Associations between Foster Youths’ Co-Production in Transition Plan Development and Their Service Utilization

Background and purpose. The transitional independent living plan (TILP) is a document that youth and caseworkers create by engaging in a collaborative decision-making process. Co-producing the TILP can be an important protective role for youth that improves their self-concepts, skills, and utilization of services and support. Caseworkers are mandated to engage transition-age youth in their TILP development. However, there is little empirical evidence on how youths’ participation in planning decisions affects their service experiences – a core benefit of co-production. The study’s main research question is: What is the association between the mechanism of TILP development youth engaged in at age 17 and their service utilization at 19?

Methods. We use multiple data sources. Two waves of youth surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2015 among a representative sample of foster youths in California when they were ages 17 and 19. A caseworker survey was conducted in 2013 with a representative sample of workers who supervised a transition-age youth (n = 235, response rate [RR] = 90%). Lastly, we used state administrative records to capture information on youths’ foster care and maltreatment histories. Our sample includes 611 youths who participated in both interview waves (RR=81%).

The primary explanatory variable is the mechanism youth engaged in at age 17: (1) worker-driven production (i.e., youth were not aware of or uninvolved in the TILP development), (2) youth-worker co-production (i.e., youth participated in, but did not lead, the TILP development), and (3) youth-driven co-production (i.e., youth participated in and led the TILP development). The outcome measure is a scale score of youths’ service utilization in seven areas: education, employment, housing, health, mental health, substance use disorder, and financial education (alpha = 0.84). We used ordinary least squares regression to explore the associations between the TILP development mechanism at age 17 and their service utilization at age 19, controlling for a wide range of youth-level and county level factors.

Results. At age 17, 45% of youth engaged in youth-worker co-production, and 25% experienced youth-driven co-production. The remaining 30% experienced worker-driven TILP development. On a scale from 1 (none) to 4 (a lot), youths’ average service utilization at 19 was 3.1 (standard deviation = 0.7). Regression analyses show the youth who experienced youth-worker co-production at age 17 had higher service utilization at age 19 (coefficient = 0.14, p<0.05) than youth who experienced provider-driven production at age 17. No significant difference in service utilization was found between youth who experienced youth-driven co-production versus provider-driven production.

Discussion and Contributions. This paper distinguishes between three transition plan production mechanisms, highlighting the importance of not just whether but how youth are being involved in their planning. The largest portion of youth (45%) experienced youth-worker coproduction, and these youth had greater service utilization than did their peers who experienced worker-driven coproduction. These findings suggest that engaging youth in an active, collaborative planning process may lead to greater participation in services at an older age. Future studies should investigate whether TILP engagement and service utilization are associated with youths’ long-term outcomes.