What's New
The Long, Slow Struggle to Achieve a National Youth-in-Transition Database
How many young adults in Missouri get independent living services through the child welfare system? In Georgia? How many 17-year-old in California's foster care system are working? How many 17-year-olds in Florida's system are enrolled in high school?
Who knows? Eight years after the passage of the federal Foster Care Independence Act (FCIA), it's still virtually impossible to get answers to such basic questions.
Implementing a National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) has been a long, slow struggle. The 1999 FCIA—also known as the Chafee Act—required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to develop an information system to monitor and measure state performance in operating independent living programs. But final regulations directing states to begin collecting data and tracking outcomes are still pending.
"How well the Chafee Program has worked to improve outcomes for emancipated youth among states is still unknown eight years after the passage of FCIA, and HHS has not yet implemented its information system that is intended to meet FCIA requirements for collecting and monitoring a state's performance," according to a July 2007 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Others in the field also are critical of HHS's foot-dragging. "HHS's failure to implement NYTD in a timely manner represents not only a violation of the statute, but also hinders the ability of advocates, child welfare professionals, and researchers to get any accurate sense of the impact of the Chafee Program, any information regarding the appropriate use of federal funds, and most importantly, any objective information regarding improved outcomes for foster youth," according to a memo from the Campaign for Youth Voices, representing youth practitioners, policy makers, educators, advocates, community and faith-based institutions and others.
To facilitate data collection for the NYTD, the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative plans to coordinate surveys and information about young people from its ten demonstration sites. "Our sites already collect data in their work with youth in transition, so it is a natural segue to coordinate our efforts nationally, continue tracking youth beyond Initiative programs and work with state agencies according to the proposed rules," says Christine Johnson, who is coordinating NYTD efforts for the Initiative.
In 2000, ACF started to develop the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) and issued proposed rules in July 2006. But as of summer 2007, final rules still have not been issued.
The proposed rules include an approach to collect information on all youth who received independent living services, youth who are in foster care at age 17, and follow-up information on youth at ages 19 and 21. For any youth receiving independent living services from either the child welfare agency or another source supported by federal Chafee funds, the state must report certain information, including the type of independent living services received, such as housing, education, or health education and risk prevention. That information is to be collected for as long as the youth receives services.
To track youth outcomes, HHS proposes establishing information on a baseline population of 17-year-olds. All youth who turn 17 while in foster care would be surveyed on a series of outcomes, such as their current employment status. States would be required to conduct follow-up surveys with youth at ages 19 and 21. HHS would allow states to pull a sample from this baseline population with which to conduct these follow-up surveys. For example, California had more than 7,500 17-year-olds in care in 2004. According to the proposed sampling, California would be allowed to survey a minimum of 341 19-year-olds in the follow-up.
For states, the logistics of collecting data are daunting, and the penalties for noncompliance are minor. The GAO says that in 2003, 30 states tried to contact youth emancipated from foster care for initial information, including employment and education. Of those states, most reported that they were unsuccessful in contacting more than half of the youth. Further, 21 states reported attempting to follow up with emancipated youth after a longer period of time had elapsed but had trouble reaching all the youth. State officials told the GAO that collecting outcome data is especially challenging because there is little they can do to find youth. Other officials, according to the GAO, were concerned that youth who are doing well would be more likely to participate in the follow-up interviews, thus skewing the results.
Despite the challenges, the importance of compiling the data is clear. "We really do need to know what happens to youth after they leave foster care because the data will help paint an accurate picture of where our limited resources need to go," Johnson says.
Although states will be required to report on six outcome areas, the states may administer the surveys in the manner of their choosing. The six outcome areas are:
- Increase the Financial Self-Sufficiency of Youth (e.g., employment data, assistance receipt)
- Improve the Educational Attainment of Youth (enrollment/attendance, completion)
- Increase Youth's Positive Connections With Adults (adult connections-undefined)
- Reduce Homelessness Among Youth
- Reduce High-Risk Behavior Among Youth (incarceration, substance abuse referral, childbirth)
- Improve Youth Access to Health Insurance (Medicaid, other insurance)
"This provides an opportunity for our Initiative to shape the data collection efforts, including going beyond the minimum requirements of the regulations," says Gary Stangler, executive director of the Initiative. Stangler says that the Initiative could play a pivotal role with two challenges facing states: making sure that state comply with the data collection requirements, rather than taking the minor penalty and encouraging states to go beyond the minimum requirements. "There will only be two reasons a state will elect to collect the data: it genuinely wants the data to monitor and improve performance, and/or the state will not want to face the legislative and public backlash that would go along with refusing to comply."
Stangler says that shaping the data collection to offer a better understanding of what happens to youth leaving care. "It will be a tragic loss if, for example, the states collect information on 'positive connections to adults' in a way that does not contribute to our understanding of permanency and the supports of families," he says. "One can easily imagine states simply asking youth if they have 'positive connections.'"
