AGING OUT OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM AND UTILIZATION OF THPPLUS PROGRAM BY FOSTER YOUTH EMANCIPATING OUT OF CHILD
WELFARE
Sueann Eccles
B.S., California State University, Sacramento, 1999
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
AGING OUT OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM AND UTILIZATION OF THPPLUS PROGRAM BY FOSTER YOUTH EMANCIPATING OUT OF CHILD
WELFARE
A Project
by
Sueann Eccles
Approved by:
_____________________, Committee Chair
Kisun Nam, Ph.D., MSSW
_____________________
Date
ii
Student: Sueann Eccles
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the Project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., LCSW
Division of Social Work
iii
________________
Date
Abstract
of
AGING OUT OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM AND UTILIZATION OF THPPLUS PROGRAM BY FOSTER YOUTH EMANCIPATING OUT OF CHILD
WELFARE
by
Sueann Eccles
Since 2006 foster youth aging out of the system has continued to grow and the numbers
show they do not have families for support. The Transitional Housing Placement Plus
Program (THP-Plus) assists former foster youth in maintaining housing, which is a main
obstacle for youth when they leave the Child Welfare System. A smaller county in
Northern California was reviewed on the process Social Workers use when they have a
youth aging out of the system that needs housing. The purpose of the project was to
examine how often, when, and why Social Workers working for the Child Welfare
System utilize the THP-Plus Program. The research design used was cross-sectional
qualitative survey methodology. Data was gathered by questionnaires from 11 Social
Workers and from a second data set, which was the agency in charge of providing the
THP-Plus services to youth aging out of the system. The findings suggest that smaller
counties in California need the THP-Plus Program and the Social Workers do utilize the
iv
program but there was no significant correlations between the variables that were
selected.
_________________________, Committee Chair
Kisun Nam, Ph.D., MSSW
_________________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful for the support of my family and friends when I felt as if I wanted to
end this journey. The positive feedback and guidance from the one and only K$, without
you I may have given up. I wanted to make my family, friends and most of all, my dad
proud of this large achievement that no other in my family have accomplished.
My friends have been there to make me laugh and decrease my stress and anxiety
by encouraging me, providing me much needed companionship and pointing out my
strengths to keep me going. My twin sister, I appreciate you feeding me and treating me
when I struggled financially, I will be able to return the favor once I get a job.
Lastly, during this journey I lost the number one man in my life, my father. This
made a challenging journey even more incredibly difficult. Dad, you are the one I look
up to and the reason I keep pushing myself for success. The completion of this thesis is
dedicated to you dad, I will always love you and keep pushing myself to make you proud.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 4
Description of THP-Plus Program .......................................................................... 4
Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................... 5
Justification ............................................................................................................. 6
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8
Problems of Aging-Out ........................................................................................... 8
Current Models and/or Resources ......................................................................... 13
THP-Plus Program ................................................................................................ 15
Criteria for THP-Plus ...................................................................................... 18
Program Expectations ..................................................................................... 19
3. METHODS .................................................................................................................. 24
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 24
Research Design.................................................................................................... 24
Measurement Instrument ...................................................................................... 25
Sampling and Data Collection .............................................................................. 26
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 27
vii
Protection of Human Subjects .............................................................................. 27
4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 28
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 28
Demographics ....................................................................................................... 28
Findings................................................................................................................. 28
Whole Person Learning Findings.......................................................................... 34
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................... 39
Main Themes ........................................................................................................ 40
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 41
Summary ............................................................................................................... 41
Implications for Social Work Practice .................................................................. 42
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 43
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 44
Appendix A. Human Subjects Approval Letter ................................................................ 47
Appendix B. The Approval Letter From CPS Agency ..................................................... 50
Appendix C. Survey Questions For Social Workers ........................................................ 51
References ......................................................................................................................... 55
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 1 Number of years working for the County .................................................. 29
2. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 2 What is your gender?.................................................................................. 29
3. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 3 Social Workers experience working with youth aging out of CWS .......... 29
4. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 4 The types of homes youth are placed in upon emancipation ..................... 30
5. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 5 The average length of stay in placement for foster youth .......................... 30
6. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 6 Do youth have a strong connection with their placements upon aging out of
the Child Welfare System ..................................................................................... 31
7. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 7 The three primary reasons a youth changes placement is their age,
behavioral problems or reunification .................................................................... 31
8. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 8 How many times a youth has been referred to THP-Plus Program ........... 32
ix
9. ............................................................................................................................. T
able 9 Were Social Workers made aware if youth utilized the THP-plus Program
after they emancipate? .......................................................................................... 32
10. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 10 Do Social Workers understand what the THP-Plus Program does for
foster youth?.......................................................................................................... 33
11. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 11 Do foster youth understand what the THP-Plus Program is?................... 33
12. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 12 Are foster youth educated on THP-Plus even if they do not need it? ..... 33
13. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 13 Does the county have a need for the THP-Plus Program? ....................... 34
14. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 14 How many times a Social Worker referred a foster youth to THP-Plus
Program ................................................................................................................. 34
15. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 15 How many times does a foster youth utilize the THP-Plus after a referral
............................................................................................................................... 34
16. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 16 Cross Tabulation ...................................................................................... 37
17. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 17 Cross Tabulation ...................................................................................... 37
x
18. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 18 Cross Tabulation ...................................................................................... 38
19. ........................................................................................................................... T
able 19 Cross Tabulation ...................................................................................... 38
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Older adolescents leaving foster care represent a difficult problem for an already
overburdened child welfare system. For a variety of reasons, older adolescents often
leave traditional foster family care prematurely and unprepared for independent living. A
large proportion of these youths do not return to their parents' home. Many leave care
without the skills and resources necessary to adequately live on their own, and become
homeless, incarcerated, or at best, live on the fringes of society. (Colca, & Colca, 1996)
With rising numbers of youth in foster care, there are increasing numbers of youth
also aging out of foster care. Although Child Welfare agencies have had an ongoing
concern about the experiences and outcomes for these youth who transition out of care, in
recent years more has been learned and new programs developed to assist this population.
The studies of this population have been limited in size and scope but a consistent picture
emerges: former foster care youth experience disproportionately high rates of
homelessness, unemployment, and involvement with the criminal justice system. More
likely to drop out of high school and less likely to attend college than other young people,
these alumni of the foster care system face many challenges in addition to overcoming
the abuse, neglect, and separation from family already experienced in the Child Welfare
System. (Anderson, 2003)
As the result of abuse or neglect toward the end of September 2008 some 463,000
children were living in foster care at the national level. The intentions of foster care are
2
to provide a short-term safe environment to children that were abused or neglected. It is
preferred the children return to a safe permanent family, which can either be reunification
with birth parents, guardianship from extended relatives, or adoption. The Federal
government reported approximately 85 percent of children who left foster care in 2007
were released to one of the three options stated above. (McCoy-Roth, Freundlich, and
Ross, 2010)
Background of the Problem
In 2008, 29,000 foster youth, which is ten percent of the total amount of youth
living in foster care emancipate out of the child welfare system at age 18 and do not have
a safe place to live or a permanent family for support. Since the passing of the Safe
Families Act and the Chaffee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, the number of
foster youth aging out of the system has increased by 64 percent. At the national level
since 1999, approximately 228,000 foster youth have emancipated from the child welfare
system. (McCoy-Roth, Freundlich, and Ross, 2010)
The transition to adulthood for youth who age out of foster care is loaded with
challenges, and more specific supports and services are required in order for former foster
youth to have a chance of succeeding through all the difficult circumstances they will
encounter. The research that exists on outcomes for former foster youth that emancipate
from the system are extremely poor, these youth are at a higher risk for homelessness,
unemployment, illness, incarceration, welfare dependency, and sexual and physical
victimization compared to their peers. (Gardner, 2008)
3
A study at the University of Chicago’s Chapin Hall Center for Children
researched the outcomes of 600 former foster youth compared to young adults of the
general population. The study found 19-year-old former foster youth were almost three
times more likely to be out of school and work compared to the general population used
in the study. When it came to paying rent, the former foster youth were twice as likely to
be unable to pay and four times as likely to be evicted. A significant amount of former
foster youth had been incarcerated, which occurred under two years of them leaving
foster care. Lastly, the study showed that one in seven former foster youth experienced
homelessness. A California survey done in 2002 showed that approximately 65% of
former foster youth were in need of safe and reliable housing. (John Burton Foundation
for Children Without Homes, 2010).
While the primary responsibility for Child Welfare services rests with the States,
the Federal Government plays a major role in supporting States in the delivery of services
through funding of programs and legislative initiatives (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2008).
Statement of the Problem
Documentation has been done to show the hardships and complications that
former foster youth have when it comes to transitioning out of foster care and how it
limits a safe and productive environment for them. Throughout the past two decades
these issues have been examined and have focused on various outcomes of former foster
youth such as homelessness, employment, self-sufficiency, education, and incarceration.
One of the major problems and most immediate faced by youth aging out of the system is
4
a safe permanent home to live in. Between 10% and 30% of former foster youth face at
least one night of sleeping on the streets or in a shelter after they leave foster care.
(Cook, 1994; Courtney et al., 2001).
Purpose of the Study
A small Northern California County Child Protective Services (CPS) agency was
examined during this project. This agency assists families and helps prevent emotional,
physical, sexual abuse and neglect toward children. The knowledge that former foster
youth exiting the Child Welfare System face many challenges is widely known by
agencies such as CPS. One service offered throughout California is the Transitional
Housing Placement Plus Program (THP-Plus). The researcher of the project wanted to
examine how often Social Workers refer foster youth aging out of the Child Welfare
System and if a smaller county utilizes the THP-Plus Program.
Description of THP-Plus Program
State Legislature created California’s Transitional Housing Placement Plus
Program by passing the Assembly Bill 427 in 2001 to address the needs of foster youth
aging out of the system. The THP-Plus Program is funded through the California
Department of Social Services (CDSS) and provides young adults ages 18-24 affordable
housing, up to 24 months along with other supportive services (Kimberlin, Lemley &
Byrnes, 2009).
The THP-Plus Statewide Implementation Project is a collaboration between the
John Burton Foundation, the California Department of Social Services, and the
Corporation for Supportive Housing. The goal of the Project is to reduce homelessness
5
among former foster care and probation youth by expanding access to the Transitional
Housing Placement Plus Program. THP-Plus is administered by the California
Department of Social Services, and provides affordable housing and a wide range of
supportive services, including job training, educational support, and counseling. The
project seeks to expand access to THP-Plus throughout the state through training,
technical assistance, and advocacy. (John Burton Foundation for Children Without
Homes, 2010)
Definitions of Terms
Child Welfare System: A group of services designed to promote the well-being
of children by ensuring safety, achieving permanency, and strengthening families
to successfully care for their children. (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2008)
Foster Youth: A minor that has been made a ward of the court and is placed in a
temporary home of a state certified caregiver. For purposes of this research, the
ages of youth will be between 16 and 24 years old.
Aging-Out: A youth discharged from the child welfare system at the age of 18 or
older.
Emancipation: Foster youth that exit the Child Welfare System between the ages
of 18-21 depending on the state.
Placement: Any residential facility providing 24-hour care for foster youth
outside of their home of origin, such as a group home, foster home, or emergency
shelter.
6
THP-Plus Program: Provides up to 24 months of affordable housing for foster
youth ages 18-24 that have aged out of the foster care system.
Justification
The research project will benefit Social Workers to inform them of how often
their fellow peers refer foster youth aging out of the system and how important it is for
the Social Worker to educate themselves and the youth on their caseload about the
services offered to former foster youth. Many services exist to alleviate the challenges
former foster youth face in the real world but some do not take advantage of them
because they are not informed about them. As Social Workers we want to contribute and
provide information to our youth to better assist them and help set them up for success
once they age out of the system. Policy makers could potentially benefit as well, the
research will imply the difficulties foster youth deal with when transitioning from
adolescence to independent adulthood and the need for more funding and programs to
benefit these abused and neglected youth (Kimberlin, Lemley &Byrnes, 2009).
Limitations
Review of a small Northern California County was looked at and the information
collected will not be able to be generalized due to that fact. The external validity of the
small population affects the type of clientele and the impact of the Social Workers at this
agency. The internal validity of the research project could be compromised because the
Social Worker answering the survey questionnaire has a responsibility to refer a foster
youth to the THP-Plus program, but the ILP coordinators are the worker in charge of
7
following through with the youth and they maintain a relationship to assist them with all
the details of the THP-Plus Program.
8
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Social Workers in the Child Welfare System provide resources to their clients and
assist the foster youth with information to help them become self-sufficient as they age
out of the system. A Social Worker is supposed to understand foster youths challenges so
they are able to advocate for them. The THP-Plus Program can benefit and assist a foster
youth when they age out of the Child Welfare System. Housing is a priority for these
youth going out in the real world to begin to build a stable and safe environment for them
self (Independent Living Program Policy Unit, 2002).
Problems of Aging-Out
In the United States there are 24,000 foster youth that age out of the system each
year. In the last 12 months, ending December 31, 2009 5,497 youth emancipated from
the foster care and juvenile probation systems in California. Over decades of studies
have been done to show that foster youth aging out of the system will deal with many
disadvantages and obstacles when released to the world on their own. Such outcomes for
former foster youth are increased chance of incarceration, lack of education, use of
welfare, unemployment, sexual and physical abuse, and illness. (John Burton Foundation
for Children Without Homes, 2010; Pride Industries, 2011)
The number of youth aging out of the system without permanent homes will
continue to grow if youth ages 14-18 do not achieve permanency. The States with the
9
highest amount of youth aging out of the system in 2007 were: California 5188, Florida
1339, Illinois 1245, Massachusetts 1150, New York 1506, Ohio 1166, Pennsylvania
1064, Texas 1440, and Virginia 1013. (McCoy-Roth, Freundlich, Ross, 2010; AFCARS,
2006).
California has the largest amount of foster youth in the foster care system
compared nationally to the other states with 83,000 children in care. Of those youth,
4000 each year emancipate and enter the world on their own (Youth Transition Action
Team Initiative, 2007). These youth have been placed on average in six placements and
some have been in care since they were young. The youth are unprepared to take on the
emotional, financial and physical responsibility of caring for themselves. The State
becomes these children’s parent and the effect the system has on them is lifelong. (CCS
Partnership, 2011)
A non-profit agency in San Francisco that serves transitioning foster youth
collected the following data: 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless 18 months
after exiting the system and 65% need immediate housing upon exiting the system.
Within 5 years of emancipation 50% of former foster youth experience unemployment
and 60% earn at or below $6000 per year, which is below the poverty level (CCSP,
2008). 70% of former foster youth have the desire to attend college but only 10% enroll
and 1% graduate. 83% of foster youth are held back by the third grade, 75% are behind a
grade level, and 40% complete high school compared to 84% of the general population.
33% have no form of health insurance; former foster youth experience Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder at a rate 2 times the level of U.S. war veterans. Almost 50% of foster
10
children suffer from chronic health conditions such as visual and auditory problems,
dental decay, malnutrition and asthma. Children in foster care have 50-60% moderate to
severe mental health problems and will also have substance abuse problems. Within the
first 2 years of emancipation 25% of former foster youth will have been incarcerated.
(CCS Partnership, 2011)
Former foster youth lack support of family and other caring adults, which make
aging out of the system very difficult (Eilertson, 2002). The transition from adolescent to
adulthood is challenging for most young people especially if you have been part of the
system due to physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect. The transition to adulthood is
much more of a challenge. The foster youth aging out of the system have a three times
more likely chance than their peers to be out of work or school. The former foster youth
are twice as likely to not be able to pay their rent and four times more likely to be evicted.
Significant numbers of foster youth have been incarcerated within less than two years of
exiting foster care. (Kimberlin, Lemly & Byrnes, 2009) Housing is one of the immediate
needs as a foster youth is exiting the system. Foster youth are unaware of the cost of
housing and how much of their wages are needed to pay for monthly rent. This lack of
knowledge increases homelessness for former foster youth. (Gardner, 2008)
On average children placed in the system and age out have been in care for five
years. The children placed in the system suffer due to their parents choices and they are
not given a choice. The children must learn to navigate in the Child Welfare System,
with new strange adults acting as parents, foreign homes, changing schools, changing
communities, and many other challenging or uncomfortable situations. Often times
11
siblings are separated and may never be together again. These are difficult times in their
lives and feeling frustrated and acting out could land them in a group home or juvenile
hall. These youth experience trauma such as losing friends, homes, often siblings,
disruption of their education, and multiple placements. Non-foster youth from the ages
of 18-26 receive a great deal of financial and emotional support from their families. In
January 2007 a report by the University of San Diego stated approximately $44,500 of
financial support is provided by parents for their “adult” children between 18 and 26
years of age (CCS Partnership, 2011). A large number of youth exit the system
unprepared to take care of themselves. Adolescents leaving their family home for the
first time usually find it difficult. Foster adolescents naturally would find it even more
difficult because of the lack of family support and possible dysfunctional circumstances
related to why they entered the system (Colca & Colca, 1996)
“According to studies of young people discharged to themselves in different
states: 12–30% struggled with homelessness; 40–63% did not complete high school; 25–
55% were unemployed; those employed had average earnings below the poverty level,
and only 38% of those employed were still working after 1 year; 30–62% had trouble
accessing health care due to inadequate finances or lack of insurance; 32–40% were
forced to rely on some form of public assistance and 50% experienced extreme financial
hardship; 31–42% were arrested; 18–26% were incarcerated; and 40–60% of the young
women were pregnant within 12–18 months of leaving foster care” (The Children’s Aid
Society, 2007).
12
A study was done in Northern California and it compared former foster youth
who participated in employment training program to those that did not. The program ran
for 3 weeks for 3 hours per day. The youth explored their career interests, developed a
career strategy, were trained on how to find a job, and practiced general work habits. The
youth that participated in the employment training program ended up making more per
hour compared to the youth not taking the training. The study also suggested that with an
increase in pay their opportunities for stable housing increases (Rashid, 2004).
Another study reviewed a transitional housing program for ages 16-21; it allowed
them to stay up to 18 months to help prepare them for independence in society. The
outcomes and results showed a 100% success rate. (Giffords, Alonso & Bell, 2007)
AB 1198, this bill created the “incare” transitional housing for foster youth age 17
and older and in their last year of high school. Modifications were made to THPP in
2001. Specific laws were made and passed to better assist these foster youths chances in
the real world. The federal law sees that extra help is needed in certain areas for these
youth to become self-sufficient and advance upon leaving the system. Various programs
and Acts provide money to the county level agencies to provide particular services in the
local areas. Due to the high rates of the foster youth being susceptible to elevate rates of
incarceration, homelessness, unemployment, lack of higher education, and poor health
programs are developed to increase the outcomes in these areas. (California Youth
Connection, 2011)
13
Current Models and/or Resources
A program in Long Island N.Y., Walkabout I designed to help homeless youth
become self-sufficient exceeded the goals of the program during the 2005 contract year.
Walkabout II achieved a 100% success rate in both indicators and overall program goal.
This suggests youth benefit from the extended transitional program service model, where
they have the opportunity to practice their newly acquired independent living skills. Of
the youth in the program 93% continued to practice the skills they learned such as money
management, nutrition, personal hygiene, time management, health and social skills after
they completed the program. (Giffords, et. al., 2007)
A study in Illinois was conducted to review measures of placement restrictiveness
and educational achievement for a sample of emancipated foster youth. The results
showed two thirds of the youth in less restrictive placements attended postsecondary
education, compared to one third who were placed in highly restrictive settings. Overall,
nearly 85% of the enrollees in postsecondary education or training programs came from
placements rated as low in restrictiveness. The study concluded that placements, which
were rated as low in restrictiveness such as, foster family homes and transitional
apartments were probably the most effective settings in which to prepare foster youth for
independence. (Mech & Che-Man Fung, 1999)
Western New York Foster Family Care Program at Berkshire Farm Center and
Services for Youth created a program designed to teach the youth as well as the foster
parent. The program provides foster parent training, counseling, and independent living
14
groups and training to prepare adolescents for independent living. The two variations of
the Transitional Foster Home program are:
Mentor Model. This model allows the youth to move into an apartment with a
certified transitional live-in foster parent who is a young single adult (St. Mary, &
Guilford, n.d.). The purpose of the foster parent is to take on the role of a roommate and
mentor. The programs goal is to have the youth live and learn from another person and
share responsibilities and expenses that are part of apartment living. The mentor foster
parent’s role is to provide guidance, friendship and to role model how to be a responsible
adult. The mentor foster parent’s primary role is to provide resources and help when
needed but allow the adolescent to be accountable for their actions and make decisions on
their own. (Colco & Colco, 1996)
Boarder Model. A traditional foster parent is utilized to create a real life
independent learning environment for the adolescent. The adolescent becomes
responsible for their own finances, shopping, cooking and making critical decisions. The
foster parent offers support by providing advice, feedback and a safety net when
necessary, one could say the foster parent teaches the adolescent how to become a
reliable, strong, and educated adult. (Colco & Colco, 1996)
The difference between these two models and the traditional foster family home
that cares for foster children while they are in the Child Welfare System is finances. The
two models mentioned provides the adolescents the opportunity to learn how to budget
on a limited income. There is a big difference from being taught how to pay your bills to
15
actually applying it yourself. This program has shown hopeful results and modification
and adapting to obstacles are continuous to better the program. (Colco & Colco, 1996)
Only two youths participating in the program have not demonstrated improvement
in money management skills. One of these youths became aware that she was not ready
to live on her own and did some soul searching. She decided to return to her parents'
home, which was a successful move. The Transitional Foster Care program had helped
her become aware of her limitations and make a sound decision. (Colco & Colco, 1996)
A youth that participated in the program joined the Armed Services. The majority
of participants were able to survive on a strict budget and save money from their
paychecks. Numerous youth were able to save a significant amount of money by
participating in this program. The program has enabled the youth to improve their
chances on being able to take care of themselves and make important decisions about
their life and relationships. The youth that participated in this program have improved
their daily skills such as banking, shopping, cooking, and using public transportation,
which can increase their self-sufficiency. (Colco & Colco, 1996)
THP-Plus Program
The Child Welfare County that was researched contracts out with Whole Person
Learning, which is the agency that provides the THP-Plus services to the former foster
youth. An allocation is received from the California Department of Social Services for
emancipating foster youth ages 18-24 years of age (Burton, R. J. & Knecht, R. S., 2010).
A variety of services are implemented for former foster youth up to 24 months. The
16
county being reviewed for purposes of the thesis project had 32 youth in the THP-Plus
for fiscal year 2009-2010 (California College Pathways, 2010).
In 2001, the Transitional Housing Placement Program (THP-Plus) was created to
assist youth formerly in foster care and juvenile probation systems with safe affordable
housing and supportive services, including: educational assistance, counseling, and
employment and mental health support.
In 2005, the age limit for the THP-Plus program was changed from 18-21 to 1824. Counties had to pay a 60% share of cost; this provision was removed in 2006
allowing more counties to participate in the program. (Lorentzen, Lemley, Kimberlin, &
Byrnes, 2008)
The THP-Plus Program has gone through severe growth in the past years. The
fiscal year 2009-2010 is the first time the program had a reduction since it began. It was
decreased from $40.8 million to $35.8 million. The $5 million loss reduced the housing
capacity by 11%, leaving the former foster and exiting probation youth on a waiting list
to enter the THP-Plus Program. (Lorentzen et. al., 2008)
The types of services offered for the former foster youth include case
management, assistance in pursuing post-secondary education, job readiness training and
support, mentoring and support for building permanent relationships with caring adults,
and coordination with the county-administered Independent Living Program (ILP) to
meet the goals outlined in the participant’s Transitional Independent Living Plan (TILP).
The THP-Plus program also assists the youth with rent, utilities, furnishings, food, and
other necessities. (Lorentzen et. al., 2008)
17
In California 2,245 youth had been served between July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010.
Of the 58 counties in California 50 counties participate in the THP-Plus program. The
reports on the youth leaving the THP-Plus program are positive and show improvements
in past areas of concern such as education, employment, and earnings. John Burton
Foundation analysis of participants shows 82% are of age 18-20 that utilizes the program.
In 2009-2010 33% of participants came from foster care placement, 16% were homeless,
23% were living with relatives or others with free rent, and 16% were renting their own
place or shared housing. 61% are females entering the program and the highest ethnicity
is African-Americans at 41%. (Kimberlin, et. al., 2009)
The outcomes for education, housing, employment and earnings increased for the
youth who utilized the THP-Plus Program. Upon entering the program 57% of youth had
received their high school diploma, which increased to 63% upon exiting. Participants
attending college increased from 22% to 27% upon exiting the program. The housing
opportunity became more stable for the youth exiting the program. Approximately 42%
lived in a rented apartment, by themselves or with a roommate. The second place youth
would live after exiting the program was with a relative or other person, which was 34%.
The youth entering the THP-Plus Program had employment which was 41%, upon
exiting, it increased to 43%. The earnings for the youth increased 14%, and the youth
that had zero income were at 29% and it fell to 18%. Once the youth left the program,
their hourly pay rate increased by 50 cents. (Lorentzen et. al., 2008)
The average length of stay was 12 months (42%), which the youth have up to 24
months to stay in the program. The shortest stay for youth was at 22% which was less
18
than 6 months. Upon exiting the THP-Plus program 60% was voluntary, 40% was
involuntary. The circumstances for the involuntary exiting of the youth needs further
research done to understand the percentage. (Lorentzen et.al., 2008)
In 2002 a survey of California’s county welfare directors estimated 65% of youth
aging out of the system needed safe and stable housing. The study reported 56% of the
participants stated 24 months for the length of time in the THP-Plus program gives
former foster youth to become self-sufficient stated the time was “just right”, 42% stated
it was “too short” and 2 % stated it was “too long”. (Lorentzen, et. al., 2008) The
database used by the THP-Plus providers and counties to collect information and
outcomes are on a web-based THP-Plus Participant Tracking System (John Burton
Foundation for Children Without Homes, 2010)
Criteria for THP-Plus

Youth must be actively participating in or have a history of active
participation for at least three months in a County Independent Living
Program.

Active participation is defined as: meeting with ILP Worker for scheduled
appointments, calling to cancel if unable to participate and working
towards goals as identified in Transitional Independent Living Plan.

Youth must be actively involved in mental health and /or substance abuse
treatment, if needed.

Youth is willing to participate in all aspects of THP-Plus and will follow
the THP-Plus Policies.
19

Youth is willing to participate with a support team in decision making and
goal setting for success in THP-Plus.

Youth does not have sufficient resources available through other
agencies/private funding.

Pregnant or parenting youth may be given priority if she/he meets all the
guidelines.

Older youth (ages 20-23) may be given priority, if he/she meets all other
guidelines.

Youth who are homeless or pending immediate homelessness may be
given priority. (Placer County California, 2010)
Program Expectations

I agree to regularly attend school, obtain a high school diploma or GED,
and/or participate in a job training program. Once I meet these goals, I
agree to further my education through participation in college, trade
school, or other vocational training.

I agree to continue participating in my Independent Living Skills program
and pursue my goals as outlined in my Supportive Transitional
Emancipation Program (STEP) TILP.

I agree to actively look for, obtain, and maintain a paying job.

I agree to participate with One-Stop Centers and other employment
resources.

I agree to not have any alcohol or non-prescribed drugs.
20

I agree not to abuse prescribed drugs.

I agree to random drug testing.

I agree to actively participate in all elements of THP-Plus, including
keeping all scheduled appointments.

I agree to attend the THP-Plus orientation, which will outline the program
rules and expectations, emergency procedures, community resources, and
introductions to staff and other program participants.

I agree to take an active role in my graduation from THP-Plus by
participating in services outlined by me and my transition team.

I agree to actively participate in mental health and/or substance abuse
treatment as recommended by a licensed and/or certified practitioner.
Programs certified under these regulations shall be designed to provide a safe and
adequate residence and allow participants a maximum amount of independence and selfsufficiency. (Placer County California, 2010)
• Acceptable residential units include apartments, single family dwellings,
condominiums, college dormitories, and host family models.
• Publicly supervised or privately operated shelters, or other living situations, including
those with friends, family members, and others that provide temporary accommodation,
are not acceptable.
• Public or private places not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping area are not acceptable,
and may not be utilized by a THP-Plus provider as accommodations for emancipated
foster youth.
21
The program will only serve eligible youth;
• The program will not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or
disability, and that youth who were wards of the court, and youth receiving psychotropic
medications shall be eligible for consideration in the program and shall not be
automatically excluded due to these factors (Welfare and Institutions Code Section
16522.1(a)(1));
• The agency will, with the assistance of a county designee, assist each youth in the
completion of the goals and activities described in the CDSS STEP/THP-Plus TILP form;
• The program plan includes a description of the program, and how it will ensure that
participants live independently and accomplish the goals described in their STEP/THPPlus TILP;
• Services for THP-Plus participants are not discontinued without due process;
• THP-Plus participants have the right to be free from arbitrary or capricious rules, the
right to understand all rules in writing and in appropriate languages and formats, the right
to appeal any loss of benefits or services before they are suspended (unless imminent
physical harm to someone would result), and the right to a grievance procedure;
• THP-Plus participants’ right to confidentiality is respected. This right applies to
dissemination, storage, retrieval and acquisition or identifiable information. The agency
will not release information about a participant’s receipt of services without a written
release from the participant:
• THP-Plus participants’ right to privacy is respected. Information will be requested of
participants only when the information is specifically necessary for the provision of
22
services. THP-Plus participants will not be required to supply personal information as a
condition of obtaining services without written documentation verifying the necessity of
the information;
• The agency will comply with California landlord/tenant law (Civil Code Section 1940,
et seq.) and/or the Transitional Housing Misconduct Act (Health and Safety Code Section
50580, et seq.);
• The program plan includes a description of the THP-Plus participation application
process and selection criteria;
• The STEP/THP-Plus TILP is updated at least annually and as needed to reflect
necessary changes;
• THP-Plus participants will be allowed the greatest amount of freedom possible in order
to prepare them for self-sufficiency;
• Criminal background checks will be required for all agency employees;
• The THP-Plus program is clearly distinguishable from those that should be licensed as
an Adult Residential Care Facility under Health and Safety Code Sections 1502(a)(1) or
1503.5(a);
• Applicable provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16522.1 regarding
THP-Plus requirements are incorporated into the plan;
• Programs will comply with applicable Federal, State, and local housing laws and fire
clearance requirements;
• The housing provided to participants has reasonable access to schools, employmentappropriate supportive services, shopping, and medical care;
23
• No more than two THP-Plus participants share a bedroom;
• THP-Plus participants are given a choice regarding what services to access, and the
location of the services (on-site or off-site), as long as the goals of the STEP/THP-Plus
TILP are being met;
• When funds are retained by the provider on behalf of the tenant, the provider shall
ensure that these funds are deposited in an interest bearing savings account in any bank or
savings and loan institution whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. The principal and
interest shall be distributed to the tenant when he/she leaves the program, or earlier if
permitted by the THP-Plus program guidelines. (Placer County California, 2010).
A young 16 year old male had entered the foster care system after he was brought
to the United States for human trafficking. Moving from placement to placement created
lack of connections and support from those around him. He stated it was hard to connect
with people and he would never unpack his stuff due to usually moving within weeks or
months after being placed in a home. When he emancipated from the system he had no
family and no place to live. The young man utilized the THP-Plus Program which
provided a place for him to live. Learning the skills needed to become self-sufficient and
establishing healthy relationships for support has made his independence successful.
Participating in the THP-Plus Program influenced him to become an advocate for
emancipating foster youth. Being a role model for former foster youth helps him give
back to others. The young man now works for a law firm in San Diego assisting victims
of human trafficking. (John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes, 2010)
24
Chapter 3
METHODS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the study design, sampling procedures,
data collection procedures, instruments used, and data analysis approaches and any
organizing principles used in gathering the materials for the final product. The chapter
also discusses the participants used, how subject confidentiality was insured, and the
questions they were asked.
Research Design
The research design used was cross-sectional qualitative survey methodology.
This writer utilized two data sources, one with a survey questionnaire and the other a
secondary dataset. The study was to gather information from the Social Workers at a
small Northern California County Child Protective Services (CPS) agency by having
them complete a survey with questions related to the THP-Plus Program. The Social
Workers were hand-picked by this writer’s internship supervisor. The Social Workers
needed to have current or previous experience working with ongoing services, which
included foster youth aging out of the system. There were 19 Social Workers at the
agency that fit the description above.
Secondary data was gathered from Whole Person Learning, which is the agency
the county CPS agency contracts out with for purposes of the THP-Plus Program. An
25
interview was done over the phone with the owner of Whole Person Learning to gather
and collect actual information of the youth utilizing the program.
This study took place at a county agency, Child Protective Services in Northern
California. The approximate Masters in Social Work (MSW) staff at the agency were 62.
The participants who qualified to participate in the study had to have ongoing services
where they had worked with youth aging out of the Child Welfare System. Majority of
the Social Workers in the county department were female.
Measurement Instrument
The researcher utilized a survey questionnaire to collect data. There were 21
questions, which included multiple choice and fill in. The questions were related to the
THP-Plus Program and how often the Social Worker referred a foster youth to the
system. The main variables in the questions were to find out how long the Social
Workers had been working for the agency, how many times they had referred an aging
out foster youth to the THP-Plus Program, what their understanding of the program is, if
the Social Worker believes the THP-Plus Program is beneficial and if the aging out youth
utilize and understand what the THP-Plus Program is. The variables that will be
compared are the years’ experience the Social Worker has compared to how many times
they referred a foster youth aging out of the Child Welfare System, for those Social
Workers who believe there is a high need for the program how many times did they refer
a foster youth to the program, and are there any connections between the relationship a
foster youth has with their placement and a referral to the THP-Plus program.
26
The title for the questionnaire was, Survey Questions for ______ County Social
Workers. The name of the county is blank to maintain confidentiality. The researcher
will review the questionnaires to identify common norms and will read all questionnaires
in their entirety and keep a running total for each answer to identify the most common
answers. The questionnaire was administered by email for those Social Workers located
in a different office then the researcher. For those Social Workers located in the same
office as this researcher the surveys were handed to them in person and if the person
could not be located at their desk the survey was placed in their mailbox at the work site.
Sampling and Data Collection
The Social Workers at the CPS agency were utilized who had current or previous
experiences with ongoing services dealing with foster youth aging out of the system. The
researcher used a purposive sample to gather data from the participants. The participants
needed to be a MSW staff member working for this particular agency with current or past
experience in ongoing services that have assisted foster youth when aging out of the
system. The county agency supervisor and this researcher created an eligible list of
approximately 19 participants that would qualify to take the survey.
The personal information such as age, ethnicity, socioeconomic statuses etc. of
the participants are unknown, the gender, and years of experience is the only two
questions that were asked on the questionnaire regarding personal information. The one
other requirement that the participants needed was to have a MSW because this
information was relevant for the purpose of this study. There were two male participants
and the rest were female who participated in the study.
27
The survey questionnaires were distributed by sending an e-mail to the recipient
with an attachment or placing a survey in their mailbox at the agency. The participants
were able to place the completed forms in this writer’s mailbox located in the agency or
they could scan the forms and send it through an email. They could also inter-office the
forms, which were placed in this writer’s mailbox.
Data Analysis
The data will be analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) software. In a quantitative study such as this one, all data will be coded with a
numbering system prior to entering the questions and answers into the SPSS program.
The coding will organize and label the data in a way that is easily understandable and
readable so the data can be interpreted and conclusions can be drawn.
Protection of Human Subjects
Prior to the collection of data an approval letter was obtained from the Program
Director of the Children’s System of Care and also from the Social Work committee at
California State University, Sacramento. The protection of human subject’s approval
number is 10-11-47 and it was determined to be “no risk”.
The consent forms with the participant’s signatures and the survey questionnaires
were separated upon receipt, which protected the confidentiality of the participants. After
the research paper has been completed this researcher will destroy the survey
questionnaires and consent forms with the participants signatures by shredding the
documents.
28
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter provides the results on the information gathered through survey
questionnaires of Social Workers at a Child Protective Services agency in Northern
California as well as a secondary data set collected from Whole Person Learning, the
agency that offers the THP-Plus services to the foster youth aging out of the Child
Welfare System.
Demographics
There were 11 Social Workers that participated in the survey which included a
demographic question as to what their gender is. There were nine females and two males
who participated in the survey questionnaires. No other demographic questions were
proposed to the social workers.
Findings
All the Social Workers that participated in the survey questionnaire had
experience working with foster care youth aging out of the Child Welfare System, which
was a requirement to take the survey. There were eight Social Workers with over five
years of work experience and the other three had between three to five years’ work
experience. (See Table 1, 2, and 3)
29
Table 1
Number of years working for the County
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
3 to 5 years
3
27.3
27.3
27.3
5 years and longer
8
72.7
72.7
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 2
What is your gender?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Male
2
18.2
18.2
18.2
Female
9
81.8
81.8
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 3
Social Workers experience working with youth aging out of CWS
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Yes
11
Percent
100.0
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
The majority length of stay in placement for a foster youth was between 1 to 5
years. The type of homes that a youth were placed in upon emancipation varies per the
Social Workers caseload. Two former foster youth were placed in non-related extended
family members home, three were placed in a family member’s home, two stayed in their
30
current foster home, and one remained in a group home. Eight of the Social Workers
believed the former foster youth had a strong connection with their placement upon aging
out of the system. (See table 4, 5, 6, and 7)
Table 4
The types of homes youth are placed in upon emancipation
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
NREFM
2
18.2
25.0
25.0
Family Member
3
27.3
37.5
62.5
Foster home
2
18.2
25.0
87.5
Group home
1
9.1
12.5
100.0
Total
8
72.7
100.0
999
3
27.3
11
100.0
Total
Table 5
The average length of stay in placement for foster youth
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Under one year
1
9.1
10.0
10.0
One to five years
8
72.7
80.0
90.0
Five to ten years
1
9.1
10.0
100.0
Total
10
90.9
100.0
999
1
9.1
11
100.0
31
Table 6
Do youth have a strong connection with their placements upon aging out of the Child
Welfare System
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Yes
8
72.7
72.7
72.7
No
3
27.3
27.3
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 7
The three primary reasons a youth changes placement is their age, behavioral problems
or reunification
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
True
11
Percent
100.0
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
The amount of times a youth was referred to the THP-Plus Program appeared to
be split equally. Four social workers had never referred a youth, four social workers had
referred between two to five times, and three social workers referred a youth over five
times. Majority of the Social Workers stated they were not made aware if the youth had
utilized the THP-Plus Program after they emancipate. (See Table 8 and 9)
32
Table 8
How many times a youth has been referred to THP-Plus Program
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
None
4
36.4
36.4
36.4
Two to five times
4
36.4
36.4
72.7
Over five times
3
27.3
27.3
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 9
Were Social Workers made aware if youth utilized the THP-plus Program after they
emancipate?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Yes
3
27.3
27.3
27.3
No
8
72.7
72.7
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Ten out of the eleven Social Workers stated they understood what the THP-Plus
Program did for former foster youth aging out of the system. Eight of the Social Workers
stated the former foster youth understand what the THP-Plus Program is. All Social
Workers stated that the foster youth are educated about the THP-Plus Program even if
they do not need the services upon emancipation. The number of times a Social Worker
referred a youth to the THP-Plus Program between zero to three times were four, between
four and six were five, and seven and above were two. After a foster youth was referred
to the THP-Plus Program according to six of the Social Workers the foster youth would
33
utilize it most times. All the Social Workers feel the THP-Plus Program is beneficial to
the former foster youth. (See table 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15,)
Table 10
Do Social Workers understand what the THP-Plus Program does for foster youth?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Yes
10
90.9
90.9
90.9
No
1
9.1
9.1
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 11
Do foster youth understand what the THP-Plus Program is?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Yes
8
72.7
80.0
80.0
No
2
18.2
20.0
100.0
Total
10
90.9
100.0
999
1
9.1
11
100.0
Total
Table 12
Are foster youth educated on THP-Plus even if they do not need it?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Yes
11
Percent
100.0
Valid Percent
100.0
Percent
100.0
34
Table 13
Does the county have a need for the THP-Plus Program?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Low
1
9.1
9.1
9.1
Medium
2
18.2
18.2
27.3
High
8
72.7
72.7
100.0
Total
11
100.0
100.0
Table 14
How many times a Social Worker referred a foster youth to THP-Plus Program?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
0-3
4
36.4
36.4
36.4
4-6
5
45.5
45.5
81.8
7+
2
18.2
18.2
100.0
11
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 15
How many times does a foster youth utilize the THP-Plus after a referral?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
most times
6
54.5
54.5
54.5
sometimes
5
45.5
45.5
100.0
Whole Person Learning Findings
Personal communication was completed with Christina Nicholson from Whole
Person Learning, the agency that is in charge of providing the THP-Plus services to the
35
former foster youth. Data was collected regarding the current youth utilizing the THPPlus Program to discover the need and type of foster youth. As of December 2010, there
were seventeen youth enrolled in the program, 7 are male and 10 are female. The agency
is currently at full capacity, last year a total of thirty five youth participated in the
program. The Whole Person Learning (WPL) utilizes scattered apartment structures, this
is when the youth finds an apartment, signs the lease and WPL is the secondary signer,
this way the youth can establish credit for themselves. Other agencies that provide THPPlus services will place their name on the lease because they are paying the rent. The
youth locates a place that is close to their school, work or support system.
Between ten and twelve youth are currently on the waiting list, last year
approximately thirty two former foster youth were on the waiting list. When the capacity
is full WPL will refer the youth to other agencies for assistance. WPL allows older
former foster youth priority because their services timeframe is running low, homeless
and pregnant teens also get priority. Some former foster youth can be on the waiting list
for up to two years depending on the situation.
Three youth out of thirty five were terminated last year from the program due to
multiple reasons. The small Northern California County being researched has the lowest
exit rates or termination rates for youth having to leave the program. Seventeen youth
exited the program prior to the 24 month time limit due to joining the military, moving in
with a boyfriend, or other support, but they were all considered a positive discharge.
During 2008-2010 ten youth stayed the entire whole 24 months allowed to stay. WPL
36
considers a safe exit to be affordable housing, married, military, and residing with a non
THP-Plus roommate.
The ages of the current seventeen former foster youth utilizing the program are as
follows: ten are the age of 20 years old, five are the age of 19 years old, one is the age of
21 years old, and one is the age of 23 years old. Usually former foster youth older than
18 years old are found to utilize the program because they are bumped up on the priority
list because of their older age. WPL found that the reason youth utilize the program is
because they are living with other youth that do not work out, they are couch surfing,
living with other people who do not work out, come from other counties or were
previously living in a dorm. Majority of the former foster youth utilizing the THP-Plus
Program come from the county being reviewed, second they come from Sacramento
County, then other smaller counties such as El Dorado and Yolo County.
The former foster youth complete an Annual Youth Satisfaction Survey which is
anonymous, 95% of the youth rated the program as excellent. The former foster youth
are able to rate the different services offered to them and the overall housing. The former
foster youth come from a mixed type of placements such as group homes, foster homes,
probation and non-related extended family members. Most of the referrals usually come
from the ILP coordinators because the youth need to be completing ILP classes, the name
of the Social Worker is put on the referral form but the Social Workers usually have very
little to do with the referral to the THP-Plus Program.
37
Comparing the cross tabulation between the gender of the Social Worker and how
many times a youth was referred to the THP-Plus Program there were no statistical
significance (ᵪ2=1.477, p=.344) as shown in table 16.
Table 16
Cross Tabulation
How many times a youth has been referred to the THPPlus
Two to Five
None
What is your gender?
Times
Over Five Times
Total
Male
1
0
1
2
Female
3
4
2
9
4
4
3
11
Total
In table 17 the cross tabulation of number of years the Social Worker were
employed by the County compared to how many times that Social Worker referred a
foster youth to the THP-Plus Program showed no statistical significance (ᵪ2=1.169,
p=.310).
Table 17
Cross Tabulation
How many times Social Worker referred foster youth to
THP-Plus
0-3
Number of years
3 to 5 years
working for County
5 years and
longer
Total
4-6
7+
Total
1
2
0
3
3
3
2
8
4
5
2
11
38
The cross tabulation between the strong connection with their placement upon
aging out compared to how many times a youth had been referred to the THP-Plus
program shown in table 18 had no statistical significance (ᵪ2=7.219, p=.629).
Table 18
Cross Tabulation
How many times a youth has been referred to THP-Plus
None
Two to five times
Over five times
Total
Do youth have a strong
Yes
4
2
2
8
connection with their
No
0
2
1
3
4
4
3
11
placements upon aging out
Total
The cross tabulation between how many times a youth has been referred to the
THP-Plus program compared to the need of the THP-Plus program by the Social Worker
showed no statistical significance (ᵪ2= 7.219, p=.629).
Table 19
Cross Tabulation
Does the county have a need for the
THP-Plus Program
Low
Medium
High
Total
How many times a youth has
None
1
2
1
4
been referred to THP-Plus
two to five times
0
0
4
4
over five times
0
0
3
3
1
2
8
11
Total
39
Discussion of Findings
The open ended questions on the survey passed out to the Social Workers asked to
describe the process or steps they complete when a youth begins aging out of the system.
The answers were very similar on all the questionnaires; they would begin talking to the
foster youth about their goals and plans for when they age out of the system. A referral
to the ILP and THP-Plus program would also be done, and appropriate paperwork such as
the Transitional Independent Living Plan (TILP) would be completed at age 15 ½.
The Social Workers had an understanding of what the benefits were for the THPPlus Program. Some of the reasons former foster youth did not utilize the program were
due to having a plan to stay with their current placement, they had other plans, they
returned to their biological family, they did not want the service or they did not qualify
for the program.
The reasons provided by the Social Workers as to why the former foster youth
utilize and do not utilize the THP-Plus Program are as follows: the youth gain skills to
live independently and have added support, they receive housing and financial assistance,
and they have no other housing options, which are the reasons former foster youth utilize
the THP-Plus Program. The reasons for not utilizing the program are location of the
program, the youth already have resources in place, they want to be done with the system
and do not want to have to follow rules of the program, and the youth become involved in
a negative peer group and forget about the resources available to them.
40
Main Themes
The findings concluded that the small Northern California CPS agency needs and
utilizes the THP-Plus Program. The cross tabulations that were compared did not seem
to make a difference as to when or how a Social Worker would refer a foster youth to the
THP-Plus Program. This writer ended up discovering the Social Workers refer a foster
youth aging out of the Child Welfare System to the Independent Living Program (ILP)
worker who then has the responsibility to assist the foster youth with ILP and THP-Plus
services.
41
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study examined Social Workers at a small Northern California CPS agency to
establish the reasons for utilization, the lack of utilization, protocol, the knowledge of
Social Workers and foster youth aging out of the system, and how often the former foster
youth utilize the THP-Plus Program. The research design collected feedback from the
Social Workers and from Whole Person Learning (WPL) agency as to what foster youth
utilize the THP-Plus Program. Due to the small Northern California CPS agency that
was reviewed the results should not be generalized to other CPS county agencies. The
sample consisted of 11 Social Workers, 9 female and 2 male. The information collected
from WPL agency assured they were at their full capacity with former foster youth on a
waiting list to get into the program. This suggests the high need for the THP-Plus
Program in this small Northern California County.
As stated in previous chapters, the foster youth aging out of the Child Welfare
System (CWS) have many challenges they are faced with when entering and exiting the
system. Their chances for success upon aging out of the system is decreased due to them
coming from broken homes, encountering traumatic events such as physical, sexual,
emotional abuse and neglect. The CWS is a place that is designed to provide safety and
security but moving from placement to placement, school to school, not developing
42
friends or making connections with adults and other age appropriate peers creates
challenges that affect the outcomes for former foster youth.
Housing is one of the most important needs and obstacle for a former foster youth
as they age out of the CWS. At age 18 these youth are expected to be self-sufficient and
jump into adulthood with both feet and automatically become successful. The non-foster
youth were shown to stay in their parents’ home and/or receive financial support up until
the age of 24.
The THP-Plus Program is a large safety net for the foster youth aging out of the
system who need additional assistance. This program comes with restrictions, rules, and
expectations, which can deter former foster youth because they are eager to have freedom
and be done with the system. Taking advantage of the services offered to the foster youth
can prevent more damaging outcomes and increase their chances of success of becoming
self-sufficient. The THP-Plus Program provided the results and the feedback from the
former foster youth who utilized the program and the majority was pleased with the
program and believed it increased their knowledge and opportunities.
Other studies done on various housing programs have shown they work and the
youth who utilize them increase their knowledge and their chances for a better life. The
former foster youth benefit from further adult guidance and support just the way nonfoster youth benefit from their parents or support system.
Implications for Social Work Practice
The Social Workers who completed the surveys appeared to understand the
importance of what the THP-Plus Program does for the former foster youth. The amount
43
of times a youth was referred was low but that was due to foster youth exiting the CWS
prior to turning 18, so the Social Worker did not need to refer them, or they had a place to
live once they emancipated. The Social Workers role is to be aware of the challenges the
foster youth are faced with and make various resources available for them. Some of the
Social Workers implied on the survey that once a foster youth turns 18 they do not have
contact with them because there case is closed. The independent living coordinators have
the responsibility of guiding them and handling their case with any further need when
dealing with the THP-Plus Program.
The Social Workers need to continue to work closely with the foster youth on
their caseload and provide them the valuable information on the THP-Plus Program and
stress the importance of seeking guidance and support once they exit the CWS. The
foster youth need to be informed that even though they may want to get out of the system
and become independent that participating in the ILP classes are important because that is
a requirement to get into the THP-Plus Program. Encouraging the foster youth to take
advantage of the services offered to them is needed so the outcomes of success for these
youth can begin to increase.
Conclusion
If a smaller county is in high need of the THP-Plus Program then it could be
concluded a larger CPS county due to a higher population would also be in a high
demand of the THP-Plus Program. The program is beneficial and needed for the foster
youth that are aging out of the Child Welfare System. The studies show that the former
foster youth have many challenges and have to overcome obstacles that decrease their
44
opportunities in life. Having affordable housing and the other courses offered through
this program can increase their chances and knowledge on how to handle adulthood and
become a responsible and valuable asset to society.
Recommendations
Further research could be conducted on other CPS counties throughout California
to discover if other former foster youth are utilizing the THP-Plus Program and how
many of the foster youth are on a waiting list. Taking a survey of the former foster youth
that utilized the program would be ideal to find out how it helped them and what they
would change about the program. Having a better understanding of how the former
foster youth feel about the program could possibly increase the amount of foster youth
that utilize the program, which then could increase the outcomes of these youth.
A study that followed the former foster youth that utilized the THP-Plus Program
versus former foster youth that do not would be beneficial to determine the difference in
their living conditions, employment, education and hourly pay rate. The outcomes could
show just how important and how much more advantages the former foster youth that
utilized the THP-Plus have.
The Social Workers could be more in touch with the ILP coordinators and find
out more about the THP-Plus program to have a complete understanding on the program
so they are able to provide all the valuable information to the foster youth that is aging
out of the system so they are eligible to qualify for the housing once they exit the CWS.
Our goals as Social Workers are to provide resources and valuable information to
the foster youth on our caseload. The foster youth need guidance in this strange and
45
overwhelming system. Assisting the foster youth with the appropriate information even
when the Social Worker is over worked and stressed out will benefit the outcomes of the
foster youth and give results that we as Social Workers strive for.
46
APPENDICES
47
APPENDIX A
Human Subjects Approval Letter
48
49
50
APPENDIX B
The Approval Letter From CPS Agency
51
APPENDIX C
Survey Questions For Social Workers
1) How long have you worked for Placer County Children’s System of Care? Please
circle one below:
A. Under 1 year B. 1 to 3 years C. 3 to 5 years D. 5 years and longer
2) What is your gender? Please circle one: Male or Female
3) Have you worked with youth aging out of the child welfare system? Please circle
one: Yes or No
4) What type of homes are majority of the youth placed in upon the time of
emancipation? Please circle one below:
A. NRFM B. Family Member C. Foster Home D. Group Home E. Other (please
specify) ________________
5) What is the average length of stay in placement for youth who age out of the child
welfare system? Please circle one below:
A. Under One Year B. One to Five Years C. Five to Ten Years D. Over Ten
Years
6) In your experience do youth aging out of Placer County Children’s System of
Care have a strong connection with their placements? Please circle one: Yes or
No
52
7) The three primary reasons a youth changes placement is because of their age,
behavioral problems, or reunification? Please circle one: True or False
8) How many times have you referred a youth aging out of the system to the THPPlus program? Please circle one below:
A. None B. One Time C. Two to Five Times D. Over Five Times
9) Please describe your process or steps when a youth begins aging out of the
system?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10) Are you made aware if a former youth utilizes the THP-Plus program after they
emancipate from the child welfare system? Please circle one: Yes or No. If you
answered yes please state how many times this has happened _____.
11) Do you understand what the THP-Plus program does for the foster youth? Please
circle one: Yes or No
12) Please describe your understanding of the THP-Plus program for former foster
youth?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
13) If you do not refer a youth that is aging out of the child welfare system to the
THP-Plus program, what is the reason?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
53
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14) Do the foster youth have an understanding of what the THP-Plus program is?
Please circle one: Yes or No
15) If the foster youth remains in their placement upon emancipation are they
educated on the THP-Plus program even if they do not currently need it? Yes or
No
16) Do you believe Placer County children’s system of care has a Low, Medium or
High Need for the THP-Plus program? Please circle one.
17) Based off your experience as a social worker in Placer County what is the
number one reason why the THP-Plus is utilized by former foster youth?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18) Based off your experience as a social worker in Placer County what is the
number one reason why the THP-Plus is not utilized by former foster youth?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19) Approximately how many times have you referred a youth to the THP-Plus
program? ________
54
20) After a foster youth is referred to the THP-Plus program how often does the
youth utilize the THP-Plus housing? Please circle one.
A. Most times B. Sometimes C. Not at all
21) As a social worker do you feel the THP-Plus program is beneficial for the youth
aging out of the system? Please circle one: Yes or No
Thank you very much for your participation in this research project. Please feel free to
include any further comments regarding this topic.
Additional comments:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
55
REFERENCES
Analysis by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect of Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) (2006). Time for reform:
Preventing youth from aging out on their own.
Anderson, G. R. (2003, September 4). Aging out of the foster care system: Challenges
and opportunities for the state of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/AppliedResearch
Burton, R. J. & Knecht, R. S. (2010, June 22). Contract with whole person learning for
provision of transitional housing placement plus program. Retrieved from
http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/ChildSupport/Services/Resources/Transiti
onal%20Housing.aspx
California College Pathways. (2010, May 1). County THP-Plus providers [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.cacollegepathways.org/pdfs/THPPlus%20Provider%20List%209-1-09.pdf
California Youth Connection. (2011). Foster youth building a foundation for the future.
Retrieved from http://www.calyouthconn.org/site/cyc/
CCS Partnership. (2011). Foster youth resources and organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.ccspartnership.org/T_transitioningFosterY07.cfm
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008). How the child welfare system works [Fact
sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/cpswork.cfm
56
Children’s Aid Society. (2007). Aging out of foster care: Youth aging out of foster care
face poverty, homelessness and the criminal justice system. Retrieved from
http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/Foster_Care.pdf
Cities, Counties and School Partnership (CCSP). (2008). Our children: Emancipating
foster youth. Retrieved from
http://www.ccspartnership.org/T_transitioningFosterY02.cfm
Colca, L. A., & Colca, C. (1996). Transitional independent living foster homes: A step
towards independence. Children Today, 24(1), 7-15.
Cook, R. J. (1994). Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their future? Children
and Youth Services Review, 16, 213-229.
Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth
transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child
Welfare, 80, 685-717.
Eilertson, C. (2002). When foster care ends. State Legislatures, 28(8). Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/
Gardner, D. F. (2008). Youth aging out of foster care: Identifying strategies and best
practices. National Association of Counties. Retrieved from
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/YouthAgingoutofFoster.pdf
Giffords, E. D., Alonso, C. & Bell, R. (2007). A transitional living program for homeless
adolescents: A case study. Child Youth Care Forum, 36, 141-151. doi:
10.1007/s10566-007-9036-0
57
Independent Living Program Policy Unit. (2002, June). Report on the survey of the
housing needs of emancipated foster/probation youth. Retrieved from
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/rptonthehousingneeds.pdf
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes. (2010). THP-Plus annual report.
Retrieved from http://www.thpplus.org/pdfs/080910_THPPlus_AR3.pdf
Kimberlin, S., Lemley, A., & Byrnes, M. (2009, July). Needs and demographics of
former foster youth entering California’s THP-Plus program: Findings from the
statewide participant-tracking system. Retrieved from
http://www.thpplus.org/pdfs/JBF_Policy_Brief.pdf
Lorentzen, B., Lemley, A, Kimberlin, S., & Byrnes, M., (2008, September). Outcomes
for former foster youth in California’s THP-Plus program: Are youth in THP-Plus
faring better? John Burton Foundation: Policy Brief.
McCoy-Roth, M., Freundlich, M., & Ross, T. (2010, January 31). Number of youth aging
out of foster care continues to rise; Increasing 64 percent since 1999. Retrieved
from
http://www.fosteringconnections.org/tools/assets/files/Connections_Agingout.pdf
Mech, E. V. & Chung, C.C. (1999). Placement restrictiveness and educational
achievement among emancipated foster youth. Research on Social Work Practice,
9, 213-228. doi: 10.1177/104973159900900206
Placer County California. (2010). Placer county transitional housing placement program
plan Retrieved from
58
http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/ChildSupport/Services/Resources/Transiti
onal%20Housing.aspx
Pride Industries. (2011). Vocational and independent living programs. Retrieved from
http://www.prideindustries.com/?navId=115
Rashid, S. (2004). Evaluating a transitional living program for homeless, former foster
care youth. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(4), 240-248. doi:
10.1177/1049731503257883
St. Mary, S. & Guilford, C. M. (n.d.). California connected by 25 initiative [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from http://www.childsworld.ca.gov
Youth Transition Action Team Initiative. (2007). Foster youth employment forum impact
report. Retrieved from http://www.newwaystowork.org