Positive Youth Transitions: Youth Perspectives on Available Services

Background and Purpose: Given recent federal policy shifts and limited research findings documenting the effectiveness of Independent Living Services for youth aging out of care, it is critical that youth voice inform the “next generation” of ILP services prior to evaluation (e.g., McDaniel, Courtney, Pergamit, & Lowenstein, 2015). This paper repurposes data collected by a stakeholder coalition to improve services for transition-age foster youth (http://www.pdx.edu/ccf/positive-youth-transitions-pyt) to report youth perspectives on transition services more widely. Here, transition-aged youth provide first-hand insight about the impact of services, and relationships with service providers and others, on transitions into adulthood at various developmental stages and levels of service engagement.

Methods: Eligible participants were youth and young adults ages 14 to 21 who had a child welfare caseworker in the past year at three urban branches in Portland, OR. Participants (N=125, mean age=17.3, 57% female) completed a semi-structured survey in person or online about the child welfare services they were receiving. 58% of the sample were currently enrolled in an Independent Living Program, and the sample was predominantly Hispanic (38%), Caucasian (34%), or Mixed race/unknown (18%). Participants answered questions about services received and risk and protective factors (e.g., mental health, support networks, running away). This study specifically reports analysis of responses to open-ended questions which were coded using an inductive approach to latent thematic analysis.

Findings: Youth concerns fell within three primary themes. First, respondents reported that some of their basic needs as adolescents were not being met, including access to recreational activities, gym memberships and sports, and opportunities to socialize with other youth in care. Many said they lacked educational support, including school supplies, computer access, transportation, and tutoring. Some felt that inadequate funding meant they often went without, especially in relation to peers (e.g., developmentally-typical clothing allowances). Second, participants reported a range of perspectives on their caseworkers, including reporting positive relationships built over time. Others felt that turnover and disengagement meant that their caseworkers did not know them or their case well enough to provide effective support. Conversely, some expressed frustration with being identified as one of many cases, and not as an individual with typical and dynamic needs; participants felt that current behaviors were viewed through the lens of their case history, compromising placement stability and future outcomes. Lastly, participants identified a need for both formal services and informal family support; specifically, some were critical of worker discouragement of relationships with family members who will be relied on for support after youth age out of formal services. However, many reported doing well as a result of comprehensive child welfare services, and these participants stated that they felt “lucky.”

Conclusion/Implications: There is a critical need for youth input in service development, and this study demonstrates how service improvement data can be analyzed for a wider stakeholder audience. These findings specifically highlight the importance of better addressing typical adolescent needs among youth in care, focusing on relationship-oriented casework, and facilitating family connections whenever possible.