"Take Charge" - Building the Social Safety Net of Transitioning Foster Youth in San Diego County

TAKE CHARGE: Building the Social Safety Net of Transitioning Foster Youth in San Diego County Derek Floyd Allison Hooper Diana Landis Mikhaela Payden-Travers Meredith Praniewicz

U n i v e r si t y of Sa n Di e g o F a l l 2 01 2

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

2

Table of Contents NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3 TARGET POPULATION ................................................................................................................................... 4 SURVEY DATA FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 5 FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 5 KEY INFORMANT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 7 PROGRAM DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 8 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Mentoring and Social Connectedness ................................................................................................. 8 Qualities of Successful Mentoring Relationships ................................................................................. 9 Structural Features of Successful Mentoring Programs .................................................................... 12 Further Considerations of Mentoring for TFY: Boundaries & Age ..................................................... 13 Peer Mentoring ................................................................................................................................. 14 Self-­‐Determination for TFY ................................................................................................................ 14 General Research Limitations ........................................................................................................... 15 PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................................................................................... 16 PROGRAM DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 16 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 17 SOCIAL MARKETING PLAN .................................................................................................................. 18 EVALUATION PLAN ............................................................................................................................ 21 EVALUATION DESIGN .................................................................................................................................. 21 EVALUATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................................. 22 EVALUATION METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 24 DATABASE ................................................................................................................................................ 25 CLOSING STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 25 BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................. 27 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................... 28 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW MATRIX .................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX B: BDI LOGIC MODEL .................................................................................................................. 69 APPENDIX C: OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN ................................................................................................... 70 APPENDIX D: RESEARCH DESIGN OUTLINE ...................................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX E: SOCIAL MARKETING SAMPLES .................................................................................................... 78 TAKE CHARGE – Poster Image ........................................................................................................... 78 TAKE CHARGE – Digital Video for Web and Social Media ................................................................. 79 APPENDIX F: MEASUREMENT TOOLS ............................................................................................................. 80 Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey .................................................................... 80 Arc Self-­‐Determination Scale ............................................................................................................. 82 APPENDIX G: CHAMPION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 90

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

3

TAKE CHARGE: Building the Social Safety Net of Transitioning Foster Youth in San Diego County Needs Assessment In 2011, there were over 700,000 children in the foster care system - nearly 80,000 in California and 4,000 in San Diego County (Delgado, Draper, Harfeld, Riehl, & Weichel, 2011). Foster care is designed to be a temporary refuge for youth until they can be either safely reunited with their families of origin or placed with a new adoptive family. The system does not work for all youth; many turn eighteen having been neither adopted nor reunited with their families of origin. The circumstances that lead to children being placed in foster care – addiction, incarceration, physical or sexual abuse, and severe neglect – leave deep and lasting impacts on the lives of foster youth. Although every effort is made to reunify foster children with their families of origin, chronic concerns such as addiction or mental health disorders often make this impossible. As a result of early trauma, foster youth may have emotional and behavioral problems that make them unlikely candidates for adoption, and older youth are also less likely to find adoptive homes (Society for Research in Child Development, 2009). These transitioning foster youth (TFY) face the challenge of becoming self-sufficient adults without the supportive safety net that most parents provide their children. In San Diego County alone, nearly 300 youth age out of the system each year (Delgado et al., 2011).

Research indicates that many youth in foster care transition out of the system before developing skills needed to function successfully as independent adults. Lacking the supportive, reliable connections with adults and the broader social scaffolding needed to help them meet the challenges of becoming independent and self-sufficient, transitioning to adulthood is particularly perilous for these youth. TFY have significant difficulty maintaining stable housing, becoming economically self-sufficient, completing primary education, and experience higher rates of

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

4

incarceration than the general population (Delgado et al., 2011; Society for Research in Child Development, 2009).

Target Population Demographics show that approximately 52% of foster youth are male (Society for Research in Child Development, 2009). Of the children in foster care in San Diego County, 47% are Hispanic, 24.4% are Caucasian, 22.2% are African American, and 6.4% are of other ethnic backgrounds (County of San Diego, 2011). Of the approximately 2,000 children in San Diego County taken from their homes in 2011, more than half resided in the City of San Diego, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Spring Valley, National City, Lemon Grove, and Imperial Beach (County of San Diego, 2011).

The consequences of failing to prepare TFY for adulthood have proven unfavorable for society. Much of the research conducted in the past two decades has consistently indicated that TFY face severe challenges achieving independence (Society for Research in Child Development, 2009). TYF have higher rates of unemployment, earn lower wages, and are more likely than the general population to require public assistance (Pecora et al., 2005). Courtney and Dworsky (2006) found that TFY were twice as likely as other youth to report insufficient funds to pay their rent and utility bills and were 21% more likely to have had their phone service disconnected. Research also indicates that 37% of TYF have been homeless for at least some period by the time they turn 24 (Delgado et al., 2011). In addition, TFY are less likely than their peers to graduate from high school or earn a General Education Development Certificate (GED) (Society for Research in Child Development, 2009). Less than 3% graduate from a four-year college (Delgado et al., 2011). TFY are also more likely than their peers to have been involved with the criminal justice system. A study of foster youth in the Midwest found that 54% of male

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

5

and 24.5% of female TYF reported being incarcerated at least once by the age of 21 (Courtney, Dworsky, Lee & Raap, 2009).

Survey Data Findings One local nonprofit addressing the challenges facing TFY in San Diego County is Just in Time for Foster Youth (JIT). JIT formed ten years ago to support youth who are aging out of the system with resources such as essential furnishings and emergency support. The research team reviewed data from 260 respondents of a 2012 survey sent to over 1,000 TFY who received JIT program services. Findings from the data revealed the majority of respondents were female (76%) and 82% self-identified as minority. More than half of survey respondents indicated that they completed high school or received a GED. Data concerning housing and income revealed that: 18.3% were either homeless or couch surfing and another 36.2% were in transitional housing; 34.5 % were unemployed and only 5.6% had a stable job for more than one year and nearly half of respondents indicated that they were experiencing significant economic difficulty.

Finally, only 6.1% identified a JIT volunteer as their connection to a caring adult.

Focus Group Findings The researchers conducted one focus group of eight youth ages 18-26 who have transitioned out of the foster care system in San Diego County and are currently or have in the past received program services from JIT. The objective of the focus group was for researchers to hear directly from the youth about their experiences in the foster care system and their transition to independence. JIT program staff recruited youth from their existing database and participants received dinner before the focus group.

Of the eight participants, four were male and four were female. Racial representation of the participants included two African-American males, one Hispanic male, one Caucasian male, two African-American females, one Asian-American female, and one Caucasian

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

6

female. Questions focused on the reason for their first involvement with JIT; challenges and rewards of turning 18 and living on their own; perceived differences between their experience in the system and their friends who were not in foster care; and discussion of their relationships with helpful adults in their lives.

Several themes emerged from the focus group discussion. Youth described the initial excitement in leaving the foster care system only to find how unprepared they were to meet the challenges of independent living. While participants identified having a mentor or caring adult in their lives from around age twelve, most of those individuals were paid to be in their lives (i.e., attorney, therapist, social worker, etc.). Most acknowledged having trust issues, fear of emotional attachment, and fear of disappointment as barriers to developing positive relationships. One participant described going to the ocean to cry because it was the only thing she knew would always be there. In general, however, the participants believed their experience in the system has given them a sense of gratitude, resourcefulness and resiliency, which they believe differentiates them from their peers who have not experienced the foster care system.

Key Informant Findings The researchers also conducted eleven key informant interviews with representatives in the foster care community to explore normative needs of TFY. Interviewees included five program and executive staff members of JIT, two social workers, a foster parent, a contract administrator for San Diego County Child Welfare Services, a probation officer, and an advocacy director for a local nonprofit that provides volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) to youth in the San Diego foster care system.

Questions focused on the unique challenges facing foster youth as they transition to independence; factors that might contribute to a more successful transition; the nature of the

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

7

youth’s social networks and healthy relationships with adults; and any challenges or opportunities unique to the foster care system in San Diego.

The need for youth to build a social safety net emerged as a common theme across all key informant interviews. Interviewees reported a need for youth to develop social skills to build relationships with people who are not paid to be in their lives; youth need to branch outside of the system. They also identified a need for youth to develop the skill of assessing safety and competency in relationship building, as well as learning how to communicate their needs and how to draw boundaries within relationships.

Summary Today there is a growing recognition that youth do not instantaneously develop the skills and mature identity needed to function as independent adults the day they turn 18 and become “adults” in the legal sense; it is a process that takes place over several years. Cohen et al. (2003) suggest that the transition from adolescence to adulthood now happens closer to the age of 30 than to the age of 18 or 21. Traditional families provide young adults with significant economic and emotional support and serve as an important safety net during this period of transition. TFY often have experienced significant trauma during early development, including: neglect and abuse; separation from family, friends, and things most familiar to them; and often multiple placements in group homes and institutions (Delgado et al., 2011; Simmel, 2007). This early trauma makes it difficult for many TFY to trust others, negotiate boundaries, and build stable, healthy relationships. Government and nonprofit organizations are increasingly looking at ways to change the outcomes of TFY. One example of recent legislation passed by Congress in 2008 is the “Fostering Connections Act,” which encourages states to allow youth to remain in care past the age of 18 (Society for Research in Child Development, 2009).

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

8

Program Design and Methodology Approximately 93% of foster youth have been exposed to one or more traumatic events; the trauma rate for most youth is 25% (Costello, Eranli, Fairbank & Angold, 2002). These traumatic events, including domestic violence, neglect, sexual abuse and abandonment have a lasting impact on the ability of youth to trust, form relationships, develop emotionally and form social connections (Simmel, 2007). Isolation and a lack of connectedness were themes that surfaced repeatedly during the needs assessment, thus the research team focused on looking at programmatic interventions that might increase social connectivity.

Literature Review Mentoring and Social Connectedness Numerous studies have shown that permanent supportive relationships with adults are an important factor in the wellbeing of young adults (Beam, Chen & Greenberger, 2002).

Mentoring programs are believed to promote the social and emotional development of youth through three related processes: enhancing social relationships and emotional wellbeing; improving cognitive skills; and promoting positive identity development (Rhodes, 2002; Rhodes, 2005). Thus, it is not surprising that in recent years there has been significant interest in mentoring programs as a way to improve outcomes for TFY. The research team reviewed the available literature to evaluate a mentoring-based program as a possible intervention for JIT. Please refer to Appendix A - Literature Review Matrix. While there is evidence based research on mentoring as an effective intervention for youth in general, there is little empirical evidence on the effectiveness of mentoring for TFY. Currently most of the proposed benefits of mentoring for TFY are extrapolated from research based on youth mentoring programs in general (Avery, 2011).

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

9

Mentoring is typically defined as a positive one-to-one relationship between an older adult and a youth and can be either a formal relationship created through a structured program or a natural relationship (Gordon, Iwamoto, Ward, Potts, & Boyd, 2009). The benefits of natural mentors have been well documented, but for the purposes of this study, mentoring refers to formal relationships, unless otherwise noted (Rhodes, 1994; Werner, 1995). The focus on formal mentoring is due to the fact that natural mentoring cannot be reproduced programmatically.

Not everyone working with foster youth is convinced of the benefits of mentoring. Some worry that mentoring may set up TFY for yet another failed relationship with an adult, and studies have shown that mentoring programs can have negative results if the mentoring relationship ends prematurely (Society for Research in Child Development, 2009). However, Rhodes, Grossman and Resch (2000) found that youth who had a strong connection with their mentors also showed an increased capacity to relate well to others. The most comprehensive meta-analysis of mentoring programs found modest overall benefits, and most importantly for the purposes of this study, the benefits were greatest for at-risk youth (DuBois et al., 2002). A review of the literature on mentoring suggests that in order for a program to be effective and improve a young adult’s social and emotional wellbeing it is important that the mentoring relationship reflect certain specific qualities (i.e., a strong emotional connection, longevity, and consistency) and distinctive programmatic structures (i.e., screening, training, and ongoing structural support). There are also several factors that influence how a mentoring program for TFY should be structured, especially in regard to the age and past trauma experienced by TFY. Qualities of Successful Mentoring Relationships Emotional Connectivity A significant amount of research has shown emotional connectivity as a key determinant of whether a mentoring relationship would produce positive outcomes (DuBois & Neville, 1997;

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

10

Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Herrera, Sipe, & McClanahan, 2000). A study of adolescent foster youth found that mutual trust and understanding was important to both mentors and foster youth (Hines and Osterling, 2006). Researchers also found that a lack of emotional connection was a factor in the premature ending of mentoring relationships leading to negative impacts for youth when compared to the control population (Britner & Kraimer-Rickaby, 2005).

Although it is impossible to ensure that a close relationship will develop, research suggests that certain characteristics make some mentors more successful than others. Mentors that are patient, flexible and persistent are more likely to connect with the youth, as are those that have a background in caregiving (DuBois et al., 2002; Rhodes, 2002). Activities that encourage the integration of the relationship within the youth’s existing social sphere could serve to increase the degree of emotional connection (DuBois et al., 2002) Longevity and Consistency The literature also emphasized the importance of considering relationship duration when determining the effects of mentoring programs. Grossman and Rhodes (2002) found that youth who were in mentoring relationships that lasted a year or longer reported improvements in academic, psychosocial, and behavioral outcomes, while those whose relationships terminated within six months showed reductions in several indicators of functioning, including significant increases in alcohol use (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). This is consistent with previous research examining the complexities of mentoring relationships that suggests that most of the positive effects emerged in relationships that lasted for one year or more (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Rhodes, Haight, & Briggs, 1999). Maltreated youth frequently exhibit highly problematic attachment relationships with other adults and may find it difficult to establish close, supportive relationships with mentors (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, & Braunwald, 1989). Given that supportive relationships with adults may help youth transcend

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

11

severe childhood rejection, program interventions should work to assist the youth and mentors to move beyond the initial difficult stages of the relationship (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Egeland, Jacobvitz, & Sroufe, 1988).

Self-psychology theory (Kohut, 1977) suggests that social connectedness results from the development of self-esteem, self-management and social skills, and involves youth receiving empathy, praise and attention from an idealized other consistently present in the mentoring relationship (Karcher, 2005). Karcher (2005) found that mentors’ attendance predicted changes in mentees’ social skills and self-esteem. When mentors were inconsistent, it had a negative effect on mentees social connectedness. Interventions, therefore, should assist the mentors in understanding their role as idealized other for the TFY. The intervention must also educate the mentors on the importance of being consistently present in the relationship (Karcher, 2005).

Grossman and Rhodes (2002) found that volunteers with higher incomes tended to be in mentoring relationships that lasted longer than lower income volunteers. This may be because the volunteers have greater flexibility in their work schedules and can more readily afford the convenience of sustained contact (Miller, Powell, & Seltzer, 1990). At the greatest risk for early termination in the mentor relationship were married volunteers aged 26-30, perhaps because this group may be coping with the competing demands of their own children and lack the time and flexibility to maintain the necessary, consistent contact (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). However, unmarried adults aged 26-30 may be motivated by an opportunity to meet people, enrich their lives, and contribute to their community, all of which have been associated with the longevity of volunteer relationships (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998). Program interventions addressing volunteer recruitment may take into consideration age, marital status, and general family dynamics of the volunteers.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

12

Structural Features of Successful Mentoring Programs Screening & Training Potential Mentors Avery (2011) identifies recruiting, screening and training of potential mentors as key components of successful mentoring programs. It is important when recruiting and screening mentors to ensure that they clearly understand the program expectations and that they demonstrate the personal qualities needed to connect with youth. In addition to understanding the duties they are expected to fulfill as mentors, it is important that they be given adequate training. Mentors who do not see the relationship early on as strong, positive, or effective are less likely to continue mentoring (Karcher, Nakkula & Harris, 2005).

Given the high rate of trauma amongst TFY, mentors working with this population face unique challenges, and they may require specialized training in order to develop a close relationship with the youth (Simmel, 2007). Integrating elements of trauma informed care (TIC) into mentor orientation and training may help ensure that the relationships continue past the initial stages, and may also serve to strengthen the overall emotional connection between mentors and TFY. Providing Structure & Ongoing Support to Mentors DuBois et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis to review 55 evaluations of the effects of mentoring programs on youth. They found only modest benefits of participating in mentoring for the average youth, but found that those programs that incorporated certain features had greatly increased impacts. Of the features that they found to be statistically relevant in increasing the overall effectiveness of the mentoring program (i.e., ongoing training of mentors during the relationship, structured activities for mentors and youth, expectations regarding frequency of contact, mentors that came from a helping profession, and involving parents in mentoring relationship), the majority were related to providing ongoing program structure and support.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

13

Although most programs provided initial training, few provided monitoring and ongoing support to mentors. Researchers evaluating the Brothers Project suggested that a lack of oversight of the mentoring relationships and support to mentors may have contributed to the program’s failure to impact the academic performance and drug use of program participants (Royse, 1998). In light of the trauma experienced by TFY and the difficulty that these youth have within relationships, ensuring that mentors are provided with ongoing training and support may be an important part of fostering closer and longer lasting mentoring relationships.

Further Considerations of Mentoring for TFY: Boundaries & Age Hines and Osterling (2006) found that mentoring relationships that began before foster youth reached the age of 18 were more effective, as youth were less interested in forming bonds as they grew older. While older youth can still benefit from relationships with adult advocates, this study suggests that the intense one-to-one weekly mentoring model used with younger adolescents is unlikely to be attractive to older TFY. Hines and Osterling (2006) also highlighted the importance of grounding mentoring programs for older youth within the context of helping youth acquire tangible skills or resources. In addition, research indicates that conflict in mentoring relationships is common and that much of the responsibility managing the conflict falls to the mentees (Kalbfeisch, 1997). Barrowclough and White (2011) found that the communication process between mentors and mentees is critical as it relates to setting boundaries in the relationship, and mentees reported that they felt their mentors were “friends� but not equals.

Spencer (2007) found that mentorship failures among foster youth resulted from lack of youth driven interactions, unrealistic expectations for the relationship by the youth or the mentor, and an inability to bridge cultural differences. When considering mentoring as a possible intervention for TFY, it is important to remember the inevitability of conflict in even the best of

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

14

relationships and the inherent power dynamic of any mentor style relationship. This is especially important because many TFY may be even less prepared than other youth to handle conflict or feel comfortable expressing their concerns to mentors given their past experiences with adults. It is important to ensure that mentors are given adequate insight into the cultural backgrounds and expectations of TFY, as well as being encouraged to explore their own expectations for the relationship (Spencer, 2007).

Peer Mentoring A longitudinal study of non-kin natural mentors among 189 youth in Missouri, found that the qualities in relationship that were especially important to youth included similarities between the mentors and themselves, empathy and authenticity (Munson, Smalling, Spencer, Scott, & Tracy, 2010). The youth indicated that they valued that the natural mentors had gone through similar struggles in life, such as also being a foster child, struggling with substance abuse, or becoming parents at an early age. In order to create an effective program, TFY must have trust and understanding with any individual in a mentoring role, and the results of Munson et al.

(2010) suggest that a peer-based mentoring program may be an especially effective intervention for TFY. Self-Determination for TFY A person’s self-determination status predicts a higher quality of life and is positively correlated with higher post-secondary outcomes, including employment, independent living, and community inclusion. In looking at ways to promote social connectivity of TFY, the research team found TAKE CHARGE, a mentoring program that teaches self-determination skills (Powers, 1996). TAKE CHARGE matches youth with two mentors: a foster care alumni and an adult mentor. The alumni mentor acts as an advocate and resource to help develop relationshipbuilding skills and trust with the adult mentor. The program teaches self-determination skills in

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

15

the areas of achievement (e.g., set goals, problem solving) partnership development (e.g. schmoozing, negotiation) and self-regulation (e.g., focus on accomplishments, positive thinking).

The TAKE CHARGE program has been studied as an effective model for at-risk youth in the foster care system and in special education (Powers et al., 2012). Children in foster care, including those with disabilities, have disproportionately lower levels of self-determination than their peers as evidenced by the foster children’s difficulties in the areas of achievement, partnership development, and self-regulation (Powers et al., 2012; Wulczyn, Smithgall, & Chen, 2009).

The longitudinal, randomized study of the effects of the TAKE CHARGE program showed significant differences from post-intervention to baseline for self-determination, youthidentified accomplishments, quality of life, youth involvement in transition planning, use of transition services, and engagement in independent living activities, with moderate to large effect sizes between groups (Powers et al., 2012). Differences appeared to remain steady as demonstrated at the 18-month follow-up, including substantially higher rates of employment and high school completion, and greater participation in higher education as compared to the control group (Powers et al., 2012). Limitations of the study of the TAKE CHARGE program include a small sample size of 69 youth and questions as to whether TFY without disabilities will benefit from such a program.

General Research Limitations The literature review shows plenty of evidence-based research on the effectiveness of youth mentoring in general and the characteristics of effective mentoring programs. However, the degree to which such findings can be extrapolated to working with TFY, a population that is slightly older and which has experienced greater trauma, still requires further study. The research team believes that mentoring based programs can be effective interventions for TFY.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

16

However, organizations must place increased focus on screening and training of volunteers, providing ongoing support, ensuring that the program is based on resource or skill acquisition, and including a way to help build trust between TFY and mentors.

Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to increase the social connectivity of TFY in San Diego County served by JIT. The research team recommends that JIT begin a pilot program testing the effectiveness of a peer-to-peer mentoring program using the TAKE CHARGE model. The intervention will measure the degree to which this program increases the self-determination skills of TFY and whether it leads to greater overall social connectedness. Many TFY have negative connotations associated with the term mentor; therefore JIT refers to volunteers as champions instead of mentors. The research team also recommends that JIT adopt several evidence-based mentoring practices to strengthen their existing programs, as outlined in Appendix G: Champion Program Memorandum. For the proposed Logic Model for the intervention, please refer to Appendix B: BDI Logic Model.

Program Design The research team proposes the creation of TAKE CHARGE, a self-determination skills program. The program encompasses two elements: (a) group self-determination skill-building workshops, and (b) individualized mentoring with both foster care alumni champions and adult champions to practice applying self-determination skills to achieve educational, career, and personal goals. The goal of the intervention is to increase skills in achievement, partnership development, and self-regulation. In addition, relationship-building skills for participants will be practiced through exposure to adult mentors by building trust and understanding through shared experiences. For the proposed Work Plan for the intervention, please refer to Appendix C: Objectives and Work Plan.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

17

Methods This study proposes the implementation of TAKE CHARGE, an evidence-based peermentoring program for TFY. The research team recommends a quasi-experimental design for the TAKE CHARGE intervention, with the TAKE CHARGE Program Coordinator assigning participants to either the treatment group or the control group. The treatment group will receive the TAKE CHARGE program and the control group will receive existing JIT programming.

Efforts will be made to match both the control and treatment groups on demographic characteristics. One weakness of the study is the lack of random assignment. The research team, however, feels that asking participants to enter a research study with random assignment would decrease the willingness of TFY to participate. Please refer to Appendix D: Research Design Outline.

Study Sites Activities for the TAKE CHARGE peer championing intervention will take place at Just in Time for Foster Youth, a nonprofit serving transitioning foster youth ages 18-26 located in Old Town San Diego.

Participant Recruitment JIT will screen 50 new TFY ages 18-26 who have never received JIT’s existing program services; 25 will be recruited to take part in the TAKE CHARGE program intervention and 25 will receive existing JIT programming. In addition, JIT will recruit 25 successful TFY to serve as peer champions. Successful is defined by completion of 4-year degree, 2-year vocational degree, or continual employment of 2 or more years with same company. JIT will also recruit 25 volunteers to serve as adult champions.

Staff Training

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

18

JIT staff involved in the implementation of the TAKE CHARGE program will be trained in their specific components of the program. All program staff will be trained in consistent and accurate data collection methods. Adult and peer champions will be trained in program elements, as well as expectations, limitations, and legal restrictions involved in champion-mentee relationships. Champions and participants will also sign a contract agreeing to participate for the full year of the program intervention.

Intervention vs. Control Protocol The experimental group will receive the TAKE CHARGE peer championing program intervention. The control group will receive access to champions through JIT’s existing programs. After evaluation of the TAKE CHARGE program’s effectiveness, all new TFY may be offered access to the program.

Social Marketing Plan The primary audience for the TAKE CHARGE program is TFY ages 18-26 in San Diego County, and will give TFY an opportunity to develop, frame, and create their own realities.

Many TFY have heard opinions expressed about the impossibilities of achieving their goals and have felt abandonment when trying to reach their dreams, but the TAKE CHARGE program defies these myths and empowers TFY to take control of their own realities through supportive relationships and resources.

The secondary audience includes retired adult mentors ages 50 and higher of different nationalities, religions, and occupations, as well as peer mentors between the ages of 27-35 who are successful former foster youth, as previously defined. Adult and peer champions will provide TFY with self-determination skills, relationship building skills, and assist the TFY with identifying a goal, mapping out a plan of action to achieve that goal, as well as provide professional and emotional support and encouragement throughout the process.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

19

Product The 12-month TAKE CHARGE program provides TFY participants a self-determination skills curriculum focused in the areas of achievement, partnership development, and selfregulation. Program activities also include personal goal identification and planning exercises, as well as access to peer and adult champions who can help them realize their goals. Champions will assist each TFY in identifying personal goals (i.e., earning a GED, graduating from college, mastering new vocational skills, starting their own business, etc.) and help TFY create an individualized-written action plan to achieve their goals. JIT staff will provide funding to assist with goal achievement. Participants will be provided a monthly transportation stipend of $75 for bus fare or gas to attend group workshops and individual meetings with champions.

Price Some costs are associated with the TAKE CHARGE program for participants and champions. Costs to participants include a substantial investment of time for regular individual meetings and group workshops with champions. Participants may also experience an increase in anxiety, fear, distrust, or other strong emotions during self-exploration, group workshops, and networking sessions with champions. In learning how to build healthy relationships, participants may feel loss as they become aware of unhealthy dynamics in existing. In exchange, however, champions will provide ongoing support to guide them in rewriting a healthier, more productive future.

In addition, champions may experience concerns about their own feelings of frustration, anxiety, and fear. Also, champions will incur transportation costs to meet with TFY and attend group workshops, as well as any costs associated with recreational activities with TFY such as meeting for lunch, coffee, etc.

Place

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

20

The central place for delivering the product services will be JIT’s office in San Diego.

The office is located in Central San Diego, six blocks from the trolley and includes a safe and secure indoor meeting space and parking lot. Off-site meetings will also be provided. JIT has partnered with other venues in the past including local colleges such as San Diego State University in East County and California State San Marcos in North County; community partners such as San Diego Youth Services (SDYS) in Golden Hills and South Bay Community Services (SBCS) in South San Diego; business partners such as Hera Hub in Mira Mesa; and local restaurants in La Jolla, Old Town, and Downtown San Diego.

Promotion Marketing messages will be specifically designed for the following three groups: adult champions (i.e., ages 50+), peer champions (i.e., ages 27-35), and TFY (i.e., ages 17-25).

Marketing efforts will focus on the benefits of participating in the program. The initial marketing campaign will be targeted to TFY and then tailored to the other audiences.

Specifically, marketing materials will communicate to TFY that during the foster care experience they may have been led to believe that they cannot pursue their dreams, however, they do not have to accept this to be true. They can rewrite their future by enrolling in the TAKE CHARGE program.

The promotional efforts will include word of mouth, placement on JIT’s newly updated website, and messaging on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. Local media contacts will be approached to deliver the message through print and digital format; moreover, JIT will partner with existing supporters such as San Diego Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers, founder of the Rivers of Hope Foundation. Other partners will include the Sleeptrain Mattress Centers’ Ticket to Dream, Urban League, Thursday Club, and others.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

21

Posters and flyers will be provided at the Youth and Family Transition Center (YFTC), where JIT resides. The purpose of the YFTC is for community organizations to collaborate together on activities and opportunities for transitioning foster youth. Beyond the agencies housed at the transition center, JIT will connect with the large county and nonprofit contractors working with foster and transition aged youth ages 16-21.

Evaluation Plan JIT will be evaluating the impact of a modified version of the TAKE CHARGE program on the self-determination skills of TFY and measuring the degree to which this intervention influences the participants’ perceived levels of social support. Data gathered in this study will help JIT evaluate whether to continue TAKE CHARGE as a new organizational program. This study also seeks to further existing research on the degree to which mentoring-based programs for TFY serve both to help youth acquire concrete skills and increase social connectedness.

Evaluation Design Objective one is an outcome objective that creates a new orientation system for JIT champions. The orientation will be designed by an expert in trauma informed care (TIC) and introduce champions to the needs of TFY, TIC, the role of mentoring relationships, maintaining appropriate boundaries, effective communication, and conflict management. The orientation will be given to 100 new JIT champions. By June of 2014, 75 of the 100 volunteers will demonstrate a 25% increase in knowledge of the needs and expectations of TFY as measured by pre and post orientation surveys.

Objectives two is a short-term process objective that results in the creation of a tangible resource, the new JIT Champion Reader. The workbook will include supplemental readings on foster care, trauma, mentoring, how to manage relationships and handle communications. The

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

22

objective will be met by having JIT distribute 100 JIT Champion Readers to new champions by June of 2014.

Objectives three and four are also both short-term process objectives designed to ensure that the TAKE CHARGE pilot program will have the necessary 25 peer and 25 adult champions needed to implement the intervention. The objective will be met by having 25 peer champions and 25 adult champions sign TAKE CHARGE program participation forms by May of 2014.

Objective five involves the implementation of the TAKE CHARGE program itself and has the overall outcome objective of increasing the perceived social support of program participants. Thus, both the perceived social support of both a control group and program participants will be measured at the beginning and end of the intervention. In addition, the program will measure whether the intervention increases the self-determination skills of participants by measuring self-determination at the beginning, mid-point and end of the intervention.

Evaluation Measures Demographic Evaluation Tool The research team recommends that JIT continue to use the self-report survey tool, which it currently uses to collect demographic information from TFY applying to participate in its programs. The questionnaire is comparable to other self-report demographic surveys. Although the questionnaire has not had the same outside evaluation of validity and reliability that other demographic measures would provide, this disadvantage is offset by the ability of JIT to compare data longitudinally since it will be using the same demographic tool.

Attitudes As part of evaluating the TAKE CHARGE intervention, JIT will be measuring the degree to which the program intervention relates to changes in participants perceptions of social support

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

23

using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey (Courtney et al., 2011; Shelbourne & Stewart, 1991). The MOS Social Support Survey is a tool for measuring the strength of the perceived social support available to an individual and contains subscales that measure distinct types of social support: emotional/informational, tangible, positive social interaction, and affectionate (Courtney et al., 2011; Shelbourne & Stewart, 1991). The tool is a brief 19 item survey that can be self-administered. Questions are answered using an ordinal, Likert-type 5 point scale. The test has a high overall index of internal-consistency reliability with a Crombach’s alpha of .97 (Courtney et al., 2011; Shelbourne and Stewart, 1991) and subsequent studies have found the test to exhibit both high reliability and validity (Campos et al, 2008).

The MOS Social Support Survey has been made available online for free by the RAND corporation and has been used with a variety of diverse populations. Of particular importance to the research team was the fact that it was the measurement chosen by researchers at the University of Chicago in their extensive longitudinal study of transitioning foster youth in the Midwest (Courtney et al. 2011). The primary drawback to the tool is that it measures perceived rather than actual levels of social support. However, measuring actual social support would be too intensive and difficult for the purposes of this study. The MOS Social Support Survey is included as Appendix F. Behavior The TAKE CHARGE program focuses on increasing self-determination by teaching youth a variety of skills in the areas of achievement (i.e., goal setting, planning, and problemsolving), partnership development (i.e., schmoozing, assertiveness, and negotiating) and selfregulation (i.e., think positive and handle stress). Increases in self-determination will be measured using the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale, a 72 item self-report tool that measures four components of self-determination, including autonomy, self-regulation, psychological

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

24

empowerment and self-realization (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995). The test also includes three open-ended questions related to goals.

The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale was designed for use with adolescents with cognitive disabilities, and was used to assess the TAKE CHARGE program used for TFY with learning disabilities (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995; Powers et al., 2012). Consistency reliability The Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency reliability was found to be .90; criterion-related validity was assessed by comparing the Scale with other instruments (Powers et al., 2012; Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995).

The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale is within the public domain. It is available free of charge, as funding for its development was provided by the US Department of Education. The tool and a comprehensive guide are available on the internet. The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale for students is included as Appendix F. Evaluation Methods The collection of data will be the primary responsibility of JIT staff, principally the TAKE CHARGE program coordinator. The TAKE CHARGE program coordinator will administer the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey to both control and program participants at the beginning of the TAKE CHARGE intervention in July 2014 and again at the program’s end in June 2015. The TAKE CHARGE program coordinator will also oversee the administration of the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale for students at the beginning of the program in July 2014, in January of 2015, and at the program’s end in June 2015.

Given the highly specialized nature of research and data analysis, the research team recommends that JIT hire a research consultant to advise the program coordinator and review tools and procedures before data is collected. The consultant will also be responsible for analyzing and evaluating the data.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

25

Database The TAKE CHARGE program coordinator will record data in Salesforce, the CRM system currently used by JIT. The research consultant will help ensure that all necessary data fields are present so that data can be exported to Excel and then imported into SPSS statistical software for analysis and evaluation. Since Salesforce data can easily be exported to Excel and the program is familiar to JIT staff, the research team recommends using this database to collect intervention data.

Closing Statement One of the strengths of the TAKE CHARGE intervention is the increased role of peer mentors within the programmatic structure. JIT’s close relationship with its alumni will provide a large base of successful older TFY who can serve as peer mentors to the younger generation.

This will increase the level of trust within the mentoring relationships, which should allow TFY to be more comfortable using their newly acquired self-determination and social skills.

The study, however, also has several limitations. First, the sample size of 25 youth is too small to allow for generalization. If the pilot program yields positive results, it should be replicated and tested with a larger sample group. Also, it is important to remember that the TFY who come to JIT are not necessarily representative of the general TFY population. The youth who apply to JIT have essentially pre-selected themselves by choosing to seek support. They may represent a higher functioning segment of the TFY population. Finally, the effects of mentoring programs and the development of self-determination and social skills take time. The benefits that the TFY gain from their relationships with champions may only be beginning to develop by the time the TAKE CHARGE pilot program ends.

Finally, it is important to remember that years of trauma are not easily reversed.

Decreasing feelings of social isolation, building social skills and creating social safety nets are

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

26

all complex and long-term processes. Research suggests that formal mentoring programs such as TAKE CHARGE can play a role, but they may not be enough on their own. Programs utilizing techniques such as cognitive behavioral therapy to help TFY learn emotional regulation, stress management, and manage relationships may also be important in helping TFY increase social connectedness.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Budget

Just%in%Time%for%Foster%Youth Proposed)Two)Year)Budget)for)TAKE)CHARGE)Program Year%1

Year%2

%Pre)Launch% 01/01/2013%)% 06/30/2013

%07/01/2013%)% 06/30/2014

Personnel%Expenses Executive)Director))-)$96,000)Annual)))))))))))))))))))))))))))) (.1)FYE)Year)1,).5)FTE)Year)2))) )$)))))))9,600) )$))))))))4,800) Associate)Director)-)$52,000)Annual)))))))))))))))))))))))))))) (.25)FTE)Year)1,).15)FTE)Years)2) ))))))))13,000) )))))))))))7,800) Program)Coordinator))-)$45,000)Annual))))))))) (.3)FTE)Year)1,).65)FTE)Years)2) ))))))))13,500) )))))))))29,250) Volunteer)Coordinator))-)$45,000)Annual))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) (.65)FTE)Year)1,).3)FTE)Years)2) ))))))))29,250) )))))))))13,500) Subtotal%Salaries%and%Wages %%%%%%%%65,350% %%%%%%%%%55,350% Fringe)Benefits)@)25% ))))))))16,338) )))))))))13,838) Sub)Total%Salaries,%Wages%&%Benefits %%%%%%%%81,688% %%%%%%%%%69,188%

Total

)$))))))14,400) )))))))))20,800) )))))))))42,750) )))))))))42,750) %%%%%%%120,700% )))))))))30,175) %%%%%%%150,875%

Program%Expenses Trauma)Informed)Care)Trainer)-))$125/hr.)))))))))))))))) ))))))))))2,500) Educational)&)Promotional)Materials )))))))))))))150) Transportation)Stipends)for)Youth )))))))))))))))))-))) Meeting)Refreshments )))))))))))))600) Champion,)Peer)Networking)Mixer )))))))))))))600) Champion)Reader)Print)and)Publish ))))))))))1,000) Personal)Goal)Matching)Incentives )))))))))))))))))-))) Sub)Total%)%Program%Expenses %%%%%%%%%%2,350%

))))))))))))))500) ))))))))))))))150) )))))))))22,500) )))))))))))1,200) ))))))))))))))600) )))))))))))1,000) )))))))))25,000) %%%%%%%%%50,450%

)))))))))))3,000) ))))))))))))))300) )))))))))22,500) )))))))))))1,800) )))))))))))1,200) )))))))))))2,000) )))))))))25,000) %%%%%%%%%52,800%

Operational%Expenses Copying)&)Postage) )))))))))))))300) Office)Supplies )))))))))))))500) Marketing)(Posters,)Flyers,)etc.) )))))))))))))500) IT)Support )))))))))))))500) Sub)Total%Operational%Expenses %%%%%%%%%%1,800%

))))))))))))))300) ))))))))))))))500) ))))))))))))))500) ))))))))))))))500) %%%%%%%%%%%1,800%

))))))))))))))600) )))))))))))1,000) )))))))))))1,000) )))))))))))1,000) %%%%%%%%%%%3,600%

Evaluation%Expenses Evaluation)Costs)and)Expenses )))))))))25,000) )))))))))25,000) Sub)Total%Evaluation%Expenses )))))))))))))))))-))) )))))))))25,000) )))))))))25,000) TOTAL%DIRECT%COSTS %%%%%%%%85,838% %%%%%%%121,438% %%%%%%%207,275% Indirect)Costs)@)15% ))))))))12,606) )))))))))17,946) )))))))))30,551) TOTAL%PROJECT%COSTS %%%%%%%%98,443% %%%%%%%139,383% %%%%%%%237,826%

27

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

28

Budget Justification PERSONNEL EXPENSES Executive Director, .1 FTE Year 1, .05 FTE Year 2 - The Executive Director (ED) will recruit an experienced trainer in Trauma Informed Care (TIF) and supervise the development of training and collateral materials to inform Champions and JIT staff.

She/he will also assist in

the implementation of the TAKE CHARGE mentoring program in Year 2. The ED will also support the creation of the Champion Reader, the evaluation of program outcomes, and report results to JIT’S board of directors. The Executive Director will be paid $92,000 per year. No cost of living increases have been budgeted.

Associate Director, .25 FTE Year 1, .15 FTE Year 2 – The Associate Director (AD) will collect and digest articles in trauma informed care, mentorship, and foster care culture in San Diego County. She/he will utilize these resources to develop the Champion Reader. The AD will work with Program Coordinators to determine eligible TFY from JIT’s database, contact the TFY, and solicit participation in the TAKE CHARGE program as peer mentors. She/he will also be responsible for program and fiscal oversight. The Associate Director will be paid $52,000 per year. No cost of living increases have been budgeted.

Program Coordinator, .3 FTE Year 1, 2.3 FTE Year 2 – The .3 FTE Program Coordinator (PC) will assist the AD in development of the Champion Reader and coordination of the TAKE CHARGE program in Year 1. In Year 2, the PC will review the JIT TFY database for TFY that meet eligibility requirements to become peer mentors. She/he will contact eligible TFY to recruit, inform, and execute commitment agreements with identified JIT TFY. PC will assist in the training of TFY in the TAKE CHARGE self-determination model and will be responsible for scheduling peer mentors and assisting with trainings, meetings, and data

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

29

gathering. At the end of Year 2, the PC will administer the ARC self-determination tool. The PC will be paid $45,000 per year. No cost of living increases have been budgeted.

Volunteer Coordinator, .65 FTE Year 1, .3 FTE Year 2 - The Volunteer Coordinator (VC) will assist in the development and distribution of the Champion Reader to guide champions in building relationships with TFY. She/he will also recruit 100 new JIT Champions and coordinate comprehensive orientation training for those newly recruited. The VC will ensure each new volunteer Champion will receive the JIT Champion Handbook and Champion reader prior to orientation. The VC will administer surveys pre and post orientation to demonstrate increased knowledge. The VC will be paid $45,000 per year. No cost of living increases have been budgeted.

Fringe Benefits – Budgeted at 25% of Salaries and Wages, fringe benefits include the employer’s portion of Social Security FICA and Medi-Cal, Worker’s Compensation Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Medical and Dental insurance benefits, Paid Time Off (PTO) accruals, and other related employer expenses.

PROGRAM EXPENSES Trauma Informed Care Trainer – This training contractor (TICT) will participate in the trauma related articles and training materials to be included in the Champion Reader in Year 1.

She/he will also develop the 30 minute training to inform JIT Champions. TICT will instruct JIT program staff to lead Champion orientations as well as provide resources and articles related to trauma especially related to the foster care system. In Year 2, TICT will be available to update resources and training materials in two separate semi-annual conferences for JIT staff. These conferences will serve to refresh and reinforce the information available to JIT. The TICT will be paid $125 per hour for these services not to exceed 20 hours in Year 1 and 4 hours in Year 2.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

30

Educational and Promotional Materials - The AD will need to purchase certain educational and training materials related to the program interventions including the TAKE CHARGE workbooks for TFY. This expense is expected to be nominal in all years.

Transportation Stipends for Youth – To facilitate TFY attendance, JIT provides a monthly transportation stipend to each participant. The stipend is intended to buy bus passes, assist with gas purchases, and other transportation as might be appropriate for that TFY. The stipend is $75 per month for 12 months for 25 TFY participating in this program in Year 2.

Meeting Refreshments - JIT offers refreshments to its TFY to encourage attendance and engagement of the program’s participants. There are monthly meetings anticipated in the prelaunch Year 1 and full Year 2 with an estimated to cost of $100 each.

Champion Reader Print and Publish - JIT anticipates printing and publishing 100 Champion Readers each program year at a cost of $10 each. The Champion Reader will include articles and materials related to foster youth trauma exposure, job descriptions for champions, and information on the TAKE CHARGE program. The Reader will be provided to each volunteer Champion prior to orientation.

Champion, Peer Networking Mixer – To encourage the initial connection of Champions and TFY, JIT will organize a mixer event at a local restaurant.

Cost of the mixer is estimated at

approximately $12 per person for 25 Champions and 25 TFY. This mixer event will occur once in the pre-launch Year 1 and again in full Year 2.

Personal Goal Matching Incentives - To support TFY and encourage increased social scaffolding, self-determination, and positive goal setting, JIT anticipates offering Personal Goal Matching incentives. The non-cash incentives would range in value between $250 and $2,500 depending on incentive chosen. On average, each TFY participating in the program would be incentivized with $1,000 for 25 TFY participants in Year 2. Specific incentives might be

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

31

college scholarship, technical school tuition, tutoring support, and/or other assistance to reach the TFY goal.

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES Copying and Postage – In the normal course of the program, JIT will incur copying and postage costs to provide Champions with orientation materials prior to meetings, internal distribution of documents related to the program, and other day-to-day requirements.

Office Supplies – In the normal course of the program, JIT will require typical office supplies to organize and administer the program. Such supplies would include file folders, printer cartridges, writing tools, paper, note pads, and other office related consumables.

Marketing (Posters, Flyers, etc.) – JIT intends to market the Champion and TAKE CHARGE program to the volunteer and transitioning foster youth communities. To do so, flyers and posters will be created and disseminated to appropriate locations throughout San Diego on a continuous basis throughout the life of the program.

IT Support - JIT maintains a database for each TFY participating in its programs.

Certain key data for the Champion and TAKE CHARGE programs will be included in the database. Approximately $500 per year to maintain the Salesforce database, provide data mining tools, and simple report writing is included herein.

EVALUATION EXPENSES - The program presented is quasi-experimental with pre and post testing, data collection, and evaluation tools being utilized to determine the success of the interventions. The ARC Self Determination and Quality of Life tools are free to JIT. However, key to determination of the program effectiveness is a thorough and professional evaluation of the results at the end of Year 2. JIT anticipates engaging University of San Diego Castor Center to evaluate and report on the program results. The results will be presented formally in an

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

32

Outcomes Report to be distributed to the funder or funders and to JIT’s board of directors.

Typically, such evaluations cost approximately 15% of the total program funding.

INDIRECT COSTS: JIT calculates a reasonable indirect rate of 15% of Personnel and Program Costs to include other JIT personnel, business insurance, telephone, legal and accounting costs, facility maintenance including small repairs and cleaning, and other typical administrative expenses of the organization.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

33

References Avery, R. J. (2011). The potential contribution of mentor programs to relational permanency for youth aging out of foster care. Child Welfare, 90(3), 9-26.

Beam, M. R., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2002). The nature of the relationships between adolescents and their "very important" nonparental adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 305-325.

Britner, P.A., & Kramer-Rickaby L. (2005). Abused and Neglected Youth. In: Dubois, D.L., Karcher M.J., editors. The Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Campos, B., Schetter, C.D., Abdou, C.M., Hobel, C.J., Glynn, L.M., & Sandman, C.A. (2008).

Familialism, social support, and stress: Positive implications for pregnant Latinas.

Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 155-162.

Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. (1989). Finding order in disorganization: Lessons from research on maltreated infants’ attachments to their care givers. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, P., Kasen, S., Chen, H., Hartmark, C. and Gordon, K. (2003). Variations in patterns of developmental transitions in the emerging adulthood period. Developmental Psychology. 39(4): 657-69.

Costello, E.J., Erkanli, A., Fairbank, J.A., & Angold, A. (2002). The prevalence of potentially traumatic events in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15 (2):99112.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

34

County of San Diego. (2011). 2011 County self-assessment report. San Diego, CA: County of San Diego.

Courtney, M.E. & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young adults transitioning from outof-home care in the U.S.A. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 209-219.

Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Brown, A., Cary, C., Love, K., & Vorhies, V. (2011). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 26. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Lee, J., & Raap, M. (2009). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 23 and 24. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Delgado, M., Draper, K. Harfeld, A., Riehl, C. & Weichel, E. (2011). The fleecing of foster children: How we confiscate their assets and undermine their financial security. First Star & The Children’s Advocacy Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.caichildlaw.org/Misc/Fleecing_Report_Final_HR.pdf DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157.

Dubois, D. L., & Neville, H. A. (1997). Youth mentoring: Investigation of relationship characteristics and perceived benefits. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 227-234.

Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1988). Breaking the cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080–1088.

Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Powers, J., Cunningham, M., McMahon, L., Nelson, M., et al. (in press). Experimental study of a self-determination intervention for youth in foster

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

35

care. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Available Online: http:/dx.doi.org/10.1177/0123456789123456 Gordon, D. M., Iwamoto, D. K., Ward, N., Potts, R., & Boyd, E. (2009). Mentoring urban black middle school male students: Implications for academic achievement. Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 277-289 Grossman, J. B. & Rhodes, J.E. (2002) The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology.

Herrera, C. Sipe, C. L. & McClanahan, W. S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children: Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Kalbfeisch, P.J. (1997). Appeasing the mentor. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 389-403.

Karcher, M. J. (2005). The effects of developmental mentoring and high school mentors' attendance on their younger mentees' self-esteem, social skills, and connectedness.

Psychology in the Schools.

Karcher, M. J., Nakkula, M. J., & Harris, J. T. (2005). Developmental mentoring match characteristics: Correspondence between mentors’ and mentees’ assessments of relationship quality. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 93-110.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press, 258, 192-197.

Miller, L. E., Powell, G. N., & Seltzer, J. (1990). Determinants of turnover among volunteers.

Human Relations, 43, 901–917.

Munson, M., Smalling, R., Spencer, S., Scott, R., & Tracy, L. (2010). A steady presence in the midst of change: Non-kin natural mentors in the lives of older youth exiting foster care.

Children and Youth Services, 32, 527-535.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

36

Omoto, A. M., & Snyder,M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671–686.

Pecora, P.J., Kessler, R.C., Williams, J., Downs, A.C., English, D., White, J., … Holmes, K. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the northwest alumni study. Seattle, Washington: Casey Family Programs.

Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 525–537.

Powers, L., Geenen, S., Powers, J., Pomnier-Stya, S., Turner, A., Dalton, L.D.,…Swank, P. (2012). My life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomized study of self-determination enhancement on the transition outcomes of youth in foster care and special education.

Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2179-2187.

Rhodes, J. E. (1994). Older and wiser: Mentoring relationships in childhood and adolescence.

Journal of Primary Prevention, 14, 187–196.

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rhodes, J. E., Haight, W. L., & Briggs, E. C. (1999). The influence of mentoring on the relationships of foster youth in relative and non-relative care. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 185–202.

Shelbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. (1991). The MOS Social Support Survey. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 705–714.

Simmel, C. (2007). Risk and protective factors contributing to the longitudinal psychosocial well-being of adopted foster children. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 237-249.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Spencer, RE. (2007). It’s not what I expected: a qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331-354.

Society for Research in Child Development. (2009). The difficult transition to adulthood for foster youth in the US: Implications for the state as corporate parent. Ann Arbor, MI: Courtney, M. E. Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 4 (3), 81– 85.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc's self-determination scale. Silver Springs, MD: The Arc of the United States.

Wulcyn F., Smithgall, C. & Chen, L. (2009). Child well-being: The intersection of schools and child welfare. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 35-62.

37

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Appendices

38

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

39

Appendix A: Literature Review Matrix

Journal,

Target

Intervention/Progr

article,

Populati

am

authors,

on

date published

Measures

Results/Findi

Study

Recommendati

ngs

Limitation

ons for further explorations

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

40

American

1,138

Treatment group

1. Parent

Youth who

Mentor

Findings should

Journal of

young,

were matched with

Relationshi

were in

relationship

stimulate

Community

urban

mentors on a variety

ps: The

relationships

s were all

additional

Psychology

adolescen

of factors, including

Inventory of

that lasted a

situated in

research on

. The test

ts age 10

shared interest,

Parent and

year or longer

a single

youth

of time:

to 16 all

reasonable

Peer

reported

youth

attributions and

Predictors

of whom

geographical

Attachment

improvements

mentoring

attachment

and effects

applied to

proximity, and

(IPPA)

in academic,

program

relationships,

of duration

Big

same-race match

scale.

psychosocial,

and pattern

including

in youth

Brothers

preference.

2.

and behavioral

of findings

variations on

mentoring

Big

Scholastic

outcomes.

may not

rejection

relationshi

Sisters

Competence

Youth who

apply as

sensitivity and

ps.

programs.

: Six-item

were in

well to

the underlying

Grossman,

subset of

relationships

other,

processes by

J. B. &

the Self-

that terminated

short-term

which mentors

Rhodes,

Perception

within 3

or less

effect positive

J.E. (2002)

Profile for

months

formal

change.

Children.

reported drops

mentoring

Additional

3. Grades

in self-worth

interventio

research is also

and

and perceived

ns.

needed

Attendance:

scholastic

Assessment

regarding the

focused on

competence.

s were

factors that

the grades

Findings

based

mediate

and # of

underscore the

solely on

sustained

unexcused

importance of

youth

mentoring,

absences

considering

perceptions

including the

4. School

relationship

;

dispositional

Value: 18-

duration in

participants

attributes and

item

determining

may have

motivations of

measure

effects of

been

volunteers in

assesses

mentoring

limited in

long-term

extent to

programs.

their ability

relationships.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

41

The Journal

49

Treatment

1. Youth scores

Mentoring has

Average age of

Future

of Special

transition-

group

on the CDMSE

been

the youth was

research is

Education.

aged youth

participants

(career-

demonstrated

21 years, and

necessary to

Mentoring

16 - 26

were matched

decision self-

to be an

consequently

track the

transition-

with legal

with mentors

efficacy scale)

important

the researchers

project's

aged youth

blindness

who were

2. Youth scores

factor in the

will not know

youth

with

from 4

blind and had

on the MHS

success of

for several

throughout

blindness.

states

achieved

(Miller Hope

youth.

more years

their

Bell, E.C.

(Texas,

academic

Scale) 3. Youth

Typically only

whether the

academic

(2010)

Georgia,

success.

scores on the

14% of youth

mentoring

and career

Ohio,

SRBS (Social

with

program had a

futures.

Utah)

Responsibility

disabilities

significant

Retrospectiv

About

seek post-high

impact on their

e qualitative

Blindness)

school

employment

data will be

education,

decision

necessary to

from the ones

making or

determine

that were

career paths.

whether

mentored 42%

youth

sought post-

attribute any

high school

future

education.

success to

Youth who

the

were mentored

mentoring

8+ hours a

they have

week scored

received.

higher on tests.

Formal

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

42

mentorships are not as effective as informal mentorships but what was most important was not whether it was formal or informal, but whether the quality of the relationship was high or low

Career

133 youth

The treatment

1. School

Findings from

Study was only

The findings

Developmen

ages 14 to

group received

dropout

the study

2 years long.

highlight the

t and

18 in

individualized

2. Foster care

suggest that

Insufficient

need for

Transition

foster care

coaching in

placement

coaching and

power to detect

further

for

and

applying self-

stability

mentoring

differences in

research on

Exceptional

receiving

determination

3. Employment

experiences

the limited

the

Individuals.

special

skills and

status

that bring

sample size

association

Experimenta

education

group

4. Self-

together peers

of anxiety

l study of a

services

mentoring with

determination

and near-peer

and

self-

near-peer

(measured

more

depression

determinatio

foster care

using AIR Self-

experienced

with self-

n

alumni who

Determination

young adults,

determinatio

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH intervention

had completed

for youth in

Scale)

43

could be

n and

high school

effective

academic

foster care.

and we were

approaches to

performance

Geenen, S.,

working or

promote

and

Powers, L.,

were in

education and

engagement,

Cunnincham

college.

transition

especially

, M.,

success for

among youth

McMahon,

youth in foster

in foster care

L., Nelson,

care and

for whom

M. &

special

posttraumati

Lawrence D.

education.

c stress and

(2012)

Treatment

depression

group rated

are

themselves

significant

higher on self-

problems.

attribution of accomplishme nts. Control group had 10 students drop out of high school, treatment group had only 6 dropouts.

Treatment group had a higher GPA and reported

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

44

spending more time on homework.

Not a significant change in employment status or placement.

Journal of

229 youth

Seven foster

1. Trauma

93% of youth

High

Routine

Child &

ages 6 to

care agencies

Event

were exposed

percentage of

screenings

Family

18

in control

Inventory of

to one or more

youth for

for trauma

Studies.

(average

group, seven

the

types of

whom exposure

needed with

Prior trauma

age 13

agencies in

Posttraumatic

traumatic

rates were

multiple

exposure for

years old)

intervention

Stress Disorder

events. Nearly

unknown.

reporters.

youth in

exposed to

group. Control

Reaction Index

half exposed to

Might

Improving

treatment

one or

group

(PTSD-RI)

four or more

underestimate

trauma

foster care.

more

continued with

2. Parent report

types. Highest

exposure.

screening for

Dorsey, S.,

trauma

usual care.

on 10 Trauma

exposure was

Used parent

youth, and

Burns, B. J.,

events, and

Intervention

types

emotional

reports rather

sharing

Southerland,

their

group received

3. Composite

abuse with

than a

information,

D. G, Cox,

treatment

study-provided

child sexual

domestic

psychological

important to

J. R.,

foster

enhanced

abuse, physical

violence next.

assessment of

provide safe

Wagner, H.

parents

treatment.

abuse and

Youth exposed

PTS. Sample

and

R., &

neglect

to trauma

may be skewed

treatment

Farmer, E.

variable;

scored lower

to higher

oriented

M. Z. (2011)

computation

on Strength

functioning

environment.

4. Behavioral

Index.

youth.

Greater

and Emotional

chance of

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Rating Scale

45 success

(BERS) to evaluate youth's strengths Psycholog

Mentees

Developmen

1. Teacher-

Findings

Outcome

Links

y in the

: 73 youth

tal Mentoring

rated risk status

suggest

measures were

between

Schools. The

in grades 4

Program:

2. Hemingway:

positive gains

self-report

mentor

effects of

- 5,

(Peer)

Measure of

in

instruments.

attendance

development

balance of

mentoring

Preadolescent

connectedness

Sample size

and changes

al mentoring

high- and

conducted one-

Connectedness

to parents and

was small and

in

and high

low-risk

on-one in a

3. Harter Self-

school were

ethnically

connectednes

school

youth

group format

Perception

made by

homogeneous.

s through

mentors'

Mentors:

twice weekly

Scale for

mentees after 6

Study included

mentoring

attendance

33 youth

after school for

Children

months of

no examination

warrant

on their

grades 8-

2 hours.

4. Primary

developmental

of how long

further

younger

12. Most

Activities

Mental Health

mentoring.

connectedness

investigation

mentees'

mentees

included an

Project

Developmental

gains lasted.

with larger

self-esteem,

and

"icebreaker," a

(PMHP) Child

mentoring is a

samples.

social skills,

mentors

connectedness

Rating Scale

school-based

Also, the

and

were

curriculum

5. Attendance

approach to

possibility

connectedne

Caucasian.

activity, a

(mentoring

mentoring that

that repeated

ss. Karcher,

snack, and

continued for

views students

absences by

M. J. (2005)

group

six months for

as both

mentors may

game/recreatio

a total of 144

recipients and

evoke

nal activity. A

contact hours)

providers of

misbehavior

connectedness

mentoring.

among their

curriculum was

When

mentees,

also developed

adolescent

prompt

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

46

that included

mentors were

feelings of

activities to

inconsistent, it

being

promote

had a negative

unattractive,

connectedness

effect on

and

to peers,

mentees.

undermine

friends, family,

Findings

growth in

self, parents,

support prior

social skills

school, and

research

also should

reading.

suggesting that

be cross -

mentoring can

validated

promote

with larger

mentees'

samples.

conventional

Findings also

connectedness.

warrant

Cross-age peer

future study

mentoring can

of iatrogenic

be effective,

effects that

and that

may result

mentors'

from

attendance can

unsuccessful

have direct

mentoring.

effect on mentees' social skills, behavioral selfmanagement, and selfesteem.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Adolescen

African-

One on One

1. Self-

Self-

Selection:

47 Little

ce.

American

Mentoring

Esteem:

Esteem:

Youth were not

Information

Mentoring

teenage

Program: The

Measured with

Paired-samples

randomly

on Quantity

high-risk

males

Brothers

the 10-item

t tests revealed

selected to

& Quality of

minority

between

organization

Rosenberg

no significant

enter the

Contact:

youth:

the ages of

matched youth

Self-Esteem

changes in

Brothers

Few of the

Evaluation

14 and 16

with volunteer

Scale

self-esteem

mentoring

volunteer

of the

from

mentor,

(Rosenberg,

within the

program form

mentors kept

Brothers

Lexington,

African

1965), which is

mentored

all eligible

records about

Project.

KY.

American men

specifically

group.

youth but were

the

Royse, D.

Having

who typically

designed for

recommended

frequency or

(1998)

less than

were college

adolescents.

Attitudes

by teachers or

nature of the

grade

graduates in

2. Attitudes

about drugs:

other civic

contact they

equivalenc

their thirties

about drugs

At the fourth

leaders. Youth

had with

y in

and who had

and alcohol:

assessment, the

who agreed to

youth.

reading,

moved to the

Measured with

ten mentees

participate,

Researchers

math, and

community as

the Drug

self-reporting

however, were

point to other

science.

a result of

Attitude

at that time had

randomly

studies that

Coming

employment.

Questionnaire

become

assigned to

have shown

(DAQ). The

somewhat less

either the

consistency

from female

Monthly

DAQ is a 37-

conservative in

mentoring or

of regular

headed

Recreational

item instrument

their attitudes

control group.

contact to be

households

Outings: The

developed to

about drugs

with

Brothers staff

measure the

and alcohol.

incomes

also pursued a

impact of an

125%

strategy of

educational

below

providing

federal poverty

an important Attrition:

factor in the

There was

efficacy of

School data:

significant

mentoring

program on

There was no

attrition within

programs.

organized

drug and

significant

the study.

The authors

group

alcohol use for

improvement

Many control

suggest the

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH line.

48

recreational

students in

in grade point

group

need for

outings on a

middle school.

average for the

respondents

more

monthly basis.

It has

groups of

stopped

accurate data

Such activities

demonstrated

mentored

completing

on the nature

allowed

both concurrent

youths.

surveys and not

of the

mentors to

and

However, there

all youth and

mentoring

compare notes

discriminant

was a slight

mentors

relationship

with other

validity and

drop in the

continued for

in order to

mentors and

shown internal

group's minor

the duration of

evaluate

receive social

consistency of

disciplinary

the study.

mentor

support, while

.92 or greater

infractions, but

taking some of

(Royse, Keller,

not enough to

the pressure

& Schwartz,

make this trend

off them for

1982).

statistically

planning "fun"

3. School

significant.

events. These

Performance &

outings also

Behavior:

gave mentees

School records

an opportunity

on grade point

to broaden

average,

their horizons,

absences, and

get out of their

major and

neighborhoods,

minor

and develop

disciplinary

new friends.

infractions for

The program

each young

lasted for two

person in the

years.

control and mentored

programs.

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

49

groups.

Child

262

One-on–

Child and

The

Group

Effectiven

Welfare. The

youth

one

Adolescent

treatment

Assignment:

ess &

role of

between 6

Therapeutic

Needs and

group

One of the

Intensity:

therapeutic

and 15

Mentoring

Strengths

(mentored

major

This study

mentoring in

years old

(TM). TM, as

Assessment

youth)

limitations of

points

enhancing

living in

defined by the

(CANS). An

benefited from

this study is

corroborates

outcomes

foster care

study:

initial CANS

a substantial

that

other

for youth in

in the

carefully

was completed

amount of TM

participants

research that

foster care.

Midwest

screened

for all

in those areas

were not

demonstrates

Johnson, S.,

who were

mentors who

participants at

assessed by the

randomly

that the

Pryce, J. &

assessed as

receive

the initial

life domain

assigned to

intensity and

Martinovich,

being at-

ongoing

intake

functioning

groups.

length of the

Z. (2011)

risk of

supervision

interview. The

scale including

Caseworkers

mentoring

placement

and training

study looked at

family

made a

relationship

disruption

from master’s

changes in

functioning,

decision as to

are important

by their

level

seven CANS

social

whether

variables in

caseworke

clinicians,

domains at six-

functioning,

participants

whether

r. majority

mentors

month intervals

recreational

would receive

mentoring is

of the

received

(i.e., overall

activities,

TM and how

an effective

youth who

compensation,

CANS score,

school

much they

intervention.

participate

met on a

trauma

behavior,

would receive.

d in the

consistent

experiences,

school

If caseworkers

Risks of

current

weekly basis

traumatic stress

achievement,

assigned TM to

Limited

study were

for an average

symptoms,

and school

those youth

Mentoring:

African

of three to five

child strengths,

attendance.

best able to

Researchers

American

hours each

life domain

However, the

take advantage

point out that

(76%),

time.

functioning,

group that

of it, then the

the study

child

received a

improvements

found

followed

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

50

by

behavioral and

limited amount

shown by this

participants

Hispanic

emotional

of TM fared

group may be a

with limited

(9.9%),

needs, and

worse than

result of

TM fared

Caucasian

child risk

groups that had

internal

worse than

(5.3%),

behaviors).

received prior

readiness

those who

multiracial

Subject groups

TM or no TM.

factors. Other

had received

(4.2%),

were compared

Further, for

Services:

no TM at all.

other

and defined

those foster

Youth in this

This is

(3.1%) and

based on the

youth who

study were

consistent

unknown

amount of TM

received

receiving a

with other

(1.4%).

received during

substantial TM

variety of

research that

six-month

between 12

services. While

showed

intervals: (1)

and 18 months

statistical

youth who

no TM during

in the program,

analysis was

had

or prior to the

a significant

used to control

mentoring

interval, (2)

decrease in the

for these

relationships

prior TM, (3)

expression of

factors, it is

of six

limited TM,

trauma

still difficult to

months or

and (4)

symptoms was

determine how

less showed

substantial TM.

demonstrated

much of the

decreases in

The four

as compared to

improvements

academics

groups were

youth with no

were due to

and self-

contrasted on

TM.

TM.

worth. This

change

Significant

between each

differences

Length of

need for

pair of times

were not found

Time: The

careful

using mixed 2

for group

majority of

consideration

by 4 analysis of

comparisons

youth in this

of whether a

variance

for the

study received

mentoring

suggests the

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH (ANOVA).

51

remaining

mentoring for

program can

domains

nine months or

be created

examined.

less. In looking

that will

at why TM did

provide the

not impacts

necessary

more areas

intensity and

assessed by the

longevity

CANS

needed to

researchers

help rather

suggest that the

than harm at-

limited amount

risk youth.

of time which each child received TM might have been a factor.

Journal of

Adolesc

Big Brother,

Assessment

The peer

Self-

Although

Research on

ents ages

Big Sisters

of Mentoring

relationships of

Selecting Bias:

the sample

Adolescence

10-16 who

Mentor

Relationship:

all nonfoster

Researchers

size makes

. The

applied to

Program:

Caseworkers

youth both in

point out that

drawing

influence of

select Big

Intensive

monitored the

the treatment

since children

conclusions

mentoring

Brother-

mentoring

frequency of

and control

(and or their

difficult,

on the peer

Big Sister

program in

meetings

group

parents/guardia

researchers

relationships

programs

which youth

between

remained

ns) sought out

point out that

of foster

across the

met weekly

mentors and

stable. Foster

the Big

mentoring

youth in

US. All

with mentors

youth.

youth in the

Brothers, Big

may alone

relative and

youth were

for 18 months

treatment

Sisters program

not be a

nonrelative

encourage

Parent/Guardi

group reported

the findings

sufficient

care.

d to

an Reports:

improvements

might not be

intervention

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

52

Rhodes, J.,

participate

Parents/guardia

in prosocial

applicable to all

for helping

Haight, W.

in

ns filled out

behaviors and

foster youth.

build social

& Briggs, E.

research.

reports on the

self-esteem.

Presumably the

connectednes

(1999)

90 youth

perceived

Foster Youth

youth coming

s when

were

social

in the control

to the

children have

identified

interaction of

group showed

organizations

experienced

at foster

participants at

decrements

already felt and

a radical

youth and

the beginning

over time.

need and desire

disruption in

further

and end of the

Youth in the

for greater

their living

categorize

study.

treatment

social support

and social

group in

and

environment

d as living in relative

Features of

relative foster

connectedness.

s. The study

(with

Children's

care reported

Sample Size:

also points

family

Friendship

slight

The sample

out that

member)

Scale: This

improvements

size for youth

mentoring

or

scale measures

in prosocial

in nonrelative

has greater

nonrelative

the quantity

support,

foster care was

impact on

care. The

and nature of

whereas youth

only 12

those youth

90th youth

social

in the

individuals,

with fewer

were

interaction and

treatment

split between

stable adult

matched

relationships. It

youth in

control and

relationships.

using

was

nonrelative

treatment

demograph

administered at

foster care

groups. The

ic

the beginning

reported slight

limited sample

variables

and end of the

declines. All

size creates

(gender,

program.

foster youth in

significant

age, race,

the control

question about

state of

group reported

the ability to

residence,

decrements in

draw larger

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH disability

peer support

conclusions as

status)

over time, and

to the utility of

with non-

youth in

mentoring for

foster

nonrelative

foster youth in

youth who

care reported

relative vs.

had also

the sharpest

nonrelative

applied.

declines.

care.

53

Foster parents were more likely than nonfoster parents to report that their child showed improved social skills, as well as greater comfort and trust interacting with others, as a result of the intervention.

Children

Older

Natural

339 youth

Nonkin natural

Does not

Future

and Youth

youth

Mentoring

between 17-18

mentoring

include natural

studies

Services

transitioni

with Missouri

years old. At

relationships

mentorships

should

Review.

ng from

adolescents.

18, 62% (211)

that lasted

before 17 years

include

Natural

care 17-18

reported the

longer than one

old. No

additional

mentoring

years old

presence of a

year had fewer

predictive

correlates to

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

54

and

in

natural mentor.

depression

models

further

psychosocial

Missouri.

70% reporting

symptoms than

included in the

specify the

outcomes

having known

those in

study. Such as

analytic

among older

their natural

relationships

no

models.

youth

mentor for over

lasting less

identification

transitioning

1 year. Also,

than one year.

for family

from foster

approximately

The authors

history of

care.

half of those

conclude that

depression.

Munson, M.

that nominated

the duration of

The present

&

a natural

the mentoring

study reports an

McMillen,

mentor

relationship

association

C. (2009)

reported having

plays a

between

met them

significant role

mentoring and

through

in producing

some positive

“formal”

successful

psychosocial

pathways, such

outcomes, but

outcomes;

as the mental

note that being

however, we do

health,

in longer term,

not know

education and

natural

whether having

child welfare

mentoring

a mentor leads

systems, with

relationships

to better

another 46%

had no effect

outcomes or

reporting

on current

having fewer

having met

youth

psychosocial

their mentor

employment

problems leads

through family,

status or past-

to more success

friends or the

year alcohol

at developing

neighborhood.

and marijuana

and sustaining

Depression

use.

supportive

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Outcomes

relationships.

Module, Global

Does not

Measure of

include when

Perceived

arrests

Stress,

occurred.

55

Students' Life Satisfaction Scale, , two dichotomous variables were utilized that asked about demographics such as race, ethnicity, maltreatment experienced, alcohol or marijuana use, legal employment and lifetime arrest.

Hammill

This study

A pre and post

Interobserver

Students who

Small number

Replication

Institute on

looked at

control group

agreement was

participated in

of mentors and

of the study

Disabilities.

62 faculty

design was

calculated on

the mentoring

mentees from

is needed to

Evaluation

and staff

used to gauge

scoring

program had

one urban area.

generalize

of a school-

mentors

the effects of

participant's

statistically

findings

based

and 45 at-

mentoring on

School

significant

from this

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

56

mentoring

risk

experimental

Connectedness

reductions in

group to

program for

students

group

Surveys and

office referrals

other school

at-risk

ages 13 to

participants.

coding mentor

and

settings,

middle

15 years

The

logs. A

statistically

demographic

school

old who

intervention

random sample

significant

areas, and

youth.

exhibited

program was

of 8

improvements

age groups.

Converse,

negative

implemented

prementoring

in school

This study

N., &

behavior

during the

surveys and 8

attitude.

does not

Lignugaris,

in school

third and

postmentoring

address

B. (2009)

resulting

fourth quarter.

surveys were

school-

in 3 or

Mentors were

administered

related issues

more

trained and

and coded by a

such as

referrals.

selected for 4

second

academic

Students

weeks prior to

observer.

performance

with an

the

and dropout

existing

intervention.

rates. A

IEP

The mentor

longer

(Individual

and mentee

mentorship

Learning

arranged a

program and

Plan) were

schedule to

study is

excluded

meet once per

needed

from this

week during an

1+year.

study.

18-week program.

Research on

Financial

Reports the

Treatment

Results

Limited data

Four year

Social Work.

education

impact of the

group were 281

indicate that

from first year.

long study.

Credit

and

Individual

clients who

participants

building

training

Development

recruited in

improved their

IDA

program

Account (IDA)

IDA program

credit history

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH programs:

for low

Program on

in St. Louis

and score, as

Early

income

credit. The

facilitated by

compared with

findings of a

individuals

features of

United Way.

nonparticipants

longitudinal

(200% or

programs vary,

Three other

, and those

study.

below

but generally

community-

who completed

Birkenmaier

poverty

the program:

based

the program

, J., Curley,

level).

(1) matches

organizations

within a year

J.,& Kelly,

savings,

that offered

experienced

P. (2012)

typically by

other programs

the most

one-to-one,

besides IDAs

positive

two-to-one, or

were control

change in

three-to-one;

group. 78 in

credit score.

(2) offers

the participant

Conclusion:

general and

group and 87 in

IDAs facilitate

asset-specific

nonparticipant

improvement

financial

group. Using a

in credit score

education; and

convenience

and history

(3) provides

sample of IDA

additional

participants

support in the

(NÂź165), data

form of peer

were analyzed

support, crisis

using paired

management,

sample tests,

employment

independent

support,

sample test,

mentoring,

one-way

and/or

analysis of

structured

variance,

planning

Mann–Whitney

57

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH exercises.

58

Tests, and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. The current study reports on 1year findings of a 4-year longitudinal study on financial credit outcomes of asset development activities.

Child and

Foster

Advocates to

2 year

Three key

Small sample

An initial

Family

youth 14-

Successful

measurement

recommendatio

size.

program

Social Work.

18 year

Transition to

year one, 17

ns for

Advocates in

component

Mentoring

olds.

Independence’

advocates and

mentoring

the study

included

adolescent

(ASTI)

9 youth and

programs

actively

advocate

foster youth:

program,

year two, 11

targeted at

recruited youth

efforts to

Promoting

developed and

advocates and

older

to participate.

locate

resilience

implemented

five youth.

adolescent

Interviews and

significant

during

by a county-

SAQ specially

foster youth:

focus groups

adults from

development

based, non-

designed

(1) the

conducted on

the youth’s

al

profit agency

survey and

establishment

site at the

past and re-

transitions.

that trains and

focus groups.

of a strong,

agency.

establish

Osterling, K.

supervises

includes items

supportive and

Unfamiliarity

connections

& Hines, A.

community

that have been

caring

with lead

for the youth

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH (2006)

59

volunteers to

used in other

relationship

researcher

prior to

provide one-to-

studies on older

between

conducting

emancipation

one advocacy

adolescent

mentor and

interviews.

. This study

and mentoring

foster youth

youth

did not

services to

and

(beginning

address this

children in the

emancipated

well before the

program

Juvenile

foster youth.

youth reach the

component

Court’s

Items included

age of 18)

and focused

dependency

in the survey

appears to be

instead on a

system. The

covered areas

necessary

general

overall purpose

such as

before mentors

description

of the ASTI

demographics,

can work with

of program

program is to

experiences in

youth on

participants

train mentors

out-of-home

acquiring

and their

so that they

care, current

independent

experiences.

can assist older

educational

living skills;

Future

adolescent

experiences

(2) stronger

research

foster youth in

and future

linkages

could

acquiring skills

educational

between

explore this

and resources

plans,

mentoring

specific

needed for

knowledge of

programs and

program

successful

independent

ILPs may

component.

transition to

living skills,

improve

adulthood.

personal

youths’

adjustment,

participation in

psychological

ILP; and (3)

functioning,

mentoring

problems with

programs may

alcohol or

benefit from

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH drugs,

more program

problems with

coordination

the law, health

and support for

status, social

mentors.

60

support, and aspects of relationship with the advocate.

Children

Foster

The treatment

Outcomes of

Significant

Sample size

Further

and Youth

youth with

group received

the intervention

group

was small,

research is

Services

following

4 key elements

were evaluated

differences

comparison

needed with

Review My

criteria: (a)

of the TAKE

with a two-

were detected

group

larger sample

Life: effects

receiving

CHARGE

independent

at from post-

participated in

sizes and

of

special

model

groups X three

intervention to

fewer ILP

extended

longitudinal,

education

including: (1)

repeated

baseline for

services than

follow-along

randomized

services,

instruction and

measures

self-

the TAKE

periods.

study of

(b) 16.5-

coaching for

design. Sixty-

determination,

CHARGE

self-

17.5 years

youth around

nine youth

youth-identifed

activities. First

determinatio

of age, (c )

the

were randomly

accomplishme

experimental

n

under the

identification

assigned to

nts, quality of

and

enhancemen

guardiansh

and

either treatment

life, youth

longitudinal

t on the

ip of

achievement of

or comparison

involvement in

study to

transition

Oregon

academic

group; youth

transition

document

outcomes of

DHS (with

goals, (2) in-

were assessed

planning, use

enhanced

youth in

at least 90

service training

at baseline, at

of transition

transition

foster care

days in

for

post-

services, and

outcomes of

and special

foster

professionals,

intervention,

engagement in

any self-

education

care) and

delivered by

and at one-year

key

determination

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH (2012)

(d)

youth, foster

follow up. (1)

independent

attending a

parents and

Self

living

large

project staff,

determination

activities, with

school

and focused on

scale

moderate to

district in

supporting the

(Wehmeyer,

large effect

the study

unique needs

1996b;

sizes between

target area.

of foster youth

Wehmeyer &

groups. Group

with

Klechner,

differences

disabilities, (3)

1995) is a 72-

were

workshops and

item self-report

maintained at

ongoing

measure that

follow-up

technical

provides data

including

assistance for

on four

substantially

foster parents

components of

higher rates of

to support

self-

employment

improved

determination.

and high

education and

The study was

school

self-

normed with

completion,

determination

500 students

and greater

of foster youth,

with and

participation in

and (4)

without

higher

formation of

disabilities in a

education as

an Interagency

variety of

compared to

Partnership

school districts

comparison

Council that

across the

group.

will assist

United States

youth to

and was found

address

to have

barriers to their

adequate

intervention.

61

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH educational

validity and

success, clarify

reliability. (2)

agency roles

Quality of Life

and increase

Questionaire

collaboration

(QoflQ,

between

Schalock &

systems. Three

Keith, 1993), a

measures of

widely used

self-

standarized

determination

measure of

and 11

quality of life,

academic areas

which has been

will be

used with older

evaluated

children and

using logistic

adolescents.

regression and

Instrument

HLM to

provides

provide a

information on

global profile

a young

of educational

person's

performance

connections

and to examine

with others,

the efficacy of

social

the

inclusion,

implemented

individual

intervention.

control, community integration, productivity

62

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH and overall satisfaction and well-being.

(3) Outcome Survey (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997) is a selfreport measure completed by youth and captures perceptions about their readiness for independent life. (4) Transition Planning Assessment used to measure transition planning knowledge and engagement and consists of 14-likert scale questions.

63

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Hammill

64

Youth

4-year cohort

Dependent

Benefits for

Additional

Institute on

in foster

wave sessions

measures were

promoting

research is

Disabilities.

care

and randomly

administered to

educational

needed to

Experimenta

receiving

assigned into

participants

planning

further

l Study of a

public

intervention or

pre-

knowledge and

investigate

Self-

education

control group.

intervention, at

engagement,

the effects of

Determinati

services -

Control group

the conclusion

academic

intervention

on

Age (M)

received

of the

performance,

dosage on

Intervention

15.49

typical

intervention (9

post-secondary

self-

for Youth in

educational

months), and

academic and

determinatio

Foster Care

services

follow-along

career-

n and

(2012)

(general and

period (18

planning, and

academic

special

months). (1)

reduction in

and

education

Outcome

anxiety and

transition

classes and

survey to

depression.

outcomes

case managers,

assess school

Student

over time, as

individualized

dropout, foster

identification

well as there

educational

care placement

of academic

associations.

planning, and

stability, and

goals and self-

Resource

extracurriculur

employment

attribution of

constraints

activities.

status based off

accomplishme

and lack of

Intervention

previous

nts was

cross-cutting

group received

studies

significantly

knowledge in

TAKE

evaluating

greater for the

and

CHARGE: (a)

transition

intervention

collaboration

individualized

outcomes

group. AIR

between

coaching in

(Wehmeyer &

self-

special

applying self-

Palmer, 2003;

determination

education

determination

Wehmeyer &

measurements

and foster

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

65

skills to

Schwartz,

varied between

care

achieve their

1997); (2) AIR

parents,

programs

educational

self-

students, and

could make

related goals

determination

teachers and

implementati

and to

scale which

appears

on difficult.

participate in

assess aptitude

unclear as to

educational

for an

the whether

planning

opportunity

time had an

meetings and

exercise self-

effect on

(b) group

determination

outcomes.

mentoring,

and by asking

Longitudinal

where the

youth to

effects are not

youth and

describe their

as consistent as

near-peer

goals and

My Life Study

foster care

accomplishmen

self-

alumni who

ts as respective

determination

had completed

indices of

enhancement

high school

youth direction

program.

and were

and positive

working or in

self-attribution;

college

(3)

gathered for

Transitioning

information

planning

sharing and

toolkit to

peer support.

measure

Mentors were

student

recruited from

participation in

college

group planning

campuses,

meetings on

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH nominations

14-point Likert

from case

scale; (4)

managers, and

School Attitude

study

Measure

participants

(SAM; Dolan

from earlier

& Enos, 1980;

waves -

Wick, 1990)

cohorts. All

has five

coaches

subscales.

received

Two of the

formal training

subscales,

and ongoing

Motivation for

support.

Schooling and the Student's Sense of Control Over performance scale to measure student's feelings and attitudes toward school; (5) In addition, Teacher Report Form and Childhood Behavior Checklist

66

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH (Achenbach & Rescorola, 2001). These parallel measures include scales for withdrawndepressed, anxiousdepressed, delinquent, and aggressive behavior-focused on withdrawndepressed, anxiousdepressed, and somatic complaints subscales; (6) coaching sessions logged and activities documented.

67

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

68

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

69

Appendix B: BDI Logic Model

BDI Logic Model Intervention

Determinants of

Activities

Behavior

Transitioning Foster Youth (TFY)

CHAMPIONS

Provide trauma informed care orientation and training for Champions.

Encourage the development of long-term healthy, stable mentoring relationships that build emotional connectivity between Champions and TFY.

Implement TAKE CHARGE, an evidence-based mentoring program to 25 TFY to increase the youth’s perceived social support with peer and adult Champions as well as increase the ability for TFY to apply selfdetermination skills in the areas of achievement, partnership development and selfregulation.

Inadequate Champion understanding of TFY trauma experience.

Most TFY lack stable, caring relationships with adults.

Most TFY lack stable, caring relationships with adults.

Most TFY lack selfdetermination skills in the following areas: achievement, partnership development and self-regulation.

Behavior

Increase the strength of the realtionships between Champions and transitioning foster youth (TFY).

Increase the ability of TFY to form stable, healthy relationships.

Health Goal

Increase the social safety net of youth ages 18-26 transitioning out of the foster care system in San Diego County.

By June 2014, a minimum of 75 of 100 new JIT Champions will receive comprehensive orientation training and will be able to demonstrate a 25% increase from baseline in knowledge of the needs and expectations of TFY, as measured by pre and post orientation surveys conducted by the volunteer coordinator.

Objective 1:

Objectives:

7) Conduct two (90 minute) orientation sessions for all new JIT Champions

6) Provide all new JIT Champions with the JIT Champion Volunteer Manual and Champion Reader prior to the initial orientation session.

5) Conduct telephone interview and reference check with each perspective JIT Champion.

4) Screen all prospective JIT Champions applicants prior to orientation.

3) Develop pre and post orientation surveys of volunteer knowledge.

2) TIC Trainer to design and give 1 hour training session to teach Champions on foster youth and trauma, how trauma affects relationships, and considerations for Champions in working with TFY.

1) Recruit experienced trainer in Trauma Informed Care (TIC).

Implementation Activities:

July 2013Ongoing

Timeline

Volunteer Coordinator

TIC Trainer

TIC Trainer

Executive Director

Person Responsible

Scales: Needs of TFY, TIC, role of mentoring relationships, maintaining appropriate boundaries in relationships, effective communications, and conflict management.

Measure: Pre and post orientation survey regarding needs and expectations of/for foster youth to evaluate helpfulness of training and literature.

Outcome:

By June 2014, a minimum of 75 of 100 new JIT Champions will receive comprehensive orientation training and will be able to demonstrate a 25% increase from baseline in knowledge of the needs and expectations of TFY, as measured by pre and post orientation surveys conducted by the volunteer coordinator.

Process & Outcome Measures

Appendix C: Objectives and Work Plan

By July 2013, Volunteer Coordinator will develop and distribute a minimum of 100 of Champion Readers that will include information on the following: how to build relationships with TFY, trauma informed care (TIC), and expectations of TFY.

Objective 2:

MarchJune2013

3) Request handouts from experts in the field of foster care in San Diego.

6) Distribute Champion Reader at orientations beginning in July 2013.

5) Create master copy of Champion Reader for printing.

July 2013Ongoing

June 2013

June 2013

MarchJune2013

2) Digest of key points from articles.

4) Gather resources from staff, experts and TIC Trainer.

Feb 2013

1) Meeting to discuss themes for inclusion in Champion Reader.

quarterly beginning in July 2013.

Volunteer Coordinator

Volunteer Coordinator

Volunteer Coordinator

Associate Director

Associate Director

All Staff â–

A minimum of 100 Champion Reader created and distributed

Process:

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH 71

1) Contact eligible Champions and explain the TAKE CHARGE program,

Objective 4:

By May 2014, a minimum of 25 adult Champions

3) Create a participation agreement form to be signed by JIT and recruited alumni peer Champions.

2) Contact eligible alumni peer Champions and explain the TAKE CHARGE program, time commitments, and expectations.

4) Confirm 25 recruited alumni peer Champions by collecting signed agreement forms.

1) Review JIT TFY alumni database to draw initial list of who meets eligibility requirements.

Implementation Activities:

By May 2014, a minimum of 25 successful (i.e., completion of 4-year degree, 2-year vocational degree, or continual employment of 2+ years with same company) JIT TFY alumni peer Champions will be recruited to participate in the TAKE CHARGE mentoring program, as documented by the roster list and alumni peer Champion agreement forms.

Objective 3:

Objectives:

Jan-May 2014

Jan-May 2014

Timeline

Volunteer Coordinator

Associate Director & Program Coordinator

Person Responsible:

Process: ■ Roster list

Process: ■ Roster list ■ Signed alumni peer Champion participant agreement forms

Process & Outcome Measures

New Program Intervention: Implement TAKE CHARGE Peer Mentoring Program

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH 72

By June 2015, a minimum of 15 out of 25 incoming TFY will complete the TAKE CHARGE mentoring program and will demonstrate an increase from baseline by 10% in perceived social supports (as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study [MOS] Social Support Survey) and selfdetermination skills in the areas of achievement, partnership development and self-regulation (as measured by the Arc SelfDetermination Scale).

Objective 5:

will be recruited to participate in the TAKE CHARGE mentoring program, as documented by the roster list and Champion agreement forms.

4) Administer Fidelity of Implementation Checklist to all Champions and peer mentors to document the extent to

3) Provide orientation materials to peer mentors as defined and created in Objective 4; Champions will already have received these materials.

2) Create TFY self-help skills guide that leads TFY though the process of short and long term goal identification and achievement.

1) Create shared interests questionnaire for Champions, peer mentors and TFY participants used to match specific shared interests and experiences.

4) Document adult Champion participants on roster list.

3) Confirm 25 recruited Champions by collecting signed agreement forms.

2) Create a participation agreement form to be signed by JIT and recruited adult mentors.

time commitments, and expectations.

June 2014

Jan –May 2014

Volunteer Coord. & Assoc. Dir.

Executive Director & Associate Dir.

Signed Champion participant agreement forms

1. Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey (Sherbourne &

Measures & scales:

By June 2015, a minimum of 15 out of 25 incoming TFY will complete the TAKE CHARGE mentoring program and will demonstrate an increase from baseline by 10% in perceived social supports (as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study [MOS] Social Support Survey) and selfdetermination skills in the areas of achievement, partnership development and self-regulation (as measured by the Arc Self-Determination Scale).

Outcome:

â–

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH 73

11) Introduce TFY participants and peermentors based on shared interest through speed-networking event.

10) Match TFY participants to Champions and peer mentors based on results from the shared interests questionnaire.

9) Administer shared interests questionnaire to all.

8) Administer pre-test of Arc SelfDetermination Scale to treatment and control groups.

7) Administer pre-test of MOS Social Support Survey to treatment and control groups.

6) Provide TAKE CHARGE program to all participants (Champions, peer mentors, and TFY).

5) Select 50 TFY new applicants from online intake applications, 25 of which will participate in TAKE CHARGE (i.e., treatment group), 25 will receive regular JIT programming (i.e., control group).

which key components of the intervention are delivered.

July 2014 – June 2015

All Staff

A 72-item self-report measure that provides data on four components of self-determination as well as providing a global overall score of selfdetermination.

2. Arc Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995).

This 19-item measure contains subscales for four types of social support: emotional/informational, tangible, positive social interaction, and affectionate. For each item, respondents rate how often a specific type of support is available to them using a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 = none of the time to 5 = all of the time.

Stewart, 1991).

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH 74

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

75

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

Appendix D: Research Design Outline Quasi0Experimental$Research$Design$ !

Identified!Just!in!Time!for!

Foster!Youth!(JIT),!San!Diego!

Screened!new!JIT! transitioning!foster!youth!!

(TFY)!applicants!

Selected!50!of!TFY! Experimental!group!

Control!group!

25!participants!

25!participants!

PreCassessment!

PreCassessment!

Full$intervention$ TAKE CHARGE program Working with peer and adult Champions (i.e., mentors), develop the following selfdetermination skills: 1) achievement (set goals, problem solving) 2) partnership development (schmoozing, negotiation) 3) self regulation (focus on your accomplishments).

Partial$intervention$ TFY will have access to mentors through JIT’s existing programs

PostCassessment!

PostCassessment!

Analyze!data!

76

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

77

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Appendix E: Social Marketing Samples

TAKE CHARGE – Poster Image

78

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH TAKE CHARGE – Digital Video for Web and Social Media

Double-click image below to view movie.

79

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Appendix F: Measurement Tools Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey

80

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

81

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH Arc Self-Determination Scale

82

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

83

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

84

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

85

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

86

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

87

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

88

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

89

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH

90

Appendix G: Champion Program Recommendations Based on the research outlined in the literature review on mentoring for youth, the research team recommends that JIT consider adopting some or all of the following practices in creating a more defined structure for the JIT Champion volunteer program.

Recruitment: §

Ensure that promotional materials (print brochures and JIT website) give prospective JIT Champions a realistic impression of what they are committing to in terms of time and emotional energy.

Screening: §

Develop a list of qualities desired in new JIT Champions and screen prospective Champions to see if they have the time and personal qualities to work effectively as a Champion.

§

Review the JIT Champion application to ensure it requests a 1 year commitment for all long-term programs (Bridges, Career, Financial, Take Charge) and indicates the average number of hours per month Champions are being asked to serve.

§

Have the Volunteer Coordinator conduct a telephone screening interview with prospective Champions for long-term programs and conduct a reference check.

Orientation & Training: §

Expand JIT Champion orientation as outlined in the work plan.

§

Provide 30 minute orientation to TFY in long-term programs focusing on: §

program guideline and expectations

§

considering their expectations of the relationship and those of the Champion

§

communicating effectively and negotiation boundaries

§

addressing conflict with the Champion

Running head: TAKE CHARGE FOR TRANSITIONING FOSTER YOUTH § §

91

where to go for help in managing the relationship if needed

Review current JIT Champion volunteer manual. §

Update program information.

§

Include any new policies & procedures for working with TFY.

§

Create JIT Champion job description that describes: 1-year commitment, orientation & ongoing training, nature & frequency of contact with TFY, documenting activities.

§

Create list of suggested activities for JIT Champions by program.

Providing Ongoing Structure & Support §

Call all new JIT Champions once a month during the first and second months that they volunteer with the organization.

§

Create JIT Champion activity feedback report. (Form Champions can use to document contact and time spent with youth.)

§

Gather activity reports from JIT Champions every three months via email. Use this as a time to solicit additional information about how they are doing and see if they need additional support.

§

Provide ongoing training to JIT Champions by bringing in outside experts twice each year to give presentations on rotating themes such as stress-management, communication, and emotional regulation.

§

Host 1 community event every 3 months for TFY & JIT Champions.