Introduction

Foster care is intended to be a temporary living arrangement with the goal being to “fix” the family dynamic and allow for the children to be reunified into the home.  However, every year tens of thousands of young adults reach the age of majority in their state (usually 18 years) and “age-out” of the foster care system. The most recent statistics from the Administration of Children and Families show that in 2006 26,517 young adults were legally emancipated from foster care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). 

Upon “aging out” these youth are expected to be self sufficient and live independently in the community.  This may be a hard task to accomplish, especially taking into account that adult children across the United States are staying in their family home well past the age of majority.  According to the US Census Bureau (2008), approximately 50% of childless-adults in the homes surveyed, ages 18 to 24, are still living in their family home. Without the supports that their non-fostered peers are taking advantage of, former foster youth often fall through the cracks of society.  These youth may not have adequate opportunities and social support structures in place to assist with life skills education and, thus, often report low levels of educational achievement, employment acquisition and retention, and financial and housing stability (Cook & Ansell, 1986; Courtney et al., 2007; Courtney & Heuring, 2005; McMillen & Tucker, 1999)   According to one former foster youth, “Being on my own was strange.  My whole life I had people cooking for me; I didn’t even know how long milk could sit out” (Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, ND). 

One possible reason for foster youth’s deficiency in the area of life skills may have to do with the frequency at which they change placements.  It is not uncommon for youth in the foster care system to change placements at least once per year (Franz, Woodward, & Gale, 2006; Reed, 2007).  In fact, Pecora et. al. (2006) found that 68.1% of their sample had changed placement at least four times while in care—with 32.3% changing more than eight times—with a rate of change once every one to two years.  The high rate of placement change can have an effect on the quality of positive relationship and life skills knowledge that these youth are able to obtain; not to mention the negative effect that the related academic disruptions may have on their scholastic aptitudes (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2001; Iglehart, 1995; Reed, 2007; Tweddle, 2007).   

The lack of necessary life skills may also be related to the high rates in which former foster youth find themselves experiences problems with poverty, homelessness and involvement with the criminal justice system.  Without the knowledge necessary to create a resume, perform successfully in a job interview,  budget one’s income, or resolve conflict in the work place these youth may turn to other, illegal means, in order to get survival needs met.  According to a statement by California Senator Denise Ducheny, 70% of adults in California prisons are former foster youth (2007).  Variations of this statistic are used on a number of social service agency websites and mission statements, as well as a variety of news related articles (i.e. Wereschagin & Frazier, 2005; Sierra Adoption Services, 2007) however this author was unable to find the academic source from which the research originates.

A number of programs are being implemented to assist older foster youth with learning and implementing necessary skills for self sufficiency.  In the United States, federal funding is available via the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) to assist state sponsored independent living programs in providing education and services to older foster youth in areas ranging from employment and housing to health coverage and mental health counseling services (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b).  A project to develop performance evaluations of these programs is currently being implemented by the Children’s Bureau in partnership with the Urban Institute, the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago,  and the National Opinion Research Center with outcome measures that will include “educational attainment, high school diploma, employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, nonmarital childbirth, incarceration, and high-risk behaviors” (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009a, par. 2). 

Though this evaluation system is still new— only two studies have been completed under it—academic research has examined the effectiveness of independent living programs for many years. Unfortunately the comparative research has been weak and, therefore, solid conclusions on program effectiveness cannot be made.  Since these programs address a few of the social risk factors for criminality, the additional question of whether they have an effect on the high number of former foster youth who become involved in the criminal justice system arises.  Further research needs to be done to both strengthen the argument of general program effectiveness, as well as include future delinquency as a studied outcome measure.

Problems Faced By Emancipated Foster Youth

As mentioned previously, in the general population adult children are waiting to leave the “nest”.  Foster youth do not have this opportunity.  In many states these young adults become emancipated at 18 years old.  This sudden separation may be compared to leaving prison; they often do not have anywhere to go, anyone to lean on for personal support, or any necessary life skills. Diane Zambito, Executive Director of a Florida social service program, Connected by 25, notes that youth emancipated from care often do not have a bank account, any sort of credit history, employment history, a car or driver’s license, or assets of any kind (in an interview by ABC News, 2006).  According to one former foster youth in an interview with the John Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative (ND), “When you age out of foster care at 18 you still need a lot of parental guidance; I didn’t have that.  I made a lot of stupid decisions.”

These “stupid decisions”, coupled with the lack of independent living skills and knowledge necessary for day to day living, can lead to a multitude of problems down the road, specifically in areas of financial and housing stability as well as in areas of deviance and delinquency. 

Poverty

Youth who age out of the foster care system have a difficult time finding and maintaining employment, and often move rapidly from one minimum wage job to another (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; Courtney & Heuring, 2005).  Low pay and the inability to maintain a job may be an effect of the low educational achievements of these youth.  Many foster youth, when emancipated from state care and suddenly faced with the responsibility of fending for themselves, have not yet finished high school (ABC News, 2006; Barth, 1990; Georgiades, 2005).  Courtney et al. (2007) found that by the age of 21, approximately 25% of former foster youth have not yet completed their high school diploma or obtained their GED (compared to only 11% of the general population) and only 30% have completed any collegiate work—compared to 53% of those who have never been in foster care.  These statistics are in line with prior research by Barth (1990), who found that more than 55% of youth leave foster care without a high school diploma and only 43% of those youth who had not finished high school upon leaving care completed any additional coursework when on their own.   According to one former foster youth who dropped out of college, “I have the intelligence to be a doctor but I didn’t have anyone to push me to say, ‘You can get this; you can do this’” (Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, ND).

A study done by Westat, Inc. found that, four years after aging out of the foster care system, less than half of their sample population had employment, and only 38% of those had maintained their current employment for more than one year (Cook, 1994).  A Chapin Hill study reported similar results.  By the age of 21, half of their sample was unemployed and, additionally, they found that former foster youth make approximately $1 less an hour in the workforce than their non-fostered peers (Courtney et al., 2007).  The Chapin Hill research project also found that the mean earned income annually at the age of 21 for former foster youth was only $5,450 (Courtney et al., 2007), which is well below the US federal poverty guideline of $10,210 for a single person household (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008).

This lack of income and money management knowledge makes it difficult for youth to pay their bills and maintain their living arrangements.  “I had no idea what I was doing.  My electricity has been turned off before because I couldn’t pay my bill” (former foster youth cited in Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, ND).  One study found that approximately 27% of emancipated foster youth at the age of 21 fear that they do not have enough money to pay their rent, another 27% cannot pay their utilities—resulting in 8% of them having been evicted, another 8% losing power and 33% losing telephone service (Courtney et al., 2007).  A similar study found that 53% of respondents reported having “serious money trouble”, such as not being able to pay bills or buy food, and almost 25% reported that they had a hard time simply understanding their bills (Barth, 1990).

The inability to pay for living expenses leads to an increased use of public assistance programs.  A study of former foster youth in the Pacific Northwest found that 16.8% of those interviewed were receiving cash assistance from Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) or some other form of general assistance (Pecora et al., 2006).  This rate, at the time of the study, was five times higher than households in the general population (Pecora et al., 2006).

Another unfortunate effect of the inability to pay for household expenses is the possibility of experiencing periods of homelessness, another problem that plagues newly emancipated foster youth.

Homelessness

According to Ken Cowdery, Executive Director for New Avenues for Youth in Portland, Oregon, “We have far too many kids leaving foster care in Oregon who are becoming homeless.  That is a serious issue in this state” (League of Women Voters, 2007).  This problem extends well past the state of Oregon.  When youth are emancipated from the foster care system they often do not have a stable place to go.  These youth may “couch surf” for a time, moving from one friend’s home to another, may sleep in homeless shelters, or live on the streets (League of Women Voters, 2007). 

Study findings in this area are alarming.  Approximately 12%-25% of emancipated youth have been homeless for at least one night prior to their 4 years emancipation anniversary (ABC News, 2006; Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2001; Courtney et al., 2007; Pecora et al., 2006).  A large percentage of youth in homeless shelters have been clients of the foster care system; an example of this is the state of New Jersey, of which approximately 46% of youth (ages 18-21) surveyed at the Covenant House shelter had been in foster care in the previous year (Elsenbud, Moore, Ryan & Taylor, 2001).

“Couch surfing” is a highly utilized alternative to sleeping on the streets.  Within 3 years or less of leaving care, studies show that approximately 30% of former foster youth have moved from one temporary home to another at least three times, if not more (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2001; Barth, 1990; Courtney et al., 2007; Tweddle, 2007).  Barth (1990) found that 29% of his sample had been at a point where they had no place to call home or were moving at least once per week, and 33% had done something illegal in order to obtain money for life’s necessities. 

Deviant and Delinquent Behaviors

Foster youth are more likely than their non-fostered peers to become involved with the criminal justice system (Courtney et al., 2007; Tweddle, 2007).  Within one year of leaving care, one in three emancipated males is incarcerated (ABC News, 2006).  Chapin Hill’s study found that, in a two-year period, 30% of their sample of emancipated foster youth had reported being arrested, 15% reported being convicted of a crime, and 29% had been incarcerated (Courtney et al., 2007).     Compared to the control group, the former foster youth were more likely to report ever being arrested or convicted—either as a youth or as an adult.  In another study, over one half the study’s respondents (50.8%) had been arrested, 33.5% had spent the night in a correctional facility, and 21.3% had been convicted of a crime (Courtney, Terao, & Bost, 2004).   As previously mentioned, in the state of California, 70% of the adult prison populations were once foster children (Ducheny, 2007).  This increased likelihood of arrest may be related to the previously discussed areas of poverty and homelessness—this will be discussed in depth later in this review.

Substance abuse and addiction is a prevalent problem among survivors of prior childhood abuse (Hobbs, Hobbs, & Wynne, 1999; Kendall-Tackett, 2002; Loeber & Farrington, 1998).  For example, female survivors of childhood sexual abuse are 10 times more likely than their non-abused peers to have a history of substance abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1987).   Foster youth fit into this category of abuse survivors as the primary reason for admission into state care is in response to abuse suffered within their family home (Courtney & Heuring, 2005; Franz et al., 2006; Hobbs et al., 1999; Pecora et al., 2006).  The reported drug use and dependency of former foster youth further support this fact.  One study found that 56% of emancipated foster youth had used street drugs since leaving care (Barth, 1990).  Additionally, of the youth who had used while still in state care, 25% of them reported higher levels of use since being on their own, and 20% had used during the month prior to the study (Barth, 1990).

Crime as a Response to Economic Hardships

Former foster youth, as a group, are already at a disadvantage in terms of likely involvement with the criminal justice system.  But this relationship extends farther than simply their family backgrounds and foster care history.  Homelessness, unemployment and poverty have all been shown to plague newly emancipated foster care population; however, these factors are also linked to both criminal involvement as well as victimization.  In 1976, Flango and Sherbenou stated that urbanization and poverty are the “most significant criminogenic forces in the country” (pg. 342).

Property Crime

Studies show that the increase of length of periods of homelessness is strongly related to increased incidents of property crime commission (Baron, 2003; Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; McCarthy & Hagan, 1991).  One reason for this may be that the pure amount of free time spent on the streets may lead to an increase of crime commission opportunities (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; McCarthy & Hagan, 1991).  However, another theory for this relationship is that the lack of basic needs can cause someone to commit crimes (Baron, 2003; Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Roebuck, 2008; Siegel & Williams, 2003) and the longer someone is homeless, the more desperate they may become for basic life necessities.

McCarthy and Hagan (1992) found that, in a study of street youth, 45% reported that they had stolen food and 75% reported that they had committed some sort of serious theft. Both of these degrees of theft increased with the condition of hunger, and an increase in serious theft was related to problems finding stable shelter (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992).  These youth were more likely to commit offenses of theft on the street than then they were when they had stable housing (McCarthy & Hagan, 1991).  A study on homeless men found similar results.  Homeless men are significantly more likely to be arrested for offenses of burglary and theft than are men in the general population (Snow, Baker, & Anderson, 1989).

Availability of legally earned income has also been found to be associated with property crimes.  Another study of street youth found that those with less legal income were more likely to commit property offenses (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997).  Like homelessness, the longer the period of unemployment the stronger the relationship to property crime commission (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; Roebuck, 2008).

Additionally, those who consume alcohol or use illegal substances frequently are more likely to commit property crimes (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; Roebuck, 2008).  And, as substance abuse and homelessness has been found to have a bidirectional relationship, with 30 to 40 percent of the homeless abusing alcohol and 10 to 30 percent abusing other drugs  (McCarty, Angeriou, Huebner & Lubran, 1991; National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, 2009), this is another factor that must be taken into consideration.  The use of mind-altering substances can create a sense of “omnipotence” that can result in users putting their inhibitions aside and behaving in a riskier fashion (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997).  Additionally, those with substance addiction and abuse issues may feel the need to commit lucrative property crimes in order to sustain their expensive habit.

Drug Offenses

Part of the street lifestyle is substance use (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; Kipke, Montgomery, Simon, & Iverson, 1997).  McCarthy and Hagan (1991) found that drug use increased when living on the streets.  Substance abuse may be a way for the homeless to “escape” the realities of their current situation as a sort of psychological self-medication.  Related research illustrates the extent of this relationship between homelessness and drug use.  A study of homeless youth in Ottawa found that 56 percent of females and 68 percent of males self-reported problems with substance abuse (Aubry, Klodawsky, Hay, & Birnie, 2003).  In the U.S., 71% of homeless youth in Hollywood, California had a diagnosable substance abuse disorder (Kipke et al., 1997).

With drug addiction also comes the increased likelihood of drug trafficking.  Those who use drugs are more likely to be involved in trafficking (McCarthy & Hagan, 1991).  Baron and Hartnagel (1997) also found a relationship between long periods of unemployment and the rejection of legitimate means of income and the likelihood of involvement with drug distribution. 

Prostitution

In addition to drug dealing and lucrative property crimes, prostitution is another avenue of income for homeless citizens, as well as a survival mechanism in terms of trade for food and shelter (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Siegel & Williams, 2003).  Of homeless youth, one study found that 30% had sold sex since living on the street (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992).  McCarthy and Hagan (1992) found unemployment was strongly linked to prostitution and that incidents of selling sex increased with problems finding shelter. 

A qualitative study of homeless youth conducted by Tyler and Johnson (2006) found similar results.  Approximately 1/3 of their study sample had some experience with trading sex, whether it was an actual trade or a proposition for such.  Interviews with these girls (all subjects who had traded sex were female) uncovered that sexual favors were often traded for things that they deemed as necessary for survival (i.e. food, shelter, money, or drugs).  Additionally, the study found that these youth participated in the sex trade because they felt desperate and that they did not have any other options.

There was this one guy I met. he was older, and I knew I could go to his house anytime, but I knew I would have to sleep with him if I went there …so I never really went there a lot, but when I did I always slept with him just 'cuz I knew then he wouldn't put me out, or tell me that I couldn't be there, or tell me I couldn't take a shower or get something to eat. So if I was doing really had I would go more …I just fell disgusting just ‘cuz I knew I had to [have sex with him], you know. I mean it wasn't like he forced me, but I just, like, knew that if I did [have sex] then he would let me stay there or eat or do whatever.  (Cathy, study participant, Tyler and Johnson, 2006, pg. 212).

Violent Crime

Like property crime and drug offenses, the period of time one spends living on the streets has also been found to be related to the commission of violent crime (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997; McCarthy & Hagan, 1991; Roebuck, 2008).  According to the Institute for the Prevention of Crime, homeless populations commit more acts of assault than their housed peers (Roebuck, 2008).  However, those housed but still living in poverty also commit a higher number of violent crimes than those above the poverty line, specifically in the areas of aggravated assault and burglary (Bourguignon, 1999; Flango & Sherbenou, 1976; Hsieh & Pugh, 1993; Kelly, 2000; Patterson, 1991).

Baron and Hartnagel (1997) theorize that this relationship may stem from a frustration over the inability to financially flourish, and found that minimal legal income is associated with violent behaviors.  They stated that violent crime is related to poverty and unemployment which can lead to “resentment, hostility and withdrawal of legitimacy” from societal norms (Baron & Hartnagel, 1997, pg. 424).  In a subsequent paper Baron (2003) enhanced this idea by stating that when subjects perceive themselves as “deprived” in relation to others they are more likely to participate in violent crimes.  Studies have shown that resource deprivation is associated with many forms of violent crimes such as homicide, assault, rape and robbery—to varying degrees (Bourguignon, 1999; Hsieh & Pugh, 1993).

Victimization

Homeless is not only a criminogenic situation, but also one likely to produce victims.  Homeless citizens experience significantly higher rates of victimization than the general population, as well as those housed and living in poverty (Fitzpatrick, La Gory, & Ritchey, 1993).  The homeless are primarily victims of violent crimes and are often unable to identify their attacker (Fitzpatrick et al., 1993). In a Toronto study 35% of homeless people reported being physically assaulted within the prior year; 14% had been sexually harassed (36% of the women surveyed) and 21% of the women reported that they had been sexually assaulted that time span (Khandor & Mason, 2007).  In a U.S. study, 50% of the homeless interviewed had been victimized in some way: 35% had been threatened with a weapon, 25% had been assaulted with a weapon, 35% had been robbed, and 7% had been raped (Simons, Whitbeck & Bales, 1989).  In Canada, Hwang (2000) found that homeless men were 9 times more likely to be murder victims than their housed counterparts.

People living on the streets may be victimized by the general population simply due to the fact that they are homeless and easy targets (Roebuck, 2008); however, the homeless are also victimized by other homeless individuals. Individuals living on the streets are often in desperate situations and are forced to spend a lot of time in high crime, publicly accessible places; often sleeping in alleys and other land areas that are hidden from public view (as city policies often prohibit and ticket those camping in public areas).  Physical self defense is a major consideration in this type of situation. Additionally, as mentioned previously, crimes committed by the homeless are often done for survivalistic purposes to obtain food, shelter, drugs and financial resources.  It is not surprising that an offender may pick the nearest, easiest target for a profitable theft.  These factors may help explain intra-homeless crime.

Independent Living Programs

Figure 1

Economic Hardships

• Unemployment
• Poverty
• Housing Instability
• Homelessness

Foster Care

Crime and Delinquency

• Drug Abuse & Offenses
• Prostitution
• Violent Crime
• Property Crime

?

?

Figure 1 illustrates the pathway that has been expressed thus far between youth aging out of the foster care system and delinquent activity.  Foster care youth experience a number of different outcomes when leaving care, one of which are economic hardships such as troubles with employment and housing.  These former youth are also disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.    As the prior section discussed, economic hardships can lead to a variety of criminal actions. 

This author is by no means stating that the presence of economic hardships is the only factor involved with former foster youth committing crimes, however research suggests that that it is a powerful one.  It appears that the United States government is in agreement with this implied relatioinship as they have, over the years, increased the amount of support for programming that addresses these risk factors and provides life skills assistance to youth aging out of the the foster care system.  The questioin that arises is if these programs have the desired effect on reducing economic instability, and, additionally, if they in turn reduce the number of former foster youth who become involved in the criminal justice system.

Purpose

In 2007, California Senate Budget Chairman Denise Ducheny made a plea to the Senate expressing the importance for programming for youth leaving the foster care system.  She state that,

[We need to] make[e] sure that these youth, as they emancipate from the foster care system, have the opportunities to start to become tax payers, get their education, do all of the things we’d like to see them do so that they are not the next generation of welfare mothers and the next generations’ adult prisoners (2:59)

Independent living programs strive to make sure that these things do not happen by providing instruction and assistance in a variety of life skills and self-sufficiency areas, such as: employment, education, housing, financial management, personal and community engagement, personal and cultural identity, physical and mental health, and legal information and documentation (Courtney et al., 2007; Frey, Greenblatt, & Brown, 2005).  Like all social service programming, financial support is necessary for program implementation, and ILPs in the United States have the benefit of government support in this area.

Funding History

Funding for ILPs in the United States has seen changes and advances in recent years as more research has been produced which shows the necessity for these programs.

In 1985 the first legislation to address the need for independent living skills preparation programs for foster youth was passed (Collins, 2004).  This legislation, titled the “Independent Living Initiative” was passed as an amendment to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which provided some financial assistance to families in need and child welfare agencies (Collins, 2004; Social Security Online, 2009).

Through a series of acts in amendment to this initiative, the financial support allotted to the country for independent living services was limited at $70 million per fiscal year (Fernandes, 2006).  The development of Independent living programs was thus limited and the impact of these programs on participants was questionable (Collins, 2004).

However, in 1999 a significant change was made with the passing of the Foster Care Independence Act.  The Foster Care Independence Act had two key provisions: the extension of Medicaid benefits for emancipated foster youth, as well as the expansion of funding available for independent living services (American Psychological Association & Public Policy Office, 2009).  The independent living component of this act was entitled the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independent Program.  The program that was currently in use, the Independent Living Initiative, was revamped and renamed the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) (Fernandes, 2006).

The CFCIP doubled the funds available to states for independent living programs, while requiring a 20% financial state match (Collins, 2004; Fernandes, 2006).  It also expanded the age of eligibility of services up until a client’s 21^st birthday (for youth who emancipated from the foster care system), and allowed for services to be provided to any youth who was expected to remain in the system until emancipation (Collins, 2004; Cornell University Law School, 2008; Fernandes, 2006).  The program also allowed for 30% of the states’ grant to be spent on housing; which was previously prohibited (Collins, 2004; Fernandes, 2006). 

CFCIP funding is available to states that can provide a five-year written plan describing a program that they will “administer, supervise, or oversee” that will, among other requirements, provide services to foster youth (and emancipated foster youth 18-21) to help them achieve independent living (Cornell University Law School, 2008; Fernandes, 2006).  The CFCIP identifies six key components for programs:

1. to identify children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age and to help these children make the transition to self-sufficiency by providing services such as assistance in obtaining a high school diploma, career exploration, training in budgeting and financial management skills, substance abuse prevention, and preventative health activities (including smoking avoidance, nutrition education, and pregnancy prevention);

2. to help children … receive the education, training, and services necessary to obtain employment;

3. to help children… prepare for and enter postsecondary training and education institutions;

4. to provide personal and emotional support … through mentors and the promotion of interactions with dedicated adults;

5. to provide financial, housing, counseling, employment, education, and other appropriate support and services … to complement their own efforts to achieve self-sufficiency and to assure that program participants recognize and accept their personal responsibility for preparing for and then making the transition from adolescence to adulthood; and

6. to make available vouchers for education and training, including post secondary training and education, to youths who have aged out of foster care (Cornell University Law School, 2008, section a 1-6)

The final component of the CFCIP was made easier in 2002 when the Education and Training Voucher Program for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care (ETV) was added to the CFCIP; and brought with it additional funding for this purpose (Collins, 2004; Reed, 2007; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009a).  The ETV provides vouchers for a maximum of $5,000 per year to assist educationally-enrolled youth through the age of 23 with the cost of attendance at “an institution of higher education” (Cornell University Law School, 2008).  As of 2006, since the 2003 fiscal year, states had received an average of approximately $44.5 million per year to fund these vouchers (Fernandes, 2006).

Effectiveness of ILPs

So just how effective are these programs?  Does participation equate to fewer economic hardships, better paying jobs, and stable housing?  Various programs have been studied in an attempt to answer these questions.  A systematic review completed by this author (which will be discussed in depth later) found that, while outcome measures for these studies vary to a great degree, certain themes continuously present themselves.  For example, studies on ILPs generally review outcomes in the areas of educational achievement, employment, and housing; many of which have found significant results in favor of ILP participation (i.e. Georgiades, 2005; Lindsey & Ahmed, 1999; Scannapieco, Schagrin, & Scannapieco, 1995; Shippensberg University Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research, 1993). 

A systematic literature review was completed by this author in order to identify studies on ILPs that exhibited a high quality of methodology (such as the utilization of an appropriate comparison group, and a sample population of over 20).  More details on this review will be presented later, however six studies were identified as meeting the methodological criteria (refer to Appendix B for individual study designs and methods).  Their findings will be discussed in the upcoming sections and are outlined in Appendix A.

Educational Achievements

The third program component that the CFCIP identifies is to help foster youth prepare themselves for post-secondary education.  Do ILPs succeed in this area? 

Several studies have found positive results for this outcome measure.  Georgiades (2005) found that subjects who participated in the ILP had significantly higher levels of educational achievement than non-participants.  Of the participants, 53% obtained their high school diploma or GED, and 31% had some college education (compared to 15% and 0% of the non-participant group, respectively).   Scannapieco, Schagrin, and Scannapieco (1995) found similar significant results.  In their study of ILP participants, 50% were high school graduates, compared to only 13% of those foster youth who had not participated in the program.

Additionally, Lindsey and Ahmed (1995) found significant educational outcomes for ILP participants in a number of areas.  Participants were significantly more likely to: have completed a technical or vocational program or some college than non-participants (21% compared to 0%), be enrolled in college at the time of the study (16% compared to 0%), and not be satisfied with only a high school degree or GED (81% compared to 52%).  While they did not find significant differences in the following areas, their research also found that ILP participants were more likely to: have completed high school or obtained a GED (37% compared to 18%), be enrolled in some kind of educational program at the time of the study (46% compared to 34%), have a desire to obtain a college degree (36% compared to 29%), and have a desire for a post-graduate or professional education (21% compared to 10%).

Other studies, however, have found that ILPs do not make a significant difference in educational advancements.  Courtney et al. (2008b) found that, while 59.7% of those who participated in an ILP had a high school diploma or GED, so did 58.6% of those in the control group who did not participate in the program.  Additionally, this study found that participation in the ILP was almost detrimental in terms of advanced education with 40.9% of the control group attending some college, compared to only 34.7% of ILP participants.  These findings are comparative to those of Shippensberg University (1993) which found that, upon discharge from foster care, only 44% of ILP participants had a high school diploma, GED or vocational/technical degree compared to 58% of those who did NOT participate in an ILP.  This rate varied little upon re-evaluation one year after leaving care (Shippensberg University Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research, 1993).

Employment

One theme found in many of the CFCIP components is the idea that ILPs will provide assistance, support and knowledge to their participants in terms of employment acquisition and retention.  Generally speaking, the identified studies illustrate that these program appear to be meeting their goal in this particular outcome area.

Georgiades (2005) found significant differences between the employment status of former foster care youth who had participated in an ILP and those who did not.  At the time of the study, 22% of participants were employed full time and another 51% were employed part time—compared to 8% and 0%, respectively, of the non-participant group.  Of those who did not participate in the ILP, 92% were unemployed at the time of the study, which included respondents who had been out of care for up to eight years.  Additionally, ILP participants in this study had a significantly higher average monthly income than non-participants ($437 compared to $54) and were less likely to be financially dependent on friends or relatives (14% compared to 22%). 

Scannapieco, Schagrin, and Scannapieco (1995) also found a significant difference, with 100% of their ILP participants having a history of employment compared to only 71.7% of those who had not participated in the program.  Additionally, at the close of their case, ILP participants were more likely to be employed than were non-participants (52.3% compared to 26.1%).

While not significant, other encouraging statistics are available.  Shippensberg University (1993) found that, one year after discharge, 50% of those who participated in an ILP were employed either full- or part-time, compared to only 37% of non-participants.  Lindsey and Ahmed (1999) found similar results, with 59% of their ILP participants being employed either full- or part-time, compared to 44% of non-participants.  Additionally, ILP participants in this study worked more hours each week on average (39 compared to 29) and had fewer episodes of unemployment (1.9 compared to 2.4).  These periods of unemployment, on average, lasted longer for those who did not participate in ILPs (11 months compared to 8.5 months), with 81% of non-participants experiencing periods of unemployment for more than 1 month since leaving care (compared to 63% of those who had participated).

As in the discussion of educational attainment, some studies found room for improvement.  Lemon, Hines, and Merdinger (2005) found that, immediately upon discharge from foster care there was a significant difference in employment between the two groups as only 58.4% of participants had employment, compared to 73.8% of non-participants.  Courtney et al. (2008b) found that, while about half of their study population was employed at the time of the survey, participation in an ILP did not appear to have an effect on this outcome.

Housing

Housing is another outcome measure identified in numerous ILP studies; and one that also appears to be meeting program goals.

Georgiades (2005) found significant results in terms of current housing accommodations among ILP participants.  The study found that 82% of participants owned or rented their own home at the time of the study, compared to only 55% of non-participants. Additionally, non-participants were more likely to be living with a relative, foster parent, or friend than participants (27% compared to 16%).  These findings are mirrored by Scannapieco, Schagrin, and Scannapieco (1995) who found that, at the close of their case, 36.4% of ILP participants were living on their own, compared to only 4.3% of non-participants.  Shippensberg University (1993), while categorizing “independent living” as living by one-self or with a friend (in contrast to a relative or foster parent), still found a significant difference in ILP participation in this area, with 50% of participants living independently versus only 17% of non-participants.

Lindsey and Ahmed (1999) also had significant findings in respect to ILP participants living on their own (68% compared to 41%), however, they also found that if participants were living with others, they were significantly more likely to be paying all of the household expenses than non-participants who cohabitated (25% compared to 0%).  While not significant, Lindsey and Ahmed (1999) also found that ILP participants were more likely to be paying all or part of their housing expenses than non-participants (55% compared to 38% of non-participants).

Homelessness

As a sub-category of housing, homelessness is another area that is often addressed in these studies; however, while many of the findings still support participation in ILPs, they are not often deemed statistically significant by researchers.

For example, Georgiades (2005) was not able to label any findings in this area as “significant”, however did find that non-participants were more likely to have been homeless for more than three nights since leaving care (17% compared to 9% of participants), and participants were slightly more likely to have never experienced a period of homelessness (85% compared to 83%).  Lindsey and Ahmed (1999) found similarly slight comparative results with 53% of their non-ILP participants experiencing one or more instances of homelessness compared to 52% of those who participated in a program.  Additionally, Courtney et al. (2008) found that 16.7% of non-participants had experienced a period of homelessness compared to 12.8% of participants.  Statistics found by Lemon, Hines and Merdinger (2005) are slightly more pronounced, however still not significant with 23% of non-participants ever being without a place to sleep compared to 16% of participants.

Other Outcome Measures

While education, employment and housing appear to be the most often addressed outcome measures in studies of ILPs, a variety of other factors are also addressed and often found in favor of ILP participation, though inconsistencies still exist.  Some of these findings include that:

• ILP participants are more likely to have independent forms of transportation
• Georgiades (2005) found that 61% of participants had a driver’s license, compared to 17% of non-participants, however, Courtney et al (2008b) found that non-participants were more likely to have a license (35.8%) than participants (31.6%);
• 22% of non-participants rely on family or friends for transportation compared to only 12% of participants (Georgiades, 2005);
• Non-participants report significantly higher amounts of transportation problems—64% compared to 16% of participants (Georgiades, 2005);
• ILP participants are slightly more likely to have health care accessible to them
• 57.9% of non-participants, since leaving care, have at some point been unable to access medical care compared to 52.5% of participants (Lemon, Hines, & Merdinger, 2005);
• Inconsistent findings exist in terms of pregnancy and early parenting
• Courtney et al. (2008) found that, since leaving care (up to 3 years) 24.4% of female ILP participants had become pregnant, however,
• Georgiades (2005) found that 75% of non-participants had children (within approximately 8 years of leaving care) compared to 25% of ILP participants;
• There are also inconsistent findings in terms of the use of public assistance among ILP participants
• In the study conducted by Courtney et al. (2008b) 30.5% of non-participants received public assistance, compared to 18.4% of ILP participants,
• Georgiades (2005) found that 93% of non-participants (compared to 22% of participants) relied on some form of public assistance, however
• Shippensberg University (1993) found that ILP participants were more likely (38%) to be utilizing public assistance programs than non-participants (29%);

33

Additional Research Needed

ILPs appear to have a positive effect on the future of their participants.  However, inconsistencies and a lack of significant findings from some researchers do not allow one to make a firm judgment in the discussion of program effectiveness.  One way in which to further solidify an answer to this question is to perform a meta-analysis, or a “quantitative literature review”, of the available data (Rossi & Freeman, 1993, pg. 127).  By combining and analyzing the data from several studies (even if the original study did not produce significant findings) more conclusive results can be determined in relation to the overall effectiveness of these programs (Rossi & Freeman, 1993; Shadish, Cook, & Leviton, 1991).

In 2006 the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published an attempted meta analysis intending to analyze the effectiveness of ILPs for youth leaving foster care (Donkoh, Underhill, & Montgomery, 2006). They set out to review randomized or quasi-randomized studies of youth leaving the care system who had participated in an ILP as compared to a control group of subjects who were receiving “usual care”, some other intervention, no intervention at all, or were on a wait list.  Additionally, the researchers were only interested in studies that specifically addressed at least one of the following outcome measures: educational attainment, employment, health status, housing, and life skills (Donkoh et al., 2006). 

The researchers were not able to find a single study that matched all of their inclusion criteria.  They were able to identify eighteen studies on ILPs, of which favorable results were observed, however Donkoh, Underhill, and Montgomery (2006) noted that a meta-analysis was not possible due to the weak methodology that these 18 studies utilized (primarily the lack of a randomized or quasi-randomized design).

As previously noted, this author set out in an attempt to draw some conclusions and compile research via a systematic literature review, with the ultimate goal to perform a meta-analysis.  Inclusion criteria were slightly less restrictive than the Cochrane study.  Basic criteria for the search included a sample size of over 20 participants in a study that employed a “matched” control group of former foster youth who were eligible for ILP services but did not participate in a program.  Using search criteria only slightly altered from that used by the Cochrane study, a systematic review was completed and seven studies were found that matched the inclusion criteria (however, the sample size criterion was relaxed slightly in order to allow for a study with only 18 members in the control group (Georgiades, 2005)).  However, only six studies (Courtney, et al., 2008b; Georgiades, 2005; Lemon et al., 2005; Lindsey & Ahmed, 1999; Scannapieco et al., 1995; Shippensberg University Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research, 1993) were included in the earlier discussion on ILP effectiveness as the seventh study dealt specifically with an educational tutoring program for 14- and 15-year old youth who were still in the foster care system (Courtney, et al., 2008a).

Unfortunately, the outcome measures in these seven studies were not expressed in comparable terms.  For example, while the idea of maintaining employment was expressed in most of the studies, the units used for these measurements were very different.  Scannapieco, et al. (1995), for instance, measured in terms of a “history of employment”, Lemon et al (2005) recorded the percent or the study sample that had a job immediately after discharge from care, while Courtney et al. (2008b) asked if their sample was currently employed.  These questions are all different and, thus, cannot be easily compared.  Therefore, in order to avoid an “apples to oranges” comparison of these studies’ results, a meta-analysis was not performed.

Weak Methodology

When attempting to gather studies that met the fairly relaxed inclusion criteria, this author experienced similar problems to that of Donkoh, Underhill and Montgomery (2006).  There are a number of studies available; however the majority of them employ a weak study design that leaves room for much debate.  For example, the most often identified weaknesses in studies were: small sample sizes, lack of a control group or “matched” control group, and a lack of evaluations of individual programs rather than surveys of a collection of ILP participants in a geographic region.

Small Sample Size

Many studies noted that those former foster youth who participated in ILPs were “more likely” to benefit later in the life than those who did not.  However, some studies were not able to note a “significant” difference between outcomes of the two groups.  The concern would be that, perhaps, small sample sizes may have an effect in this area.

ILPs have been in existence for decades.  As earlier noted, government funding for these programs dates back to 1985 (Collins, 2004).  However, studies appear to utilize only a small number of available subjects.  Of the six “methodologically strong” studies whose results were discussed earlier, the largest experiment group was 196 participants (Courtney, et al., 2008b).  This study more than doubled the second largest experimental group of 81 (Lemon et al., 2005), which, in turn, doubled the average of the remaining programs, which all had approximately 40 members in their experimental groups.

In order for results of program evaluations to be as conclusive as possible, a generous sample size should be used, since the large the size of the sample, the less likely the sample-to-sample variations (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).

Lack of an Appropriate Control Group

The primary reason that this author excluded studies was due to the lack of an appropriate control group.  In fact, approximately 12 studies were excluded for this reason.  “Lack of an appropriate control group” was seen in three specific ways: 1) no control group at all, 2) a control group that was compiled of members of the general population, and 3) “control groups” that actually included participants in the programs being evaluated.

Many published studies of ILPs did not utilize a comparison group in their research but rather report longitudinal success rates of their program participants.  Without control groups, how do we know that these “success” rates are actually successful in comparison to non-participation?  Evaluations should be completed that compare whether or not participation in a particular intervention is “better” than no exposure at all (Rossi & Freeman, 1993; Shadish et al., 1991).  It is commendable that some of these programs are able to raise independent living “scores” in various skill areas or that a large percentage of their participants go on to find jobs and housing, but how is the social service community to know that these youth would not have done these things on their own, without the help of an ILP?  As ILPs target groups in a specific age population (late teens and early adulthood), the concept of maturation needs to be taken into account (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).  As a teenager matures and has different experiences in life, their knowledge and skills may change as an effect of these factors, regardless of participation in a program.

Other studies that were reviewed compared ILP participants’ independent living success to the general population.  This is not a comparable control group as ILP participants (foster youth) have a number of different risk factors for unsuccessful adult living compared to the general population based on their past life experiences (from social, biological, and psychological standpoints).  Comparing the life outcomes of a group of foster youth who have been physically, sexually and emotionally abused, changed school multiple times during their childhoods, and have little to no familial support to a group of 20-somethings who had loving, caring parents all through their childhoods, spent years at the same school, and may have no experience with the mental health repercussions of abuse, is not a valid comparison.  Matched samples need to be “equivalent” to the experimental group (Rossi & Freeman, 1993).

Additionally, a couple of the reviewed studies noted that their control groups were not “true control groups” as a large percentage of these groups had actually participated in and/or graduated from the reviewed program.  For example, the two Courtney studies (Courtney, et al., 2008a; Courtney, et al., 2008b) noted that 12% and 20% (respectively) of the youth in the control group received program services, and some had even graduated from the program.  Why these youth were included in the control group is unclear.

Lack of Evaluation of Specific Programs

Another weakness of current ILP research is the lack of studies on specific ILPs (as opposed to studies that combine programs across various geographic regions).  Originally, this author’s systematic review excluded studies that did not focus on a specific program, however this criteria was relaxed so that additional studies could be included (Lemon et al., 2005; Lindsey & Ahmed, 1999; Shippensberg University Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research, 1993).  These studies did find that ILPs were successful, however because programs were  clumped together and not explored individually, specific program components cannot be analyzed to determine which have the greatest influence on success and which need to be further enhanced.  For example, whether duration of program participation has an effect on outcomes cannot be determined; nor can a conclusion be made on whether “classroom” style group work or one-on-one individualized attention has a greater impact on the futures of these youth.

Expanded Outcome Measures

As has been previously discussed, many of the outcome measures that studies on ILPs address have also been directly linked to deviant and delinquent behaviors (i.e. unemployment, homelessness, and financial hardships); however, very few studies specifically address the impact that ILPs have on crime and delinquency.  Of the six studies identified and discussed as “strong” in methodology, the following was found in terms of delinquency:

• Non-ILP participants are significantly more likely to have been arrested (83%) compared to participants (40%) (Georgiades, 2005);
• Additionally, at the time of this study, 18% of non-participants were in jail, compared to only 2% of participants,
• Though insignificant, Courtney et al. (2008b) found more ILP participants participated in one or more delinquent acts since leaving care (34.7%) compared to non-participants (30.7%);
• “Problems with the law” were experienced slightly more often among non-ILP participants (15.9% compared to 12.3%) (Lemon et al., 2005);
• Runaway episodes do not vary significantly, but ILP participants appear to have a lower rate of such behavior (54.5% ILP and 78.0%) (Scannapieco et al., 1995).

The only significant findings in this batch was the Georgiades (2005) claim that former foster youth who did not participate in ILPs were more likely to be arrested than those youth who did participate in a program.  However, the six previously discussed studies have found significant results for other outcomes measures such as employment and housing stability.  As has been determined, these outcome measures are directly linked to deviance and delinquency (as is shown in figure 1), therefore, the question of whether ILPs have an effect on these activities and behaviors need to be further examined.

Generally speaking, evaluations tend to focus on outcome measures that are specifically linked to specific program goals (Shadish et al., 1991).  However, strict reliance in measuring the outcome of program goals can be detrimental as, among other things, programs can have unintended effects that may be of importance (Shadish et al., 1991).  Therefore, while it is important to evaluate whether specific program goals are being successfully attended to, studies need to expand their outcome measures in order to explore whether these program are having additional, unintended, effects.  For instance, one bonus effect of ILP programs MAY be a decrease of deviant and delinquent behavior for former participants, however further research needs to be conducted in order to test this hypothesis.

In addition to studies that focus efforts on future delinquent activity, additional research also needs to be completed on the general effectiveness of these programs.  These studies need to utilize significant sample sizes that include comparable control groups, focus on standard outcome measures which can lend themselves to future meta-analytical examination, and identify and review the outcomes for specific programs so that unique program features which have a strong effect on the ability of these youth to have a successful adult life can be identified and enhanced for future programming.

References

ABC News (Director). (2006, June 6). Nightline online: After foster care [Video/DVD]

American Psychological Association, & Public Policy Office. (2009). The foster care independence act. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.apa.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/ppo/issues/pfosterkids.html

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2001). Gratified but not satisfied on foster care independence. Advocacy, 3(2), 2-33.

Aubry, T., Klodawsky, F., Hay, E., & Birnie, S. (2003). Panel Study on Persons Who Are Homeless in Ottawa: Phase 1 Results. University of Ottawa: Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services.

Baron, S. W. (2003). Self-control, social consequences and criminal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 403-425.

Baron, S. W., & Hartnagel, T. F. (1997). Attributions, affect, and crime: Street youths' reactions to unemployment. Criminology, 35(3), 409-434.

Barth, R. P. (1990). On their own: The experiences of youth after foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 7(5), 419-440.

Bly, S. (2006). In Davis K., Duckworth L. (Eds.), Help! My adult child won't leave home
Carol Stream, Illinois: Lyndale House Publishing.

Bourguignon, F. (1999). Crime as a social cost of poverty and inequality: A review focusing on developing countries. World Bank Discussion Papers.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1987). Post sexual abuse trauma: data and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 367–379.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency and juvenile justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Collins, M. E. (2004). Enhancing services to youths leaving foster care: Analysis of recent legislation and its potential impact. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(11), 1051-1065.

Cook, R. (1994). Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their future? Children and Youth Services Review, 16(3-4), 213-229.

Cook, R., & Ansell, D. I. (1986). Independent living services for youth in substitute care
. Rockville, MD: Westat Research, Inc.

Cornell University Law School. (2008). U.S. code collection: John H. Chafee foster care independence program. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/677.html

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J., Perez, A., & Keller, T. (2007). Midwest evaluation of the adult function of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21. University of Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Courtney, M. E., & Heuring, D. H. (2005). The transition to adult of youth "aging out" of the foster care system In D. W. Osgood, E. M. Foster, C. Flanagan & G. R. Ruth (Eds.), On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations (pp. 27-67). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Courtney, M. E., Terao, S., & Bost, N. (2004). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Courtney, M. E., Zinn, A., Zielewski, E. H., Bess, R. J., Malm, K. E., Stagner, M., et al. (2008a). Evaluation of the early start to emancipation preparation –Tutoring program Los Angeles County, California: Final report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Courtney, M. E., Zinn, A., Zielewski, E. H., Bess, R. J., Malm, K. E., Stagner, M., et al. (2008b). Evaluation of the life skills training program Los Angeles County, California: Final report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Donkoh, C., Underhill, K., & Montgomery, P. (2006). Independent living programmes for improving outcomes for young people leaving the care system. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, (3)

Ducheny, D. (2007). Floor statements in favor of foster care funding bill Senate Majority Caucus-California.

Elsenbud, L., Moore, Y. L., Ryan, K. M., Taylor, A. (2001).  Bridges to independence: Improving transitions to adulthood for youth served by the New Jersey division of youth and family services.  Garden State Coalition for Youth and Family Concerns, Inc. Newark, NJ.  Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://www.njacyf.org/main/pdf/bridges.pdf.

Fernandes, A. L. (2006). Child welfare: The Chafee foster care independence program (CFCIP) No. RS22501). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Fitzpatrick, K., M., La Gory, M. E., & Ritchey, F. J. (1993). Criminal victimization among the homeless [Abstract]. Justice Quarterly, 10(3) 353-368.

Flango, V. E., & Sherbenou, E. L. (1976). Poverty, urbanization and crime. Criminology, 14(3), 331-346.

Franz, J., Woodward, A. & Gale, T. (2006). Foster care information on Healthline. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/foster-care-1

Frey, L. L., Greenblatt, S. B., & Brown, J. (2005). A call to action: An integrated approach to youth permanency and preparation for adulthood. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Services.

Gardner, D. (2008). Youth aging out of foster care: Identifying strategies and best practices
(Presidential Initiative 2007-2008 No. Issue Brief). Washington, DC: National Association of Counties.

Georgiades, S. (2005). A multi-outcome evaluation of an independent living program. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22(5-6), 417-439.

Hobbs, G. F., Hobbs, C., J., & Wynne, J. M. (1999). Abuse of children in foster and residential care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1237-1252.

Hsieh, C., & Pugh, M. D. (1993). Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: A meta-analysis of recent aggregate data studies. Criminal Justice Review, 18(2), 182-202.

Hwang, S. W. (2000). Mortality among men using homeless shelters in Toronto, Ontario. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2152-2157.

Iglehart, A. (1995). Readiness for independence: Comparison of foster care, kinship care, and non-foster care adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(3), 417-432.

Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative (Producer), & Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative (Director). (ND). Open the door [Video/DVD]

Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and crime. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530-539.

Kendall-Tackett, K. (2002). The health effects of childhood abuse: Four pathways by which abuse can influence health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 715-29.

Khandor, E, Mason, K. (2007).  The street health report, 2007.  Street Health, Toronto, ON.

Kipke, M. D., Montgomery, S. B., Simon, T. R., & Iverson, E. F. (1997). "Substance abuse" disorders among runaway and homeless youth. Substance Use and Misuse, 32(7 & 8), 969-986.

League of Women Voters. (2007). Oregon's homeless youth
Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.lwvor.org/documents/HomelessYouth2006.htm

Lemon, K., Hines, A. M., & Merdinger, J. (2005). From foster care to young adulthood: The role of independent living programs in supporting successful transitions. Child and Youth Services Review, 27(3), 251-270.

Lindsey, E. W., & Ahmed, F. U. (1999). The North Carolina independent living program: A comparison of outcomes for participants and nonparticipants. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(5), 389-412.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (1991). Homelessness: A criminogenic situation? British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), 393-410.

McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (1992). Mean streets: The theoretical significance of situational delinquency among homeless youth. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 597-627.

McCarty, D., Argeriou, M., Huebner, R. B., Lubran, B. (1991). Alcoholism, drug abuse, and the homeless. American Psychologist, 46(11), 1139-1148.

McMillen, J. C., & Tucker, J. (1999). The status of older adolescents at exit from out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 78(3), 339-360.

National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness. (2009). Get the facts. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://web.archive.org/web/20070510103756/http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_2.asp

Patterson, E. B. (1991). Poverty, income inequality, and community crime rates. Criminology, 29(4), 755-776.

Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., O'Brien, K., White, C. R., Williams, J., Hiripi, E., et al. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the northwest foster care alumni study. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(12), 1459–1481.

Reed, C. (2007). The transition from state care to adulthood: International examples of best practices. New Directions for Youth Development, 113, 33-49.

Roebuck, B. (2008). Homelessness, victimization and crime: Knowledge and actionable recommendations. University of Ottawa: Institute for the Prevention of Crime.

Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.

Scannapieco, M., Schagrin, J., & Scannapieco, T. (1995). Independent living programs: Do they make a difference? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 12(5), 381-389.

Shadish, W. R., Jr., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice (1st ed.). Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.

Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shippensberg University Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research. (1993). An evaluation of Pennsylvania’s independent living program for youth. Shippensberg, PA: Shippensberg University.

Siegel, J. A., & Williams, L. M. (2003). The relationship between child sexual abuse and female delinquency and crime: A prospective study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 71-94.

Sierra Adoption Services (2007, May 29).  Foster Care Facts.  Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.sierraadoption.org/foster_facts.htm.

Simons, R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Bales, A. (1989).  Life on the streets: Victimization and psychological distress among the adult homeless.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(4), 482-501.

Snow, D. A., Baker, S. G., & Anderson, L. (1989). Criminality and homeless men: An empirical assessment. Social Problems, 36(5), 532-549.

Social Security Online. (2009). Title IV-E: Grants to states for aid and services to needy families with children and for child-welfare services. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0400.htm

Tyler, K. A. & Johnson, K. A., (2006).  Trading sex: Voluntary or coerced? The experiences of homeless youth.  The Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 208-216.

Tweddle, A. (2007). Youth leaving care: How do they fare? New Directions for Youth Development, 113, 15-31.

U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Current Population Survey, 2008 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.  Retrieved August 28, 2009 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2008.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2007 HHS poverty guidelines. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/07poverty.shtml

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. (2008). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY 2006 estimates as of January 2008 (14). Washington, DC: Administration of Children and Families.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009a). Developing a system of program accountability under the John H. Chafee foster care independence program. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/state_tribal/cfcip_act.htm

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009b). The John H. Chafee foster care independence program. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/state_tribal/jh_chafee.htm

Wereschagin, M. & Frazier, R. R. (2005, November 28).  Foster Children Face the World at 18.  Tribune Review. Retrieved August 31, 2009 from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_398585.html.