Youth Voice in Policy Advocacy: Examination of a Multi-State Foster Care Youth Coalition

Background: In recent years, U.S. state and federal legislation reflect a deepening recognition of the need to incorporate youth voice in decision-making as a mechanism to enhance child welfare policy and practice. However, there is limited empirical research focused on promising practices in the context of child welfare. The present study reports on an in-depth case study of the New England Youth Coalition (NEYC); a group of foster youth and adult supporters from across Region I, New England, who advise the commissioners and directors of those states. NEYC was created after foster youth requested the support of commissioners and directors to take the role of policy advisors. The study examines the research question: what opportunities exist in the NEYC for youth to have a voice in child welfare policy and practice?

Methods: To examine the opportunities that exist for youth voice in child welfare, as well as youth driven policy priorities, mixed qualitative research methods were employed. They include interviews with child welfare commissioners and directors, interviews with adult supporters, interviews with foster care youth and alumni, observations of monthly meetings, and review of program documents. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, including a cursory review of the data, developing initial codes, applying initial codes to additional data, expanding upon the codes, and collating them into themes.

Results: Findings demonstrate multiple opportunities for foster care youth in the NEYC to have a voice in child welfare policy and practice.  To date, NEYC has been involved in policy advocacy in select priority areas including: Education, Normalcy, Permanency, Sibling Rights and Healthcare.  For example, youth worked together to jointly approve a Sibling Bill of Rights for all foster youth in New England with the Commissioners and Directors of all 6 states. In addition to influencing policy, NEYC focuses on policy implementation and changing the culture of child welfare. For example, youth advocates talked with foster care youth in their respective states to develop a definition of Normalcy for children residing in foster care and used the information to develop educational training materials for foster parents, child welfare workers, social workers and other stakeholders.     

Conclusions and Implications: Findings have important implications for civic engagement among foster care youth. First, NEYC strives to be youth-led in that youth select the policy priority areas and spearhead advocacy efforts in their respective states. Adults provide on-going training, support, and mentoring, but ultimately youth determine the policy advocacy efforts. Second, NEYC youth advocates have direct contact with the child welfare Commissioner and Director in their state. This communication provides decision makers first-hand knowledge of youth issues and priorities, and enhances the potential impact and implementation of policies. Third, NEYC youth advocates integrate the voices of multiple foster care youth from their respective states in their advocacy work. Consistent with the youth-led approach, future research should use youth participatory action research methods to empower foster care youth to examine youth engagement in policy advocacy.