Literature Review. The Needs of Youth Transitioning From Protective Care, and Best Practice Approaches to Improve Outcomes

Transcription

1 Literature Review The Needs of Youth Transitioning From Protective Care, and Best Practice Approaches to Improve Outcomes Report for the General Child and Family Services Authority Jennifer Fallis General Child and Family Services Authority 4/1/2012

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 3 Policy of Youth Exiting Care... 8 Best Practice for Youth Exiting Care Relationships and Emotional Healing Youth Engagement and Identity Finances Education and Extensions of Care Independent Living Preparation Housing Interdependent Living vs. Independent Living Conclusion References P a g e

3 Introduction Each year in Canada, approximately 6,000 youth depart the child welfare system because they have reached the legal age of majority (Mann-Feder, 2011). For many of their peers, the transition to adulthood is typically a time of discovery and excitement. However, this milestone for numerous youth graduates of the child welfare system is a time of great uncertainty and fear as many have not acquired the skills necessary to manage adult tasks, and few have the support of family to help them out (McEwan-Morris, 2006). This in turn leaves many former youth in care vulnerable to long term negative outcomes. While there are some provisions for extensions of care or ongoing agency support services, reaching the age of majority in most provinces results in the termination of substitute care at age 18 or 19. In Manitoba, youth under the guardianship of child and family services throughout the province are discharged from protective care at the age of 18 (Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, 1985). Extension of care agreements for youth beyond their 18 th birthday can be granted, however they are exclusive to youth under permanent guardianship with the agency (excluding youth under voluntary placement agreement or temporary guardianship orders), typically for the purpose of completing an education, treatment, or independent living program. Excluding youth under temporary guardianship or voluntary placement agreements dismisses a significant segment as a large number of youth in the care of provincial child welfare agencies have one of these two legal status designations (McEwan- Morris, 2006). Further, extension of care agreements cannot continue beyond the age of 21, and youth must also agree to the extension. If there is no agreement, youth are discharged from care leaving no room for error in judgment regarding readiness. In Manitoba, there is no provision for youth to return to care if services have been terminated upon reaching the age of majority. 3 P a g e

4 Policy and support programs for youth aging out of care, therefore, are largely focused on preparation for independent living and self-sufficiency at age 18 (Avery, 2010). However, research and literature related to the experiences of youth who have aged out of the child welfare system, following preparation for self-sufficiency at age 18, indicate outcomes for these youth are not favorable. Unfavorable trends for youth graduates of the child welfare system also appear consistent throughout North America (McEwan-Morris, 2006). Research in Canada and the U.S. has found that youth, following their emancipation from protective care, are more likely than their peers (not in care) to experience homelessness, be unemployed or underemployed (with lower wages), live in poverty, be undereducated, rely on public assistance, be parenting, have been arrested or incarcerated, have/had issues with mental health, and have/had issues with substance abuse (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Raap, 2010; Rutman, Hubberstey, & Feduniw, 2007; Tweddle, 2007; McEwan-Morris, 2006). The Midwest Study, an ongoing U.S. study (focusing on Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa) following a sample of former youth in care, found that 31% had been arrested within the past year, 75% of females had been pregnant at some point since leaving care, 37% had experienced homelessness, nearly 25% had not completed high school or received their GED, 52% were unemployed, nearly half of the group struggled financially to meet basic needs, and an even larger number received some form of government benefits for support (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Raap, 2010). Similarly, a study of Canadian youth conducted in B.C. followed 37 youth after leaving care over a 2.5 year period and found that these youth in comparison to their peers attained lower levels of education, had increased income assistance reliance, maintained fragile support networks, encountered housing instability, and were more likely to be parenting (Rutman, Hubberstey, & Feduniw, 2007). 4 P a g e

5 In Manitoba specifically, limited research has been done on the outcomes of former youth in care. In their study of homelessness within the province, Bodnarchuck, Patton, and Rieck (2006) found that over 40% of street youth surveyed had lived in substitute care at one point in their lives. Also in 2006, a more comprehensive review in Manitoba specific to youth exiting protective care was completed by McEwan-Morris for the Office of the Children s Advocate. This report highlighted provincial mandates, policies, guidelines, and standards guiding services to youth transitioning from the child welfare system upon age of majority; presented issues and challenges youth face during this transition; reviewed services and programs available to youth both in Manitoba and within other provinces and countries; and, made system recommendations to improve outcomes for youth aging out of care in Manitoba. These recommendations included increasing the age limit for extensions of care, improving standards and policies for youth leaving care, better training for staff and care providers related to independent living preparation, better service coordination, and increased funding for programs and services. In 2010, Fuchs, Burnside, Reinink, and Marchenski examined the challenges of youth with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) exiting care in Manitoba. With qualitative feedback from youth with FASD transitioning from care to independence, the authors make several recommendations regarding improvement of transitional services for youth with FASD preparing to leave care. These recommendations include the need for mentorship or long-term supportive relationships for youth during the transition process, better transition planning with improved engagement of youth in this process, and the need for better independent living preparation specific to youth with FASD. Improved preparation in this regard would also include additional training for caregivers to assist with life skill development. 5 P a g e

6 Aside from the above mentioned work in Manitoba, there has been minimal research (similar to the Midwest Study or study of former youth in care in B.C.) conducted on the specific outcomes of former youth in care. Further, there is no provincial or federal method of tracking outcomes of youth following their discharge from protective care. Limited research, and the absence of regular outcome data specific to former youth in care in Manitoba, and across Canada more broadly, is and continues to be a significant gap in the literature (Rutman, Hubberstey, & Feduniw, 2007). Youth who have aged out of the child welfare system face negative outcomes, in part, because they have no choice but to live independently upon reaching the age of majority while peers with stable family and consistent home environments do not necessarily encounter this same ultimatum (Mann-Feder, 2011). As explained by Arnett (2007), during the latter half of the 20 th century, and into the first decade of the 21 st century, the transition to adulthood has become longer, more complex, and more uncertain for young adults. This includes significant increases in, and length of time spent within post-secondary education and training, and changing relationship structures including increased co-habitation arrangements - which often delay marriage and parenthood. Thus, as Arnett illustrates, the period between adolescence and adulthood has evolved into a distinct period of life between the ages of 18 and 25 which he defines as emerging adulthood a time in which young people seek freedom and embrace experimentation following adolescence. Data on educational trends, living arrangements, and employment patterns further indicate that few young adults, not just those who are exiting from care, are ready to assume adult roles before their mid-20 s (Avery, 2010; Avery & Freundlich, 2009). For example, roughly 44% of young Canadians age (60% between ages 20-24) were living with their parents in 2006 while 25 years earlier the proportion was only 27% 6 P a g e

7 (Ontario Association of Children s Aid Societies, 2006; Statistics Canada, 2006). Young adults who have not grown up in care, in addition to enjoying a consistent upbringing with natural family, are further able to transition through emerging adulthood gradually, and with support where needed. Youth transitioning out of care do not necessarily enjoy this same support and flexibility. As explained by Stein (2006) the responsibilities and demands of young people leaving care and barriers they encounter in comparison to their peers is substantial, and the experience of transition has become both accelerated and compressed with no option to return for support when needed after leaving. Canadian youth, who have aged out of care, have also expressed frustration in being cut off from the child protection system upon their 18 th birthday and subsequently having to care for themselves with limited life skills, inadequate financial supports, and few support networks (Tweddle, 2007). For this population, expulsion rather than transition more accurately describes their experience of leaving child protection (Rutman et al., 2005 as cited in Reid and Dudding, 2006). Reaching the age of majority does not imply that young people are ready to function as autonomous adults; however child welfare policy and legislation relating to youth exiting care often contradicts this (Mann-Feder, 2011). As explained by Fuchs, Burnside, Reinink, and Marchenski (2010), it would appear that policy and legislation pertaining to youth transitioning from the child welfare system, in Manitoba and throughout Canada, asserts that independence is determined by birth date rather than readiness. 7 P a g e

8 Policy of Youth Exiting Care Minimum standards for age of majority planning in Manitoba as outlined in the Child and Family Services Standards Manual (2005) highlight three areas to be addressed for youth 16 and older: 1.) Referral of youth to appropriate adult services where appropriate (youth with special needs) 2.) Extension of support services, and development of other support systems (such as extended family) 3.) Assessment and development of skills for independent living While this planning is required to take place when youth in care reach age 16, Fuchs, Burnside, Reinink, and Marchenski (2010) point out that this does not take into consideration the reality of caseworker turnover, high caseloads, placement breakdown, stabilizing a youth who is in crisis, unfamiliarity with transition protocols, youth not in school (an important venue for transition planning), and a lack of services to assist youth with transition (p.77). Further, once a youth has been discharged from care upon reaching age of majority in Manitoba, there is no provision in place for the youth to return to care. As explained by Stein (2006), government requirements and agency policy often dictate that leaving care is a final event (upon reaching the age of majority). Therefore, not only are there minimal guarantees that a youth will receive the most basic of preparation services prior to exiting care, youth aging out of protective care are rarely afforded a gradual transition or safety net in comparison to their peers not in care should they realize they are not yet prepared for self-sufficiency and independent living (Geenen & Powers, 2007). 8 P a g e

9 Since the process of leaving care encompasses both emerging adulthood and a process that may revisit traumatic histories, sufficient time and flexibility must be built into the transition process, and there must be a continuity of relationships with reliable adult mentors who can both address emotional issues and allow for adequate experimentation in the development of the capacity for autonomy (Mann-Feder, 2011, p.265). Best practice pertaining to an inclusive transitional framework, and related policy, therefore needs to include flexibility and better preparation in termination of services, assurance of ongoing relationships, and other methods specifically addressing areas of poor outcome for youth exiting care. Other jurisdictions within Canada, and countries such as the U.S. and U.K., have begun to introduce legislation and initiatives specifically addressing this transition process, incorporating the concept of emerging adulthood with the goal of improving outcomes for youth exiting the child welfare system. In British Columbia, for example, emancipated youth can continue to receive financial supports related to education and vocational training until the age of 24 through the Agreements with Young Adults program. Similarly in Alberta, through the Support and Financial Assistance Agreement initiative, former youth in care (both permanent and temporary wards) ages can continue to receive support and financial assistance, living accommodations, and services related to achieving independence. In Ontario, Crown wards who leave or previously left the child welfare system at age 16 or 17 can now return in order to receive emotional and financial support until the age of 21 through the Extended Care and Maintenance program. Title IV-E of the U.S. Social Security Act was amended in 1986 to create the Independent Living initiative in which states would receive federal funds to provide foster youth with 9 P a g e

10 independent living service programs. This was replaced in 1999 with the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act. This federal legislation, including the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, doubled funding to states related to independent living services and supports, expanded the age range deemed eligible for services (with no lower age limit), and allowed funding for broader use of services including education supports and independent life skills training (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee & Raap, 2010). Post secondary education and training vouchers (ETVs), up to $5000 annually, were added soon after. The U.S. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 created even greater federal responsibility for supporting foster youth during transition to adulthood (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee & Raap, 2010). This legislation extends the age of Title IV-E eligibility from 18 to 21 (youth 18 and older must be either completing high school/similar program; pursuing post secondary or vocational training; participating in a program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to employment; be employed for at least 80 hours per month; or incapable of doing any of these activities due to a medical condition), ensures youth a directional plan 90 days prior to discharge (includes specifics relating to housing, health insurance, education, mentoring and support services, workforce/employment supports and services), and affords youth in care (over 18) with the same protections reserved for youth under 18 including case reviews (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee & Raap, 2010). In addition, this legislation extends eligibility for independent living services and ETV s to young people who exit care for kinship or adoption after their 16 th birthday. Further to these legislative requirements, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 also outlined new requirements for a National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration 10 P a g e

11 for Children and Families website). This database, to be established and maintained by the Federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will provide a data collection system to track the independent living services each state provides, and develop outcome measures to assess states performance in operating these services. The NYTD requires states engage in two data collection activities: collect information on each youth who receives independent living services from the state, and collect outcome data (financial self-sufficiency, experience with homelessness, educational attainment, positive connections with adults, high-risk behaviour, and access to health insurance) on youth who the state will follow over time. Each U.S. state began collecting data for the database in October 2010, and will report to the ACF semi-annually, with the first submission date May, In 1997, Great Britain s new Labour government committed to legislate for new and stronger duties in relation to youth exiting the child welfare system (Clayden & Stein, 2005). From this initiative, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 was introduced in England and Wales in The purpose of the legislation includes: delaying young people s transition from care until prepared and ready to leave; strengthen assessment, preparation and planning for leaving care; provide better personal support for after care; and improve financial arrangements for youth exiting care (Clayden & Stein, 2005). Significant responsibilities within the legislation also provide: assess/meet needs of young people in and leaving care; pathway planning to age 21; appointment of a personal advisor for youth 16 and older; assistance with education and training up to age 24; financial support and maintenance in suitable accommodations; and responsibility of the authority to keep in touch following a youth s discharge from care (McEwan-Morris, 2006; Clayden & Stein, 2005). 11 P a g e

12 In a 2006 review of the provincial child welfare system, the Ontario Association of Children s Aid Societies (OACAS) gathered comments and advice from over 300 youth (on extensions of care) and 300 CAS staff about the issues facing youth leaving care. Both youth and staff agreed that the primary concern for youth leaving the care of CASs is the need for youth to have at least one supportive adult relationship as they make the transition to independence. Youth and staff together expressed concern regarding outcomes for young people who are expected to become independent while still needing, like so many of their peers, to remain dependent on parental supports for a little longer to ensure their success as adults. Staff took a firm stance against the practice of requiring youth to be independent at age 18 noting that usual parental involvement with youth in present society extends well into mid twenties for most youth (OACAS, 2006). Thus a key factor for the success of youth leaving care appears to be the same as all other youth making the transition from adolescence to adulthood: a supportive relationship similar to that which any young person would expect from a parent (Reid, 2007). Approaches in other provinces and countries such as Alberta, B.C., the U.S. and the U.K. not only appear to embrace the concept of emerging adulthood, these legislative and transitional initiatives appear consistent with one of the significant findings of the OACAS study: the foundation for any approach to youth leaving care must be that an agency charged with the care of a child or youth ensures a successful transition to adulthood like any good parent would. The transition to independence for youth in care therefore should be gradual, and youth should be permitted to make mistakes. 12 P a g e

13 Best Practice for Youth Exiting Care Improving upon policy for youth exiting the child welfare system requires a multi-level approach addressing as many poor-outcome areas as possible. Based on an analysis of previous research of youth in care, Reid and Dudding (2006) assert that there are 8 specific areas in which youth need support to ensure a positive transition to adulthood from protective care. These areas include: relationships, housing, education, life skills, identity, youth engagement, emotional healing, and financial support. The authors go on to explain that these pillars, with finances providing the foundational support, are inter-related and help determine how successful youth will be following emancipation from child welfare. Similarly, a long-term U.S. study of foster care alumni (in care between 1966 and 1998) found that completion of high school while youth are in care, life skills/independent living training, participation in clubs or organizations while in care, not being homeless within one year of leaving care, and access to post-secondary educational opportunities such as college or vocational training were factors directly associated with increased success as an adult (Pecora, Williams, Kessler, Downs, O Brien, Hiripi, & Morello, 2003). While addressing as many areas or pillars in an approach to improving outcomes for youth transitioning from the child welfare system appears ideal, there is also significant research explaining how individual pillars contribute to the success, or minimize poor outcomes, for youth exiting care. Relationships and Emotional Healing Supportive relationships are important for everyone to grow and develop successfully through adolescence and adulthood, and youth in care are no different (Reid & Dudding, 2006). Research has identified the resilience of youth who have exited the child welfare system, 13 P a g e

14 however, a consistent finding in the literature is that many resilient children have some type of caring and supportive non-parental adult or adults in their lives (Osterling & Hines, 2006, p.243). Therefore when youth in care are supported in all areas of life, including supportive and meaningful relationships, success in transitioning out of care increases (Reid, 2007). Moreover, youth in care have begun to express through numerous qualitative research studies the need for supportive relationships prior to, during, and beyond their transition from care into adulthood (Scannapieco, Cornett-Carrick, & Painter, 2007; Tweddle, 2007; McEwan-Morris, 2006). This includes youth in care in Manitoba as demonstrated by the Youth Engagement Strategy project launched in 2007 by the General Child and Family Service Authority (General Child and Family Services Authority, 2009). Through a series of consultations with staff and youth both in and from care, one of the strongest recommendations made by participants was the need for a mentorship program to improve outcomes for youth transitioning from care into adulthood. Evaluations of formal mentoring programs, specifically matching at-risk or youth in care with non-kin mentor adults, have provided evidence of success in promoting better social, academic, and behavioural outcomes (Rhodes, 2008). One study by Osterling and Hines (2006) examined the Advocates to Successful Transition to Independence program, an advocacy and mentoring program in California. The program matches non-kinship mentors with older youth in care, and mentors assist youth in acquiring skills and resources including opening a bank account, covering topics in the county independent living program, and collecting personal documents necessary for successful transition out of foster care and into adulthood. The study found that youth and advocates in this program setting valued their relationship thus creating a high degree of trust and understanding. Youth specifically felt their lives had improved since working with an advocate, directly leading to an increase in independent skill knowledge. 14 P a g e

15 The Kinnections mentoring program for foster youth (age 15-19) in British Columbia is a government program (in partnership with 3 service providers and formally launched in March, 2008) intended to strengthen youth s resilience by connecting them with supportive adult mentors who can also become their advocates, role models and friends during the time when they are in care and into adulthood (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, Research, Analysis and Evaluation Team, 2010 ). In an evaluation of the program, it was revealed that despite high service delivery costs relative to output, the mentoring relationships formed appeared to have very positive effects in key areas of development for most youth involved. Specifically, 82% of youth surveyed had expectations met during the program, 100% said they were satisfied with the relationship with their mentor, a large majority thought they would remain connected with them for a significant period of time, 82% of youth now felt they had more options in the future, and more than half commented they had higher expectations of themselves (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, Research, Analysis and Evaluation Team, 2010). Alberta is also considered to be at the forefront of implementing mentorship programs for youth in care (Reid & Dudding, 2006). Partnering with outside agencies, provincial child welfare ensures youth in care preparing for adulthood transition are mentored in various areas including employment, education and life skills (Reid & Dudding, 2006). In addition, the provincial Children and Youth Initiative, developed to provide child and youth practitioners with researchbased advice on how to effectively support children and youth through different stages of transition, emphasizes positive relationships and mentorship as best practice in transitioning youth from care through adulthood (Alberta Children and Youth Initiative, 2006). 15 P a g e

16 In the U.K., in 1998, the Prince s Trust and Camelot Foundation set up the first network of locally based mentoring projects for care leavers, in partnership with the National Children s Bureau (Clayden & Stein, 2005). Mentoring was regarded as providing additional support to a group of highly vulnerable young people during their transition to independence, and the project was subsequently referred to as the Prince s Trust Leaving Care Initiative - a program offering youth leaving care the support of a volunteer mentor. Following the implementation of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, a 2 year review of the mentoring project was conducted (Clayden & Stein, 2005) and found the longer the mentoring relationship lasted, the greater the likelihood of positive outcomes. Young people interviewed also valued the accessibility, attention and informality of the mentoring relationship in contrast with professional help. Similarly, mentoring helped with important practical advice and relationship problems, and youth valued the setting in which this emotional help was provided. Emotional healing for children and youth continues to be an unmet need within the larger child welfare system (Reid & Dudding, 2006). This is further demonstrated by outcome statistics regarding youth graduates of the child welfare system. For example, outcomes related to mental health in the Midwest Study indicated at least 20% of former youth in care had received mental health services within the past year (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee & Raap, 2010). As demonstrated through outcomes in mentorship studies, and the voices of youth participating in related studies, mentorship or similar long-term relationships with supportive adults can be helpful in overcoming past abuse and trauma; and in turn, youth can begin to trust and develop positive relationship building skills with responsible adults (Reid & Dudding, 2006). Also, as 16 P a g e

17 demonstrated in the U.K. study, youth in care also appear to appreciate this experience in a real world setting in comparison to a formal therapeutic environment. Youth Engagement and Identity Youth in transition from the protective care of the child welfare system to adulthood are a vulnerable population (Daining & DePanfilis, 2007). In addition to the emotional, psychological, educational, and behavioural deficits that older youth may carry directly stemming from childhood abuse and neglect, the unique experiences of growing up in care further impact the transition to adulthood (Avery & Freundlich, 2009; Daining & DePanfilis, 2007; McEwan- Morris, 2006). The experience of growing up in care in contrast to growing up with a functional biological family is well summarized by Fuchs, Burnside, Reinink, and Marchenski (2010): Foster children and youth face a number of challenges that are unique to those involved with the system. They must deal with the loss of their family, and these feelings are often compounded by the loss of additional relationships when placements breakdown. Frequent moves between placements can cause emotional detachment, school and social network disruptions, and behavioural issues. These factors, in turn, can have negative implications for identity formation in adolescence. (p.11) The negative outcomes for youth graduates of the child welfare system cannot therefore be surprising given unhealed trauma from historical abuse and neglect, loss of family and familiar supports, and identity confusion. It is under the constraint of historical trauma, challenges of growing up in alternative care, and the loss of meaningful relationships that youth in care are then expected to be self-sufficient upon reaching the age of majority and aging out of care (Daining & DePanfilis, 2007). 17 P a g e

18 As explained in It s My Life, a youth transitional framework developed by Casey Family Programs (2001), all children and youth need to know that their family and friends will be there for them, no matter what mistakes they make in life. This kind of connection with family provides a sense of security and encourages youth to explore and become who they want to be (p.24). From this, adolescents begin the process of individualization, separating from family and finding their place in society as an individual or complete person (Casey Family Programs, 2001). However, for youth in care, as explained, this process is negatively altered through historical trauma, numerous placement moves, loss of meaningful relationships and identity confusion. This in turn alters a secure sense of self required in identity (Casey Family Programs, 2001). Everyone has the right to know who they are, and where they come from, and best practice relating to preparing youth for the transition from care to adulthood should therefore include activities to assist youth in the development of their identity (Reid & Dudding, 2006; Casey Family Programs, 2001). As explained in It s My Life, this would include activities specifically addressing race and ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, regional differences and economic class. Further, providing youth with information about their past and ensuring youth in care have a relationship with a significant adult to provide stability as youth seek to understand their family story, and life story; this will also assist in positive identity formation (Casey Family Programs, 2001). As described by Reid (2007) youth engagement with respect to planning for transition from care is regarded as best practice because when a youth is able to feel a sense of ownership 18 P a g e

19 of the plan for his or her life, the likelihood of the youth following through and working towards the agreed on goals is significantly higher than when they are told what to do and how to do it. Similarly, research on the experiences of youth graduates of the child welfare system highlight youth expressing annoyance that while in care, professionals and care providers often disregarded their input and opinion (Geenen & Powers, 2007). Youth want to be causal agents in their own lives, but also want to be supported when they make mistakes (Reid, 2007; Reid & Dudding, 2006). It is through making mistakes, and being guided through, that youth will begin to develop skills in decision making. Therefore, a positive relationship with a supportive adult in addition to creating an environment in which youth are able to make mistakes and learn from these choices are important elements in a youth transitional best practice framework. In the review completed for Manitoba s Office of the Children s Advocate regarding outcomes for youth exiting the child welfare system, based on her findings the author recommends the need to develop standards for youth leaving care, and post care services including provisions for active involvement of youth leaving care (McEwan-Morris, 2006). In Alberta, as part of the development of the Transition to Independence Plan, youth involvement is primary as the leading element of the plan is the expression of vision for the future based on youths dreams, goals and ambitions (Government of Alberta Children and Youth Services, 2011). Scannapieco, Connell-Carrick and Painter (2007) regard this as a shift to youth-focused practice. Youth should be regarded as a resource, causal agents in their own lives, and seen in terms of their strengths. Foster care youth leadership teams are also found throughout the U.S., and in some Canadian provinces, allowing youth in care to help guide best practice and shape policy 19 P a g e

20 development. In Alberta, a youth advisory panel (youth ages 15-22) works within the provincial Ministry of Children and Youth Services to provide feedback and advice to the government on proposed strategies, recommendations and findings (Government of Alberta website). In California, the California Youth Connection (CYC) is one of the largest youth advisory groups in the U.S. with youth across the state advising on best practice for youth in care. The CYC hold statewide conferences for foster youth, meet annually with key legislators and staff, and successfully advocated for the passing of legislation that calls for the participation of foster youth (through CYC) in the development of child welfare policy throughout California (Crowe, 2007). Crowe (2007) further explains that successful youth advisory boards need to have an all-inclusive group representing the diversity of youth in care, and have access to decision makers within and outside of the agency. Youth boards that are not inclusive and youth driven, do not have access to decision makers, and are not part of a decision making structure, are often ineffective and unsuccessful. Finances As mentioned, many young people in Canada and throughout North America continue to receive both emotional and financial support well beyond the age of 18. Financial support for youth, regardless of upbringing, provides opportunities related to housing, education, and independent living; therefore Reid and Dudding (2006) explain that the financial element required in the successful transition of youth from care in fact provides the foundation for all other transitional pillars. Without significant financial assistance, many of the other pillars cannot be adequately addressed. In Manitoba, age of majority funding (up to $1000) may be used to help facilitate a youth s transition from care to adulthood and independent living; 20 P a g e

21 however, access to these funds are based on need (McEwan-Morris, 2006; Child and Family Services Standards Manual, 2005). As explained by Reid and Dudding (2006), jurisdictional agencies often place young people exiting care in the same category as those who require income security programs: provide only minimal support to ensure those receiving assistance seek other sources of support. This is in sharp contrast with the concept of the state being a good parent, especially in light of youth in care being amongst the most vulnerable to encounter poverty (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Raap, 2010; Rutman, Hubberstey, & Feduniw, 2007; Reid & Dudding, 2006). Youth in care and graduates of the child welfare system also echo the need for better financial assistance during their transition from care. According to the responses of former youth in care, within the Canadian Promoting Positive Outcomes for Youth from Care project, in addition to the loss of supportive relationships, financial hardship was regarded as the most difficult aspect of leaving care (Rutman, Hubberstey, & Feduniw, 2007). Similarly, financial support was mentioned as a significant concern comparable to the need for supportive relationships in the review of the Ontario child welfare system (OACAS, 2006). In B.C., Agreements with Young Adults (AYA) is a new 5 million dollar program supporting young people ages19-24 transitioning out of care into adulthood. AYA provides financial assistance for living expenses, child care, tuition fees, health care and further support services in order for youth to finish high school, learn job and life skills, attend college or university, and/or complete a rehabilitation program (British Columbia Ministry of Child and Family Development website). Similar to this program, Alberta s Support and Financial Assistance Agreement allows for former youth in care (including both permanent and temporary ward youth) ages to be provided with living accommodations, financial assistance to meet 21 P a g e

22 basic necessities, and other services to assist with and achieve independence while further work is done to build a youth s support network or complete the transition to independence plan (Government of Alberta Children and Youth Services, 2011). In addition, Alberta has introduced the Advancing Futures Bursary for educational attainment specific to former youth in care. Like many youth throughout Canada, costs for education especially post-secondary completion remains a significant barrier for former youth in care (Reid & Dudding, 2006). The Advancing Futures Bursary program, not only open to former youth under permanent guardianship in the province but any youth who encountered the child welfare system for at least 18 months (between the ages of 13-22), provides funding for post-secondary tuition, supplies, and housing accommodations (Government of Alberta Children and Youth Services, 2011). In an attempt to address better financial outcomes and support for former youth in care, prior to exiting the child welfare system, the Jim Casey Opportunities Initiative in partnership with both public and private partners has been developed in the U.S. (a handful of states participating) to help teach financial management, obtain experience with the mainstream banking system, and save money for future assets (Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, 2009). Specifically, the primary component of the initiative or Opportunities Passport is a savings account for youth in or formerly in care between the ages of 14 and 24 in which savings are matched dollar for dollar by the program (up to $1000 per year) for the specific acquirement of assets such as further education, vehicle ownership, housing, investments, microenterprise, and health care. In 2009, following 5 years of operation, 3,000 former and present youth in care had collectively saved more than 3.1 million dollars (Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, 2009). 22 P a g e

23 Education and Extensions of Care Remaining in the care of child protective services longer (beyond the age of majority) can further increase the likelihood of a successful transition from the child welfare system to adulthood. For example, the Midwest Study examined former foster youth in Illinois (where young people can remain in care until 21) in comparison with Iowa and Wisconsin (youth commonly discharged from care around age 18) and found that youth who remained in care until the age of 21 demonstrated better outcomes in some areas, especially pursuing post-secondary education (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Raap, 2010). In addition, a study in California examining the costs and benefits of extending foster care to age 21 found future financial benefits to the state; specifically higher education attainment, and greater employability with higher wage earnings (Courtney, Dworsky, & Peters, 2009). Therefore the costs of extending care for youth to age 21 are more than offset by the potential benefits to foster youth and society. Further to federal legislation and funding for U.S. states to provide support for youth in care pursuing education and related training, at least 17 states have also implemented tuition waivers as an approach to encouraging post-secondary attainment. For example, in some states such as Minnesota, through tuition waivers, the president of a state college or university can waive the cost of tuition and related fees for former youth in care (Dworsky & Havlicek, 2009). In other states, tuition waivers are provided through a related department of child and family service. In Ontario, Crown wards who have left care at age 16 or 17 can return for supportive services upon reaching the age of majority in order to achieve independent living goals including 23 P a g e

24 education. Extensions of care and continuation of support services, especially related to education provides the opportunity for youth to work through historical educational deficits (Reid & Dudding, 2006). Further, Ontario legislation such as the Education Amendment Act allows children and youth to minimize school disruption by remaining in the same home school during periods of housing transition (Reid & Dudding, 2006). As the trauma of moving and relinquishing relationships while in care have been linked with challenges in healthy development; minimizing these changes appears to be a positive tool in improving outcomes for youth in care. As level of education is one of the best indicators of future success for graduates of the child welfare system, incorporating approaches such as increasing extensions of care and minimizing school changes appear important elements in improving outcomes for youth (Reid & Dudding, 2006; Casey Family Programs, 2001). In addition to extensions of care and minimizing school changes, a coordinated effort and partnership related to educational planning and service delivery is also considered an element of best practice in ensuring better educational outcomes for youth in care (Casey Family Programs, 2001). As explained in the It s My Life transitional framework, working together amongst caregivers, social workers, teachers, counselors, agency staff, judicial officials, and transitioning young adults; in addition to sharing information, and coordinating child welfare and educational responsibilities will ensure better academic and transitional outcomes. Other approaches to bettering educational outcomes have been attempted by both private agencies, and larger government initiatives. In Toronto for example, the Pape Adolescent Resource Centre (PARC) is a preparation for independence program serving youth in care and formerly in care ages In addition to providing supports related to employment, housing, 24 P a g e

25 identity, health and life skills, the agency also offers a schooling program tailored to youth who have experienced being a child or youth in the child welfare system (Reid & Dudding, 2006). The agency and school program also partner with community colleges and universities to help program youth gain admittance. In Illinois, the Alternative Schools Network of Chicago partnered with the state department of CFS to develop the Youth Skills Development and Training program specific to foster youth who had dropped out or were at risk of dropping out of school (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008). Not only were program youth provided the same educational opportunities as peers attending the same alternative school, youth in care were also provided a case worker on site to serve as a mentor in guiding the youth through various systems (school, child welfare) the youth was involved with. The program, after review, was found to have successful educational completion rates (over 40%), and a significant number of these youth moved on to post-secondary education (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008). In addition to the educational outcome, youth in the program highly valued the supportive relationship provided by case workers, and regarded these relationships as a lifeline in their transition to adulthood. Independent Living Preparation As explained by Lemon, Hines, and Merdinger (2005) the overarching goal of independent living program services is to prepare older adolescent foster youth for selfsufficiency upon exit from care (p.252). With the provision of independent living services, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the provision of life skill instruction improves outcomes for foster youth, or youth graduates of the child welfare system (Lemon, Hines & Merdinger, 2005; Casey Family Programs, 2001). For example, in Florida, a multi-outcome 25 P a g e

26 evaluation of independent living programs revealed the participating group fared better in education, employment (earning rates) and independent living arrangements (Georgiades, 2005). Youth were also less likely to have committed a criminal offense, and had fewer children of their own. Lighthouse Youth Services, based in Ohio, is a multi-service agency providing social services to children, youth and families. The agency is also nationally recognized as innovative in services for homeless youth/young adults, and independent living services for youth learning to become self-sufficient (Kroner & Mares, 2009). The independent living program offered by the agency provides supervised apartment living for youth aging out of care without appropriate living arrangements. As youth in Ohio typically age out of care at 18, youth commonly begin the program prior to their 18 th birthday, and services are available until youth reach 21. Youth can live in either an apartment block with an on-site house manager, or individually in scattered site apartments, but are assigned a support staff regardless of living arrangement. Program staff (with low caseloads) visit youth in their apartment once a week with additional non-face contact, and an on-call staff is available 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. In addition to youth-specific support services, the program pays the deposit and rent for the apartment, utilities, client allowance, and also helps the youth establish a savings account. Youth can also keep their apartment and furniture at discharge if financially able. If youth cannot afford the apartment, other living arrangements are sought. A study over a 6 year period of the Lighthouse independent living program by Kroner and Mares (2009) found that overall at discharge, 60% of youth had completed high school/ged, 31% were employed, and 33% were still living independently. While there were lower employment and independent living rates, these rates were in fact higher for youth who stayed in the program beyond 6 months and were a little older. As suggested by Casey Family Programs (2001), supervised independent living programs can 26 P a g e

27 make the transition from care to one s own home a much easier process, and therefore can contribute to successful transitions. In the U.S., the Foster Care Independence Act has removed barriers for minimum ages pertaining to youth in care attending independent living instruction (individual and class setting); therefore several states including Florida, New York and Texas offer life skills instruction to youth beginning at age 13 or 14 (Dworsky, & Havlicek, 2009; Casey Family Programs, 2001). In addition, life skill instruction is provided in New York State regardless of permanency plans (New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 2006). As explained within It s My Life (Casey Family Programs, 2001), youth, families, and practitioners generally agree that life skills instruction should extend to youth younger than 16 and older than 18 (p.39). A multi-site evaluation of independent living programs in the U.S. found that long term independent living preparation services are important as half of participants had been receiving services for more than 7 quarters, and as time receiving services increased so too did attainment of positive outcomes including employment, and post-secondary involvement/attainment (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008). Therefore extending length of time in independent living preparation appears to further contribute to positive outcomes. In addition, this same study asserted that no single program component rose to the same level of importance in a young person s life as having a caring adult who guided and supported the youth through this transitional period (p.4). When youth were asked what they value most about the programs (across all sites), overwhelmingly they pointed out the individual who worked most directly with them (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2008). Therefore staff engagement and quality of interaction is a critical component of successful independent living programs. 27 P a g e

28 In Quebec, a transitional program for youth in care ages 16 to 18 called Projet de Qualification des Jeunes establishes a long term relationship between worker and youth, facilitates a sense of autonomy through active youth involvement in career and life planning, and encourages the development of a positive social network (Mann-Feder, 2011; Goyette, 2007). A review of the program found that overall, youth had a positive view of the intervention; youth participants were better equipped interpersonally; participants were more likely to surround themselves with positive people; and more participants were following a constructive path (Goyette, 2007). These program results were based on an approach that determined social reinsertion encompasses not only independent living and employment, but also the development of a career plan and the creation of a new adult family structure (Goyette, 2007, p.92). The program also demonstrated positive outcomes related to mentor relationships as youth involved with the program maintained contact with their program workers for at least one year following their discharge from care. Based on the success of this pilot, the provincial government is looking to expand the program to all youth centers in the province (Mann-Feder, 2011). In Manitoba, a recent review of the Skills for Life independent living pilot program offered by Winnipeg Child and Family Services also highlighted some positive aspects of an independent living program, and offered many suggestions by participants on how best to improve independent living preparation. Positive elements, as articulated by youth participants, included helpful hand-on activities, and an overall positive step forward (better approach and more practical) from independent living services previously provided by the agency (McKenzie, 2011). However, more flexibility in program delivery (to accommodate different starting points and learning abilities) was a critical need voiced by participants. Further, professional child welfare staff participating in the review also commented on the need for improved assessment of youth independent living skills. 28 P a g e