Executive Summary
The WAY Program Research Study

Baker, A.J.L., Olson, D., & Mincer, C. (2000). The WAY to Work: An independent living/aftercare program for high risk youth . Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

FOREWORD
Nan Dale, Former President/CEO

It would be difficult to imagine a more at-risk population than adolescents in residential treatment centers (RTCs), the child welfare system's most restrictive level of care. Since the advent of the Child Welfare Reform Act two decades ago, only youth with severe levels of behavioral or emotional problems, layered on top of the issues of abuse and neglect, have been approved for the costly intervention of residential treatment. In New York, that represents only 4% of the roughly 40,000 young people in the foster care system. Generally, these are highly troubled and troubling adolescents with a history of failed foster home placements, psychiatric hospitalizations or early run-ins with the juvenile justice system. They are, as one professional in child welfare calls them, the "frequent fliers" of the system. There is credible evidence that these adolescents are among those at greatest at risk of adult criminality, educational failure and continuation of a cycle of dependency. Their prognosis is not good. No one would buy stock in their futures.

It is for this population that the WAY Program, the subject of this report, was originally invented. WAY stands for Work Appreciation for Youth, but it is much more than an employment program. It encompasses what much of the field refers to as "youth development," what school officials call "drop out prevention," and what the child welfare community now refers to as "independent living skills." It is all these things, but most importantly, for youth leaving the foster care system, it is also a long-term "aftercare" program. Though WAY was first designed for this population, it has since been adapted to other populations of disadvantaged youth. WAY provides the support and guidance that all young people need to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood-support that is critical for youth transitioning from residential treatment back to their homes or into independent living arrangements and for youth living in highly at risk family situations.

The WAY study is the first and only longitudinal study of what happens to adolescents leaving residential treatment who have been provided long-term follow-up services focused on school, work and personal development. The results speak for themselves: low attrition rates, remarkable school success, strong employment experience and overall impressive evidence that the young people in WAY have been set on a solid path toward self-sufficiency. Based on these results, we believe public policies that affect adolescents who are discharged from the child welfare system need to be modified to allow for interventions such as WAY, which has been possible up to this point only because of the support of private donors. Further, we believe that the overall configuration of youth employment programs, school drop out prevention and independent living programs need to be modified to support the kind of comprehensive, developmental and long-term approach that has made WAY successful where other interventions have failed.

The adolescents we serve at The Children's Village RTC have, all too frequently, been reared in grotesque poverty and in communities, and sometimes in families, that resemble war zones. Nonetheless, they are also, in many ways, just ordinary adolescents. They march to the rules of peer pressure no less strictly than the hordes of suburban teens that mimic each other with alarming precision. But the norms of these teens' environment have required conformity to standards of behavior that robbed them of their education, their health and their identity. Much of what we do at Children's Vil-lage involves inspiring kids to make their own choices to shape their own future - and, to embrace their humanity against a tide of peer pressure and their injured childhood. Daily we watch them do so -- against all odds. They become dissenters and revisionists, re-clai-ming a healthy identity as they nudge themselves, their families and their commu-nities toward change. It isn't always easy to be there with and for them. It isn't easy to help them relinquish their despair and their rage. To trade that armor in for the treacherous waters of dissent takes great courage. Our work with these kids is about providing the guidance and calming the undertow for them. It is about giving them the strength and the skills to make responsible choices and to "fall out" from the crowd and the negative expectations that surround them.

Among the skills most needed are those associated with becoming self-sufficient adults: a decent education, the attitudes and ethics needed for successful employment, and a belief in oneself and the possibility of controlling one's own future. The WAY program was initiated to do just that. WAY defines the preparation of young people for the world of work broadly.

WAY starts early and lasts longer than typical youth development programs. It's not a quick fix, but rather a program that works gradually by providing consistent, ongoing support. WAY takes an individualized, developmental, long-term approach to youth employment and includes academic, attitudinal, and employability skills along with the belief that each young person needs to feel that at least one person has a strong stake and interest in his or her success - and will be there for them.

In recent years, there has been a growing consensus among researchers and practitioners that to be successful, youth employment programs must be comprehensive, long-term, and multi-systemic. WAY is built on all those principles and adds further evidence that programs that approach workforce preparation in ways that are too modest, too brief or that lack continuity over time do not work. For youth coming out of the foster care system - a foster home, residential treatment or a group home - the challenges are especially serious. We have a special need and an opportunity to get it right for a group of kids for whom society has so far gotten it wrong.

Public policy is inching towards recognizing this need. However, though support for preparing youth for the transition from residential care is growing, it is still far short of what is needed. When WAY was first developed, in 1984, the words "independent living" were not yet in the legislative lexicon. In 1987, Title IV-E was passed by the federal government, allocating funding to the states for independent living skill development, job training, and preparation for employment. Each state developed its own specific regulations in accordance with the federal mandates. In most states, the programs were confined to teaching specific skills in a workshop format (how to fill out a job application, how to write a resume, how to search for a job, etc.) to youngsters still in foster care. In most instances, the work - and the funds - stopped once the young person was discharged from foster care. This has been true even though there was an expectation for "supervision to age 21." To the extent this supervision rule has been carried out at all, most agencies simply tell residents when they are discharged that they can call the agency for help, and an individual is assigned to try to telephone the young person a couple of times a year. Very little actual aftercare service is delivered.

Federal funding for independent living, from 1987 to 1999 (which was based on a 1984 population estimate) was static, regardless of the number of youth eligible to receive the services. In 1999, the funds were increased, but are still not adequate. It should be noted that aspects of WAY are now financed through this funding stream but that the aspect of WAY that is most important, the aftercare component called WAY Scholarship, is not eligible for funding. It is the WAY Scholarship Program that is the subject of this research report.

Several specific steps need to be taken to re-shape existing policies, if we are to fulfill the intentions of preparing youth to be able to be self-sufficient as adults. These are discussed more fully in the report that follows. Our recommendations primarily focus on the need for trained professional mentors to be an ever present force in the lives of each adolescent leaving residential treatment - for a long time -- no matter where he is going. Our recommendations stress that the "mentor" must be a paid professional.

This recommendation seems contrary to the current, volunteer mentoring movement and the positive findings associated with well run mentoring programs. Indeed, Children's Village supports such initiatives and runs and operates a volunteer mentoring program for some of our residents through a federal Department of Justice grant. Nonetheless, for the population in question, we do not believe volunteer mentors are the same thing, or the right thing, as the paid professional mentor or "counselor" on which the WAY program relies. The reason we make such a strong statement is because of what we know about the staggering weight of the baggage that most adolescents carry with them to residential treatment. If, in the course of their stay, they are able to unpack a lot of it and learn to cope, they nonetheless still carry a heavy load. These kids are suspended between a painful past and a shaky future.

When they leave residential treatment, if we've done our job well, they are far stronger and positively motivated to succeed. But, old hurts and reflexive behaviors have a way of resurfacing when life's pressures intrude. These kids need constancy and predictability to sustain their gains and to help them over the hardest times. They need an adult who will pursue them when they waiver, show up at the school house door or go out to the street corner to guide them away from old haunts and old habits. They need someone who knows the ins and outs of school placements, housing options, symptoms of drug use and college financial aide packages. They need someone who will not go away, even when told they are not wanted or needed. All of this is simply too much to ask of a volunteer.

In the fifteen years that we have been operating the WAY Program, we have learned a great deal, and we have made mistakes. In 1994, Children's Village received a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor/Employment Training Administration to replicate WAY in three states in four different community-based settings. These projects were our first "WAY Partnerships", carried out over four years with local organizations that responded to our RFP for replication of the WAY program. These community-based organizations targeted out-of-school youth and relied on an adaptation of WAY concepts. Overall, our outcomes were mixed - some quite good, some not so good. In the process we acquired a far better idea about what kind of replication strategies we need to employ in future replication work.

Building on our DOL replication experience, we are now in the process of replicating WAY in a variety of sites around the country - both community-based and with youth leaving foster care. The project that is most developed at this time involves the grafting of the entire WAY Program onto a housing complex in East NY for formerly homeless families. Our partner in this project is the HELP organization that operates Genesis Homes. Early results are extremely promising. In its third year, HELP assumed full responsibility for the program, with decreasing technical assistance from the Children's Village WAY Replication Unit.

It is because of the variety of sites and organizations that we have now worked with in replicating WAY that we also feel equipped to make some judgements about the process of program development itself. First, forums for comparing program ideas and conclusions are needed. Agencies struggling to find new and different ways to reach young people who are, at best, on the fringes of society need a place to compare notes and to learn from one another. The work of the National Youth Employment Coalition in identifying PEPNet awardees (Promising and Effective Practices Network) and hosting forums has been a welcome initiative. However, there is little cross-fertilization among and between programs. What happens in the world of "youth employment" rarely is heard in the "foster care system" any more than those contending with employment in the "juvenile justice" field hear about the issues other systems are grappling with under different program or funding categories.

Findings, even proven outcomes, from one field do not get incorporated - or even known - by related fields. The kids, however, permeate the various systems regularly, leaving a trail of unfinished business and disconnected attempts to help them. Cross program mechanisms need to be implemented.

Finally, there needs to be greater recognition of a simple fact: it takes time for results to appear - for programs and for young people. The development of the WAY Program has broken all the rules. From the beginning, the program has benefited from the extraordinary support of donors who were deeply committed to the program over a long period of time. They understood that it would take many, many years of funding to allow for program modifications and research to yield results worth the attention of others. Most private funders want "innovative" programs and lose interest in maintaining funding after a few years, regardless of program success or growing pains. The donors who have supported WAY's development scrutinized our growth while, at the same time, giving us room to make mistakes. Most importantly, they insisted on quality research throughout - and paid for it.

For young people, too, change comes slowly and grudgingly. True "results" are not really meaningful until the program participants become adults. In a world that expects quick fixes and one-word answers to complex questions, long-term solutions are not especially welcome. But, new and different ways to articulate our expectations and measure our successes are necessary. What if, for example, we could find a way to link services for adolescents to how program participants fared as adults? Assume, for a moment, that one could reliability predict the adult unemployment or incarceration rates for youth who are abused as children, or for those who have been arrested more than x times before their 16th birthday, or who have been in the foster care system more than x years, and so on. Then, suppose that funding for a particular youth program was tied to its success, defined by the number of youth in the program that defied that destiny - e.g., 10% less youth unemployed between the ages of 21 and 30 than predicted yields 10% more funding for the youth program to add new participants. Such an approach - establishing bottom line outcomes based on the long-term success of program participants in the labor market - would channel public resources to the right programs and help bring credibility to a field that is too often viewed by the public as wasteful and without merit.

The report that follows provides the detailed data that allows for a fair and honest assessment of the WAY Program but, for those of us who have had the privilege of knowing the kids behind those numbers, no research report can reveal the story we want told. The researchers who have compiled this material have worked hard to give the numbers a face and a name by including quotes and case vignettes. For me, it will never be enough. I'm among those who have gotten to know many of these kids and I marvel at their humanity and the strength and tenacity they have found in overcoming amazing odds. WAY has perhaps been a catalyst in helping them to unleash in themselves a furious desire to oppose themselves to fate. Because, for them, it is not just that it hasn't been a level playing field, it is that the field has been so onerously tilted against them and mine fields have been so randomly planted that any success at all would be cause for celebration. That they have excelled is an expression of hope.

COMMENTARY
Gary Walker, President
Public/Private Ventures

Twenty-five years ago there was great enthusiasm among social policy and program designers, and public and philanthropic funders, for initiatives aimed at high-risk youth. Today there is not. What happened?

It is easy to pin this decline in enthusiasm and funding on a broad shift to the right in American politics. Certainly that shift took place; and certainly that shift has influenced decisions regarding social initiatives and their funding levels. It is folly to think that the world of programming for high-risk youth has its own life apart from broader social and political trends.
But this reading of the history of policy and funding for high-risk youth is, I think, much oversimplified, and thus not entirely accurate. And by trading in the more complicated story of these past several decades for the simple comfort of moral superiority-we care and they don't-we add obstacles to the already difficult challenge of making progress, both in terms of effective policies and programs for high-risk youth.

The dominant themes of high-risk youth policies and programming of the past several decades are twofold:

• First, that almost every time a credible long-term evaluation was done, it concluded that the policy or program didn't make much if any difference in youths' lives. This is the blunt part of the story, and no amount of anecdotes or critique of research methodology can overcome it.
• Second, that once the evidence was in-be it neutral, negative or even somewhat positive as it occasionally was-decision-makers and funders most often moved on to other initiatives. This is the more nuanced part of the story, for it has less to do with good or bad intentions, or with level of "caring," than it does with the expectations and structure of policy-making and funding institutions. For expectations were that policy-making was like oil drilling: you kept digging holes until you hit a gusher. It was fast work, and if no gusher came, there were always other kinds of riches to search for.

The structure of policy-making and funding institutions, in both the philanthropic and public sectors, fit that expectation perfectly: they are most often able to stick with a particular effort three to five years, and then their own dynamics, be they dominated by public elections or shifting internal interests, cause them to move on.

In this manner the weight of poor results accumulated. It is no surprise that enthusiasm declined, even among many of those who genuinely care about high-risk youth. Poor results and shifting politics have been a devastating duo.

During the 1980s there began a steady drumbeat of criticism from many advocates, practitioners and researchers that the programs evaluated were insufficient to begin with: they were not comprehensive, holistic or long-term, and thus their poor results were to be expected. Both theory and common sense were used to support this critique.

During the 1990s a further twist was added: that most youth-serving organizations were underfunded and institutionally weak, and that too often poor results simply reflected weak implementation.

Both critiques seem right to me. But their implications pose very serious practical challenges: What in practice does comprehensive, holistic and long-term mean? And how in practice do you build strong institutions? These are tough enough issues in an environment committed to and structured for their solution-but we are in an era whose commitment is shaped by a shift in politics not inclined toward social policy experimentation, and by a steady diet of poor results. We are also in an environment whose policy and funding institutions are not well structured to tackle those issues.

Thus we have entered the 21st century in the toughest sort of policy gridlock around high-risk youth issues: our public policy commitment is weak; our institutions, both funding and operational, do not seem well structured for serious changes in intervention strategy; and, even if both the above could be magically changed, we have few if any concrete, proven examples of what to do.

There is a chicken-and-egg aspect to this gridlock: how can you prove what to do if you have weak policy commitment and inadequate institutional structures; likewise, how can you build policy commitment and convince institutions to change if you can't persuade policy and institutional leaders you know what to do-and that it works?

That's why this study of The Children's Village WAY initiative is so important. It describes a program that has well-defined operational components which take the mystery out of "comprehensive," "holistic" and "long term"; that is aimed at a group of youth which meet anyone's definition of high risk; that is run by a highly-respected organization-and that gets positive results. The WAY program gets these good results by building on the one solidly established piece of knowledge we have about effective interventions for high-risk youth: that it takes strong relationships with adults-mentors-to see a youth through the challenges and transitions that are part of making personal progress.

The WAY initiative is not an easy program to run, as this report makes clear. Nor is it easy to replicate, as Nan Dale's comments indicate. But it is also not a magic show: with appropriate policy and funding support, it can be implemented by solid organizations with caring competent staff.

Changing lives that for whatever reason have gotten off to a bad start is very hard work. It should not be such a surprise to us that the first several decades of effort showed just how hard it is. The greatest loss from those decades has been the loss of hope that lives can in fact be changed through social interventions.

The results of the WAY initiative should go some way to restoring that hope. We live in a very practical, bottom-line-oriented society--it just may be that empiricism is sometimes the necessary foundation for inspiration. If that is, as I suspect, the case regarding social policy for high-risk youth, then those with funds and voices have several clear tasks in the coming decade:

• Make the WAY results known. Repetition, not innovation, is what builds awareness. Results, not rhetoric, persuade.
• Find other examples of solid organizations with a track record of serving high-risk youth and carry out credible evaluations. Friends of the Children in Oregon, Hope for the Children in Illinois, Baker House in Massachusetts-these examples come to mind right away, and I'm sure there are others. We need to rebuild a base of evidence that inspires hope.
• Mine these examples for their implications for policy and funding decisions. It is time to move beyond the guidepost language of "comprehensive," "holistic" and "long-term"-and say exactly what we mean by those terms vis-a-vis practice and cost. That will make good policy and funding decisions-and effective interventions like WAY-more likely.

Besides producing positive results, WAY also reminds us of another hopeful fact: that high-risk children do not exist in impossibly large numbers. Sometimes in the rush to characterize the flaws in American society, we-both liberals and conservatives-exaggerate their consequences. In fact most youth, even from poor conditions, become good parents, good neighbors and economically self-sufficient. High-risk youth exist in modest numbers; those numbers are not overwhelming, if we have a clear sense of what to do, and how to do it.

We owe a great deal to Nan Dale and The Children's Village staff for creating WAY, for seeing it through-and for being far-sighted enough to want, from the very beginning, to document with hard evidence what they were doing and accomplishing. They have used a credible comparison group; they have tracked youth to the age of 21 and beyond-almost unheard of in the world of youth programs; and they have used both self-report and public data in arriving at their findings. In short, they have been responsible in their evaluation approach, and have risked arriving at conclusions they might not like. They have also, in their attempts to analyze the association between counselor characteristics and outcome, taken an initial step toward unpacking the "black box" of why an intervention works or doesn't work.

Children's Village has laid a solid foundation for the rest of us to build on, whether we are policymakers, funders, practitioners or evaluators.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A half million young people in the United States are living in foster care. Most of these children and adolescents reside in foster homes. However, there is a subset of the foster care population that is considered so emotionally or behaviorally disturbed that the youth are unable to live in a foster home and are referred to the foster care system's most restrictive level of care, Residential Treatment Centers (RTCs). In New York City, only 4% of the foster care population is in RTCs or other group settings. The Children's Village RTC, the largest in the system, serves some 400 children each year. Nearly all have had multiple prior out-of-home placements and hospitalizations, and all have severe emotional and/or behavioral problems. Most are poor, from ethnic minority backgrounds, and from some of the most impoverished neighborhoods of the greater New York Metropolitan area. These children are at extreme risk for negative life outcomes including educational failure, unemployment, and criminality.

The odds against them are formidable and the chances of them becoming self-sufficient and productive adults are not in their favor. Prospective studies have documented the many hardships that youth exiting the foster care system face, including homelessness, lack of access to health and mental health services, and difficulties completing their education and finding full-time employment (e.g., Westat, 1991). Moreover, retrospective data provide some insight into the long-term outcomes. For example, according to Roman and Wolfe (1997), almost forty percent of homeless individuals are former foster care youth. A recent survey of inmates found that 14% of prisoners had lived in a foster home or agency at some point during their lives (Harlow, 1998).

The Work Appreciation for Youth (WAY) Scholarship program was developed at the Children's Village in 1984 to interrupt this grim trajectory for those leaving the Children's Village RTC in an effort to set these youth on a path towards a hopeful future. The program was designed for youth transitioning from residential treatment back to their families and communities, to less restrictive settings, or to independent living. As its name implies, WAY Scholarship is a youth employment program. But it is also a general youth development program, a drop out prevention program, an independent living program, an aftercare program, and a mentoring program. The goals of the WAY Scholarship program are to teach youth work ethics, provide youth with opportunities to learn how to work, encourage youth to stay in school and to save and plan for their future.

Created over 15 years ago, WAY Scholarship incorporates many of the program elements now considered by policy makers and researchers to be essential for successful youth programs (Kazis & Kopp, 1997; Walker, 1997). For example, researchers at MDRC (1983) concluded, "The two most important elements of a stable labor market experience are a sound basic education and a combination of work habits, attitudes, and skills" (p. 16). It is just this combination that is at the heart of the WAY program. Moreover, policy makers agree that successful youth programs are comprehensive and provide youth with a stable, long-term relationship with a caring adult. Individualized and intensive counseling/mentoring over a period of years is the mechanism through which all WAY Scholarship services are delivered.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The full WAY program instituted at Children's Village (CV) has five levels, tailored and sequenced for youth while they live in the Residential Treatment Center (RTC) environment and after they are discharged from care. Levels 1 to 4 is referred to as "WAY Works" and comprises all of the components of WAY that take place on the RTC campus and the surrounding community. WAY Works has the primary goal of teaching work ethics. All youth residing on the CV campus participate in Level 1 of WAY, performing non-paid chores within their cottage. In Level 2 youth perform small jobs in their cottage or neighborhood for token payment. Level 3 youth work in low-paid jobs (considerably below minimum wage) at one of CV's campus employment sites (computer lab, greenhouse, etc). Level 4 youth work at paid jobs off campus (in local hospitals, stores, day care centers).

Level 5, WAY Scholarship, is the highest level of the program for youth who are about to be discharged from care. Enrollment is limited because the program has been funded through private dollars in the absence of public funding for aftercare services. WAY Scholarship is the aftercare component of WAY. It is dubbed "Scholarship" not because youth in the program have excelled academically but rather to set a tone for the higher expectations the program wants to communicate to its participants. WAY Scholarship is a five-year program that provides aftercare services to its participants from the time the youth enters the program (before discharge from care) until the youth has been in the program five years.

The five core elements of WAY Scholarship are educational advocacy and tutoring to facilitate school success; work experiences and work ethics training to enable participants to build work histories and a sense of themselves as workers; group activities and workshops to promote a positive peer culture and help youth develop life skills; and financial incentives to help youth plan, save, and believe in their futures; and long-term, individualized counseling/ mentoring to help WAY participants meet challenges and solve problems.

It is the counseling/mentoring component that serves as the connection between the youth and all WAY Scholarship services. Once enrolled in the WAY Scholarship program, each scholar was assigned a paid, professional WAY counselor with whom he could develop a relationship that formed the core of the WAY experience. The WAY counselor was the essential ingredient in the delivery of the service, ensuring that youth received advocacy, information, encouragement, work ethics education, counseling, and other services as needed to succeed in school and on the job. The counselor was to provide personal and intensive emotional support and practical guidance at every step of the way in the youth's young adulthood. Counselors were to be coaches, cheerleaders, surrogate parents, advocates, teachers, and friends. Most important, they aimed to "hang in" there with each youth no matter how far off track he strayed. In fact, when a youth was most troubled was exactly the time when the counselor was most needed, conveying the very important message to the youth that the counselor would never give up on him. In contrast with the current movement for volunteer mentors (e.g., Mech, Pryde, & Ryecraft, 1995), the WAY program hired and trained paid professional mentors. It was believed that hiring professional staff would increase the likelihood that mentors would be able to make a long-term commitment to the youth.

The five core elements are based on the following assumptions:

• Employability and the acquisition of basic education skills are linked.
• The development of work ethics (e.g., self-discipline, cooperation, responsibility) and a work history at a young age will supply youth with skills and attitudes that can help them obtain and maintain employment at an older age.
• Program components must be developmentally appropriate and work experiences
  must be carefully sequenced.
• A young person must be able to progress through the program and towards employability at his own pace.
• Services for youth should

•  be provided in the context of a long-term relationship with a caring adult;

•  be comprehensive, following the youth across service systems;

•  be individualized and geared to his/her developmental needs;

•  address both the relationship needs and the material needs of each participant; and (5) be timely and long term, beginning in the early teens and continuing until youth are 18 to 21 years of age.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The first cohort of young men was recruited into WAY Scholarship at the end of 1984. Every year for the next ten years a new cohort of 15 to 20 youth entered the program. These 10 cohorts comprise the treatment group for this study (n=155). In the first six years of program operations (1985 through 1990) a group of youth was recruited into a comparison group (n=76). Both the 10 study cohorts and the 6 comparison cohorts have been followed prospectively through the five-year program and in some instances beyond. Analyses focused on comparisons between the WAY Scholarship and comparison youth as well comparisons between WAY Scholarship youth and relevant national and New York City data. Some analyses pertain to the full sample of WAY Scholarship participants while others focus on the youth who stayed with the program for at least 2 of the five years.

• There was Low Attrition from the Program and Those Who Dropped Out Were Different From Those Who Stayed Involved.
  Only 24% of the WAY Scholarship youth left within the first half of the five-year program. Program retention rates improved marginally significantly from the first six cohorts (29% attrition) to the last four cohorts (16% attrition). Across the ten cohorts, youth who dropped out of WAY Scholarship were older at enrollment into the program, were discharged from the campus of the Children's Village sooner, and experienced fewer types of early abuse in their lives, though they were similar in many important ways including ethnicity, IQ, and behavior problems.
• WAY Youth Gained Employment Experiences and Savings at the End of the Program and were Working as Adults.
  " The fact that you were saving money was emphasized and that was really cool."
  "Every dollar I put in they gave me a dollar for free."
  
  Youth in cohorts 6 to 10 held on average over four jobs, with each job lasting on average over three months. Youth left jobs for many reasons and most (71%) had never been fired. Youth saved on average over $700 dollars from their WAY Scholarship employment experiences. A subset of cohort 1 to 6 participants were interviewed as adults in 1997, all of whom were among the 71% who had participated at least 2 years of the program. Eighty percent of these young men (ages 22 to 29 years of age) were working. Full-time salaries averaged $22,510.
• WAY Youth Achieved Educational Success.
  WAY Scholarship participants' achievement rates were better than rates for the comparison group, Hispanics nationally, New York City Blacks and Hispanics, New York City youth in special education, and youth in poverty (see chart below). These comparisons pertain to the 76% WAY Scholarship participants who participated for at least half of the five-year program.
  
  
  At the End of the Program; Cohorts 1-10: Eighty-one percent of WAY youth were still in school or had already graduated. This figure pertains to youth who participated for at least 2 years (76% of the participants).
  At the End of the Program; WAY vs. Comparison Groups, Cohorts 1-6: For youth who remained involved in WAY or the comparison group (71% for WAY; 80% for the comparison group), WAY Scholarship youth achievement rates were statistically significantly higher than the comparison youth (82% vs. 66%).
  At Age 21: Eighty percent of the youth were still in school or had already graduated and about one-third were enrolled in college. Four of the eight youth who had dropped out of school at the end of the program had re-enrolled and four of the seven youth who had dropped out of college by the end of the program had re-enrolled by age 21. It was clear that youth needed more than 4 years to complete their high school education. Seventy-two percent of those in school at the end of the five-year program had completed their high school education by age 21. These data pertain to youth in cohorts 1 to 6 who participated for at least 2 years (71% of the sample).
• WAY Scholarship Participants Prepared for Self-Sufficiency.
  Over 95% of WAY scholars were on a self-sufficiency trajectory at the end of the program (they were either in school, working, or had obtained high school or equivalency degrees). These data pertain to youth in cohorts 1 to 10 who participated in the program for at least 2 years (76% of the sample).
• WAY Scholarship Youth who Remained Involved in the Program had Lower Criminality Rates than Program Dropouts or Comparison Youth.
  Youth who participated in at least 2 years of the program had significantly lower adult criminality rates (5%) than youth who left the program before 2 years (35%). Youth who participated in at least 2 years of the program had marginally significantly lower adult criminality rates (5%) than comparison group youth (15%).
• WAY Scholars Felt Positive About their Counselors. Most had at Least One Long-Term Relationship and Worked with Counselors of the Same Gender and Ethnicity, factors Associated with Positive Outcomes.
  Three-fourths of WAY scholars interviewed (cohorts 1 to 6 youth only who had participated for at least 2 years of the program) spontaneously reported positive feelings about their counselors - paid professional mentors -- indicating that they played an instrumental role in helping them make the transition from Children's Village to life in the community. A study of youth in cohorts 6 to 10 showed that most worked with counselors of the same gender and same ethnicity for the majority of their involvement in WAY Scholarship. They averaged 2 changes in assigned counselors over the course of their involvement in WAY Scholarship and the longest time on average a youth worked with one counselor was almost three years. Youth who worked with female counselors had lower end-of-program self-sufficiency and educational attainment, but there was no association with percentage of time working or savings. Similarly, youth with less counselor turnover had greater self-sufficiency and educational attainment at the end of the program, but there was no relationship with savings or percentage of time working.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Youth Discharged From Foster Care Need Intensive Aftercare Services
Youth discharged from foster care are still quite vulnerable, with long-standing family and school difficulties. Many flounder as they make the transition to a less restrictive placement or back home. They need support and guidance to sustain the gains they have made while in care. High reentry rates bear this out. For example, Festinger (1996) found that one-fifth of all discharges from foster care resulted in reentry within two years. Even youth who age out of foster care evidence academic, emotional, and behavioral problems. For example, Blome (1997) found that former foster care youth were more likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems than a comparison group. Courtney and Piliavan (1998) also found that youth experienced many practical and emotional problems once discharged from care. The young men who participated in the WAY Scholarship program were no exception. Discharge from care did not represent an end to their mental health, educational, and social support needs. They experienced many financial and emotional hardships in the years following discharge.

In New York residential treatment costs roughly $50,000 per year, with an average length of stay of two years. For youth who are discharged to their own responsibility, the length of stay is much longer. Funding for aftercare in most states, including New York, is $0. Aftercare services, such as those provided by WAY Scholarship, costs roughly $3,000 - hardly a steep investment to sustain the gains at upwards of $100,000 made while in care. It is recommended that long-term aftercare services, for years not months, be provided for all adolescents discharged from residential treatment centers.

Aftercare Services Should Follow Youth Across Service Systems
High risk youth in general, and young people discharged from foster care in particular, often move frequently - among and between relatives and friends and in and out of different service systems. Cook's (1994) follow-up study of youth discharged from care revealed that one-third of youth moved five or more times in the two to four years following discharge. This was certainly true of the WAY Scholarship participants. No matter where a youth was discharged to - group home, biological family, foster family, Job Corps, or more restrictive level of care - most relocated several times in the years following discharge. Some WAY Scholarship youth moved from the supervision of the Children's Village to the care of another agency while others moved in and out of foster care several times in the ensuing years.

Private funding for the program allowed the WAY Scholarship counselors to follow the youth and provide services, regardless of what other system he was receiving services from. This approach stands in stark contrast to the traditional community-based approach in which youth are expected to start over with each relocation or involvement in a new service system. Many adolescents are reluctant to form new relationships so we need to nurture the good relationships that exist by allowing adults to stay with youth - no matter what community he moves to, no matter what system he is in - and provide the continuity that links the youth to the services he needs. It is recommended that aftercare staff be given flexibility in funding and in access to youth to provide continuity in care.

Youth Leaving After Care Need Long-Term Counseling/Mentoring
"I would like to have had a counselor in college...It might have made a difference in my decision to transfer."
"The low point is when you realize you are own your own. Nobody is there to support you. Nobody is there to push you."
The idea of offering five years of intensive aftercare services to foster care youth was unheard of 15 years ago when the WAY Scholarship program was developed. It still is. However, interviews with the WAY scholars revealed that, for many, five years was not enough. Most could have benefited from an even longer-term commitment from the program, extending well into their young adulthood. This was true for youth in college who yearned for adult guidance and support as they navigated a new and demanding world. It was true for youth in the working world striving to become responsible adults. It was also true for youth still struggling to overcome a lifetime of family trauma and not yet on a path of self-sufficiency. For many youth, the WAY Scholarship counselor was the most important adult in their lives. For them, the end of the program came too soon. It is recommended that aftercare services be provided to former foster care youth on a long-term basis, well into their young adulthood.

Mentors Should be Paid Professionals
"There is this one person in your corner whose total role is to be there to support you during the most crucial times."
Mentors for this population should be paid professionals with reasonable caseloads (15-20 youth) and clearly defined expectations and accountability. Each young person needs to feel that at least one person has a strong stake and interest in his or her success. For some youth leaving residential treatment there is a loving, supportive family member available. Even in these circumstances, the involvement of a mentor was usually welcome and needed. For the majority of older youth in residential care there is no one. These young people are often discharged to their own responsibility. The paid professional mentors in the WAY Scholarship program were there to provide them with support, guidance, and caring along the way from discharge through young adulthood.

The current focus on the need for volunteer mentors for at-risk kids that is sweeping the country is extremely positive and it is important for many vulnerable youngsters. But for youth discharged from residential treatment, it is probably not enough. Volunteers cannot be expected to go to the extreme lengths that many of the WAY Scholarship counselors had to go to in order to develop and sustain relationships with the program participants. Volunteers cannot be held accountable the same way paid mentors can and they cannot be expected to be versed in the range of issues and systems relevant to the lives of WAY Scholarship youth. For example, WAY Counselors helped youth access housing and mental health services, detected early warning signs of drug use, advocated within the public school system, provided guidance in completing college applications and applications for financial assistance, and so forth. The needs of the youth are too great and the demands on the counselor too many for anyone other than a paid professional to reasonably be expected to do this kind of work, day in and day out, year in and year out. It is recommended that mentors in programs like WAY be paid professionals who have the time and skill necessary to make a difference in the lives of young people.

PROGRAMMATIC CHALLENGES

Youth Need Help Preparing for a Career
Young adults not bound for college need the most help in planning for their future, yet receive the least assistance and face the greatest risks in the job market (Orfield & Paul, 1994). This is partly because high school general education alone does not provide adequate preparation for a successful career and no real guidance system is in place in American high schools for non-college bound youth (Mendel, 1995). Nationwide, a 1994 survey found that only one-fourth of school guidance counselors spent any real time helping students with career planning. A high school degree is not a guarantee of achieving a stable employment history at a job with a livable wage. Thus, it is of no surprise that one-third of all youth with a high school level education fail to find stable employment by the time they are thirty (Osterman, 1991, cited in Mendel, 1995).Not all WAY Scholarship youth attended college. The employment histories of the youth interviewed revealed that many went from job to job without actually developing a career path that would ultimately lead to a satisfying career and a well-paying job. Although some obtained full-time employment with decent wages and health benefits, many had not. They were what the U.S. Department of Labor (1999) refers to as "the stuck, not the skilled." Thus, a challenge for the WAY Scholarship and similar programs is to help non-college bound participants develop career paths that will result in jobs that pay a livable wage.

Youth Need Help Succeeding in College
"College is a whole different ball game."
"It is nothing like high school. It is all on you."
The 20 highest earning professions in this country require at least a bachelor's degree. College graduates on average earned 71% more than high school graduate (U.S. Department of Labor, 1999). Attending college is not enough. Graduation is critical. WAY scholars appeared to understand the importance of pursuing post-secondary education. Fully one-fourth at the end of the program and 40% at age 21 had participated in some post-secondary education. However, one of the themes that emerged in the interviews with the WAY Scholarship participants was that not all youth enrolled in college graduated. It is important to remember that WAY scholars are not screened into the program based on academic success. Quite the contrary is true. All WAY Scholarship youth were classified as requiring special education and many were years behind in their education at the time of enrollment into WAY.

For most WAY Scholarship participants who attended college, post-secondary education was much harder than they had anticipated both academically and socially. For many, college participation overlapped with their "graduation" from the WAY program - either because the youth moved away to attend college or because it coincided with their fifth year in the program. Unfortunately, entering college did not signify that these young men no longer needed the support of their WAY counselors. Quite the opposite was true; many spoke of feeling overwhelmed by the academic demands of their coursework and by the array of choices they had to make on their own. They had to decide which courses to take, how many courses to take each semester, and they had to learn how to balance social and athletic interests with schoolwork. College is a demanding time for any young person, filled with many new experiences and challenges, a time when adult support and guidance are needed.

An additional challenge for the WAY scholars was that, although they were accepted into college, some were not prepared academically to meet the demands of their coursework. They did not have the study skills and discipline nor the foundation of a solid academic high school education to succeed in college (many had achieved GEDs, special education degrees, or had attended many different high schools such that their academic skills suffered). Moreover, many WAY youth in college did not have a home to visit during holidays and other school breaks. Youth over the age of 21 were no longer eligible for services from Children's Village even though they had no other "home." Thus, in addition to the academic stresses WAY scholars faced, holidays and vacations posed both logistical and emotional challenges for these youth. Some stayed temporarily at their former group homes or came "home" to Children's Village for the holidays. Thus, a challenge for the WAY program is to determine how best to prepare these young men for a successful college experience. What kinds of supports and assistance do they need so that they can not only attend college but also become college graduates? Many WAY youth are on the path towards success, but even they are in need of continued support as they enter adulthood.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Program Replication
The full WAY program (Levels 1 to 5) and the WAY Scholarship components have been replicated in settings beyond the Children's Village. In 1994 CV received a 1.4 million dollar grant from the United States Department of Labor for the replication of the WAY Scholarship program in four community-based settings. Results of that four-year effort led to the development of a set of recommendations for the replication of youth employment programs. The full WAY program has also been implemented at Genesis Homes, a HELP housing project in one of the most desolate neighborhoods in New York City. This adaptation of WAY into a housing project complex for former homeless families has proven to be especially promising. HELP has now taken over the project along with the help of a consortium of private funders. In light of the growing interest within and beyond the child welfare community, Children's Village has created a WAY Replication Unit, devoted to overseeing high quality replications of the WAY program.

Future Research
Much has been learned over the years about how to conceptualize involvement in and outcomes of the WAY program. The Children's Village research department, in collaboration with the WAY Replication Unit, has created a set of common data collection tools for all replications of the WAY program. These tools will allow for a standardized process for describing program participants, level of involvement in the program, and key educational and employment outcomes. In addition, CV will continue to follow the first six cohorts of program participants as older adults.

Back to Top

REFERENCES

Blome, W. (1997). What happens to foster kids: Educational experiences of a random sample of foster care youth and a matched group of non-foster care youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14, 41- 53.

Cook, R. (1994). Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their future? Children and Youth Services review, 16, 213-229.
Courtney, M., & Piliavin, I. (1998). Foster youth transition to adulthood: Outcomes 12 to 18 months after leaving out-of-home care. Unpublished manuscript.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (1999). America's children: Key national indicators of wellbeing. Washington DC: Author.

Festinger, T. (1996). Going home and returning to foster care. Children and Youth Services Report, 18, 383-402.

Harlow, C.W. (1998). Profile of Jail Inmates 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kazis, R., & Kopp, H. (1997). Both sides now: New directions in promoting work and learning for disadvantaged youth. A report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1983). Findings on youth employment: Lessons from MDRC research. New York: Author.

Mech, E., Pryde, J., & Ryecraft. (1995). Mentors for adolescents in foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 12, 317- 328.

Mendel, R. (1995). The American school-to-career movement: A background paper for policymakers and foundation officers. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

New York City Board of Education (1996). Assessment/accountability report: The class of 1993. New York: Author.

Orfield, G., & Paul, F. (1994). High hopes, long odds. Indianapolis: Indiana Youth Institute.

Roman, N.P., & Wolfe, P.B. (1997). The relationship between foster care and homelessness. Public Welfare, 55, 4-11.

United States Department of Labor. (1999). Futurework: trends and challenges for work in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.

Walker, G. (1997). Out of school and unemployed: Principles for more effective policy and programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Westat. (1991). A national evaluation of Title IV-E foster care independent living programs. Final report Phase 2. Rockville, MD: Author.

Papers Published on CV Data

Stevens, J., Kymissis, P., & Baker, A.J.L. (2005).  Elevated Prolactin Levels in Male Youths Treated with Risperidone and Quetiapine. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacolog,y15, 893-900.

Baker, A.J. L., Fullmore, D., & Collins, J. (in press). A Survey Of Mental Health Service Provision in New York State Residential Treatment Centers.  Residential Treatment for Children and Youth.

Baker, A.J.L., Archer, M., & Curtis, P. (2005). Age and gender differences in emotional and behavioral problems during the transition to residential treatment: the Odyssey Project. International Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 184-194.

Baker, A.J.L., Curtis, P., & Papa-Lentini, C. (2006). Sexual abuse histories of youth in child welfare residential treatment centers: Analysis of the Odyssey Project population. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 15(1), 29-49. 

Guest, K.M., Baker, A.J.L., & Storaasli, R. (in press). The Problem of Adolescent AWOL from a Residential Treatment Center.  To appear in Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. 

Baker, A.J.L., & Purcell, J. (2005). New York State Residential Treatment Center Admissions: Age and Gender Differences in Histories of Maltreatment, Behavioral Problems, and Mental Health Problems.  Residential Treatment for Children and Youth.  

Baker, A.J.L., Curtis, P.A., Papa-Lentini, C., & Alexander, G. (2006). Prior placements of youth admitted to therapeutic foster care and residential treatment: The Odyssey Project Population. Child & Adolescent Social Work . 23(1), 38-60.

Baker, A.J.L., Archer, M., & Curtis, P. (in press).  Characteristics associated with behavioral and mental health problems during the transition to residential treatment.  Child Welfare.

Baker, A.J.L., Gries, L. Schneiderman, M. Parker, R., Archer, M., & Friedrich, W. (in press).  Children with problematic sexual behaviors in the child welfare system.  Child Welfare.

Baker, A.J.L., Kurland, M., Curtis, P., Papa-Lentini, C., & Alexander, G. (in press).  Mental Health and Behavioral Problems of Youth in the Child Welfare System: Residential Treatment Centers Compared to Therapeutic Foster Care in the Odyssey Project Population.  Child Welfare.

Baker, A.J.L., Archer, M., & Melnick, D. (2004).  Alternatives to hospitalizing youth in psychiatric crisis.  The Childrens Village Crisis Residence model.  Residential Treatment for Children and Youth.

 Baker, A.J.L., & Calderon, P. (2004). The role of group home in the child welfare continuum of care.  Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 21, 39-58.

Piotrkowski, C.S. & Baker, A.J.L. (2004). Predicting Discharge Disposition of Adolescents in residential treatment.  Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 21, 69-88.

Dale, N., Baker, A.J.L., Anastasio, E. and Purcell, J. (in press).  Characterisitics of Children in Residential Treatment in New York State.  Child Welfare.

 Baker, A.J.L., Piotrkowski, C., & Mincer, C. (2003).  Behavioral Predictors of Psychiatric Emergency in a Child Welfare Residential Treatment Center.  Residential Treatment Centers for Children and Youth, 21, 51-70 .

Baker, A.J.L., McKay, M., Lynn C.J., Schlange, H., & Auville, A. (2003). Recidivism at a shelter for Adolescents: First-time versus repeat runaways.  Social Work Research, 27, 84-93 .

Baker, A.J.L., Wulczyn, F., & Dale, N. (in press).  Mental health problem as covariates of length of Stay in residential treatment.  Children Welfare.

Baker, A.J.L. & Dale, N. (2002). Psychiatric crisis in child welfare residential treatment.  Children's Services: Social Policy, Research and Practice, 5, 213-229.

Baker, A.J.L., Tabacoff, R., Tornusciolo, G. & Eisenstadt, M. (2003).  Family secrecy: A comparative study of juvenile sex offenders and youth with conduct orders.  Family Process, 42, 105-116 .

Baker, A.J.L., Schneiderman, M., & Parker, R. (2001). A survey of problematic sexualized behaviors of children in the New York City Child Welfare System. Journal of Sexual Abuse, 10 , 67-80.

Baker, A.J.L., Tabacoff, R., Tornusciolo, G. & Eisenstadt, M. (2001).  Calculating the number of offenses and victims of juvenile sexual offending: The role of post-treatment disclosures.  Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 79-90.

New York City Administration for Children's Services (June 2006). NYC ACS Preparing Youth for Adulthood , p. 2-3.

Annie E. Casey Foundation (2006). KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK , p. 120-121, available at www.kidscount .org

Citizens Committee for Children (2006). Prospects and Promises 2006: a Guide to Children's Services and Budgets for New York City Policymakers , p. 1-40.

Publications Referencing Children's Village Programs

Brazill, C. & Stevens, J. Story of Persistence and Potential. True Stories of Investment, Innovation & Inspiration . 2007: 10-11.

Smith, T. J. Guide for the Journey: Supporting High-Risk Youth with Paid Mentors and Counselors. P/PV Briefs June 2004.

Jaklitsh, B. Aftercare Services: The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. August 2003

Walker James, D. & Jurich, S. More Things That Do Make A Difference for Youth. A Compendium of Evaluations of Youth Programs and Practices Volume I 1999: 73-75 .

•  Quality Improvement

The Children's Village is commitment to excellence and the pursuit of performance and quality improvement through embracing the Council on Accreditation standards in day-to-day practice. CV's Board of Directors and Executive Team work together to maintain diligent oversight of agency operations and strategically plan and implement actions that will address problems while building on gains that the agency has achieved. The agency's formalized QI efforts occur in monthly QI Committee meetings which are focused on program outcome measures in all program areas and a formal annual report is produced.

Quality Improvement is a never ending task which is affected by major changes in the delivery of child welfare services and the impact of external environmental forces on service delivery. Legislative initiatives such as the NYS Permanency Law, which took effect in December 2005, aims to get residents in care home on a timelier basis and to hold court hearings on permanency every 6 months versus yearly hearings. Children's Village responded to legislation aimed to prevent out of state placement by opening a Committee on Special Education (CSE) cottage through funding from the New York State Education Department. Other legislation to plan for is the anticipation of least restrictive alternatives for the use of crisis prevention in residential care.

External licensing and funding sources are involved in regular program assessments of agency programming. CV participated with Administration for Children's Services (ACS) to complete Child Safety Reviews on all children in our care. The agency's ACS Performance Evaluation System (PES) Scores for 2005 were all higher than the system average. The ACS Evaluation and Quality Improvement Protocol (EQUIP) Score for 2005 for Congregate Care and Foster Boarding Home programs equaled a Very Good Rating. ACS also conducted a Medical Audit of the Congregate Care and Foster Boarding Home programs with positive results. The New York State Office of Mental Health recertified both the Crisis Residence and the Residential Treatment Facility (RTF). Other programs such as the Sanctuary Shelter Program and the Transitional Residence for Alien Children were reviewed and were recertified by their funding sources.