Findings from the Experimental Evaluation of the Youth Villages Transitional Living Program

Background: The transition to adulthood is a critical and often trying time for young people generally. For youth who have spent time in foster care or the juvenile justice system, this transition is often particularly challenging (Institute on Medicine, 2014: Osgood, Foster, & Courtney, 2010). Yet, evidence of the effectiveness of interventions targeting these youth is lacking (Montgomery, Donkoh, & Underhill, 2006). This study evaluates the impact of the Youth Villages’ Transitional Living (TL) program on outcomes for young adults with a history in the foster care or juvenile justice system.  TL provides intensive and individualized clinically focused and community-based case management, support, and counseling for eligible young adults. Over an average of nine months, youth receive support for education, housing, mental or physical health, employment, and life skills.

Methods: Program impacts were evaluated using a random assignment design. Eligible youth were between 18 and 24 years of age who had been in the custody of the child welfare and/or juvenile justice systems in Tennessee for at least 365 days after age 14 or at least one day after age 17. Additional assessment was conducted to determine whether youth had the capacity to live independently with appropriate supports. Eligible individuals were assigned at random to a program group (n=788), which was offered TL services, or to a control group (n=534), which was provided with a list of social services available in the community. Baseline assessment of youth across key functional domains was obtained through a paper-and-pencil survey and impacts were assessed approximately one year after baseline via phone and in-person surveys of the youth. Follow-up surveys were completed by 1,114 of the 1,322 sample members representing a response rate of 84.3 percent (83.6 program group; 85.2 control group). The survey asked questions about targeted outcomes, including service receipt, educational attainment, employment and earnings, housing stability, economic wellbeing, social support, delinquency and criminal justice involvement, and health and safety. Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted to assess the impact of the program on these outcomes. 

Results: The TL group received considerably more services than the control group across all domains of service receipt assessed (p < .05). TL had impacts on several outcomes (all differences significant at p < .05): 17% increase in earnings; decreased housing instability, including a 23% reduction in homelessness and a 19% reduction in couch surfing; decreased economic hardship, including a 22% reduction in the need to delay paying a bill to buy food and a 19% reduction in the inability to buy needed clothes or shoes; reduction in mental health problems (effect size = .16); and a 28% lower likelihood of being in a violent relationship.  The program had no impacts on education, social support, or criminal behavior and justice system involvement.

Conclusions: The TL program is the first rigorously evaluated intervention to show impacts across multiple domains of functioning for youth formerly in state care. Future evaluations should assess the impact of TL in other policy contexts, particularly states that have extended foster care to age 21.