Abstract: Predictors of Educational Outcomes for Foster Youth Who Received Independent Living Services in Indiana (Society for Social Work and Research 21st Annual Conference - Ensure Healthy Development for all Youth)

645P Predictors of Educational Outcomes for Foster Youth Who Received Independent Living Services in Indiana

Schedule:
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Bissonet (New Orleans Marriott)
* noted as presenting author
Eprise Armstrong Richardson, MSW, PhD Student, Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indianpolis, IN
Wafa Alhajri, PhD Student, Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN
Nicole Johnson, PhD Student, Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN
Marea K. Kinney, MSW, PhD Student, Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN
Jeremiah W. Jaggers, PhD, MSW, Assistant Professor, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
Background/ Purpose:

There are 12,276 children in Indiana’s child welfare system.  Youth who spend time in foster care have negative educational outcomes when compared with the general population. Between 11-38% of foster youth in the US leave the system without a high school diploma or GED. Less than 2% of foster youth graduate with a 4 year degree by age 25. Poor education outcomes can result in homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and increased likelihood of criminal justice system involvement.  

RQ:

Are Health Education and Risk Prevention, Academic Support, Mentoring, Employment and Vocational, Special Education, and Post-Secondary Educational Support predictors of educational achievement for foster youth receiving independent living services in Indiana?

Methods:

This study used data from the 2013 National Youth in Transition Database.  The sample included 19-year-old foster youth who were receiving supervised independent living services (guidance on activities for youth who live independently) and were in foster care in Indiana at the time of data collection (N = 1,859).

Measures
The dependent variable was “highest level of completed education” and coded as such: (1) 8th grade or less, (2) 9th grade, (3) 10th grade, (4) 11th grade, (5) 12th grade, and (6) post-secondary or college. Predictor variables are coded as (0) NO and (1) YES.  Control variables were race, age, and adjudication history.

Results

Males and females were equally represented in the sample, and the majority of the sample (54%) was White.  More than 1/3 of respondents had juvenile criminal history.

Health education, mentoring, special education, academic support, post-secondary educational support, employment programs and vocational training were found to influence educational outcomes for foster youth χ2(60) =377.171, p < .001. The model accounted for 19.7% of the variability in educational outcomes for foster youth.

When compared with respondents whose highest level of educational was college or more:

Youth who received mentoring, academic support, and post-secondary educational support services were more likely to have completed all levels of education (aside from 12th), than those who did not.  Those who did not receive post-secondary educational support were 7.7 times more likely to finish 8th grade or less, 5.2 times more likely to finish 9th grade, and about 4 times more likely to finish 10th and 11th grades than those who did not.  Those who did not receive employment/vocational training were nearly 2 times more likely to graduate 10th grade than those who did receive training. Youth who received mentoring were 3.4 times more likely to graduate 12th grade than those who did not. Among all of the services, receiving mentoring was the only service that increased likelihood of completing all levels of education.

Conclusions and Implications:

Receiving mentoring services significantly increased the likelihood of graduation at all levels for foster youth.  This is in line with previous research, which suggests a connection with an adult is related to positive outcomes for foster youth.  Receiving vocational training negatively impacted completion rates, possibly because those who received vocational training saw no need to complete formal education.