Fact Sheet: The Status of Foster Youth in Education, Aging Out, and Congregate Care

 

Older Youth Emancipation Numbers: According to data released by CFSA in May 2009, there were 2,264 DC youth in out-of-home care; 1,064 were between the ages of 15-21. About 30% of older youth were in congregate care settings.[i] There were 751 out of 1,064 older youth with a goal of APPLA (Alternative Planned Permanent Living Arrangement) which positions them to emancipate from foster care without a permanent legal relationship like guardianship, adoption, or reunification. Emancipating youth are more likely to end up homeless, in jail, and on public assistance because they are not connected to a family support network. In 2002, there were 3,321 youth in the system and 54 exited by emancipation. In 2008, there were 2,263 youth in the system with 199 exiting by emancipation.[ii]
 
Aging out: 
 
Each year, about 150-200 foster youth turn 21 and age out of the system. Most do not have the knowledge, skills, and supports they need to be self-sufficient, successful adults. According to CFSA’s 2008 Quality Assurance Unit study (which echoes many national studies) at the time of discharge from the system[iii]:
 
  • Only 14% have all the necessary resources to support themselves
  • 66% suffer from mental illness or substance abuse
  • 34% are pregnant or parenting
  • 40% have their high school diploma
  • 10% are enrolled in college
 
Although DC does not keep data on youth aging out, a 2007 study by the University of Chicago focused on foster youth in the Midwest found that 68% of men and 46% of women are arrested within one year of aging out and that the average earnings of a foster care youth during the first year after aging out is $7,000.[iv]
 
 
Education: 
 
Education and specifically college is probably the single most effective strategy for increasing the life prospects and well-being for foster youth. People with college degrees make a median salary of $47,317, compared to $26,104 for high school graduates and $18,085 for high school dropouts. Yet, education seems to be absent from agency goals and priorities. There are no goals, objectives, or benchmarks and it’s unclear who is actually responsible to address youth educational needs. There is no publically available data and no consistent tracking.
 
Not surprising, the rates of college enrollment are low. In May 2009, CFSA reported that 82 youth ages 18-23 were enrolled in college (community or 4-year programs): that’s about 8-10% of the total older youth population. This number is low compared to national foster youth enrollment rates of 13%, DC enrollment rates of 29%, and national enrollment rates of 48%.[v] High school graduation rates for DC youth and DC foster youth are close (43% and 40% respectively). But college enrollment rates differ significantly: 29% for DC youth and 10% for foster youth.
 
Further, foster youth face many placement-related school barriers: When youth change placements -- 44% do once a year – they change schools and usually lose 3 to 6 months of their education.[vi] Group home rules and strict curfews often prohibit youth from taking part in after school activities. Further, most group homes and ILPs offer little educational support for youth residents. Although CFSA does not have data available on these issues, a 2007 study by the Bay Area Social Service Consortium found that foster youth receive reduced levels of engagement, increase expulsion and discipline problems and that 40-41% of foster youth repeat grades.[vii]
 
Currently, CFSA has one program in place to address the educational and employment needs of older youth. Center for Keys for Life (CKL—which is now called the Office of Youth Empowerment) receives $1.29 in federal grants from the federal Chafee program. CKL keeps a low profile. There are few materials, no website, little outreach, and limited accessibility. Youth have to be referred by their social workers. Not surprising, CKL reaches only a fraction of the older youth who need their services. In 2007 reports to Children’s Bureau, CKL reported serving 35 youth to achieve their academic goals; 30 in 2008.[viii]
 
Congregate Care: 
 
Currently, CFSAhas 17 group home and independent living program (ILPs) with for-profit and non-profit contractors who provide food, shelter, and basic support to 340 youth 13-21. Although contractors are paid a lot of money for their services, there are very few requirements beyond basic food and shelter.  According to the 2008 auditor’s report, the median contract payout rate ranges from $73,000 to $174,000per youth per year.[ix] This payout level is among the highest in the country: three times as high as Los Angeles compensation rates and even higher on average than New York City payout rates. Yet, facilities are not required to meet specific outcomes or contribute to youth development (personal, academic, employment) or well being, keep data, or even commit to keeping teen residents in care.
 
On September 21, 2001 The Young Women’s Project Foster Care Team helped pass legal rules known as Chapter 62 of Title 29 DC Municipal Regulations for the Licensing of Youth Shelters, Runaway Shelters, Emergency Care Facilities, and Youth Group Homes, to guarantee that all foster youth who live in group homes receive quality care and support. But eight years later -- enforcement is spotty and based on a consistent stream of stories and reports we get from our teen staff and members -- many group homes are not living up to regulations. Others squeak by with the minimal amount of care.  
 
Although data on group home operations and impact is hard to come by, many of our teen staff and members complain of a range of quality of life issues. Meals are often skipped. Food is locked up and of poor nutritional quality. Transportation is infrequent. Allowance is often withheld when teens have jobs and provided at a minimal level (average is $10 a week) when they don’t. Disciplinary guidelines are inconsistently and unfairly enforced. Staff are often poor trained, petty, and frequently violate youth confidentiality. Facilities lack basic amenities like hot water, fully working toilets, and rodent free kitchens. Further, youth do not have the financial support to buy clothes, get hair care, buy hygiene products, or buy school supplies.

[i]Profile District Youth, Ages 15-21, in Out-of-Home Care; May 2009. Released at the 2009 Youth Permanency Convening.
 
[ii]Source: Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005: Report to Congress – Chapter V. State Data Pages http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo05/state_data/districtofcolumbia.htm; LaShawn v. Fenty Amended Implementation Plan Report – June 2007, page 27; Progress Report in Preparation for LaShawn v. Fenty Status Hearing on April 1, 2008, page 10; Implementing the Adoptions and Safe Families Amendment Act of 2000 in the District of Columbia, February 2009, page 33; National Child Welfare Resource Center for Adoption http://www.nrcadoption.org/youthpermanencycluster/ki.html
 
[iii]Youth Who Transitioned from DC’s Foster Care System: A Study of Their Preparation for Adulthood, CFSA Quality Improvement Administration, June 2008.
 
[iv]Courtney, Mark E., Amy Dworksy, Gretchen Ruth Cusick, Judy Havlicek, Alfred Perez, and Tom Keller, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21, University of Chicago Center for Children, December 2007.
 
[v]Double the Numbers for College Success: A Call to Action for District of Columbia, October 2006. doublethenumbersdc.org.
 
[vii]Bay Area Social Service Consortium, 2007.
 
[viii] 2007 Annual Progress and Services Report. Prepared by the Office of Planning, Policy, and Program Support. DC Government Child and Family Services Agency for the US Children’s Bureau.
 
2008 Annual Progress and Services Report. Prepared by the Office of Planning, Policy, and Program Support. DC Government Child and Family Services Agency for the US Children’s Bureau.
 
[ix] “Audit of Child and Family Services Agency’s Congregate Care Contract Expenditures,” Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, April 1, 2008.