Introduction
Research Questions
- What are the key components and strategies of employment programs?
- How do those components and strategies relate to a developmental asset framework?
- What are key considerations for future research, development, and implementation of employment programs?
Paid employment is a common experience in the transition to adulthood. It is also a key path for developing financial independence and relational skills. Research shows that young people with histories of child welfare involvement work less often and earn lower wages during the transition to adulthood than their peers without this experience (Courtney et al. 2001; Dworsky 2005; Goerge et al. 2002; Hook and Courtney 2011). However, little is known about whether programs that aim to improve employment outcomes for young people with histories of child welfare system involvement are actually improving employment outcomes.
A key finding from the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs is that many programs serving Chafee-eligible young people[1] are not ready for rigorous evaluation because they lack a clearly articulated logic model or are not implemented as intended (Courtney et al. 2011). [2] To address some challenges to rigorous impact evaluations of programs, we conducted formative evaluations for two employment programs—MY TIME in Chicago, Illinois, and iFoster Jobs in Los Angeles, California. Each program had a model of potential national interest and served enough young people so they might be well-suited for future rigorous impact studies. These programs differed in their employment-related goals and the young people they served, and thus served different roles in their participants’ development (Lansing et al. 2021). Together, these formative evaluations highlight the importance of building a better understanding of the variations in programs serving young people with histories of child welfare system involvement. This study aims to expand our understanding of what these variations in employment programs are and how they bolster different developmental assets for young people.
[1] In 1999, the Foster Care Independence Act amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to create the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (the Chafee program), the primary source of federal funding for services to support young people in foster care during their transition to adulthood. The Family First Prevention Services Act renamed the program in 2018; it is now the Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood. In 2008, a provision in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act gave states an option to extend eligibility for Title IV-E foster care for young people ages 18 to 21. In states that chose to extend care to age 21, employment is one of the eligibility criteria for young people to remain in care after age 18: by working at least 80 hours a month or participating in a program that prepares them for employment. Other criteria to remain in care after age 18 include working toward a secondary degree or the equivalent, being enrolled in a postsecondary institution or vocational education program, participating in a program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to employment, or being incapable of fulfilling any of the criteria because of a medical condition.
[2] The Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs included rigorous impact of evaluations of four programs serving young people transitioning out of foster care.
Purpose
This study is not meant to represent the full range of employment programs. Rather it points to key considerations for future research, development, and implementation of employment programs, addressing a gap in understanding about the variation in employment programs and highlighting some important policy and practice implications about these programs. This brief describes three employment programs’ key components and strategies and presents visualized snapshots that distill the components and strategies into a developmental asset framework.[3] These high-level program snapshots show not only how their components and strategies relate to different developmental assets, but also highlight how they relate to program goals considering the population served, program funding, and location. This brief also includes our approach to developing a typology. We classify each of these programs using our typology and end with considerations for the fields of research, policy, program development, and implementation.
[3] In this study, we used the developmental assets from McDaniels and colleagues (2014). Additional research exploring these and more developmental assets is warranted.
Key Findings and Highlights
Through our analysis of the three programs included in our virtual site visits, as well as our prior formative evaluation work with iFoster Jobs and MY TIME, we developed a clearer understanding of the roles that a program’s forms (or setting) and functions play in how employment programs serve young people at different stages in their transition to adulthood. For example, a residential program can take the form of a youth housing program and provide a career exploration function by providing training in a particular field such a culinary or pet grooming. Or, a different residential program may focus on connecting participants to early work experiences and help participants begin to manage household budgets without a direct focus on a specific career pathway.
If we are to learn about whether employment programs are effective, it is important to understand how the form and functions of programs align with program goals and developmental assets.
We examined three programs, The Bike Union, Find Your Future, and Works Wonders. and classified them by the forms they take and the functions they serve and illustrate how what they do aligns with different developmental assets: This study highlights the relative emphasis that different employment programs (with different forms and functions) place on different developmental assets and the strategies they use to promote each.
Methods
We started with a national scan of programs that aimed to help young people with histories of child welfare involvement prepare for, connect to, and succeed in employment, which yielded 39 programs. As we systemically categorized this information into program size, setting, components, goals, and criteria for participation, we identified the key defining characteristic for each program and developed definitions for those characteristics. Based on this program scan and follow-up phone discussions, we developed an initial typology of employment programs serving young people with child welfare involvement. We then developed criteria for selecting programs for in-depth investigation that leveraged the variation across program types, a central tenet for comparative qualitative inquiry (Miles and Huberman 1994). We purposefully selected three programs to participate in virtual site visits because they offered variation across the dimensions we identified: they had different key defining characteristics, served different populations, had different funding mechanisms, and varied based on geographic location.
Recommendations
This work helped refine a meaningful typology for categorizing employment programs and raises considerations for researchers and policymakers as well as program developers and implementers. Key considerations include:
For Future Research
- Employment programs operate in different contexts, have different program goals, and work with young people in different circumstances. As a result, it is unlikely that an impact evaluation of a single program is likely to generate evidence that can be widely generalized to other programs. This calls for rigorous evaluation of distinct programs that exhibit contrasting approaches to improving employment outcomes of youth currently and formerly in foster care, in order to identify common elements of programs found to be effective at achieving their goals
- More research is needed on the developmental aspects of the transition to adulthood and the role that employment plays in it as well as how employment relates to other life domains, such as family formation, peer and intimate relationships, and education.
For Policymakers
- One question to consider is whether integrating the functions of employment programs into the operations of local or state child welfare systems would create economies of scale. For this to work, the system would need to be designed to address the varied employment needs and goals of young people during the transition to adulthood. Additionally, it would not benefit young people who wish to disassociate as quickly and permanently as possible from the child welfare system.
For Program Developers
- All of the programs in this study include young people with lived child welfare experience in the development of programming and/or create feedback loops for input from young people they serve about their experiences and how things might be improved. This is essential to building programs that are relevant and of interest to the young people served. All program developers should consider ways to include the input of young people with child welfare experience.
- Developers should consider involving research partners, as well as young people with lived child welfare system experience, in the development and early implementation of new programs.
For Program Implementers
- Programs should be intentional about identifying the staff characteristics and engagement strategies that work, documenting youth engagement in program components, and codifying the practices that are effective at participant engagement and success. This may require technical assistance from experts.
- Develop internal systems for quality improvement, including feedback loops from all stakeholders including participants, staff, employer partners, community partners, and child welfare system agencies.
Citation
Lansing, Jiffy, Amelia Coffey, Hannah Daly, Zackaria Ali, and Michael Pergamit. 2021. “Employment Programs for Young People with Histories of Foster Care: Comparative Snapshots, Creating a Typology, and Considerations for the Field.” OPRE Report #2022-81. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.