Research on the Transition
to Adulthood for
Marginalized Young People:
Implications for Youth
Engagement
Mark E. Courtney
Professor
School of Social Service Administration
Overview
• The context for concern:
– The changing transition to adulthood for the general
population
• Why are some groups vulnerable?
• Shared themes across vulnerable groups
Transition to Adulthood Presents Exceptional
Challenges to Some
• Limited abilities; difficulty acquiring skills
– Youth with disabilities; special education students
• Unreliable or non-existent familial support
– Foster care youth; runaway and homeless youth
• Tasks of the transition likely to be daunting
– Youth with disabilities or mental illness
• Systems may have exacerbated problems
– Formerly incarcerated; special education
Focus on Vulnerable Populations Involved in
Service Systems
• Need recognized during childhood and adolescence
• They have depended on public systems
– For assistance and services
– Often for many years
• Transition to adulthood brings loss of support from systems
– In some instances phased out
– In others, involvement ends abruptly
Government Services at the Transition to
Adulthood
• Because no longer children, government assumes less responsibility
– Recognize dependence of children, but not dependence of
youth in transition
• Ages 18 - 21: eligibility for services either ends or greatly declines
• Professionals rarely trained to address special needs of transition period
Selected Vulnerable Populations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Youth “Aging Out” of Foster Care
Youth involved in the juvenile and adult corrections systems
Homeless and Runaway Youth
Youth Involved in Special Education
Youth with Serious Mental Disorders
Youth with Physical Disabilities
On Your Own Without a Net:
The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations
Editors: D. Wayne Osgood, E. Michael Foster, Constance Flanagan, &
Gretchen R. Ruth
University of Chicago Press, 2005
More than Vulnerability
• Potential for positive development
– Despite risk, many will succeed
• The theme of resilience
– Attend to strengths as well as deficits
– Protective factors as well as risk
– Youth take active role in own success
• The theme of social inclusion
– Society enriched by their participation
– Not just assistance, but reciprocity
– Entitled to rights and pursuit of own interests
Shared Themes Across Vulnerable Populations
• Poor early adult outcomes
• Some groups (males; the poor; racial/ethnic minorities) overrepresented in all
populations
• Each population is highly diverse
• Considerable overlap among populations
• Factors that promote successful transition to adulthood
Early Adult Outcomes of Vulnerable Youth
• Less Successful in Entering Adult Roles
– Family roles: such as marriage, parenthood
– Education and training
– Employment
• Difficulties Managing Adult Life
– Finding affordable housing
– Maintaining health
– Avoiding high risk activities
• Youth with Multiple Risks Least Successful
Groups Overrepresented in All 7 Vulnerable
Populations
•
•
•
•
Youth of Color
The Poor: Individual and Community
Males
Likely reasons
• Differences in exposure to causes
• Differences in behavior
• Differences in reactions by authority figures
• Differences in available systems of care
Each Vulnerable Population is Highly Diverse
• Not all are minority, poor, and male
• Diversity of problems
– Type of problem
– Severity of problem
• Prior involvement in service systems
– Depth, duration
• Produces
– Differences in needs
– Differences in resources
Overlap Among Vulnerable Populations
• Sizable portions of each system are in others as well
– For instance, foster care and criminal justice; physical
disabilities and special education; juvenile justice and mental
health; etc.
• Distinctions among populations often arbitrary
– Partly co-morbidity
– Partly multiple systems addressing same issue
Factors that Promote Successful Transition to
Adulthood
•
•
•
•
Success at School
Support from Family
Healthy Relationships with Friends
Certain Personality Traits
– Such as persistence and confidence
• Failure is Not Inevitable!
Subgroups Provide More Clarity for Policy and
Practice
• Keller, Cusick, & Courtney (2007) used Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to identify
subpopulations at age 17-18 (n = 732) defined by distinctive profiles on indicators
reflecting multiple domains of life experience
• Analysis resulted in four distinctive groups: Distressed and Disconnected 43%;
Competent and Connected 38%; Struggling but Staying 14%; Hindered but
Homebound 5%
• Group membership at 17-18 is strongly associated with several distinct transition
outcomes at age 21: education; employment; parenthood; incarceration
• More recent study used key transition indicators to classify youth at age 23-24 (n =
584) using LCA: living arrangement; educational attainment; employment; resident
and non-resident children; conviction since 18
Distribution of Former Foster Youth by Latent
Class at Age 23-24
(Courtney, Hook, & Lee, 2012)
Group 1: Accelerated Adults (36%)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most are female (63%)
Most likely to live on their own in fairly stable situation
Almost all (98%) have a HS degree or more; 52% have some college
Most likely to be currently employed
Nearly half (46%) has resident children
Relatively low rate of conviction (14%)
Group does not stand out on other indicators of functioning (e.g., social support; health;
MH and AODA problems; economic hardships)
• Summary: This group is most likely to have made key transitions relatively early in
adulthood
Group 2: Struggling Parents (25%)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most are female (74%)
Nearly all (91%) have resident children and relatively few (8%) have a non-resident child
About equal numbers have their own place (46%) or live with relatives/friends (44%)
Most likely not to have a HS degree (44%) and only 3% have any college
Only one-quarter currently employed
Lower than average rate of conviction (14%)
Also…least likely group to be currently in school, most likely to be married or cohabiting,
second lowest reported social support, and most likely to experience economic hardship
• Summary: This group’s experience is dominated by their parenting, under difficult
circumstances
Group 3: Emerging Adults (21%)
• Slightly over half are male (55%)
• All are living with friends, relatives, or in other settings that are not their own
• Vast majority (91%) has finished high school and they have the second highest rate of
having at least some college (46%)
• They have the second highest rate of current employment (63%)
• They are least likely to have children (27%) and over two-thirds of those with children
have non-resident children
• Lowest rate of conviction (6%)
• Also, they are least likely to have ever been married, to have ever dropped out of high
school, and to have ever been homeless
• Summary: This group most resembles Arnett’s (2000) “emerging adults” in that they are
delaying some transition markers (e.g., living on their own; finishing school; having children)
while generally avoiding hardship
Group 4: Troubled and Troubling (18%)
• Vast majority is male (83%)
• Are most likely to be incarcerated, otherwise institutionalized, homeless, and/or to have
experienced high residential mobility (72%)
• Two-fifths have not finished high school or GED and only 11% have any college
• Least likely to be currently employed (10%)
• 48% have non-resident children; none have resident children
• 82% report a criminal conviction since age 18
• Also, least likely to have felt prepared to be on their own at exit from care, most likely to
report mental health and/or substance use problems, lowest reported levels of social support,
highest rate of victimization, four-times higher rate of non-violent crime and doubled rate of
violent crime compared to other groups
• Summary: This group experiences a wide range of psychosocial problems and poses
challenges to the community
Homelessness Among Former Foster Youth
• Analyzed prevalence and predictors of homelessness among Midwest Study participants
(Dworsky, Napolitano, & Courtney, 2013)
• “Ever been homeless for at least one night” defined “homeless” as “sleeping in a place
where people weren’t meant to sleep, sleeping in a homeless shelter or not having a regular
residence in which to sleep”
• Between 31% and 46% of Midwest Study participants had been homeless at least once by
age 26 years
• Risk factors: Running away while in foster care; greater placement instability; being male;
having a history of physical abuse; engaging in more delinquent behaviors; and having
symptoms of a mental health disorder
• Extended care in Illinois was associated with delayed homelessness
Implications for Policy
• Distinct subgroups at the age of majority and during early adulthood suggest the need for
targeted, developmentally appropriate policy and practice
– Subgroup status at 17-18 does not determine later status, but is predictive;
Distressed and Disconnected youth were nearly four times more likely than
the Competent and Connected youth to be in the Troubled and Troubling
group at 23-24
– A large group mainly needs support making the transition to higher
education and succeeding there
– About one-fifth needs significant intervention, perhaps for many years, with
a range of psychosocial problems
– Parents as a distinct group arguably need distinct kinds of support
• Engaging each of these groups requires somewhat distinct strategies
Implications for Policy
• A wide variety of public systems should be accountable for engaging young
people (Courtney, 2009)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Courts
Educational institutions
Employment services; welfare-to-work
Housing services
Health, mental, and behavioral health systems
Justice systems
Communities
• Youths’ distinct needs call for differential involvement of these institutions to
ensure youth engagement
• Youth themselves have invaluable insight and have made major
contributions to policy and program development!
For more info:
http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/midwestevaluation-adult-functioning-former-foster-youth
http://transitions2adulthood.com/