Identifying Foster Care Youth Subgroups Who Receive John F. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Services Under the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999

Introduction: The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 invests annually hundreds of millions of dollars in the John F. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) to help youth who transition out of foster care achieve self-sufficiency through an array of independent living services. Although all states are required to report service receipt data to the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), few review these data to inform state deployment and implementation of services for the high-need population of youth leaving the foster care system. This study builds on the descriptive analysis of CFCIP services (Okpych, 2015) by treating independent living service needs as a latent construct to identify underlying combinations of services that would be important to explore to cultivate positive transitional youth outcomes.

Methods: This study was a secondary data analysis of the FY2011-FY2013 NYTD based on the population of 68,057 first-time youth (ages 13-23) who qualified for and received at least one of the 15 CFCIP services. We explored the latent structure of service receipt by comparing these models: (1) latent class analysis (i.e., discrete latent structure); (2) factor analysis (i.e., continuous latent structure); and (3) factor mixture models (i.e., hybrid latent structure). We identified the most reasonable model based on interpretability, fit statistics, and split-half sample validation.

Results: The most optimal model was a three-class, one-factor, factor mixture model characterized by high vs. medium vs. low service receipt. Among males, 11.9% were highly likely to receive seven services (independent living assessment, budget and housing management, academic, health education, career, and family support), 58.9% were somewhat likely to receive these seven services, and 29.2% were least likely to receive any services. Among females, 11.1% were highly likely to receive the same seven services and four other services (post-secondary education, employment training, and education and other financial assistance), 74.8% were somewhat likely to receive these 11 services, and 14.1% were least likely to receive any services except independent living assessment. Youth were least likely to receive financial assistance in supervised independent living, room and board, and special education services.

Conclusions: Underlying independent living service needs of youth who transition from foster care should be aligned with service design and planning to inform state implementation of the CFCIP. These latent service needs will also improve our understanding of service array that may yield positive outcomes such as housing stability, education, health, psychosocial, and economic well-being of youth who transition from foster care to self-sufficiency.