Search

This report presents findings from a rigorous evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program (LST) in Los Angeles County. LST provides 30 hours of life skills training over five weeks to foster youths ages 16 and older. The classes are held on community college campuses throughout Los Angeles County. The program is staffed by workers tasked with conducting outreach to youths to engage them in the program and providing some case management. The authors examine the program's implementation and its impact on the youths served with a rigorous random-assignment method with a two-year follow-up. This is one of the impact reports from a four-site study required by the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, funded by the Children's Bureau and directed by the Children's Bureau and the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The impact evaluation found few impacts on any outcome assessed. After adjusting significance levels to account for the possibility of false positive results, no significant impacts remained. The evaluation calls into question the notion that classroom-based life skills training, in and of itself, is likely to have much impact on the well-being of foster youth in transition to adulthood. Child welfare authorities should not expect classroom-based life skills training to suffice as a strategy to prepare foster youth for adulthood. The evaluation provides strong evidence that foster youth are already getting some of this kind of help from their foster care providers, though there is room for improvement. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the Chafee legislation and the evaluation purpose, as well as site selection for the evaluation and research questions for the study. It also reviews the research design and methodology for both the impact and process studies. Chapter 2 describes the LST program using information obtained as part of the process study component of the evaluation. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the evaluation's implementation, including a discussion of service take-up, sample development, and a description of the sample. Results of the evaluation's impact study are discussed in chapter 4. A discussion of process study findings that shed light on the impact findings is also presented in chapter 4. Finally, chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings of the evaluation and how it relates to the broader field of independent living programs. The following are appended: (1) Evaluation Methodology and Challenges; (2) Los Angeles County Context; (3) LST Staff Roles and Responsibilities; (4) OA Perspective Form and 10 Tangible Outcomes Form; and (5) Impact Study--Methodology and Additional Data. (Contains 24 tables and 3 figures.) [Contributing authors for this report include: Matthew Stagner and Michael Pergamit. This report was prepared for the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by The Urban Institute, Chapin Hall Center for Children, and National Opinion Research Center.]

This report presents findings from a rigorous evaluation of the Early Start to Emancipation Preparation (ESTEP)-Tutoring Program in Los Angeles. ESTEP-Tutoring provides up to 50 hours of remedial one-on-one tutoring in reading and math to foster youths ages 14 to 15 who are one to three years behind grade level in either reading or math. The tutoring is provided in the youth's home by tutors who are typically local college students. Other program staff guide the tutors and assess the youths. Another implicit goal of the program is to build an ongoing mentoring relationship between the youth and the tutor. The authors examine its implementation and its impact on the youths it serves using a rigorous random-assignment method with a two-year follow-up. Outcomes evaluated align closely with the program's primary goals of improving reading and math skills and empowering youths to use other educational resources. The program had no impacts on educational outcomes. No statistically significant differences were observed between the ESTEP and control groups in any of the outcomes at the second follow-up. This report divides into five chapters. Chapter 1 presents an overview of the Chafee legislation and the evaluation purpose, as well as describe site selection for the evaluation along with research questions for the study. It also reviews the research design and methodology for both the impact and process studies. Chapter 2 describes the ESTEP-Tutoring Program using information obtained as part of the process study component of the evaluation. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the evaluation's implementation, including a discussion of service take-up, sample development, and a description of the sample. Results of the evaluation's impact study are presented in chapter 4. A discussion of process study findings that shed light on the impact findings is also presented in chapter 4. Lastly, chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings of the evaluation and how it relates to the broader field of independent living programs. Appended to this document are: (1) Evaluation Methodology and Challenges; (2) Los Angeles County Context; (3) ESTEP-Tutoring Staff Roles and Responsibilities; and (4) Impact Study--Methodology and Additional Data. (Contains 37 tables and 2 figures.) [Contributing authors to this report include: Matthew Stagner and Michael Pergamit. This report was prepared for the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by The Urban Institute, Chapin Hall Center for Children, and the National Opinion Research Center.]

This paper presents findings from the 2001 Urban Institute Child Welfare Survey, which collected SFY 2000 expenditures. In addition to spending by source and by use, changes in spending between SFY 1998 and SFY 2000 are presented. This survey was designed to identify changes in child welfare spending following states' implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. Results indicate that the fiscal impacts of welfare reform on child welfare are clear, including a $1.4 billion increase in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) spending. States spent at least $20 billion on child welfare services in SFY 2000; a 20-percent increase from SFY 1998. The federal share of total spending increased. Federal spending was 45 percent of total spending in SFY 1998 and 49 percent in 2000. Spending on adoptions, other services, and administration increased. Reliance on nondedicated federal funds (TANF, Medicaid, and Social Services Block Grant) continues. Welfare reform had clear impacts on child welfare financing during this time period. (Contains 13 references.) (SM)

This brief updates "Income Support and Social Services for Low-Income People in New York," an overview of benefits and services in the state in 1997. Information comes from reviews of state and local program documents and interviews with selected officials responsible for policy and program operations in Erie County (Buffalo) and New York City. Most of the implementation of welfare reform occurred after the baseline visits that yielded the information presented in the earlier report. This brief describes the Family Assistance (FA) program, New York's version of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which represents a departure from the program described in the earlier report. Since 1997, New York has made many changes across the spectrum of social safety net programs. This brief concentrates on three areas of change: FA and workforce development, child care, and child welfare. The first section profiles New York's population; social, economic, and political conditions; the safety net; and changes in caseloads since 1997. The subsequent three sections describe in more detail current policies and recent changes in the areas of FA and workforce development, child care, and child welfare. The final section highlights other key changes in New York's safety net and their implications for understanding the effects of devolution and welfare reform. (SM)

In 1999, researchers conducted case studies on 12 states and multiple local sites to document how welfare reform and other changes affected child welfare agencies, following up on 1997 case studies. They conducted interviews with welfare and child welfare stakeholders and focus groups with child welfare workers. Respondents discussed the impact of welfare reform on child welfare and of direct challenges to child welfare. They emphasized continuing concerns about the quality and capacity of the child welfare system. In some states, these concerns led to the formation of commissions charged with assessing the child welfare system, while other states faced legal action. Respondents noted that frequent child welfare leadership changes affected child welfare priorities and agency responses to various situations. The mission of child welfare agencies continued to fluctuate between focusing on family preservation and on child safety as a top priority. One way that both federal and state governments sought to improve the child welfare system was by increasing oversight and making agencies more accountable for outcomes. Respondents acknowledged that most systems lacked sufficient resources to protect and serve children and families adequately. Child welfare workers reported that they have more clerical work, less decision-making authority, and less time to spend with children and families. (Contains 21 references.) (SM)

Colorado's welfare reform legislation significantly departs from the state's traditional emphasis on education and training while further embracing a decentralized administrative structure. The state's welfare system has shifted from an education and training model to a work-first model. This report presents findings from data collected in 1999 and 2000 regarding the state's social service system. It begins with a short profile of Colorado's demographic, economic, and political conditions, then presents an overview of the state's social safety net. The following three sections offer more detail on specific programs and services: Colorado's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, Colorado Works; the state's system for providing child care for both Colorado Works recipients and other low-income families; and the child welfare system, with particular emphasis on the interaction between child welfare and welfare reform. Each section discusses important policies affecting the program and the clients being served, the program's administrative structure and general service delivery, and recent changes. The report concludes with a summary of noteworthy trends across the different social policy areas. (Contains 18 endnotes.) (SM)

New Jersey has a history of successfully providing a strong safety net to support low-income families on welfare and the working poor. Despite its emphasis on work and responsibility, it has maintained a high level of support for many public assistance programs. The governor changed the emphasis of New Jersey's welfare program from education and training to immediate employment. This report profiles New Jersey's demographic, economic, and political conditions, then presents an overview of the state's income and social services safety net. The following three sections offer more detail on specific programs and services, describing recent changes, the administrative structure, general service delivery, and important policies affecting each program and program clients. New Jersey's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, Work First New Jersey, is described, highlighting the state's work-related component for TANF recipients and the overall workforce development system. The next section covers the state's system for providing child care for both Work First New Jersey and non-welfare families. The third section describes the child welfare system, particularly the interaction between child welfare and welfare reform. The report concludes with a summary of key features of the state's programs and service delivery systems. (Contains 13 endnotes.) (SM)

This study provides updated information about states' kinship care policies for children in foster care based on a survey conducted in 1999. Almost all states give preference to and seek out kin when placing a child in foster care. However, states vary in the way that they assess and support kinship care. Most states assess kin differently than nonkin foster parents. Some kin receive foster care payments while others are supported with lesser payments. The paper also analyzes the impacts of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) final rule on kinship care and discusses the challenge of creating kinship care policies that ensure child safety and address the unique needs of kin. The ASFA requires that a state's kinship care standards be the same as its nonkinship foster care licensing requirements, but it does not require that policies be uniform across the states. (Contains 4 figures, 6 tables, and 43 references.) (SLD)