NCJ Number
195733
Date Published
November 1999
Length
163 pages
Annotation
Based on a review and analysis of 10 years of final reports submitted by all States to the Federal Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), this report presents a national profile of the youth served during the first decade of the Federal Independent Living Program (fiscal years 1987-96), which supports State child welfare agencies in providing services that help youth age 16 and older build the skills needed to achieve self-sufficiency after leaving foster care.
Abstract
The report describes the array of services provided by the Independent Living Program (ILP) and highlights trends and service approaches in the areas of educational and vocational training, employment, budgeting, housing, mental health, health care, and youth involvement. Program achievements are documented, and recommendations for continued improvement are offered. The study found that approximately 67,600 youth were served in fiscal year 1996, more than two and one-half times as many as were served in fiscal year 1989. Many of the youth eligible for services over the decade apparently did not receive ILP services. In 30 States that reported such data in fiscal year 1996, more than one-third (37 percent) of the total youth eligible for services did not receive them. Approximately one-third of youth served were 16 years old, and one-third were 17 years old; 22 percent were 18 years old, and the remaining youth were either 19 years old or 20 and older. Slightly more than half of the youths served were females. White youth composed the highest percentage of those served (50 percent), followed by African-American youth (38 percent), and Hispanic youth (9 percent); Asian youth and Native American youth each represented approximately 1 percent of the youth served. Half of the youth served were in care less than 2 years. Over time, States provided a wide range of services to youth that addressed education and vocational support, career planning and employment services, housing and home management, budgeting, health care, mental health and well-being support services, and youth involvement. In later years, more States offered services in every service category examined. Outcome data were problematic due to inconsistencies in definitions, differing time periods measured, and difficulties in tracking youth after they exited from care. Several supplementary State ILP outcome studies suggest that after exiting care, many youth had difficulties completing education goals, maintaining jobs, achieving financial self-sufficiency, paying for housing expenses, and accessing health care. Recommendations are offered for improving ILP data in reporting, improving data on program effectiveness and outcomes for youth, facilitating expanding services, promoting independent living as a continuous process, promoting experiential learning in supervised environments, addressing the needs of special populations, engaging youth in helping to shape ILP activities, promoting increased collaboration, enhancing training activities, helping resolve transportation issues, and facilitating information sharing. 10 references and appended data and data collection instrument