Examining Homeless Outcomes Among Foster Care Youth in Wisconsin

Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

by Beauregard Blazavier

Sarah Foster Brett Halverson

Ellen Hildebrand John Magnino

Caroline McCormack

Spring 2014

i

Copyright Page

ii

Table of Contents List  of  Figures  ..................................................................................................................................  v  

List  of  Tables  ...................................................................................................................................  vi  

Foreword  .........................................................................................................................................  vii  

Acknowledgements  ......................................................................................................................  ix  

Executive  Summary  ........................................................................................................................  x  

Introduction  .....................................................................................................................................  1  

Background  of  Risks  to  Foster  Population  ............................................................................  2  The Unsuccessful Transition to Adulthood  ...........................................................................................  2  

The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program  ............................................................................................  3  Wisconsin Statutes Regarding the Foster Care System  .....................................................................  4  The Out-of-Home Care System in Wisconsin  .......................................................................................  4  Former Foster Youth in Wisconsin  ........................................................................................................  5  

Chafee Fund Use in Wisconsin  ............................................................................................................................  5  Homelessness in Wisconsin  ..................................................................................................................................  6  

Foster  Care  Youth  Outcomes:  Survey  of  the  Literature  .....................................................  7  

Database  Information  ...................................................................................................................  8  

Data  Limitations  .............................................................................................................................  9  

Analytical  Strategy  .......................................................................................................................  10  

Methodology  ..................................................................................................................................  10  Variables  ....................................................................................................................................................  10  

Demographics  ..........................................................................................................................................................  11  Relationship of Youth to Alleged Perpetrator  ...............................................................................................  11  Placement Settings during Foster Care  ............................................................................................................  11  Final Discharge Reason  ........................................................................................................................................  13  

Results  ..............................................................................................................................................  14  Gender, Race, and Age at First Placement  ........................................................................................  14  Family Status at Shelter Entry  .............................................................................................................  15  Data by County  ........................................................................................................................................  16  Last Placement Setting of Former Foster Youth  ..............................................................................  18  Date Proximity between Discharge and Homelessness  ....................................................................  19  

Regression  Analysis  ....................................................................................................................  20  

Discussion  .......................................................................................................................................  24  

Promising  Best  Practices  in  Transition  Planning  .............................................................  25  Permanent Connections  .........................................................................................................................  27  Housing  ......................................................................................................................................................  28  Training and Employment Opportunities  ..........................................................................................  29  Education  ...................................................................................................................................................  30  

Recommendations  .......................................................................................................................  33  

iii

Conclusion  ......................................................................................................................................  35  

Appendix  1:  Foster  Children  in  Wisconsin’s  Counties  (2005-­‐2013)  ...........................  36  

References  ......................................................................................................................................  40  

   

iv

v

List of Figures Figure  1:  Comparing  Race  Among  Populations  ..................................................................  15  

Figure  2:  Where  Do  Former  Foster  Youth  Experience  Homelessness?  ......................  17  

Figure  3:  Where  Do  Discharged  Former  Foster  Youth  Experiencing  Homelessness  Come  From?  ...................................................................................................................................  18  

Figure  4:  Predictive  Probabilities  of  Homelessness  for  Former  Foster  Youth  ........  24    

   

 

vi

List of Tables

Table  1: Summary  of  Relationship  to  Alleged  Perpetrator  Variables  Used  for  Analysis  ...........................................................................................................................................  11  

Table  2:  Summary  of  Placement  Setting  Variables  Used  for  Analysis  ........................  12  

Table  3:  Summary  of  Discharge  Reason  Variables  Used  for  Analysis  ........................  13  

Table  4:  Comparing  Gender  Among  Populations  ..............................................................  14  

Table  5:  Rates  of  Homelessness  by  Last  Placement  Setting  ...........................................  19  

Table  6:  Probability  of  Foster  Care  Youth  Becoming  Homeless:  Results  of  Probit  Regression  Analysis  ....................................................................................................................  22  

Table  7:  Innovative  State  Programs  Overview  ...................................................................  26  

vii

Foreword

This report is the result of a collaboration between the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. Our objective is to provide graduate students at La Follette the opportunity to improve their policy analysis skills while contributing to the capacity of the Department of Children and Families to examine homeless outcomes among foster care youth in Wisconsin. The La Follette School offers a two-year graduate program leading to a master’s degree in public affairs. Students study policy analysis and public management, and they can choose to pursue a concentration in a policy focus area. They spend the first year and a half of the program taking courses in which they develop the expertise needed to analyze public policies. The authors of this report are all in their final semester of their degree program and are enrolled in Public Affairs 869 Workshop in Public Affairs. Although acquiring a set of policy analysis skills is important, there is no substitute for doing policy analysis as a means of learning policy analysis. Public Affairs 869 gives graduate students that opportunity. This year the workshop students were divided into six teams. Other teams completed projects for the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the City of Madison, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Children’s Trust Fund, and the Financial Clinic of New York City. This project deals with the risk of homelessness for youth who have entered foster care. There is evidence that this population is more vulnerable to a range of negative outcomes relative to same-age peers, including the risk of becoming homeless. Just how serious is this problem in Wisconsin? What causes it? What can be done about it? Any of these questions are substantive enough to deserve a separate analysis in their own right, but this ambitious report addresses all three. The authors first combine an array of state administrative data from different sources to document the nature of the homelessness problem among former foster care youth in the state of Wisconsin. They then used statistical techniques to determine what factors make homelessness more or less likely. While the data has limitations, it also has some advantages over prior work, and shines a light onto the importance of stable familial relationships in particular. Finally, in order to offer policy ideas to the Department of Children and Families, the authors survey innovative programs that other states have put in place to reduce the risk of homelessness for former foster care youth.

Professor Donald Moynihan

Professor of Public Affairs

May 2014 Madison, Wisconsin

viii

ix

Acknowledgements

This report would not have been possible without the guidance and assistance of a number of people. We would like to thank the staff at the Department and Children and Families and the Institute for Community Alliances for their time and assistance in providing data and helping guide our analysis. In particular, we thank Karalyn Kratowicz and Colleen McGroarty for their expertise, time spent answering questions, and valuable feedback.

We also extend our thanks to Professor Marah Curtis for her insight and technical expertise on housing stability and foster care youth, and Brad Jones, for his technical assistance with STATA. Finally, we would like to thank Professor Donald Moynihan for his support and guidance throughout the project.

x

Executive Summary

Hundreds of Wisconsin’s foster care youth “age out” of the system each year. The expectation is that these youth are prepared for adulthood, yet many former foster care youth lack the skills necessary to successfully transition into independent living. Without securing adequate housing, education, and employment, these young adults experience homelessness at greater rates than the general population.

To address this issue, this report determines the factors associated with homelessness among the former foster care population within Wisconsin from 2005 to 2013. For the first time in Wisconsin, foster care and homelessness data from different state agencies were matched to examine a number of factors related to the foster care system and homelessness.

Out of 14,534 former foster youth who were placed in a foster care setting between 2005 and 2011, 4.3 percent experienced homelessness. Of those who age out of the foster care system, the rate of homelessness is even higher, at 6.5 percent.

The data allows us to understand some factors that are associated with the risk of homelessness. We find that black foster youth are more likely to experience homelessness than other races, and that being female is significantly correlated with the risk of becoming homeless. These results also show that individuals who are able to remain connected with their parents or a relative while in and out of the foster care system tend to transition more successfully to life outside of the foster care system. Those who had a parent as an abuser were more likely to become homeless, while those who reunified with their families were less likely to experience homelessness. We also find that placements with a relative are a significant factor in reducing the incidence of homelessness for former foster care youth. Further, individuals whose final discharge from foster care is into an adoptive home, or guardianship are less likely to become homeless, compared to those who age out or experience other types of discharge from the foster care system. We then provide a review of state programs in transition planning for youth aging out of foster care for four outcome areas: permanent connections; housing; job training and employment; and education. The most promising programs we identified partnered with other institutions, such as housing authorities, school districts, and community colleges. For example, housing authorities in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Arkansas worked with child welfare agencies to prioritize former foster care youth as the recipients of Section 8 housing vouchers. Other programs emphasized the importance of training front line staff in transition planning. A program in New York City trains social workers to identify and nurture social connections for former foster care youth.

Based on our analysis, we recommend that the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families prioritize funding for transition planning programs that facilitate permanent connections and improved housing opportunities. Finally, we suggest further data-driven research on job training and education programs that could be implemented in Wisconsin to improve outcomes for foster care youth.

1

Introduction Wisconsin youth with a history of involvement with the foster care system face a variety of adverse housing, educational, and employment outcomes. When youth “age out” of the system at the age of 18 or 19, they often lack the necessary social support networks as they transition to independence. Inadequate support networks put former foster youth at an increased risk of homelessness compared to other youth populations. The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF) received an initial planning grant to “develop a model intervention for youth/young adults with child welfare involvement at-risk of homelessness.”1 This two-year federal planning grant provides funds to selected governmental entities to research the outcomes experienced by former foster youth, identify factors contributing to risk of homelessness, and develop intervention strategies to prevent homelessness among this population. At the end of the two-year planning grant period, five or six grantees will be chosen to receive implementation funding for the next five years. DCF has identified a data and research driven strategy to pursue during the two-year planning period. DCF manages the Wisconsin Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (eWiSACWIS), which contains data concerning youth who have had contact with the Wisconsin child welfare system. At the time of data collection, the Department of Administration (DOA) managed the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which contains data about homeless persons who have entered an emergency shelter in Wisconsin.2 To gain a better understanding of former foster youth who have experienced homelessness, DCF worked with DOA to identify youth who have had contact with both systems. Analyzing the characteristics of this population will provide DCF with new insight into trajectories leading to homelessness. The purpose of this report is to understand factors associated with the risk of homelessness among foster youth generally, and in Wisconsin in particular, and to develop insight into what innovative approaches other states are pursuing to address this problem. The report is divided into three parts. In the first part, we examine the policy background and existing research. We describe the risks that those who enter the foster system face and the current institutional structure in place to help youth in the process of aging out transition to independent living. We then review past studies of former foster youth and homelessness. The second part compares the characteristics of youth who have exited foster care and have entered homelessness with those who have exited foster care but have not entered 1 Information obtained from the Department of Children and Families grant application. 2 DOA is no longer the lead agency for the HMIS database. This responsibility has shifted to the Institute for Community Alliances.

2

homelessness. We used administrative data to match children with records of entering the foster system with individuals using emergency shelters in Wisconsin. This is the first time these data sets have been matched to gain insight on former foster youth outcomes and the risk of homelessness. The final section reviews other state programs focusing on four outcomes: permanent connections, housing, employment and training, and education. Based on this review, we present strategies and programs that other states have implemented in order to prevent homelessness among the former foster youth population. This information will inform the development of a targeted intervention model that seeks to prevent homelessness among former foster youth. We conclude by explaining the limitations of our report and make recommendations based on the findings presented in previous sections. Background of Risks to Foster Population

The Unsuccessful Transition to Adulthood Each year, foster youth are released from out-of-home care, unprepared for life outside of the system. Many foster youth fail to transition from foster care to independent living for a number of reasons. First, these individuals have faced multiple placements and numerous disruptions to schooling (Pecora et al 2005). One study examined the experiences of youth who aged out of the Oregon and Washington state foster care systems from 1988 to 1999, and found that more than 30 percent of youth in foster care had eight or more placements with foster families or in group homes (Pecora et al 2005). In addition, 65 percent of foster youth had experienced seven or more school changes from elementary through high school (Pecora et al 2005). Instability makes it more difficult for foster youth to graduate from high school since changing schools often results in their falling behind their peers academically and failure of school credits to follow them. If youth do not complete high school, they are at a disadvantage relative to their peers in accessing higher education. In addition, foster youth have limited ability to find employment and achieve self-sufficiency because they lack the education required to obtain stable positions that pay well. Subsequently, these youth face an increased likelihood of becoming homeless (Oldmixon 2007). As a result of limited or inadequate familial resources, foster care youth also struggle to build strong relationships and adequate social networks (Oldmixon 2007). The inability to build social networks is a substantial barrier to self-sufficiency since such networks provide emotional support; offer guidance on employment, education, and relationship issues; and provide assistance during times of emergency. Hence, former foster youth are at a higher risk of becoming homeless because they lack the support associated with social networks. Foster youth also have higher likelihood of physical, mental, and developmental health

3

challenges. Current and former foster youth are more likely than their peers to experience substance abuse and mental illness (Pecora et al 2005). Once these youth age out of the system, they no longer receive medical services because of financial limitations or because they do not know how to access medical treatment. Former foster youth are often unable to achieve self-sufficiency because they do not have the resources or knowledge required to maintain their physical and mental health (Oldmixon 2007). In addition, it is useful to consider recent trends in young adult development literature. According to “emerging adulthood” scholars, the period from the late teens through the mid-twenties is marked by greater instability and variation in the transition time to employment, education, and independent living (Arnett 2000). Research also reveals a growing number of young adults who rely on family members for residential and financial support well into their twenties compared with previous generations. This trend began to develop in the late twentieth century (Goldscheider 1993). When parents continue to provide support, they play an increasingly important role in passing on social advantage (Schwartz 2005). This research suggests that releasing foster care youth from the system at the age of 18 or 19 places them at an even greater disadvantage in the transition to adulthood relative to their peers without experiences with the foster care system.

The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program In an effort to address the obstacles faced by youth transitioning out of foster care, the U.S. Congress passed the Foster Care Independence Act in 1999. Known as the Chafee Act, this legislation assists youth aging out of the foster care in obtaining the resources necessary to maintain stable lives outside of the foster care system. Administered by the Children’s Bureau within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the program increased funding to states for the design, implementation, and evaluation of independent living programs. The law authorized $140 million for state-designed independent living services, and $60 million for post-secondary education support. Under current law, youth are eligible for Chafee-funded services if they (1) are likely to remain in foster care until at least their 18th birthday, (2) aged out of foster care but are not yet 21 years old, or (3) exited foster care through adoption or guardianship when they were at least 16 years old. States are granted broad discretion when making decisions regarding the use of their Chafee funds, although a 20 percent match is required for any funds they draw upon. Up to 30 percent of Chafee funds may be spent on housing-related costs for youth who qualify. In addition to providing direct housing subsidies, transitional housing, and independent living stipends, Chafee funds provide a wide range of services including promoting education and employment, housing support, skills training, and positive connections (Dworsky 2012). In many states, the coordinated effort to ease the transition to adulthood is formed as a Transitional Living Program (TLP). TLPs attempt to help foster youth leave the system as healthy, productive adults by: helping youth build and maintain stable and permanent connections to family members and other adults; assisting youth with their physical and

4

mental health needs; improving access to stable and safe housing; and providing life skills, education, and employment programs that lead to economic success and self-sufficiency (Oldmixon 2007).

Wisconsin Statutes Regarding the Foster Care System The foster care system in Wisconsin is directed by two chapters of state statutes: Chapter 48 with the Children’s Code, and Chapter 938 with the Juvenile Justice Code. These statutes contain language that the DCF must follow in the administration of the foster care program. The goal of Chapter 48 is to “protect children and unborn children, to preserve the unity of family, whenever appropriate, by strengthening family life through assisting parents and expectant mothers of unborn children, whenever appropriate, in fulfilling their responsibilities as parents or expectant mothers.” (Wis. Stat.§ 48.01) This chapter explicitly requires the courts and agencies responsible for child welfare to ensure that children are protected against harmful effects resulting from abusive, absent, or unfit parents.

If a parent or guardian is unable or unfit to provide care and protection for a youth, Chapter 48 calls for courts and agencies to (1) provide children with good substitute parental care, (2) assure that children awaiting adoption will be placed in the best homes available, (3) promote the adoption of children into safe and stable families rather than allowing children to remain in the impermanence of foster care, and (4) allow for the termination of parental rights at the earliest possible time after rehabilitation and reunification efforts are discontinued.

The Out-of-Home Care System in Wisconsin The child welfare system in Wisconsin is state-supervised and county-administered in 71 counties, and state administrated in Milwaukee County through the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. The child welfare system is responsible for investigating claims of abuse or neglect against children and youth. In the event that child protective services officials determine that the child or youth is unsafe in the home, he/she is placed in foster care, or some form of out-of-home care placement (DCF 2014). In 2013, some 6,339 youth were in out-of-home care, with 2,027 youth (32 percent) concentrated in Milwaukee County (DCF 2013). The decision to remove a child or youth from his home is made using a careful process. The first step comes when an allegation is made against an alleged abuser of a child. Any person suspecting child abuse or neglect can call a local child welfare agency to report an allegation. “Mandated reporters” -- such as teachers, school social workers, relatives, or neighbors - typically file the majority of reports (DCF 2014). Once the report is filed, a local agency determines whether the report should be screened in or out based on factors such as the severity of the allegation, the age of the child, and allegation history. If the reported is screened in, the case goes through an initial assessment conducted by a social worker. If the

5

social worker substantiates the allegation after the initial assessment, the child may be removed from his home and placed in a care setting. This decision is made by the child’s caseworker based on his knowledge of the family situation. The caseworker’s supervisor must also approve the decision and, in some circumstances, the courts are also involved. We discuss out-of-home care settings further in the results section.

Former Foster Youth in Wisconsin Each year, approximately 450 youth in Wisconsin age out of foster care, which accounts for 8.5 percent of the total number of youth in the system (DCF 2013). However, foster care can be extended until after high school graduation, or age 19. Data on youth who have cycled into homelessness and have a history of involvement with the foster care system in Wisconsin are limited. However, based on its survey of national research and preliminary analysis, DCF determined that youth who aged out of foster care in Wisconsin face adverse outcomes compared to their peers (DCF 2013). Every youth in out-of-home care in Wisconsin begins preparation for the age-out process at the age of 15. At this time, youth are issued an Independent Living Skills Assessment, which measures whether youth have the life skills necessary to transition into adulthood (DCF 2014). Local agencies choose the methods and tools to determine the level of life skills development, identification of proficiency gaps, and education progress (DCF 2013). Skills Assessments generally track progress in the following areas: life skills development; identification of educational needs including postsecondary education and training; and exploration of vocations and careers (DCF 2013). If life skills gaps are identified, an action plan is put into place to assist the child in meeting their goals (DCF 2014). The youth’s Coordinated Service Team - whose membership may include the youth, social workers, foster parents, biological parents, school staff, and others - assist in meeting independent living goals. The Independent Living Skills Assessment becomes part of the child’s permanency plan, which DCF reviews bi-annually. When foster care youth turn seventeen-and-a-half, Wisconsin statute dictates a new phase of transition planning (DCF 2014). During these six months prior to aging out of foster care, social workers work with youth to draft an “Independent Living Transition to Discharge Plan.” (DCF 2014) This plan addresses housing, employment, education, healthcare, and mentoring needs after discharge, and describes the activities that will help youth meet these needs. Additionally, the plan identifies the adults who will assist the youth (DCF 2014).

Chafee Fund Use in Wisconsin In 2012, approximately 66 percent of eligible youth received Chafee funded services to support their transition to adulthood (DCF 2013). Eligibility for Wisconsin Chafee services includes youth experiencing out-of-home care for at least six months anytime after the age of

6

15 or up to age 21 for youth who exit out-of-home care at age 18 or older. DCF receives approximately $2 million in Chafee Independent Living (IL) and Educational Training Voucher funds to support transition planning for youth. The funds are distributed among 71 counties, the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare, three tribes, and the Department of Corrections Division of Juvenile Corrections. DCF allocates funding to agencies based on the average number of eligible youth and service enrollment in each agency during the previous calendar year. Although the state does not match federal Chafee funds, each county agency is required to provide a 20 percent match (DCF 2014). An appointed IL coordinator within the agency generally administers services for former foster youth, although several counties contract out to private agencies (DCF 2014). Agencies are granted discretion in determining the type of IL services; however, they are required to submit an annual work plan describing the types of activities (DCF 2014). IL funds are typically used for staff salaries, training, administrative costs, direct services, supplies, and financial assistance for youth (DCF 2013). Educational Training Voucher funds are administered directly from DCF to distribute scholarships to support former foster youth who pursue post-secondary education (DCF 2014). After conducting stakeholder outreach throughout the state and engaging in an internal organizational effectiveness process, DCF recently determined that Chafee service delivery at the county level does not efficiently support the aged out foster care youth (DCF 2014). DCF cited administrative overhead, competing priorities, and a lack of expertise as reasons for inefficient use of funds (DCF 2014). In an effort to address these issues, DCF created the Office of Youth Services to provide direction on effectively coordinating the transition to adulthood. A forthcoming change will be the transition to a regional, contracted provision of independent service living services with nonprofit or county agencies. The goal of this new structure is to streamline service delivery and maximize the amount of Chafee funding spent directly on providing services to former foster youth (DCF 2014).

Homelessness in Wisconsin When former foster youth become homeless, they may live in their car or on the streets, double up with family or friends, or enter an emergency homeless shelter. In 2013, 23,191 homeless persons were served in Wisconsin.3 A yearly count found 6,027 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons at a single point in January 2012 (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2012). The January point in time count is a different measure of homelessness than total homeless persons served because it only counts persons homeless on a single day and includes homeless persons who are not in a shelter. Using January 2012 numbers, Wisconsin’s homelessness rate is 11 homeless persons per 10,000 persons, a rate lower than the national average of 20 homeless persons per 10,000 persons (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2012). This comparatively low rate is partially due to the fact that 3 Data provided by the Wisconsin Homeless Management Information System, Institute for Community Alliances

7

homelessness is both more prevalent and more visible in large metropolitan areas, making it difficult to track in Wisconsin’s rural regions. Services are provided to the homeless population in Wisconsin in several ways. Emergency shelters serve homeless individuals and families who have yet to be accepted into another program or gained access to housing. These emergency shelters are often a first point of entry into the homeless system. Motel voucher programs are more common in rural areas that lack a fixed shelter location. In some cases, limits are placed on how many days each person can use shelters per year. Transitional housing is another model of service delivery. It is a structured model that provides many services and case management. Conditions, such as sobriety, may be attached to a stay in transitional housing. Homeless people are frequently referred to transitional housing after entering an emergency shelter. Another increasingly popular approach is Rapid Re-Housing, which provides short-to-medium term rental vouchers and optional case management. Rapid Re-Housing moves the individual or family into housing as soon as possible so they may focus on the issues that caused their homelessness, rather than on finding housing. At the end of the period of rental assistance, the homeless person or family may stay in their home. Finally, Safe Havens provide shelter and services to persons with mental illness so that they may stabilize in a supportive environment. Former foster youth who experience homelessness may have contact with any or all of these programs as they move through the homeless service system. Foster Care Youth Outcomes: Survey of the Literature

Research has consistently shown poor outcomes among former foster youth based on their demographics, placement characteristics, and family stability. However, little research has been conducted on the homeless outcomes of youth aging out of foster care. Here, we draw upon the broader literature to understand the population’s transition into adulthood, housing stability, and permanency. While the results of studies examining gender characteristics are varied concerning whether males or females have poorer foster care outcomes (Courtney et al 2009; Becker et. al. 2007, Romney et. al. 2005), studies consistently show that black youth have worse outcomes than their white peers (Berzin, Rhodes, & Curtis 2011). Specifically, black children are less likely to be reunified and adopted than white children (Kemp & Bondonyi 2001; Connel et al 2006). One study found that girls are more likely to run away from placement settings than boys (Courtney & Wong 1996). Age is also shown to be a significant factor associated with poor permanency outcomes, which may lead to homelessness while these youth transition into adulthood. Specifically, many studies found that children who enter the system in their teens are less likely to exit the foster care system into any type of permanency. These studies also found that infants and

8

younger children are less likely to be reunified with their biological parents but are more likely to become adopted, meaning that older youth are less likely to become adopted (Becker, Jordan & Larsen 2007; Courtney et al 2007; Akin 2011). Multiple studies have looked at the number of out-of-home placements, placement type and foster care outcomes. Reilly (2003) drew from administrative data from Nevada’s Division of Child and Family Services and found that the more foster care placements the youth encountered, the worse they fared when exiting the system. This study showed that with more foster care placements youth were: more likely to have trouble with the law and spend time in jail; more likely to be homeless at some time after leaving care; and have smaller support networks. Studies that look at the relationship of placement setting to exit rates and outcomes show that group home settings and some kinship care settings exit to reunification at a slower rate than other types of placements (Harris & Courtney 2003; Courtney & Wong 1996). Connell et al (2006) show that youth in group homes and shelter placements are significantly less likely to be adopted. Additionally, this study showed that the total number of foster care placements was significantly correlated with lower rates of adoption and reunification. Some studies have looked into housing outcomes for former foster youth. Courtney et al (2009) surveyed youth transitioning out of foster care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Data were collected on housing outcomes at four time intervals between ages 17 and 24. When compared with the general population, these youth were found to have much poorer housing outcomes. The study found that 37 percent of the former foster youth had one episode of homelessness since their last foster care placement; about 50 percent of former foster youth had four or more living situations since exiting foster care; and less than one third of the study sample of youth were living with biological parents or a relative. Berzin, Rhodes, & Curtis (2011) investigated housing experiences of former foster youth using propensity score matching to attempt to isolate the effects of foster care. The study found that foster youth had higher rates of homelessness and reported a greater number of housing moves compared to unmatched or non-foster care youth. The study also found that reunification rates were much lower in foster care youth compared to the unmatched sample.

Database Information

The data for our analysis was generated as a result of a joint effort between DCF and DOA. Data from eWiSACWIS were matched with data from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The result is a linked dataset that includes information on former foster youth who have and have not interacted with the homelessness system. This is the first time that a data sharing agreement was established between DCF and DOA to analyze the former foster youth population. DCF’s Division of Safety and Permanence uses eWISACWIS to track information on

9

children who have interacted with the child welfare system. The federally-funded, state-tailored database monitors a range of measures that fall into three categories: child safety and well-being;) placement and permanency; and provider and licensing information (DCF 2014). Additionally, the data monitors program initiatives, case management practices, caseworker performance, and trends and patterns in foster care. Depending on capacity at the county level, caseworkers and/or administrative staff are responsible for inputting child data into the system. External use of eWiSACWIS includes report generation for state and federal compliance, and collaboration with other state agencies on research projects (DCF 2014). Since child welfare services are administered at the county level, discrepancies exist among data entry, case management practices, and data interpretation (DCF 2014) The HMIS database contains information about persons accessing homeless services throughout Wisconsin. Homeless service providers who receive federal grant dollars represent approximately 85 percent of shelter beds in the state of Wisconsin and are required to use the database and enter required information about the clients they serve. In order to use the database, shelter providers must be trained by HMIS staff. The data is used in day-to-day shelter operations and at the state level to fulfill federal reporting requirements and perform data analysis.

Because the HMIS database only contains information about those youth who enter shelter or are tracked on the streets in Wisconsin, we are using a narrow definition of homelessness for the purposes of this report. Other agencies, such as the US Department of Education, also count persons who are “doubled up” in housing with friends or relatives or “couch surfing” as homeless. This population is extremely difficult to track and may never be officially counted. It is likely that some youth who are not counted as homeless in the dataset have experienced housing instability or homelessness under a looser definition. Data Limitations

The data used for our analysis had a number of limitations. Since eWiSACWIS was not uniformly adopted among the counties until 2004, data in early years contained incomplete or missing information. In addition, several data elements were not added until later years. Since multiple users in every county enter data into eWISACWIS, we also encountered variation in the type and amount of information recorded. These circumstances compromised our ability to fully exploit the dataset. The HMIS database used to identify aged out children who had become homeless also has limitations. Emergency shelters receiving federal and state funding must utilize HMIS.

It is important to note that when we use the term “homelessness” below, it is defined as having had at least one entry into an emergency shelter in Wisconsin. We therefore exclude populations who may have experienced homelessness in other states, or may have experienced homelessness but not utilized a shelter.

10

While there is participation by some non-mandated shelter providers, others choose not to utilize HMIS. The result is coverage and reporting from approximately 85 percent of shelter beds in the state of Wisconsin. This limitation is not considered substantial since the non-participating shelters are located in the same communities as HMIS participating shelters. Homeless persons often stay in more than one shelter during their experience with homelessness, increasing the likelihood that a person will stay in an emergency shelter that reports to HMIS at some point. In addition, the Violence Against Women Act explicitly prohibits domestic violence shelters from utilizing and reporting to HMIS. Because of this, homeless former foster youth who only stayed in a domestic violence shelter will not be identified as homeless in the dataset. Analytical Strategy

Our analysis provides insight into a number of research questions related to the increased rate of homelessness among former foster youth. We compared demographic characteristics among the entire population of former foster youth and the subset of youth who experienced homelessness in order to determine significant differences. Then we determined the location of youth experiencing homelessness to inform targeted interventions. Finally, we analyzed several factors related to the youths’ foster care history to determine whether certain care settings or discharge reasons were correlated with homelessness. Methodology

To assist DCF in finding the factors that had a sizeable effect on the incidence of homelessness within the former foster youth population, we used regression analysis to compare the magnitude of the variables contained in the matched eWiSACWIS and HMIS dataset. The variable in this case, whether or not a former foster youth had a homeless experience in the time following his foster care experience, assumes a binary role. Because of this binary dependent variable, we utilized non-linear regression models, namely probit regression, to investigate the effect and interaction between many of the relevant variables.

In our model, the dependent variable is whether or not a youth experienced homelessness in the near or immediate future after leaving the foster care system. We constructed a variety of models with different variables relating to the foster care population. In our model, the variables with positive values on the coefficients can be interpreted as having a higher correlation with those who experience homelessness. For example, a positive coefficient on the dummy variable “black” means that black youth show a higher correlation with the homeless population that white and other racial categories, all else held constant.

Variables We considered several variables in the dataset in our analysis. While our data is limited in some key respects, it allows us to consider many variables not previously examined related to

11

the types of allegations, relationship with perpetrator, type of placement and reason for discharge. All of the independent variables come from the eWiSACWIS database and were collected by employees in the foster care system as part of standard administrative data collection requirements. Our regression analysis only includes substantiated allegations, due to the increased interaction youth with substantiated allegations have with the foster care system at DCF.4

Demographics We examine the role of race and gender in a number of our models by including measures for female and black status.

Relationship of Youth to Alleged Perpetrator Our regression analysis looks at the relationship of youth to the alleged perpetrator for that substantiated allegation, dividing the types of relationship to the victim into five categories: friend, institutional offender, foster parent, parent, and other. Further explanations of these variables are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Relationship to Alleged Perpetrator Variables Used for Analysis

Variable Category What it Means

Relationship to Alleged Perpetrator

Friend Neighbor; Partner / friend of parent sharing dwelling; Family friend; Relative / non-care provider; Sibling/step-sibling; Children in family (not mature)

Institutional Offender

Youth staff or volunteer leader; Teacher/school employee; Staff at RCC/other facility; Staff at corrections facility; Licensed daycare employee; Certified family home provider; Child care provider in home of child; Individual who shared a foster home; Child in foster home (not mature); Non-certified family home provider

Foster Parent Foster parent/non-relative; Relative/court-ordered care provider; Relative/primary care provider; Foster parent/relative

Parent Biological parent; Step parent; Adoptive parent

Other Relationship

Unknown; Stranger; Other Non-caregiver; Other child; Peer maltreater

Source: Authors

Placement Settings during Foster Care Several types of placements are in the eWiSACWIS database. For our analysis, we divided placement types into seven categories: correctional, foster, group home, residential care 4 Unsubstantiated allegations were considered as a variable, but when tested in the model, did not differ significantly from substantiated allegations. Total number of allegations, either substantiated or unsubstantiated, was not significant and was not included in our model. Type of allegation was also not significant, and not included in our final model.

12

center, relative, shelter, and other (Table 2). The decision to place a child in any of these settings is based on the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths tool, which assesses the strengths and needs of youth and place youth in the least restrictive setting that meet their needs.5

Relative and foster placements are considered the least restrictive setting. It is standard practice to place children with relatives over any other type of placement. Children may feel more comfortable placed with a relative they know, which typically leads to some form of permanency at a faster rate. Foster placements include a variety of foster homes but are all home-based, family setting placements. Foster homes have lower levels of restriction, which is the preferred setting for a child.

Table 2: Summary of Placement Setting Variables Used for Analysis Variable Category What it Means

Non-Relative Placement Time

- -

Placement Type

Foster Care Foster family home (non-relative); Foster family home (non-relative)/ (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System [AFCARS]); Foster family home (non-relative)/court-ordered (AFCARS); Treatment foster home – non-relative; Non-relative unlicensed

Group Home Group home; Group home/court-ordered (AFCARS)

Residential Care Center

RCC – highly restrictive placement setting for high needs youth

Correctional Adult corrections; Detention; Juvenile correctional facility

Shelter Shelter – temporary placement

Relative Foster family home (relative); Foster family home (relative)/court-ordered (AFCARS); Kinship care – court-ordered; Kinship care – voluntary; Relative – unlicensed; Treatment foster home – Relative

Other Placement

Missing from out-of-home care; Hospital; Pre-adoptive home; Receiving home; Reception center; Reception center – detention; Reception center – shelter; Trial reunification

Source: Authors Group homes are different than foster homes in that they are staffed and have a higher level of restriction. These placements often serve older youth and provide a structured, shared living environment. Group homes are settings for children with more needs than a family/home-based setting can provide, but not with the high level of need that would necessitate placement in a Residential Care Center. Residential Care Centers (RCCs) are similar to group homes, but are a highly restricted setting that provides a higher level of care. Foster youth placed in an RCC typically have a mental or behavioral problem that prevents them from being placed in a less restrictive setting (Bastiaanssen, et al 2014). In fact, youth

5 Information for this section was provided by the Department of Children and Families

13

with mental health issues are less likely to be placed into permanent placement types (Smithgall et al 2005). In order to provide assistance to these vulnerable youth, Group Home and RCC staff provides case management, programming, education, and therapy. Shelters are generally used when a youth is suddenly placed into care, and the worker places them there until they can find a placement in an appropriate setting. Shelters are considered temporary placement settings for youth, and youth are only allowed to stay in a shelter setting for a short period of time. Correctional placements involve contact with the legal system and include adult and juvenile correctional facilities and detention centers; they are considered the most highly restrictive settings.

Final Discharge Reason In addition to placement type, our analysis includes the final discharge reason in a youth’s experience with foster care as a determinant of homelessness. We divided discharge into six different categories: living with a relative, reunification with parent or primary caretaker, transfer to another facility, adoption, guardianship, and other. The variables grouped in the other categories for placement, relationship to alleged perpetrator, and discharge reason were lumped together because the numbers generally are not high enough to include them into their own category. Table 3 shows an overview of the variable categories.

Table 3: Summary of Discharge Reason Variables Used for Analysis Variable Category What it Means

Discharge Reason

Living with Relative

Living with other relatives

Reunification Reunification with parent(s)/primary care provider

Transfer Transfer to another agency; Transfer to Department of Health Services; Transfer to licensed private agency; Transfer to other facility

Transfer to Adult Facility

Transfer to adult corrections; Transfer to other state institution

Adoption Adoption finalized

Guardianship Guardianship

Other Missing from out-of-home care; discharge; runaway

Age Out Age of Majority; Independent Living;

Source: Authors

14

Results

Out of 14,534 former foster youth6 who were placed in a foster care setting between 2005 and 2011, 626 (4.3 percent) experienced homelessness. The population of aged out youth7 had a 6.5 percent rate of homelessness, meaning that 207 of the 3,155 youth experienced homelessness. These rates are much smaller than the 24 percent rate of homelessness among former foster youth reported in the Midwest Study (Courtney et al 2009), but that study tracked former foster youth for a longer time period and employed a more expansive definition of homelessness. The majority of the youth experience their first out-of-home placement in their mid-teens, with a mean age of 15.2. Most Wisconsin former foster youth experienced homelessness after aging out, but a small minority experienced homelessness before that. This is likely due to a homeless experience with a parent or guardian. In some of our calculations, the total number of youth in the former foster youth and homeless populations varies slightly. This is due to missing data fields and is a small enough variation that it did not affect the significance of the analysis.

Gender, Race, and Age at First Placement The gender characteristics of former foster youth are shown in Table 4. Overall, the former foster youth population has more males than females, as does the homeless youth population. However, the proportion of females is larger in the population of former foster youth who become homeless compared to the former foster youth population as a whole. The significance of gender and homelessness will be further discussed in the regression analysis. 8

Table 4: Comparing Gender Among Populations (2005 – 2013)

Gender Wisconsin Child

Population Former

foster youth

Former foster youth who

become homeless

Aged out youth who become

homeless

Male 51% 57% 52% 64%

Female 49% 43% 48% 36%

Source: Authors

6 For the purposes of this report, the term “former foster youth” refers to youth who have experienced a foster care placement. 7 For the purposes of this report, the term “aged out youth” refers to the subset of former foster youth who were in the foster care system upon reaching adulthood, and then aged out because they were no longer eligible. 8 Data provided by the Wisconsin Homeless Management Information System, Institute for Community Alliances.

15

When comparing race among the populations, it is clear a larger proportion of black youth are in the former foster youth, aged out youth, and homeless youth populations (Figure 1). Though whites represent the majority of all populations, they are underrepresented in the former foster youth population, aged out youth and the subpopulation of former foster youth who experienced homelessness. Black youth are vastly overrepresented in the population of former foster youth and aged out youth compared to the total Wisconsin population. They are slightly more overrepresented in the former foster youth population who have experienced homelessness relative to the former foster youth population as a whole. This is fairly consistent with the racial breakdown of the general homeless population in Wisconsin, which is 52 percent white, 41 percent black, and seven percent other race.9

Figure 1: Comparing Race Among Populations (2005-2013)

Sources: Authors

Family Status at Shelter Entry The familial status of former foster youth is important because it may inform the type of program targeted at improving outcomes for former foster youth. For example, a single, childless youth may need a different type of service than a youth who is a new parent. Data provided by the HMIS database contained information concerning whether former foster youth were single or a part of a family when entering shelter. In order to increase the likelihood that youth who entered shelter as a family are indeed parenting and not simply entering with their own parents, we filtered out youth who experienced their first episode of

9 Data provided by the Wisconsin Homeless Management Information System, Institute for Community Alliances.

88%  

61%  57%   56%  

7%  

31%  38%   38%  

5%   8%   5%   6%  

0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

80%  

90%  

100%  

Wisconsin  Child  Population  

Former  foster  youth    

Former  foster  youth  who  become  

homeless  

Aged  out  youth  who  become  homeless  

White  

Black  

Other  

16

homelessness before the age of 18. This yielded a sample of 557 youth, 135 of whom entered shelter as a family, and 422 of whom entered shelter as a single individual. A random sampling of this data conducted by the Institute for Community Alliances found that 60 percent of the 135 former foster youth entering shelter as a family were parents. Former foster youth have higher rates of pregnancy than their peers, and furthermore, have a higher rate of unwanted pregnancy compared to their peers (Courtney et al 2010). This issue is worth exploring because an unwanted pregnancy may put additional social and financial strain on the youth.

Data by County In order to answer research questions related to the location of the homeless former foster youth, we analyzed the data by county. First, we determined where homeless youth were entering emergency shelters. Then, we analyzed the data based on the home county of the youth. The breakdown by county changed when using these two methods, showing that some former foster youth relocate from the last county in which they received foster care upon discharge. Analyzing the location where homeless youth were entering homeless shelters showed more homeless youth in counties that have a large population in general, and a large population of former foster youth. Figure 2 shows the concentration of homeless youth by county and Appendix 1 contains a detailed table showing the number of homeless youth entering shelter by county. Over a third (37 percent) of the homeless youth entered shelter in Milwaukee or Dane County, which have by far the highest Wisconsin and former foster youth populations. The second part of our analysis focuses on the county from which the former foster youth were last discharged. County of discharge differs from the county in which youth entered shelter because a portion of former foster youth entered shelter in a different county than they were discharged from. Many factors could cause this, such as a move or a job change. Some counties also lack emergency shelters. For example, Bayfield, Calumet, Florence, Iron, Pepin, and Price counties do not provide homeless services, and other small counties only contain small motel voucher or transitional housing programs. Generally, when densely populated regions have the density to necessitate the creation of a large volume shelter, such as in La Crosse, the surrounding area will not contain many physical shelters.10

10 Information obtained from Institute for Community Alliances staff

17

Figure 2: Where Do Former Foster Youth Experience Homelessness (2005-2013)?

Source: Authors Figure 3 and Appendix 1 show the percentage of former foster youth who became homeless by county. This percentage ranged from 0 to 14 percent with 11 counties lacking any discharged homeless youth. The counties with the highest number of discharged homeless youth tended to be counties with lower per capita incomes, although there were many exceptions to this trend (U.S. Census 2010). In addition, some estimates from counties with very small populations could appear artificially high due to the small sample size (for example, Crawford County, the county with the highest rates of homelessness has only 30 former foster youth in our sample during the time period). Nevertheless, it is clear that in some counties, former foster youth are experiencing much higher rates of homelessness than in others, even if the homelessness is experienced elsewhere in the state.

Number of Former Foster Youth Experiencing Homelessness

18

Figure 3: Where do Discharged Former Foster Youth Experiencing Homelessness Come From (2005-2013)?

Source: Authors

Last Placement Setting of Former Foster Youth This section compares the last placement setting of the entire former foster youth population and the subpopulation who experienced at least one episode of homelessness. This is useful because it may better inform targeting of prevention services. According to Table 5, former foster youth exiting from relative settings had by far the lowest rate of homelessness. This result makes sense given that relative settings allow youth to stay with a family member with whom they are comfortable.

Youth exiting from shelters, foster homes, correctional placements and other types of placements had rates of homelessness near the former foster youth average of 4.3 percent. Former foster youth exiting from correctional placements have a near average rate of homelessness. Given that “correctional” is the most restrictive setting, and involves contact with the legal system, youth exiting from this placement may have been expected to have a higher rate of homelessness. However, if many of these youth move into adult correctional settings as they age out, they are less likely to be in the community and at risk of homelessness. There is some evidence that this is the case in our dataset: correctional

19

placements were correlated with the discharge reason “transfer,” which includes a transfer to an adult correctional facility at .25. It is therefore likely that a significant portion of those in correctional placements were transferred to an adult correctional facility upon discharge from the foster care system. While this means that they become less likely to be exposed to the risk of homelessness, at least in the short run, this may underestimate the relationship between experiencing a correctional placement and the risk of homelessness in the longer run. Youth exiting from Group Homes and RCC had the highest rates of homelessness. One factor contributing to the high rates of homelessness may be that once youth are adults and no longer a part of the foster care system, they cannot return to these youth only settings. Other placement settings, such as the relative placement setting, may be associated with lower rates of homelessness because youth have developed permanent connections with relatives and can return to them to avoid homelessness. In addition, because youth with higher needs are placed into RCC and Group home settings, it is impossible to determine causality between their placement into these two settings and a higher probability of becoming homeless.

Table 5: Rates of Homelessness by Last Placement Setting (2005-2013)

Placement Setting

Former foster youth Homeless Youth

Percentage of Former foster youth becoming Homeless

after exiting Correctional 2134 89 4.2% Foster 4374 183 4.2% Group Home 1602 99 6.2% Other 1095 54 4.9% RCC 1372 72 5.2% Relative 2393 59 2.5% Shelter 1661 67 4.0% Source: Authors

Date Proximity between Discharge and Homelessness The proximity between the date of discharge and the date a youth entered a shelter is important because if youth are entering homelessness right after discharge, this may warrant a different type of intervention than if the period of homelessness is delayed. Of the 626 youth in the dataset who experienced homelessness, 69 youth experienced it before the age of 18. The data shows that a large number of youth experience homelessness soon after exiting foster care. Of the 557 youth who were over the age of 18 when entering a shelter, the average number of years between discharge and first shelter entry is 1.5, with a median of 1. The average age of shelter entry among youth who were over the age of 18 when entering a shelter is 20.1. The trend of a short amount of time between discharge and shelter entry may appear more pronounced in our dataset because of limited variation in age among former foster youth. Younger youth have not experienced as many years out of foster care as the older youth. Put simply, a young person who aged out one year ago may still become

20

homeless in two years, but we do not know if that will occur at this point. It is also important to note that this analysis examines the risk of first becoming homelessness. The risk of ever experiencing homelessness is cumulative, i.e. it increases over time (Courtney et al 2009). Regression Analysis Table 6 incorporates many of the variables discussed above and combines them in a series of probit regression models to explain variation in homelessness among former foster youth. Multiple models were used to provide a transparent account of how the size and significance of variables change as additional variables are added. This is especially helpful in cases where key variables are correlated (as we discuss below). The models also follow a roughly chronological order of the youth’s entry into and exit from the foster care system. In addition to static demographic variables, we include relationship to alleged perpetrator in our second model. We then include variables that capture the aggregate number of placements within the foster care system, as well as measures of specific foster placements. Finally, we include data on the final reason for discharge from the foster care system. The sixth model was added to include a category for youth who aged out at their last discharge reason.

The effects of many of the variables tested may seem obvious. However, the type of analysis we perform has not been previously performed on this population and serves to confirm or refute the conventional wisdom about what leads to homelessness. Where possible, we point to prior relevant research related to the variables we test to give a sense of whether the results are consistent. Statistically, we also include as many potentially relevant variables as possible to avoid omitted variable bias. We discuss the results for each category of variables. In each of the six iterations of this probit regression model, the race of the youth is consistently a significant predictor of homelessness, indicating a positive correlation between homelessness following a foster care placement and being black. This factor may be driven, in part, by income disparities between races that our data does not allow us to directly model (Bee 2012). Gender is also correlated with homelessness, but not with the same statistical consistency as race. It is significant in Model 1, but then largely falls from significance when other variables are controlled for. The descriptive data shows that while females represent 43 percent of the foster youth in our sample, they represent 48 percent of that group that become homeless. It is important to note that being female is significantly correlated with a parent being a source of abuse (at .44), with the latter variable significantly correlated with homelessness (as noted below). Therefore, the loss of statistical significance for the gender factor in model 2 and subsequent models should not be assumed to suggest that gender does not matter; rather, that the relationship between gender and homelessness is mediated by other variables, most notably parental abuse. Of the variables in the “relationship to alleged perpetrator”, whether or not the perpetrator was a parent is consistently significant. This “parent” subgrouping includes biological parents

21

and stepparents. According to our models, a youth with a substantiated allegation in which the perpetrator was a parent had a higher correlation with the aged out population that experienced homelessness, holding all else constant. This result is further discussed below. The variable “total number of placements” is significantly associated with the risk of homelessness. This finding is consistent with literature on placement number and foster care outcomes which show that the greater number of placements per foster care episode, the worse housing outcomes for youth (Reilly 2003). This variable is no longer significant once we control for placement types (in models 4, 5, and 6), but this is largely because different placement types are themselves significantly correlated with the total number of placement types. While it is important to also keep track of the effect of specific placement types, the total number of placements provides a measure of instability that youths in the foster care system experience. We can infer that the greater the number of placements a youth has while in the foster care system, the greater the likelihood this individual will experience homelessness.11 A foster care youth was registered under the placement variables if that individual had ever had a placement in one of seven types of foster care settings. Six of the seven variables under the “placement type” grouping were significant in our model: foster care, group home, residential care center, shelter, correctional, and relative. The only foster care placemen type that was shown to be negatively correlated with homelessness was being placed with a relative. The other five12 significant placement settings display a positive correlation with homelessness. This result seems consistent with prior work that suggests that more restrictive foster care settings is associated with higher risk of adverse housing outcomes (Harris & Courtney 2003). However, apart from placement with relative, we are cautious about assigning a causal explanation to the effect of different placement types. Being able to reside with a relative and avoid another type of foster care reduces the risk of homelessness. However, it is not clear that for individuals who lack a relative with which to live, these individuals are better off not placed in foster care.

11 An alternative interpretation is that number of placement types may be an indicator of total time in foster care. An alternate version of the model also included a measure of placement time, and the total number of placement types remained significant. The two variables were highly correlated at .51, and so we dropped the placement time variable in the final model to reduce collinearity. 12 It is important to note that correctional placements are only significant in Model 6

22

Model 5 incorporates variables that reflect final discharge reason. Here, we found three reasons for discharging a foster care youth from the system were significant and had a negative correlation with homelessness for the former foster youth population: adoption, guardianship, and reunification. We also find that being transferred into an adult correctional facility is negatively correlated with homelessness just above the standard significance levels with a p-value of .108 in Model 5 and .102 in Model 6. After controlling for this variable we gain a better understanding of the population of youth that are placed in a correctional facility. Those who transfer into an adult facility or other state institution at their last discharge reason are less likely to become homeless. Future research could more closely investigate the factors behind the placement of foster youth into correctional placements, patterns of transfer into adult facilities, and the longer-run relationship between the experience of a correctional placement and homelessness. Such research would benefit from integrating available data from the Wisconsin corrections system.

Model 6 includes an additional discharge reason of aged out, which also serves as a reference category for Model 5. After controlling for this variable we find that it is positively correlated with homelessness and is statistically significant. However, when controlling for aged out youth in this model, we find that significance declines for guardianship and especially reunification as a discharge reason. This is due to a strong negative correlation between aged out youth and reunification with the youth’s parent or guardian.13 The populations of youth who age out of the system are those who are unlikely to have been reunified with family, be adopted, or experience guardianship. While the aged out variable swamps the effects of those other variables in statistical terms, it also points to the benefit for youth who have the opportunity to exit foster care system before they age out, either with their original family or a new family. Future research could also usefully analyze the ways in which the aged out population differs from other foster youth.

Table 6: Probability of Foster Care Youth becoming Homeless: Results of Probit Regression Analysis

Regression Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Demographics - - - - - -

Black .178***(.050) .179***(.050) .160**(.051) .134***(.041) .134***(.051) .137***(.041)

Female .137***(.041) .057(.049) .063(.049) .088+ (.050) .081 (.051) .082(.05)

Relationship to Perpetrator

- - - - - -

Friend .018(.051) -.007(.052) -.032(.052) -.026(.051) -.025(.051)

13 Aged out and reunification are correlated at -.50

23

Institutional Offender

.263**(.095) .136(.098) .089(.096) .094(.097) .092(.096)

Foster Parent .023(.065) -.048(.068) -.077(.067) -.089(.067) -.094(.067)

Parent .084**(.043) .084**(.043) .124**(.044) .126**(.044) .126**(.044)

Other Relationship

.120+ (.062) .090(.063) .041(.064) .031(.062) .034(.063)

Total # of Placements

.024***(.003) .005(.003) .001(.005) -.001(.005)

Placement Type

- - - - - -

Foster Care .116*(.045) .111+(.046) .101*(.046)

Group Home .144***(.044) .127**(.044) .123**(.045)

Residential Care Center

.214***(.047) .223***(.047) .227***(.048)

Correctional .051(.045) .072(.046) .083+ (.046)

Shelter .213***(.042) .208***(.042) .208***(.043)

Relative -.171***(.050) -.172***(.052) -.173***(.052)

Other Placement

-.048(.062) -.032(.064) -.038(.063)

Final Discharge Reason

- - - - - -

Living with Relative

-.072(.089) .002(.095)

Reunification -.161***(.046) -.069(.060)

Transfer .015(.117) -.081 (.120)

Transfer into Adult Facility

-.281(.175) -.286(.175)

Adoption -.412***(.122) -.299*(.131)

Guardianship -.201+ (.119) -.116(.125)

Other .068(.109) -

Aged Out - .154**(.064)

24

Constant -1.75***(.266) -1.79***(.264) -1.89***(.266) -2.08***(.045) -1.94***(.057) -2.03***(.070)

This table reflects coefficients with the standard error in parentheses. All models are run with n=14,534, n = number of former foster youth. Coefficients with a P value lower than .1 are designated by a +, a P value lower than .05 are designated by *, a P value lower than .01 are designated by a **, and a P value lower than .001 are designated by ***. County fixed effects are included but not reported. Discussion Overall, the results of our regression analysis provide preliminary evidence about what factors are associated with homelessness for the former foster youth population. To allow for a more intuitive understanding of the size of the relationship between the variables, Figure 4 outlines the predictive probabilities of becoming homeless for the most salient variables in our analysis. Figure 4: Predictive Probabilities of Homelessness for Former Foster Youth

Source: Authors †This figure reflects the predictive probabilities for homelessness for former foster youth. This estimated the percentage point change in the probability that an individual will be homeless, with all other variables being held to their mean scores.

To understand the relative size of these effects, it is useful to remember that the underlying risk of homelessness among the former foster youth population we studied was 4.3 percent. The results of this analysis show that black and female youth in the foster care system are more likely to have an experience with homelessness than their respective white and male counterparts. Blacks are 1 percentage point more likely to experience homelessness, which

25

translates to being about 23 percent more likely to enter into homelessness than others. This finding is consistent with previous studies that found that black youth have poorer outcomes following foster care. One study found that black youth have lower rates of adoption and reunification with their parents during their experience with foster care, leading to poorer support structures following a discharge from the system (Berzin, Rhodes, & Curtis 2011). Additionally, female youth are .4 percentage points more likely to experience homelessness; or about 9 percent more likely to enter homelessness after their experience with the foster care system. The total number of placements a youth has during the course of his involvement in the foster care system is a significant predictor of homelessness. Specifically, each additional placement increases the probability of becoming homeless by .15 percentage points or 3.4 percent more. Having access to familial resources is a consistent predictor of homelessness in our findings. Having a parent as an abuser increases the risk of homelessness by 1.3 percentage points. Both placement type and last discharge reason demonstrate the importance of access to familial resources in successfully transitioning out of the foster care system. This trend is evidenced by the consistent magnitude and significance of the coefficient on relative placement. Similarly, adoption and reunification as final discharge reasons are both significant and negatively correlated with homelessness following foster care. By looking at the marginal probabilities for the permanency outcomes of adoption and reunification, we find that former foster youth who were adopted at their last discharge from the foster system are six percentage points less likely to experience homelessness, or 140 percent less likely to become homeless than former foster youth who were not adopted.14 Additionally, we find that youth who were reunified with their family are 1 percentage point or approximately 23 percent less likely, than former foster youth who were not reunified. These results show that individuals who are able to remain connected with their parents or a relative while in and out of the foster care system tend to transition more successfully to life outside of the foster care system. Individuals who lack connections to family while in the foster care system and after being discharged have lower access to the resources and support a family provides. Later in the report, we examine promising practices to reduce the risk of homelessness. A key lesson from our data analysis is the importance of a social network of caring adults, which will be discussed in the Permanent Connections section. Promising Best Practices in Transition Planning In addition to an analysis of Wisconsin’s former foster youth population, DCF requested a

14 When computing the predictive probabilities, all other variables were set to their means. This allowed for the effect size to exceed 100 percent.

26

review of national research for best practices in transition planning for older youth aging out of foster care. The final section addresses this question, with Table 7 offering a summary of our findings. Since states are granted discretion in determining use of Chafee Independent Living funds, we discovered a range of potential programs that could successfully support former foster youth as they transition to adulthood. However, evaluations of whether individual programs have led to improved outcomes for former foster youth were limited. In lieu of evidence-based best practices, we provide a summary of innovative programs in other states in the outcome areas that DCF was interested in: permanent connections; housing; training and employment; and education. We prioritized attention to permanent connections and housing since these outcomes are most relevant to our analysis.

Table 7: Innovative State Programs Overview

Outcome Area City/State Description Permanent Connections

New York City Administration for Children Services (ACS)

Trains frontline staff to assist foster care youth in building permanent connections.

California Created state legislation mandating state child welfare agencies to help foster youth develop social networks.

Housing Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New York

Child welfare agencies partner with housing authorities to provide Section 8 housing vouchers for former foster care youth.

Illinois Provides direct financial assistance and housing counseling to former foster care youth.

Colorado Created a statewide office of Homeless Youth Services to support the housing needs of former foster care youth.

Employment and Training

California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Texas

Partners with Annie E. Casey School to Career to connect former foster care youth with employers.

Florida Connects former foster care youth directly with employers.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, South Carolina

Contracts out to nonprofits for job readiness and training programs.

Education Pennsylvania Delineates policies and procedures to help ensure the educational stability of homeless and foster children.

North Carolina Provides youth with scholarships and personal training to support post-secondary educational attainment.

Connecticut Partners with community colleges to enhance services for foster youth.

Source: Authors.

27

Permanent Connections Most young adults who are raised by their birth families are able to maintain long lasting relationships and build social networks. However, youth who have gone through the foster care system have fewer opportunities to build social networks with caring adults, and may have entered the foster system in the first place because of problems with their existing family. This is a substantial problem because these social networks provide a number of important functions as youth transition into adulthood, such as: providing emotional support; offering guidance on employment, education, and relationship issues; and providing assistance during times of emergency (Oldmixon 2007). A lack of social networks with caring adults hinders a foster youth’s ability to successfully transition into adulthood and become self-sufficient. Many of the significant variables in our regression analysis (parental abuse, relative foster placement, and discharge into adoption, reunification and guardianship) reflect the important on such connections. To help foster youth successfully transition into adulthood, state and local governments are taking steps to help foster kids build and maintain stable, long lasting, and meaningful relationships with caring adults. One of these local governments is New York City. Outside of child protective investigations, the New York City Administration for Children Services (ACS) contracts out the majority of its child welfare services to nonprofit service providers. On July 1, 2003, the ACS began to require that all frontline staff be trained to help foster youth connect to family members or other caring adults before they leave the foster care system (Bell 2003). The purpose of connecting youth to their family members or other caring adults is to build lifelong relationships with an adult who can function in a parental capacity (Oldmixon 2007). The ACS provides frontline social workers with specific steps to identify and nurture permanent connections for foster youth (Bell 2003). Permanent connections can be made through adoption, family reunification, and other forms of mentorship. The first step is for all participants in the foster care system who are associated with the foster youth -- such as ACS child protective staff, child evaluation specialists, foster care caseworkers, and social workers -- to work with the youth and attempt to identify responsible and caring adults with whom the youth trusts and would like to establish a permanent connection. A list of potential responsible caring adults is provided by the ACS and includes, but is not limited to: parents, extended family members, current/former foster parents, current/former neighbors, parents/foster parents of siblings and close friends, agency staff, teachers, coaches, and mentors (Bell 2003). Some youth may be reluctant to share with social work staff, so the ACS suggests incorporating permanency and relationship building into daily activities and using independent living workshops and activities as a means of soliciting information from the youth.

Once a connection is made, the ACS requires that social workers take steps to involve the caring, committed adult in team conferences aimed at planning the youth’s future and

28

discharge from the foster system (Bell 2003). If a social connection to a caring, responsible adult is not possible for a youth, the ACS requires the social worker to identify other permanency leads (Bell 2003). The two steps that the ACS recommends are to make referrals to specialized adoption recruitment agencies or make arrangements with ACS’ Parent Recruitment and Expedited Permanency Unit. In the end, the ACS hopes these steps will ensure that every foster youth in New York will have a permanent connection to a caring, responsible adult during and after their time in foster care (Golonka 2010). California has a policy similar to the one in New York City. In 2003, California implemented a law (2003 Cal. Stats., AB 408, Chap. 813) that requires state child welfare agencies to encourage frontline staff to develop approaches that ensure that no child leaves foster care without a lifelong connection to a caring, committed adult (Oldmixon 2007). The legislation required the court to determine whether the child welfare agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain relationships with individuals who are important to every child in foster care who is ten years or older (Golonka 2010). Similar to the ACS policy, social workers and other frontline staff must make efforts to identify those individuals and to make efforts to maintain those relationships. Overall, this law aims to ensure that youth in foster care are connected to a social network when they leave foster care (Golonka 2010.

Housing The current level of housing-related support that Wisconsin provides to youth aging out of foster care is limited. In 2012, only four percent of Chafee funds went directly to room and board assistance (DCF 2014). This small amount generally supports down payments on security deposits, household furnishings, or short-term rental assistance. As currently structured, Chafee program fund use in Wisconsin does not support the housing needs of former foster care youth. Research indicates that stable housing is key to establishing stability in other areas, such as employment, social services, education, and access to health care (Berzin, Rhodes, & Curtis 2011). Regular employment and stable housing go hand-in-hand, with the absence of one making it difficult to gain access to the other. For this reason, many programs nationwide are dedicated to helping former foster youth save money and gain access to affordable housing. Among these, the two main ways are rental vouchers and direct placement of youth into safe and stable housing. Foster youth who have aged out of the system are eligible for rental vouchers through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD. HUD Section 8 rental assistance is available to any family who has been separated or could be separated due to a lack of housing, and in some states, former foster youth have been prioritized in receiving these vouchers. These states include Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New York (NGA 2010). However, since federal rent subsidies are limited, states often have to step in and help connect state and local housing organizations and community centers. Illinois and Michigan have successfully adopted this model. In 2009, the Michigan State Housing Development

29

Authority provided funds to homeless youth projects in the state that helped provide housing to former foster youth. The connection between the Michigan Housing Authority and smaller organizations makes it easier to connect housing opportunities with youth. The Illinois Youth Housing Assistance Program uses federal Chafee money for transitional services for former foster youth. This includes direct assistance, financial training and counseling, and help in securing affordable housing. Colorado has formed a similar program with their Office of Homeless Youth Services, a state office that has prioritized former foster youth, and helps with transitional housing and making services more efficient (NGA 2010). An Urban Institute analysis of Chafee-funded housing programs indicates that although few programs exist, housing programs that target specific populations, such as pregnant and parenting youth, and youth with criminal justice involvement, can effectively support the transition to adulthood (Pergamit 2012). One promising model for promoting housing stability among at-risk populations is “Housing First.” Adopted from the homelessness field, this recent innovation is premised on the idea of providing individuals and families with permanent and stable housing first, as a means for securing other services (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2014). As DCF considers options for restructuring Chafee services, higher priority should be given to programs that promote housing stability among aged out youth.

Training and Employment Opportunities Employment and career training are an important aspect of a successful transition to life outside of the foster system. According to the Midwest Study of the Adult Function of former foster youth, most of those surveyed wished they had some sort of training for independent living after foster care, including job training skills (Courtney 2014). Only 10 percent of those surveyed were currently receiving job training, and another quarter had prior job training (Courtney 2014). However, of those surveyed, a full half had gained employment from their training. A number of state and interstate programs are dedicated to employment training for aging-out foster youth, typically in partnership with foundations and private employers. One of the largest successes is the Annie E. Casey School-to-Career Partnerships program. This program, which operates in cities in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island and Texas, partners with employers in those cities and gives foster youth the opportunity to learn hands-on jobs skills. Upon program completion, there is a chance for potential full-time and benefited employment, with as high as 44 percent of program participants receiving full-time employment after high school (NGA 2010). Individual state programs have garnered attention in Florida and South Carolina. In Florida, as part of its Operation Full Employment Initiative, its Department of Children and Families hired 100 former foster youth and encouraged businesses in the state to do the same. Florida also partnered with Panera restaurants to hire former foster youth. In South Carolina, the state’s Department of Children and Families partnered with the Columbia Urban League to

30

offer training and employment programs similar to the School-to-Career partnerships mentioned above (NGA 2010). Both Connecticut and Massachusetts have begun similar partnerships between state One-Stop Career Centers and local Workforce Investment Boards, as a way to connect youth to existing employment opportunities. Connecticut has also partnered its Department of Children and Families with local Work Learn Programs that teach basic job skills for future potential employment (NGA 2010). Wisconsin businesses and non-profit organizations, along with state government, have similar programs in operation, with room for improvement, especially at the state level. In Madison, the Goodman Community Center’s TEENworks program helps train high school and general equivalency students in basic job skills in culinary arts, early childhood education, and maintenance and grounds. The program simultaneously counts toward high school credit and pays the students for their work. Statewide, the Wisconsin Fresh Start program uses contractor services to help place foster youth and high school dropouts in employment training programs and actual employment. Both of these programs receive state funds for their maintenance. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin Communities Services provides employment services for youth employment and skill enhancement, and employment search assistance. As DCF shifts to a contracted service model for Chafee service delivery, it should considering working with these organizations. One important aspect of employment training that often gets less attention is the skill to keep a bank account and save money. As former foster youth often have no outside support once they leave the system, it can be difficult to build credit for rental housing and save extra money. Using Chafee funds, eleven states have initiated Opportunity Passport Programs. Using Individual Development Accounts (savings accounts), youth open a personal banking account, participate in financial literacy training, and receive matching funds for any savings deposits. According to the National Governor’s Association, over 3,000 youth had participated as of 2008, with $3.1 million invested in savings and approved assets, including cars and homes (NGA 2010). Overall, it has been shown that basic skills training, connection to employment opportunities, and a financial head start can help youth successfully transition from the foster system to be employed and productive members of society. A national evaluation of Chafee services indicated that employment and training skills that trained youth to search for jobs, budget money, and build their credit history were particularly effective (Cook 1991). These are easily replicable programs, and federal funds may be available to help states bear the financial burden of operating them. Many employers are willing to help youth learn employable skills and state workforce development departments make these connections possible (DCF 2013).

Education The Northwest study found that one-third of foster youth experienced 10 or more school changes from elementary through high school due to new housing placements (Pecora 2005).

31

On average, it takes a child four to six months to recover academically after each school change (Golonka 2010). Therefore, poor educational outcomes of foster youth can be partially explained by their school instability. Further, one study found that regardless of whether or not youth received Independent Living skills training, high school completion led to better outcomes (Cook 1991). To ensure that foster youth have better educational placements, states have begun to implement policies that aim to minimize school year disruptions. To minimize school year distributions, the Pennsylvania Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) clearly lays out guidelines for county children and youth agencies to follow. The OCYF has clearly delineated policies and procedures regarding educational stability for homeless and foster children in Bulletin 3130-08-01. This bulletin lists and describes the laws governing school placements of homeless and foster youth, who is considered a homeless or foster youth, and when it is acceptable to disrupt the school day. When making decisions on where the child should live, the bulletin recommends that social workers consider some factors such as school location and family/social networks the foster youth may have (OCYF 2008). In addition, the bulletin describes policies and procedures related to the timely handling of case records, providing children and youth with disabilities with educational decision-makers, and having a central point of contact for education (OCYF 2008). In sum, the purpose of the bulletin is to ensure that each social worker is aware that the goal of the agency is to minimize the number of times a foster youth is placed in a new school and ensure that every foster youth has a proper educational experience that will contribute to a better life outcome. It is estimated that just seven to 13 percent of youth from foster care enroll in higher education (Bassett and Emerson 2008). Researchers found that one of the barriers to higher education for foster youth is the cost because these youth are more likely to live at or below the poverty level and lack the financial support of parental figures (Bassett and Emerson 2008). Thus, one way to increase the number of foster youth who pursue higher education is to waive tuition for and/or offer scholarships to foster youth who attend higher education institutions. In 2007, North Carolina implemented an innovative scholarship program for foster youth called the North Carolina Postsecondary Education Support Scholarship program (NC Reach). In general, NC Reach is a state-funded scholarship offered to qualified applicants for up to 4 years of undergraduate study at NC public colleges and universities. Foster youth are eligible to receive a scholarship if they meet four conditions (NC Reach 2014): be a legal resident of North Carolina; have been adopted from North Carolina Division of Social Services (DSS) foster care after the age of 12, OR, aged out of North Carolina foster system at age 18; enrolled in one of the 74 North Carolina public community colleges, colleges, or universities; and be under the age of 26. NC Reach funds are sent by the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority directly to the school financial aid office. The funds that the former foster youth receive cover all

32

college expenses, including tuition and fees, off and on-campus housing, on-campus meal plans, books and school supplies, associated living expenses, transportation to and from school, and childcare. In addition, youth may be eligible to receive aid from the federal government such as Pell grants and Federal Education and Training Vouchers (NC Reach 2014). NC Reach has a built-in accountability system to keep students on track and/or discontinue funding to foster youth who fail to make progress toward a degree or certificate. To continue to receive school funding, students are responsible for making satisfactory progress toward their academic goal by having the higher education institution communicate regularly with NC Reach on the student’s progress (NC Reach 2014). In addition, the foster youth must submit new NC Reach forms each term (semester/quarter) in order to receive funding the following term and update their application every time their personal information changes (NC Reach 2014). North Carolina does not allow former foster youth to retake courses in which they failed or from which they withdrew. Also, when students fall below 6 credits in a semester and/or fail to achieve at least a 2.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale, the student is required to participate in the Academic Success Program. If the student does not raise his term GPA above 2.0 the following term, he stops receiving NC Reach funding for one full year (NC Reach 2014). Waived tuition and scholarships do not necessarily ensure that foster youth are successful in higher education. To help guide foster youth and help them succeed, states and higher education institutions are creating and implementing a number of innovative policies. For instance, in addition to offering scholarships, North Carolina matches foster youth with a NC Reach coordinator who assists with academic and personal development. Additionally, volunteer coaches are trained to encourage the progress of foster youth in school through telephone calls, email and social media. Lastly, every student is given the opportunity to participate in workshops that strengthen academic abilities, financial skills, and career readiness (NC Reach 2014). Another option states have to increase the number of foster youth in higher education and improve their educational outcomes is to communicate openly, exchange information, and partner with higher education institutions. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families formed the Post-Secondary Education Committee, a network of 13 different community colleges across the state that ensure that students in foster care have the opportunity to access and succeed in higher education (Connecticut DCF 2014). The Connecticut DCF employs Post-Secondary Education Committee consultants who assist partner schools with enhancing services for youth in the foster care system. Some of these programs include individualized orientation, outreach and information sessions, campus support groups, year-round housing, peer mentoring programs, and problem resolution programs (CT DCF 2014). One of the community colleges that the Connecticut DCF partners with is Housatonic

33

Community College which has a specialized program that identifies students from foster care and directs them to the programs most suited to help their transition from high school to college (Bassett and Emerson 2010). The programs build academic skills and prepare the foster youth for college during the summer. The college typically schedules these programs during the summer so to not interrupt foster youths’ regular schooling. Other states with similar programs also allow foster youth who attend and complete these courses to earn high school and/or college credit. In addition to offering preparatory courses, Housatonic Community College assigns a staff member as a “designated lead” to each identified foster youth (Bassett and Emerson 2010). In general, designated leads coordinate college support services for students from foster care, including providing outreach services, informing youth from foster care about access to higher education, and providing academic guidance and advice through the application, admission, financial aid and registration process (Bassett and Emerson 2010). Moreover, Housatonic Community College also provides services such as assistance with textbook purchasing, time management and organizational skills instruction, academic tracking to monitor and remediate poor performance, and career counseling and employment support services (Bassett and Emerson 2010). Both the North Carolina and Connecticut programs demonstrate a recognition that helping foster youth through education is not just about opportunity, but also about providing personal help to navigate the process. This reflects the fact that these students do not have the typical social networks that provides such mentoring. DCF is well-positioned to improve the educational outcomes of former foster care youth. The Connecticut DCF-community college model could be utilized in Wisconsin’s network of 16 technical colleges and 13 University of Wisconsin-administered two-year colleges. DCF could also consider partnering with University of Wisconsin-Extension—a statewide network that partners with 26 University of Wisconsin system campuses, 72 counties, three tribal governments, and a variety of public and private partners—whose goal is to provide opportunities for “extending the university’s boundaries to the corner of the state” (University of Wisconsin Extension, 2012). These technical and entry level colleges and educational networks in Wisconsin provide an excellent platform to help foster youth transition into and succeed in higher education through enrollment in higher education and in skills development. Therefore, the Wisconsin DCF should consider a program that allows them to communicate openly, exchange information, and partner with higher education institutions to provide specialized services to foster youth. Recommendations The three recommendations below are based on our data-driven analysis and survey of state programs. These recommendations are not exhaustive; rather, they serve as a launching point for future conversations. 1) Foster Permanent Connections

34

Our findings point to the role of familial connections in preventing homelessness among foster care youth after their final discharge from the foster care system via adoption, reunification with family, or guardianship. Placement with a relative also reduced the risk of homelessness for former Wisconsin foster youth, a finding supported by existing literature on foster care placements and housing outcomes.

We recommend an emphasis on fostering permanent connections with relatives, including adoption or guardianship into the homes of relatives. We recommend that DCF look beyond the immediate arrangement of relatives and try to connect youth with a broader network of adult relatives. The New York City Administration for Child Services has begun training its frontline caseworkers to facilitate connections between children and family members before the youth leaves the foster care system. This type of training is further supported by the literature that caseworker engagement improves adoption, guardianship, and reunification outcomes (Connell et. al. 2006). This commitment to permanent connections could help promote the creation of support structures that youth rely on when transitioning out of the foster care system.

2) Prioritize Housing Programs

We also recommend the creation of a pilot voucher program through county-based housing agencies to facilitate transitional housing for foster care youth. Not only should this voucher program include assistance or vouchers for youth to cover security deposits and initial rent costs, but it should also include a long-term financial assistance plan. Further research on the income status of the former foster youth population is crucial for understanding how to structure these programs. Additionally, DCF should consider restructuring the implementation of Chafee-funded housing services, prioritizing youth exiting the foster care system with low personal income and few family connections. Again, more research on the income of these youth is needed to determine which youth receive these priority services. 3) Examine Education and Workforce Training Programs

We recommend greater examination of the effectiveness of education and workforce training programs that could be implemented in Wisconsin. Because the administrative data from DCF and DOA did not include socioeconomic factors such as education and parental income, we cannot provide data-driven recommendations related to these issues. However, given the research of state programs elsewhere in the nation, it is plausible that Wisconsin foster care youth could benefit from tailored interventions providing greater access to post-secondary education and vocational training. Wisconsin might consider a model similar to Connecticut’s Post-Secondary Education Committee, which assisted former foster care youth in accessing higher education. Such a program could exploit Wisconsin’s extensive network of community colleges that feature workforce training programs. The Connecticut DCF collaborates with 13 community colleges across the state to provide education programs that include orientation, outreach, campus support groups, year-round housing, peer mentoring, and problem resolution groups. These programs not only connect youth with education and vocational training, but provide long-term educational supports to youth. We recommend that DCF examine the feasibility of establishing a network of participatory institutions of

35

higher education across the state to provide post-secondary education and vocational training to foster care youth. Conclusion Foster care youth in Wisconsin face a unique set of challenges. This report examined data and transition planning programs around the nation to inform DCF’s strategy for improving the outcomes of foster care youth. As DCF seeks out innovative interventions, DCF should review other state programs that promote permanent connections, housing stability, education, and vocational training. While these recommendations cover a wide range of issues relating to the foster care community, we believe that a multi-faceted approach to the issue of homelessness in former foster youth is a necessity. The creation of a unified database with foster youth and homeless data also provides additional research opportunities for deeper analysis. For example, additional analysis of the aged out youth category would be desirable. It is also possible to expand this database by incorporating data from other state sources if possible, including educational attainment data, and incarceration records. This data could shed light on other factors correlated with adverse outcomes. Finally, surveys of former foster youth could act as a useful complement to the analysis of administrative data studied here.

36

Appendix 1: Foster Children in Wisconsin’s Counties (2005-2013)

County

Total County

Population

Number of Foster

Children Discharged

Number of Former Foster

Youth from this County

who Became Homeless

Homeless Placement

Percentage of Discharged

Foster Children who Experienced

Homelessness

Adams County 20,875 70 3 2 4.30%

Ashland County 16,157 67 3 0 4.50%

Barron County 45,870 150 2 4 1.30%

Bayfield County 15,014 51 0 2 0.00%

Brown County 248,007 426 34 46 8.00%

Buffalo County 13,587 31 1 0 3.20%

Burnett County 15,457 43 0 0 0.00%

Calumet County 48,971 41 3 0 7.30%

Chippewa County 62,415 121 5 5 4.10%

Clark County 34,690 76 2 0 2.60%

Columbia County 56,833 152 5 2 3.30%

Crawford County 16,644 30 4 1 13.30%

Dane County 488,073 1,348 79 91 5.90%

Dodge County 88,759 144 5 4 3.50%

Door County 27,785 45 2 0 4.40%

Douglas County 44,159 83 3 5 3.60%

Dunn County 43,857 119 6 11 5.00%

Eau Claire County 98,736 291 15 4 5.20%

Florence County 4,423 29 0 0 0.00%

Fond du Lac County 101,633 223 10 11 4.50%

37

Forest County 9,304 43 1 2 2.30%

Grant County 51,208 81 0 0 0.00%

Green County 36,842 96 3 0 3.10%

Green Lake County 19,051 36 1 2 2.80%

Iowa County 23,687 40 0 1 0.00%

Iron County 5,916 17 0 0 0.00%

Jackson County 20,449 82 4 0 4.90%

Jefferson County 83,686 203 5 0 2.50%

Juneau County 26,664 53 2 0 3.80%

Kenosha County 166,426 686 17 15 2.50%

Kewaunee County 20,574 33 0 0 0.00%

La Crosse County 114,638 223 17 36 7.60%

Lafayette County 16,836 42 0 0 0.00%

Langlade County 19,977 56 5 0 8.90%

Lincoln County 28,743 29 0 0 0.00%

Manitowoc County 81,442 138 7 9 5.10%

Marathon County 134,063 406 23 29 5.70%

Marinette County 41,749 115 4 4 3.50%

Marquette County 15,404 39 2 0 5.10%

Menominee County 4,232 43 6 10 14.00%

Milwaukee County 947,735 3,296 148 138 4.50%

Monroe County 44,673 163 4 3 2.50%

Oconto County 37,660 96 2 0 2.10%

Oneida County 35,998 90 6 7 6.70%

Outagamie 176,695 195 10 42 5.10%

38

County

Ozaukee County 86,395 111 1 0 0.90%

Pepin County 7,469 13 0 0 0.00%

Pierce County 41,019 39 2 0 5.10%

Polk County 44,205 135 6 7 4.40%

Portage County 70,019 133 9 16 6.80%

Price County 14,159 83 1 0 1.20%

Racine County 195,408 538 21 21 3.90%

Richland County 18,021 44 2 0 4.50%

Rock County 160,331 521 16 21 3.10%

Rusk County 14,755 57 1 1 1.80%

Saint Croix County 84,345 78 3 2 3.80%

Sauk County 61,976 149 6 0 4.00%

Sawyer County 16,557 76 0 0 0.00%

Shawano County 41,949 35 4 0 11.40%

Sheboygan County 115,507 378 14 16 3.70%

Taylor County 20,689 47 0 0 0.00%

Trempealeau County 28,816 53 1 4 1.90%

Vernon County 29,773 57 4 1 7.00%

Vilas County 21,430 83 1 0 1.20%

Walworth County 102,228 154 3 3 1.90%

Washburn County 15,911 58 2 0 3.40%

Washington County 131,887 244 12 9 4.90%

Waukesha County 389,891 283 17 26 6.00%

Waupaca County 52,410 102 4 0 3.90%

39

Waushara County 24,496 34 2 0 5.90%

Winnebago County 166,994 650 24 4 3.70%

Wood County 74,749 228 12 3 5.30%

40

References

Bassett, Lee and John Emerson. 2008. “Supporting Success: Improving Higher Education Outcomes for Students from Foster Care.” Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/SupportingSuccess.htm. Bassett, Lee and John Emersion. 2010. “Supporting Success: Improving Higher Education Outcomes for Students from Foster Care Version 2.0.” Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/SupportingSuccess.htm. Batiaanssen, Inge, Marc Delsing, Gert Kroes, Rutger Engels, and Jan Veerman. 2014. “Group Care Worker Interventions and Child Problem Behavior in Residential Youth Care: Course and Bidirectional Associations.” Children and Youth Services Review 39(1), 48-56. Becker, Marion, Jordan Neil, and Rebecca Larsen. 2007. “Predictors of Successful Permanency

Planning and Length of Stay in Foster Care: The Role of Race, Diagnosis and Place of Residence.” Children and Youth Services Review, 29(8), 1102−1113.

Bee, Adam. 2012. "Household income inequality within US counties: 2006–2010." Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Berzin, Stephanie, Alison Rhodes, and Marah Curtis. 2011. “Housing Experiences of Aged

out Youth: How do They Fare in Comparison to Other Youth.” National Association of Counties. Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/YouthAgingoutofFoster.pdf.

Bell, William. 2003. “Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Part V: Family-Based Concurrent Planning for Youth with Goals of Independent Living.” Memorandum. Accessed March 24, 2014. www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloads/pdf/asfa_5.pdf . Connecticut Department of Children and Families. 2014. “Adolescent and Juvenile Services.” Last Modified March 19, 2014. http://www.ct.gov/dcf/cwp/view.asp?a=2562&q=314306. Connell, C. M., Katz, K. H., Saunders, L., & Tebes, J. K. 2006. “Leaving Foster Care—The Influence of Child and Case Characteristics on Foster Care Exit Rates.” Children and Youth Services Review, 28(7), 780−798. Courtney, Mark, Amy Dworsky, JoAnn Lee, and Melissa Raap. 2010. “Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former foster youth: Outcomes at Ages 23 and 24.” Chapin Hall. Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/midwest-evaluation- adult-functioning-former-foster-youth Courtney, Mark and Yin-Ling Wong. 1996. “Comparing the Timing of Exits From Substitute Care.”

Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4–5), 307– 334. Department of Administration. 2012. “The State of Homelessness in Wisconsin.” Accessed March 16, 2014. http://wiscap.org/wiscap/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/State-of-Homelessness-Annual- Report-2012.pdf. Dworsky, Amy. 2012. “Predictors of Homelessness during the Transition from Foster Care to Adulthood.” Chapin Hall. Accessed February 16, 2014. http://www.chapinhall.org/research/inside/predictors-homelessness-during-transition-foster- care-adulthood.

41

Golonka, Susan. 2010. “The Transition to Adulthood: How States Can Support Older Youth in Foster Care.” Washington D.C. National Governors Association. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-ehsw- publications/col2-content/main-content-list/the-transition-to-adulthood-how.html. Guo, S., & Wells, K. 2003. “Research on the Timing of Foster Care Outcomes: One Methodological Problem and Approaches to its Solution.” The Social Service Review, 77 (11), 1−24. Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. 2003. “The Interaction of Race, Ethnicity, and Family Structure with

Respect to the Timing of Family Reunification.” Children and Youth Services Review, 25(6), 409– 429.

Kemp, S. P., & Bodonyi, J. M. 2000. “Infants Who Stay in Foster Care: Child characteristics &

Permanency Outcomes of Legally Free Children Placed as Infants.” Child and Family Social Work, 5(1), 95−106.

Koh, E., & Testa, M. F. 2008. “Propensity Score Matching of Children in Kin and Non-kin

Foster Care: Do Permanency Outcomes Still Differ?” Social Work Research, 32 (1), 105−116. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2013. “The State of Homelessness in America

2013.” Accessed March 24, 2014. http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/bb34a7e4cd84ee985c_3vm6r7cjh.pdf. North Carolina Reach. 2014. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Last Modified March 2014.

http://www.ncreach.org/faq/ Oldmixon, Sarah. 2007. “State Policies to Help Youth Transition Out of Foster Care.”

Washington D.C. National Governors Association. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-ehsw-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/state-policies-to-help-youth-tra.html.

Pecora, Peter, Ronald Kessler, Jason Williams, Kirk O'Brien, A. Chris Downs, Diana

English, James White, Eva Hiripi, Catherine Roller White, Tamera Wiggins, and Kate Holmes. 2005. “Improving Family Foster Care: Findings From the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study.” Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/ImprovingFamilyFosterCare.htm

Office of Children, Youth, and Families, Pennsylvania . 2008. “Educational

Stability and Continuity for Children in Substitute Care.” Bulletin 3130-08-01. Accessed March 24, 2014. http://www.pccyfs.org/dpw_ocyfs/ocyf_bulletin_3130-0801_educational_stability.pdf.

Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. 2013. "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2012." Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ Reilly, Thorn. 2003. "Transition From Care: Status and Outcomes of Youth Who Age Out of Foster Care." Child welfare 82(6), 727-46. Rishel, Carrie W., Morris, Tracy L., Colyer, Corey., Gurley-Calvez, Tami. 2013.

“Preventing the Residential Placement of Young Children: A Multidisciplinary Investigation of Challenges and Opportunities in a Rural State.” Children and Youth Services Review, 37(1) 9-16.

42

Romney, S. C., Litrownik, A. J., Newton, R. R., & Lau, A. 2005. “The Relationship Between

Child Disability and Living Arrangement in Child Welfare.” Child Welfare, 85(6), 965−984. Smithgall, C., Gladden, R. M., Yang, D. H., & George, R. 2005. “Behavioral Problems and

Educational Disruptions Among Children in Out-of-Home Care in Chicago.” Chicago, IL. Chapin Hall. Schwartz, Seth, James Cote, and Jeffrey Jensen. 2005. “Identity and Agency in Emerging Adulthood: Two Developmental Routes in the Individualization Process.” Youth and Society, 37(2). 201-229. U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey. 2010. “American Community Survey 1-

Year Estimates.” Accessed March 23, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml