Programs That Promote Employment Success for Young People Aging out of Foster Care

Employment during adolescence and emerging adulthood not only benefits young people financially but the associated developmental experiences also help them develop important technical and soft skills, set career goals, and feel a sense of competence and agency. However, youth transitioning out of foster care often need significant support to prepare for and succeed in early work experiences. Although youth employment programs have existed for decades, the field has not found much evidence of their effectiveness and the literature on employment programs specifically for youth in foster care is limited. We address critical gaps in this knowledge by examining the key factors and outcomes for two, qualitatively different, employment programs for youth transitioning out of foster care. Better understanding the effective components and approaches of such programs will be critical to serving this population and ensuring positive life outcomes for future generations of youth who transition out of care and into adulthood.

We first used qualitative methods to analyze interview and focus group data from program providers, participants, community partners, and employer partners of two employment programs. These analyses elicited key program components including target population and activities like training, youth engagement, community engagement, and employer engagement. We then worked with program providers to develop logic models that, in theory, tie program inputs and activities to program outputs and outcomes. We then analyze program data on program participants, participation, and outcomes. Throughout this study, researchers worked closely with programs by feeding back initial findings for accuracy and additional context, to inform their data collection efforts, and to seek dissemination avenues. This process is also discussed.

We present descriptive analyses on key program components and explore associations between components and outcomes. While we find that both programs have different levels of participation and connection to entry-level jobs, our analyses highlight the variation the programs’ target populations and goals. While both programs offer employment preparation training, each program approaches relationships with participants and employers differently. One program sees employment as providing developmental experiences for youth. They focus on youth engagement and mentoring. They help youth identify and engage with local employers in their communities. The other program makes the economic case to employers by identifying demand within industries and making the business case for hiring their youth. They work with corporate HR departments to ensure that the program’s youth are first in line for interviews for existing employment opportunities. This program functions as a gatekeeper for competitive employment by ensuring that youth are ready for work with their employer partners. This variation is illustrated in the types of data each program collects and suggests that different program orientations and target populations should influence how program outcomes should be interpreted.

This work highlights that one size does not fit all when it comes to preparing young people for success in employment. Future research must consider how the program goals relate to their target population and components.