, & Abbott S (2019). Supporting older youth beyond age 18: Examining data and trends in extended foster care. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/supporting-older-youth-beyond-age-18-examining-data-and-trends-in-extended-foster-care
  53. Samuels GM (2008). A reason, a season, or a lifetime: Relational permanence among young adults with foster care backgrounds. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. [Google Scholar]
  54. Scannapieco M, Schagrin J, & Scannapieco T (1995). Independent living programs: Do they make a difference?. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 12(5), 381–389. [Google Scholar]
  55. Stott T (2013). Transitioning youth: Policies and outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 35. 218–227. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tobolowsky BF, Scannapieco M, Aguiniga DM, & Madden EE (2019). Former foster youth experiences with higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Children and Youth Services Review, 104. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Foster Care Statistics 2013. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf
  58. Viner RM, Ozer EM, Denny S, Marmot M, Resnick M, Fatusi A, & Currie C (2012). Adolescence and the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1641–1652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. White CR, O’Brien K, Pecora PJ, & Buher A (2015). Mental Health and Educational Outcomes for Youth Transitioning from Foster Care in Michigan. Families in Society, 96, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yelick A (2017). Research review: Independent living programmes: The influence on youth ageing out of care (YAO). Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 515–526. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES