HOUSING FOR YOUTH

HOUSING FOR Y

OUTH

AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE

A

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HOUSING FOR YOUTH

AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by

Robin Dion

Amy Dworsky

Jackie Kauff

Rebecca Kleinman

May 2014

i

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions others have made to this study.

We particularly appreciate the excellent guidance of Anne Fletcher in the Office of Policy

Development and Research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Others at HUD who contributed important insights include Brianna Benner, Caroline Crouse,

Amaris Rodriguez, and Todd Shenk, and staff in the Office of Public and Indian Housing. We

thank Catherine Heath and Laura Radel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) for their support, information, and feedback, all of which were necessary for the

successful completion of this report.

The authors especially appreciate the input from staff at the local public housing agencies, public

child welfare agencies, and community-based organizations who shared their experiences

implementing the Family Unification Program (FUP) for youth. Their insights contributed to the

understanding of how FUP can help youth during the transition to adulthood and of promising

practices for serving youth through FUP.

Many colleagues provided invaluable research assistance and advice. At Mathematica, Brandon

Coffee-Borden and Miriam Rosenau, along with Keri-Nicole Dillman, formerly of Mathematica,

provided assistance conducting the environmental scan for housing programs and conducting the

literature review. Lisa Klein Vogel and Debra Wright led the survey development and

administration, and Shilpa Khambhati prepared the survey data. Brandon Coffee-Borden, Miriam

Rosenau, and Lisa Klein Vogel arranged and participated in site visits, along with the report

authors. Matthew Stagner provided insightful reviews. Amanda Bernhardt carefully edited the

report, and Donna Dorsey and Sharon Clark provided production support.

Any errors that remain are solely those of the authors and not the responsibility of HUD or HHS.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views

or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

ii

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

FOREWORD

Each year, approximately 25,000 youth exit the foster care system before being reunified with

their family of origin, being adopted, or achieving another permanent living arrangement. These

youth often have limited resources with which to secure safe and stable housing, which leaves

them at heightened risk of experiencing homelessness. This report documents a series of research

activities designed to address knowledge gaps related to the housing options available to youth

who have aged out of foster care.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is committed to achieving the goal of

ending homelessness for families, youth, and children by 2020, as established in Opening Doors:

Federal Strategic Plan To Prevent and End Homelessness. While numerous studies seek to

establish counts of the number of youth who have aged out of care and experienced

homelessness, or to understand the relationship between child welfare involvement and youth

homelessness, few studies have focused on the only known solution for homelessness—namely,

housing.

This report weaves together findings from the following three distinct research activities:

1. Highlights from the empirical evidence documenting the link between aging out of foster

care and the experience of homelessness.

2. Findings about how communities can, and do, use the Family Unification Program to address

the housing needs of youth aging out of foster care who do not have adequate housing.

3. Strategies for rigorously evaluating housing programs for youth aging out of foster care to

better understand the effectiveness of various housing models.

These findings document the current inadequacy of housing supports for youth aging out of

foster care, which is compounded by a lack of evidence regarding what kinds of housing settings

are most appropriate for this population. The report concludes on an optimistic note, however, by

charting a course to enhance our understanding of the housing needs of youth who have aged out

of foster care and to identify housing models that are most effective for preventing and ending

homelessness among this population.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for

Policy Development and Research

iii

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ viii Stable Housing Is Important Yet Elusive for Transitioning Foster Youth ................... ix

Policies and Programs Offer Few Housing Opportunities for Youth .......................... ix

FUP Has Promise for Supporting Youth but Is Not Widely Used for Them ............... xi

Implications for Policy and Research ........................................................................ xii I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1

Policy and Program Context ....................................................................................... 1

Study Objectives and Methodology ............................................................................ 3

II. HOUSING NEEDS OF YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE AND THE

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THEM ....................................................... 5

The Prevalence of Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Youth Aging

Out of Care.................................................................................................................. 5

Barriers to Housing Among Youth Aging Out of Care ................................................. 6

Federal Policies and Funding Streams That Address Housing for Youth Aging

Out of Foster Care ...................................................................................................... 8

State and Local Housing Programs for Youth Aging Out of Care ............................. 11

III. USING FUP TO ADDRESS YOUTHS’ NEEDS FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING:

FINDINGS FROM SURVEYS AND SITE VISITS ........................................................... 16

Extent of Use of FUP for Youth ................................................................................. 17

Types of Housing Assistance Youth Receive Through FUP ..................................... 19

Types of Services Offered to Youth Through FUP ................................................... 21

Challenges in Administering FUP for Youth and Strategies To Address Them ........ 23

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH .................................................... 27

Implications of the Findings on FUP ......................................................................... 27

Implications of the Broader Study of Housing Supports for Youth Aging Out

of Care ...................................................................................................................... 27

Current Opportunities To Enhance Knowledge ........................................................ 28

V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 32

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 33

iv

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

APPENDIX A

STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................. A-1

Literature Review and Housing Program Inventory ................................................ A-2

Survey of FUP Providers ........................................................................................ A-3

Site Visits to FUP Communities .............................................................................. A-6

APPENDIX B

KEY STUDIES OF HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING

INSTABILITY AMONG FORMER FOSTER YOUTH .................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C

INVENTORY OF SELECTED HOUSING PROGRAMS FOR

YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE ................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D

COMPENDIUM OF RESULTS FROM SURVEYS OF PHAs

AND PCWAs

........................................................................................................... D-1

Use of FUP Vouchers for Youth .............................................................................. D-2

Program Partnerships ............................................................................................. D-6

Child Welfare Context ............................................................................................. D-9

FUP Entry ......................................................................................................... D-11

Housing Search and Lease-Up Process and Outcomes ...................................... D-14

Services Provided to Youth After They Lease Up ................................................. D-21

Exiting FUP and Transitional Assistance .............................................................. D-23

Housing Options Beyond FUP .............................................................................. D-26

Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives on Policy and Practice ......................... D-29

APPENDIX E

PHA SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................................................... E-1

APPENDIX F

PCWA SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................................................... F-1

v

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

LIST OF TABLES

III.1

PHAs and PCWAs Included in Site Visits ...................................................... 16

A.1

Response Outcomes for Survey Sample ..................................................... A-5

B.1

Key Studies of Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Former

Foster Youth ................................................................................................. B-2

C.1

Inventory of Selected Housing Programs for Youth Aging Out of

Foster Care .................................................................................................. C-2

D.1

Current and Historical Use of FUP for Youth ............................................... D-2

D.2

Geographic Location of PHAs That Administer FUP ................................... D-3

D.3

Extent of Current Use of FUP for Youth ....................................................... D-4

D.4

Reasons for Use of FUP Vouchers for Youth .............................................. D-5

D.5

Reasons for Nonuse of FUP Vouchers for Youth ........................................ D-5

D.6

Likelihood of Using FUP Vouchers for Youth in the Future .......................... D-6

D.7

Characteristics of PCWAs ............................................................................ D-6

D.8

Communication Between PHAs and PCWAs .............................................. D-7

D.9

Cross-Agency Training ................................................................................. D-8

D.10

PCWA Services Provided as Youth Age Out of Foster Care ....................... D-9

D.11

PCWA Response to Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care ............... D-10

D.12

Extent of Referrals From PCWAs to PHAs ................................................ D-11

D.13

Extent of Referrals From PCWAs to PHAs: Agreement Between

Partner Pairs .............................................................................................. D-11

D.14

PCWA Referral Process ............................................................................. D-12

D.15

HCV Eligibility Determination for PCWA-Referred Youth ........................... D-13

D.16

PCWA Involvement in Immediate Post-Eligibility Determination

Activities ..................................................................................................... D-13

D.17

Housing Search Process for FUP-Eligible Youth Who Have Had a

Voucher Briefing ......................................................................................... D-14

D.18

Housing Search Assistance ....................................................................... D-15

D.19

Housing Search Assistance: PHA and/or Partner PCWA

Provide Assistance ..................................................................................... D-16

D.20

Other Premove and Postmove Assistance ................................................ D-17

D.21

Other Premove and Postmove Assistance: PHA and/or Partner PCWA

Provide Counseling .................................................................................... D-18

D.22

Tenancy Approval Process ........................................................................ D-19

vi

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

D.23

Housing Search and Lease-Up Outcomes ................................................. D-20

D.24

Housing Stability ........................................................................................ D-20

D.25

Supportive Services Provided to Youth During 18-Month

Voucher Period .......................................................................................... D-21

D.26

PCWA Contact With Youth During 18-Month Voucher Period ................... D-22

D.27

Program Tenure and Reasons for Termination .......................................... D-23

D.28

Voluntary Exit ............................................................................................. D-24

D.29

Transitional Assistance as FUP-Eligible Youth Approach 18-Month

Time Limit ................................................................................................... D-25

D.30

Transitional Assistance as FUP-Eligible Youth Approach 18-Month

Time Limit: PHA and/or Partner PCWA Provide Assistance ...................... D-25

D.31

Availability of Housing for Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care

or Been Emancipated From Foster Care ................................................... D-26

D.32

Public Housing Program Options for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care ...... D-27

D.33

HCV for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care ................................................... D-28

D.34

Factors Affecting Ability To Administer FUP to Eligible Youth ................... D-29

D.35

Progress Made ........................................................................................... D-30

D.36

Perspectives on Policy and Practice .......................................................... D-31

LIST OF FIGURES

III.1

Fewer Than One-Half of PHAs Operating FUP Currently Serve Youth ......... 17

III.2

Primary Reason PHAs Do Not Serve Youth Through FUP Is Lack

of Referrals ..................................................................................................... 18

III.3

Most—but not All—Youth With a FUP Voucher Lease Up and Stay

Leased Up ...................................................................................................... 20

III.4

One or Both Partner Agencies Offer Several Supports To Help Youth

Find and Maintain Housing ............................................................................ 21

III.5

Most PCWAs Offer Several Types of Supportive Services While Youth

Are Leased Up ............................................................................................... 22

vii

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For many young people who age out of foster care, the transition to adulthood and economic

self-sufficiency can be abrupt. At age 18 or 21, these young adults—who numbered fewer than

28,000 in 2010—must find and secure suitable housing and, in most cases, do so with little or no

support from either their family or the state. As a result, many youth who age out of foster care

find themselves homeless or precariously housed.

Despite evidence of the importance of stable housing, little information exists on the breadth

or effectiveness of housing programs available to support this population; consequently, little

knowledge exists to guide policymakers and program developers on how best to prevent or

mitigate homelessness among this vulnerable population. This study, Housing for Youth Aging

Out of Foster Care, sought to address knowledge gaps related to the housing options available

to former foster youth and to provide policymakers with recommendations for future research

and policy improvements. The study took the following approach:

• Conducted a literature review to (1) document what is currently known about the

extent of homelessness and housing instability among youth aging out of foster

care, noting their barriers to securing and maintaining housing; and (2) document

the federal policies and programs that address their housing needs.

• Conducted a web-based environmental scan to (1) explore and document the range

of state and local housing programs available to youth, including how programs are

designed, structured, and operated; (2) create a typology to characterize the housing

programs; and (3) identify innovative features of housing programs.

• Surveyed agencies that administer the Family Unification Program (FUP) to

understand, for the first time, the extent to which and how communities use

FUP to provide housing and supportive services to youth aging out of foster care.

• Visited select communities that serve youth with FUP to conduct an indepth review

of how FUP works in practice and to identify promising strategies for serving youth

through FUP.

• Convened a forum that brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers

to disseminate and discuss the study’s findings and related federal initiatives for the

provision of housing to former foster youth.

• Developed a research brief describing evaluation options for learning which housing

programs are most effective in preventing homelessness among former foster youth.

This report summarizes findings across these study components. It provides a condensed and

focused set of findings from the project’s interim products to centralize the key ideas. The study

was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research and Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy

Development and Research, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

viii

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Stable Housing Is Important Yet Elusive for Transitioning Foster Youth

Across a handful of small, regional studies, researchers estimate that between 11 and 37 percent

of youth who age out of foster care have experienced homelessness. Youth are even more likely

to experience precarious housing arrangements. Studies estimate that 25 to 50 percent of young

adults exiting care couch surf, double up, move frequently within a short period of time, have

trouble paying rent, and face eviction. The federally mandated National Youth in Transition

Database (NYTD) outcomes survey, which will follow the housing status of former foster youth

across the transition to adulthood, is expected to enhance understanding of the prevalence of

housing instability in this population on a large, national scale.

A growing body of literature documents the importance of stable housing during the transition

to adulthood. Because housing stability is intertwined with self-sufficiency, young people with

stable housing are better able to stay in school and maintain employment (Johnson et al., 2010;

Sommer, Wu, and Mauldon, 2009), and they have an easier time accessing needed physical and

mental health care and social services (Wade and Dixon, 2006). Unstable housing, conversely,

can lead to a downward spiral of compromised physical and mental health, which can limit

employment and, in turn, further deteriorate housing stability (Collins and Curtis, 2011).

Young adults aging out of foster care may face greater obstacles to maintaining housing than do

their peers in the general population. At the individual level, deficits in human and social capital,

limited supportive relationships with adults, and a greater likelihood of being young parents or

having a criminal record are barriers to obtaining the resources necessary to secure stable

housing. In addition, the child welfare system has insufficient resources and services to prepare

youth for independent living and lacks integration with other youth-serving systems of care,

resulting in lost opportunities to prepare youth to live on their own. The housing market also

presents hurdles. A shortage of affordable housing, the young age at which youth exit foster care

and their resulting lack of rental history, and racial discrimination may further limit their ability

to secure housing in the open market.

Policies and Programs Offer Few Housing Opportunities for Youth

During the past three decades, federal and state governments have assumed greater responsibility

for preparing foster youth for the transition to adulthood and, to a lesser extent, providing

independent living and housing supports on exit. HHS has four key programs or policies to

support youth exiting foster care.

• Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, which

extends the age of eligibility for Title IV-E child welfare reimbursement from 18 to

21 years old for youth who meet certain criteria. This major policy change enables

states that have extended care to age 21 to use Title IV-E funds for this group and

gives other states a financial incentive to extend care. As of November 2013, 18

states and the District of Columbia can use federal funds for extending care up to age

21 (Heath, 2013). The act also expands the type of reimbursable dwellings to include

supervised independent living settings (such as host homes or college dormitories)

(HHS ACF, 2010).

ix

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

• Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (hereafter, Chafee), which provides

funding for independent living services for youth in the foster care system and

enables states to use up to 30 percent of Chafee funds on housing subsidies,

transitional housing, or other housing-related costs.

• Transitional Living Program, which funds local and state governments,

community-based organizations, and tribal entities to provide longer term housing

and supportive services to homeless youth ages 16 to 21 who cannot return home.

• Education and Training Voucher Program, which provides up to $5,000 annually

to youth eligible for Chafee-funded services who are attending a qualified

postsecondary institution. The stipend may be used for housing costs.

HUD’s key programs or policies that support housing for former foster youth include

the following.

• Public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program (formerly

known as Section 8) subsidize rent so that tenants generally pay rent equivalent to 30

percent of their adjusted gross income. Local public housing agencies (PHAs) may

give preference to former foster youth on their public housing or HCV waiting lists.

The waiting list in many communities is very long or is closed, however, and these

housing options are not usually coupled with supportive services that former foster

youth may need.

• Continuum of Care is a consortium of local providers and agencies that address

homelessness through a coordinated, community-based process of identifying

needs and having a system to address those needs. HUD competitively awards

annual grants.

• Family Unification Program is a relatively small, special-purpose HCV program

for eligible families and youth. As of the fall of 2013, approximately 20,500 FUP

vouchers were in circulation, being administered by 242 PHAs. FUP’s primary

purpose is to subsidize housing for child welfare–involved families for whom a lack

of adequate housing is the primary reason for imminent out-of-home placement of

children or delayed reunification. Youth ages 18 to 21 who left foster care at age 16

or older and who do not have adequate housing are also eligible. For such youth,

FUP vouchers offer up to 18 months of rental subsidy and supportive services to help

them gain skills for independent living (for example, employment counseling and

budgeting). Families, by contrast, do not face a time limit, and agencies are not

required to offer them services. FUP functions as an interagency collaboration

between local PHAs and public child welfare agencies (PCWAs). Participating

communities serve families, youth, or both in their FUP programs and, in the latter

case, determine how to allocate vouchers among youth and families. PCWAs (or

their contracted partners) refer eligible youth to PHAs and offer supportive services

to youth receiving a FUP voucher. When PHAs receive youth referrals, they verify

HCV eligibility and then issue the subsidies.

Communities often must combine the various federal funding streams with state, local,

and private dollars to develop suitable housing programs for transition-age youth at risk of

homelessness. To get a sense of how communities are responding to the youths’ unmet housing

x

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

needs, an inventory of housing programs available to former foster youth was compiled, based

on a web-based environmental scan. The scan revealed a diverse set of 58 housing programs that

serve youth aging out of care, usually along with other youth populations in need of housing

assistance, services, or both. The housing programs are categorized as one of three types:

(1) single-site programs with supervision and supportive services; (2) scattered-site programs

with less supervision and support; or (3) multiple housing types and varying levels of supervision

and support. Several of the 58 housing programs incorporate innovative features that may merit

further study, including cross-sector collaboration, blended funding, integration of youth

populations, a philosophical approach to programming, and colocation of services.

FUP Has Promise for Supporting Youth but Is Not Widely Used for Them

This study explored the extent to which and how communities are using FUP to support youth,

drawing on findings from a survey of the universe of PHAs administering FUP, a survey of

PCWAs partnering with the youth-serving PHAs, and site visits to four communities that use

FUP to serve youth. These findings suggest that FUP may be a useful resource, but for various

reasons, it is not widely used for youth.

The survey results showed that 47 percent (91 of 195) of PHAs operating FUP had awarded

vouchers to former foster youth in the 18 months prior to the survey. Furthermore, PHAs that

were serving youth allocated fewer than one-third of their FUP vouchers to youth, on average.

Overall, youth constituted only about 14 percent of total FUP program participants. Many PHAs

offered FUP-eligible youth-housing search assistance and premove and postmove counseling.

Most PCWAs reported offering a wide range of supportive services to the youth, including those

required by HUD; however, the quality of these services, the number of youth receiving them,

and their effectiveness remains unknown.

A few factors may be contributing to the relatively low use of FUP for youth. First, because

vouchers awarded to youth are time limited, on turnover, these vouchers may be awarded to

families, who do not face a time limit; over time, this turnover results in most vouchers ending

up with families. Communities can address this issue by setting aside a portion of FUP vouchers

specifically for youth, but only one-third of FUP communities had established a set-aside at the

time of the survey. Second, PCWAs refer relatively few youth. The most common reason PHAs

cited for not serving any youth was a lack of referrals, and among the youth-serving PCWAs,

about one-half do not refer all FUP-eligible youth they identify. The lack of youth referrals likely

did not arise from lack of demand.

The relatively low number of youth referrals may reflect unintended barriers, or disincentives for

serving youth. In particular, the financial burden on PCWAs of providing supportive services may be a deterrent; 40 percent of PCWAs indicated these costs were a challenge. Families may

also be a higher priority for PCWAs because serving them directly addresses their goals of

reunifying families and reducing caseloads. Survey respondents also indicated the 18-month time

limit was a barrier. Most respondents considered the duration too short, noting that it does not

align with standard lease terms and is not long enough to support youth through an associate or

bachelor’s degree.

Visits to four youth-serving communities revealed that serving youth with FUP requires

considerable communication and collaboration between PHAs, PCWAs, and their partners,

which may be a challenge for some communities. (Among PHAs not serving youth, nearly

one-third reported they would be more likely to do so if they had help establishing and/or

xi

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

strengthening their collaboration with their partner PCWA.) Effective implementation of FUP

requires joint, upfront decisionmaking between agencies about how to balance the needs of

families and youth and, because demand usually exceeds supply, which youth to target. Ongoing

cross-agency collaboration ensures that supportive services are coordinated, and strategic

partnerships can even enhance resources for services. Collaboration is not simple, however. The

communities that were visited illustrated that it takes time and effort to establish and maintain

relationships. A foundation of trust, openness, flexibility, and clear communication channels can

facilitate collaborations.

Implications for Policy and Research

To increase the potential of FUP to serve youth, two policy options merit additional

consideration. First, HUD could review its policy on set-asides to determine what, if any,

changes are needed to ensure that FUP vouchers will continuously be available for youth.

Second, consideration could be given to whether extending the time limit to at least 24 months

would be beneficial and politically feasible. Greater recognition of youth homelessness and

awareness of FUP by communities may increase its use for youth. Regardless of any

improvements, research must still be conducted to determine whether FUP is able to prevent

homelessness in the long run or whether short-term housing is its main benefit.

Because FUP is a small, resource-constrained program, however, it is unlikely to become a

major resource for youth aging out of care, and additional policies to meet their housing needs

should be explored. An important next step is to establish an evidence base of effective

approaches for preventing and ending homelessness among this group. Not only is the impact

of FUP unknown, but no information is available about the effectiveness of the 58 other housing

programs inventoried. This dearth of supporting data leaves few resources to guide policymakers

and program staff deciding where to invest their limited resources, which youth to refer to which

programs, and how to develop new programs; fortunately, the federal government is taking steps

to address this problem. Federal agencies are undertaking several efforts to enhance the

knowledge base, including the NYTD outcomes survey; a second evaluation of Chafee-funded

independent living services; the development of the United States Interagency Council on

Homelessness (USICH) Framework to End Youth Homelessness, which articulates steps

local stakeholders can take to end youth homelessness and emphasizes the importance of

rigorous evaluation; and a series of planning grants that will enable grantees to develop, refine,

and test the core components of the intervention model described in the USICH Framework to

End Youth Homelessness.

xii

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Most young adults in the United States are experiencing an increasingly prolonged transition to

adulthood. Society no longer assumes that children will automatically become self-sufficient

adults on their 18th or even 21st birthdays (Arnett, 2000; Settersten and Ray, 2010; Wight et al.,

2010;). Young people are instead gradually taking on the roles and responsibilities traditionally

associated with adulthood while they acquire the education and work experience needed to

become economically independent (Berlin, Furstenburg, and Waters, 2010).

The transition for young people who age out of foster care is much more abrupt, however

(Osgood, Foster, and Courtney, 2010). At age 18 or, in some states, at age 21, these young adults

must transition to living independently virtually overnight. They must find and maintain suitable

housing—in most cases, with little or no support from either their family or the state (Brown and

Wilderson, 2010); as a result, many youth who age out of foster care find themselves homeless

or precariously housed.

This report summarizes what is known about the housing needs and outcomes of young people

who age out of foster care, discusses programs and policies to support their housing needs, and

presents findings from an assessment of one housing resource, the Family Unification Program

(FUP). The report brings together all the findings from a study conducted by Mathematica Policy

Research and Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago on behalf of the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and Research, and the

U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation.

Policy and Program Context

What it means to “age out” of foster care. For a significant number of youth in foster care,

permanency through adoption, legal guardianship, or returning to their families remains an

elusive goal. Although some of the young people who do not achieve permanent placements are

transferred to a correctional facility or a hospital that can address their mental health needs and

others leave the system by running away (Courtney and Barth, 1996), most remain in foster care

until they “age out” by reaching the maximum age at which they can be a dependent of the state.

Adolescents typically age out of foster care on their 18th birthday; however, the age of

emancipation has been extended to age 21 in a number of states in recent years as a result of the

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. As of October 2010,

this act allows for states to receive federal reimbursement for the costs of providing foster care

payments for eligible youth until they turn 21. This policy gives states a financial incentive for

permitting youth to stay in foster care for up to 3 more years.1

As of November 2013, 18 states and the District of Columbia opted to receive federal

reimbursements to allow for certain young people to remain in foster care past age 18

1 States may elect to extend foster care without receiving federal reimbursement.

2 As of November 2013, the following states have an approved plan to extend Title IV-E assistance beyond age 18:

1

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

(Heath, 2013).2 Youth in extended foster care may receive the child welfare subsidy directly

from the state (rather than the state giving the subsidy to a caregiver) and use the subsidy to pay

for housing in a supervised yet independent living setting (such as a college dormitory), thus

helping youth transition to independent living. In some of the states that have extended foster

care, all youth who exit care or those who meet certain criteria have the option of returning to

foster care. In these states, youth who venture to live independently and find they are not

emotionally or financially prepared are able to return to the system for support until they reach

the state’s age limit.

Number and experiences of youth who age out of foster care. After increasing steadily for

more than a decade, the number of young people aging out of foster care each year peaked at

approximately 29,500 in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009 before falling to slightly fewer than

28,000 in FFY 2010 (HHS ACF, 2011, 2010). The number of older youth who are in foster care

and could potentially benefit from transitional support is substantially greater. About 74,000

youth between ages 16 and 20 were in foster care in FFY 2012 (HHS ACF, 2013).

Although some youth who age out have spent much of their childhood in foster care, many were

adolescents when they first entered (Courtney and Barth, 1996; Fowler, Toro, and Miles, 2009;

Needell et al., 2002; Wulczyn, 2009; Wulczyn, Hislop, and Goerge, 2001). Their experiences in

“the system” range from a single stable placement with a relative or foster family to several

placements in group homes and residential care facilities. The nature and quality of services they

received while in care, including transition services, also vary greatly depending on the state or

county responsible for their care.

Importance of housing assistance during the transition to adulthood. The benefits of a safe

and stable place to live are widely recognized. A growing body of literature suggests that, in

addition to meeting the basic human need for shelter, housing that is safe and stable can function

as a platform that promotes positive outcomes across a range of domains from education to

employment to physical and mental health. Because housing stability is intertwined with self-

sufficiency, it may be especially important during the transition to adulthood. For instance,

young people with stable housing are better able to continue their schooling and maintain gainful

employment (Johnson et al., 2010; Sommer et al., 2009), and they find accessing needed

physical and mental health care and social services much easier (Wade and Dixon, 2006).

Living in housing that is unsafe or unstable can be a significant impediment to positive outcomes

(Kushel et al., 2007): in fact, it can create a negative feedback loop. Unstable housing can

compromise physical and mental health; poor physical and mental health can limit employment;

and limited employment can lead to housing instability (Collins and Curtis, 2011). Researchers

have also found that homeless youth and young adults are at increased risk of physical and

sexual victimization (Fowler, Toro, and Miles, 2009; Whitbeck et al., 2001) and substance use

problems (Halley and English, 2008; HHS HRSA, 2001), which can further deteriorate physical

and mental health.

2 As of November 2013, the following states have an approved plan to extend Title IV-E assistance beyond age 18: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia; a plan is pending for another state, Pennsylvania. All but two states extended Title IV-E to youth until age 21; Indiana and Nebraska extended eligibility up to ages 20 and 19, respectively (Heath, 2013).

2

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Study Objectives and Methodology

Despite evidence that housing is important for achieving self-sufficiency during the transition to

adulthood, no national estimates exist of homelessness among youth aging out of foster care, and

little information exists on the breadth or effectiveness of housing programs available to support

this population. Program developers and policymakers consequently have little knowledge to

guide them on how best to prevent or mitigate homelessness among this vulnerable population.

The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) outcomes survey—which requires states to

ask current and former foster youth at ages 17, 19, and 21 if they have been homeless—may

begin to address gaps in knowledge about the prevalence of homelessness. Housing for Youth

Aging Out of Foster Care was designed to begin filling gaps in the knowledge base about

housing options available to former foster youth; specifically, the objectives of the study were

as follows:

• Enhance understanding of (1) the public resources and policies that can help prevent

or mitigate homelessness among young people aging out of foster care, and (2) the

housing programs available to them, with a special focus on FUP.

• Provide a foundation for future research on the effectiveness of housing models to

prevent and end homelessness among youth aging out of foster care.

To achieve these objectives, the following methodology was used (more details may be found in

Appendix A):

• Conducted a literature review to (1) document what is currently known about the extent of homelessness and housing instability among youth aging out of foster care

and their barriers to securing and maintaining housing; and (2) document the federal

policies and programs that address their housing needs.

• Conducted a web-based environmental scan to (1) explore and document the

range of state and local housing programs available to youth, including how

programs are designed, structured, and operated; (2) create a typology to characterize

the housing programs; and (3) identify innovative features of housing programs.

• Surveyed agencies that operate FUP to understand, for the first time, the extent to

which and how communities use FUP to provide housing and supportive services to

youth.

• Visited select communities that serve youth with FUP to conduct an indepth

review of how FUP works in practice and identify promising strategies for

administering FUP to youth.

• Convened a forum that brought together policymakers, practitioners, and

researchers to disseminate and discuss the study’s findings and related federal

initiatives for supporting former foster youth.

• Developed an issue brief that discusses the need for evaluating housing programs for

youth aging out of foster care, possible evaluation designs, and steps to prepare for

evaluation.

The remainder of this report summarizes findings across the study components. Chapter 2

summarizes findings from the literature review and environmental scan (Dworsky et al., 2012).

3

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Chapter 3 summarizes a monograph devoted to FUP, based on the survey findings and

information gathered from site visits (Dion et al., forthcoming). Chapter 4 highlights key

recommendations for policy, program development, and future research, drawing from a policy

brief developed on this topic (Dworsky, forthcoming), and Chapter 5 offers concluding remarks.

4

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

II. HOUSING NEEDS OF YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE AND THE

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THEM

During the past few decades, researchers have learned a great deal about the experiences of

youth aging out of foster care. The literature suggests that these young people experience high

rates of homelessness and housing instability and points to several barriers that contribute to such

outcomes. Less is known about the effectiveness of federal and state policies and programs

aimed at addressing their housing needs.

The Prevalence of Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Youth Aging

Out of Care

Finding: Estimates of homelessness among youth who have aged out of foster care

range from 11 to 37 percent across small, regional studies.

No national estimates exist of homelessness during the transition to adulthood among young

people who age out of foster care. What is known about the prevalence of homelessness during

this transition period comes from relatively small and regional research efforts published during

the past two decades (appendix Table B.1). The studies estimate varying rates of homelessness,

ranging from a low of 11 percent (Brandford and English, 2004) to a high of 37 percent (Collins,

Spencer, and Ward, 2010). The variation reflects study differences in the age at which the youth

were interviewed, the geographic region where the youth had been in care, the length of time

since exiting care, the representativeness of the sample, and the definition of homelessness.

National data collection efforts that will measure the prevalence of homelessness among former

foster youth are under way. As part of the NYTD outcomes survey, states must ask foster youth

if they have been homeless. A baseline outcome survey is administered at age 17, with followup

surveys at ages 19 and 21. The first wave of NYTD data were collected in fiscal year (FY) 2011,

but nearly all of the 17-year-olds who completed the baseline survey were still in foster care. A

national estimate of homelessness among youth who age out of foster care will be available

when the first two rounds of followup survey data are collected in FYs 2013 and 2015.3

Finding: Studies estimate about 25 to 50 percent of youth are precariously housed after

exiting care.

Homelessness is but one manifestation of housing instability; another manifestation is temporary

or precarious housing. Several of the studies in Appendix Table B.1 find high rates of couch

surfing or doubling up because young people could not afford housing on their own. Estimates of

precarious housing also vary considerably, ranging from one-fourth to one-half, indicating that

young people are more likely to experience periods of precarious housing than homelessness.

Relatively high rates of residential mobility and inability to pay rent are also indications of

housing instability among this group. Several studies have found that former foster youth move

3 The NYTD data collection plan was designed before the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 extended eligibility for federal Title IV-E reimbursement to age 21. As the number of states that take advantage of this law increases, an increasing percentage of foster youth will be able to remain in care until their 21st birthday; consequently, the NYTD survey data may be less useful than expected for estimating the rate of homelessness among this population.

5

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

several times soon after leaving care (Courtney et al., 2010; Dworsky and Courtney, 2009;

Reilly, 2003) and tend to experience more mobility than do their peers in the general population

(Courtney et al., 2010, 2007, 2005). Although some degree of mobility is normal and probably

desirable (Collins and Curtis, 2011)—some moves may occur to relocate for a new job or to

attend school—several moves within a short timeframe are generally not beneficial (Burgard,

Seefeldt, and Zelner, 2012; Shinn and Weitzman, 1996). Research also suggests that compared

with their peers in the general population, young people who have aged out of foster care are

more likely to report they are unable to make a rent payment and to have been evicted (Courtney

and Dworsky, 2006; Courtney et al., 2011a, 2010, 2007).

Barriers to Housing Among Youth Aging Out of Care

For many young adults, finding safe and affordable housing and then maintaining that housing

can pose a challenge (Mech, 2003); for a variety of reasons, the challenge may be especially

formidable for those aging out of foster care. Individual-level characteristics make earning an

income sufficient to cover rent deposits and monthly payments difficult for former foster youth.

In addition, characteristics of the child welfare system leave former foster care youth ill prepared

to live independently, and features of local housing markets can limit housing options.

Finding: At the individual level, deficits in human and social capital, limited supportive

relationships with adults, and greater chances of being young parents or having a

criminal record are barriers to obtaining the resources to secure stable housing.

Inadequate human and social capital. Several factors place former foster youth at a significant disadvantage in the labor market—in turn, limiting their ability to secure and maintain housing.

Many youth aging out of care—

• Fail to obtain a high school diploma or a GED (Burley, 2009; Burley and Halpern,

2001; Courtney et al., 2010, 2007; Smithgall et al., 2004; Wolanin, 2005).

• Are less likely to attend college and to graduate with a degree if they do attend

college, compared with their peers in the general population (Burley 2010, 2009;

Courtney et al., 2010; Davis, 2006; Day et al., 2011; Wolanin, 2005).

• Lack the basic skills needed for success in the workplace, such as knowing how to

fill out a job application or having the discipline to arrive at work on time (Casey

Family Programs, 2011; Dworsky and Havlicek, 2010).

• Have had fewer opportunities to establish a social network of adults who can connect

them with employers, which can be important for securing a job (Granovetter, 1995;

Lin, 1999).

• Are more likely than their peers to describe their health as fair or poor (Courtney et

al., 2007); report a serious health problem (Reilly, 2003); and exhibit mental health

and substance use disorders (Keller et al., 2010; Pecora et al., 2003; Vaughn et al.,

2007).

Deficits in human and social capital limit the ability of young people aging out of foster care to

secure adequate income and hence pay for suitable housing. Young people are more likely to be

unemployed than are their older counterparts (BLS, 2011), and young people aging out of foster

care are at an even greater disadvantage than are their peers. Just as inadequate income makes it

difficult for young people aging out of foster care to pay rent or utility bills, inadequate assets

can be a problem. Young people frequently age out of foster care with few if any assets (Pecora

6

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

et al., 2005), and former foster youth are less likely than are their peers to have accumulated

savings in a bank account (Courtney et al., 2007, 2005). Many former foster care youth will thus

be unable to come up with the money for the first and last months’ rent or a security deposit,

both of which may be required to rent an apartment (Corcoran and Chaudry, 1997; Duncan and

Brooks-Gunn, 1997).

Lack of relationships with supportive adults. Parents often provide their young adult children with substantial financial support and/or a place in their home. Although moving in with a parent

is not uncommon for foster youth who age out of care (Collins et al., 2008; Collins, Spencer, and

Ward, 2010; Cook et al., 1991; Courtney et al., 2007, 2005, 2001; Fowler et al., 2006; Reilly,

2003), they are much less likely to live with parents than are their peers in the general population

(Courtney et al., 2011a, 2010, 2007, 2005). Some youth who return home after aging out of

foster care may have maintained supportive family ties while in foster care, but others simply

may have no other options. Very few former foster youth remain with their foster family after

exiting care (Courtney et al. 2007, 2005). Developing lasting relationships with adults who will

continue to provide nonmonetary support and guidance during the transition to adulthood is

difficult for youth who have been living in foster care (Courtney and Hughes Heuring, 2005;

D’Andrade, 2005; Fanshel, 1992; Hines et al., 2005; Hyde and Kammerer, 2009).

Early parenthood. The rate of teenage pregnancy is much greater among youth in foster care

than among other adolescents (Dworsky and Courtney, 2010; Gotbaum, 2005; Pecora et al.,

2003). Many youth are parents by the time they age out, or they become parents soon thereafter

(Courtney et al., 2011c, 2010, 2007; Singer, 2006). Young mothers are more likely than are

fathers to be custodial parents, hence they face even greater time and financial constraints to

pursuing an education, acquiring job training, or saving for housing—although as parents, they

may be eligible for public assistance programs.

Juvenile or criminal record. Research has shown that young people aging out of foster care,

especially young men, are more likely to have been involved with the juvenile or criminal justice

system than are their peers in the general population (Courtney et al., 2007, 2005; 2004; Cusick

and Courtney, 2007). Young adults with a criminal record may also be ineligible for public

housing assistance programs, and landlords may be reluctant to rent to them (Samuels and

Mukamal, 2004).

Finding: The child welfare system has insufficient resources and services to prepare

youth for independent living, and its lack of integration with other youth-serving systems

may leave gaps in services.

Transition to independent living. The child welfare system has an obligation to provide

services that prepare youth for the transition to adulthood. Without such services, youth in foster

care often do not have opportunities to participate in or observe informal learning experiences

that help them acquire basic life skills, such as cooking or budgeting. Since the mid-1980s and

the creation of the Title IV-E Independent Living Program, the federal government has been

allocating funds to states to help prepare youth in foster care for the transition to adulthood

(DeWoody et al., 1993). Today, the primary source of those federal funds is the Chafee Foster

Care Independence Program (hereafter, Chafee), as described in the next section.

Still, Chafee-funded services are very limited, and evidence of their effectiveness, particularly

for common classroom-based life skills training, is, at best, mixed (Courtney et al., 2011b;

Donkoh et al., 2006; GAO, 1999). Funding has remained at $140 million per year for more than

a decade despite an increase in the size of the eligible population. Reports from state child

7

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

welfare administrators reveal a persistent gap between the number of youth eligible for and

presumably in need of independent living services and the number receiving them (GAO, 2007b,

2004, 1999). Current and former foster youth report receiving few of the services that Chafee

dollars are intended to fund (Cook, Fleishman, and Grimes, 1991; Courtney et al., 2001;

Courtney, Lee, and Perez, 2011).

Cross-system coordination. Many jurisdictions do not coordinate services between the child

welfare system and other public systems, such as public schools, departments of workforce

development, behavioral health organizations, and, of particular relevance to this discussion,

public housing agencies. The lack of coordination may reflect differences in priorities and a

history of working in silos—insular groups that have no interaction. Housing is generally not

perceived as one of the child welfare system’s primary responsibilities, and child welfare

workers may not be aware of housing programs or resources available to emancipating

foster youth.

Finding: A shortage of affordable housing, the young age at which youth exit foster care,

and racial discrimination may limit former foster youths’ ability to secure housing in the

open market.

• There is a shortage of affordable, safe, rental housing in many communities,

including the major urban centers that are home to the largest populations of foster

youth (GAO, 2007b). The housing options that are available may be limited to

lowest income, least safe neighborhoods, which tend to be far from public

transportation or needed services (Batsche and Reader, 2012; Center for Public

Policy Priorities, 2001).

• Age can hamper youth in at least two ways. Those who exit foster care before age 18

cannot legally sign a lease. Those who are 18 or older may find that landlords are

reluctant to rent to them because they lack a history of stable employment and good

credit (Center for Public Policy Priorities, 2001).

• Despite laws against racial discrimination in the housing market, audit studies

consistently demonstrate its persistence (Turner et al., 2002), posing a real problem

for former foster youth, who are disproportionately non-White (Dworsky et al.,

2010; Smith and Devore, 2004; GAO, 2007a).

Federal Policies and Funding Streams That Address Housing for Youth Aging Out

of Foster Care

During the past three decades, federal and state governments have assumed greater responsibility

for preparing foster youth for the transition to adulthood and, to a lesser extent, supporting them

after they exit care. Government has been gradually coming to recognize that young people

aging out of care need assistance not only with daily living skills, education, and employment

but also with housing.

8

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Finding: HHS’s key programs or policies to support youth aging out of care are Chafee,

the Education and Training Voucher Program (ETV), the Fostering Connections to

Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, and the Transition to Independent Living

Program.

Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. Authorized by Title I of the Foster Care

Independence Act of 1999 4 (FCIA) and administered by the Children’s Bureau within HHS,

Chafee expanded the Title IV-E Independent Living Program. Chafee doubled the maximum

amount of money potentially available to states to $140 million and expanded eligibility for

services paid for with those funds. Under current law, young people are eligible for Chafee-

funded services if they are likely to remain in foster care until at least their 18th birthday, aged

out of foster care and are not yet age 21, or exited foster care through adoption or kinship

guardianship when they were at least 16 years old.

States have considerable discretion in how they use their Chafee funds, although a 20-percent

match is required for any funds they draw down. In addition to promoting education,

employment, and positive connections with adults, Chafee funds may be used to teach skills that

will help youth find and maintain housing after they are on their own. Up to 30 percent of Chafee

funds may be spent on housing subsidies, transitional housing, independent living stipends, or

other housing-related costs.

Education and Training Voucher Program. Authorized by Congress in 2001, ETV provides

up to $5,000 in assistance each year to youth eligible for Chafee-funded services who are

attending a qualified postsecondary institution. Youth receiving ETV funds before their

21st birthday remain eligible for the funds until age 23 if they make adequate progress in

school. In addition to education-related expenses, the assistance can also be used for housing

costs while recipients are attending school. Overall, ETV’s role in addressing the housing needs

of young people exiting care is fairly limited considering that most former foster youth do not

attend college, those that do may be older when they enter college, and many do not persist to

degree completion (Dworsky and Perez, 2010).

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. This act introduced three major reforms that target youth aging out of foster care. First, it requires public child

welfare agencies (PCWAs) to help young people develop a personalized transition plan

(including plans for housing) during the 90 days before exiting care. Second, and more

significantly, it extends the age of eligibility, at state option, for Title IV-E reimbursement from

18 to 21 years old if youth are employed, engaged in activities to promote employment, or have

an exclusionary medical condition. This change enables states that have extended care to age 21

to use Title IV-E funds for this group and gives other states a financial incentive to extend care

as well. As of November 2013, 18 states and the District of Columbia can receive Title IV-E

funds to allow for certain young people to remain in foster care up to age 21 (Heath, 2013).

Further recognizing the different needs of young adults in foster care, the act also expands the

type of dwellings that are reimbursable under Title IV-E to include supervised independent

living settings (such as host homes or college dormitories) (HHS ACF, 2010).

4 Public Law 106-169; 42 U.S.C. 677.

9

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Transitional Living Program (TLP). Originally authorized by Congress in 1988, TLP funds

local and state governments, community-based organizations (CBOs), and tribal entities to

provide longer term (up to 21 months) housing and supportive services to homeless youth ages

16 to 21 who cannot return home. Housing may include host homes, group homes, or supervised

apartments. Services must be specified in an individualized case plan and can be provided

directly by TLP grantees or by CBOs. Services typically include basic life skills training;

consumer education; training to improve interpersonal skills and develop positive relationships

with peers and adults; education and employment-related services; and physical, mental, and

behavioral health care. In addition and consistent with a Positive Youth Development

framework, grantees must provide opportunities for youth to exercise leadership and become

involved in their communities.

Finding: HUD’s key programs or policies that offer subsidized housing to former foster

youth are public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the

Continuum of Care (CoC), and FUP.

Public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher program (formerly known as Section 8).

Public housing residents live in projects that are typically owned by a local public housing

agency. The units are subsidized so that tenants generally pay rent equivalent to 30 percent of

their adjusted gross income. HCV recipients rent housing from landlords or property managers in

the private housing market, and the subsidy is paid directly to the landlord or property manager.

HCV recipients also typically pay 30 percent of their adjusted gross income in rent, but unlike

public housing residents, they may live in any housing that meets minimum health and safety

standards (among other requirements, such as reasonable rents), and they can retain their subsidy

if they move. Project-based vouchers are a special type of HCV subsidy that recipients can use to

rent a privately owned apartment, but the assistance is tied to the unit, as in public housing.

Many youth would meet the income requirements for these programs (Cook, Fleishman, and

Grimes, 1991; Courtney and Dworsky, 2006; Courtney et al., 2010, 2007, 2001; Dworsky, 2005;

Goerge et al., 2002; Macomber et al., 2008); furthermore, public housing agencies (PHAs) may

give preference to former foster youth on their public housing or HCV waiting lists. In most

communities, however, the demand for these programs far exceeds supply, and they do not

typically include access to the supportive services that former foster youth may need.

Continuum of Care. The CoC refers to the consortium of local providers and agencies that work

collectively to address homelessness through a coordinated, community-based process of

identifying needs and establishing a system to address those needs. HUD awards annual grant

funds competitively to CoCs to support a range of housing and service programs, including the

Supportive Housing Program, the Shelter Plus Care Program, and the Single Room Occupancy

Program. Recipients of funds through CoC programs may choose to design their programs in a

way that would enable them to focus on homeless youth.

Family Unification Program. FUP, the focus of Chapter 3, is a relatively small, special-purpose voucher program that provides vouchers to eligible families and youth. Congress first authorized

the program in 1990 as a family preservation or reunification program. Families are eligible for

FUP if lack of adequate housing is the primary reason for the imminent foster care placement of

their children or for the delay of children in foster care being returned home. In 2000, FUP was

10

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

extended to youth ages 18 to 21 who exit foster care at age 16 or older and lack adequate

housing. HUD awards FUP vouchers to PHAs through a competitive process.5 Vouchers

were released each year between 1992 and 2001, and in 2009 through 2011. Approximately

20,400 FUP vouchers were in circulation as of fall 2013, spread across 243 PHAs (HUD, 2014).

Like general HCV participants, FUP families and youth typically contribute 30 percent of their

monthly adjusted gross income toward rent.

FUP operates differently for youth than for families. Like general HCV holders, FUP families do

not face a time limit in the program. In fact, federal regulations prohibit PHAs from terminating

FUP assistance even if parental rights are terminated or if all the children in the family have

reached adulthood. PHAs are required to partner with public child welfare agencies (PCWAs)

which may, but are not required to, offer FUP families case management and other supportive

services. By contrast, FUP operates as a time-limited, supportive housing program for youth.

FUP vouchers for youth provide up to 18 months of rental assistance, and PCWAs (or their

contracted partners) are required to offer supportive services to youth throughout their program

participation. These services are intended to help youth develop the skills necessary to live

independently, including instruction in basic life skills (such as money management, nutrition,

and housekeeping), counseling to prepare youth for employment, and working with landlords to

assist youth in obtaining and keeping their housing.

In practice, FUP is an interagency program administered as a partnership between each

participating community’s PCWA(s) and PHA(s). PCWAs determine whether families and youth

meet the foster care–related eligibility criteria and refer eligible candidates to PHAs. PHAs then

determine their HCV eligibility, issue vouchers, explain the program’s rules and participants’

rights and responsibilities, and approve units. The agencies also have joint responsibilities. If

they serve both families and youth, they must determine how they will divide their voucher

allotments among families and youth. Partner agencies may decide to designate a fixed

percentage of their FUP vouchers (referred to as a set-aside) for youth based on perceived needs or the availability of other housing options in the community. The partner agencies may instead

decide to refer all FUP-eligible youth and enable them to compete with FUP-eligible families on

a first-come-first-served basis. To facilitate interagency collaboration, HUD requires both partner

agencies to designate a “FUP liaison” responsible for referrals, to meet at least quarterly, and to

cross-train one another.

State and Local Housing Programs for Youth Aging Out of Care

To get a sense of how communities are responding to homelessness among youth aging out of

foster care, an inventory was compiled of housing programs available to this population based

on a web-based environmental scan, then derived a simple typology of the housing programs

that emerged from the scan and finally identified innovative program features that merit

further attention.

5 For a list of PHAs that administer FUP and the number of FUP vouchers they have available, please see “FUP

PHAs and PHA Contact Information” available at

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/family.

11

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Finding: An environmental scan revealed a diverse set of 58 housing programs that

serve youth who age out of care.

The environmental scan yielded information on 58 housing programs that serve former foster

youth, usually among other populations. To conduct the scan, a review was conducted of

websites of leading housing and child welfare advocacy organizations (such as the Corporation

for Supportive Housing and the National Alliance to End Homelessness); articles published in

peer-reviewed journals (for example, Child Welfare); and relevant conference proceedings. The

58 housing programs were profiled along 12 dimensions. (Full profiles are included in Appendix

C.) This chapter describes how the programs compare along key dimensions.6 The programs

identified do not represent the entire universe of housing programs, and descriptions reflect the

data that could be obtained through a web-based search; thus, caution must be used in drawing

conclusions from the inventory. The purpose of the scan was to obtain an overview of the types

of programs that exist to meet the housing needs of former foster youth. For more details on the

methodology, see Appendix A.

Service population. 7 Most of the programs serve youth ages 18 to 21; a few reach youth as young as 16 or as old as 24. Eligibility for about one-half of the programs is time limited,

typically 18 to 24 months. Most programs target a broad population that includes, for instance,

youth exiting the juvenile justice system or homeless youth. A few programs reserve housing

units for special populations (for example, custodial parents); some specifically target former

foster youth exhibiting mental health problems or other disabilities.

Program requirements. 8 Most of the programs require participants to be employed or in

school at least part time and to pay rent. Many also require youth to participate in life skills

training, contribute to a savings plan, or attend community meetings. The number of rules

varies across programs. Some simply require participants to comply with their lease agreement,

whereas others are more restrictive (for example, having policies on curfews, overnight guests,

or drinking).

Housing assistance. Programs generally assist youth with housing by providing one of the

following: (1) a subsidized unit in a building that is owned and managed by the program;

(2) monthly rental assistance in the form of a voucher; or (3) a stipend for living expenses.

Three categories describe the physical setting in which participants live. Some programs

provide a combination of two or even all three categories:

• Clustered or single-site housing . A single, multiunit building or group of buildings that houses participants together.

• Scattered-site housing . Housing dispersed throughout the community and usually

rented from a private landlord. Programs that provide monthly rental assistance are

assumed to be scattered site.

• Host homes . A private home headed by a foster family or a single adult who

receives a monthly subsidy.

6 For a complete discussion of the housing characteristics, please see the full literature review: Dworsky et al., 2012.

7 Not shown in Appendix Table C.1.

8 Not shown in Appendix Table C.1.

12

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Supportive services. Nearly all the programs include a range of direct services, which generally fall into one of four categories:

• Case management . Nearly all programs include a case management component,

which typically involves goal planning and monitoring progress toward goal

attainment.

• Self-sufficiency . These services most frequently focus on educational attainment (for example, tutoring or GED preparation) and improving prospects for employment (for

example, job readiness training, help finding employment, or career exploration).

• Independent living skills . Most of the programs seek to teach basic life skills,

including budgeting, time management, health, nutrition, hygiene, and conflict

resolution, with financial literacy and money management particularly common.

Some programs use standardized curricula or hold weekly (and, in some cases,

mandatory) workshops.

• Services for special populations . Some programs tailor services to the special

populations they serve; for example, programs that target youth with mental health

problems typically provide individual or group counseling.

Funding sources. Some programs rely on only 1 or 2 funding sources; others combine 10 or

more. Nearly all the programs receive at least some public funds. Among the most common are

Chafee dollars, various HUD-administered programs (for example, the HCV program), and state

and local funds.9 Private sector funders are varied and include foundations, corporations, and

individual donors.

Finding: Categorizing programs by their level of supervision and support yields three

types of housing programs.

Patterns were sought across the 58 programs along the most salient dimensions: (1) the physical

setting; (2) the type of housing assistance; (3) how supportive services were delivered; and

(4) whether or not onsite supervision was provided. A loose typology emerged in which most

programs could be classified as one of the following:

• Single-site programs with supervision and supportive services. These programs

use clustered or single-site housing models and include a greater level of supervision

and onsite support than do scattered-site models. Direct services often are delivered

onsite. One apartment unit usually is reserved for a staff person who is available

24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide supervision and support. These programs

are usually appropriate for youth who need a stepping stone toward truly

independent living. Of the 58 housing programs, 27 fall into this category.

• Scattered-site programs with less supervision and support. These programs tend

to offer youth less supervision and support than do single-site programs. Young

people typically have periodic contact with a case manager, who may make home

visits. Many of the programs provide some supportive services at a central agency

9 We counted a program as Chafee-funded if Chafee funds were explicitly mentioned in a list of sources or if a program receives funds from a state or local PCWA.

13

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

site and rely on referrals to other agencies. Participants often have the option of

renting the unit on their own after the assistance expires. This type of program may

be better suited for young people who are more mature or more prepared to live

independently. Of the inventoried programs, 25 fall into this category.

• Multiple housing types and varying levels of supervision and support. Six of the

programs offer both clustered and scattered-site housing, and a few combine

clustered or scattered-site housing with host homes. Programs that combine housing

models offer options and a continuum of support so that young people may move

from one type of housing to another as their needs for supervision and supportive

services evolve.

ILLUSTRATING A TYPOLOGY OF HOUSING PROGRAMS

Restoration Gardens: A Single-Site Program With Supervision and Support

Restoration Gardens in Baltimore, Maryland, provides single-site housing with supportive services to young people who are currently homeless, who have been homeless within the past five years, and who have aged out of foster care or the juvenile justice system. Restoration Gardens has 40 studio apartments, a common room, a computer laboratory, and a library. Property management and social service staff are on site during normal business hours. Three resident assistants and one resident manager provide round-the-clock supervision and assistance. Residents pay rent equivalent to 30 percent of their adjusted income and receive onsite counseling, job placement assistance, GED preparation help, and basic life skills training. The program is a partnership of AIDS Interfaith Residential Services, Empire Homes of Maryland, Homes for America, Baltimore Homeless

Youth Initiative, and the Baltimore Workforce Investment Board Youth Council.

Youth Moving On: A Scattered-Site Program With Less Supervision and

Onsite Support

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Youth Moving On provides scattered-site, single-bedroom apartments and supportive services to former foster youth ages 18 to 24 who are at risk of homelessness. Administered by St. Aemilian-Lakeside, Inc., and supported by a combination of federal, state, and private funding, the program serves up to 20 youth at one time for a maximum of 18 months. Youths’ contributions toward rent increase as young people progress through the program. Participants are offered case management, life skills training, employment, and budgeting assistance. Supportive services are not provided on site nor are participants supervised at their place of residence. Participants are eligible for an additional subsidy on successful completion of the program.

Transitional Housing Program for Emancipating Foster Youth: A Program With

Multiple Housing Types and Varying Levels of Supervision and Support

The Transitional Housing Program for Emancipating Foster Youth is a THP-Plus program that provides housing and supportive services to emancipated foster and probation youth in 11 California counties. The program partners with county agencies, community-based organizations, foundations, and private businesses to provide host-family, scattered-site, and single-site housing, depending on the county. Participants receive a wide range of supportive services and must fulfill several requirements, including full-time or part-time employment, combined with school or training; work with a life coach and housing specialist; participation in case planning; saving 50 percent of their net earnings; and submitting receipts for food, clothing, and recreational expenditures.

Participants are eligible for postprogram housing assistance but must agree to maintain contact with the program for at least two years after exit.

14

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Finding: Several housing programs incorporate innovative features that may merit

further study, including cross-sector collaboration, blended funding, integration of youth

populations, a philosophical approach to programming, and colocation of services.

• Cross-sector collaboration. Many of the programs involve some type of

organizational collaboration. In some cases, an affordable housing developer or

property manager formally partners with a community-based service provider. In

other cases, public- and private-sector agencies work together. In at least one case

(Next Steps Collaborative in Alameda County, California), agencies collaborate to

use a shared intake form to direct youth to the most appropriate program.

• Blended funding streams. Some programs rely on only 1 or 2 funding sources;

others, however, combine many funding streams—as many as 10 or more. State

funds are blended with federal and/or local dollars, and funds from public sources

are combined with private funds.

• Integration of former foster youth with other populations. Whereas most

clustered or single-site programs exclusively house former foster youth, a few are

more integrative. The Interfaith Housing Development Corporation of Chicago’s

Permanent Supportive Housing Program, for instance, operates an intergenerational,

supportive housing program for youth who have aged out of care and for children in

the care of grandparents or other relatives. The intergenerational model posits that

the groups can support one another.

• Unique program philosophy. Some programs have unique philosophies for

working with transitioning youth. One program, for example, strongly encourages

self-determination, tenant leadership, and involvement in the community. Another

holds youth and tenant councils to give residents an opportunity to voice grievances

and influence decisions.

• Colocation of housing and other services or employment opportunities.

Although many of the profiled programs aim to help young people find and maintain

employment, they generally do not operate a business that provides youth with jobs.

An exception is Seventh Landing in St. Paul, Minnesota, where youth may work in

an onsite coffee shop owned by the housing developer. Although clustered or single-

site programs commonly provide direct services on site, a few housing sites are

colocated with other service agencies. The Edwin Gould Residence in New York

City, for example, is colocated in a multiservice center that provides a single point of

entry to services provided by a collaboration of CBOs.

15

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

III. USING FUP TO ADDRESS YOUTHS’ NEEDS FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING:

FINDINGS FROM SURVEYS AND SITE VISITS

Before this study, little was known about how FUP is being used to address the housing needs of

youth aging out of foster care. To learn more, a survey was administered to all 249 PHAs

operating FUP.10 If the PHA indicated that they allocated at least one of their FUP vouchers to

youth, an attempt was made to survey the PHA’s partner PCWA—for a potential respondent pool

of 83 PCWAs.11 Analyses presented in this chapter are based on the 195 PHAs and 70 PCWAs

that responded to the survey.12 The surveys were fielded in the fall of 2012. Subsequent site

visits to four of the youth-serving communities (table III.1) provided a deeper and more nuanced

perspective of how they use FUP to serve youth.13 In each community, data and feedback were

collected from administrators and staff at the PHAs, PCWAs, and other CBOs involved in

FUP.14 The information gathered through the surveys and site visits revealed the extent to which

communities use FUP to support youth, the challenges they face, and lessons for practitioners

and policymakers.

Table III.1. PHAs and PCWAs Included in Site Visits

Community Jurisdiction

Location Visited

PHA

PCWA

a

Mass. Dept. of Housing & Mass. Dept. of Children and

Massachusetts

Boston

Community Development Families

b

Colorado Dept. of Local

Colorado Division of Child

Colorado

Denver

c

Affairs

Welfare

Broward County Housing

Broward County, Florida Fort Lauderdale

ChildNet

Authority

Housing Authority of the

Utah Division of Child and

Salt Lake County, Utah

Salt Lake City

County of Salt Lake

Family Services

PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

a The Massachusetts site visit focused on the Lowell and Lawrence region.

b At the time of the visit, Colorado was mainly serving youth in the Denver metropolitan region.

c Colorado’s PHA contracts with Mile High United Way to allocate Family Unification Program

vouchers to youth.

10 At the time of the survey in the fall of 2012, 249 PHAs were thought to possess approximately 20,700 FUP

vouchers; HUD has since updated the FUP baseline. As of the fall of 2013, approximately 20,500 FUP vouchers were being administered by 242 PHAs. The information in this chapter is based on the number of PHAs and FUP

vouchers at the time of the survey.

11 The survey requested that PHAs or PCWAs that contract out any administrative or service provision

responsibilities to seek input from their partner organizations when completing the survey.

12 For more information on the survey methodology and response rates, see Appendix A, and for a complete reporting of all survey results, see Appendix D

13 Two communities were countywide jurisdictions, and two were statewide. Altogether, 178 youth were housed with FUP vouchers at the time of the visits (ranging from 7 to 117 per community); additional youth had been issued vouchers and were searching for a unit.

14 In all, we spoke with 70 individuals.

16

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Extent of Use of FUP for Youth

Finding: Less than one-half of the PHAs operating FUP provide vouchers to youth.

Of the PHAs that responded to the survey, 47 percent currently serve youth (that is, they had

served at least one youth within the past 18 months) (figure III.1), but one-half reported never

serving youth. Another 3 percent had most recently served youth more than 18 months before

the survey.

Figure III.1. Fewer Than One-Half of PHAs Operating FUP Currently Serve Youth

PHAs That

PHAs Currently

Never Served

Serving Youth

Youth (n=98)

(n=91)

50%

47%

PHAs That

Served Youth in

the Past (n=6)

3%

Finding: PHAs that serve youth allocate most of their FUP vouchers to families.

On average, PHAs serving youth had 112 FUP vouchers at the time of the survey, 29 percent

of which were being used by youth who had “leased up” (that is, who were leasing a unit with

FUP rental assistance). The remaining vouchers were being used by families or were unused.

Applying these averages across all PHAs operating FUP, youth make up about 14 percent of

program participants (that is, of the 20,700 FUP vouchers in circulation at the time of the

survey, 2,912—an average of 32 vouchers each across 91 PHAs—are leased up by youth).

In the fall of 2012…

At the time of the survey, 91 PHAs were serving youth through FUP.

Each had, on average, 112 FUP vouchers, 29 percent of which were leased up by youth.

17

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Finding: A primary reason PHAs are not serving more youth is that PCWAs are referring

relatively few or no youth.

To the extent that PCWAs selectively refer candidates to the PHA, they serve as a gatekeeper to

FUP vouchers. Among the PHAs that do not serve youth, more than 70 percent cite the lack of

PCWA referrals as a reason (figure III.2). By comparison, only 9 percent of PHAs that do not

serve youth say that the reason is too few youth age out of foster care, and only 10 percent say

that the housing needs of youth aging out of care are being met in other ways. Survey data

suggest that even among youth-serving communities, some youth may be eligible for FUP but

are not referred. About one-half of the PCWAs reported that they do not refer all eligible youth

they identify.15, 16

Figure III.2. Primary Reason PHAs Do Not Serve Youth Through FUP Is Lack of Referrals

Percentage of PHAs (n=104) Reporting Reasons for Not Serving Youth

PCWA has not referred any youth

70%

PHA prefers to serve families

18%

PCWA lacks resources to provide supportive services

13%

18-month time limit is a burden

13%

Needs of youth being met in other ways

10%

Too few youth

9%

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 percent because PHA respondents could choose more than

one option.

Although the survey did not ask PCWAs their reasons for referring a subset of eligible youth,

and the PCWA partners of PHAs that do not allocate vouchers to youth were not surveyed,

survey responses suggest several possible explanations for the relatively few youth referrals:

• Lack of funding for supportive services may be a deterrent. According to

40 percent of PCWAs, the cost of providing supportive services was a challenge.

• Families may be a higher priority than are youth. Of the PHAs that do not

serve youth, 18 percent reported they prefer to devote FUP vouchers to families

(figure III.2). Serving families can prevent more children from being placed or

remain in foster care. Reducing foster care placements can reduce costs to PCWAs

and aligns with pressure to preserve families.

15 About 46 percent of youth-serving PCWAs reported they do not refer all eligible youth; another 9 percent did not know whether they referred all eligible youth, or they did not respond to the survey question.

16 Extending eligibility for foster care to age 21 has apparently not affected referrals to FUP. The survey results suggest that the number of referrals reported by PHAs and PCWAs in states that have extended care is similar to the number of referrals in states that have not extended eligibility.

18

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

• The 18-month time limit for youth may be an administrative burden. Frequent

voucher turnover requires more staff resources to identify and serve new

participants. Indeed, 13 percent of PHAs that do not serve youth cited the 18-month

time limit as

a reason (figure III.2), and 30 percent said they would be more likely to serve youth

if the time limit were eliminated. In addition, 46 percent of PCWAs and 41 percent

of youth-serving PHAs described the time limit as a major challenge to

administering FUP, and another one-third of PCWAs and PHAs characterized it as

somewhat of

a challenge.

• Agencies may believe they do not have enough FUP vouchers to serve both

families and youth. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of PHAs not currently serving

youth said they would be more likely to do so if they had more vouchers. Many

PHAs have relatively few FUP vouchers. Data collected by HUD to monitor FUP

use indicate that 42 percent of the PHAs in the analysis sample had fewer than

50 vouchers as of the fall of 2012, and another 36 percent had 50 to 100 vouchers.

• PCWA staff may not have sufficient training on FUP and HCV eligibility

requirements. Although 84 percent of PHAs serving youth provide training to their

partner PCWAs, only one-third do so more than once per year. Given the high rate of

staff turnover in PCWAs, more frequent training may be needed.

• Families may be easier than youth for PHAs to identify. Youth become eligible

for FUP when they are no longer in care and their child welfare case is closed; hence,

identifying FUP-eligible youth may be a greater challenge than identifying FUP-

eligible families, whose children are in or at-risk of foster care placement and thus

have an open child welfare case.

• PCWAs may perceive better alternatives to FUP. PCWA staff might be

concerned

that youth with FUP vouchers do not receive adequate supervision; however, their

responses indicate that alternative housing arrangements with more supervision are

not widely available in the near term.

Types of Housing Assistance Youth Receive Through FUP

Finding: Most—but not all—FUP youth receive the full 18 months of rental assistance.

Youth-serving PHAs reported that most youth who are issued a voucher lease up successfully

within the allotted time. Nearly three-fourths of the PHAs reported that youth secure housing

before the initial 60-day period expires most of the time, and two-thirds said that more than 75

percent of youth who receive a voucher lease up eventually (figure III.3). That said, some PHAs

reported significantly fewer successful leases for FUP-eligible youth. Of PHAs reporting, 10

percent stated that youth issued a voucher do not usually lease up, and another 6 percent reported

they lease up only about one-half the time.

19

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Figure III.3. Most—but not All—Youth With a FUP Voucher Lease Up and Stay Leased Up

Percentage of PHAs (n=91) Reporting the Proportion of Youth Who Lease Up

66%

11%

6%

8%

7%

2%

More than 75%

50 to 75%

About 50%

25 to 50%

Less than 25%

Don’t know

Percentage of PHAs (n=89) Reporting How Often Youth Use Full 18 Months of Subsidy

42%

24%

12%

11%

6%

6%

Almost always

More than half of

About half of the Less than half of the

Almost never

Don't know

the time

time

time

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Slightly more than 50 percent of the PHAs reported that youth who do successfully lease up are

likely to receive the full 18 months of rental assistance. However, 12 percent reported that youth

receive the full subsidy only one-half the time or less, and another 11 percent said youth almost

never receive the full subsidy. Another 24 percent did not know.

Finding: Most communities offer assistance to help youth find and maintain

stable housing.

Most agency partners offer FUP youth several types of housing search assistance, premove

and/or postmove assistance, and help transitioning out of FUP. Nearly all PHAs (96 percent)

and PCWAs (87 percent) report offering youth who are issued a FUP voucher at least some help

finding housing, such as information and referrals to help them with their search. In addition,

most PHA–PCWA partners (72 to 81 percent) offer premove or postmove information about

budgeting, credit, and landlord mediation to youth who lease up (figure III.4), and most PCWAs

report that they will work with landlords or property managers to respond to problems. Most

partners also help youth transition out of FUP as they approach the end of their 18-month time

limit. In nearly 75 percent of the communities, one or both partners help youth find housing for

after the FUP voucher expires, such as by informing youth about other housing programs in the

community. PHAs can also give preference to youth on their HCV waiting list, enabling them to

receive vouchers before a general HCV applicant. About one-fourth of the 76 PHAs that give

20

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

preference to some groups on their general HCV waiting list have a preference category for

youth whose FUP voucher expired, and one-fifth have a preference category for youth who

aged out of foster care.

Figure III.4. One or Both Partner Agencies Offer Several Supports To Help Youth Find and Maintain Housing Percentage of PHA-PCWA Partners (n=58)

Info on subsidized housing

98%

Info on tenant rights and responsibilities

97%

Info on vacant rental units

93%

Info on public transportation services

91%

Work with landlords/property managers

91%

Refer youth to property managers/landlords

91%

Help youth locate housing near school or work

88%

Housing Search Assistance

Info on different neighborhoods

88%

Transport youth to visit housing units

85%

Take youth on neighborhood tours

53%

Info about credit

81%

Info about budgeting

79%

Info about landlord mediation

72%

Premove/ Postmove

Info about low-poverty neighborhoods

60%

Counseling

Transitional Counseling

74%

PHA = public housing agency. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Types of Services Offered to Youth Through FUP

Finding: Most PCWAs or their contractors offer the requisite supportive services to

promote youth self-sufficiency.

More than 90 percent of the PCWAs report teaching youth basic life skills, most commonly in

the form of money management and help accessing physical and mental health care (figure III.5).

Fewer, but still a majority, report teaching youth about proper nutrition and meal preparation.

About 85 percent of the PCWAs reported providing some form of career development. Overall,

most PCWAs communicate with youth in person (74 percent) or by telephone, email, or text

message (81 percent) once a month or more while they are leased up.

21

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Figure III.5. Most PCWAs Offer Several Types of Supportive Services While Youth Are Leased Up

Percentage of PCWAs (n=70)

Money management

90%

Housekeeping

77%

Proper nutrition

61%

Meal preparation

69%

Access health care

90%

Basic Life Skills

Other basic life skills

93%

Job readiness training

84%

Help finding a job

83%

Educational services

86%

Career

Development

Career counseling

87%

Case planning

81%

Assess needs

91%

Case

Tenant rights/responsibilities

76%

Planning and

Assessment

Assistance with deposits

84%

Help with rent arrearages

59%

Rental

Help with utility arrearages

59%

Compliance

Other assistance

89%

PCWA = public child welfare agency.

Finding: Although the receipt of supportive services and their quality and intensity is

unknown, the site visits revealed some promising practices for encouraging youth

participation.

Although the survey findings indicate most agencies are offering the required services, the

findings do not answer many important questions about service receipt. For one, the data do not

specify whether PCWAs offer a particular supportive service to all youth or to only some youth

(and which ones). The intensity of service offerings (their frequency and duration) and service

quality are also unknown. If the sites visited are any indication, agencies do not have reliable

mechanisms for tracking this information.

Strategies for Enhancing Service Provision

Partnering with community-based organizations or other public agencies to provide services may increase youth participation.

Agencies can set policies to encourage youth participation.

Having a dedicated life coach or mentor is an important support for youth.

22

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

The site visits revealed a few strategies for enhancing participation and service delivery. First,

partnering with service providers may help engage youth, many of whom are eager to cut ties

with the foster care system on exiting. These same youth, however, welcome or even seek

support from CBOs or other providers. In addition, PCWA staff often have large caseloads

that allow only infrequent meetings; thus, partnering with external organizations was helpful

for some communities. One PCWA was a notable exception: they used Chafee funds to hire

outreach workers whose caseloads are light enough to meet with youth weekly for

individualized support.

Second, participation appears to be greater when engagement in services is strongly encouraged.

FUP requires that PCWAs offer youth supportive services, although retaining the voucher must

not be contingent on their actual participation in services. That said, the communities visited believed that youth who participate in services are more likely to be successful in FUP, and these

communities take a variety of steps to encourage participation. In one community, for example,

youth must meet weekly with an outreach worker; another community requires youth to sign a

statement agreeing to work with their life coach.

Third, pairing youth with a life coach or mentor may provide much-needed support. Three of the

four communities visited match youth with a life coach or mentor, and in the one that does not,

staff thought a mentor would be helpful. Having someone to call for help with basic life skills

(such as raising issues with landlords or writing a check) or more serious issues (such as an

unexpected pregnancy) is extremely helpful for some youth, particularly those with little or no

other support network.

Challenges in Administering FUP for Youth and Strategies To Address Them

Finding: Setting aside vouchers and targeting certain types of youth can alleviate the

challenge of carving out space for youth. Partners ideally decide such policies together.

A common theme from the survey and the site visits is that communities are challenged to carve

out space for youth in a small program with great demand that was originally intended to

preserve families. Based on observations from a few sites, set-asides can help communities

maintain availability for youth. Two of the communities visited took this approach so that when

a voucher expired after the 18-month time limit, it was reallocated to another youth rather than a

family, effectively maintaining the balance of youth and families agreed on by the PHA and

PCWA. The third community allowed the balance to establish itself by referring all eligible

youth and families and serving them on a first-come-first-served basis. In the fourth community,

PCWA staff decided whether to refer a FUP-eligible youth or family on a case-by-case basis. As

vouchers awarded to youth expired, eligible youth competed against families for referrals.

Decisionmakers at the PCWA tended to favor families (who may retain a voucher for as long as

they remain eligible), thereby diminishing the supply of vouchers available to new FUP-eligible

families or youth. This tendency left very few youth holding FUP vouchers by the time of the

site visit. As this community’s experience illustrates, set-asides can ensure that vouchers remain

available for youth.

23

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Promising Practices for Housing Youth Through FUP

Setting aside a proportion of vouchers for youth ensures their availability for other youth on turnover.

Decisions on how to balance the needs of youth and families and which youth to target must reflect the goals of all agency partners and be included in the memorandum of understanding. Doing so can minimize tension

associated with these difficult decisions.

With the need for supportive housing for youth outstripping the supply of FUP vouchers,

communities may also consider targeting vouchers to a subset of eligible youth. Perspectives on

which youth are better suited to FUP, especially given its 18-month limitation, differed across

and within sites. Their preferences generally reflected four rationales:

• In three site visit communities, at least some PCWA staff target youth who seem

focused on education and employment; one of the communities does so

exclusively. Some staff believed that youth who are motivated and “on track” are

most likely to attain self-sufficiency in 18 months. Although they may be at a lower

immediate risk of homelessness, lack of supportive housing can jeopardize their

long-term outcomes.

• Some staff from one of the PCWAs preferred to target pregnant youth and those

with children. These youth may have the greatest need for supportive housing.

• Staff at several programs preferred youth who seemed likely to engage in

supportive services, believing that youth who participate in services benefit most

from FUP.

• One of the communities believed that all eligible youth must have equal access to

FUP because no research indicates which type of youth is likely to benefit most from

the assistance. Staff did not feel comfortable prioritizing some over others.

Interagency relationships and FUP implementation may be facilitated through collaborative

PHA–PCWA decisionmaking on how to distribute vouchers between youth and families and

whether to target certain types of youth for vouchers.

Finding: Collaboration between PHAs and PCWAs requires time and effort to establish

and maintain relationships and to facilitate ongoing communication.

Interagency collaboration between PHAs, PCWAs, and their partners is essential for providing

FUP vouchers to youth, but it can be a challenge. Among PHAs surveyed that are not serving

youth, nearly one-third (31 percent) said they would be more likely to do so if they had

assistance establishing or strengthening collaboration with their PCWA partner. Among

communities that are serving youth, many PHA and PCWA partners do not appear to be taking

full advantage of cross-agency meetings and trainings that could facilitate communication and

collaboration. The survey findings show that more communication occurs informally than

through regularly scheduled cross-agency meetings, which may not be a good substitute when

it comes to coordination. In addition, cross-agency trainings are generally infrequent, provided

less often than once a year by one-half or more of the agencies. The strategies the site-visit

communities used to facilitate collaboration can offer guidance to other FUP communities:

24

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Promising Practices for Collaboration

Establish a foundation of trust, openness, and flexibility.

Create clear communication channels to facilitate information sharing, which is especially vital when many partners are involved.

• Breaking down silos and establishing relationships. PHAs and PCWAs typically

do not have a history of collaborating. As one caseworker noted, the seemingly

simple task of submitting a referral to another agency—especially one that is a new

partner—can feel like putting the welfare of their client in someone else’s hands.

Creating and maintaining a trusting relationship is necessary for developing faith that

others are as committed to the youth being served and for ensuring workers feel

comfortable voicing concerns to staff in other agencies. Occasional or even regularly

scheduled meetings may not be enough to generate an open and trusting dialogue. By

establishing relationships, agencies can focus on finding common ground and

determining what each can gain through the collaboration, rather than on what they

each stand to lose; in other words, turning the “zero-sum game” into a “win–win

situation.”

• Maintaining communication throughout each stage of the FUP process. To

highlight two examples, PHAs can inform referring agencies of a youth’s eligibility

determination and let their partners know when the voucher briefing will be held.

After a youth is leased up, agencies can inform one another of any circumstances that

could put the youth at risk of eviction or FUP termination.

• Filtering communication through a single point of contact and encouraging

broader staff engagement. When multiple partners are involved in the

implementation of a program, the need for clear communication and regular and

open exchange of information becomes imperative. All four communities appointed

single points-of-contacts at the PHA and PCWA. This structure may be especially

beneficial in communities where multiple agencies are involved or staff turnover is

high. Having a single contact must not hinder collaboration, however. Ensuring that

all staff working on FUP have an opportunity to voice concerns, learn about another

agency’s processes, and directly ask questions likely improves operations.

Finding: Strategic partnerships can augment resources when funds for supportive

services are inadequate.

A lack of funding for FUP’s supportive services may be a reason why some communities are not

serving youth. About one-half of the PHAs that do not serve youth said they would be more

likely to allocate vouchers to youth in the future if they had additional resources for the

supportive services. Some PCWAs visited also voiced the concern that they are required to offer

youth services but do not receive funding to provide them. Although PCWAs can pay for these

services with their Chafee funds, that funding is typically stretched thin, and in some states youth

can be eligible for FUP but not for Chafee-funded services.

25

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Promising Practices for Service Provision

Coordinating—and in some cases, formally partnering with—other organizations can enhance available resources.

Leveraging community resources through partnerships is a key strategy employed by the

communities visited to help augment their resources for service provision. In three communities,

a mix of CBOs, foundations, and other public agencies provide youth with supportive services

or provide funding for those services. Organizational partners in two communities use their own

resources to provide case management to the youth they refer to FUP. Foundations (one private,

one public-private) in two communities sponsor life coaches to fill gaps in services provided

by case managers. In one community, the state agency that oversees workforce services

coordinates education and training supports through its youth-focused workforce program,

which is available to FUP-eligible and non-FUP youth. Rallying local and state advocates and

policymakers in support of youth aging out of foster care helped create these relationships in

some of the communities.

26

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH

This chapter addresses some of the implications of the study’s findings for policy and research.

First, the discussion highlights two FUP policies that could be reviewed for their effect on the

utility of using FUP to serve youth aging out of foster care. Next comes an explanation of why

additional research on addressing the housing needs of transitioning foster youth is so important.

The chapter concludes with a brief description of several ongoing opportunities for enhancing

knowledge at the federal level that can add to what has been learned from this study.

Implications of the Findings on FUP

Based on the survey and site-visit findings, two policy changes in particular can enhance the

potential of FUP to meet the needs of former foster youth:

• Review policies regarding set-asides. The survey data indicate that two-thirds of

PHAs do not have a set-aside for youth. When FUP vouchers awarded to youth in

these communities reach the end of their 18 months, they may be reallocated to

families whose assistance is not time limited. This practice became a problem in one

of the sites visited that did not have a set-aside and will likely become a problem in

other communities as time goes on. Because set-asides are one way to ensure that the

number of FUP vouchers available for youth does not diminish over time, HUD

could review its policy regarding set-asides to determine what, if any, changes are

needed to ensure that FUP vouchers will continue to be available for youth.

• Review the time limit for youth. Although limiting the duration of housing

assistance for youth may prevent dependency, the current 18-month time limit may

be having unintended consequences. On a practical level, youth may have fewer

housing options available to them during the last six months because rental leases are

typically for a 12-month term. Supporting youth through school may prevent some

youth from dropping out before they have completed even an associate’s degree. In

addition, 41 percent of youth-serving PHAs, and 46 percent of their PCWA partners,

viewed the 18-month time limit as a major challenge to administering FUP. HUD

could examine whether an extension of the time limit to at least 24 months would

be beneficial.

Implications of the Broader Study of Housing Supports for Youth Aging

Out of Care

This study’s comprehensive literature review and inventory of nearly five dozen state and local

youth-serving housing programs revealed no rigorous evaluations of these programs’

effectiveness of on youths’ housing stability or other outcomes. None of the housing programs

identified in the inventory have been evaluated using an experimental or quasi-experimental

design. Similarly, although more than a decade has passed since former foster youth became

eligible for FUP, its effects on youth outcomes have not been measured.

Housing programs for youth who age out of foster care, including FUP, should be evaluated for

several reasons. First, the population of youth aging out is not homogeneous, and different youth

have different needs. At present, little evidence exists for determining which youth most need

referral to programs. Second, funding for programs that provide housing to youth who have aged

out of foster care is limited. These limited resources should be invested in programs that have

proven to produce better youth outcomes. And third, despite the growing emphasis on

27

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

implementing social programs that are evidence based, no evidence base exists for programs

that assist youth who age out of foster care with their housing. This lack of data means little

information exists to guide the decisions of policymakers, program developers, or service

providers who want to develop new programs that address this population’s housing needs.

Several approaches could be used to begin enhancing knowledge about the effectiveness of

housing programs for youth who age out of foster care and to learn if certain types of programs

work best for youth with particular circumstances. One approach is for funders to require youth-

serving housing providers to engage in evaluation activities, such as collecting information about

services offered or surveying youth when they enter and exit the program. To understand

program effectiveness, experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of ongoing or

demonstration programs could be funded. Although randomly assigning youth to participate in

the housing program (treatment condition) or not to participate in the housing program (control

condition) is generally recognized as the “gold standard” for program evaluation, most housing

programs for youth who age out of foster care serve too few youth to allow for random

assignment.17 Hence, creative, quasi-experimental approaches that include carefully chosen

comparison groups and multiple sites are a sound option.

Ideally, evaluations of housing programs for youth who aged out of foster care must be

longitudinal so that effects are measured not only at the point of program exit, but over the

longer term. They must focus not only on whether participating in these programs is helping

young people avoid homelessness and remain stably housed but also other aspects of well-

being.18 Moreover, to provide some context for understanding why the intended outcomes

were or were not achieved, they must also include process studies that examine whether

programs are implemented as planned.

Current Opportunities To Enhance Knowledge

The federal government is currently involved in several efforts that could add to what has

already been learned from this study about how best to address the housing needs of youth

who age out of foster care.

National Youth in Transition Database. In addition to establishing Chafee, FCIA required

HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to create NYTD. Through NYTD, states

track the Chafee-funded services they provide to youth in foster care, the characteristics of the

youth who receive those services, and the outcomes of those youth in six domains: financial self-

sufficiency, educational attainment, positive connections with adults, high-risk behaviors, access

to health insurance, and homelessness.

To measure these outcomes, states must survey all youth who reach their 17th birthday while in

foster care and administer a followup survey to those same youth at ages 19 and 21, regardless

of whether they are still in foster care or receiving Chafee-funded services.19 Beginning in fiscal

17 See (Dworsky, forthcoming) for a more thorough discussion of the issues related to evaluating housing programs for youth aging out of foster care.

18 Studying other aspects of well-being is consistent with the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Framework to End Youth Homelessness, which is described herein.

19 For the followup surveys at ages 19 and 21, states may select a sample from the baseline population who participated in the data collection at age 17.

28

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

year 2011, states were required to survey a new cohort of 17-year-olds every third year. States

must use, at a minimum, 22 specified survey questions but may choose the manner in which the

survey is administered (GPO, 2008).

Results from the first baseline NYTD outcomes survey came out in September 2012. Data were

collected from 60 percent, or 17,021 of the 28,318 17-year-olds who were eligible for the survey

in FY 2011 (HHS, Children’s Bureau, 2012). Of those youth, 16 percent reported that they had

experienced homelessness. Followup data were collected from that same cohort of youth in

FY 2013, when they were 19 years old. Results from that survey have not yet been released.

Although the NYTD outcomes measures will provide much needed information about young

people aging out of foster care, their contribution to the knowledge base about housing outcomes

of youth aging out of foster care will be limited for two reasons. First, the baseline and followup

outcome surveys each include only one question about homelessness and do not include other

questions about housing.20 Second, when the NYTD requirements were developed, the age of

emancipation in all but a few states was 18 years old. Nearly 20 states now extend foster care

up to age 21; consequently, the NYTD survey data will be less useful than expected for

estimating the rate of homelessness among its population. Because the second followup survey

cannot be completed more than 45 days after youth turn 21 years old, many young people will

have recently exited foster care when the survey data are collected. For these young people, the

survey data will not provide a good measure of homelessness after aging out.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Framework To End Youth

Homelessness. In June 2010, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)

released Opening Doors, the nation’s first comprehensive federal strategic plan to prevent and

end homelessness. One of the plan’s four key goals is to end homelessness for families, children,

and youth by 2020. An amendment to Opening Doors, issued in September 2012, outlined more

specific steps to address the unique needs of unaccompanied homeless youth and presented a

preliminary intervention model based on empirical research involving homeless youth. The

intervention model incorporates a risk-and-protective-factors perspective. In February 2013,

after the amendment was issued, USICH published the Framework to End Youth Homelessness,

which expanded on the amendment and provided a clearer understanding of the actions required

to prevent and end youth homelessness. A major focus of the framework is on improving the

outcomes of homeless youth in four core domains: stable housing, permanent connections,

education or employment, and social-emotional well-being. 21

The framework features two complementary strategies. The first is a data strategy aimed at

providing better information about the number and characteristics of youth experiencing

homelessness. It includes (1) developing better strategies for point-in-time counts of homeless

youth; (2) coordinating federal data systems that collect information on homeless youth and their

receipt of services; (3) launching a national study on the prevalence of youth homelessness and

20 NYTD Plus, an enhanced version of the outcome survey that a number of states are using, includes additional questions about housing and homelessness. The brief version of NYTD Plus includes 6 housing and homelessness questions, whereas the full version includes 12 (Dworsky and Crayton, 2009). (See

http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/NYTD_Guidebook_032010.pdf.)

21 Homeless youth was defined as youth experiencing homelessness up to age 24 who are unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, or spouse, including youth with their own children.

29

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

the characteristics and needs of homeless youth; and (4) using the national study methodology

to provide periodic estimates of youth homelessness and to monitor changes in the needs and

characteristics of the population over time.

The second is a capacity strategy aimed at enabling federal, state, and local systems to end youth

homelessness. It includes (1) disseminating a preliminary, research-informed intervention model

for service delivery; (2) identifying and developing screening and assessment tools and effective

interventions to improve youth outcomes; (3) improving service capacity for homeless youth and

subpopulations; and (4) implementing service strategies and evaluating those strategies.

The framework also recognizes the importance of evaluation. It calls for establishing an evidence

base of best practices for serving homeless youth through a combination of rigorous impact and

mixed-methods process studies.

Administration for Children and Families Planning Grants. In June 2013, ACF issued a

funding opportunity announcement to fund Phase I planning grants to develop intervention

models for youth who are or were in foster care and are most at risk of homelessness or unstable

housing during the transition to adulthood. The two-year planning grants were awarded to 18

grantees, representing a mix of state, local, and private agencies. Grantees must focus their

intervention plans on three target populations: (1) 14- to 17-year-olds in foster care who were at

least age 14 when they entered care; (2) youth aging out of foster care; and (3) currently

homeless youth up to age 21 who had been in foster care. Grantees also must use the USICH

Framework to End Youth Homelessness in developing their intervention models. In addition to

complying with other requirements of the framework, grantees must focus on improving

outcomes in the areas of stable housing, permanent connections, education or employment, and

social-emotional well-being. In addition to funding the development of an intervention model,

the planning grants present an opportunity to review the array of state and federally funded

services that are currently provided to youth in foster care and to consider how those services

might be modified or realigned to better support those at greatest risk of homelessness. Future

appropriations permitting, grantees will have an opportunity to apply for separate, Phase II

implementation grants to implement and evaluate the intervention model. Phase II grants will

likely be rigorously evaluated.

Chafee Evaluation 2.0. FCIA, which amended Title IV-E to create Chafee, requires that some

of the Chafee funding be set aside for the rigorous evaluation of independent living programs

that are “innovative or of potential national significance.” In 2003, ACF contracted with The

Urban Institute and its partners, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and the National

Opinion Research Center, to conduct the Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs, as

mandated by the legislation. The evaluation team identified four programs that could be

evaluated using a randomized control design: (1) an employment services program in Kern

County, California; (2) a one-on-one individualized life-skills program in Massachusetts; (3) a

tutoring/mentoring program in Los Angeles County, California; and (4) a classroom-based life-

skills training program in Los Angeles County, California. No housing programs were ultimately

selected because they served too few youth to permit random assignment (that is, sample sizes

would have been too small to detect differences between groups).

The Multi-Site Evaluation was completed in 2011. Nearly a decade and a half after Chafee was

created, it is still the only rigorous evaluation of independent living programs for youth

transitioning out of foster care. ACF has contracted with The Urban Institute and its partner,

30

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago to help plan for “next generation” evaluation activities,

referred to as “Chafee 2.0.” Planning activities are still ongoing and programs have not yet been

selected for evaluation.

31

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

V. CONCLUSION

For many young people who age out of foster care, the transition to adulthood can be abrupt.

At age 18 or 21, these young adults must secure suitable housing—in most cases, with little or no

support from either their family or the state. As a result, many youth who age out of foster care

find themselves homeless or precariously housed. Across a handful of small, regional studies,

researchers estimated that between 11 and 37 percent of youth who age out have experienced

homelessness. Youth are even more likely to experience precarious housing arrangements.

Without stable housing, youth are at greater risk of poor educational, employment, physical

health, and mental health outcomes. Importantly, the NYTD outcomes survey, which is

following former foster youth as they age from 17 to 19 and to 21, is expected to enhance

understanding of the achievements and housing instability among this population on a large,

national scale.

Current research on the outcomes of youth aging out of foster care points to a real need for

policy and programs to assist them in maintaining housing and preparing for self-sufficiency.

FUP is one resource, but it is a small program, and less than one-half of FUP providers serve

youth. Other local programs exist—this survey identified 58 around the nation—which are often

supported by a few federal funding streams in combination with state, local, and private funds.

Research on the effectiveness of these homelessness-prevention programs for former foster

youth is very limited, however. An important next step for policymakers and program staff is

to support and conduct rigorous evaluations that will provide an evidence base from which to

identify effective programs and program elements.

32

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

REFERENCES

Arnett, Jeffrey J. “Emerging Adulthood. 2000. A Theory of Development from the Late Teens

through the Twenties,” American Psychology 55 (May) (5): 469–480.

Batsche, Catherine J., and Steven Reader. 2012. “Using GIS to Enhance Programs Serving

Emancipated Youth Leaving Foster Care,” Evaluation and Program Planning 35 (1): 25–33.

Berlin, Gordon L., Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., and Mary C. Waters. 2010. “Introducing the Issue.”

The Future of Children 20 (1) (Spring): 3–18.

Brandford, C., and D. English. 2004. Foster Youth Transition to Independence Study. Seattle,

WA: Office of Children’s Administration Research, Washington State Department of Social

and Health Services.

Brown, S., and D. Wilderson. 2010. “Homelessness Prevention for Former Foster Youth:

Utilization of Transitional Housing Programs,” Children and Youth Services Review 32

(October) (10): 1464–1472.

Burgard, Sarah, Kristin Seefeldt, and Sarah W. Zelner. 2012. Housing Instability and Health:

Findings from the Michigan Recession and Recovery Study. PSC Research Report No. 12-

749.

Burley, Mason. 2010. High school graduation and dropout trends for Washington State foster

youth (2005–2009). Document No. 10-10-3901. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute

for Public Policy,

———. 2009. Graduation and Dropout Outcomes for Children in State Care (2005–2008).

Document No. 09-11-3901. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Burley, Mason, and Mina Halpern. 2001. Educational Attainment of Foster Youth: Achievement

and Graduation Outcomes for Children in State Care. Document No. 01-11-3901. Olympia,

WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Casey Family Programs. 2011. Employment Programs and Life Opportunities for Youth

(EmPLOY): Findings from a Two-Year National Project. Seattle, WA: Casey Family

Programs.

Center for Public Policy Priorities. 2001. Texas Foster Care Transitions Project.

http://library.cppp.org/files/4/all%20grown%20up.pdf.

Collins, Mary Elizabeth, and Marah Curtis. 2011. “Conceptualizing Housing Careers for

Vulnerable Youth: Implications for Research and Policy,” American Journal of

Orthopsychology 81 (3): 390–400.

Collins, M.E., R. Paris, and R. Ward. 2008. “The Permanence of Family Ties: Implications for

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 78 (1): 54–62.

33

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Collins, Mary Elizabeth, Renee Spencer, and Rolanda Ward. 2010. “Supporting Youth in the

Transition from Foster Care: Formal and Informal Connections.” Child Welfare 89 (1): 125–

143.

Cook, R., E. Fleishman, and V. Grimes. 1991. A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care

Independent Living Programs for Youth, Phase 2. (Final Report for Contract No. 105-87-

1608). Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Corcoran, Mary E., and Ajay Chaudry. 1997. “The Dynamics of Childhood Poverty.” The Future

of Children 7 (2): 40–54.

Courtney, M.E., J.A. Lee, and A. Perez. 2011. “Receipt of Help Acquiring Life Skills and

Predictors of Help Receipt Among Current and Former Foster Youth,” Children and Youth

Services Review 33 (12): 2442–2451.

Courtney, Mark E., and Richard P. Barth. 1996. “Pathways of Older Adolescents Out of Foster

Care: Implications for Independent Living Services,” Social Work 41 (1): 75–83.

Courtney, Mark E., and Amy Dworsky. 2006. “Early Outcomes for Young Adults Transitioning

from Out-of-Home Care in the U.S.A.” Child and Family Social Work (11): 209–219.

Courtney, Mark E., Amy Dworsky, Adam Brown, Colleen Cary, Kara Love, and Vanessa

Vorhies. 2011a. Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth:

Outcomes at Age 26. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago.

Courtney, Mark E., Amy Dworsky, Gretchen R. Cusick, Judy Havlicek, Alfred Perez, and

Thomas Keller. 2007. Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth:

Outcomes at Age 21. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago.

Courtney, Mark, Amy Dworsky, JoAnn S. Lee, and Melissa Rapp. 2010. Midwest Evaluation of

the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 23 and 24. Chicago, IL:

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Courtney, Mark E., Amy Dworsky, Gretchen R. Ruth, Thomas Keller, Judy Havlicek, and Noel

Bost. 2005. Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth:

Outcomes at Age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago.

Courtney, Mark E., and Darcy Hughes Heuring. 2005. “The transition to adulthood for youth

“aging out” of the foster care system.” In On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to

Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations, edited by D. Wayne Osgood, E. Michael Foster,

Constance Flanagan, and Gretchen R. Ruth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 27–68.

Courtney, Mark E., Irving Piliavin, Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, and Ande Nesmith. 2001. Foster

Youth Transitions to Adulthood: A Longitudinal View of Youth Leaving Care,” Child

Welfare 80 (6): 685–717.

34

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Courtney, Mark E., Melissa Roderick, Cheryl Smithgall, Robert Matthew Gladden, and Jenny

Nagaoka. 2004. Issue Brief: The Educational Status of Foster Children. Chicago: Chapin

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Courtney, Mark, Andrew Zinn, Robin Koralek, Roseana Bess, Matthew Stagner, Michael

Pergamit, and Heidi Johnson. 2011b. “Evaluation of the Independent Living—Employment

Services Program, Kern County, California: Final Report. OPRE Report # 201113.”

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.

Cusick, G.R., and Mark E. Courtney. 2007. How Do Youth Aging Out of Care Compare with

Their Peers? Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

D’Andrade, Amy C. 2005. “Placement Stability in Foster Care.” In Child Welfare for the

Twenty-first Century: A Handbook of Practices, Policies, and Programs, edited by Gerald P.

Mallon and Peg McCartt Hess. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Davis, R.J. 2006. College Access, Financial Aid and College Success for Undergraduates from

Foster Care. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Financial Aid

Administrators.

Day, Angelique, Amy Dworsky, Kieran Fogarty and Amy Damashek. 2011. “An Examination of

Post-Secondary Retention and Graduation Among Foster Care Youth Enrolled in a Four-

Year University,” Children and Youth Services Review 33 (11): 2335.

DeWoody M., K. Ceja, and M. Sylvester. 1993. Independent Living Services for Youths in Out-

of-home Care. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Dion, M. Robin, Rebecca Kleinman, Jackie Kauff, and Amy Dworsky. Forthcoming. The Family

Unification Program (FUP): A Housing Resource for Youth Aging out of Foster Care.

Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Donkoh, Charles, Kristen Underhill, Paul Montgomery. 2006. “Independent Living Programmes

for Improving Outcomes for Young People Leaving the Care System,” Campbell Systematic

Reviews 2 (8).

Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn.1997. Consequences of Growing up Poor. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Dworsky, A., and M.E. Courtney. 2010. “The Risk of Teenage Pregnancy among Transitioning

Foster Youth: Implications for Extending State Care beyond Age 18,” Children and Youth

Services Review 32 (10): 1351–1356.

Dworsky, Amy. Forthcoming. Evaluating Housing Programs for Youth Who Age Out of Foster

Care. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

———. 2005. “The Economic Self Sufficiency of Wisconsin’s Former Foster Youth,” Children

and Youth Services Review 27: 1085–1118.

35

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Dworsky, Amy, and Mark Courtney. 2009. “Homelessness and the Transition from Foster Care

to Adulthood among 19 year old Former Foster Youth.” Child Welfare 88 (4): 23–56.

Dworsky, Amy, and Christina Crayton. 2009. National Youth in Transition Database:

Instructional Guidebook and Architectural Blueprint. Washington, DC: American Public

Human Services Administration.

Dworsky, Amy, Keri-Nicole Dillman, M. Robin Dion, Brandon Coffee-Borden, and Miriam

Rosenau. 2012. Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care: A Review of the Literature

and Program Typology. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Dworsky, Amy, and Judy Havlicek. 2010. Experiences of Foster Youth in an Employment

Training and Job Placement Program. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of

Chicago.

Dworsky, Amy, and Alfred Perez. 2010. “Helping Former Foster Youth Graduate from College

through Campus Support Programs,” Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2): 255–263.

Dworsky, Amy, Catherine Roller White, Kirk O’Brien, Peter Pecora, Mark Courtney, Ronald

Kessler, Nancy Sampson, and Irving Hwang. 2010. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the

Outcomes of Former Foster Youth,” Children and Youth Services Review 32 (6): 902–912.

Fanshel, David. 1992. “Foster Care as a Two-tier System,” Children and Youth Services Review

14: 49–60.

Fowler, P.J., P.A. Toro, C.J. Tompsett, and K. Hobden. 2006. “Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

in Southeast Michigan: A Follow-up Study. ” Paper presented to the Michigan Department of

Human Services, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Fowler, Patrick. J., Paul A. Toro, and Bart W. Miles. 2009. “Pathways to and From

Homelessness and Associated Psychosocial Outcomes Among Adolescents Leaving the

Foster Care System,” American Journal of Public Health 99 (8): 1453–1458.

Goerge, Robert M., Lucy Bilaver, Bong Joo Lee, Barbara Needell, Alan Brookhard, and William

Jackman. 2002. Employment Outcomes for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care Final Report,

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Chaplin Center for Children.

Gotbaum, B. 2005. Children Raising Children: City Fails to Adequately Assist Pregnant and

Parenting Youth in Foster Care. New York: Public Advocate for the City of New York.

Granovetter, M.S. 1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts & Careers, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Halley, M., and A. English. 2008. Health Care for Homeless Youth: Policy Options for

Improving Access. San Francisco, CA: Center for Adolescent Health & the Law and the

Public Policy Analysis and Education Center for Middle Childhood, Adolescent and Young

Adult Health at the University of California San Francisco.

36

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Heath, Catherine. 2013. “Federal Services and Support to Youth/Young Adults in Transition

from Foster Care.” Children’s Bureau. Presentation at the Housing Supports for Youth Aging

out of Foster Care forum, Washington, DC, November 12.

Hines, A.M., J. Merdinger, and P. Wyatt. 2005, “Former Foster Youth Attending College:

Resilience and the Transition to Young Adulthood,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

75 (3): 381–394.

Hyde, J., and N. Kammerer. 2009. “Adolescents’ Perspective on Placement Moves and

Congregate Settings: Complex and Cumulative Instabilities in Out-of-home Care,” Children

and Youth Services Review 31: 265–273.

Johnson, G., K. Natalier, P. Mendes, M. Liddiard, S. Thoresen, A. Hollows, and N. Bailey. 2010.

Pathways from Out-of-home Care. AHURI Final Report No.147 . Melbourne, Australia:

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Keller, T.E., A. Salazar, and M.E. Courtney. 2010. “Prevalence and Timing of Diagnosable

Mental Health, Alcohol, and Substance Use Problems among Older Adolescents in Child

Welfare Systems,” Children and Youth Services Review 32: 626–634.

Kushel, M.B., I.H. Yen, L. Gee, M.E. Courtney. 2007. “Homelessness and Health Care Access

after Emancipation: Results for the Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of Former

Foster Youth,” Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 161 (October) (10): 986–993.

Lin, Nan. 1999. “Social Networks And Status Attainment,” Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1):

467–487.

Macomber, J., S. Cuccaro Alamin, D. Duncan, M. McDaniel, T. Vericker, M. Pergamit, B.

Needell, H. Kum, J. Stewart, C. Lee, and R. Barth. 2008. Coming of Age: Empirical

Outcomes for Youth who Age Out of Foster Care in their Middle Twenties. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Mech, E. 2003. Uncertain Futures: Foster Youth in Transition to Adulthood. Washington, DC:

Child Welfare League of America.

Needell, B., S. Cuccaro-Alamin, A. Brookhart, W. Jackman, and A. Shlonsky. 2002. Youth

Emancipating from Foster Care in California: Findings using Linked Administrative Data.

Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California, Berkeley.

Osgood, D.W., E.M. Foster, and M.E. Courtney. 2010, “Vulnerable Populations and the

Transition to Adulthood,” The Future of Children 20 (1): 209–229.

Pecora, P., R. Kessler, J. Williams, K. O’Brien, A.C. Downs, D. English, J. White, E. Hiripi, C.

White, T. Wiggins, and K. Holmes. 2005. Improving Family Foster Care: Findings from the

Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.

Pecora, P., J. Williams, R. Kessler, A.C. Downs, K. O’Brien, E. Hiripi, and S. Morello. 2003.

Assessing the Effects of Foster Care: Early Results from the Casey National Alumni Study.

Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.

37

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Reilly, Thom. 2003. “Transition from Care: Status and Outcomes of Youth Who Age Out of

Foster Care,” Child Welfare 82 (6): 727–746.

Samuels, Paul N., and Debbie A. Mukamal. 2004. After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry: A Report

on State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records. New York: Legal Action

Center.

Settersten, Richard A. Jr., and Barbara Ray. 2010. “What’s Going on with Young People Today?

The Long and Twisting Path to Adulthood,” The Future of Children 20 (1): 19–41.

Shinn, M., and B.C. Weitzman. 1996. “Homeless Families are Different.” In Homelessness in

America, edited by J. Baumohl. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Singer, A. 2006. Assessing Outcomes of Youth Transitioning from Foster Care. Salt Lake City,

UT: Department of Human Services.

Smith, Carrie, and Wynette Devore. 2004. “African American Children in the Child Welfare and

Kinship System: From Exclusion to Over Inclusion,” Children and Youth Services Review

26 (5): 427–446.

Smithgall, Cheryl, Robert Matthew Gladden, Eboni Howard, Robert Goerge, and Mark

Courtney. 2004. Educational Experiences of Children in Out-of-Home Care. Chicago:

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Sommer, Heidi, Lynn Wu, and Jane Mauldon. 2009. California Connected by 25: Efforts to

Address the Housing Needs of Transitioning Foster Youth. Berkeley, CA: CC251 Systems

Change Assessment Team.

Turner, Margery A., Stephen Ross, George C. Galster, and John Yinger. 2002. Discrimination in

Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1 of the Housing

Discrimination Study (HDS). Working papers 2002-16. Storrs, CT: University of

Connecticut, Department of Economics.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS

ACF). 2010. AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2009 Estimates as of November 2010.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families.

———. 2011. AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2010 Estimates as of November 2011.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families.

———. 2013. AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2012 Estimates as of November 2013.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families.

———. 2010. Guidance on Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of

2008. Log No. ACYF-CB-PI-10-11.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

38

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Children’s Bureau. 2012. Highlights

from State Reports to the National Youth in Transition Database, Federal Fiscal Year 2011.

National Youth in Transition Database, Data Brief #1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration

(HHS HRSA). 2001. Program Assistance Letter: Understanding the Health Care Needs of

Homeless Youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2014. “Family Unification

Program Baselines.” Available at

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FUPBaselines011314.pdf.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2011. The Employment Situation—

December 2011. News Release Number USDL-12-0012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007a. African American Children in Foster

Care: Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States Reduce the Proportion in Care.

Report Number GAO-07-816. Washington, DC: GAO.

———. 2007b. HHS Actions Would Help States Prepare Youth in the Foster Care for

Independent Living. Report no. GAO-07-1097T. Washington, DC: GAO.

———. 2004. HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States’

Independent Living Programs. Report no. GAO-05-25. Washington, DC: GAO.

———. 1999. Foster care: effectiveness of independent living services unknown. Report no.

HEHS-00-13. Washington, DC: GAO.

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). 2008. “Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration for Children and Families, 45 CFR Part 1356, RIN 0970–AC21, Chafee

National Youth in Transition Database.” Federal Register 73 (38): 10338–10378. Available

at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-02-26/pdf/E8-3050.pdf (accessed January 9,

2014).

Vaughn, Michael G., Marcia T. Ollie, J. Curtis McMillen, Lionel D. Scott, and Michelle R.

Munson. 2007. “Substance Use and Abuse among Older Youth in Foster Care,” Addictive

Behaviors 32: 1929–1935.

Wade, J., and J. Dixon. 2006. “Making a Home, Finding a Job: Investigating Early Housing and

Employment Outcomes for Young People Leaving Care,” Child and Family Social Work 11:

199–208.

Whitbeck, L., D. Hoyt, K. Yoder, A. Cauce, and M. Paradise. 2001. “Deviant Behavior and

Victimization among Homeless and Runaway Adolescents,” Journal of Interpersonal

Violence 16: 1175–1204.

39

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Wight, Vanessa R., Michelle Chau, Yumiko Aratani, Susan Wile Schwarz, and Kalyani Thampi.

2010. A Profile of Disconnected Young Adults in 2010. New York: Columbia University,

Mailman School of Public Health, National Center for Children in Poverty.

Wolanin, T.R. 2005. Higher Education Opportunities for Foster Youth: A Primer for

Policymakers. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Wulczyn, F., K.B. Hislop, and R.M. Goerge. 2001. Foster Care Dynamics 1983–1998. Chicago,

IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Wulczyn Fred H. 2009. “Foster Youth in Context.” In Achieving Permanence for Older Children

and Youth in Foster Care, edited by Kerman Benjamin, Madelyn Freundlich, and Anthony

N.Maluccio. New York: Columbia University Press: 13–31.

40

APPENDIX A

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

This appendix details the methodology employed to conduct the literature review and housing

program inventory, the surveys of Family Unification Program (FUP) providers, and the site

visits to communities serving youth with FUP vouchers. In particular, this chapter focuses on

the method used to identify data sources, survey respondents, and sites to visit; survey response

rates; topics explored through the surveys or site visits; and procedures for analyzing survey and

site-visit data.

Literature Review and Housing Program Inventory

The literature review sought to document the prevalence of homelessness and housing instability

among youth who age out of foster care, barriers to their housing stability, and federal policies

and funding streams that are available to help these youth during their transition to adulthood.

The purpose of compiling a housing program inventory through an environmental scan was to

get a sense of how communities around the nation are using those policies and funding tools, in

conjunction with others, to address the housing needs of youth aging out of foster care.

Data sources. To identify relevant sources for both the literature review and housing program

inventory, researchers reviewed the following.

• Information on the websites of leading housing and child welfare advocacy

organizations, including the Corporation for Supportive Housing, National Alliance

to End Homelessness, National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, and

California’s Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare.

• Articles published in peer-reviewed journals (for example, Child Welfare, Children

and Youth Services Review, The Prevention Researcher).

• Relevant conference proceedings (for example, Common Ground’s conferences on

ending homelessness after foster care).

• Web pages devoted to identified housing programs, when available.

Because the literature review and housing program inventory relied only on readily available

published material, the environmental scan could not obtain complete information about each of

the programs. In some cases, the information was not reported or documented; in others, it

appeared to be outdated, or different sources provided contradictory information. Profiles of the

programs, therefore, focused on the characteristics for which information was the most

consistently available across programs.

Considerations for inclusion and exclusion in the housing program inventory. The

environmental scan began by casting a wide net. It included programs that serve former foster

youth exclusively and ones that also serve other populations (such as homeless youth or youth

exiting from the juvenile justice system). The scan also included programs that aim to prevent

foster youth from becoming homeless during the transition to adulthood.

Several types of housing programs were excluded from the scan: programs that serve youth only

while they are still in foster care; programs that are no longer in operation; and federal education

and job-training programs with a residential component, such as Job Corps or the National Guard

Youth Challenge. Although they provide participants with housing while they complete their

A-2

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

training and education, these programs do not focus on housing stability after program

completion; in addition, they have been the subjects of other studies. Finally, we excluded FUPs

from the scan because FUP was the focus of other research activities.

Survey of FUP Providers

Survey instruments. The survey of FUP providers was conducted to understand the extent to

which and how communities use FUP vouchers to provide housing and supportive services for

youth aging out of foster care. The survey included the universe of public housing agencies

(PHAs) and, for those PHAs that serve youth, their partner public child welfare agencies

(PCWAs).

The PHA survey instrument consisted of screening questions for all respondents to answer

followed by three modules: one for respondents who indicated in the screener that they served

a FUP-eligible youth in the past 18 months; another for respondents who indicated they served

youth in the past; and still another for those who have never served youth. The PCWA

instrument also included a screener but did not direct different types of respondents to different

sets of questions. The PCWA screener asked PCWAs that partner with more than one PHA (for

example, state-level PCWAs) to complete the survey focusing on the PHA to which they have

been referring the most youth.

Across both surveys, questions included, but were not limited to, the following topics.

• FUP voucher allocation—how many PHAs were allocating FUP vouchers to youth;

reasons for serving or not serving youth; the percentage of total FUP vouchers in use

by youth; and, among communities not awarding vouchers to youth, the likelihood of

doing so in the future.

• Program entry—how foster youth are identified as candidates for FUP; how the

referral, application, and voucher briefing processes work; the ways in which PHAs

and PCWAs help youth obtain rental housing; and the frequency with which youth

issued a voucher successfully obtain housing and remain in the program for the full

18 months.

• Program partnerships—the nature of PHA-PCWA partnerships, including any

challenges resulting from partnerships, and the degree to which and how partners

communicate and hold cross-trainings.

• Supportive services—the degree to which PCWAs or their subcontractors provide

supportive services to youth, including services offered before, during, and at the

end of their 18-month housing assistance period; and the extent to which and how

PCWAs or their subcontractors communicate with youth.

• Perspectives on policies and local factors—PHA and PCWA opinions on the

18-month time limit and service requirement for youth; and challenges to

administering FUP.

The surveys were designed to be self-administered via the Internet and take about 30 minutes to

complete. At a respondent’s request, trained interviewers administered the survey by telephone

or mailed respondents a hard copy of the survey. A pretest of the survey was followed by

A-3

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

debriefing interviews with select pretest respondents, to identify areas of potential confusion or

survey error, adjust the length of the survey, improve the flow and sequencing of the questions,

and clarify instructions.

Sampling frame. The sampling frame for the PHA survey consisted of 249 unique PHAs that

HUD indicated actively operate FUP. The executive director of each PHA was designated as the

survey respondent for the initial dissemination.1 The initial recipient could designate an alternate

respondent and was encouraged to seek input from partner organizations, if appropriate.

The PCWA sampling frame was derived from PHA responses. Each PHA respondent who

indicated their agency had awarded an eligible youth a FUP voucher in the past 18 months was

asked to identify their partner PCWA and contact person at the partnering agency. The resultant

list of partner PCWAs and contacts became the sample for the PCWA survey. PHA respondents

identified a total of 92 partner PCWAs, nine of these by more than one PHA. Because each

PCWA was asked to complete the survey only once, the research team coded these cases as

duplicates prior to survey administration. The PCWA sampling frame was therefore totaled

(92 identified – 9 duplicates = 83 unique PCWAs).

Survey administration. The PHA surveys began in September 2012. The PCWA survey was

administered in two waves, the first wave for PCWA contacts of PHAs that responded to the

survey relatively early, and the second for the remainder of PCWA contacts. The field period

for each survey wave was eight weeks long and began with a prenotification e-mail alerting

recipients to the upcoming survey invitation and encouraging their participation. Mathematica—

in conjunction with HUD and HUD’s liaison at the Administration for Children and Families

at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—took several steps to reach out to

nonrespondents, including searching on line for alternate contacts and weekly followup via

e-mail, mail, or telephone.

Survey response rates. Screener questions determined that 14 PHAs included in the initial

sample frame of 249 were ineligible for the survey because they did not operate FUP. Among

the 235 eligible PHAs in the sample frame, 211 yielded usable data for analysis, including

one mostly completed record (table A.1). The overall response rate for the PHA survey was

89.8 percent (211/235 eligible PHAs), based on the American Association of Public Opinion

Research 2 (AAPOR2) method.2

1 Four PHA executive directors oversaw two agencies; these four respondents were asked to complete the survey twice—once on behalf of each PHA for which they served as executive director.

2 AAPOR2 = (Completed Interviews + Usable Partials)/(Total Eligible Sample); for the PHA survey, AAPOR2=

(210+1)/235=89.8 percent.

A-4

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

One of the 83 PCWAs in the sample frame was deemed ineligible for the survey because it

was a homeless shelter and not a PCWA. Among the 82 eligible PCWAs in the sample frame,

73 yielded usable data for analysis, including two mostly completed records (table A.1). The

overall response rate for the PCWA survey was 89.0 percent (73/82 eligible PCWAs).3

Table A.1. Response Outcomes for Survey Sample

Number of PHAs

Number of PCWAs

Total PHA respondents

211

-

Currently serve youth with FUP

91

-

Served youth with FUP in the past

6

-

Never served youth with FUP

98

-

Do not currently serve youth but did not indicate whether

16

-

they served youth in the past

Total PCWA respondents

-

73

PHA partner currently serves youth with FUP

-

70

PHA partner does not currently serve youth

-

3

Total ineligible

14

1

a

Not operating FUP

14

-

Not a PCWA

-

1

Total nonrespondents

24

9

Did not complete majority of survey

6

2

Refused to participate

1

0

Were unable to contact

17

7

Total sample

249

83

a Responses to the screener questions at the beginning of the PHA survey suggested that 14 of the 249 PHAs were ineligible for the survey because they did not operate FUP; however, HUD subsequently determined that at least 7 of these PHAs were, in fact, operating FUP.

Survey data preparation. The research team performed initial data checks while the surveys

were being fielded to ensure that skip patterns were formatted properly and that a reasonable

distribution of responses had been collected. No changes to the survey tool were necessary,

based on the checks. At the conclusion of the survey administration, researchers reviewed

one-way frequencies for inconsistencies and out-of-range responses. Two types of data

inconsistencies were found and corrected. First, the survey data were cleaned to represent

“logical skips” as a missing response (that is, the respondent was not presented with the question

and, therefore, has no response) and to distinguish logical skips from item nonresponse (that is,

responses that are missing because the respondent was presented with the question but did not

answer it). Second, inconsistencies were corrected in items with an open-ended response option.

If respondents wrote in their own answer but did not mark the “Other” option indicating they

would be doing so, the Other option was effectively marked for them to force consistency in

the response.

3 For the PCWA survey, AAPOR2 = (71+2)/82=89.0 percent.

A-5

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Identifying records for analysis. Analysis of PHA responses were based on the 195 PHAs that

either currently serve youth (n=91), served youth in the past (n=6), or never served youth (n=98).

Analyses of PCWA responses were based on the 70 PCWA respondents whose PHA partner

serves youth.4

To examine responses at the community level, youth-serving PHAs were matched with their

PCWA partners, based on the name each provided for the PHA.5 A clear match ensures

comparability of PHA and PCWA responses to similar questions. Of the 70 PCWA records,

58 could be definitively matched to a PHA partner in the analysis sample and are the basis of

PHA–PCWA analyses included in this report. Of the 12 records that were excluded, 5 PCWAs

clearly did not complete the survey on behalf of a PHA that identified them as a partner;

6 PCWAs could not be definitively matched to a PHA based on the PHA name each provided;

and one PCWA matched to a PHA that was dropped from the analysis because the PHA did not

sufficiently complete the survey.

Calculations and treatment of missing data. After restricting the sample as described, one-way frequencies were calculated again for all survey items. In some cases, multiway frequencies were

calculated to examine the pattern of response across multiple questions. Open-ended responses

were reviewed and those that provided a meaningful answer to a question were categorized.

Open-ended responses were not, however, back-coded to fill in or change answers to related

questions. Data analysis was performed in SAS.

Item nonresponses were excluded from a frequency calculation when the overall nonresponse

was minimal; the remainder of item non-responses were included and are reported in the tables

in appendix D. Missing responses that were logical because of the survey skip pattern were

always excluded from calculations. The compendium of survey results in Appendix D reports

the sample size for each item, which demonstrates the extent of item nonresponse.

Data from outside the FUP survey were included for one piece of information. Data collected

from a census survey focused on PHA engagement with homeless households supplemented

information on the availability of the Housing Choice Voucher program and public housing.

This census survey was conducted by Abt Associates Inc. for HUD and fielded to the universe

of PHAs just before the administration of the FUP survey. Census survey data were merged with

data from the FUP survey to examine responses only for PHAs included in this analysis.

Site Visits to FUP Communities

During the spring of 2013, the research team visited four communities from among those

reporting in the survey that they had served youth in the past 18 months. The goals of the

site visits were to (1) attain an in-depth understanding of how communities are using FUP

to serve youth, and (2) to identify lessons and promising practices that could be useful to

other communities.

4 Three PCWAs indicated on the survey that their PHA partner(s) does not serve youth; these PCWAs were excluded from the analysis.

5 PHA name is the only unique identifier that is common to both datasets.

A-6

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Site selection. To narrow the pool of potential sites, communities with relatively strong practices for youth were chosen from among communities in which both the PHA and PCWA responded

to the survey. Communities in which fewer than 75 percent of referred youth ultimately lease up

and in which PHAs had been serving youth for less than 3 years were excluded. The resultant 17

partners were ranked based on the number of youth referrals the PHA reported receiving from

the PCWA in an average quarter, and the top four were selected. The top four PHA jurisdictions

were Colorado, Massachusetts, Salt Lake County in Utah, and Broward County in Florida. The

site visit to Colorado focused on Denver because the state-level PHA contracts with an

organization to provide FUP vouchers to youth primarily in the Denver metropolitan area. The

visit to Massachusetts focused on the Lowell and Lawrence regions. Although the PHA is a

state-level agency, its housing vouchers are administered by one local and eight regional housing

agencies; the regional housing agency that covers the Lowell and Lawrence jurisdictions has

relatively strong practices for serving youth with FUP and serves relatively more youth

compared to the state’s other regions.

Site-visit discussions. In each community, the visit sought to shed light on questions that

emerged from the survey responses, particularly around the process for and decisions involved

in referring youth to FUP; whether and why communities set aside vouchers for youth;

perspectives on the tradeoff between serving youth and serving families; youth participation

in and availability of funding for supportive services; the roles of partners and specific

challenges to collaboration; data collection and evaluation; perspectives on the 18-month

time limit; and general perspectives on successes and lessons learned administering FUP.

Semistructured protocols guided the onsite discussions. The discussion guides received approval

from the University of Chicago Internal Review Board (IRB) prior to use, and site visitors were

trained to administer the guides. A two-person team, composed of a senior and a junior

researcher, conducted the discussions.

In each community, the team spoke with a range of staff at the PHA, PCWA, and their other

partners. At the PHAs, the team met with agency directors, HCV program administrators,

eligibility specialists, and caseworkers; at PCWAs, the team met with child welfare directors,

foster care and aftercare administrators, and case managers. All four sites partner with at least

one other organization to administer FUP, such as public or private agencies that refer youth

to FUP and provide them with supportive services, local funders, and one PHA subcontractor

that awards vouchers to youth. The teams met with a variety of staff from these other partner

organizations, from directors to case managers. Every person interviewed signed a consent

form (which was approved by the IRB) to acknowledge his or her consent to participate in

the interview.

Site-visit data analysis. Following each site visit, the site-visit team met to discuss observations and findings, allowing the research team to begin identifying central, cross-cutting themes and

areas requiring more nuanced exploration in the remaining site visits. Also after each site visit,

the two-person team recorded information from the visit and any background materials using a

standardized template. The writeup template was designed to capture the central programmatic

features and findings in a concise and consistent manner. Consistency of information across sites

allowed the team to further develop cross-site themes and areas of divergence.

A-7

APPENDIX B

KEY STUDIES OF HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING INSTABILITY

AMONG FORMER FOSTER YOUTH

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table B1. Key Studies of Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Former Foster Youth

Study

Sample

Housing Outcomes

Barth (1990)

Convenience sample of 55 young people in

29% had been homeless or had

San Francisco Bay/Sacramento area

moved at least once a week

Mean age of 21 years old

Had exited foster care between 1 and 10 years

before, when they were 16 to 19 1/2 years old

Brandford and

213 young people from Washington State who

11% had been homeless (that is, slept

English (2004)

had been in foster care for at least a year

in a shelter, in a car, or on the street)

70% of baseline sample of 302

25% had couch surfed

Followup interview 6 to 12 months post

emancipation

Collins, Spencer,

96 young people from Massachusetts who turned

37% had ever been homeless since

and Ward (2010)

18 in 2005 and were at least 18 years old when

age 18

they exited foster care

Age 19 and older at time of data collection

15% of the eligible population of 660

Cook, Fleishman,

810 young people who aged out of foster care

25% had been homeless (that is, spent

and Grimes (1991)

in seven states (AZ, CA, IL, MS, PA, NY, TN)

at least one night in a shelter, on the

and Washington, D.C. between 1/87 and 6/88

streets, or in a car, or had no place to

49% of baseline sample of 1,644

live so stayed with friends)

18 to 28 years old

Out of care for 2 1/2 to 4 years

Courtney,

Sample of 732 young people from IA, IL and WI

31% had been homeless, (7%), couch

Dworsky, Brown,

who entered care prior to age 16 and were still in

surfed (18%), or experienced both

Cary, Love, and

care on 17th birthday

(7%) since their last interview

Vorhies (2011)

591 study participants interviewed at age 26

(~ 30 months)

Courtney, Piliavin,

113 young people from Wisconsin

12% had been homeless at least once

Grogan-Kaylor,

80% of baseline sample of 141

(that is, spent at least one night on the

and Nesmith

streets or in a shelter)

(2001)

Followup interview 12 to 18 months post

discharge

22% had lived in four or more places

Daining and

100 young people who exited foster care in

28% had ever been homeless since

DePanfilis (2007)

Maryland between 10/99 and 9/00 when they

exiting care

were 18 to 21 years old

53% of the eligible population of 189

19 to 24 years old at time of interview

Time since exit ranged from 20 to 37 months,

with a mean of 27

Dworsky and

Sample of 732 young people from IA, IL and WI

14% had been homeless for at least

Courtney (2009)

who entered care prior to age 16 and were still in

one night

care on 17th birthday

60% of first homeless periods began

321 study participants who had exited foster care

within six months of exiting

by age 19

26% of the never-homeless had

moved at least three times

Dworsky and

Sample of 732 young people from IA, IL and WI

30% had been homeless for at least

Courtney (2010)

who entered care prior to age 16 and were still

one night

Courtney,

in care on 17th birthday

37% had been homeless or ‘couch

Dworsky, Lee, and

602 study participants interviewed at age 23 or 24

surfed’

Rapp (2010)

48% had lived in four or more places

post exit

B-2

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Study

Sample

Housing Outcomes

Fowler, Toro, and

265 young people who aged out of care in the

58% had continuously stable housing

Miles (2009)

metropolitan Detroit area in 2002 and 2003

12% experienced increasingly stable

Average of 3.6 years since exit

housing

34% of the eligible population of 867

11% experienced decreasingly stable

housing, including homelessness

20% had continuously unstable

housing (that is, moving between

being homeless and being

precariously housed)

Fowler, Toro,

264 young people who aged out of care in the

17% had been homeless at least once

Tompsett, and

metropolitan Detroit area in 2002 and 2003

(that is, spent at least one night on the

Hobden (2006)

Average of 3.6 years since exit

streets, in an abandoned building, in a

car, or in a shelter

34% of the eligible population of 867

33% had doubled up or couch surfed

Average of 4.3 living arrangements

since leaving foster care

Pecora, Kessler,

479 foster care alumni from Oregon and

22% had been homeless for at least

Williams, O’Brien,

Washington State

one night within a year of exit

Downs, English,

20 to 33 years old

White, Hiripi,

At least 12 months in foster care between

White, Wiggins,

14 and 18 years old

and Holmes

(2005)*

73% of baseline sample of 659

Received foster care services from Casey

Family Services or from public child welfare

Pecora, Williams,

1,087 Casey Family Services foster care

22% were homeless for at least

Kessler, Downs,

alumni from 13 states

one night within a year of exit

O’Brien, Hiripi, and

Received services for at least 12 months

Morello (2003)*

between 1966 and 1998

68% of the 1,609 alumni population

Had exited foster care at least one year before

20 to 51 years old, with mean age of 30 1/2

Reilly (2003)

100 young people who aged out of foster care in

36% had lived on the streets (19%)

Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada at age 18

or in a shelter (18%)

Data collected 6 months to 3 years post discharge

35% had moved at least five times

Nearly one-third were discharged from

care without a place to live

White, Roller,

542 foster care alumni (ages 19, 22, and

20% had been homeless since leaving

Gallegos, O’Brien,

25 years old)

care

Weisberg, Pecora,

48% of the 1,135 eligible alumni

Median length of homeless spell was

and Medina

90 days

(2011)a

Received services from Casey Family Services

for at least 12 months

a Includes foster care alumni who did not age out.

B-3

APPENDIX C

INVENTORY OF SELECTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

FOR YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table C.1. Inventory of Selected Housing Programs for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Required

Contribution

Delivery of

Lead Agency or

Start

Form of Housing

Funding

to Rent or

Supportive

Onsite

Participant

Program

Agencies

Program Name

State

Date

Housing Type

Assistance

Source

Savings

Services

Supervision

Tracking

Evaluation

New Leaf

Empower Transitional

AZ

By 2010

Clustered;

Subsidized unit

Private

R

CM; services

NA

During

NA

Living Program

scattered site

(C)

participation

Monthly rental

assistance (S)

Abode Services

Project Independence

CA

2000

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Both

R-Grad

CM; offsite

None

During

NA

(THP-Plus)b

assistance

services

participation

and after exit

program

Affordable Housing

AHA’s Madison at 14th

CA

2008

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

Associates (AHA)

Street

services;

referrals

Alameda County

Independent Living

CA

1987

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

None

None

NA

NA

Independent Living

Skills Program

$1,000 lifetime)

Skills Program

Housing Grants for

Emancipated Youth

Aspiranet

Transitional Housing

CA

NA

Clustered;

Subsidized unit

Public

S – 50% of

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

Program for

scattered site;

(C);

income

services; CM

Emancipating Foster

host homes

Monthly rental

Youth (THP-Plus)

assistance (S, H)

Beyond Emancipation

Beyond Emancipation

CA

By 2006

Clustered;

NA (C);

Public

R

Onsite and

NA

NA

NA

b

(THP-Plus)a,

host homes

stipend (H)

offsite

services; CM;

referrals

Bill Wilson Center

Bill Wilson Center

CA

NA

Scattered site

NA

Both

None

CM

YES

During

NA

Transitional Housing

participation

Program (THP-Plus)

and at exit

First Place for Youth

My First Place (THP-

CA

1998

Clustered;

Monthly rental

Both

R-Grad

CM; Services

None

During

Ongoing

Plus)b

scattered site;

assistance (C,

participation

implemen-

host homes

S);

and after exit

tation

stipend for “host”

evaluation

(H)

by P/PV.

Fred Finch Youth

Coolidge Court

CA

1998

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

During

Annual

Center

Apartments

income

services; CM

participation

internal

consumer

satisfaction

survey

Hillsides

Youth Moving On

CA

2006

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Private

NA

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Transitional Housing

services

(Pasadena)

Larkin Street

Larkin Street Extended

CA

2003

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R – 30% of

CM; services;

None

During

NA

Aftercare for

assistance

income

referrals

participation

Supported

Emancipation (LEASE)

(THP-Plus)

C-2

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Required

Contribution

Delivery of

Lead Agency or

Start

Form of Housing

Funding

to Rent or

Supportive

Onsite

Participant

Program

Agencies

Program Name

State

Date

Housing Type

Assistance

Source

Savings

Services

Supervision

Tracking

Evaluation

Larkin Street

Larkin Street Holloway

CA

2007

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Public

NA

CM

YES

During

NA

House

participation

Lutheran Social

LaVerne Adolfo

CA

NA

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

Services of Northern

Permanent Supportive

assistance

services

California

Housing Program

(THP-Plus)

Orangewood

Rising Tide

CA

1999

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R-Grad; S

Services

NA

During

NA

Children’s Foundation

Communities (THP-

participation

Plus)

United Friends of the

Pathways Transitional

CA

2002

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Private

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

During

NA

Children

Living Program (THP-

income

services

participation

Plus)

and after exit

Volunteers of America

LaVerne Adolfo

CA

NA

Clustered

NA

Public

NA

Services

NA

NA

NA

of Greater

Transitional Housing

Sacramento &

Program (THP-Plus)

Northern Nevada

Connecticut

Connecticut’s

CT

NA

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R

CM; referrals

None

During

NA

Department of

Community Housing

assistance (up to

participation

Children and Family

Assistance Program

$1,314/month)

Services

District of Columbia

Rapid Housing

DC

NA

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R – 30% of

CM

None

During

NA

Child and Family

assistance

income

participation

Services Agency

Big Bend Community-

Independence Village

FL

2011

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R

NA

NA

NA

NA

Based Care

(Planned)

City of Pembroke

Pembroke Pines

FL

2007

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Public

R

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Pines

Transitional

supervision;

Independent Living

CM

Program

Florida Department of

Florida’s Road to

FL

2002

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

None

None

NA

NA

Children and Families

Independence

$1,013/month)

Florida Department of

Florida’s Transitional

FL

2002

Scattered site

Stipend

Public

R

Offsite

No

NA

NA

Children and Families

Support Services

services

Henderson Mental

Wilson Garden’s

FL

By 2009

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

NA

CM

YES

NA

NA

Health Center

Transitional Living

Intervention Services

Village Transitional

FL

NA

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Incorporated

Living Program

services; CM

Place of Hope, Inc.

Villages of Hope

FL

2006

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Private

R

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

services; CM

Vita Nova, Inc.

Vita Nova of

FL

2005

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Private

R

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

Renaissance Village

services

C-3

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Required

Contribution

Delivery of

Lead Agency or

Start

Form of Housing

Funding

to Rent or

Supportive

Onsite

Participant

Program

Agencies

Program Name

State

Date

Housing Type

Assistance

Source

Savings

Services

Supervision

Tracking

Evaluation

Iowa Department of

Iowa Preparation for

IA

2006

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

CM; referrals

None

During

Annual

Human Services & the

Adult Living (PAL)

$547/month)

participation

outcomes

Iowa Aftercare

and at exit;

report and

Services Network

also part of

semiannual

NYTD

consumer

reporting

satisfaction

requirements

survey by

Iowa Youth

Policy

Institute

Iowa Finance

Iowa Aftercare Rent

IA

NA

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R – 30% of

None

None

NA

NA

Authority

Subsidy Program

assistance

income

Illinois Department of

Illinois Youth Housing

IL

By 2000

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R-Grad

Housing

None

NA

NA

Children and Family

Assistance Program

assistance (up to

advocacy only

Services

$250/month)

Interfaith Housing

Interfaith Housing

IL

2008

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R – 30% of

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

Development

Development

income (only

services; CM;

Corporation of

Corporation of Chicago

if employed)

referrals

Chicago

Permanent Supportive

Coppin House Social

Housing Program

Services

Sankofa House

Rediscovery Inc.

Rediscovery Inc.

MA

NA

Clustered

NA

Private

NA

Onsite

YES

During

NA

Group Home

services; CM

participation

Rediscovery Inc.

Rediscovery Inc.

MA

NA

Scattered site

NA

Private

NA

CM; offsite

None

During

NA

Independent Living

services

participation

Program

AIRS (AIDS Interfaith

Restoration Gardens

MD

2010

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Residential Services)

income

services

Life’s Missing Link,

Lindquist Apartments

MN

2005

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

NA

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Inc.

services; CM;

RS Eden, Inc.

referrals

RS Eden

Seventh Landing

MN

2003

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Growing Homes

income

services; CM;

referrals

The Salvation Army

Booth Brown Foyer

MN

2003

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Private

R – 30% of

On-site

YES

During

NA

Housing Permanent

income

services; CM;

participation

Supportive Housing

S – 10%

referrals

and at exit

income

The Salvation Army

Booth Brown Foyer

MN

2003

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Private

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

During

NA

Housing Transitional

Income

services; CM;

participation

Living Program

S – 10% of

referrals

and at exit

income

C-4

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Required

Contribution

Delivery of

Lead Agency or

Start

Form of Housing

Funding

to Rent or

Supportive

Onsite

Participant

Program

Agencies

Program Name

State

Date

Housing Type

Assistance

Source

Savings

Services

Supervision

Tracking

Evaluation

North Carolina

North Carolina LINKS

NC

NA

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

CM; referrals

None

Part of NYTD

NA

Department of Health

$1,999 lifetime)

reporting

and Human Services,

requirements

Division of Social

Services

Nashua Children’s

Nashua Children’s

NH

2004

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

Home

Home Transitional

services

Living Program

New Hampshire Child

New Hampshire

NH

NA

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Public

R

CM

NA

NA

NA

and Family Services

Transitional Living

S

Program

New Jersey Housing

New Jersey Youth

NJ

2005

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Public

R

Onsite

NA

NA

NA

and Mortgage

Supportive Housing

services; CM;

Finance Agency

Initiative

referrals

New Mexico Children,

Transitions Permanent

NM

2007

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R – 30% of

CM; referrals;

None

NA

Unclear if

Youth and Families

Supportive Housing

assistance

income

Transition

planned

Department

Services

evaluation of

New Mexico

program

pilot

Behavioral Health

program

Collaborative

was

Supportive Housing

conducted

Coalition of New

Mexico

ValueOptions New

Mexico

City of Las Vegas

Las Vegas HCV

NV

2008

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R – 30% of

CM

None

During

NA

Housing Authority

Preference Program

assistance

income

participation

Clark County

Department of Family

Services

Clark County Social

Step-Up Program

NV

NA

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

Offsite life

None

NA

NA

Service Department

$800 lifetime)

skills training

Edwin Gould

Edwin Gould

NY

2006

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

R – 30–40%

Onsite

YES

During

NA

Academy

Residence

of Income

services; CM;

participation

Exodus

Partnership

Good Shepherd

Chelsea Foyer

NY

2004

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Both

S – 30% of

Onsite

YES

During

Internal

Services

Income

services; CM

participation

c

evaluation

Common Ground

and after exit

Lantern Organization

Schafer Hall

NY

2001

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Public

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

During

NA

Community Lantern

Income

services; CM;

participation

Corporation

referrals

C-5

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Required

Contribution

Delivery of

Lead Agency or

Start

Form of Housing

Funding

to Rent or

Supportive

Onsite

Participant

Program

Agencies

Program Name

State

Date

Housing Type

Assistance

Source

Savings

Services

Supervision

Tracking

Evaluation

New York City

New York/New York III

NY

2005

Clustered;

Subsidized unit;

Public

R – 30% of

CM; referrals

YES

During

Internal

Department of Health

scattered site

monthly rental

income

participation

evaluation

and Mental Hygiene

assistance

and after exit

by city and

state

agencies

New York State Office

New York City Section

NY

NA

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R – 30% of

None

None

NA

NA

of Children and

8 Priority Code

assistance

income

Family Services

Lighthouse Youth

Lighthouse

OH

NA

Clustered

Subsidized unit

Public

NA

NA

YES

During

NA

Services

Emancipated Youth

participation

Program

and at exitc

Oregon Department of

Oregon’s Chafee

OR

NA

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

NA

None

NA

NA

Human Services

Housing Program

$600/month or

$6,000 lifetime)

Rhode Island Council

YESS (Young Adults

RI

2004

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R-Grad

CM; referrals;

None

During

NA

on Residential

Establishing Self

assistance

life-skills

participation

Programs for Children

Sufficiency)

training

and Youth

Foster Youth Life

Foster Youth Life

TX

2004

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Both

R

None

None

NA

NA

Investment Partners

Investment Partners

assistance

Texas Department of

Texas AFTERCARE

TX

2000

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R-Grad

CM; referrals

None

During

NA

Family and Protective

ROOM AND BOARD

$500/month or

participation

Services

ASSISTANCE

$3,000 lifetime)

Program

Texas Department of

Texas Transitional

TX

2000

Scattered site

Stipend (up to

Public

R

CM; referrals

None

During

NA

Family and Protective

Living Allowance

$1,000 lifetime)

participation

Services

Program

Washington

Washington State

WA

2007

Scattered site

Monthly rental

Public

R

CM; referrals

None

During

NA

Department of

Independent Youth

assistance

S

participation

Commerce

Housing Program

Washington

Department of Social

and Health Services

YMCA of Greater

YMCA of Greater

WA

NA

Clustered;

Subsidized unit

Public

R – 30% of

Onsite

YES

NA

NA

Seattle

Seattle

scattered site

(C)

income

services

monthly rental

assistance (S)

St. Aemilian-Lakeside

Youth Moving On

WI

2009

Scattered site

NA

Both

R-Grad

CM; services

None

NA

NA

(Milwaukee)

C-6

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

a California’s Transitional Housing Placement-Plus (THP-Plus) is a statewide program that provides affordable housing and comprehensive supportive services for up to 24 months to former foster and probation youth ages 18 to 24. The program is administered by the California Department of Social Services, which distributes THP-Plus funds to counties. The county department of social services then provides the services directly or contracts for services with nonprofit, THP-Plus providers. The inventory includes 7 of the state’s 53 THP-Plus programs (as of July 2011).

b Next Steps Collaborative for Youth is a joint project involving four agencies: Beyond Emancipation, First Place for Youth, Abode Services’ Project Independence, and Bay Area Youth Centers. The first three agencies operate programs that are included in the inventory; the fourth provides mental health services.

c Common Ground Community, Good Shepherd Services. “Chelsea Foyer at 5 years: Lessons in Developing Stable Housing and Self-Sufficiency for Homeless Youth and Youth Exiting Foster Care”, 2009.

Funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Accessed from: http://www.goodshepherds.org/images/content/1/1/11397.pdf.

Notes:

Delivery of Supportive Services:

Onsite services: supportive services provided where the youth live

Offsite services: supportive services provided by another agency or organization that partners with the program CM: Case management

Referrals: youth referred to services available in the community

None: Not provided

NA: Information was not found

Type of Housing Assistance:

Subsidized: unit located in a building owned or managed by the program

Monthly rental assistance: help paying rent, such as a voucher

Stipend: time-limited grant or allowance for rent, room and board, or other living expenses

Housing Type:

Clustered (single, multiunit building dedicated to youth and young adults)

Scattered Site (housing dispersed throughout the community and usually rented from a private landlord) (Assumed if program provides only monthly assistance) Host Homes (youth lives with foster family or other caring adult who receives a monthly subsidy).

Form of Housing Assistance:

C: Clustered

S: Scattered Site

H: Host Home

Required Contribution to Rent or Savings:

R: youth contribution to rent (assumed if program provides monthly rental assistance)

R-Grad: graduated rent payments (that is, youth contribution increases over time until it reaches 100 percent of rent) S: youth contribution to savings

Required contribution to rent may be different for different housing options within a single program.

Sources: Based on information from the websites of individual housing programs; websites of leading housing and child welfare advocacy organizations (such as the Corporation for Supportive Housing and the National Alliance to End Homelessness); articles published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Child Welfare); and relevant conference proceedings C-7

APPENDIX D

COMPENDIUM OF RESULTS FROM SURVEYS OF PHAs AND PCWAs

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Use of FUP Vouchers for Youth

Table D.1. Current and Historical Use of FUP for Youth

Percentage (n) of PHAs

Currently serving youth (A5)

46.7 (91)

Administration (B1)

PHA

96.7 (87)

Contractor

3.3 (3)

Length of time PHAs have served youtha (B2, B3)

1 year

18.1 (15)

2 years

25.3 (21)

3 years

24.1 (20)

4 years

16.9 (14)

5 or more years

15.7 (13)

Most recent year PHAs served youth (B3)

2012

85.5 (71)

2011

14.5 (12)

Served youth in the past, but not currently (A6)

3.1 (6)

Most recent year PHAs served youth (C2)

2010

40.0 (2)

2009

20.0 (1)

2008

20.0 (1)

2003

20.0 (1)

Never served youth (A6)

50.3 (98)

Sample size

195

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

a Although the legislation extending FUP to youth was enacted in 2001, some respondents indicated they began serving youth before then. These respondents were included in the calculations.

D-2

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.2. Geographic Location of PHAs That Administer FUP

Percentage (n) of PHAs

Not Currently

Currently Using

Using FUP for

All

FUP for Youth

Youth

Census region

Northeast

15.9 (31)

9.9 (9)

21.2 (22)

Midwest

26.7 (52)

23.1 (21)

29.8 (31)

South

29.7 (58)

26.4 (24)

32.7 (34)

West

27.7 (54)

40.7 (37)

16.3 (17)

HUD region

Region 1

6.7 (13)

5.5 (5)

7.7 (8)

Region 2

3.1 (6)

2.2 (2)

3.8 (4)

Region 3

14.4 (28)

14.3 (13)

14.4 (15)

Region 4

12.3 (24)

9.9 (9)

14.4 (15)

Region 5

22.1 (43)

17.6 (16)

26.0 (27)

Region 6

10.3 (20)

5.5 (5)

14.4 (15)

Region 7

4.1 (8)

4.4 (4)

3.8 (4)

Region 8

3.6 (7)

6.6 (6)

1.0 (1)

Region 9

16.9 (33)

23.1 (21)

11.5 (12)

Region 10

6.7 (13)

11.0 (10)

2.9 (3)

Region 11

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

Sample size

195

91

104

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

D-3

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.3. Extent of Current Use of FUP for Youth

Number or

Percentage (n)

Among PHAs

Currently Serving

Youth

Average number of baseline FUP vouchers (B14) (N=89)

112

Number of baseline FUP vouchers (%) (B14) (N=89)

0 to 50

41.6 (37)

51 to 100

29.2 (26)

101 to 200

16.9 (15)

201 or more

12.4 (11)

Average number of FUP vouchers currently leased up by FUP-eligible youth (B15) (N=89)

32

Number of FUP vouchers currently leased up by FUP-eligible youth (%) (B15) (N=89)

0 to 5

46.1 (41)

6 to 25

29.2 (26)

26 to 75

14.6 (13)

76 or more

10.1 (9)

Average percentage of total FUP vouchers currently leased up by FUP-eligible youth (B14,

B15) (N=87)

28.8

Percentage of total FUP vouchers currently leased up by FUP-eligible youth (%) (B14, B15)

(N=87)

0 to 4.9

36.8 (32)

5 to 9.9

11.5 (10)

10 to 19.9

11.5 (10)

20 to 49.9

17.2 (15)

50 or more

23.0 (20)

Average percentage of PHAs that set aside vouchers for FUP-eligible youth (%) (B16)

31.9 (29)

Average percentage of FUP vouchers set aside for FUP-eligible youth (%) (B17, B14)

(N=28)

31.1

Sample size

91

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 91 PHAs unless otherwise noted. For this table and others, sample sizes may vary because of survey item nonresponse and/or skip patterns in the survey questionnaire.

D-4

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.4. Reasons for Use of FUP Vouchers for Youth

Percentage (n) of

PHAs Currently

Serving Youth

HUD requirement

72.5 (66)

Need

Many youth age out of foster care in this community

46.2 (42)

Housing needs of youth aging out of care are not being met in other ways

68.1 (62)

Homelessness among former foster youth is a big problem

34.1 (31)

Former foster youth constitute a large share of HCV applicants

0.0 (0)

Agency priorities

Addressing the housing needs of former foster youth is a priority for PHA or community

39.6 (36)

Addressing the housing needs of youth generally is a priority for PHA or community

26.4 (24)

Addressing the housing needs of former foster youth is a priority for the PCWA

44.0 (40)

Linking supportive services to subsidized housing is a priority.

58.2 (53)

The public child welfare agency has the resources to provide the required support services.

37.4 (34)

Other

Local social service agency encouraged PHAs and/or PCWAs to apply for FUP vouchers

2.2 (2)

Sample size

91

FUP = Family Unification Program. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Table D.5. Reasons for Nonuse of FUP Vouchers for Youth

Number and Percentage (n) of

PHAs Not Currently Serving Youth

No need

Too few youth age out of foster care

8.7 (9)

Housing needs of youth aging out of care are being met in other ways

9.6 (10)

Burden of administration

18-month time limit

13.5 (14)

Lack of or weak working relationship with PCWA

8.7 (9)

Competing priorities

PHA prefers to devote FUP vouchers to families

18.3 (19)

PCWA does not have the resources to provide required support services

12.5 (13)

Lack of referrals

PCWA has not referred youth

69.2 (72)

Don’t know

3.8 (4)

Other

PHA’s FUP award does not cover FUP-eligible youth

5.8 (6)

PHA has a preference for youth aging out of care

1.9 (2)

All FUP vouchers are utilized

1.9 (2)

Not enough funds

1.0 (1)

Youth never respond to correspondence from PHA

1.0 (1)

Sample size

104

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: “PCWA has not referred youth” was offered only as a response option for PHAs that never served youth. Two PHAs that served youth in the past wrote in this reason.

D-5

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.6. Likelihood of Using FUP Vouchers for Youth in the Future

Percentage (n) of PHAs Not

Currently Serving Youth

Likelihood of future use (C4, D2)

Very likely

11.5 (12)

Somewhat likely

26.9 (28)

Not at all likely

24.0 (25)

Don’t know

37.5 (39)

Factors that would increase likelihood of future use (C5, D3)

Award of additional FUP vouchers

60.6 (63)

Assistance with collaboration with PCWA

30.8 (32)

Training to better understand the housing needs of young adults

26.9 (28)

Guidance from successful models for serving youth with FUP

31.7 (33)

Additional resources to support youth once they lease up

49.0 (51)

Elimination of the 18-month time limit

29.8 (31)

Don’t know

14.4 (15)

Other

Youth referrals from PCWA/Support from PCWA

10.6 (11)

Sample size

104

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Program Partnerships

In Section B, public housing agencies (PHAs) refer to those currently using the Family

Unification Program (FUP) for youth.

Table D.7. Characteristics of PCWAs

Percentage (n) of

PCWAs

Number of PHA partners for FUP (5A)

1

61.4 (43)

2

21.4 (15)

3

0.0 (0)

4

1.4 (1)

10 or more

2.9 (2)

No response

12.9 (9)

Number of PHA partners that currently serve youth with FUP vouchers (5A, 5B)

One partner, which uses FUP vouchers to serve youth aging out of foster care

60.0 (42)

Multiple partners, some use FUP vouchers to serve youth aging out of foster care

7.1 (5)

Multiple partners, all use FUP vouchers to serve youth aging out of foster care

17.1 (12)

No response

15.7 (11)

Administration of child welfare system in which PCWA operates (4)

State-supervised and state-administered

30.0 (21)

State supervised and county-administered

61.4 (43)

Other

State-supervised and privately administered

5.7 (4)

No response

2.9 (2)

Sample size

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

D-6

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.8. Communication Between PHAs and PCWAs

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

Regular meetings with PCWA (B11)

No regular meetings

50.5 (46)

Regular meetings

49.5 (45)

Frequency of regular meetings (B12) (N=44)

Weekly

0.0 (0)

Monthly

29.5 (13)

Quarterly

50.0 (22)

Twice a year

13.6 (6)

Annually

6.8 (3)

Communication with PCWA in addition to regular meetings (among those with regular meetings)

(B13a) (N=44)

Daily

0.0 (0)

Weekly

40.9 (18)

Monthly

27.3 (12)

Quarterly

6.8 (3)

Other

As needed

20.5 (9)

Annually

2.3 (1)

Communication with PCWA in lieu of regular meetings (among those with no regular meetings)

(B13b) (N=44)

Daily

6.8 (3)

Weekly

25.0 (11)

Monthly

15.9 (7)

Quarterly

6.8 (3)

Other

As needed

20.5 (9)

When youth are referred

13.6 (6)

Rarely

6.8 (3)

Sample size

91

PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 91 PHAs unless otherwise noted.

D-7

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.9. Cross-Agency Training

Percentage (n) of PHAs

(unless otherwise noted)

PCWA-provided training to PHA staff on (B7):

Characteristics of youth aging out of foster care and their housing needs (N=90)

35.6 (32)

How PCWA identifies FUP-eligible youth (N=90)

47.8 (43)

How PCWA refers FUP-eligible youth to PHA (N=90)

65.6 (59)

Types of housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by

41.6 (37)

PCWA/contractor (N=89)

Types of supportive services provided to FUP-eligible youth by PCWA/contractor

50.6 (45)

(N=89)

If PCWA provided any training, frequency of training (B8) (N=63)

Less than once per year

76.2 (48)

Annually

7.9 (5)

Twice a year

6.3 (4)

Quarterly

6.3 (4)

More than once per quarter

1.6 (1)

Don’t know

1.6 (1)

PHA familiarity with PCWA services (B6)

Very

Somewhat

Not at all

Characteristics of youth aging out of foster care and their housing needs) (N=89)

32.6 (29)

59.6 (53)

7.9 (7)

Partner PCWA’s procedures for identifying FUP-eligible youth (N=90)

28.9 (26)

52.2 (47)

18.9 (17)

Partner PCWA’s procedures for referring FUP-eligible youth to the PHA (N=89)

64.0 (57)

29.2 (26)

6.7 (6)

Housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by the partner

28.9 (26)

48.9 (44)

22.2 (20)

PCWA/contractor (N=90)

Partner PCWA’s provision of supportive services to FUP-eligible youth (N=90)

21.1 (19)

65.6 (59)

13.3 (12)

PHA provided training to PWCA staff on: (B9)

HCV program eligibility (N=88)

92.0 (81)

HCV program briefings (N=88)

81.8 (72)

Housing search and lease-up process within HCV program (N=87)

79.3 (69)

Tracking and reporting requirements associated with FUP (N=88)

56.8 (50)

FUP eligibility and other FUP requirements (N=88)

84.1 (74)

Other (N=90)

Not a training per se, but PCWA staff attend orientation and/or voucher briefings

3.3 (3)

Referral and application/enrollment process

2.2 (2)

Availability of FUP vouchers

1.1 (1)

Support for youth who have trouble retaining their voucher

1.1 (1)

How to be a good renter

1.1 (1)

Criminal background checks

1.1 (1)

If PHA provided any training, frequency of training (B9, B10) (N=84)

Less than once per year

48.8 (41)

Annually

16.7 (14)

Twice a year

9.5 (8)

Quarterly

13.1 (11)

More than once per quarter

9.5 (8)

Don’t know

2.4 (2)

PCWA familiarity with PHA services (PCWA 10)—percentage of PCWAs (N=70)

Very

Somewhat

Not at all

HCV program eligibility

54.3 (38)

44.3 (31)

1.4 (1)

Section 8 Housing Choice briefings

31.4 (22)

58.6 (41)

10.0 (7)

Housing search and lease-up process within HCV program

35.7 (25)

50.0 (35)

14.3 (10)

Tracking and reporting requirements associated with the FUP

47.1 (33)

41.4 (29)

11.4 (8)

FUP eligibility and other FUP requirements

77.1 (54)

22.9 (16)

0.0 (0)

No response

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

PHA sample size

90

FUP = Family Unification Program. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA =

public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 90 PHAs unless otherwise noted.

D-8

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Child Welfare Context

Table D.10. PCWA Services Provided as Youth Age Out of Foster Care

Percentage (n) of PCWAs

When transition planning typically begins for youth aging out of foster care

(6, 7)

Not sooner than the required 90 days (3 months) before youth age out

1.4 (1)

Sooner than the required 3 months, but specific time frame unknown

1.4 (1)

3 to 6 months before youth age out

22.9 (16)

7 to 12 months before youth age out

32.9 (23)

13 to 18 months before youth age out

11.4 (8)

More than 18 months before youth age out

25.7 (18)

Don’t know

4.3 (3)

No response

0.0 (0)

No

Yes

No

response

Services provided to youth preparing to age out of foster care (8)

Provide information about different neighborhoods

77.1 (54)

22.9 (16)

0.0 (0)

Take youth on neighborhood tours

51.4 (36)

44.3 (31)

4.3 (3)

Transport youth to visit housing units

84.3 (59)

15.7 (11)

0.0 (0)

Provide a listing of vacant rental units

82.9 (58)

17.1 (12)

0.0 (0)

Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept youth

88.6 (62)

11.4 (8)

0.0 (0)

Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

95.7 (67)

4.3 (3)

0.0 (0)

Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

87.1 (61)

11.4 (8)

1.4 (1)

Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility

92.9 (65)

7.1 (5)

0.0 (0)

requirements

Provide information about public transportation services

88.6 (62)

11.4 (8)

0.0 (0)

Help youth locate housing near school or work

90.0 (63)

8.6 (6)

1.4 (1)

Other

Tailor services to youth

2.9 (2)

NA

NA

Type of lease-up/move-in assistance provided (9)

Provide contact information for local utility services providers

84.3 (59.0)

14.3 (10)

1.4 (1)

Provide information about public transportation and retail options

84.3 (59)

14.3 (10)

1.4 (1)

Help contacting utility companies to establish service

68.6 (48)

25.7 (18)

5.7 (4)

Advice on how to talk to landlords and neighbors about maintenance

87.1 (61)

11.4 (8)

1.4 (1)

needs or noise issues

Financial assistance with moving, security deposits, or utility hook-up

81.4 (57)

15.7 (11)

2.9 (2)

fees

Financial assistance or referrals for assistance to secure furniture and

87.1 (61)

11.4 (8)

1.4 (1)

other housewares

Sample size

70

NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

D-9

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.11. PCWA Response to Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care

Percentage (n) of PCWAs

Action taken when former foster youth return to agency because they are

homeless or have no place to live (35)

Youth are referred to a homeless shelter

75.7 (53)

Youth are referred to partner PHA

68.6 (48)

Youth are referred to other service providers

81.4 (57)

Youth are informed about the option to re-enter care

67.1 (47)

Youth are referred to a housing program administered by PCWA

34.3 (24)

Other

Youth receive cash assistance or a housing subsidy

2.9 (2)

a

Did not indicate any actions

7.1 (5)

No

Don’t

respo

Yes

No

know

nse

Actions taken when agency is contacted by a homeless shelter or other

homeless service provider about a homeless youth who has aged out of foster

care, for youth age 18–20 (36)

Youth are referred to partner PHA

68.6

10.0

2.9

18.6

(48)

(7)

(2)

(13)

Youth are referred to other service providers

77.1

4.3

4.3

14.3

(54)

(3)

(3)

(10)

Youth are informed about the option to re-enter care

65.7

14.3

7.1

12.9

(46)

(10)

(5)

(9)

Youth are referred to a housing program administered by PCWA

42.9

31.4

7.1

18.6

(30)

(22)

(5)

(13)

Youth don’t receive any services

2.9

48.6

12.9

35.7

(2)

(34)

(9)

(25)

Actions taken when agency is contacted by a homeless shelter or other

homeless service provider about a homeless youth who has aged out of foster

care, for youth age 21 or older (36)

Youth are referred to partner PHA

64.3

14.3

2.9

18.6

(45)

(10)

(2)

(13)

Youth are referred to other service providers

75.7

2.9

4.3

17.1

(53)

(2)

(3)

(12)

Youth are referred to a housing program administered by PCWA

27.1

35.7

7.1

30.0

(19)

(25)

(5)

(21)

Youth don’t receive any services

4.3

40.0

12.9

42.9

(3)

(28)

(9)

(30)

Sample size

70

PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

a The survey cannot distinguish whether these respondents did not respond to this survey question or whether they were indicating that they take no actions when former foster youth contact them or return to the agency because they are homeless or have no place to live.

D-10

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

FUP Entry

In Section D, PHAs refer to those currently using FUP for youth.

Table D.12. Extent of Referrals From PCWAs to PHAs

Reported by

Reported by PHAs

PCWAs

Average number of referrals of FUP-eligible youth from PWCA to PHA

5.8 per quarter

21 per year

(B18, 15) (N=90 PHAs, 63 PCWAs)

Percentage (n) of FUP-eligible youth referred who ultimately lease up

using a FUP voucher (B19, 16)

Less than 25%

15.4 (14)

4.3 (3)

At least 25% but less than 50%

5.5 (5)

7.1 (5)

About 50%

8.8 (8)

11.4 (8)

More than 50% but less than 75%a

15.4 (14)

17.1 (12)

More than 75%a

50.5 (46)

38.6 (27)

Don’t know

4.4 (4)

17.1 (12)

No response

0.0 (0)

4.3 (3)

Sample size

91

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

a The survey response options inadvertently excluded 75 percent. Respondents who preferred this category may have selected “More than 50% but less than 75%” or “More than 75%” instead.

Note: PHA sample size is 91 unless otherwise noted; PCWA sample size is 70 unless otherwise noted.

Table D.13. Extent of Referrals From PCWAs to PHAs: Agreement Between Partner Pairs

Percentage (n)

of PHA-PCWA

Partners

Agreement on the number of referrals: difference between the number of referrals PCWA said

they make and the number of referrals PHA said they receive (B18, 15)

Responses exactly the same

10.3 (6)

Responses were within 3 referrals

27.6 (16)

Reponses were within 10 referrals

15.5 (9)

Responses were within 20 referrals

8.6 (5)

Responses were within 50 referrals

17.2 (10)

Responses disagree by more than 50

13.8 (8)

One or both partners didn’t respond

6.9 (4)

Agreement on percentage of FUP-eligible youth referred who ultimately lease up using a FUP

voucher (B19, 16)

Exact agreement

24.1 (14)

No agreement

55.2 (32)

One or both partners don’t know

17.2 (10)

One or both partners didn’t respond

3.4 (2)

Among the partners that reported different percentages of referred youth leasing-up (N=32)

PHA reported higher percentage

56.3 (18)

PCWA reported higher percentage

43.8 (14)

Sample size

58

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: Sample size is 58 partners unless otherwise noted. The PHA survey asks about referrals per quarter and the PCWA survey asks about referrals in the past fiscal year. To make these items more comparable, the number of PHA referrals was multiplied by 4. Differences in question wording could account for some of the disparity.

D-11

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.14. PCWA Referral Process

Percentage (n) of PCWAs

How PCWA identifies FUP-eligible youth (11)

Youth are referred by partner PHA

22.9 (16)

Youth are referred by another public housing agency

4.3 (3)

Youth are referred by homeless shelters or other homeless service providers

32.9 (23)

Youth are referred by youth housing programs

24.3 (17)

Youth are referred by aftercare service providers

42.9 (30)

Youth are referred by other state or local agencies

35.7 (25)

Youth are referred by other community-based agencies

48.6 (34)

Youth refer themselves

50.0 (35)

Other

PCWA (or foster care service provider) identifies youth directly

38.6 (27)

a

Did not indicate any identification strategy

7.1 (5)

Are all FUP-eligible youth identified by PCWA referred to the PHA (12)

Yes

45.7 (32)

No

45.7 (32)

Don’t know

5.7 (4)

No response

2.9 (2)

PCWA gives priority to youth based on factors such as age, housing status,

education, or employment status (13)

Some priority

45.7 (32)

No priority, PCWA refers youth on a first-come-first-serve basis

48.6 (34)

Don’t know

2.9 (2)

No response

2.9 (2)

No

PCWAs give priority (14) (N=36):

Yes

No

response

To youth who are homeless or precariously housed

91.7

2.8

5.6 (2)

(33)

(1)

To youth involved with multiple systems

44.4

44.4

11.1 (4)

(16)

(16)

According to age of youth

63.9

27.8

8.3 (3)

(23)

(10)

To youth with mental health problems

61.1

27.8

11.1 (4)

(22)

(10)

To youth with other disabilities

63.9

25.0

11.1 (4)

(23)

(9)

To youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered

8.3

75.0

16.7 (6)

(3)

(27)

To pregnant or parenting youth

75.0

16.7

8.3 (3)

(27)

(6)

According to high school completion

22.2

61.1

16.7 (6)

(8)

(22)

According to enrollment in an education or training program

52.8

33.3

13.9 (5)

(19)

(12)

According to work history

47.2

38.9

13.9 (5)

(17)

(14)

According to current employment status

52.8

33.3

13.9 (5)

(19)

(12)

According to existence of criminal record

41.7

47.2

11.1 (4)

(15)

(17)

Sample size

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

a There is no way to distinguish whether these respondents did not respond to this survey question or whether they were indicating that they do not identify FUP-eligible youth.

Note: Sample size is 70 PCWAs unless otherwise noted.

D-12

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.15. HCV Program Eligibility Determination for PCWA-Referred Youth

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

Partner PCWA screens youth for HCV eligibility prior to referral (B20)

Yes

50.5 (46)

No

25.3 (23)

Don’t know

24.2 (22)

PHA has expedited/streamlined HCV program eligibility determination process for PCWA referred

youth (B21)

Yes

64.8 (59)

No

35.2 (32)

Sample size

91

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Table D.16. PCWA Involvement in Immediate Post-Eligibility Determination Activities

Percentage

(n) of

PCWAs

PCWA action if PHA determines that a FUP-eligible youth referred by the PCWA is not eligible for

HCV program (17)

Notify the youth

71.4 (50)

Refer the youth to other PHA programs

38.6 (27)

Refer the youth to other housing options

84.3 (59)

Inform the youth about re-entry, if that is an option

55.7 (39)

Other

Inform the youth about appealing the PHA’s decision

1.4 (1)

Work directly with private landlords if youth has sufficient income

1.4 (1)

Notify the referral source

1.4 (1)

a

Did not indicate any actions

5.7 (4)

Frequency of PCWA attendance at voucher briefing with youth (18)

Almost always

41.4 (29)

More than half of the time

2.9 (2)

About half of the time

11.4 (8)

Less than half of the time

17.1 (12)

Almost never

22.9 (16)

No response

4.3 (3)

Sample size

70

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

a The survey cannot distinguish whether these respondents did not respond to this survey question or whether they were indicating that they take no actions if the PHA determines a referred youth is not eligible for HCV program.

D-13

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Housing Search and Lease-Up Process and Outcomes

In Section E, PHAs refer to those currently using FUP for youth.

Table D.17. Housing Search Process for FUP-Eligible Youth Who Have Had a Voucher Briefing

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

How much time a youth is initially given for the housing search and lease-up process (B22) (N=90)

60 days

67.8 (61)

90 days

13.3 (12)

120 days

17.8 (16)

More than 120 days

1.1 (1)

How often agency grants extension to FUP-eligible youth whose initial voucher term is going to expire

(B24) (N=89)

Almost always

51.7 (46)

More than one-half the time

3.4 (3)

About one-half the time

4.5 (4)

Less than one-half the time

9.0 (8)

Almost never

18.0 (16)

Don’t know

13.5 (12)

How much time is typically necessary for FUP-eligible youth to lease-up compared to participants in

standard HCV program (B25)

Youth typically require more time to lease up

23.1 (21)

Youth typically require about the same amount of time to lease up

54.9 (50)

Youth typically require less time to lease up

8.8 (8)

Do not know

13.2 (12)

Sample size

91

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 91 PHAs unless otherwise noted.

D-14

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.18. Housing Search Assistance

Percentage (n) of

Percentage (n) of

PHAs

PCWAs

Housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth who received

a voucher briefing (B26; 19)

At least some housing search assistance

95.6 (87)

87.1 (61)

None

2.2 (2)

8.6 (6)

Do not know

NA

2.9 (2)

No response

2.2 (2)

1.4 (1)

No

No

resp-

resp-

Yes

No

onse

Yes

No

onse

Type of assistance provided (B26; 20) (N = 91 PHAs, 62 PCWAs):

Provide information about different neighborhoods

75.8

19.8

4.4

71.0

22.6

6.5

(69)

(18)

(4)

(44)

(14)

(4)

Take youth on neighborhood tours

5.5

87.9

6.6

53.2

32.3

14.5

(5)

(80)

(6)

(33)

(20)

(9)

Transport youth to visit housing units

13.2

82.4

4.4

88.7

4.8

6.5

(12)

(75)

(4)

(55)

(3)

(4)

Provide a listing of vacant rental units

81.3

15.4

3.3

75.8

21.0

3.2

(74)

(14)

(3)

(47)

(13)

(2)

Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept youth

51.6

45.1

3.3

82.3

14.5

3.2

(47)

(41)

(3)

(51)

(9)

(2)

Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing 56.0

41.8

2.2

87.1

8.1

4.8

(51)

(38)

(2)

(54)

(5)

(3)

Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

89.0

7.7

3.3

67.7

27.4

4.8

(81)

(7)

(3)

(42)

(17)

(3)

Provide information about subsidized housing, including eligibility

89.0

8.8

2.2

79.0

17.7

3.2

requirements

(81)

(8)

(2)

(49)

(11)

(2)

Provide information about public transportation services

44.0

49.5

6.6

87.1

6.5

6.5

(40)

(45)

(6)

(54)

(4)

(4)

Help youth locate housing near school or work

38.5

56.0

5.5

88.7

6.5

4.8

(35)

(51)

(6)

(55)

(4)

(3)

Other

Educate youth about the benefits of low-poverty areas

1.1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

(1)

Help youth prepare rental portfolios, similar to resumes

1.1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

(1)

Refer youth to online housing listings

2.2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

(2)

Comparison of housing search assistance for FUP-eligible youth and

families (21)

Youth receive more search assistance

NA

45.7 (32)

Youth receive about the same amount of search assistance

NA

28.6 (20)

Youth receive less search assistance

NA

4.3 (3)

Do not know

NA

20.0 (14)

No response

NA

1.4 (1)

Comparison of housing search assistance for FUP-eligible youth and

standard HCV program participants (B27)a

Youth receive more search assistance

18.7 (17)

NA

Youth do not receive more search assistance

71.4 (65)

NA

Do not know

9.9 (9)

NA

Sample size

91

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

aPHAs were not given the option to reply that youth receive less housing search assistance than HCV program participants.

Note: PCWA sample size is 70 unless otherwise noted.

D-15

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.19. Housing Search Assistance: PHA and/or Partner PCWA Provide Assistance

Percentage (n) of PHA-PCWA

Partners

One or both partners provide housing search assistance to FUP-eligible youth

who received a voucher briefing (B26; 19)

One or both partners provide at least some housing search assistance

100.0 (58)

Neither partner provides housing search assistance

0.0 (0)

Both partners did not respond, or one partner did not respond and the other

0.0 (0)

said no

No

Yes

No

response

Type of assistance provided by one or both partners (B26; 20):

Provide information about different neighborhoods

87.9 (51)

8.6 (5)

3.4 (2)

Take youth on neighborhood tours

53.4 (31)

27.6 (16)

19.0 (11)

Transport youth to visit housing units

84.5 (49)

8.6 (5)

6.9 (4)

Provide a listing of vacant rental units

93.1 (54)

6.9 (4)

0.0 (0)

Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept youth

91.4 (53)

8.6 (5)

0.0 (0)

Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

91.4 (53)

6.9 (4)

1.7 (1)

Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

96.6 (56)

3.4 (2)

0.0 (0)

Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility

98.3 (57)

1.7 (1)

0.0 (0)

requirements

Provide information about public transportation services

91.4 (53)

5.2 (3)

3.4 (2)

Help youth locate housing near school or work

87.9 (51)

8.6 (5)

3.4 (2)

Sample size

58

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: For partner analyses, nonresponse indicates that (i) neither partner responded to the question, or (ii) one partner said no and the other did not respond to the question.

D-16

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.20. Other Premove and Postmove Assistance

Percentage (n) of PHAs

Percentage (n) of PCWAs

No

No

Yes

No

response

Yes

No

response

Pre-move counseling (B28; 22)

53.8

46.2

0.0 (0)

81.4

17.1

1.4 (1)

(49)

(42)

(57)

(12)

Post-move counseling (B28; 22)

27.5

71.4

1.1 (1)

70.0

28.6

1.4 (1)

(25)

(65)

(49)

(20)

Type of pre-move or post-move counseling (B29; 23) (N=50

PHAs, 57PCWAs)

Information about tenant rights and responsibilities

96.0

2.0 (1)

2.0 (1)

84.2

14.0

1.8 (1)

(48)

(48)

(8)

Information about budgeting

46.0

50.0

4.0 (2)

94.7

3.5 (2)

1.8 (1)

(23)

(25)

(54)

Information about credit

44.0

50.0

6.0 (3)

89.5

8.8 (5)

1.8 (1)

(22)

(25)

(51)

Information about landlord mediation

70.0

24.0

6.0 (3)

70.2

24.6

5.3 (3)

(35)

(12)

(40)

(14)

Information about the benefits of living in a low-poverty

60.0

34.0

6.0 (3)

43.9

43.9

12.3 (7)

neighborhood

(30)

(17)

(25)

(25)

Other

Information about living independently or finding the

4.0 (2)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

right place to live

Information about the moving process and calculating

2.0 (1)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

the rent subsidy

Information about program rules and voucher portability

2.0 (1)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Youth receive ongoing case management

NA

NA

NA

3.5 (2)

NA

NA

Encourage youth to consider housing units in low-poverty

areas (B30) (N=90 PHAs)

71.1 (64)

NA

Frequency of engaging in outreach to educate

landlords/property managers about FUP for youth (B32)

At least once a month

6.6 (6)

NA

Every few months

12.1 (11)

NA

At least once per year

31.9 (29)

NA

Less than once per year

23.1 (21)

NA

Never

26.4 (24)

NA

Frequency of PCWA attendance at meeting with landlord to

sign the lease (25)

Almost always

NA

30.0 (21)

More than one-half the time

NA

14.3 (10)

About one-half the time

NA

4.3 (3)

Less than one-half the time

NA

12.9 (9)

Almost never

NA

22.9 (16)

Do not know

NA

14.3 (10)

No response

NA

1.4 (1)

Financial assistance PCWA provides after PHA approves a

unit (24)

No response

NA

2.9 (2)

None of the types of assistance below

NA

12.9 (9)

At least one of the types of assistance:

NA

84.3 (59)

Help paying for security deposit

NA

78.6 (55)

Help paying for utility deposits

NA

62.9 (44)

Help paying for moving costs

NA

51.4 (36)

Help paying for furniture or housewares

NA

60.0 (42)

Sample size

91

70

NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: PHA sample size is 91 unless otherwise noted. PCWA sample size is 70 unless otherwise noted.

D-17

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.21. Other Premove and Postmove Assistance: PHA and/or Partner PCWA Provide Counseling

Percentage (n) of PHA-PCWA

Partners

No

Yes

No

response

One or both partners provide premove counseling (B28; 22)

91.4 (53)

8.6 (5)

0.0 (0)

One or both partners provide postmove counseling (B28; 22)

81.0 (47)

19.0 (11)

0.0 (0)

If one or both agencies provide premove or postmove counseling, type of

counseling (B29; 23) (N=53)

Information about tenant rights and responsibilities

92.5 (49)

7.5 (4)

0.0 (0)

Information about budgeting

86.8 (46)

11.3 (6)

1.9 (1)

Information about credit

88.7 (47)

9.4 (5)

1.9 (1)

Information about landlord mediation

79.2 (42)

17.0 (9)

3.8 (2)

Information about the benefits of living in a low-poverty neighborhood

66.0 (35)

24.5 (13)

9.4 (5)

Sample size

58

PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 58 partners unless otherwise noted. For partner analyses, nonresponse indicates that (i) neither partner responded to the question, or (ii) one partner said no and the other did not respond to the question.

D-18

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.22. Tenancy Approval Process

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

How often FUP-eligible youth typically need to request tenancy approval for more than one housing

unit before finding one the PHA approves (B33)

Almost always

3.3 (3)

More than one-half the time

1.1 (1)

About one-half the time

6.6 (6)

Less than one-half the time

20.9 (19)

Almost never

52.7 (48)

Do not know

15.4 (14)

How the number of requests for tenancy approval made by FUP-eligible youth compare to the number

made by participants in the standard HCV program (B34) (N=90)

Youth typically request tenancy approval on more units before lease up

4.4 (4)

Youth typically request tenancy approval on about the same number of units before lease up

57.8 (52)

Youth typically request tenancy approval on fewer units before lease up

15.6 (14)

Do not know

22.2 (20)

How often housing units for which FUP-eligible youth request tenancy approval fail during the PHA

housing quality inspection (B35) (N=90)

Almost always

3.3 (3)

More than one-half the time

6.7 (6)

About one-half the time

3.3 (3)

Less than one-half the time

31.1 (28)

Almost never

33.3 (30)

Do not know

22.2 (20)

How often FUP-eligible youth request tenancy approval for units for which the rent is determined to be unreasonable during the PHA review (B36) (N=89)

Almost always

1.1 (1)

More than one-half the time

1.1 (1)

About one-half the time

2.2 (2)

Less than one-half the time

19.1 (17)

Almost never

59.6 (53)

Do not know

16.9 (15)

Sample size

91

FUP = Family Unification Program. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 91 PHAs unless otherwise noted.

D-19

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.23. Housing Search and Lease-Up Outcomes

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

How often FUP-eligible youth are able to find suitable housing before voucher term expires (B23)

Almost always

51.6 (47)

More than one-half the time

20.9 (19)

About one-half the time

12.1 (11)

Less than one-half the time

5.5 (5)

Almost never

1.1 (1)

Do not know

8.8 (8)

Percentage of youth issued a FUP voucher who successfully lease up (B37)

Less than 25%

2.2 (2)

At least 25% but less than 50%

7.7 (7)

About 50%

5.5 (5)

a

More than 50% but less than 75%

11.0 (10)

More than 75%a

65.9 (60)

Do not know

7.7 (7)

Sample size

91

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

a The survey response options inadvertently excluded 75 percent. Respondents who preferred this category may have selected “More than 50% but less than 75%” or “More than 75%” instead.

Table D.24. Housing Stability

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

How long FUP-eligible youth typically stay in first housing unit leased with a FUP voucher (B38)

Less than 3 months

0.0 (0)

3 to 6 months

2.2 (2)

7 to 12 months

21.1 (19)

13 to 18 months

45.6 (41)

More than 18 months (that is, youth remain in unit after voucher expires)

4.4 (4)

Do not know

26.7 (24)

How often youth stay in the first housing unit for the full 18 months of FUP eligibility (B39)

Almost always

28.9 (26)

More than one-half the time

15.6 (14)

About one-half the time

12.2 (11)

Less than one-half the time

3.3 (3)

Almost never

4.4 (4)

Do not know

35.6 (32)

Average number of times FUP-eligible youth move from one housing unit to another with their

voucher during their 18 months of eligibility (B40)

0

46.7 (42)

1

20.0 (18)

2

2.2 (2)

3 or more

1.1 (1)

Do not know

30.0 (27)

Sample size

90

FUP = Family Unification Program. PHA = public housing agency.

D-20

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Services Provided to Youth After They Lease Up

In Section F, PHAs refer to those currently using FUP for youth.

Table D.25. Supportive Services Provided to Youth During 18-Month Voucher Period

Percentage (n) of PCWAs

Don’t

No

Yes

No

know

response

PCWA, contractor, or both agencies provide (27)

Help learning money-management skills

90.0 (63)

2.9 (2)

1.4 (1)

5.7 (4)

Help learning housekeeping skills

77.1 (54)

11.4 (8)

5.7 (4)

5.7 (4)

Help learning about proper nutrition

61.4 (43)

22.9 (16)

10.0 (7)

5.7 (4)

Help learning about meal preparation

68.6 (48)

12.9 (9)

12.9 (9)

5.7 (4)

Help learning how to access physical and mental health care

90.0 (63)

1.4 (1)

2.9 (2)

5.7 (4)

Help developing other basic life skills

92.9 (65)

0.0 (0)

1.4 (1)

5.7 (4)

Information about tenant rights and responsibilities

75.7 (53)

11.4 (8)

7.1 (5)

5.7 (4)

Assistance with security or utility deposits

84.3 (59)

7.1 (5)

2.9 (2)

5.7 (4)

Job-readiness training

84.3 (59)

4.3 (3)

5.7 (4)

5.7 (4)

Help finding a job

82.9 (58)

4.3 (3)

7.1 (5)

5.7 (4)

Educational services

85.7 (60)

4.3 (3)

4.3 (3)

5.7 (4)

Career counseling

87.1 (61)

4.3 (3)

2.9 (2)

5.7 (4)

Assessment of youth needs

91.4 (64)

0.0 (0)

2.9 (2)

5.7 (4)

Case planning

81.4 (57)

7.1 (5)

4.3 (3)

7.1 (5)

Help with rent arrearages

58.6 (41)

22.9 (16)

11.4 (8)

7.1 (5)

Help with utility arrearages

58.6 (41)

24.3 (17)

11.4 (8)

5.7 (4)

Other assistance to help youth live independently

88.6 (62)

1.4 (1)

4.3 (3)

5.7 (4)

Funding to pay for services (28)

Chafee funds

60.0 (42)

State funds

64.3 (45)

Funds from another source

41.4 (29)

No response

10.0 (7)

Reasons for contact with owner/landlord/property manager of youth’s

housing unit (29)

To familiarize landlord with FUP program and PCWA role

40.0 (28)

To respond to issues/problems identified by youth

80.0 (56)

To respond to issues/problems identified by partner PHA

68.6 (48)

To respond to issues/problems identified by the owner

70.0 (49)

a

Did not indicate a reason

14.3 (10)

Frequency of contact with owner/landlord/property manager of youth’s

housing unit (30)

At least once a month

5.7 (4)

Every few months

21.4 (15)

At least once per year

22.9 (16)

Less than once a year

22.9 (16)

Never

15.7 (11)

No response

11.4 (8)

Sample size

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

a The survey cannot distinguish whether these respondents did not respond to this survey question or whether they were indicating that they do not contact the owners/landlords/property managers of the youths’ housing units.

D-21

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.26. PCWA Contact With Youth During 18-Month Voucher Period

Percentage (n) of

PCWAs

In-person contact with youth (26a)

At least once per week

10.0 (7)

Twice per month

11.4 (8)

Once per month

52.9 (37)

Once per quarter

10.0 (7)

Once per year

4.3 (3)

No response

11.4 (8)

Phone, e-mail, or text-message contact with youth (26b)

At least once per week

25.7 (18)

Twice per month

30.0 (21)

Once per month

25.7 (18)

Once per quarter

2.9 (2)

Once per year

4.3 (3)

No response

11.4 (8)

Other contact with youth (26c)

Mode and/or frequency of contact is provided as needed

4.3 (3)

Sample size

70

PCWA = public child welfare agency.

D-22

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Exiting FUP and Transitional Assistance

In Section G, PHAs refer to those currently using FUP for youth.

Table D.27. Program Tenure and Reasons for Termination

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

How often FUP-eligible youth keep their voucher for the full 18 months of HAP (B41) (N=89)

Almost always

41.6 (37)

More than one-half the time

12.4 (11)

About one-half the time

5.6 (5)

Less than one-half the time

5.6 (5)

Almost never

11.2 (10)

Do not know

23.6 (21)

Most common reasons youth are terminated from the program before their 18 months of HAP are

exhausted (B42)

Youth move out of the leased unit without giving notice

24.2 (22)

Youth violate the lease

33.0 (30)

Youth violate program rules

17.6 (16)

Youth are involved in criminal activity

17.6 (16)

Do not know

26.4 (24)

Other

Not applicable—no youth have been terminated

14.3 (13)

Youth voluntarily left the program

2.2 (2)

Youth violated PHA’s housing quality standards inspection

1.1 (1)

Youth missed appointments

1.1 (1)

Sample size

91

FUP = Family Unification Program. HAP = housing assistance payments. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Sample size is 91 PHAs unless otherwise noted.

D-23

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.28. Voluntary Exit

Percentage

(n) of PCWAs

Among youth who leased up, percentage who voluntarily leave program after less than 18 months

of HAP (31)

Less than 25%

38.6 (27)

At least 25% but less than 50%

2.9 (2)

About 50%

8.6 (6)

More than 50% but less than 75%

0.0 (0)

More than 75%a

1.4 (1)

Do not know

42.9 (30)

No response

5.7 (4)

Most common reason youth voluntarily leave program after less than 18 months of HAP (32)

To live closer to school

0.0 (0)

To live closer to a job

0.0 (0)

To live closer to family or friends

12.9 (9)

To live in a safer neighborhood

1.4 (1)

To live in more affordable housing (including housing with lower utility costs)

1.4 (1)

To avoid conflicts with their landlord

2.9 (2)

To avoid conflicts with neighbors

0.0 (0)

Youth lack case management or other supportive services

5.7 (4)

Do not know

37.1 (26)

No response

8.6 (6)

Other

NA—no youth have voluntarily left before 18 months

18.6 (13)

Youth left the jurisdiction (moved out of state or joined the military)

2.9 (2)

To live with a partner who cannot live with them in FUP housing

1.4 (1)

Youth no longer needed subsidy

1.4 (1)

Sample size

70

HAP = housing assistance payments. NA = not applicable. PCWA = public child welfare agency.

a The survey response options inadvertently excluded 75 percent. Respondents who preferred this category may have selected “More than 75%” instead.

D-24

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.29. Transitional Assistance as FUP-Eligible Youth Approach 18-Month Time Limit

Percentage

(n) of PHAs

Percentage (n) of PCWAs

Agency or contractor provides transitional counseling or other

assistance (B43; 33)

Yes

28.6 (26)

70.0 (49)

No

68.1 (62)

20.0 (14)

No response

3.3 (3)

10.0 (7)

When transitional counseling or other assistance is provided

(B44) (N = 26 PHAs)

Youth must specifically request assistance

26.9 (7)

NA

Agency/contractor automatically provides assistance

73.1 (19)

NA

No

Type of transitional counseling or other assistance provided

Yes

No

response

(34) (N = 56 PCWAs)

Information about other housing programs available through

NA

69.6 (39)

12.5 (7)

17.9 (10)

agency

Information about housing programs administered by

NA

78.6 (44)

7.1 (4)

14.3 (8)

community-based agencies

Information about different neighborhoods

NA

50.0 (28)

30.4 (17)

19.6 (11)

Take youth on neighborhoods tours

NA

30.4 (30.4)

46.4 (26)

23.2 (13)

Transport youth to visit housing units

NA

53.6 (30)

28.6 (16)

17.9 (10)

Provide a listing of vacant rental units

NA

66.1 (37)

16.1 (9)

17.9 (10)

Refer youth to property managers/landlords

NA

66.1 (37)

17.9 (10)

16.1 (9)

Other

Cash assistance and housing subsidy

NA

1.8 (1)

NA

NA

Sample size

91

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: PHA sample size is 91 unless otherwise noted. PCWA sample size is 70 unless otherwise noted.

Table D.30. Transitional Assistance as FUP-Eligible Youth Approach 18-Month Time Limit: PHA and/or

Partner PCWA Provide Assistance

Percentage

(n) of PHA-

PCWA

Partners

One or both partners or their contractors provide transitional counseling or other assistance (B43; 33) Yes

74.1 (43)

No

19.0 (11)

No response

6.9 (4)

Sample size

58

FUP = Family Unification Program. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: For partner analyses, nonresponse indicates that (i) neither partner responded to the question, or (ii) one partner said no and the other did not respond to the question.

D-25

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Housing Options Beyond FUP

Table D.31. Availability of Housing for Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care or Been Emancipated From Foster Care

Percentage (n) of PCWAs That Responded…

Available,

But

Waiting

Available

List Is

Within the

More Than

Next Six

Six

Not

Do not

No

Months

Months

Available

Know

Response

Scattered-site or semi-supervised apartments

37.1 (26)

15.7 (11)

18.6 (13)

12.9 (9)

15.7 (11)

Clustered or supervised apartments

15.7 (11)

10.0 (7)

40.0 (28)

20.0 (14)

14.3 (10)

Shared homes

12.9 (9)

7.1 (5)

44.3 (31)

21.4 (15)

14.3 (10)

Adult-roommate apartments

10.0 (7)

0.0 (0)

48.6 (34)

27.1 (19)

14.3 (10)

Host homes

15.7 (11)

2.9 (2)

45.7 (32)

21.4 (15)

14.3 (10)

Boarding homes

14.3 (10)

7.1 (5)

40.0 (28)

24.3 (17)

14.3 (10)

Publicly owned housing units

21.4 (15)

30.0 (21)

15.7 (11)

18.6 (13)

14.3 (10)

Rental subsidies

25.7 (18)

22.9 (16)

20.0 (14)

17.1 (12)

14.3 (10)

Sample size

70

PCWA = public child welfare agency.

D-26

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.32. Public Housing Program Options for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Percentage (n) of PHAs

Currently

Not Currently

Using FUP for

Using FUP for

All

Youth

Youth

PHA currently administers a public housing program (B45, C6, D4)

76.3 (148)

75.6 (68)

76.9 (80)

a

Average number of public housing units under ACCs with HUD (HUD-

1,255 (149)

1,744 (69)

833 (80)

ARI.5.a.)

a

Number of public housing units under ACCs with HUD (percent) (HUD-

ARI.5.a.)

0 to 200

20.8 (31)

17.4 (12)

23.8 (19)

201 to 500

30.2 (45)

29.0 (20)

31.3 (25)

501 to 1,000

19.5 (29)

17.4 (12)

21.3 (17)

1,001 to 2,000

12.8 (19)

11.6 (8)

13.8 (11)

2,001 to 5,000

12.1 (18)

15.9 (11)

8.8 (7)

5,001 or more

4.7 (7)

8.7 (6)

1.3 (1)

a

Average number of households on waiting list for public housing (HUD-

3,381 (127)

4,145 (59)

2,718 (68)

B.1.1.)

a

Number of households on waiting list for public housing (percent) (HUD-

B.1.1.)

0 to 500

32.3 (41)

23.7 (14)

39.7 (27)

501 to 1,000

14.2 (18)

10.2 (6)

17.6 (12)

1,001 to 2,000

15.0 (19)

16.9 (10)

13.2 (9)

2,001 to 5,000

21.3 (27)

23.7 (14)

19.1 (13)

5,001 or more

17.3 (22)

25.4 (15)

10.3 (7)

a

Current status of waiting list for public housing (HUD-B.1.2)

Open to general public

63.3 (81)

59.3 (35)

66.7 (46)

Open to certain types of applicants

12.5 (16)

11.9 (7)

13.0 (9)

Open to general public during the past year for only a limited time

0.8 (1)

0.0 (0)

1.4 (1)

Open to certain types of applicants during the past year for only a limited

0.8 (1)

0.0 (0)

1.4 (1)

time

Other

Status depends on sites and/or bedroom size

11.7 (15)

15.3 (9)

8.7 (6)

Closed

10.2 (13)

13.6 (8)

7.2 (5)

a

Length of time list has been closed (HUD-B.1.2.b.)

0 to 6 months

38.5 (5)

25.0 (2)

60.0 (3)

7 to 12 months

7.7 (1)

12.5 (1)

0.0 (0)

Longer than 12 months

15.4 (2)

25.0 (2)

0.0 (0)

Longer than 24 months

38.5 (5)

37.5 (3)

40.0 (2)

Has local preference categories for waiting list (B46, C7, D5)

84.4 (124)

85.3 (58)

83.5 (66)

For youth who have aged out of foster care (B47, C8, D6)

8.8 (11)

10.3 (6)

7.5 (5)

Limit on number of youth who may be given preference

27.3 (3)

16.7 (1)

40.0 (2)

(B48-49, C9-10, D7-8)

For FUP-eligible youth whose voucher has reached the 18-month limit

NA

5.2 (3)

NA

(B50)

Limit on number of youth who may be given preference (B51-52)

NA

33.3 (1)

NA

Rank orders preference categories on waiting list (B53, C11, D9)

81.8 (9)

83.3 (5)

80.0 (4)

Rank of youth who aged out of foster care (B54, C12, D10)

Top third

55.6 (5)

80.0 (4)

25.0 (1)

Middle third

11.1 (1)

0.0 (0)

25.0 (1)

Bottom third

33.3 (3)

20.0 (1)

50.0 (2)

Rank of youth whose FUP voucher has reached the 18-month limit (B55)

Top third

NA

60.0 (3)

NA

Middle third

NA

0.0 (0)

NA

Bottom third

NA

40.0 (2)

NA

Does not have local preference categories for waiting list (B46, C7, D5)

15.6 (23)

14.7 (10)

16.5 (13)

Sample size

195

91

98

ACC = annual contributions contract. FUP = Family Unification Program. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = data not available. PHA = public housing agency.

a Data are from a separate survey of PHAs administered by Abt Associates on behalf of HUD. The survey, which focused on PHA engagement with homeless households, was fielded to the universe of PHAs in summer 2012.

Note: Sample size varies throughout the table as a result of skip patterns and nonresponse to a given item. Due to the complexity of the skip patterns, for this table, sample size is not reported the for items in which the sample sizes differs from the final row of the table.

D-27

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.33. HCV Program for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Percentage (n) of PHAs

Currently

Not Currently

Using FUP for

Using FUP for

All

Youth

Youth

a

Average number of vouchers under the ACCs with HUD (HUD-ARI.4.)

3,266 (195)

4,539 (91)

2,153 (104)

a

Number of vouchers under the ACCs with HUD (percent) (HUD-ARI.4.)

0 to 500

11.3 (22)

6.6 (6)

15.4 (16)

501 to 1,000

21.5 (42)

11.0 (10)

30.8 (32)

1,001 to 2,000

24.1 (47)

26.4 (24)

22.1 (23)

2,001 to 5,000

26.7 (52)

35.2 (32)

19.2 (20)

5,001 to 10,000

11.8 (23)

12.1 (11)

11.5 (12)

10,001 or more

4.6 (9)

8.8 (8)

1.0 (1)

a

Average number of households on waiting list for vouchers (HUD-A.1.1.)

3,844 (175)

4,945 (78)

2,958 (97)

a

Number of households on waiting list for vouchers (percent) (HUD-A.1.1.)

0 to 500

29.7 (52)

23.1 (18)

35.1 (34)

501 to 1,000

14.9 (26)

15.4 (12)

14.4 (14)

1,001 to 2,000

18.3 (32)

17.9 (14)

18.6 (18)

2,001 to 5,000

16.0 (28)

17.9 (14)

14.4 (14)

5,001 to 10,000

12.6 (22)

17.9 (14)

8.2 (8)

10,001 or more

8.6 (15)

7.7 (6)

9.3 (9)

a

Current status of waiting list for vouchers (HUD-A.1.2)

Open to general public

22.3 (39)

20.5 (16)

23.7 (23)

Open to certain types of applicants

10.9 (19)

11.5 (9)

10.3 (10)

Open to general public during the past year for only a limited time

5.7 (10)

6.4 (5)

5.2 (5)

Open to certain types of applicants during the past year for only a limited time

4.0 (7)

7.7 (6)

1.0 (1)

Other

1.7 (3)

1.3 (1)

2.1 (2)

Closed

55.4 (97)

52.6 (41)

57.7 (56)

a

Length of time list has been closed (HUD-B.1.2.b.)

0 to 6 months

7.3 (7)

2.4 (1)

10.9 (6)

7 to 12 months

11.5 (11)

7.3 (3)

14.5 (8)

Longer than 12 months

17.7 (17)

22.0 (9)

14.5 (8)

Longer than 24 months

63.5 (61)

68.3 (28)

60.0 (33)

Has local preference categories for waiting list (B56, C13, D11)

81.4 (158)

84.4 (76)

78.8 (82)

For youth who have aged out of foster care (B57, C14, D12)

15.8 (25)

19.7 (15)

12.2 (10)

Limit on number of youth who may be given preference (B58-59, C15-16,

24.0 (6)

20.0 (3)

30.0 (3)

D13-14)

For FUP-eligible youth whose voucher has reached the 18-month limit (B60)

NA

24.0 (18)

NA

Limit on number of youth who may be given preference (B61-62)

NA

10.5 (2)

NA

Rank orders preference categories on waiting list (B63, C17, D15)

77.8 (28)

80.8 (21)

70.0 (7)

Rank of youth who aged out of foster care (B64, C18, D16)

Top third

67.9 (19)

66.7 (14)

71.4 (5)

Middle third

10.7 (3)

9.5 (2)

14.3 (1)

Bottom third

21.4 (6)

23.8 (5)

14.3 (1)

Rank of youth whose FUP voucher has reached the 18-month limit (B65)

Top third

NA

70.0 (14)

NA

Middle third

NA

5.0 (1)

NA

Bottom third

NA

25.0 (5)

NA

Does not have local preference categories for waiting list (B56, C13, D11)

18.6 (36)

15.6 (14)

21.2 (22)

64.2 (111)

66.7 (52)

62.1 (59)

a

Has a PBV program (HUD-A.3.1.)

a

PBV preferences are different from HCV program preferences (HUD-A.3.3.).

35.5 (39)

41.2 (21)

30.5 (18)

PBV preferences include a preference for youth aging out of foster care

5.1 (2)

9.5 (2)

0.0 (0)

a

about to become homeless (HUD-A.3.4).

Sample size

195

91

98

ACC = annual contributions contract. FUP = Family Unification Program. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = data not available. PBV = project-based voucher. PHA = public housing agency.

a Data are from a separate survey of PHAs administered by Abt Associates on behalf of HUD. The survey, which focused on PHA engagement with homeless households, was fielded to the universe of PHAs in the summer of 2012.

Note: Sample size varies throughout the table as a result of skip patterns and nonresponse to a given item. Due to the complexity of the skip patterns, for this table, sample size is not reported the for items in which the sample sizes differs from the final row of the table.

D-28

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives on Policy and Practice

In Section I, PHAs refer to those currently using FUP for youth.

Table D.34. Factors Affecting Ability To Administer FUP to Eligible Youth

Percentage (n) of PHAs (B66)

Percentage (n) of PCWAs (38)

Not a

Somewhat

Major

No

Major

No

Chall-

of a

Chall-

Respo

Not a

Somewhat of

Chall-

Respo

enge

Challenge

enge

nse

Challenge

a Challenge

enge

nse

Rental market conditions

42.9

38.5 (35)

16.5

2.2 (2)

12.9 (9)

27.1 (19)

48.6

11.4

(39)

(15)

(34)

(8)

18-month time limit

23.1

31.9 (29)

40.7

4.4 (4)

11.4 (8)

32.9 (23)

45.7

10.0

(21)

(37)

(32)

(7)

Coordination with partner

50.5

34.1 (31)

13.2

2.2 (2)

64.3 (45)

21.4 (15)

4.3 (3)

10.0

(46)

(12)

(7)

Administrative costs

47.3

35.2 (32)

15.4

2.2 (2)

51.4 (36)

24.3 (17)

10.0

14.3

(43)

(14)

(7)

(10)

Service provision costs

46.2

35.2 (32)

13.2

5.5 (5)

47.1 (33)

34.3 (24)

5.7 (4)

12.9

(42)

(12)

(9)

Staffing resources

39.6

36.3 (33)

22.0

2.2 (2)

34.3 (24)

35.7 (25)

15.7

14.3

(36)

(20)

(11)

(10)

Waiting list procedures and

69.2

22.0 (20)

5.5 (5)

3.3 (3)

24.3 (17)

38.6 (27)

27.1

10.0

administration

(63)

(19)

(7)

Relationships with

64.8

30.8 (28)

2.2 (2)

2.2 (2)

25.7 (18)

54.3 (38)

7.1 (5)

12.9

landlords/property managers

(59)

(9)

Duration of search process

59.3

26.4 (24)

11.0

3.3 (3)

17.1 (12)

51.4 (36)

18.6

12.9

(54)

(10)

(13)

(9)

Complexity of leasing process

72.5

18.7 (17)

6.6 (6)

2.2 (2)

25.7 (18)

48.6 (34)

14.3

11.4

(66)

(10)

(8)

Inability to use project-based

70.3

13.2 (12)

8.8 (8)

7.7 (7)

30.0 (21)

34.3 (24)

17.1

18.6

FUP-vouchers

(64)

(12)

(13)

Other: getting referrals/too few

2.2 (2)

NA

referrals

Other: too few FUP vouchers

NA

5.7 (4)

Other: disconnect between

NA

1.4 (1)

Chafee funds (ends at age 21)

and FUP (ends at age 22)

Sample size

91

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

D-29

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.35. Progress Made

Percentage (n) of PHAs (since Entity began

Percentage (n) of PCWAs (since Entity began

awarding FUP vouchers to youth) (B67)

partnering with PHA) (39)

Great

Great

Deal

No

Some

Deal of

No

No

Some

of

No

Progr-

Progr-

Progr-

Do not

Resp

Progr-

Prog-

Progr-

Do not

Resp

ess

ess

ess

Know

onse

ess

ress

ess

Know

onse

Coordination with partner

6.6 (6)

26.4

58.2

6.6 (6)

2.2

0.0 (0)

15.7

74.3

2.9 (2)

7.1

(24)

(53)

(2)

(11)

(52)

(5)

Identification and referral

5.5 (5)

31.9

51.6

9.9 (9)

1.1

0.0 (0)

24.3

64.3

4.3 (3)

7.1

process

(29)

(47)

(1)

(17)

(45)

(5)

Housing search and selection

6.6 (6)

36.3

36.3

18.7

2.2

5.7 (4)

44.3

31.4

11.4

7.1

process

(33)

(33)

(17)

(2)

(31)

(22)

(8)

(5)

Lease-up and move in

6.6 (6)

34.1

47.3

11.0

1.1

2.9 (2)

34.3

40.0

15.7

7.1

process

(31)

(43)

(10)

(1)

(24)

(28)

(11)

(5)

Providing required services

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5.7 (4)

32.9

41.4

11.4

8.6

(23)

(29)

(8)

(6)

Increasing housing stability

12.1

34.1

23.1

29.7

1.1

2.9 (2)

28.6

44.3

17.1

7.1

while youth are in the

(11)

(31)

(21)

(27)

(1)

(20)

(31)

(12)

(5)

program

Reducing voucher turnover

14.3

35.2

15.4

33.0

2.2

2.9 (2)

32.9

30.0

27.1

7.1

(13)

(32)

(14)

(30)

(2)

(23)

(21)

(19)

(5)

Reducing post-FUP

14.3

22.0

11.0

51.6

1.1

4.3 (3)

30.0

18.6

40.0

7.1

homelessness and housing

(13)

(20)

(10)

(47)

(1)

(21)

(13)

(28)

(5)

instability

Sample size

91

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

D-30

Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.36. Perspectives on Policy and Practice

Percentage Percentage

(n) of

(n) of

PHAs

PCWAs

Perspective on percentage of Chafee funds that may be spent on room and board

for people who are at least 18 but not yet 21 years old (40)

Should be higher than the current 30%

NA

57.1 (40)

Should be lower than the current 30%

NA

1.4 (1)

Should remain at 30%

NA

22.9 (16)

Do not know

NA

8.6 (6)

No Response

NA

10.0 (7)

Perspective on 18-month limit for HAP for FUP-eligible youth (B68; 41)

Time limit should be eliminated

40.7 (37)

20.0 (14)

Time limit should be reduced

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

Time limit should be extended

46.2 (42)

58.6 (41)

Time limit should remain the same

8.8 (8)

10.0 (7)

Do not know

3.3 (3)

1.4 (1)

No response

1.1 (1)

10.0 (7)

Number of months suggested for time limit (B68, B69; 41, 42) (N=46 PHAs, 49

PCWAs)

19 to 23 months

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

24 months

34.8 (16)

38.8 (19)

25 to 36 months

26.1 (12)

34.7 (17)

48 or more months

21.7 (10)

12.2 (6)

Do not know

15.2 (7)

0.0 (0)

No response

2.2 (1)

14.3 (7)

Perspective on elimination of requirement for PCWA to provide specific set of

services to FUP-eligible youth during their 18 months of HAP eligibility (B70; 43)

Service requirement should be eliminated

5.5 (5)

10.0 (7)

Service requirement should not be eliminated

93.4 (85)

84.3 (59)

No response

1.1 (1)

5.7 (4)

Perspective on application of service requirement to FUP-eligible families (B71;44)

Service requirement should apply to families

87.9 (80)

45.7 (32)

Service requirement should not apply to families

11.0 (10)

47.1 (33)

No response

1.1 (1)

7.1 (5)

Perspective on ability of child welfare agencies to make FUP referrals to the PHA

while youth are still housed in the foster care system (45, 46)

PCWA should not be able to refer youth while housed in foster care

NA

8.6 (6)

PCWA should be able to refer youth while housed in foster care

NA

85.7 (60)

Among those who said PCWA should be able to refer youth while housed in foster

care, recommended number of months before youth leave care in which agency

should be able to refer youth for FUP (N=60 PCWAs):

Less than 1 month

NA

0.0 (0)

1 to 3 months

NA

21.7 (13)

3 to 6 months

NA

41.7 (25)

6 to 9 months

NA

15.0 (9)

9 to 12 months

NA

16.7 (10)

More than a year

NA

5.0 (3)

Do not know

NA

0.0 (0)

Sample size

91

70

FUP = Family Unification Program. HAP = housing assistance payments. NA = data not available. PCWA = public child welfare agency. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: PHA sample size is 91, unless otherwise noted. PCWA sample size is 70, unless otherwise noted.

D-31

APPENDIX E

PHA SURVEY INSTRUMENT

E-1

HUD Survey:

Addressing the Housing Needs of Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is conducting a study on the housing needs of the nearly 30,000 youth who age out of the foster care system each year. The goal of the study is to understand the issues associated with housing for youth aging out of foster care and help to develop and improve strategies for addressing these issues.

As part of that project, HUD has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct a survey of public housing agencies (PHAs) and their partnering public child welfare agencies (PCWAs) in communities that use Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers. The purpose of the survey is to identify which communities allocate vouchers to youth aging out of foster care, and obtain information on how FUP vouchers work for this population. We are interested in learning from communities across the country that are currently serving FUP-eligible youth, as well as those that have done so in the past, and those that have never served eligible youth.

The questions in this survey ask you to think about FUP-eligible youth and their experiences in your program, and how these experiences differ from those of families in your community. You will also be asked about the child welfare system in your community and aspects of the program for which your role is critical. Please answer the questions thinking about your role in serving FUP-eligible youth. We will ask your partnering PCWA about their role in serving FUP-eligible youth in a separate survey.

If your agency has contracted out its FUP, please note that some questions may be better

addressed by the contractor. You may wish to ask your contractor to provide you with the

relevant information.

If your agency has multiple partner organizations administering FUP, please enlist the help of

your largest partner to complete the survey.

This survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. Please note that we need to have all

responses by November 6th. You may use either pen or pencil to mark your responses. Unless

otherwise indicated, please answer all items.

Thank you in advance for responding to this survey. Your responses will help the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development better understand how communities are addressing the housing needs

of foster youth aging out of care.

Please contact Debra Wright, (202) 554-7576 or dwright@mathematica-mpr.com, at Mathematica Policy

Research with any questions about the survey.

OMB Control No. 2528-0285

E-2

2

SCREENER

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A1.

What is the name of your PHA?

A2.

So that we know who in the PHA is responding to this survey, please provide your contact

information:

Name

Position

Email

A2a. Please provide your telephone number:

Ext.

A3.

How long have you been employed by the PHA (in any position or title)?

LENGTH OF TIME AT PHA

YEARS MONTHS

FUP SCREENER 1

A4.

Our records indicate that your PHA CURRENTLY operates the Family Unification Program (FUP)

or contracts with another agency to administer your FUP. Is this correct?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

CONTINUE

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO END, PAGE 2

FUP SCREENER 2

A5.

Has your agency, or an agency you work with to administer the FUP, served a FUP-eligible

YOUTH with a FUP voucher IN THE PAST 18 MONTHS?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

SKIP TO CURRENT

FUP-FOR-YOUTH

MODULE B, PAGE 3

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

CONTINUE

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO END, PAGE 2

E-3

FUP SCREENER 3

A6.

Has your agency EVER served a FUP-eligible youth with a FUP voucher?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

SKIP TO PAST

FUP-FOR-YOUTH

MODULE C, PAGE

21

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO NEVER

FUP-FOR-YOUTH

MODULE D, PAGE

25

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO END

END.

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. Those are all the questions we have for

you today. Please send in your questionnaire using the provided postage-paid envelope today.

E-4

CURRENT FUP FOR YOUTH MODULE

PHA’S HISTORICAL USE OF FUP FOR YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE

The questions in this section ask about your agency and its history with the Family Unification Program (FUP).

B1.

Does your PHA administer the FUP or do you contract with another organization(s) to

administer the FUP for you?

 Your PHA administers the FUP ........................................................................... 1

 Another organization administers the FUP .......................................................... 2

If another agency administers your FUP, please note that some questions may be better addressed by

that contractor. You may wish to ask your contractor to complete those sections or provide you with

the relevant information.

B2.

What was the FIRST year you served a FUP-eligible youth through your agency’s Family

Unification Program (FUP)? If you are unsure, please provide your best estimate.

YEAR

B3.

What was the MOST RECENT year you served a FUP-eligible youth through your agency’s

Family Unification Program (FUP)? If you are unsure, please provide your best estimate.

YEAR

B4.

What are the reasons your agency decided to serve FUP-eligible youth with FUP vouchers?

Select all that apply

 HUD requirement that FUP vouchers be used to serve FUP-eligible youth

as well as FUP-eligible families ............................................................................ 1

 Many youth age out of foster care in this community ........................................... 2

 The housing needs of youth aging out of foster care are not being met in

other ways in the community ................................................................................ 3

 Homelessness among former foster youth is a big problem in your

community ............................................................................................................ 4

 Former foster youth comprise a large share of HCV applicants ........................... 5

 Addressing the housing needs of former foster youth is a priority for your

agency or in your community ............................................................................... 6

 Addressing the housing needs of youth generally is a priority for your

agency or in your community ............................................................................... 7

 Addressing the housing needs of former foster youth is a priority for the

public child welfare agency .................................................................................. 8

 Linking supportive services to subsidized housing is a priority ............................ 9

 The public child welfare agency has the resources to provide the required

support services ................................................................................................... 10

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 11

Specify

E-5

PARTNER PCWA: CONTACT INFORMATION AND COLLABORATION

B5.

What is the name of your partner public child welfare agency (PCWA)? Please provide the name

of the partner PCWA itself, even if your partner PCWA contracts services to another provider

that interacts with your PHA.

B5a.

As part of this project, we will be contacting your partnering PCWA to ask them some additional

questions about the FUP and services they provide to youth transitioning out of foster care.

Who is your contact person at the PCWA? Please indicate below the person at your partner

PCWA that you contact the most. This person can be of any position or title.

B5b.

What is this person’s title/position?

B5c.

What is your contact person’s telephone number?

Ext.

B5d.

What is your contact person’s email address?

B5e. What is your contact person’s mailing address?

Street Address 1 (Include apartment number)

Street Address 2

City

State

Zip

E-6

The next few questions ask about your agency’s collaboration with your partner PCWA.

B6.

How familiar are you with each of the following?

Select one per row

NOT

VERY

SOMEWHAT

AT ALL

a. Characteristics of youth aging out of foster care and their

housing needs

2 

1 

0 

b. Your partner PCWA’s procedures for identifying FUP-eligible

2 

1 

youth

0 

c. Your partner PCWA’s procedures for referring FUP-eligible

youth to your agency

2 

1 

0 

d. Housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by

your partner PCWA or contracted providers

2 

1 

0 

e. Your partner PCWA’s provision of supportive services to FUP-

2 

1 

eligible youth

0 

B7.

Has your partner PCWA ever provided your staff with training on the following?

YES

NO

a. Characteristics of youth aging out of foster care and their housing needs

1 

0 

b. How your partner PCWA identifies FUP-eligible youth

1 

0 

c. How your partner PCWA refers FUP-eligible youth to your agency

1 

0 

d. The types of housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by

your partner PCWA or contracted providers

1 

0 

e. The types of supportive services provided to FUP-eligible youth by your

partner PCWA or contracted providers

1 

0 

f.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN Q7, ANSWER Q8. IF YOU ANSWERED “NO” TO ALL

ITEMS IN Q7, SKIP TO Q9.

E-7

B8.

Considering all trainings your partner PCWA provides to your staff, how often does training

occur? Include both formal and informal training sessions provided by your partner PCWA to

your staff, but do not include meetings or briefings. If training occurred only during project

start-up, select “Less than once per year.”

Select one only

 Less than once per year ....................................................................................... 1

 Annually ................................................................................................................ 2

 Twice a year ......................................................................................................... 3

 Quarterly ............................................................................................................... 4

 More than once per quarter .................................................................................. 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B9.

Has your staff ever provided your partner PCWA with training on the following?

YES

NO

a. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program eligibility

1 

0 

b. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher briefings

1 

0 

c. Housing search and lease-up processes within the Section 8 Housing

Choice Voucher Program

1 

0 

d. Tracking and reporting requirements associated with the FUP

1 

0 

e. FUP-eligibility and other FUP requirements

1 

0 

f.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

B10.

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN Q9, ANSWER Q10. IF YOU ANSWERED “NO” TO

ALL ITEMS IN B9, SKIP TO B11.

Considering all trainings your staff provides your partner PCWA, how often does training

occur? Include both formal and informal training sessions provided by your partner PCWA to

your staff, but do not include meetings or briefings. If training occurred only during project

start-up, select “Less than once per year.”

Select one only

 Less than once per year ....................................................................................... 1

 Annually ................................................................................................................ 2

 Twice a year ......................................................................................................... 3

 Quarterly ............................................................................................................... 4

 More than once per quarter .................................................................................. 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

E-8

B11.

Does your agency have regular meetings with your partner PCWA about serving FUP-eligible

youth? If meetings took place only at program start-up, select “No.”

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B13b

B12.

How often are these meetings held?

Select one only

 Weekly .................................................................................................................. 1

 Monthly ................................................................................................................. 2

 Quarterly ............................................................................................................... 3

 Twice a year ......................................................................................................... 4

 Annually ................................................................................................................ 5

B13a. Apart from any regular meetings, how often does your agency communicate with your partner

PCWA about serving FUP-eligible youth (either by phone, email, or in-person)?

Select one only

 Daily ..................................................................................................................... 1

 Weekly .................................................................................................................. 2

 Monthly ................................................................................................................. 3

 Quarterly ............................................................................................................... 4

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 5

Specify

B13b. IF YOU ANSWERED “NO” TO QUESTION B11, ANSWER B13B.

How often does your agency communicate with your partner PCWA about serving FUP-eligible

youth (either by phone, email, or in-person)?

Select one only

 Daily ..................................................................................................................... 1

 Weekly .................................................................................................................. 2

 Monthly ................................................................................................................. 3

 Quarterly ............................................................................................................... 4

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 5

Specify

E-9

FUP VOUCHERS FOR FUP-ELIGIBLE YOUTH: VOUCHER ALLOCATION AND PROCESS

The questions in this next section ask about your current Family Unification Program.

B14.

What is your agency’s baseline number of FUP vouchers?

NUMBER OF VOUCHERS

B15.

As of today, how many FUP vouchers are currently leased up by FUP-eligible youth? If you do

not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

NUMBER OF VOUCHERS

B16.

Does your agency set aside a specific number or percentage of FUP vouchers for FUP-eligible

youth?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B18

B17.

How many or what percentage of FUP vouchers are set aside for FUP-eligible youth? If you do

not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

a.

NUMBER OF VOUCHERS

OR

b.

PERCENT OF VOUCHERS

The next few questions ask about the FUP referral process and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

Program eligibility determination.

B18.

On average, how many referrals for FUP-eligible youth does your agency receive in a typical

quarter from your partner PCWA? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF REFERRALS PER QUARTER

B19.

Approximately what percentage of the FUP-eligible youth who are referred to your agency

ultimately lease up using a FUP voucher? If you do not know the exact percentage, your best

guess is fine.

Select one only

 Less than 25% ...................................................................................................... 1

 At least 25% but less than 50% ............................................................................ 2

 About 50% ............................................................................................................ 3

 More than 50% but less than 75% ....................................................................... 4

 More than 75% ..................................................................................................... 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B20.

Does your partner PCWA pre-screen youth for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher eligibility

prior to referring them to your agency?

E-10

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B21.

Does your agency have an expedited or streamlined Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

eligibility determination process for FUP-eligible youth who have been referred by your partner

PCWA?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

The next set of questions asks about the housing search process for FUP-eligible youth who have had a voucher briefing.

B22.

Once a FUP voucher has been issued to a FUP-eligible youth, how much time is a youth initially

given for the housing search and lease-up process? We are interested in the initial voucher term

for FUP-eligible youth.

Select one only

 60 days ................................................................................................................. 1

 90 days ................................................................................................................. 2

 120 days ............................................................................................................... 3

 More than 120 days .............................................................................................. 4

B23.

How often are FUP-eligible youth able to find a suitable housing unit before their initial voucher

term expires?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

E-11

B24.

How often does your agency grant an extension to FUP-eligible youth whose initial voucher

term is going to expire?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B25.

How much time is typically necessary for FUP-eligible youth to lease up, compared to the

amount of time for participants in the standard Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program?

Select one only

 Youth typically require MORE time to lease up .................................................... 1

 Youth typically require ABOUT THE SAME amount of time to lease-up .............. 2

 Youth typically require LESS time to lease up ..................................................... 3

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B26.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide any of the following types of housing search assistance to FUP-eligible youth? Please do not include assistance that is only

provided by your partner PCWA or your partner PCWA’s contractor.

YES

NO

a. Provide information about different neighborhoods

1 

0 

b. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

c. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

d. Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

e. Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept FUP

vouchers

1 

0 

f.

Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

1 

0 

g. Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

h. Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility

requirements

1 

0 

i.

Provide information about public transportation services

1 

0 

j.

Help youth locate housing near school or work

1 

0 

k. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

E-12

B27.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide assistance to FUP-eligible

youth in their search for a suitable housing unit, beyond what your agency provides to

participants in the standard Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program? Please do not include

housing search assistance that is only provided by your partner PCWA or your partner PCWA’s

contractor.

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

B28.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide FUP-eligible youth with…

YES

NO

a. Pre-move counseling?

1 

0 

b. Post-move counseling?

1 

0 

B29.

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” TO EITHER ITEM IN Q28, ANSWER Q29. IF YOU ANSWERED

“NO” TO BOTH ITEMS IN Q28, SKIP TO Q30.

What does this counseling include?

YES

NO

a. Information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

b. Information about budgeting

1 

0 

c. Information about credit

1 

0 

d. Information about landlord mediation

1 

0 

e. Information about the benefits of living in low-poverty areas (low poverty

1 

areas are areas where the poverty rate is 10% or less)

0 

f.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

B30.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, encourage youth to consider housing

units in low-poverty areas, that is, areas where the poverty rate is 10% or less?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

B32.

How often does your agency engage in any outreach to educate landlords or property managers

about FUP for youth who have aged out of foster care? This outreach may be in combination

with or in addition to outreach to educate landlords or property managers about the standard

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Select one only

 At least once a month ........................................................................................... 1

 Every few months ................................................................................................. 2

 At least once per year .......................................................................................... 3

 Less than once a year .......................................................................................... 4

 Never .................................................................................................................... 0

E-13

B33.

How often do FUP-eligible youth typically need to request tenancy approval for more than one

housing unit before finding one which your agency approves?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B34.

How does the number of requests for tenancy approval made by FUP-eligible youth compare to

the number made by participants in the standard Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program?

Select one only

 Youth typically request tenancy approval on MORE units before lease-up ......... 1

 Youth typically request tenancy approval on ABOUT THE SAME number of

units before lease-up ............................................................................................ 2

 Youth typically request tenancy approval on FEWER units before lease-up ....... 3

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B35.

How often do the housing units for which FUP-eligible youth request tenancy approval fail

inspection during the PHA housing quality inspection?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B36.

How often do FUP-eligible youth request tenancy approval for units for which the rent is

determined to be unreasonable during the PHA review?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

E-14

B37.

What percentage of the FUP-eligible youth who are issued a FUP voucher successfully lease-

up?

Select one only

 Less than 25% ...................................................................................................... 1

 At least 25% but less than 50% ............................................................................ 2

 About 50% ............................................................................................................ 3

 More than 50% but less than 75% ....................................................................... 4

 More than 75% ..................................................................................................... 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

The next set of questions asks about the housing stability of FUP-eligible youth once they lease up.

B38.

How long do FUP-eligible youth typically stay in the FIRST housing unit leased with a FUP

voucher?

Select one only

 Less than 3 months .............................................................................................. 1

 3 to 6 months ........................................................................................................ 2

 7 to 12 months ...................................................................................................... 3

 13 to 18 months .................................................................................................... 4

 More than 18 months (i.e., youth remain in the unit after voucher expires) ......... 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B39.

How often do youth stay in that FIRST housing unit for the full 18 months they are eligible for

the FUP subsidy?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B40.

On average, about how many times do FUP-eligible youth move from one housing unit to

another with their FUP voucher during their 18 months of eligibility? An estimate is fine. Please

do not include moves associated with the end of the 18 months of FUP eligibility or termination

from the program.

Select one only

 0 ........................................................................................................................... 0

 1 ........................................................................................................................... 1

 2 ........................................................................................................................... 2

 3 or more .............................................................................................................. 3

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

E-15

Some youth leave or are terminated from FUP before their 18 months of housing assistance

payments (HAP) are exhausted. The next few questions are about youth that exit the program

before 18 months have passed.

B41.

How often do FUP-eligible youth keep their voucher until their 18 months of HAP are exhausted?

If your agency does not keep track of this number, please provide your best guess.

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B42.

What are the most common reasons for FUP-eligible youth to be terminated from the program

before their 18 months of HAP is exhausted?

Select all that apply

 Youth move out of the leased unit without giving notice ...................................... 1

 Youth violate lease (e.g., damage to the unit, or nonpayment of rent) ................. 2

 Youth violate program rules (e.g., fraud) .............................................................. 3

 Youth are involved in criminal activity .................................................................. 4

 Other reason (SPECIFY) ...................................................................................... 5

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B43.

Does your agency or your agency’s contracted provider provide transitional counseling or other

assistance to FUP-eligible youth as they approach their 18-month time limit? Please do not

include any assistance provided by your partner PCWA or your partner PCWA’s contractor.

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B45

B44.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, automatically provide this transitional

counseling or other assistance or must youth specifically request it? Please do not include any

assistance provided by your partner PCWA or your partner PCWA’s contractor.

 Youth must specifically request assistance .......................................................... 1

 Your agency or contractor automatically provides assistance ............................. 2

E-16

OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT

Now we would like to ask you some questions about your public housing waiting list and your

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list.

B45. Does your agency currently administer a public housing program?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B56

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO B56

B46.

Has your agency established local preference categories for its public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B56

B47.

Does your agency have a local preference on its public housing waiting list for youth who have

aged out of foster care?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B50

B48.

Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care that can be given

preference on the public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B50

B49.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

B50.

Does your agency have a local preference on its public housing waiting list for FUP-eligible

youth whose voucher has reached the 18-month limit?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B53

B51.

Is there a limit on the number of youth whose FUP voucher has reached the 18-month limit that

can be given preference on the public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B53

B52.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH WHO REACHED

THE 18-MONTH FUP PERIOD

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” TO Q47 OR Q50, CONTINUE TO Q53. IF YOU

ANSWERED “NO” TO BOTH, SKIP TO Q56.

E-17

B53.

Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your

system of preferences for your public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B56

B54.

Where do youth who aged out of foster care fall in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

B55.

Where do youth whose FUP voucher has reached the 18-month limit fall in the ranking of

preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

B56.

Has your agency established local preference categories for its Section 8 Housing Choice

Voucher program waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B66

B57.

Does your agency have a local preference on its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list

for youth who have aged out of foster care?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B60

B58.

Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care that can be given

preference on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B60

B59.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

B60.

Does your agency have a local preference on its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list

for FUP-eligible youth whose voucher has reached the 18-month limit?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B63

B61.

Is there a limit on the number of youth whose FUP voucher has reached the 18-month limit that

can be given preference on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B63

E-18

B62.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH WHO REACHED

THE 18-MONTH FUP PERIOD

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” TO Q57 OR Q60, CONTINUE TO Q63. IF YOU

ANSWERED “NO” TO BOTH, SKIP TO Q66.

B63.

Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your

system of preferences for your Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO B66

B64.

Where do youth who aged out of foster care fall in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

B65.

Where do youth whose FUP voucher has reached the 18-month limit fall in the ranking of

preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

E-19

PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES USING FUP

The questions in this section ask about the challenges your agency has faced and the progress it has made in administering FUP vouchers to FUP-eligible youth.

B66.

Below is a list of factors that may affect your agency’s ability to administer FUP vouchers to

eligible youth. For each factor, please indicate how much of a challenge it presents/has

presented to your agency.

Select one per row

SOMEWHAT

NOT A

OF A

MAJOR

CHALLENGE

CHALLENGE

CHALLENGE

a. Rental market conditions (e.g., affordability and/or

quality of appropriate rental housing)

1 

2 

3 

b. The 18-month time limit on FUP assistance

1 

2 

3 

c. Coordination with your partner PCWA

1 

2 

3 

d. Administrative costs

1 

2 

3 

e. Service provision costs

1 

2 

3 

f.

Staffing resources

1 

2 

3 

g. Wait list procedures and administration

1 

2 

3 

h. Relationships with landlords/property managers

1 

2 

3 

i.

Duration of search process

1 

2 

3 

j.

Complexity of leasing process (for initial units and unit

1 

changes)

2 

3 

k. Inability to use project-based FUP-vouchers

1 

2 

3 

l.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

3 

E-20

B67.

Please indicate how much progress your agency has made with respect to each of the following

over the course of the entire period it has been awarding FUP vouchers to youth. Progress can

refer to any aspect of implementation that is meaningful to your agency, such as increased

efficiency or effectiveness. If your agency is not involved in an area listed, select “Don’t

Know/Info Unavailable.”

Select one per row

A GREAT

DON’T KNOW/

NO

SOME

DEAL OF

INFO

PROGRESS

PROGRESS

PROGRESS

UNAVAILABLE

a. Coordination with PCWA

0 

1 

2 

d 

b. Identification and referral process

0 

1 

2 

d 

c. Housing search and selection

process

0 

1 

2 

d 

d. Lease-up and move in process

0 

1 

2 

d 

e. Increasing housing stability while

0 

youth are in the program

1 

2 

d 

f.

Reducing post-FUP homelessness

0 

and housing instability

1 

2 

d 

g. Reducing voucher turnover

0 

1 

2 

d 

PERSPECTIVES ON PRACTICE AND POLICY

B68.

Under the current statutory requirements, FUP-eligible youth are limited to 18-months of

housing assistance payments (HAP). In your opinion, should this time limit be eliminated,

reduced, extended, or remain the same?

Select one only

 Eliminated ............................................................................................................. 1

SKIP TO B70

 Reduced ............................................................................................................... 2

 Extended .............................................................................................................. 3

 Remain the same ................................................................................................. 4

SKIP TO B70

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d B69.

In your opinion, for how many months should FUP-eligible youth be eligible for HAP?

MONTHS

B70.

Partner PCWAs are required to provide a specific set of services to FUP-eligible youth during

their 18-months of eligibility for HAP. In your opinion, should this service requirement be

eliminated?

 Yes, eliminate service requirement ...................................................................... 1

 No, do NOT eliminate service requirement .......................................................... 2

E-21

B71.

This service requirement does not apply to FUP-eligible families. Should this service

requirement also apply to FUP-eligible families?

 Yes, service requirement should apply to families ............................................... 1

 No, service requirement should not apply to families ........................................... 2

B72.

If there is anything else you would like to share with HUD about serving youth with FUP, please

enter your comments below.

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. They will help the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development better understand and plan for housing services for transitioning foster youth.

Please send in your questionnaire using the provided postage-paid envelope today.

E-22

PAST FUP FOR YOUTH

PHA’S HISTORY OF USING FUP FOR FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT OF CARE

The questions in this section ask about your agency’s history with the Family Unification Program

(FUP).

C1.

What was the FIRST year you served a FUP-eligible youth through your agency’s Family

Unification Program (FUP)? If you are unsure, please make your best estimate.

YEAR

C2.

What was the most recent year you served a FUP-eligible youth through your agency’s Family

Unification Program (FUP)? If you are unsure, please make your best estimate.

YEAR

REASONS FUP VOUCHERS NOT AWARDED TO FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT

C3.

Why is your agency no longer serving FUP-eligible youth with FUP vouchers?

Select all that apply

 Too few youth age out of foster care in this community ....................................... 1

 Housing needs of youth aging out foster care are being met in other ways ......... 2

 Your agency prefers to devote all of its FUP vouchers to families ....................... 3

 18-month time limit for FUP-eligible youth created an excessive burden for

your agency .......................................................................................................... 4

 The public child welfare agency does not have the resources to provide the

required support services ..................................................................................... 5

 Lack of or weak working relationship with the public child welfare agency .......... 6

 Any other reasons (SPECIFY) ............................................................................. 7

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d C4.

How likely is it that your agency will serve FUP-eligible youth with FUP vouchers in the future?

Select one only

 Not at all likely ...................................................................................................... 1

 Somewhat likely ................................................................................................... 2

 Very likely ............................................................................................................. 3

 Don’t know ............................................................................................................ d

E-23

C5.

Which of the following would increase the likelihood that your agency would serve FUP-eligible

youth with FUP vouchers in the future?

Select all that apply

 If your agency was awarded additional FUP vouchers ........................................ 1

 If your agency received assistance with establishing and/or strengthening

collaboration with your local PCWA ..................................................................... 2

 If your agency received training to aid your understanding of the particular

housing needs of young adults ............................................................................. 3

 If your agency received guidance from successful models for serving youth

aging out of foster care through FUP ................................................................... 4

 If additional resources were made available to provide services and

supports to FUP-eligible youth once they have leased up ................................... 5

 If the 18-month time limit was removed ................................................................ 6

 Any other reasons (SPECIFY) ............................................................................. 7

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT

First, we would like to ask you some questions about your public housing waiting list and your

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list.

C6. Does your agency currently administer a public housing program?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C13

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO C13

C7.

Has your agency established local preference categories for its public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C13

C8.

Does your agency have a local preference on its public housing waiting list for youth who have

aged out of foster care?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C13

C9.

Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care that can be given

preference on the public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C11

C10.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

C11.

Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your

system of preferences for your public housing waiting list?

E-24

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C13

C12.

Where do youth who aged out of foster care fall in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

We are interested in knowing more about your agency’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program.

C13.

Has your agency established local preference categories for its Section 8 Housing Choice

Voucher program waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C19

C14.

Does your agency have a local preference on its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list

for youth who have aged out of foster care?

Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C19

C15.

Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care that can be given

preference on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ................................................................................................................. 1

 No .................................................................................................................. 0

SKIP TO C17

C16.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

C17.

Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your

system of preferences for your Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO C19

C18.

Where do youth who have aged out of foster care fall in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

E-25

C19.

If there is anything else you would like to share with HUD about serving youth with FUP, please

enter your comments below.

END.

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. They will help the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development better understand and plan for housing services for

transitioning foster youth. Please send in your questionnaire using the provided postage-paid

envelope today.

E-26

NEVER FUP FOR YOUTH

REASONS FUP VOUCHERS NOT AWARDED TO FOSTER YOUTH

D1.

Why has your agency never served FUP-eligible youth with FUP vouchers?

Select all that apply

 The public child welfare agency (PCWA) has never referred a youth to your

program ................................................................................................................ 1

 Too few youth age out of foster care in this community ....................................... 2

 Housing needs of youth aging out foster care are met in other ways .................. 3

 Your agency prefers to devote all of its vouchers to families ............................... 4

 18-month time limit for FUP-eligible youth would create an excessive

burden for your agency ........................................................................................ 5

 The PCWA does not have the resources to provide the required support

services ................................................................................................................ 6

 Lack of or weak working relationship with the public child welfare agency .......... 7

 Any other reasons (SPECIFY) ............................................................................. 8

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d D2.

How likely is it that your agency will serve FUP-eligible youth with FUP vouchers in the future?

Select one only

 Not at all likely ...................................................................................................... 1

 Somewhat likely ................................................................................................... 2

 Very likely ............................................................................................................. 3

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d D3.

Which of the following would increase the likelihood that your agency would serve FUP-eligible

youth with FUP vouchers in the future?

Select all that apply

 If your agency were awarded additional FUP vouchers ....................................... 1

 If your agency received assistance with establishing and/or strengthening

collaboration with your local PCWA ..................................................................... 2

 If your agency received training to aid your understanding of the particular

housing needs of young adults ............................................................................. 3

 If your agency received guidance from successful models for serving youth

aging out of foster care through FUP ................................................................... 4

 If additional resources were made available to provide services and

supports to FUP-eligible youth once they have leased up ................................... 5

 If the 18-month time limit were removed .............................................................. 6

 Any other reasons (SPECIFY) ............................................................................. 7

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

E-27

OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT

First, we would like to ask you some questions about your public housing waiting list and your

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list.

D4. Does your agency currently administer a public housing program?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D11

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO D11

D5.

Has your agency established local preference categories for its public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D11

D6.

Does your agency have a local preference on its public housing waiting list for youth who have

aged out of foster care?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D11

D7.

Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care that can be given

preference on the public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D9

D8.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

D9.

Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your

system of preferences for your public housing waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D11

D10.

Where do youth who aged out of foster care fall in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

E-28

We are interested in knowing more about your agency’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

D11.

Has your agency established local preference categories for its Section 8 Housing Choice

Voucher program waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D17

D12.

Does your agency have a local preference on its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list

for youth who have aged out of foster care?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D17

D13.

Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care that can be given

preference on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP D15

D14.

What is that limit? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

LIMIT

D15.

Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your

system of preferences for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO D17

D16.

Where do youth who have aged out of foster care fall in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third ............................................................................................................... 1

 Middle third ........................................................................................................... 2

 Bottom third .......................................................................................................... 3

D17.

If there is anything else you would like to share with HUD about serving youth with FUP, please

enter your comments below.

END.

Thanks very much for your time. Your responses will help the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development better understand the housing services provided by different communities

to youth aging out of foster care. Please send in your questionnaire using the provided postage-paid envelope today.

E-29

APPENDIX F

PCWA SURVEY INSTRUMENT

HUD Survey:

Addressing the Housing Needs of Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is collaborating with the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) to conduct a study on the housing needs of the nearly 30,000 youth who age out of the foster care system each year. The goal of the study is to understand the issues associated with housing for youth aging out of foster care and help develop and improve strategies for addressing them.

As part of this project, HUD has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct a web-based survey of public child welfare agencies (PCWAs) and their partnering public housing agencies (PHAs) in communities that use Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers to serve youth aging out of foster care.

The FUP is a program under which Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are provided to families

with children whose placement in out-of-home foster care is imminent (or whose discharge to the

family from out-of-home care is delayed) because of a lack of adequate housing, and to youth

between 18 and 21 who have left foster care and have inadequate housing. The purpose of this survey is to learn how FUP is being used to address the housing needs of youth aging out of foster care, as well as to identify any unique benefits or challenges your PCWA has experienced serving this population in partnership with your local PHA. One of your partnering PHA (or PHAs) has indicated that they are currently collaborating with you to administer the FUP, and specifically, to use some number of FUP vouchers to serve youth aging out of foster care.

In this survey we will ask questions about the child welfare system in your state, your agencies collaboration with your PHA, how your agency identifies and refers FUP-eligible youth, housing options for youth aging out of foster care, your experiences using FUP vouchers, and your perspectives on practice and policy. Please answer the questions thinking about your role in serving FUP-eligible

youth. We asked your partnering PHA about their role serving FUP-eligible youth in a separate survey.

If your agency has contracted with a separate organization to operate FUP for youth or to provide

supportive services to FUP-eligible youth, please note that some questions may be better

addressed by that contractor. You may wish to ask your contractor to complete those sections

(you may share your log-in information if you wish) or provide you with the relevant information.

It is possible that your agency may work with multiple PHAs to administer FUP vouchers. If this is

the case, we ask you to complete the survey focusing on the PHA to whom you have referred the

most foster youth during the past 18 months.

This survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. If you cannot complete the survey in one sitting, you may save your place in the survey and finish it at a later time. Please note, however, that we need to have all responses by December 26, 2012.

Thank you in advance for responding to this survey. Your responses will help the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services better understand

how communities are serving the housing needs of foster youth aging out of care.

Please contact Debra Wright, (202) 554-7576 or dwright@mathematica-mpr.com, at Mathematica Policy

Research with any questions about the survey.

OMB Control Number: No. 2528-0285

F-2

1

CONTACT AND SCREENERCONTACT AND SCREENERCONTACT AND

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.

Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA) Name:

2.

So that we know who in your PCWA is responding to this survey, please provide your contact

information:

Name

Position

Email

2A.

Please provide your telephone number:

Ext.

3.

How long have you been employed by your PCWA (in any position or with any title)?

YEARS MONTHS

4.

How would you describe your state’s child welfare system? Is it state supervised and state-

administered, state supervised and county administered, or something else?

Select one only

 State supervised and state-administered ............................................................. 1

 State supervised and county-administered .......................................................... 2

 Something else (SPECIFY) .................................................................................. 3

Specify

We understand that a single PCWA may partner with multiple PHAs to administer the Family

Unification Program (FUP).

5A.

How many PHAs does your PCWA currently partner with to administer the FUP?

NUMBER

F-3

5B.

How many of these partner PHAs currently use FUP vouchers to serve youth aging out of

foster care?

NUMBER

IF YOUR ANSWER IS 1, SKIP TO

5C_1

IF YOUR ANSWER IS TWO OR MORE,

SKIP TO 5C_2

 None ..................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO END

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 5C_1. For the purpose of this particular survey, please focus on the PHA you partner with that

currently uses FUP vouchers to serve youth aging out of foster care.

5C_2. For the purpose of this particular survey, please focus on the partner PHA that you have

referred the most youth to during the past 18 months.

5D.

What is the name of this PHA?

SKIP TO Q6

ON PAGE 3

END.

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. Those are all the questions we

have for you today.

F-4

B. SERVING YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE

CHILD WELFARE CONTEXT

The next set of questions asks about the child welfare system in your state.

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 extends the age of

Title IV-E–eligibility from 18 to 21 years old for foster youth who meet at least one of the

following criteria:

• Completing secondary education or a program leading to an equivalent credential;

• Enrolled in an institution which provides postsecondary or vocational education;

• Participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove barriers to, employment;

• Employed for at least 80 hours per month;

• Incapable of doing any of the above due to a medical condition

6.

Federal law requires that youth receive assistance with transitioning planning during the

90 days (3 months) prior to the date on which they will age out of foster care.

Does this transition planning typically begin more than 90 days prior to the date on which youth

will age out?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO Q8

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO Q8

7.

How many months before a youth ages out of care does this transition planning typically begin?

Select one only

 3 to 6 months ........................................................................................................ 2

 7 to 12 months ...................................................................................................... 3

 13 to 18 months .................................................................................................... 4

 More than 18 months ........................................................................................... 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

F-5

8.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide any of the following types of

housing search assistance to youth who are preparing to age out of care in your partner PHA’s

jurisdiction? If your partner PHA’s jurisdiction spans multiple counties and the housing search

assistance you provide varies by county, please answer thinking about the county in your

partner PHA’s jurisdiction with the largest foster care population.

YES

NO

a. Provide information about different neighborhoods

1 

0 

b. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

c. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

d. Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

e. Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept youth

1 

0 

f.

Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

1 

0 

g. Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

h. Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility requirements

1 

0 

i.

Provide information about public transportation services

1 

0 

j.

Help youth locate housing near school or work

1 

0 

k. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

9.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide any of the following types of

leaseup/move-in assistance?

YES

NO

a. Provide contact information for local utility service providers

1 

0 

b. Provide information about public transportation and retail options

1 

0 

c. Help contacting utility companies to establish service

1 

0 

d. Advice on how to talk to landlords and neighbors about maintenance

needs or noise issues

1 

0 

e. Financial assistance with moving, security deposits, or utility hook-up fees

1 

0 

f.

Financial assistance or referrals for assistance to secure furniture and

other housewares

1 

0 

g. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

F-6

FUP VOUCHERS FOR FUP-ELIGIBLE YOUTH

The next few questions ask about the process your agency uses to identify FUP-eligible youth and refer them to your partner PHA.

10.

How familiar are you with each of the following?

Select one per row

VERY

SOMEWHAT

NOT AT ALL

a. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program eligibility

2 

1 

0 

b. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher briefings

2 

1 

0 

c. Housing search and lease-up processes within the Section 8

Housing Choice Voucher Program

2 

1 

0 

d. Tracking and reporting requirements associated with the FUP

2 

1 

0 

e. FUP eligibility and other FUP requirements

2 

1 

0 

11.

How does your agency identify FUP-eligible youth?

Select all that apply

 Youth are referred to your agency by your partner PHA ...................................... 1

 Youth are referred to your agency by another public housing agency ................ 2

 Youth are referred to your agency by homeless shelters or other homeless

service providers .................................................................................................. 3

 Youth are referred to your agency by youth housing programs ........................... 4

 Youth are referred to your agency by aftercare service providers ....................... 5

 Youth are referred to your agency by other state or local agencies ..................... 6

 Youth are referred to your agency by other community-based agencies ............. 7

 Youth refer themselves to your agency ................................................................ 8

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 9

Specify

12.

Are ALL of the FUP-eligible youth identified by your agency referred to your partner PHA?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 13.

Does your agency make referrals on a first-come-first-serve basis, or does your agency give

priority to some youth based on factors such as age, housing status, education or employment

status?

 Agency makes referrals on a first-come-first serve basis ..................................... 1

SKIP TO Q15

 Agency gives priority to some youth ..................................................................... 0

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 14.

Does your agency give priority to youth based on any of the following circumstances?

F-7

YES

NO

a. Is the youth homeless or precariously housed?

1 

0 

b. Is the youth involved with multiple systems?

1 

0 

c. What is the age of the youth?

1 

0 

d. Does the youth have mental health problems?

1 

0 

e. Does the youth have other disabilities?

1 

0 

f.

Does the youth identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered?

1 

0 

g. Is the youth pregnant or parenting?

1 

0 

h. Has the youth completed high school?

1 

0 

i.

Is the youth enrolled in an education or training program?

1 

0 

j.

What is the work history of the youth?

1 

0 

k. Is the youth currently employed?

1 

0 

l.

Does the youth have a criminal record?

1 

0 

For the next set of questions, please think about the FUP-eligible youth your agency referred to your partner PHA during the past year.

15.

Approximately how many FUP-eligible youth did your agency refer to your partner PHA during

your state’s past fiscal year? If you do not know the exact number, your best guess is fine.

APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF REFERRALS DURING THE

PAST FISCAL YEAR

16.

Approximately what percentage of the FUP-eligible youth who your agency referred in the past

fiscal year ultimately leased up using a FUP voucher? If you do not know the exact percentage,

your best guess is fine.

Select one only

 Less than 25% ...................................................................................................... 1

 At least 25% but less than 50% ............................................................................ 2

 About 50% ............................................................................................................ 3

 More than 50% but less than 75% ....................................................................... 4

 More than 75% ..................................................................................................... 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

F-8

This next set of questions is about what happens once a youth’s FUP eligibility has been established.

17.

What does your agency do if your partner PHA determines that a FUP-eligible youth that your

agency referred is not eligible for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program?

Select all that apply

 Notify the youth .................................................................................................... 1

 Refer the youth to other PHA programs ............................................................... 2

 Refer the youth to other housing options ............................................................. 3

 Inform youth about re-entry if that is an option ..................................................... 4

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 5

Specify

18.

Before issuing a FUP voucher, the PHA must inform youth how the FUP works and what its

requirements are. This meeting is called a briefing. How often do you or does someone else

from your agency attend this briefing with the youth?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

F-9

The next set of questions asks about the housing search process for FUP-eligible youth who have had a voucher briefing.

19.

Does your agency provide any housing search assistance to FUP-eligible youth in their search for suitable housing?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO Q21

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d SKIP TO Q21

20.

Which of the following does your agency do to assist FUP-eligible youth with their housing search? Please do not include assistance that is only provided by your partner PHA.

YES

NO

a. Provide information about different neighborhoods/communities

1 

0 

b. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

c. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

d. Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

e. Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept FUP vouchers

1 

0 

f.

Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

1 

0 

g. Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

h. Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility requirements

1 

0 

i.

Provide information about public transportation services

1 

0 

j. Help youth locate housing near school or work

1 

0 

k. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

21.

How does the housing search assistance your agency provides to FUP-eligible youth compare

to any housing search assistance your agency provides to FUP-eligible families?

Select one only

 Youth receive MORE housing search assistance ................................................ 1

 Youth receive ABOUT THE SAME amount of housing search assistance .......... 2

 Youth receive LESS housing search assistance .................................................. 3

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

F-10

22.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide FUP-eligible youth with …

YES

NO

a. Pre-move counseling?

1 

0 

b. Post-move counseling?

1 

0 

23.

[ANSWER IF Q22a=1 OR Q22b=1] What does this counseling include?

YES

NO

a. Information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

b. Information about budgeting

1 

0 

c. Information about credit

1 

0 

d. Information about landlord mediation

1 

0 

e. Information about the benefits of living in a low-poverty neighborhood (low

1 

0 

poverty areas are areas where the poverty rate is 10% or less)

f.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

24.

Once a unit has been approved by the PHA, which of the following types of financial assistance

does your agency provide?

Select all that apply

 Help paying for security deposits ......................................................................... 1

 Help paying for utility deposits .............................................................................. 2

 Help paying for moving costs ............................................................................... 3

 Help paying for furniture or house wares ............................................................. 4

 None of the above ................................................................................................ 5

25.

How often is someone from your agency present when youth meet with the landlord to sign the

lease?

Select one only

 Almost always ...................................................................................................... 1

 More than half of the time ..................................................................................... 2

 About half of the time ........................................................................................... 3

 Less than half of the time ..................................................................................... 4

 Almost never ........................................................................................................ 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

F-11

The next set of questions is about what happens during the 18 months that FUP-eligible youth are

eligible for housing assistance payments once they have moved into an approved housing unit.

26.

Please indicate the frequency with which you or someone else from your agency typically has

contact with youth during that 18-month period either in-person or by phone, email, text

messaging, or some other means.

Select one per row

At least

once per

Twice per

Once per

Once per

Once per

week

month

month

quarter

year

a. In person

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

b. By phone, email, or text

messaging

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

c. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

F-12

27.

Which of the following services or supports are provided to FUP-eligible youth during that

18-month period either (1) directly by your agency or (2) by a contracted service provider?

Provided by a

contracted service

Provided by your agency

provider

YES

NO

YES

NO

DON’T KNOW

a. Help learning money

management skills

1 

2 

1

2 

d 

b. Help learning housekeeping

skills

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

c. Help learning about proper

nutrition

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

d. Help learning about meal

preparation

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

e. Help learning how to access

physical and mental health care

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

f.

Help developing other basic life

skills

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

g. Information about tenant rights

and responsibilities

1 

2 

1

2 

d 

h. Assistance with security or

utility deposits

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

i.

Job readiness training

1 

2 

1

2 

d 

j.

Help finding a job

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

k. Educational services

d 

1 

2 

1 

2 

l.

Career counseling

1 

2 

1 

2 

m. Assessment of youth needs

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

n. Case planning

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

o. Help with rent arrearages

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

p. Help with utility arrearages

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

q. Other assistance to help youth

live independently

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

28.

Which of the following types of funding does your agency use to pay for the services listed

above that it provides to FUP-eligible youth once they have moved into an approved housing

unit?

Select all that apply

 Chafee funds ........................................................................................................ 1

 State funds (including funds your state provides to counties or

municipalities to administer) ................................................................................ 2

 Funds from another source .................................................................................. 3

F-13

29.

Under what circumstances would you or someone from your agency have contact with the

owner/landlord/property manager of the youth’s housing unit?

Select all that apply

 To familiarize landlord with FUP program and PCWA role .................................. 1

 To respond to issues/problems identified by the youth ........................................ 2

 To respond to issues/problems identified by your partner PHA ........................... 3

 To respond to issues/problems identified by the owner ....................................... 4

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 5

Specify

30.

How often do you or does someone from your agency have contact with the

owner/landlord/property manager of the youth’s housing unit?

Select one only

 At least once a month ........................................................................................... 1

 Every few months ................................................................................................. 2

 At least once per year .......................................................................................... 3

 Less than once a year .......................................................................................... 4

 Never .................................................................................................................... 0

F-14

The next set of questions asks about the housing stability of FUP-eligible youth who have leased up.

FUP-eligible youth are eligible for 18 months of housing assistance payments (HAP). However,

some youth leave or are terminated from the program before exhausting their 18 months of HAP.

The next few questions are about youth who exit the program before their 18 months of HAP are

exhausted.

31.

What percentage of FUP-eligible youth voluntarily leave the program before their 18 months of HAP are exhausted?

Select one only

 Less than 25% ...................................................................................................... 1

 At least 25% but less than 50% ............................................................................ 2

 About 50% ............................................................................................................ 3

 More than 50% but less than 75% ....................................................................... 4

 More than 75% ..................................................................................................... 5

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 32.

What is the most common reason FUP-eligible youth voluntarily leave the program before their 18 months of HAP is exhausted?

Select one only

 To live closer to school ......................................................................................... 1

 To live closer to a job ........................................................................................... 2

 To live closer to family or friends .......................................................................... 3

 To live in a safer neighborhood ............................................................................ 4

 To live in more affordable housing (including housing with lower utility

costs) .................................................................................................................... 5

 To avoid conflicts with their landlord .................................................................... 6

 To avoid conflicts with neighbors ......................................................................... 7

 Youth lack case management or other supportive services ................................. 8

 Other reason ........................................................................................................ 9

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

F-15

The next set of questions is about the period just before and after FUP-eligible youth reach their

18-month time limit.

33.

Does your agency, or your agency’s contracted provider, provide transitional counseling or

other assistance to FUP-eligible youth as they approach their 18-month time limit? Please do

not include any assistance provided by your partner PHA.

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

SKIP TO Q35

34.

Which of the following type(s) of transitional counseling or other assistance does your agency,

or your agency’s contracted provider, provide to FUP-eligible youth as they approach their 18-

month time limit? Please do NOT include transitional counseling or other assistance that your

partner PHA provides.

YES

NO

a. Information about other housing programs available through your agency

1 

0 

b. Information about housing programs administered by community-based agencies

1 

0 

c. Information about different neighborhoods

1 

0 

d. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

e. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

f.

Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

g. Refer youth to property managers/landlords

1 

0 

h. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

F-16

OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT

We are interested in learning more about housing options other than FUP that are available to youth who have aged out of foster care in your partner PHA’s jurisdiction.

35.

What happens when former foster youth contact or return to your agency because they are

homeless or have no place to live?

Select all that apply

 The youth are referred to a homeless shelter ...................................................... 1

 The youth are referred to your partner PHA ......................................................... 2

 The youth are referred to other service providers ................................................ 3

 The youth are informed about the option to re-enter care .................................... 4

 The youth are referred to a housing program administered by your agency ........ 5

 They don’t receive any assistance ....................................................................... 6

 Other (SPECIFY) .................................................................................................. 7

Specify

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d

36.

What happens when your agency is contacted by a homeless shelter or other homeless service

provider in your partner PHA’s jurisdiction about a homeless youth who has aged out of foster

care? Please indicate what happens in the event that the homeless youth is 18 to 20 years old

and what happens in the event that the homeless youth is at least 21 years old.

YOUTH AGE 21

YOUTH AGE 18-20

OR OLDER

YES

NO

YES

NO

DON’T KNOW

a. Youth is referred to your partner PHA

1 

2 

1

2 

d 

b. Youth is referred to other service

providers

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

c. Youth is informed about the option to re-

enter care

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

d. Youth is referred to a housing program

administered by your agency

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

e. Youth doesn’t receive any assistance

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

f.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

1 

2 

d 

F-17

The next question is about the different types of housing available to young people who have aged out

of or been emancipated from foster care in your partner PHA’s jurisdiction.

37.

Please indicate whether the following housing options are available to youth who have aged out

of foster care in your partner PHA’s jurisdiction through YOUR AGENCY or another

organization, including your partner PHA.

YES,

YES, BUT

NOT

AVAILABLE

THE

AVAILABLE

DON’T

WITHIN THE

WAITLIST IS

KNOW

NEXT 6

MORE THAN

MONTHS

SIX MONTHS

a. Scattered-site or semi-supervised

apartments (Youth live alone or with a

1 

roommate in an apartment rented from

2 

d 

d 

a private landlord)

b. Clustered or supervised apartments

(youth live alone or with a roommate in

1 

an apartment located in an agency-

2 

d 

d 

owned building with 24/7 supervision)

c. Shared homes (several youth live

together in and take responsibility for

1 

an agency-owned or rented house, with

2 

d 

d 

minimal supervision or live-in adults)

d. Adult-roommate apartments (youth

share an apartment with an adult who

1 

2 

d 

d 

serves as a mentor)

e. Host homes (youth rent a room and

1 

share facilities in a home)

2 

d 

d 

f.

Boarding homes (youth live in a room

and share kitchen facilities with minimal

1 

2 

d 

d 

supervision)

g. Publicly owned housing units

1 

2 

d 

d 

h. Rental subsidies for privately owned

1 

2 

d 

d 

housing units

i. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

d 

d 

F-18

PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES USING FUP

The questions in this section ask about the challenges your agency has faced and the progress it has made helping youth address their housing needs using FUP vouchers.

38.

Below is a list of factors that may affect your agency’s ability to administer FUP to eligible

youth. For each factor, please indicate how much of a challenge it presents/has presented to

your agency.

Select one per row

SOMEWHAT

NOT A

OF A

MAJOR

CHALLENGE

CHALLENGE

CHALLENGE

a. Rental market conditions (e.g., affordability and/or

quality of appropriate rental housing)

1 

2 

3 

b. The 18-month time limit on FUP assistance

1 

2 

3 

c. Coordination with your partner PHA

1 

2 

3 

d. Administrative costs

1 

2 

3 

e. Service provision costs

1 

2 

3 

f.

Staffing resources

1 

2 

3 

g. Wait list procedures and administration

1 

2 

3 

h. Relationships with landlords/property managers

1 

2 

3 

i.

Duration of search process

1 

2 

3 

j.

Complexity of leasing process (for initial units and unit

changes)

1 

2 

3 

k. Inability to project-base FUP vouchers

1 

2 

3 

l.

Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

3 

F-19

39.

Please indicate how much progress your agency has made with respect to each of the following

since it has been partnering with your partner PHA to serve FUP-eligible youth. Progress can

refer to any aspect of implementation that is meaningful to your agency, such as increased

efficiency or effectiveness.

Select one per row

A GREAT

DON’T KNOW/

NO

SOME

DEAL OF

INFO

PROGRESS

PROGRESS

PROGRESS

UNAVAILABLE

a. Coordination with your partner PHA

0 

1 

2 

d 

b. Identification and referral process

0 

1 

2 

d 

c. Housing search and selection

process

0 

1 

2 

d 

d. Lease-up and move in process

0 

1 

2 

d 

e. Providing required services

0 

1 

2 

d 

f.

Increasing housing stability while

youth are in the program

0 

1 

2 

d 

g. Reducing voucher turnover

0 

1 

2 

d 

h. Reducing post-FUP homelessness

and housing instability

0 

1 

2 

d 

F-20

PERSPECTIVES ON PRACTICE AND POLICY

40.

The Foster Care Independence Act allows states to spend up to 30% of their Chafee funds on

“room and board” for young people who are at least 18 but not yet 21 years old. In your opinion,

should this percentage be higher, lower, or remain the same?

Select one only

 Higher ................................................................................................................... 1

 Lower .................................................................................................................... 2

 Remain the same ................................................................................................. 3

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 41.

Under the current statutory requirements, FUP-eligible youth are limited to 18-months of

housing assistance payments (HAP). In your opinion, should this time limit be eliminated,

reduced, extended, or remain the same?

Select one only

 Eliminated ............................................................................................................. 1

SKIP TO Q43

 Reduced ............................................................................................................... 2

 Extended .............................................................................................................. 3

 Remain the same ................................................................................................. 4

SKIP TO Q43

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 42.

In your opinion, for how many months should FUP-eligible youth be eligible for HAP?

MONTHS

43.

Your agency is required to provide a specific set of services to FUP-eligible youth during their

18-months of eligibility for HAP. In your opinion, should this service requirement be eliminated?

 Yes, eliminate service requirement ...................................................................... 1

 No, do NOT eliminate service requirement .......................................................... 0

44.

This service requirement does not apply to FUP-eligible families. Should this service

requirement also apply to FUP-eligible families?

 Yes, service requirement should apply to families ............................................... 1

 No, service requirement should not apply to families ........................................... 0

45.

HUD policies state that youth must have left foster care at age 16 or older and must lack

adequate housing before being eligible for FUP. A lack of adequate housing is defined in several

ways, including but not limited to: being homeless, being in imminent danger of losing their

housing (one week from eviction from a private dwelling unit), or living in an overcrowded unit.

Based on your professional experience working with this population, should child welfare

agencies be able to make FUP referrals to the PHA while the youth is still housed in the foster

care system?

 Yes ....................................................................................................................... 1

 No ......................................................................................................................... 0

GO TO Q47

F-21

46.

Based on your professional experience working with this population, how far in advance should

child welfare agencies be able to make a FUP referral before youth leave care?

Select one only

 Less than 1 month before youth leave care ......................................................... 1

 Between 1 and 3 months before youth leave care ............................................... 2

 Between 3 and 6 months before youth leave care ............................................... 3

 Between 6 months and 9 months before youth leave care .................................. 4

 Between 9 months and 12 months before youth leave care ................................ 5

 More than a year before youth leave care ............................................................ 6

 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................... d 47.

If there is anything else you would like to share with HUD about serving youth with FUP, please

enter your comments below.

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. They will help the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development better understand and plan for housing services for transitioning foster youth.

F-22

Document Outline

Cover

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

DISCLAIMER

FOREWORD

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stable Housing Is Important Yet Elusive for Transitioning Foster Youth

Policies and Programs Offer Few Housing Opportunities for Youth

FUP Has Promise for Supporting Youth but Is Not Widely Used for Them

Implications for Policy and Research

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Policy and Program Context

Study Objectives and Methodology

II. HOUSING NEEDS OF YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE AND THE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THEM

The Prevalence of Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Youth Aging Out of Care

Barriers to Housing Among Youth Aging Out of Care

Federal Policies and Funding Streams That Address Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

State and Local Housing Programs for Youth Aging Out of Care

III. USING FUP TO ADDRESS YOUTHS’ NEEDS FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: FINDINGS FROM SURVEYS AND SITE VISITS

Table III.1. PHAs and PCWAs Included in Site Visits

Extent of Use of FUP for Youth

Figure III.1. Fewer Than One-Half of PHAs Operating FUP Currently Serve Youth

Figure III.2. Primary Reason PHAs Do Not Serve Youth Through FUP Is Lack of Referrals

Types of Housing Assistance Youth Receive Through FUP

Figure III.3. Most—but not All—Youth With a FUP Voucher Lease Up and Stay Leased Up

Figure III.4. One or Both Partner Agencies Offer Several Supports To Help Youth Find and Maintain Housing

Types of Services Offered to Youth Through FUP

Figure III.5. Most PCWAs Offer Several Types of Supportive Services While Youth Are Leased Up

Challenges in Administering FUP for Youth and Strategies To Address Them

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND RESEARCH

Implications of the Findings on FUP

Implications of the Broader Study of Housing Supports for Youth Aging Out of Care

Current Opportunities To Enhance Knowledge

V. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A STUDY METHODOLOGY

Literature Review and Housing Program Inventory

Survey of FUP Providers

Table A.1. Response Outcomes for Survey Sample

Site Visits to FUP Communities

APPENDIX B KEY STUDIES OF HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING INSTABILITY AMONG FORMER FOSTER YOUTH

Table B1. Key Studies of Homelessness and Housing Instability Among Former Foster Youth

APPENDIX C INVENTORY OF SELECTED HOUSING PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE

Table C.1. Inventory of Selected Housing Programs for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

APPENDIX D COMPENDIUM OF RESULTS FROM SURVEYS OF PHAs AND PCWAs

Use of FUP Vouchers for Youth

Table D.1. Current and Historical Use of FUP for Youth

Table D.2. Geographic Location of PHAs That Administer FUP

Table D.3. Extent of Current Use of FUP for Youth

Table D.4. Reasons for Use of FUP Vouchers for Youth

Table D.5. Reasons for Nonuse of FUP Vouchers for Youth

Table D.6. Likelihood of Using FUP Vouchers for Youth in the Future

Program Partnerships

Table D.7. Characteristics of PCWAs

Table D.8. Communication Between PHAs and PCWAs

Table D.9. Cross-Agency Training

Child Welfare Context

Table D.10. PCWA Services Provided as Youth Age Out of Foster Care

Table D.11. PCWA Response to Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care

FUP Entry

Table D.12. Extent of Referrals From PCWAs to PHAs

Table D.13. Extent of Referrals From PCWAs to PHAs: Agreement Between Partner Pairs

Table D.14. PCWA Referral Process

Table D.15. HCV Program Eligibility Determination for PCWA-Referred Youth

Table D.16. PCWA Involvement in Immediate Post-Eligibility Determination Activities

Housing Search and Lease-Up Process and Outcomes

Table D.17. Housing Search Process for FUP-Eligible Youth Who Have Had a Voucher Briefing

Table D.18. Housing Search Assistance

Table D.19. Housing Search Assistance: PHA and/or Partner PCWA Provide Assistance

Table D.20. Other Premove and Postmove Assistance

Table D.21. Other Premove and Postmove Assistance: PHA and/or Partner PCWA Provide Counseling

Table D.22. Tenancy Approval Process

Table D.23. Housing Search and Lease-Up Outcomes

Table D.24. Housing Stability

Services Provided to Youth After They Lease Up

Table D.25. Supportive Services Provided to Youth During 18-Month Voucher Period

Table D.26. PCWA Contact With Youth During 18-Month Voucher Period

Exiting FUP and Transitional Assistance

Table D.27. Program Tenure and Reasons for Termination

Table D.28. Voluntary Exit

Table D.29. Transitional Assistance as FUP-Eligible Youth Approach 18-Month Time Limit

Table D.30. Transitional Assistance as FUP-Eligible Youth Approach 18-Month Time Limit: PHA and/or Partner PCWA Provide Assistance

Housing Options Beyond FUP

Table D.31. Availability of Housing for Youth Who Have Aged Out of Foster Care or Been Emancipated From Foster Care

Table D.32. Public Housing Program Options for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Table D.33. HCV Program for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives on Policy and Practice

Table D.34. Factors Affecting Ability To Administer FUP to Eligible Youth

Table D.35. Progress Made

Table D.36. Perspectives on Policy and Practice

APPENDIX E PHA SURVEY INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX F PCWA SURVEY INSTRUMENT