FOSTERING FUTURES INITIATIVE Recommendations to …...philanthropists, youth, and other stakeholders, the recommendations reflect the unique ... EFC-related issues and support informal

FOSTERING FUTURES INITIATIVE Recommendations to Improve Outcomes

for Transitioning Foster Youth in San Diego County MARCH 2017

1

Executive Summary: Approximately 90% of foster youth in San Diego County ages 18-21 (~420 youth at any given time) are served by Extended Foster Care. This report shares three recommendations to improve outcomes for these youth. Based on three years of discussion facilitated by the Fostering Futures Initiative among service providers, philanthropists, youth, and other stakeholders, the recommendations reflect the unique capacity of FFI and where this group can be most effective within the system. The recommendations are: (1) quarterly briefings that keep service providers up-to-date on EFC-related issues and support informal networking; (2) a new navigator team staffed in partnership with the County of San Diego to ensure those who serve TFY have access to uniform, timely, accurate information about available benefits/services; and (3) further program development through action teams on the topics of: connection and coordination among service providers, housing stability, transportation, and earlier assessment and transition planning for TFY. Implementing quarterly briefings and a navigator team has begun; action teams are to be launched later this year. FFI is currently exploring the most effect structure for moving these initiatives forward.

Table of Contents Transitioning foster youth are among our most vulnerable populations. .................................................................... 2

Legislation created new opportunities to improve the system of care for foster youth in San Diego County. ............ 3

What has the Fostering Futures Initiative found? ......................................................................................................... 3

Survey of Youth in Care ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Focus Groups & Individual Interviews with nonprofit leaders and youth ................................................................. 5

Asset Mapping of Services for Transitioning Foster Youth ........................................................................................ 6

Next Steps for Fostering Futures Initiative .................................................................................................................... 7

Briefings for the TFY-supporting community ............................................................................................................. 7

Navigator Team ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Action Teams ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Looking ahead, FFI will evolve to continue its mission to improve outcomes for TFY by supporting and enhancing the work of the TFY-serving community ....................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A | Fostering Futures Initiative Leadership Team ....................................................................................... 10

Appendix B | Asset Mapping Slides ............................................................................................................................. 11

Appendix C | FFI 2017 Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 14



2

Transitioning foster youth are among our most vulnerable populations. In the assumed ‘average’ situation, our society provides youth ages 16-25 ample support to finish school, begin a career, and build their network prior to expecting them function independently. Most young people do not achieve true independence until their mid-20s, with parents supporting their children financially and with time and knowledge through that period. Yet, until recently, upon turning 18, foster youth were expected to fend for themselves with no parental or familial safety net, no postsecondary education (some without finishing high school), and no financial security. The consequences of this approach for TFY in the United States are stark:

Homelessness rates greater than that of individuals discharged from prison1. Fifty percent of TFY will be homeless within two years of leaving the court system.

Education: By age 23, nearly one-quarter of youth who aged out of the foster care system at age 18 have neither a high school diploma nor a General Equivalency Degree (GED)2.

Low Income: At age 24, California’s foster care alumni earn an average of $690 a month compared to the $1,535 national average3. Fifty percent will be chronically unemployed.

Arrest and incarceration at ten times the rate experienced by their peers with no history of foster care (4–6 percent vs. 0.5 percent)4. Twenty-five percent will be involved in the justice system within two years of leaving the foster care system and 50 percent will be arrested at some point after the age of 18.

Health consequences: Foster children have disproportionately high rates of physical, mental, and developmental challenges when compared with their peers who have had no history of foster care5.

The financial cost to society of not supporting better outcomes for former foster youth makes a compelling case for investing in them before they leave the foster care system.

The cost of caring for a former foster youth is estimated to be $765,000 over his or her lifetime. Nationally, the overall cost to the US economy of current and former foster youth is $4.7 trillion6.

The California Department of Corrections spends $60,000 a year per inmate7 with the lifetime cost associated with high-risk youth who becomes a chronic offender estimated at $2.8 million8.

1 M.William Sermons and Peter Witte, National Alliance to End Homelessness, State of Homelessness in America: A Research Report on Homelessness (January 2011) at 26 (available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/state-ofhomelessness-in-america-2011). 2 M.E. Courtney, A. Dworsky, J. Lee, & M. Raap, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 23 and 24 (Chicago; 2009). 3 Macomber, Jennifer Ehrle, Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin, Dean Duncan, Daniel Kuehn, Marla McDaniel, Tracy Vericker, Mike Pergamit, Barbara Needell, Hye-Chung Kum, Joy Stewart, Chung-Kwon Lee, and Richard P. Barth, Urban Institute, Coming of Age: Employment Outcomes for Youth Who Age Out of Foster Care Through Their Middle Twenties (2008) (available at www.urban.org/publications/1001174.html). 4 Mark E. Courtney, Amy Dworsky, et al., Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 26 (Chicago; 2011). 5 May Shin, Note, A Saving Grace? The Impact of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act on America’s Older Foster Youth, Hastings Race & Poverty L.J. 133 (2012). 6 The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth (Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service and the White House Council for Community Solutions, 2012). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528650.pdf 7 California Budget & Policy Center http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/130807_prisoner_spending.png 8 Cohen, M. & A. Piquero. 2009. New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 1, 25-49



3

Legislation created new opportunities to improve the system of care for foster youth in San Diego County. California’s 2012 ‘Extended Foster Care’ legislation allows San Diego County to provide an additional 420 youth per year with support to improve their outcomes as they transition to adulthood. Currently social workers at County CWS and numerous nonprofit organizations seek to connect youth with services.

420 total TFY 90% are eligible for EFC

Ways Youth Qualify for EFC %

Enrolled in college, community college, or vocational school

43%

Working at least 80 hours a month 29%

Enrolled in high school 24%

Participating in a program that removes barriers to employment

16%

Medical condition that prohibits youth from doing one of the above

3%

Total >100% because each youth can qualify multiple ways. n= 325

California has the largest foster care population in the nation and was an early enactor of the federal Fostering Connections Act. Implemented in 2012, California’s Fostering Connections To Success Act (AB12) provides an additional 3-year window to prepare emancipating youth for independence by offering enhanced services for youth aged 18-21 who have been in foster care or congregant care settings prior to turning 18 and meet and maintain eligibility criteria9. Youth have access to continued court supervision, funding for housing, supportive services case management, mentoring, educational advocacy, job readiness training and support, counseling, and a stipend for groceries. The expanded services through AB12 are known as Extended Foster Care (EFC).

What has the Fostering Futures Initiative found? Recognizing the need for collective impact centered on TFY and the potential for success leant by the Extended Foster Car Act, the Fostering Futures Initiative (FFI) launched in 2013 as a cross-sector team of philanthropists, agency directors and other stakeholders interested in improving outcomes for youth transitioning out of foster care.

9EFC eligibility criteria: (1) Completing high school or an equivalent program; or (2) Enrolled in college, community college or a

vocational education program at least half time; or (3) Participating in a program designed to remove barriers to employment; or (4) Employed at least 80 hours a month; or (5) Unable to participate in any of the above due to a medical condition



4

FFI started with an effort to develop quantitative data about San Diego County youth in Extended Foster Care, understand San Diego’s current assets supporting the youth, and learn best practices in other communities. They undertook:

Outreach to 300 professionals serving transitioning foster youth to assess what information would be helpful to their work;

Survey of more than 300 youth currently in extended foster care (Appendix B);

Review of national and regional best practices after contacting more than a dozen communities to learn from work being done elsewhere;

Focus groups with professionals serving transitioning foster youth in San Diego County

Individual and small group meetings with youth to gain their perspective;

A convening with stakeholders, including current/former EFC foster youth, to identify existing assets, service gaps, and build connections between service providers.

Survey of Youth in Care FFI worked closely with the San Diego Children’s Initiative, engaged hundreds of service providers in the survey design, and secured the required approval of Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Carolyn Caietti, San Diego County Health and Human Services Director Nick Macchione, and San Diego County Chief Administrative Officer Helen Robbins-Meyer. Social workers at Child Welfare Services delivered the survey and, of the 420 youth in care, 330 responded, over 76%. Building connections within the system surfaced as a critical objective that could connect more young people to services that are already supported. While there are clearly gaps in services and supports, particularly in transportation, housing availability (plus first month’s rent and security deposit), and mental health services, there are many resources available in other areas that young people do not access and often do not even know exist. Detailed survey results can be found at sdgrantmakers.org/FFI.

Key Findings

Education Of those enrolled in school: 76% not receiving tutoring service or support (54% said it would be helpful) 43% not accessing Extended Opportunity Programs and Services 30% not receiving financial aid for school

Employment 63% are unemployed Of those working, 59% earn less than $10/hr 1% participated in job training before turning 18

Health 92% are not accessing Cal Fresh nutrition assistance

Finances 23% do not have a bank account 65% are not participating in financial literacy programs

Transportation 69% do not have a valid California driver’s license 65% use public transportation; 53% need a bus pass 16% need a driver’s license

Health 12% report needing health care but did not seek it ( 44% do not know where to go) 16% reported needing mental health care but did not seek it ( 45% did not want to talk about the problem)



5

Focus Groups & Individual Interviews with nonprofit leaders and youth EFC enables youth to maintain a safety net of support while experiencing independence in a secure supervised environment. However, some shortcomings and obstacles need to be overcome. The focus group of nonprofit executives was supportive of FFI’s mission and believed strongly that increased collaboration across the system would lead to better outcomes for EFC youth. FFI was pleased to learn this since the service providers will be critical partners in implementing any successful system-level change. Youth identified organizations that are making a difference and voiced a desire to see all organizations work more collaboratively. They generally felt connected to their social workers and some felt connected to CASAs or ILS workers. They agreed that one of the biggest issues facing foster youth and former foster youth is not knowing what is available, often finding out by accident, or having to do extensive internet digging. Talking to youth and to nonprofit service providers, common themes arose. They believe that EFC is effective, but specific issues like housing and transportation were of concern, and the desire for a better connected system was clear.

Youth Identified by both Nonprofit Service Providers Need for affordable housing Housing

Housing

Need for more, and earlier, planning for emancipation

Early planning Earlier transition planning

More exposure to a range of careers before turning 18

Career readiness Career development/employment

Help navigating the system and community; more collaboration and consistent messaging between organizations assisting foster youth, including colleges

System connections

A central clearinghouse that provides up-to-date tools and resources to help youth and service providers navigate the foster youth landscape; a regional map of services

Isolation from peers in situations similar to theirs

Peer connection

More opportunities for peer-to-peer communication among transitioning foster youth

Help addressing mental health concerns

Mental health Mental health and behavioral readiness

Lack of access to transportation Transportation Transportation

Other issues raised by the youth include a desire for access and consistency with social workers; clarity about eligibility; and more mentors. Other issues raised by the service providers include information about AB403 legislation regarding congregant care; support for pregnant and parenting youth; and resources for students attending or hoping to attend college.



6

Asset Mapping of Services for Transitioning Foster Youth Building on results from the survey, focus groups, and interviews, and to validate the emerging themes, FFI organized a convening in October 2016 to map and discuss services for transitioning foster youth. The meeting’s goals included creating a regional map of services, education about FFI and Child Welfare Services’ transitioning foster youth program, networking among a wide range of service providers, and solicitation of ideas focused on solving significant problems or gaps in services for TFY. Attendance included more than 80 services providers, with specialties in housing, health care, education, employment and financial status, connection with community and to caring adults, transportation, legal matters, and juvenile court. Current and former TFY were also in attendance and played a significant role in the day’s discussions. Following general discussion among all participants, those present engaged in in-depth discussions of “what is working and what is not for TFY and what supports and what barriers exist for success for TFY?” Building on identified gaps, barriers, and supports, the group identified the following priorities:

Collaborative communication system: A connected community of people and organizations serving

transitioning foster youth to reduce duplication and complication accomplished through briefings,

stakeholder meetings, networking opportunities and sharing of information and data to better support

successful transitions.

Earlier transition planning: Begin preparation earlier in life for goal planning and youth ownership of

goals and independence. Develop consistent criteria for ongoing map/goal panning for youth to follow

even if team participants change. Identify coaching/resources for specific ILS training to succeed.

Educational campaign to change mindsets: Educate the community and foster families about foster

youth in a positive light and image. Next steps include seeking corporate sponsors, providing computer

or programming skills to take foster youth to the next level and developing a positive campaign.

Emergency housing support: Explore the reasons emergency housing is needed, the extent of the

problem and nature of options, particularly for those with mental health issues.

Lower gap in graduation: Establish a system that monitors TFY as soon as they enter school. Next steps

include gauging the nature and extent of the issue and ideas that allow earlier, consistent monitoring

and educational mentoring. Coordinate with schools and EOPS.

Portable child care benefit/extend parenting stipend beyond 21: Explore use of child care benefit for

other needs, like college and extend benefit beyond 21 years of age.

Resource Navigator: Provide up to date information on available resources for TFY and other providers.



7

Specialized court to enhance connections: Specialized courts have been successful in other

communities. Including a navigator in the courtroom enhances collaboration between agencies to

eliminate duplication of requirements and provide more holistic support.

TFY enrolled in a health plan: While youth in care are eligible, and often enrolled in, MediCal, they often

don’t know how to access medical resources. Each TFY could have a designated medical facility and/or

doctor, leading to improved health outcomes for TFY, increased preventative health utilization and

increased connections to health professionals.

Transportation: Exploring a partnership with Uber, more bus and trolley passes, legislative changes to

broaden incentives for all youth. Lobby in Sacramento and work with insurance companies to eliminate

certain fees and allow tax breaks for insuring foster youth. Use payment of taxes and registration fees to

donate for a program for foster youth to be able to drive.

Next Steps for Fostering Futures Initiative On the strength of community participation in the above process, Fostering Futures Initiative examined its internal strengths, considered where the group could be most effective, and identified three overarching goals to guide their work into 2017 and beyond:

Continued development of a connected community of people serving transitioning foster youth

Increased access to current, accurate information and resources for service providers and youth

Cross-sector action teams to develop solutions for priority issues In 2017, FFI will begin to meet those goals by co-hosting quarterly briefings with County of San Diego for stakeholders, pursuing a navigation team, and establishing action teams to explore areas where gaps were identified.

Briefings for the TFY-supporting community Many organizations supporting transitioning youth lack a means of sharing information or learning about new topics or innovative ideas. There is also a desire for more networking opportunities among executive directors and others working to support transitioning youth success. With this in mind, FFI will sponsor four briefings in 2017. Child Welfare Services has agreed to host the meetings, each of which will include a CWS update and a speaker. In March 2017, Susanna Kniffen, Senior Director, Child Welfare Policy, Children Now, addressed a group of about 50 nonprofit, County, legal and other experts and funders on the topics of budget and legislative advocacy.

https://www.childrennow.org/



8

Navigator Team The idea for a “Navigator” to assist non-profit service providers, county staff, and extended foster youth grew out of many conversations within the Leadership Team and from executive directors in the field. The navigation team would offer a consistent, readily available contact upon which professionals (and perhaps youth) could rely for consistent, up-to-date resources and information. The most recent proposal includes of a team of two professionals and one or more student interns. At least one team member would be a former foster youth. In February 2017, Child Welfare Services brought on board a new staff member who will fill one of the professional roles. FFI and CWS will continue to discuss next steps.

Action Teams During the last half of the year, FFI will form action teams to address some of the significant challenges facing transitioning foster youth.

Transportation: The transportation action team will explore and seek to implement transportation options. Suggestions include working with the County and Metropolitan Transit System for more free bus passes and trolley access; partnership with Uber, Lyft, etc. for free or discounted rides; legislative initiatives modeled on Florida’s “Keys to Independence” or other legislative incentives; discounts or underwriting of insurance; greater/broader assistance from Colleges. This group will want to look at best practices around the country. Earlier Assessment and Transition Planning: Earlier intervention helps focus and direct youth as well as alert mentors and families to gaps and special needs at a stage where help and changes can be made effectively. Child Welfare Services has begun transition planning at age 14 and there is a need for a coordinated approach among government entities and nonprofit service providers. This action team will explore best practices in other counties, states and even countries, and map the current state of transition planning for agencies in the region as a basis for deeper sharing and planning. The team will coordinate with service providers and the County. Building Systemic Connections/ Communication and Coordinated Assessment: Many programs are working to improve outcomes for TFY; however, it appears there is limited interaction and sporadic communication among these providers and little coordination of data metrics to measure success, fill in gaps, and have a fully effective collective impact. While many providers



9

have different reporting requirements, this action team will develop and implement ideas and actions for better sharing of data and information, improved measurement of outcomes, and a better method of achieving a greater collective impact. Developing connectivity among providers and sharing best practices will aid this effort. Housing Stability: Housing for foster youth is a significant challenge in San Diego, particularly given that San Diego lacks sufficient low income and working force housing. The action team will work with the navigator team to consolidate a list of housing resources for transitioning foster youth, identify gaps in services specific to transitioning foster youth (e.g., timing of first month’s rent benefit payment), and leverage community resources to fill the gaps.

Looking ahead, FFI will evolve to continue its mission to improve outcomes for TFY by supporting and enhancing the work of the TFY-serving community As FFI moves into its next phase of work, multiple infrastructure changes will be implemented including: partnering with a new convener, adjusting/expanding the Leadership team and introducing working groups. FFI’s Design Team, which was formed in 2015 will make recommendations to the Leadership team as to how best to implement these changes. In addition to the institutions represented by the Leadership Team Fostering Futures Initiative has been proud to partner with The Children’s Initiative, HG Consulting, San Diego Grantmakers, and The Jewish Community Foundation as its structure and work has grown and evolved. The FFI Leadership Team is deeply grateful to these partners, transitioning foster youth who shared their stories and dreams, and the hundreds of professionals who have put aside their individual institutional interests in order to collaborate for the benefit of the youth. FFI would not have been able to do any of its work without its early funders: The California Wellness Foundation, The Parker Foundation, LJ Galinson Advised Fund of the Jewish Community Foundation, and S. Bernstein Fund of the Jewish Community Foundation. As FFI’s work moves from research and stakeholder engagement to effecting system change, the Leadership Team looks forward to engaging new partners and broadening its base of support.

Image Credits: TFY boy: Jovem Mat by KaMenezes; Recommendation Images: Briefings, “Conversation” by ousia; Navigator, “Tango green arrows” by warszawianka; Action Teams, “Team” by Anonymous

https://openclipart.org/user-detail/Anonymous



10

Appendix A | Fostering Futures Initiative Leadership Team

Dr. Patricia Benesh Trustee, Sol and Gussie Cohen Foundation Jorge Cabrera Field Office Senior Director, Casey Family Programs Jeanette Day San Diego Public Defender, Juvenile Division Barry Fox Chief, Extended Foster Services/ILS, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Roderick S. Hall San Diego Clinical Director, A Home Within Bernita Lacey Supervising Probation Officer, Juvenile Field Services, Placement Division Sharon Lawrence President and CEO, Voices for Children Michelle Lustig Manager, Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services, San Diego County Office of Education Leslye Lyons S. Bernstein Fund at the Jewish Community Foundation Stephen Moore Vice President for Advocacy, Voices for Children Lisa Sawin Division Chief, Juvenile Field Services, County of San Diego Probation Department Cecily Thorton-Stearns Behavioral Health Program Coordinator, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Tonya Torosian Chief Executive Officer, Promises2Kids Don Wells Executive Director, Just in Time for Foster Youth



11

Appendix B | Asset Mapping Slides



12



13



14

Appendix C | FFI 2017 Budget

January – June 2017 Budget

Reports & briefings $ 16,000

Navigator Pilot 2,000

FFI Planning/Management 10,000

Fundraising 4,000

New Host Seed Funds 8,000

Total $ 40,000

This budget represents the cost to complete a scope of work January-June 2017. Should unspent funds remain in any category when Fostering Futures Initiative transitions out of San Diego Grantmakers, remaining funds will be transitioned to the new host entity.

Documents

FOSTERING FUTURES INITIATIVE Recommendations to …...philanthropists, youth, and other stakeholders, the recommendations reflect the unique ... EFC-related issues and support informal