Improving Practice, Policy and Outcomes: Involving Young People

in the Collection and Analysis of Information

Improving Practice, Policy and Outcomes: Involving Young People in the Collection and Analysis of Information

  

Clark Peters, PhD, MSW, JD

How do we involve youths in their own cases?

Who? What? When? Where? Why?

Ongoing efforts• National Youth in Transition

Database (NYTD)• Quality Service Reviews• Jim Casey Youth Opportunities

Initiative Survey of Youth Case Engagement

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)• Based on the Midwest Study (a.k.a., the Midwest

Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth) • Includes young adults in and out of care• Findings cover a range of topics

• Financial self-sufficiency• Education• Adult connections• Experiences with homelessness• High-risk behaviors• Access to health insurance

• Federally encouraged, but only a modest penalty for states to opt out

• Implementation has been spotty. At age 19:• Nationally 69% of youth completed the survey • State response rates vary widely, from 26% to 95%

• Comprehensive, state-based reviews of selected cases

• Example: Tennessee • Defines a QSR as an "action-oriented

learning process that provides a way of knowing what is working/not working in practice and why for selected children and families receiving services”

• Results are calculated statewide and by region

• Among the QSR indicators • Voice and Choice for the Child and Family • Engagement • Teamwork and Coordination

Quality Service Reviews (QSRs)

Case Planning Requirements

• Development of a case plan that is reviewed at least once every 6 months.

• For a child age 16 or over, the case plan must include . . . a written description of the programs and services which will help such child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living.

42 U.S.C § 675 (1)(D)

• These requirements have been in place for many years, but now must be reexamined for young adults in care.

Continuing Requirements for Case Reviews• The court must find what services are needed

for a youth 16 and older to transition from foster care to independence.

• The court must find that reasonable efforts are being made to finalize the permanency plan.

• States must implement procedural safeguards to ensure that at all hearingsthe court consults in an age-appropriate manner, with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child.

42 U.S.C. § 675(5); 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(b)(2)(i)

New Requirements for Court Reviews

Each state’s case review system must include procedures that ensure that during the 90-day period immediately prior to the age of discharge, the agency must

provide the child with assistance and support in developing a transition plan that is personalized at the direction of the child, includes specific options on housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors and continuing support services, and work force supports and employment services, and is as detailed as the child may elect.

42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(H)

How do we involve youths in their own cases?

Who? The young person himself/herself A representative, legal or otherwise

What should be the content of the review? When should hearings be conducted? Where?

Are courtrooms “user friendly” and likely to elicit youth participation?

Are there other places that serve the goals of case review and due process better?

Why?

Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Survey of Youth Case Engagement

Survey Overview Questions focused on

Participation in court and administrative hearings

Legal and informal representation All respondents are from one urban county in a

state with a county-administered child welfare system

Respondents were all over 18 and in a special program aimed at supporting young people in college

A total of 52 responses, almost all completed in-person, others mailed and returned

Findings: Court Review

Half “rarely” or “never” attending court hearings When attending, most young people (65%) reported that

they “always or almost always” understood what took place

Fewer (48%) “always or almost always” or “sometimes” were able to “speak what was on [their] mind”

Fewer still (27%) felt “listened to” more than sometimes Most of those who spoke felt that what they said made a

difference in what happened in court (44% of the total)

Findings: Administrative Review Most (81%) reported “always or almost always”” or

“sometimes” attending administrative hearings The same number (81%) wanted to attend Almost all (88%) said they understood what took

place Most said they were able to speak their mind (79%) felt listened to (73%)what they said made a difference (58%)

Discussion Many limitations to the dataset and

analyses; the college-bound are the highest-functioning among the population

Rest of foster youth population are probably less engaged in their hearings and with their cases

Need to re-examine how we involve young adults in case planning

Consider opportunities provided by administrative hearings

Thanks!

Clark Peters peterscm@missouri.edu

Eddye Vanderkwaak, Young FellowRaquel Pfeifer, Consultant

Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative

Improving Practice, Policy and Outcomes: Involving Young People

in the Collection and Analysis of Information

Youth Transition Decision making

• How it works– Focus on short and long term goals

• Who is involved– Individuals that can help the young person

meet their goals• The role of the young person

Evaluation of Youth Transition Decision Making

• Why evaluate?

• Evaluation design

• Engagement of young people

Survey Design

• Text/email/written

• Clarity of questions

• Timeliness

• Space to ask questions

Engaging Young People in Evaluation

• Why it’s important

• Preparation needed for effectiveness

Youth Leadership Institute

• Strategic sharing and messaging to multiple audiences

• Data as an advocacy tool

• Evaluation can be fun!

• Knowledge is power

• Engaged in creation of evaluation tools

• Engaged in the review of evaluation tools and materials

Improving Practice, Policy and Outcomes: Involving Young People in the Collection and Analysis of Information

The Opportunity Passport™ Participant Survey and Self-Evaluation

Erica Bjerke, Research Associate, Metis Associates

Opportunity Passport™ Participant Survey (OPPS): An Overview• What it is: A web-based survey• Purpose: To collect self-reported outcome and

demographic data on young people who participate in the Opportunity Passport™

• Outcomes: Permanence, education, employment, financial capability, housing, physical and mental health, and social capital

• When it’s taken: At enrollment, then every April and October thereafter

• How it’s used: In self-evaluation by the national Jim Casey Initiative and by Jim Casey sites

Role of Young People in OPPS

Young people as…• Designers: developing the survey• Communicators: conveying the importance of

the survey• Sources of information: taking the survey• Evaluators: using survey data in self-evaluation

Young People as Designers

• Reviewing the survey• Pre-testing the survey• Giving feedback about the survey• Developing new questions• Piloting new questions

Developing the Survey in Partnership with Young PeopleFeedback ResultsInstrument developmentSplitting the survey into sections may improve readability

Survey split into one page per outcome area

Certain constructs should be measured Questions added to the survey

Some questions need a little more definition Pop-ups added to explain terms

Improving implementationUnderstanding the purpose of the survey is important

OPPS training materials developed for young people

Computer access may be an issue for some

Survey events and other strategies implemented by sites

Young People as CommunicatorsOPPS Training Module

We want to keep learning as much as possible about the lives of young people leaving foster care.

By taking the survey, you are helping people understand what life is like for these young people.

Why should I take OPPS?

Young People as Sources of Information

Strategies for high response rates• Communicating the

importance of the survey• Providing incentives• Making the survey

accessible• Ensuring young people’s

anonymity

81% responded

19%

April 2013 (N=1,948)

84% responded

16%

October 2013(N=1,844)

Young People as Evaluators

• OPPS as a tool for self-evaluation• Self-evaluation: “a systematic and organized way

for sites to collect and use information to guide decisions and to measure the degree to which they are achieving improved outcomes for young people transitioning from foster care”

• Youth membership on self-evaluation teams• An example from Iowa

Highlights of the Self-Evaluation Work

• Michigan– Lower graduation rates compared to national

Initiative– Hiring of educational planners– Increased GED and high school diploma rates

• Hawaii– Safe, stable, and affordable housing a priority– OPPS data and young people’s stories inform

work– Creation of housing opportunities

• Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative example

Looking Ahead: Measuring Authentic Youth Engagement

• Participation in Youth Leadership Boards and other activities

• Young people’s perceptions of involvement in their local Jim Casey Initiative work– Extent of involvement – Effect of involvement

• Staff perceptions of youth engagement

Questions & Answers

Thanks for your participation!