Prepared by:
The Urban Institute
with subcontractors, University of California Berkeley
and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Prepared for:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
| This report was produced under the direction of Laura Radel, Project Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), Office of Human Services Policy. The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASPE or HHS. |
This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/fosteremp/index.html
Printer Friendly Version in PDF format (84 pages)
A youth’s departure from home marks the beginning of adulthood and a new stage in a young adult’s life. This critical juncture and the surrounding years, often referred to as the transition to adulthood, is increasingly recognized as a distinct developmental stage between adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 2004). Youth who reach this stage and are living in foster care are often at a significant disadvantage. In 2005, over 24,000 youths found themselves in this circumstance (DHHS, 2006). They “aged out” of the foster care system and entered into the world of adulthood relatively alone.
Studies of former foster youth who age out of care find that these youth generally experience high unemployment, unstable employment patterns, and earn very low incomes in the period between ages 18 and 21 (Cook, 1991; Courtney et al., 2001; Dworsky and Courtney, 2001; Goerge, Bilaver, Lee, Needell, Brookhart and Jackman, 2002). The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) requested this study to examine employment and earnings outcomes for youth, through their mid-twenties, who age out of foster care. The key question and focus of the study is whether foster youth catch up or continue to experience less employment and significantly lower earnings than their peers even into their mid-twenties.
The study linked child welfare, Unemployment Insurance (UI), and public assistance administrative data to assess employment outcomes and welfare receipt for youth who age out of foster care. Child welfare data allow researchers to identify youth who age out of foster care, while the UI data provide information on employment and earnings. Public assistance data reveal later welfare receipt. Information is linked between sources using youths’ social security numbers. Analyses are conducted in three states: California, Minnesota, and North Carolina. The sample of interest is youth who were 17 years old and in foster care in one of the participating states on December 31,1998, and who eventually aged out of care. A comparison group of youth from low-income families is created using the public assistance data, and baseline national estimates are derived from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). Descriptive, multivariate, and trajectory analysis techniques are employed. Youth outcomes are assessed from age 16 to the first quarter of age 24.
Youth who age out of foster care continue to experience poor employment outcomes at age 24
At age 24, youth who age out of foster care do not fare well on a variety of employment outcomes. Compared to youth nationally and even youth from low-income families, they are less likely to be employed or employed regularly, and, not surprisingly, they earn very little. At age 24, average monthly earnings for youth who age out of foster care who worked are $690 in California, $575 in Minnesota, and $450 in North Carolina, compared to $1,535 for youth nationally. Employment and earnings differences between youth who age out of foster care and youth from low-income families remain in California and Minnesota even when controlling for demographic factors. Case history factors do not appear to play an important role in influencing employment outcomes.
Youth who age out of foster care tend to follow one of four employment trajectories as they transition to adulthood
Youth who age out of foster care exhibit four distinct patterns in connecting to the workforce. Overall about one-third to one-half of these youth follows a path that leads to relatively positive employment outcomes by age 24. At the same time, the other half to two-thirds of these youth exhibit patterns leading to poorer outcomes at age 24.
Positive outcomes at age 24
Consistently Connected: These youth maintain relatively high probabilities of employment between the ages of 18 and 24, and their average earnings are comparable to youth nationally. This group appears to begin connecting to the workforce prior to age 18. This group represents one-sixth to one-quarter of the youth in the states (25 percent in California, 22 percent in Minnesota, and 16 percent in North Carolina).
Later Connected: Youth in this group have a slow start, but steadily increase their probability of employment and earnings throughout their early twenties. Their average earnings do not reach levels comparable to youth nationally but do show an upward trend. This group does not appear connected to the workforce prior to age 18. These youth represent one-sixth to one-fifth of youth who age out of foster care in the study states (20 percent in California, 21 percent in Minnesota, and 16 percent in North Carolina).
Poor outcomes at age 24
Never Connected: These youth have very low probabilities of employment and hardly any earnings at any time between ages 18 and 24 or prior to age 18. This group represents one-fifth to one-third of the youth who age out of foster care in these states (33 percent in California, 29 percent in Minnesota, and 22 percent in North Carolina). Some portion of these youth may not be covered in the earnings data.
Initially Connected: Youth in this group begin making connections to the workforce prior to adulthood and maintain a high probability of employment through their late teens. Their probabilities of employment then decline rapidly in their early twenties. The average earnings for this group never get very high, which might explain the drop in employment, if lower earnings result in less incentive to continue working. The drop-off in employment for some portion of these youth might also be explained by changes to jobs not covered by UI data, moves out of state, incarceration, or child-bearing. This group represents one-fifth to almost one-half of the youth in these states (22 percent in California, 29 percent in Minnesota, and 46 percent in North Carolina).
Pathways to adult services
Extending services to youth after age 18 is the focus of many recent initiatives and efforts to support youth aging out of foster care. Findings from this report would suggest, however, that risk for these youth extend beyond even age 21. Working at age 21 does not appear to be a guarantee that youth will sustain employment through age 24. In fact, significant changes in employment trajectories appear to occur for many youth who age out of foster care right around age 21. Some portion of these youth may need additional assistance staying connected to the labor market or accessing adult service systems.
Importance of ages 16 to 18
Ages 16 to 18 are a period of significant employment activity for many youth aging out of foster care. Rapid increases in employment occur for consistently connected youth and initially connected youth between the ages of 16 and 18. Similarly, results show that employment prior to age 18 is associated with positive employment outcomes at age 24 for youth in California, Minnesota, and North Carolina. This evidence suggests that helping youth connect to the workforce prior to adulthood may have benefits later.
Tailoring programs
As programs to serve former foster youth continue to evolve, policymakers and practitioners might consider strategies for tailoring programs to best meet the needs of youth on different trajectories. For example, those youth initially connected to the labor market exhibit a desire to work early on, but may need additional training or education to find sustainable, long-term employment. Those who are later connected may require extra supports while they are in school or receiving training in preparation for later connection to the workforce. For those youth who are never connected, the challenge may be finding them and identifying their service needs. Are they homeless, disabled, incarcerated, or living with their biological parents or extended family? The Chafee National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) could be an important tool to help states identify the types of youth that follow different paths and their service needs. This database is designed to identify the numbers and characteristics of youth receiving Independent Living services, track the type and quantity of those services, and develop outcome measures to assess state performance in serving these youth.
Future research
This study analyzed outcomes for youth who aged out of foster care in the late 1990s, prior to the passage of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act, which strengthened independent living programs for youth in foster care and focused attention on this population. In the future, researchers may want to examine later cohorts of youth who age out of foster care that may have benefited from the Chafee Foster Care Independence programs. With each additional year of earnings data, another age cohort can be analyzed. Researchers could also examine the role of education and other service systems in supporting these youth. Further exploration is also needed to understand the different employment paths these youth follow. For example, what are the resiliency factors that enable youth to age out of foster care and connect consistently to the workforce? This group could provide insights into the factors that help youth aging out of foster care succeed.
A youth’s departure from home marks the beginning of adulthood and a new stage in life. This critical juncture and the surrounding years, often referred to as the “transition to adulthood,” is increasingly being recognized as a distinct developmental stage between adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 2004). Youth who reach this stage and are living in foster care are often at a significant disadvantage. In 2005, over 24,000 youths found themselves in this circumstance (DHHS, 2006). They “aged out” of the foster care system and entered into the world of adulthood relatively alone.
Research suggests these youth do not fare well. Youth who age out of foster care often have bouts of homelessness, criminal activity, and incarceration (Courtney, Piliavin, and Grogan-Kaylor, 1998; Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, and Nesmith, 2001). Many suffer from physical and mental health challenges as a result of past abuse or neglect.
A primary task in transitioning to adulthood, and the focus of this report, is finding and sustaining employment. Studies of former foster youth who age out of foster care find that these youth generally experience high unemployment, unstable employment patterns, and earn very low incomes in the period between ages 18 and 21 (Cook, 1991; Courtney et al., 2001; Dworsky and Courtney, 2001; Goerge, Bilaver, Lee, Needell, Brookhart and Jackman, 2002). Studies also document consistently low rates of high school completion and welfare receipt (Courtney et al., 1998; Courtney et al., 2001; Festinger, 1983; McMillen and Tucker, 1999; Pecora, Kessler, Williams, O’Brien, Downs, English, et al., 2003).
What is less known about these youth is how they fare in their mid-twenties, after they have made the initial transition into adulthood. It might be hypothesized that some would experience unstable employment in their initial attempts to connect to the workforce, but that these patterns would stabilize when youth reached their mid-twenties. If these patterns do not stabilize, however, addressing job readiness and educational needs early in the transition to adulthood may be important to shaping the future trajectories of these youth.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) requested this study to examine employment and earnings outcomes for youth, through their mid-twenties, who age out of foster care. Key findings suggest:
Low rates of employment persist through age 24: About three out of five youth who age out of foster care are working at age 24 in all three states, a rate lower than that of youth nationally and youth from low-income families.
Low earnings persist through age 24: Average monthly earnings for youth who age out of foster care remain low at age 24 in all three states ($690 in California, $575 in Minnesota, and $450 in North Carolina). These earnings are substantially lower than earnings for youth nationally, who earn $1,535 a month.
Four patterns of connectedness to the workforce emerge: Never connected youth have a consistently low probability of employment between ages 18 and 24. Consistently connected youth maintain a high probability of employment during this period and achieve earnings comparable to national averages. Initially connected youth have a high probability of employment around ages 18 and 19, but this probability declines sharply by age 22. Later connected youth have a slow start but steadily increase their probability of employment through age 24.
Basic Study Methods
Child welfare, unemployment insurance (UI), and TANF administrative data are linked to assess employment outcomes and welfare receipt for youth who age out of foster care. Child welfare data allow researchers to identify youth who age out of foster care, while the UI data provide information on employment and earnings. TANF data reveal later welfare receipt. Information is linked between sources using youths’ social security numbers. A comparison group of youth from low-income families is created using TANF data, and baseline national estimates are derived from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). Analyses are conducted in three states: California, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Descriptive, multivariate, and trajectory analysis techniques are employed. Youth outcomes are assessed from age 16 to the first quarter of age 24.
Since the mid-1980s federal legislators have focused increased attention on youth who age out of the foster care system in recognition of the unique challenges they face during their transition to adulthood and independence. The Independent Living Initiative in 1985 (Public Law 99-272) amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to provide federal funding to states to help foster youth develop independent living skills. This program was reauthorized indefinitely in 1993 (Public Law 103-66) as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Most recently, the Foster Care Independence Act (FCIA) of 1999 (Public Law 106-169) amended Title IV-E to provide states with more funding and greater flexibility in designing services to help foster youth transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. This law, which included the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, doubled funding formerly provided through the Title IV-E Independent Living Program. It allowed states to assist youth ages 18 to 21 who may have left foster care, and to extend Medicaid coverage for foster care youth to age 21. The law also permits states to use funds to assist youth with room and board payments. It is within this policy context of additional federal support and heightened interest in how youth are faring that the current study, which examines the employment outcomes of former foster youth through their mid-twenties, was conducted.
Prior Research
Prior research indicates that youth who age out of foster care tend to have less stable employment and lower earnings than their same-age peers (Cook, 1991; Courtney, Dworsky, Keller, & Havlicek, 2005; Goerge et al., 2002; Pecora et al., 2006; Singer, 2006). Findings across studies are strikingly similar regardless of whether researchers survey the youth directly (Courtney et al., 2005; Pecora et al., 2006) or analyze employment data from administrative records (Dworsky, 2005; Goerge et al., 2002; Singer, 2006). The Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth surveyed youth from Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin and found that compared to a nationally representative sample of 19-year-olds who had participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, foster youth were significantly less likely to be employed at age 19 (40 percent compared to 58 percent) (Courtney et al. 2005). Goerge et al. (2002) also found a similar pattern of lower employment among foster youth using administrative data and comparing them to a nationally representative sample of youth ages 16 to 19 from the Current Population Survey (CPS). Further, the study found that foster youth tend to have significantly lower earnings than a comparable sample of low-income youth.
Other studies using administrative data find that the majority of foster youth are employed at some point after they leave the system but have very low earnings. A recent report using Utah state administrative data found that 86 percent of youth who exited foster care between 1999 and 2003 were employed at some point within three years of leaving the system (Singer, 2006). Another study that used administrative data from Wisconsin examined employment outcomes two years after youth exited care between 1992 and 1998 and found that 80 percent were employed at some point during that time (Dworsky, 2005). In both studies, earnings were significantly low and remained below the poverty threshold.
Few studies have tracked employment outcomes for this group into adulthood. One exception is the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, which surveyed youth who had been in family foster care between 1988 and 1998. Although 24 was the average age of the sample, many were between ages 26 and 33. Like the aforementioned studies, former foster youth were less likely to have been employed than the national average for adults between the ages of 20 and 34 (80 percent compared to 95 percent) (Pecora et al., 2006).
Notably, with the exception of the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, most research to date has tracked foster youth employment outcomes one to three years after youth have discharged from care. This relatively short time period is due in large part to the fact that only recently have data from automated child welfare data systems become viable for analysis. Prior to 2006, data collected by states typically had limited research utility. Longer tracking periods have only become possible as more time has passed.
The current study builds most directly on prior work conducted by Goerge and colleagues (2002), who incorporated both child welfare administrative data and Unemployment Insurance Wage Reporting Data. While they were able to examine youth employment outcomes two years after leaving foster care in California, Illinois, and South Carolina, this report presents employment outcomes six years after care for former foster youth from California, Minnesota, and North Carolina. A key question and focus of this report is whether youth who age out of foster care catch up or continue to experience less employment and significantly lower earnings than their peers even into their mid-twenties.
This study, like prior research, includes comparison groups. It compares youth who age out of foster care to a nationally representative sample of similar-age youth from the NLSY97 and a low-income sample of youth from welfare caseloads in each of the three participating states. Researchers also considered a comparison group of foster youth who had left the child welfare system for reasons other than aging out (e.g., reunification, adoption) but ultimately decided not to use these comparison groups. The main drawback to using these child welfare comparison groups was that youth age 16 and older who are reunified or adopted before exiting foster care are not representative of most youth who exit for these reasons. Therefore, any differences found in the study between age-out youth and reunified or adopted youth would not necessarily have reflected the true differences between youth who age out of foster care and a more representative sample of reunified or adopted youth.
Methods for This Study
The following provides a brief overview of the methods employed in the study. A more detailed description of methods and procedures is provided in the technical appendix (beginning on page 35).
State Selection
Analyses were conducted in three states: California, Minnesota, and North Carolina. States were selected based on the availability of child welfare and employment data, prior experience linking administrative data sources, and willingness to participate in the study. Each of the three states is demographically diverse and uses a different approach to serving youth who age out of the foster care system.
Data
Data for the study come from three state administrative sources: child welfare, public assistance, and Unemployment Insurance. Additional data for the national comparison estimates come from the NLSY97.
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wage Reporting Data: In each state, employers who pay a payroll tax based on an employee’s earnings are required to report those earnings quarterly. This data source was used to obtain quarterly earnings information for youth in the study and includes most but not all types of employment (important limitations are described on page 11). Outcome measures related to employment and earnings come from this source.
|
Age-Out | Low-Income |
NLSY |
|---|---|---|---|
California |
2,697 |
43,725 |
|
Minnesota |
320 |
4,786 |
|
North Carolina |
284 |
2,709 |
|
National Sample |
|
|
878 |
Note 1. Sample sizes are for working youth only. CA, MN, and NC samples include youth age 17 in 1998. The NLSY sample includes youth who were 18 in 1998. |
|||
Public Assistance Data: Each state collects statewide public assistance data on caregivers and dependents who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These data contain information on the types of assistance and spells of that receipt. These data were used to create a comparison sample of low-income youth in all three states. In Minnesota and North Carolina, public assistance data were also used to track welfare receipt after youth left foster care. In California, welfare data for this purpose were not available.
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97): The NLSY97 is a national probability sample of approximately 9,000 youth born in the years 1980 through 1984. The youth were first interviewed in 1997 and have been interviewed on an annual basis since. The most recently available data were collected in 2003-2004, representing the seventh round of interviewing. For the purpose of this study, youth born in 1980 were selected, which makes them 18 as of December 31, 1998, a comparable age group to the child welfare population examined. The survey includes questions about employment, earnings, and TANF receipt. These data were used to provide a nationally representative baseline comparison.
Data Linking
Data from each of these sources were combined into one analysis file for each state. Researchers used social security numbers as the primary means to identify the same youth across data systems and to link youth’s information into one dataset. In North Carolina researchers also used name and date of birth when linking child welfare and public assistance records. In Minnesota all three data sources were compiled and linked using social security numbers. Minnesota’s Department of Human Services and the Department of Employment and Economic Development did the link and provided one dataset to the researchers.
Cases with Missing or Invalid Social Security Numbers
Child welfare and employment data in each of the states could only be linked for youth with valid social security numbers in the child welfare data systems.[1] Those without a valid social security number could not be included in the study. In California 13 percent of the original sample lacked valid social security numbers, in North Carolina 2 percent lacked valid numbers, and in Minnesota less than 1 percent lacked valid social security numbers.
In California, the only state with sufficient sample sizes to compare youth with and without valid social security numbers, youth were compared on demographic and child welfare case characteristics to determine whether there were any differences between them. Analyses revealed few substantive differences between youth with and without valid social security numbers.
Samples
The analyses included three different samples of youth, two of which serve as comparisons to the study group of interest, youth who age out of foster care. Table 1 shows the sample size for each group in each state. Tables A1-A6 in the Appendix provide detailed demographic information for the age-out and low-income samples, and also include case history information for the age-out sample.
Age-Out Sample (study group): This group includes all youth age 17 and in the child welfare system on December 31, 1998, who have “emancipation” or “age of majority” as their exit reason, or who had missing exit reasons, but exited after their 18th birthday. Employment outcomes are tracked as these youth turn 18 through their first quarter of age 24.
Low-Income Comparison Sample: This group includes all youth age 17 on December 31, 1998 listed as a dependent on a family TANF grant. Employment outcomes are tracked as these youth turn 18 through their first quarter of age 24.
National Comparison Sample: This nationally representative sample includes all youth age 18 in 1998 in the NLSY97. The sample is on average one year older than the child welfare and low-income comparison groups due to the availability of the NLSY97 data. Employment, earnings, and TANF receipt for these youth through age 24 are gathered from the survey.
This report examines employment and earnings for youth in the three samples described above. In Minnesota and North Carolina it also includes TANF outcomes for the child welfare and low-income samples.
Outcomes are examined through the quarter of the youth’s 24th birthday. As this gives the status of the youth on a particular outcome at age 24, this year is referred to as age 24 throughout this report. It should be noted that this year includes three quarters prior to the youth’s 24th birthday as well as the quarter of his or her 24th birthday. The other age data points presented in the report use this same approach.
There are several different ways to measure employment and welfare experiences using UI and TANF data, and the following is a description of the key constructs used in the study.
Employment: Earnings reported quarterly are used to indicate whether youth are employed (i.e., had earnings) at any time between ages 18 and 24 and at each age between 18 and 24.
Earnings: Quarterly earnings also are used to estimate average monthly earnings between 18 and 24 and at each age between 18 and 24.[2] The data are also used to determine whether earnings reached a livable wage using data on fair market rents for each state.
Stability: Two measures were constructed to approximate employment stability, defined as consecutive quarters of employment. One measure indicates whether youth have ever been employed for four consecutive quarters (i.e., a full year) by age 24 and what portion of youth achieve the outcome at each age. A significant limitation of this measure is that data are quarterly and not date-specific. This means that youth who worked only one month in each quarter would still be considered employed four consecutive quarters. While this measure suggests that some regular employment occurred, it does not guarantee that the employment was stable. A second measure of stability estimates the portion of quarters in a year youth worked at each age.
Connectedness: This construct considers patterns of connection to the workforce. Analyses identified groups of youth with similar probabilities of employment at a given age over time. These groups include youth who are consistently, initially, later, and never connected to the workforce.
TANF Receipt: Researchers examine whether youth received TANF between ages 18 and 24 in North Carolina and Minnesota, and what portion were receiving TANF at each age.
Analyses
Statistical analyses include bivariate, multivariate, and trajectory models to characterize and assess the employment, earnings, and TANF outcomes for youth in the study.
Bivariate: Researchers calculated and analyzed the sample means for all demographic factors, child welfare case characteristics, employment, earnings, and TANF outcomes for youth who aged out of foster care in each of the states. Similar estimates were produced for demographic, employment, earnings, and TANF outcomes for youth in the low-income and national samples. The analyses were used to examine sample characteristics and employment and TANF trends.
Multivariate: Multivariate analyses included ordinary least squares and logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazard models. These analyses served several purposes. The primary purpose was to determine whether differences between comparison groups in employment, earnings, or stability were maintained after controlling for other factors. Another purpose was to determine which factors were significantly associated with employment, earnings, and stability outcomes for the population of youth who age out of foster care.
Trajectory: Trajectory analyses were conducted on the sample of youth who age out of foster care in each state to identify distinct employment patterns over time. This method groups youth with similar employment patterns and tracks the probability of employment at each age. Researchers used the semi-parametric group-based approach employed by Nagin (1999).
Limitations
There are a few important limitations to this analysis. First, with regard to the UI data, it is important to note that unemployment insurance does not cover all workers. For example, individuals employed by the military and federal government are not included. Neither is informal work and employment that is “off the books”. Unemployment Insurance data explicitly exclude much of the agricultural sector and domestic services, as well as the self-employed. Also, youth who moved out of state, work across state borders, or are incarcerated would not appear in the data. The net effect of this limitation is that the analyses are likely to underestimate employment and earnings within the study samples. Hotz and Scholz (2001) have also concluded that UI administrative data underreport earnings in a study comparing administrative earnings data with survey data on earnings. This finding may be of concern to the current study, but previous research on the employment outcomes of youth aging out of foster care find consistent differences between youth who age out of foster care and other youth regardless of whether they use survey or administrative earnings data.
Second, it is also important to point out that earnings may not perfectly reflect how a youth transitioning into adulthood is faring, or his or her future earning potential. The main reason is that measures of educational attainment, college enrollment, or degrees earned are not present in the data. One advantage of the study design, however, is that it is longitudinal and includes findings through age 24. Presumably many youth who may have been in school around age 17 may have completed high school or post-secondary schooling by then. Another reason these data may not capture fully how these youth are faring is that they only report individual earnings and do not account for earnings from a spouse, roommate, or family member who may also provide support for the youth.
A third limitation pertains to using quarterly, as opposed to date-specific, data. One consequence is that true employment stability cannot be measured. In essence, a youth who may have worked four consecutive quarters may not have had stable or consistent employment each month. With data that are calculated quarterly, such employment patterns cannot be assessed. However, consecutive quarters of employment are an approximation for consistency and reveal regular, if not stable, work. Despite the limitations of UI data, it is nevertheless regarded as one of the most comprehensive sources of earnings data available. In addition, it is a data source that is collected consistently across all states, which is essential for comparative studies such as this one.
A fourth limitation concerns child welfare data. It is important to note that the sample is drawn from youth who were of a particular age in 1998. This period occurs shortly after states implemented statewide automated information systems (SACWIS). While the selected states have noticeably reliable data, it is likely that further improvements to the system and data collection process were made in subsequent years.
A related limitation concerns unmeasured characteristics generally. While analyses adjust for demographic factors and child welfare case characteristics, additional information known to be related to employment outcomes are not available. Examples include family income, social support, educational attainment, and other youth characteristics (e.g., mental and physical health), which can contribute to employment outcomes. This limitation of unmeasured and in some cases unobservable characteristics is not uncommon in research of this nature and may be improved as information systems generally improve. This research, however, makes a substantial contribution to what is currently known using some of the best data available.
Youth who age out of foster care experience lower than average rates of employment and low earnings through age 24,[3] compared to similar age youth nationally and those from low-income families in their respective states. The majority of these youth, however, do work at some point between the ages of 18 and 24 in all three states. Only 15 percent of youth in California never worked during this period. Similarly, 13 percent of youth in Minnesota and 18 percent in North Carolina had no reported earnings. It is uncertain to what extent these youth worked in jobs that would not be included in the UI data, were incarcerated, or moved out of state.
The estimates that follow are based on the sample of youth who aged out of foster care and who worked at some point between the ages of 18 and 24. To include those who never worked in estimates of employment outcomes would weight the results heavily toward zero, either in terms of no employment or as zero earnings. Focusing on the working population offers a picture of employment levels for those youth who engaged in work. This population is referred to as “working youth.”
Working Youth Who Age Out of Foster Care Are Less Likely to Be Employed than Other Youth at Age 24
Of youth who aged out of foster care and who ever worked during the study period, about three out of five work at age 24 in each of the three states studied (62 percent in California, 65 percent in Minnesota, and 61 percent in North Carolina) (see Figure 1). The portion of youth aging out of foster care who worked is lower than the portion of the comparison groups that worked. Nationally, 92 percent of youth with work histories work at age 24.[4] And, two-thirds to three-quarters of working youth from low-income families work at 24 (74 percent in California, 71 percent in work in Minnesota, and 68 percent in North Carolina).
Notes: Each age is defined as the four quarters ending in that birthday.
Differences between working youth who age out of foster care and those from low-income families tend to persist in two of the study states when controlling for other factors like gender, race and ethnicity, prior work experience, unemployment rates, and urbanicity (see Table 2 and description of the full model in Tables A13–A15 in the Appendix).[5]
Specifically, controlling for these factors, low-income working youth in California and Minnesota have a higher likelihood of working at age 24 than do youth who age out of foster care (56 percent in California and 30 percent in Minnesota).
Trends over time suggest that rates of employment for working youth who age out of foster care decline after age 19. In all three states, 70 to 80 percent of these youth work at age 19. This portion then declines steadily through age 24—the last year of available data. This decline after age 19 is not observed for other populations. For youth nationally, rates of employment increase to a high of 99 percent around age 20, drop the next year, and then remain steady between 91 and 93 percent through age 24. Employment rates for low-income youth remain fairly steady through age 24 in California. In Minnesota and North Carolina, rates for low-income youth decline somewhat through age 24, but not as dramatically as do rates for youth who age out of foster care.
|
Relative Odds of Being Employed at Age 24 |
|---|---|
Model Type |
|
|
Logistic |
Low-Income (age out is the reference group) |
|
CA |
56% more likely to be employed note3 |
MN |
30% more likely to be employed note2 |
NC |
NS |
Sample Size: CA: 46,094; MN: 4,915; NC: 2,993. |
|
These differing patterns suggest that rates of employment for working youth who age out will diverge from other working youth nationally and those from low-income families. This divergence appears to begin around age 20 in all three states and becomes particularly pronounced by age 24.
Working Youth Who Age Out of Foster Care Increase Their Earnings with Age, but Few Earn a Livable Wage at Age 24
Working youth who age out of foster care in the three study states earn less than $700 a month on average at age 24 ($690 in California, $575 in Minnesota, and $450 in North Carolina) (see Appendix Tables 7–9). State differences in average earnings may be due to variation in the cost of living in each state. Regardless, these youth earn less than youth nationally and youth from low-income families in all three states. Nationally, at age 24, youth earn on average $1,535 per month, more than double the $700 per month on average earned by working youth who age out of foster care in California. Working youth who age out of foster care also earn less on average than youth from low-income families. At age 24, youth from low-income families in California earn $970 per month on average. These youth earn $865 in Minnesota and $570 in North Carolina.
Differences in earnings between working youth who age out of foster care and those from low-income families persist in two of the three study states when controlling for other factors like gender, race and ethnicity, prior work experience, unemployment rates, and urbanicity. Controlling for these factors, earnings of youth from low-income families are significantly higher in California (by 11 percent) and Minnesota (by 17 percent).
Looking at trends, youth who age out of foster care experience a steady increase in earnings over time, although earnings are not adjusted for inflation. In California, these youths’ mean monthly earnings grew by $561 between ages 18 and 24. In Minnesota incomes grew by $421, and in North Carolina they grew by $275. It is important to note that although youth from North Carolina experienced the lowest growth in mean monthly income, they earned more at age 18 than youth from either California or Minnesota. Other youth also increase their earnings over time. The curve is generally steeper for low- income youth and much steeper for youth nationally (See Tables A7–A9).
|
Mean Monthly Earnings at Age 24 |
|---|---|
Model Type |
|
|
OLS |
Low-Income (age out is the reference group) |
|
CA |
11% higher earnings note3 |
MN |
17% higher earnings note2 |
NC |
NS |
Sample Size: CA: 46,094; MN: 4,915; NC: 2,993. |
|
Notes: Each age is defined as the four quarters ending in the quarter with that birthday. Earnings are not adjusted for inflation.
Given their low earnings, it is not surprising that only a small portion of working youth who age out of foster care earn a livable wage at age 24[6] (7 percent in California, 17 percent in Minnesota, and 10 percent in North Carolina) (see Figure 3). Compared to other youth, far more working youth from low-income families in each state earn a livable wage: 13 percent in California, 23 percent in Minnesota, and 14 percent North Carolina.
Portions of working youth who age out of foster care and those from low-income families earning a livable wage generally increase with time in all three states. The increase is somewhat more substantial, however, for youth from low-income families (See Tables A7–A9).
Despite their low earnings, few working youth who age out of foster care receive benefits from TANF. In Minnesota and North Carolina, the states for which these data are available, only 2 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of youth who age out receive TANF at age 24 (see Figure 4). More youth from low-income families in each state receive TANF: 16 percent in Minnesota and 10 percent in North Carolina.
This finding is consistent with Dworsky and Courtney (2000) who find that 2 percent of former foster youth in Wisconsin received AFDC two years after exiting from care. Looking out one to three years further, they find that about 12 percent of these youth receive TANF assistance. Given that these youth have such low earnings, it might be expected these rates would be higher. These youth, however, may not know how to access the benefits or might not have children.
Working Youth Who Age Out of Foster Care Continue to Experience Unstable Employment at Age 24
One way to look at stability of employment is to estimate the portion of youth who report employment for four consecutive quarters. The limitation of this measure is that youth may have worked for one day, week, or month of each quarter, rather than throughout the period. At minimum, this measure provides a sense of how frequently youth had regular, even if not entirely stable earnings. With this measure, about 7 out of 10 working youth who age out of foster care experience four consecutive quarters of employment at some time between ages 18 and 24 in all three states (72 percent in California, 70 percent in Minnesota, and 71 percent in North Carolina) (see Figure 5).
Other youth, however, are more likely to have been employed four consecutive quarters by age 24. Nationally, 95 percent of youth fall into this category. For youth from low-income families, portions are slightly higher than youth who age out in all three states (80 percent in California, 78 percent in Minnesota, and 72 percent in North Carolina).
|
Relative Likelihood of Being Employed Four Consecutive Quarters by Age 24 |
|---|---|
Model Type |
|
|
Hazard |
Low-Income (age out is the reference group) |
|
CA |
41% higher likelihood note3 |
MN |
45% higher likelihood note3 |
NC |
18% higher likelihood note2 |
Sample Size: CA: 47,685; MN: 5,247; NC: 3,252. Sample includes non-employed as well. |
|
These differences persist in all three states even when controlling for other factors like gender, race and ethnicity, prior work experience, unemployment rates, and urbanicity. After controlling for these factors, working youth from low-income families are more likely than youth who age out of foster care to have experienced four consecutive quarters of employment by age 24 in all three states (41 percent higher in California, 45 percent higher in Minnesota, and 18 percent higher in North Carolina) (see Table 4, Tables A13–A15 in the Appendix).
Another way to look at stability is to consider how many quarters in a year youth work. At age 24, youth who age out of foster care in all three study states work about half the quarters (see Figure 6). Working youth who age out of foster care in California work on average 48 percent of the quarters at age 24. Similarly, these youth in Minnesota work 50 percent of the quarters, and youth in North Carolina work 44 percent of the quarters. Youth nationally work far more often. They work 84 percent of the quarters at age 24. Generally, youth from low-income families in each of the three states also work slightly more quarters than youth who age out of foster care.
Looking at youth who age out of foster care in the aggregate masks the possibility that distinct groups of youth exhibit different patterns of connection to the workforce. This study uses group-based trajectory analysis to identify and differentiate patterns of “connectedness” to the workforce for youth who age out of foster care, through age 24. Trajectory analysis is a method that employs maximum likelihood estimation techniques to identify group patterns in longitudinal data as an alternative to calculating means from the entire sample, or making subjective group delineations.
Findings are very consistent across the three states in suggesting that youth who age out of foster care follow one of four distinct paths of connecting to the workforce as they transition into adulthood. These trajectories include all youth who age out of foster care, not just those who work at some point between ages 18 and 24. Analysis begins at age 16, to illustrate how employment prior to adulthood might be related to later employment for each trajectory. Four trajectories are identified:
Never Connected: These are youth who are never or minimally connected to the workforce between the ages of 16 and 24. They represent as many as one-third of youth (33 percent) that age out in California, over a quarter of youth (29 percent) in Minnesota, and over one-fifth of youth (22 percent) in North Carolina (see Figure 7). It is important to note that some of these youth may be working, but in jobs not covered by UI data. They also might have moved to a different state and could be working there, could be in school, or could be incarcerated.
Consistently Connected: These are youth who show consistent connections to the workforce as adults. This group represents a quarter of youth (25 percent) in California, just over one-fifth of youth (22 percent) in Minnesota, and about one-sixth of youth in North Carolina (16 percent)
Initially Connected: These are youth who are connected to the labor market initially (i.e., in their late teens) but with time their probability of employment drops off. This group represents one-fifth of youth (22 percent) in California, 29 percent of youth in Minnesota, and almost half of youth in North Carolina (46 percent).In North Carolina, this group is composed of two subgroups, one with higher initial probabilities of employment (18 percent) and one with lower initial probabilities (28 percent).[7]
Later Connected: These youth are not connected to the labor market initially but do begin working in their early twenties, perhaps because they were in school or in a training or apprenticeship program during their late teens. They also may have had earlier employment not covered in UI data but obtained employment with reported earnings later. This group represents one-fifth of youth in California (20 percent) and in Minnesota (21 percent), and about one-sixth of youth in North Carolina (16 percent).
It is striking that similar trajectories emerge in all three states, providing confidence that these patterns may be similar among youth who age out of foster care in other states or even nationally (see Figures 8–10). It is also notable that similar portions of youth follow each pattern. By age 24, one-third to almost half of youth who age out in all three states have high rates of employment (i.e., the consistent and later connectors). It is important to note, however, that despite their effort to work, the earnings for the later connectors to the workforce are still very low. At the same time, one-half to two-thirds of youth who age out of foster care are not connected to the workforce by age 24 (i.e., the never and initial connectors). These youth are either never connected to the labor market or are connected initially and then drop off.
While the patterns are similar overall, it is important to point out the few distinctions across the states. One distinction is seen in Minnesota where the later connectors exhibit a slight decline in their probability of employment at age 24 while the initial connectors who drop off show a rise in their probabilities of employment at this time. This pattern is not generally observed in the other states.
Another distinction is seen in the later connector group. In California and North Carolina, their progress is more linear, while in Minnesota progress is more curvilinear with significant increases beginning around ages 18 and 19. It should also be noted that this group in Minnesota never reaches a probability of employment above 60 percent, whereas these youth in California and North Carolina reach probabilities around 70 to 80 percent, respectively.
Finally, as noted previously, in North Carolina there are two distinct groups of initial connectors, one with a high probability of initial employment nearing 80 percent and the other with initial probabilities of employment around 40 percent. Both groups, however, experience a drop in employment and have probabilities of employment around 20 percent by age 24.
In the pages that follow, the employment patterns of these four trajectories are described in greater detail. It should be noted, however, that sample sizes for these trajectory groups do get small, particularly in North Carolina and Minnesota. The trajectory lines of the probabilities of employment for these groups, however, are still distinct even after taking into account confidence intervals. A few other estimates of employment patterns are highlighted, but should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes. Estimates of case history and demographic characteristics are not highlighted in the text, but are included in the Appendix, with sample sizes and standard deviations noted.
Of significant concern are the youth who age out of foster care and simply never connect to the workforce. They exhibit very low probabilities of employment and hardly any earnings between the ages of 16 and 24. The probability of employment for this group hovers between zero and 10 percent throughout this period. Even prior to adulthood, these youth have very low probabilities of employment (see Figure 11). This group includes the non-workers identified in the section 3 (15 percent of youth in California, 13 percent in Minnesota, and 18 percent in North Carolina) as well as those who work, but have very minimal employment. In California, 33 percent of youth are never connected, with 22 percent and 29 percent never connected in North Carolina and Minnesota, respectively.
The individual economic circumstances of these youth are poor (see Figure 12). They earn little to nothing each month and this is a steady pattern from ages 16 through 24. Average monthly earnings after age 18 for this group in California reach a high of $29 at age 19 and then drop to a low of $9 at age 23. Similarly, in Minnesota the highest average monthly earnings are $27 at age 24 and the lowest are $5 at age 22. In North Carolina the highest average monthly earnings are $5 at age 18 and the lowest are zero earnings at ages 22 and 23.
It is important to note, however, that some of these youth may be working in jobs not covered by UI data (such as the military), incarcerated, enrolled in school, or working in another state. Future research, perhaps with the data collected by state for the Chafee National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), can distinguish what portion of this group is truly never connected.
For those who are never connected, developing methods for identifying them, where they are, and how they are surviving will be vital to future policy and practice efforts. Specifically, researchers might examine to what extent these youth are homeless, disabled, or involved with the criminal justice system.
This trajectory is characterized by relatively high probabilities of employment after age 18 with earnings close to the national average in all three states (see Figure 14). The probability of employment for this group is close to 90 percent in all three states by age 20 and remains that high through age 24. It seems that connections to the workforce begin prior to adulthood for this group, as their probability of employment increases rapidly between ages 16 and 18 in all three states. Consistently connected youth include 25 percent of youth in California, 22 percent in Minnesota, and 16 percent in North Carolina.
What is most encouraging about this group is that their earnings are comparable to other youth nationally. At age 24, earnings for this group in California reach $1,575 a month on average. In Minnesota, average earnings reach a high at age 24 when youth make $1,325 per month. In North Carolina, average earnings for this group are the highest at age 23 when they earn $1,080 per month. Nationally, youth earn on average $1,525 a month at age 24 (see Figure 14).
Most of these youth, however, still do not earn a livable wage (see Figure 15). Only 17 percent of these youth earn a living wage in California at age 24. In Minnesota, however, almost half (42 percent) of these youth earn a livable wage at age 24, perhaps due to a lower cost of living. In North Carolina 23 percent of youth fall into this category at 24.
Youth with this employment trajectory typically have higher probabilities of employment through their teens, with a drop in the probability of being employed occurring during their twenties (see Figure 16). In very early adulthood, around ages 18 and 19, these youth have initial probabilities of employment ranging from around 40 percent for North Carolina’s low group to just over 80 percent for their high group. Percentages in California and Minnesota fall in between. By age 24, however, these probabilities hover around 20 to 30 percent in all three states. This drop may be the result of not working, returning to school, joining the military, or experiencing a major life event, job loss, or incarceration that causes them to disconnect from the workforce. Some of these youth may move to other states or start jobs not covered in UI data. Nationally, from 2005 to 2006, 5 percent of adults ages 20 to 24 moved out of state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). This may be especially true for North Carolina’s high group, who appear strongly connected to the workforce between ages 18 and 21. The initial connectors appear to connect to the workforce prior to adulthood, as the probability of employment increases rapidly between ages 16 and 18 for these youth in all three states. In North Carolina, 46 percent of all youth are initially connected youth, compared to 22 percent in California and Minnesota.
Earnings for this group reach a high between the ages of 18 and 21 and then decrease substantially. Even at their peak, however, these youth earn very little. In California, these youth reach a high in average earnings at age 20 when they earn $450 a month. In Minnesota, highest average earnings occur for these youth at age 19 when they earn $250 a month. In North Carolina, highest average earnings are realized for the high group at age 21, and are $475 a month (see Figure 17). The relatively low earnings of this group might explain the drop off in employment if this creates a disincentive to continue working.
Few to none of these youth earn a living wage at any point during this period. In California, just 1 percent of these youth earn a living wage at age 24. None of North Carolina’s low group is earning a livable wage at age 24. Sample sizes in Minnesota and North Carolina’s high group are too small to report.
Youth in this trajectory have lower probabilities of employment until their early twenties but then see a steady increase in their probability of employment through age 24 (see Figure 18). In early adulthood their probabilities of employment are around or below 40 percent. Then in their twenties, these youth increase their probability of employment to highs above 70 percent in California and North Carolina and around 50 percent in Minnesota. In California, 20 percent of youth are later connected youth, compared with 21 percent in Minnesota and 16 percent in North Carolina.
Earnings start to increase for these youth through their twenties as well (see Figure 19).
Youth in California reach a high in average earnings at age 24 when they earn $750 a month. In Minnesota, highest average earnings occur for these youth at age 24 when they earn $700 a month. In North Carolina, highest average earnings are realized at age 24 when these youth earn $905 a month. Overall, these youth do not earn as much as the consistently connected youth at 24 but do exhibit a fairly steady rise in earnings in their twenties.
Most of these youth are not earning a livable wage at age 24 (see Figure 20). Only 5 percent of these youth earn a livable wage in California at age 24, perhaps due to a higher cost of living. In Minnesota, 19 percent of youth falls into this category. About a quarter (24 percent) of the later connectors in North Carolina earn a livable wage at age 24.
Age at Exit: Youth who age out of foster care later are more likely to achieve four quarters of consecutive earnings
On the whole, a youth’s age at exit is not significantly associated with employment and total earnings but has some relationship to stability. In Minnesota and North Carolina, youth who do not age out of foster care until they are one year older have greater odds of achieving four consecutive quarters of employment. That is, those who age out of foster care at 19 are more likely to achieve four consecutive quarters than those who age out of foster care at 18, who in turn are more likely than those aging out of foster care at 17. In Minnesota, aging out of foster care one year later is associated with a 22 percent increased likelihood of having four consecutive quarters of employment. In North Carolina, aging out of foster care one year later is associated with a24 percent increased likelihood. This relationship does not emerge in California.
Prior research has shown that youth who leave foster care later may have better employment outcomes (Courtney et al., 2005; Wade and Dixon, 2006). Also, youth who stay in care longer may be more likely to be in school, which might explain more “stable” or consecutive quarters of employment once they leave the system. These youth also may have received more training and employment-related skills than youth who exit foster care one year earlier, but further research is needed.
It is important to note that in 1999—the likely time that the majority of these youth exited care—youth typically remained in care only if they were disabled or in school. In North Carolina, to remain in care, youth had to be in school. Hence, it is difficult to distinguish whether some of the positive effects of aging out of care later may be due to being in school, receiving special assistance due to a disability, or staying involved with the system past age 18.
Placement Type:
1) Youth in California who lived in group homes have lower relative odds of being employed at 24
A striking and consistent pattern emerges in California, but not in Minnesota or North Carolina, with respect to youth who live in group homes or institutions before aging out of care. In California youth who had been in group homes are significantly less likely to be employed at 24 than youth in non-relative foster homes. They also are less likely to have four consecutive quarters of employment, and earn significantly less than those in non-relative foster homes. At age 24 these youth have 31 percent lower odds of employment than youth in non-relative foster homes. The odds that they are employed four consecutive quarters at 24 is 47 percent lower than youth who had been in non-relative foster homes. They also earn 14 percent less than foster youth in non-relative placements at 24.
There is some support for this finding in prior research. Goerge and colleagues (2002) find that youth in group homes are significantly less likely than youth in relative foster care to be employed two years after exiting care in Illinois. This could be due to differences in employment services and support that youth receive in group homes versus foster home settings, or differences in youth characteristics, which should be explored further in future research.
2) Employment outcomes are similar for youth in relative versus non-relative foster care
On most employment outcomes, youth in relative foster homes did not differ significantly from those who had been in non-relative homes. In all three states they are equally likely to be employed at 24 and have similar earnings. In Minnesota and North Carolina they are also equally likely to have been employed four consecutive quarters at 24. In contrast, youth in relative foster homes in California are less likely to be employed four consecutive quarters at 24 than those who had been in non-relative foster care.
3) Youth whose placement prior to exit is undetermined or unspecified have less employment and earnings in California
For some youth in all three states, placement type at exit is unspecified in the administrative data.[8] In Minnesota and North Carolina, these youth do not have significantly different employment outcomes than youth in non-relative care. In California, however, they have decreased odds of employment and are less likely to have four consecutive quarters of employment than youth in non-relative care. Additional analyses in California reveal that many youth with unspecified placement at exit may have run away (i.e., their whereabouts are unknown). Researchers examined whether the last known placement type helped explain employment outcomes for youth with no placement information at the time they exited care. Youth whose last known placement status was “run away” are significantly less likely than youth in non-relative foster care to have four consecutive quarters of earnings. The findings suggest that youth with unspecified placement information, who have likely run away, are especially at-risk of poor employment outcomes.
Maltreatment Type: In general, type of maltreatment does not explain employment outcomes
For the most part, youth who experienced physical, sexual, or other forms of abuse are not significantly different from those who experienced neglect when it comes to employment outcomes. Type of maltreatment is not significantly related to any employment outcomes in California and North Carolina. The same is true in Minnesota except with respect to sexual abuse and employment at age 24. Youth who experienced sexual abuse have decreased odds of being employed at 24 compared with youth who had been neglected. This finding stands out as the only significant relationship between maltreatment type and employment at 24 and may be worth further investigation in future research.
Time in Care: Number of placements, total months in care, and total number of episodes (i.e., number of exits and re-entries into the foster care system) are not related to employment outcomes
Neither number of placements, total months in care, nor total number of episodes is significantly related to employment outcomes in California, Minnesota, or North Carolina at age 24. Relatively few case history factors distinguish employment outcomes among youth who age out of foster care.
The next section examines whether demographic characteristics like gender, and race and ethnicity, predict employment outcomes for the youth.
|
EMPLOYMENT |
EARNINGS |
STABILITY |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A. Ever Employed at Age 24 |
B. Natural Logarithm of Mean Monthly Earnings at Age 24 |
C. ‘Relative Risk’ of Achieving 4 Consecutive Quarters of Employment by Age 24 |
D. Employed Four Consecutive Quarters at Age 24 |
|||||||||||||
|
CA |
MN |
NC |
CA |
MN |
NC |
CA |
MN |
NC |
CA |
MN |
NC |
|||||
Model Type |
Logistic |
OLS |
Hazard |
Logistic |
|||||||||||||
Sample Size |
2,690 |
309 |
284 |
2,690 |
309 |
284 |
3,156 |
358 |
347 |
2,690 |
306 |
284 |
|||||
CASE HISTORY |
|||||||||||||||||
Age at Exit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
22% |
24% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Number of Placements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
NS |
13% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
5% |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Placement Type (non-relative family foster care, reference) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Foster Home, Relative |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
14% |
NS |
NS |
26% |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Group Home/Institution |
31% |
NS |
NS |
14% |
NS |
NS |
36% |
NS |
NS |
47% |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Supervised |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|||||
Unspecified Exit |
32% |
NS |
NS |
14% |
NS |
NS |
34% |
NS |
NS |
50% |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Other |
NS |
NS |
NS |
21% |
89% |
NS |
NS |
53% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Type of Abuse (neglect, reference) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Physical Abuse |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
31% |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Sexual Abuse |
NS |
75% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|||||
Other |
NS |
|
49% |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
|||||
|
EMPLOYMENT |
EARNINGS |
STABILITY |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A. Ever Employed at Age 24 |
B. Natural Logarithm of Mean Monthly Earnings at Age 24 |
C. ‘Relative Risk’ of Achieving 4 Consecutive Quarters of Employment by Age 24 |
D. Employed Four Consecutive Quarters at Age 24 |
||||||||
|
CA |
MN |
NC |
CA |
MN |
NC |
CA |
MN |
NC |
CA |
MN |
NC |
Total Number of Episodes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
84% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Months in Care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
DEMOGRAPHICS |
||||||||||||
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
NS |
71% |
NS |
NS |
38% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
38% |
NS |
60% |
68% |
Race |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
African American |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
45% |
NS |
13% |
NS |
NS |
18% |
NS |
NS |
Other Race (non-white |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
59% |
|
NS |
NS |
Native American |
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
Asian |
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
34% |
|
|
244% |
|
|
Hispanic |
20% |
|
|
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
Urbanicity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134% |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
NS |
NS |
|
72% |
NS |
Los Angeles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36% |
|
|
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
NS |
|
|
Prior Work Experience (before age 18) (no prior work, reference) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42% |
NS |
NS |
NS |
26% |
NS |
78% |
75% |
27% |
91% |
NS |
NS |
| Notes: NS = Not Significant; Note 1. Significance at the 10% level; *Models also adjust for the following factors: placements squared; models A, B, and D control for county unemployment rate at Age 24; and Model B controls for Number of Quarters Employed at Age 24 and Number of Quarters Employed between Ages 23 and 24. Note 2. significance at the 5% level; Note 3. significance at the 1% level. |
||||||||||||
This section focuses on the role that factors such as gender, race and ethnicity, prior employment, and living in an urban or rural setting (i.e., urbanicity) play in predicting employment, earnings, and employment stability among youth who age out of foster care. Ordinary least squares regression, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine whether demographic factors contribute significantly to employment outcomes (see Table 5).
Gender: There is some evidence of gender differences, but not in all three states
Differences by gender are most apparent in Minnesota. Here, women have greater odds of being employed at 24 but earn significantly less than men. In North Carolina, women have a 38 percent greater likelihood of four consecutive quarters of employment than men. Similar gender differences in employment and earnings are observed in Illinois and South Carolina for youth who age out of foster care two years prior in the study by Goerge and colleagues (2002). In California, there are virtually no differences in employment outcomes by gender.
Race and Ethnicity: There are some racial and ethnic differences in employment outcomes
Racial differences in employment are seen among youth who age out of foster care. Compared to non-Hispanic white youth, African American youth show less favorable employment in California but more favorable earnings in Minnesota. In California, African Americans are significantly less likely to achieve four consecutive quarters of employment than non-Hispanic white youth. However, in Minnesota African Americans have 45 percent higher earnings at age 24 than non-Hispanic white youth. In North Carolina, no differences reach statistical significance.
In California, population size permits comparisons between Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and non-Hispanic white youth. Analyses reveal that Hispanic youth have increased odds of employment at 24 compared with non-Hispanic white youth but have no significant differences in earnings. In contrast, Asian youth do not differ significantly from non-Hispanic whites in employment and earnings but are 244 percent more likely to work four consecutive quarters at age 24.
Prior Employment: Youth with early work experience show more favorable employment at 24
In California, Minnesota, and North Carolina there is some evidence that youth with employment before age 18 have more favorable employment at 24. Youth in these states with early work experience are more likely to have four consecutive quarters of employment at 24. In California they are also likely to earn significantly more at age 24 than youth without early work experience. These findings should be interpreted with caution, however, as there may be unobserved characteristics of these youth that are correlated with both prior work and later employment. In this case, the coefficient on prior employment may be capturing the effects of these unobserved characteristics on later outcomes as well as the effects of working prior to age 18.
Urbanicity: Urbanicity has some relationship to employment in two states
Youth who had been in care in Los Angeles County were more likely to be employed at 24 than youth who had been in care in other counties in California. In contrast, youth who had been in care in rural counties in Minnesota have greater odds of being employed at 24 than youth who had been in care in other counties. In North Carolina there are no significant differences associated with having been in care in a rural versus non-rural county. These findings likely reflect regional differences in the employment opportunities in the counties examined.
This report describes employment outcomes for youth who age out of foster care, compared with youth nationally and a similar sample of youth from low-income families. A primary goal of the study is to extend prior research that finds that youth who age out of foster care exhibit poor employment outcomes two years after discharging from care and determine whether these patterns persist for youth through their mid-twenties. Findings reveal the following picture.
Youth who age out of foster care continue to experience poor employment outcomes at age 24
At age 24, youth who age out of foster care do not fare well on a variety of employment outcomes. Compared to youth nationally and even youth from low-income families, they are less likely to be employed or employed regularly, and, not surprisingly, they earn very little. At age 24, average monthly earnings for youth who age out of foster care are $690 in California, $575 in Minnesota, and $450 in North Carolina. Employment and earnings differences between youth who age out of foster care and youth from low-income families remain even when controlling for demographic factors in two of the three states.
Youth who age out of foster care