![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.729166666666666in"
height="11.252777777777778in"}

**Letter of Transmittal**

February 26, 2008

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to
submit this report, entitled *Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care
System: Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions*. Under its
congressional mandate, NCD is charged with the responsibility to gather
information on the development and implementation of federal laws,
programs, and initiatives that affect people with disabilities.

The goal for our country's youth is to live healthy, happy lives and to
become self-sufficient, contributing members of society as adults.
However, there are subsets of youth who cannot reach these goals with
ease. These youth need additional supports to assist them in their
journey toward a healthy adulthood, as they are more vulnerable than the
"average" youth and thus are more apt to fall through the cracks during
their journey. Youth development researchers have determined that some
specific youth populations are more vulnerable than others. This report
examines one exceptionally challenged group in particular: older youth
(specifically, preteen through young adult) with disabilities who are
involved in the foster care system.

The child welfare community generally accepts the fact that while the
American foster care system has come a long way in recent years, there
is still much to be done to ensure the health and well-being of the
children and youth it serves. Likewise, the disability community has
seen great improvements in recent years but still advocates for
additional needed change. But what is often overlooked among experts in
both of these realms is the idea that foster care is indeed both a child
welfare issue *and* a disability issue. This is due to the alarmingly
high numbers of foster youth with mental, developmental, emotional,
learning, and physical disabilities. The purpose of this report,
therefore, is to shift the lens through which youth advocates and
service providers view the importance of ensuring the well-being of
foster youth. This new lens asserts the importance of understanding the
prevalence of disability among foster youth and better ascertaining who
should be held accountable for this uniquely challenged and often
underserved population.

NCD stands ready to work with you and the Office of Domestic Policy to
ensure that the recommendations within this report become a reality.

Sincerely,

![](media/image4.png){width="1.7881944444444444in"
height="0.6708333333333333in"}

John R. Vaughn

Chairperson

**National Council on Disability Members and Staff**

Members

John R. Vaughn, Chairperson

Chad Colley, Vice Chairperson

Patricia Pound, Vice Chairperson

Milton Aponte, J.D.

Victoria Ray Carlson

Robert R. Davila, Ph.D.

Graham Hill

Marylyn Howe

Young Woo Kang, Ph.D.

Kathleen Martinez

Lisa Mattheiss

Lonnie Moore

Anne M. Rader

Cynthia Wainscott

Linda Wetters

Staff

Michael C. Collins, Executive Director

Martin Gould, Ed.D., Director of Research and Technology

Mark S. Quigley, Director of External Affairs

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Joan M. Durocher, Senior Attorney Advisor

Sharon M. Lisa Grubb, Special Assistant to the Executive Director

Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Program Analyst

Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Carla Nelson, Secretary

Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability thanks Betsy Brand, Director,
American Youth Policy Forum, and Caroline Christodoulidis, Program
Associate, American Youth Policy Forum, for conducting the research for
this report.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary [7](#__RefHeading___Toc179125266)

Introduction [19](#__RefHeading___Toc179125267)

Chapter 1: Scope of the Issue [23](#__RefHeading___Toc179125268)

Chapter 2: Systems That Intersect with Youth with Disabilities in the
Foster Care System [29](#__RefHeading___Toc179125269)

Chapter 3: Challenges and Proposed Solutions
[31](#__RefHeading___Toc179125270)

Chapter 3.1: Federal and State Investments in Youth with Disabilities in
the Foster Care System [33](#__RefHeading___Toc179125271)

Chapter 3.2: Education and Training Needs of Foster Youth with
Disabilities [59](#__RefHeading___Toc179125272)

Chapter 3.3: Transitions to Adulthood and Connectivity
[79](#__RefHeading___Toc179125273)

Chapter 3.4: Coordination, Collaboration, and Accountability Across
Systems [100](#__RefHeading___Toc179125274)

Chapter 3.5: Using and Sharing Data [122](#__RefHeading___Toc179125275)

Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations [142](#__RefHeading___Toc179125276)

Appendixes [146](#__RefHeading___Toc179125277)

Appendix A: Glossary of Relevant Terms
[146](#__RefHeading___Toc179125278)

Appendix B: Relevant Federal Programs and Systems
[148](#__RefHeading___Toc179125279)

Appendix C: Promising Practices and Exemplary Programs
[150](#__RefHeading___Toc179125280)

Appendix D: Mission of the National Council on Disability
[154](#__RefHeading___Toc179125281)

Endnotes [158](#__RefHeading___Toc179125282)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125266 .anchor}Executive Summary

Youth with disabilities who are also in the foster care system are one
of the most vulnerable populations in the United States, yet little
attention is focused on the unique challenges they face as they
negotiate their way through multiple systems to adulthood. The National
Council on Disability (NCD) has decided to delve into the confusing and
confounding world faced by these youth, draw attention to their
situations, and start a dialogue about how federal, state, and local
policies and practices can be more supportive of these young people.

The purpose of this report is to provide policymakers, primarily at the
federal and state levels, with information about youth with disabilities
in foster care, so that policymakers can begin to understand the
characteristics of this population; the challenges they face; how they
fare with regard to safety, permanency, self-determination and
self-sufficiency, enhanced quality of life, and community integration;
and how the complex array of existing programs and services could be
better designed to improve these outcomes.

This report will shed light on the poor outcomes of youth with
disabilities in foster care, especially with regard to education,
employment, and other indicators of well-being. While the federal
investment in the multiple systems with which these youth come in
contact is significant, the disconnectedness and lack of coordination
across programs and agencies call into question the effectiveness of
government efforts. The report will therefore describe various policy
recommendations for federal and state policymakers that focus on
improving coordination, holding systems accountable, developing
leadership and the capacity of the system to work more effectively with
these youth, improving transitions to adulthood and educational outcomes
for them, and better data-sharing and information management. A brief
summary of these recommendations will follow at the end of the report
(Chapter 4).

The goal for America's youth is to live healthy, happy lives and to
become self-sufficient, contributing members of society in adulthood.
However, there are subsets of youth who cannot reach these goals with
ease. These youth need additional supports to assist them in their
journey toward a healthy adulthood, as they are more vulnerable than the
"average" youth to fall through the cracks during this journey. This
report will examine one exceptionally challenged group in particular:
older youth (specifically, preteen through young adult) with
disabilities who are involved in the foster care system.

The child welfare community generally accepts the fact that while the
American foster care system has come a long way in recent years, there
is still much to be done to ensure the health and well-being of the
children and youth it serves. Likewise, the disability community has
seen great improvements in disability laws in recent years but still
advocates for additional needed change. But what is often overlooked
among experts in both of these realms is the idea that foster care is
indeed both a child welfare issue *and* a disability issue, because of
the alarmingly high numbers of foster youth with mental, developmental,
emotional, learning, and physical disabilities. The purpose of this
report, therefore, is to shift the lens through which youth advocates
and service providers view the importance of ensuring the well-being of
foster youth. This new viewpoint focuses on the importance of
understanding the prevalence of disability among foster youth and better
ascertaining who should be held accountable for this uniquely challenged
and often underserved population.

Scope of the Issue

At any given point in time in the United States, approximately 500,000
youth are in the foster care system, although nearly 800,000 youth are
served by this system per year. Separately, almost 13 percent of all
youth ages 6 through 14 have at least one documented disability. Recent
reports estimate that youth with disabilities are between 1.5 and 3.5
times more likely to have experienced abuse or neglect than youth
without disabilities. Although determining the cause of a disability for
an abused young person is often difficult, research has assessed that
disabilities are often caused and/or exacerbated by abuse. At the same
time, data suggests that youth born with disabilities are more often
abused, and also more often relinquished to the child welfare system
(either by choice or force). And finally, abuse and trauma also occur
*within* the system; in one study, one-third of foster youth reported
some type of perceived maltreatment while in the foster care system. The
challenge in determining cause of disability\
for foster youth is just one of the barriers to ascertaining how to best
support this vulnerable population.

Whatever the cause, some troubling patterns regarding disability emerge
among foster youth. One acclaimed study of foster youth alumni found
that over half of those studied had mental health problems, compared
with 22 percent of the general population. Of these people, 25 percent
had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), versus 4 percent of the
general population, and 20 percent experienced major depression, versus
10 percent of the general population. Social phobia, panic syndrome, and
generalized anxiety disorder were also more prevalent among these
alumni. Regarding education, it is estimated that 30 to 40 percent of
foster youth are in the special education system, a significantly higher
percentage than non-foster care youth. And one California study found
that 8 percent of foster youth studied had some type of physical
impairment. These statistics help illustrate the disproportionality of
the numbers of youth in foster care who have disabilities.

Outcomes for youth with disabilities in the child welfare system are
overwhelmingly negative as well. Both youth with disabilities and foster
youth are more likely to drop out of school and less likely to attain a
postsecondary education. One study found that only about 9 percent of
youth with disabilities attend four-year colleges, and another 5 percent
attend vocational, technical, or business schools. Meanwhile, only about
20 percent of foster youth make it to college, and their rate of
completion is around 5 percent. These percentages are staggeringly low.
They compare with the national averages of about a 60 percent college
access rate for high school graduates and a 20 percent completion rate
among adults under age 25.

Other negative outcomes for this population exist as well. By the age of
19, nearly 50 percent of young women in foster care have been pregnant,
compared to 20 percent of their non-foster care peers, and 38 percent
have been arrested, compared to the national average of about 7 percent.
Other studies have estimated that about 22 percent of former foster
youth experience homelessness, 33 percent have no health insurance, and
only 43 percent are employed---all rates that are much lower than the
national averages.

This data indicates that far too many youth with disabilities in foster
care are not transitioning into healthy adulthood and are not becoming
productive members of society. Unfortunately, these negative outcomes
reflect the incompetencies and insufficiencies of the systems, programs,
and people that serve these youth. More could certainly be done, at many
levels, to ensure success for these youth.

Issue Areas Examined

This report identifies the following main issue areas of utmost
importance regarding youth with disabilities in the foster care system:

-   Federal and state investments in youth with disabilities in the
    foster care system

-   Education and training needs

-   Transitions to adulthood and connectivity issues

-   Coordination, collaboration, and accountability issues

-   Issues around the use and sharing of data

Federal and State Investments in Youth with Disabilities in the Foster
Care System

Despite the progress that has been made to enhance the laws that affect
people with disabilities and foster youth, many believe that still
deeper, broader, and smarter investments must be made at the federal and
state levels to demonstrate that the future of youth with disabilities
in the foster care system is important to everyone. For example, despite
the billions of federal dollars spent on foster youth every year, some
experts believe that the existing funding structure is too rigid and as
a result is hampering states' abilities to truly serve these youth in
the ways that are needed. And some assert that this rigid funding
structure incentivizes placement into the foster care system to the
detriment of more "family-friendly" supports such as preventative
services, reunification, and even adoption. Some think the lack of
flexibility most negatively affects youth with disabilities, whose
families often do not have enough access to the mental and other health
services that may, if provided, make foster care unnecessary.

Another federal funding issue centers on eligibility. Although any child
can be placed into foster care, independent of income status, currently
a child or youth is eligible for federal foster care funding support
only if his or her family meets income eligibility requirements from
1996. This is because the eligibility requirements for foster care
support have not updated in more than 10 years, despite program changes
and inflation.

Investments could also be made at the federal level in better linking
policy with research. An example discussed in this report is the issue
of alarmingly high numbers of youth with disabilities in foster care
being overinstitutionalized despite research linking negative outcomes
with institutionalization, and despite the fact that evaluations of
alternate care models have found that family- and youth-centered models
are not only more effective and healthier for youth, but also cost
significantly less than institution-based care models.

Federal and state investments are also noted as necessary in the realm
of recruiting and training foster parents so that they are more inclined
and better equipped to care for youth with disabilities. Such
investments would help address the disproportionate number of these
youth remaining in the foster care system---and especially in
institutional settings---for long periods. Better recruitment efforts
and high-quality training would enhance these young people's
opportunities for permanency and well-being and greatly decrease the
high rate of recidivism that is strongly correlated with foster youth
who have disabilities.

Last but not least, the onus should fall on the Federal Government to do
more to reduce the negative stigmas associated with both youth with
disabilities and youth who have experienced the foster care system. What
both groups have in common is that the public has almost no
understanding of their life situations and characteristics, and that
they are stigmatized largely as a result of this lack of understanding.
Public awareness campaigns can help increase public understanding and
encourage those who work with or on behalf of these youth to be more
knowledgeable about the issues that affect them. They can also bring to
light the detrimental effects of stigmas on youth.

Education and Training Needs

Time and again, experts in many fields note that success in education is
one of the most important indicators of success later in life.
Therefore, meeting the educational needs of this vulnerable population
should be deemed a top priority by the teachers, caseworkers, foster
parents, dependency court judges, and mental health professionals who
interact with these youth.

Some of the negative outcomes associated with too many youth with
disabilities in foster care have been discussed above. Many believe that
these negative outcomes prove that not enough is being done to ensure
the educational success of these youth. Thankfully, more is being done
now than ever before. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) works to ensure that the specific needs of each individual
student with disabilities are met, while the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act works to reduce the barriers often associated with
homeless and foster youth changing schools often, including issues
surrounding enrollment and the transfer of records. However, owing to
eligibility issues, the McKinney-Vento Act does not serve all foster
youth. And IDEA's processes, although improved in recent years, do not
sufficiently consider the special situations of youth involved in the
child welfare system, such as experiencing frequent school moves and
having no parents to help make decisions on their behalf.

In some cases, federal laws indeed exist to help provide the needed
services to students, but not nearly enough money is appropriated to the
programs to make enough of a difference. This report discusses the lack
of federal support for both mental health services and counseling
services for public school students. It argues that these are two
important services that can serve both preventative and intervention
functions and should therefore be made available to the youth who need
them, which includes youth with disabilities in foster care.

Just as important as primary and secondary school services are access to
and success in postsecondary learning opportunities such as college or
career and technical training. Because both youth with disabilities and
youth transitioning out of the foster care system show negative outcomes
for postsecondary education attainment, a larger investment must be made
to facilitate their success. One of the main barriers to access is lack
of monetary resources, as many youth with disabilities in foster care
have low or no incomes. Although the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program's Educational and Training Vouchers Program (ETV) has helped
greatly, these limited funds cannot possibly help all youth in need, so
additional access to monetary support, such as federal financial aid, is
necessary.

Other, nonmonetary barriers to postsecondary attainment exist in the
systems themselves. For example, the college application process can be
extremely daunting, especially for youth with no supportive adults in
their lives. Schools and the Federal Government may not recognize the
role they must play in easing this process for youth with significant
needs. There is also the concern of low expectations for both youth with
disabilities and youth in foster care. These low expectations link back
to the stigma issue discussed earlier. Furthermore, not all caseworkers,
foster parents, and other adults in "helping" professions are the best
information resources for these youth, despite their (often) good
intentions. All of these barriers further exacerbate the challenge these
youth face as they endeavor to access and succeed in postsecondary
learning opportunities.

Transitions to Adulthood and Connectivity Issues

A healthy transition to adulthood for all youth should be the primary
concern for all, as far too many negative implications are associated
with youth not becoming healthy, productive, economically sufficient
adults. Unfortunately, a large number of youth with disabilities
transitioning out of foster care end up disconnecting with society and
are unable to reconnect for one reason or another. The repercussions
felt by these young people, the systems with which they interact, and
the country as a whole are indeed profound and long-lasting. Therefore,
just as important as education is the need to provide services and
supports to youth transitioning to adulthood.

Transition is a daunting experience for youth with disabilities in the
foster care system. They often need more services than average youth,
require the support of more caring adults in their lives, and must also
understand a whole host of laws, regulations, and policies with which
most youth usually do not come in contact. They need to know when their
Medicaid benefits expire, how to access independent living skills
programs, and whether they are eligible for housing, among many other
rules and processes. Some youth with disabilities also need to rely on
caring adults to help them perform basic functions like eating, bathing,
and getting around. Due to the challenging situations of many of these
youth as they enter adulthood, many youth development experts believe
that youth with disabilities transitioning out of foster care should be
eligible for transition services up to age 24, when needed, instead of
age 21.

Despite the progress that has been made to ensure the comprehensiveness
of services offered to youth as they transition to adulthood, much
remains to be done in terms of both *access* to services and the
provision of the *right* services. Some experts believe that the
services provided are often not pertinent to real-life challenges.
Others believe that not enough is being done to incorporate the
ideologies of community integration, self-determination, and
self-advocacy into the transition curricula. If policy were better
linked with sound research, these components might be more regularly
connected to the life skills and independent living curricula provided
to youth with disabilities and youth transitioning out of foster care.
Due to the funding limitations of programs like\
the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), not all youth who
need\
these services receive them. As this report discusses, eligibility
issues also affect transition services.

The creation of both the CFCIP and the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) has been a significant step in the right direction for ensuring
healthy transitions for these young people. But unfortunately, these two
systems often operate independent of one another. A recent study has
determined that still more must be done to coordinate these two very
important services so that these youth have the supports they need to
transition adequately.

Coordination, Collaboration, and Accountability Issues

Currently, there is no one federal or state system responsible for youth
with disabilities in the foster care system. Instead, separate systems
are working toward separate goals with many different procedures. Every
now and then, collaborative efforts that are backed with accountability
are supported nationally and at the state level, but these
collaborations are often limited in time and scope. For this particular
group of vulnerable youth, some efforts are being made (and are
discussed in this report), but much progress still needs to be made in
order to better coordinate services comprehensively for these young
people.

An increased federal oversight role is the first crucial step to the
delivery of a coordinated system of care. This can be facilitated by the
funding of the Federal Youth Coordination Act and the continued (and
enhanced) support of the Court Improvement Program and similar efforts.
The collaborations and partnerships created through such vehicles must
be strategic in nature, as partnerships that are not strategic often do
not facilitate positive change. Many youth-serving (and adult) systems
are intertwined in the lives of youth with disabilities in foster care,
but not all are able to collaborate effectively with one another.

These strategic cross-systems collaborations also require the assistance
of high-level state leaders and high-quality accountability systems in
order to flourish. This report finds that leadership at the state level
should come from a partnership between the highest court system and the
executive office.

Another practice that many believe to be effective in fostering a
collaborative approach is the adoption of the "youth development"
approach across all youth-serving systems. When systems such as
education, child welfare, and juvenile justice are all on board with the
same overall goals of helping all youth reach productive, healthy,
economically sufficient adulthoods, they provide the opportunity to help
all youth flourish, independent of their life situations. Unfortunately,
this ideal has not yet been recognized to its full potential nationally.

In order to accomplish true collaboration, it is believed that more
cross-training must occur among the adults who interact with and provide
supports for these multisystem youth. Right now, there is a dearth of
knowledge about disabilities (e.g., how to identify them correctly)
among child welfare, school, and delinquency and dependency court
personnel as a whole. Likewise, schools and many other systems lack a
basic knowledge about the intricate workings of the child welfare
system. Lack of awareness about the life situations that these youth
confront further hinders their ability to receive the supports that they
truly need.

Issues Around the Use and Sharing of Data

In recent years, the child welfare system has seen amazing improvements
in the data systems funded by the Federal Government, the type of data
collected, and how this data is organized. Likewise, the education
system's IEP process has improved immensely in recent years and
continues to house data on students with disabilities in public
education systems in an effort to provide better targeted services and
improve student outcomes.

Despite such progress, many data-related issues persist. For agencies'
information systems to help decisionmakers understand the youth who are
tracked, with the overall goal of improved services and youth outcomes,
the following basic needs have been identified: adequate funding to
build capacity; identification, consistency, and accuracy within the
systems; improvements in collected information; and cross-systems
sharing of data.

Arguably, two of the most important data systems the child welfare
system operates are the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting
System (AFCARS) and the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), which
provide information about youth served and the adequacies of the
agencies that serve them. Despite the cost to maintain these data
systems, their importance still outweighs their cost. Without data
systems like these, accountability for providing the services that these
vulnerable youth need could not be maintained and improvements could not
be made. Their capacity must be enhanced in an ongoing manner to
continue improving their information collection efforts.

The accuracy of the information that various information systems present
must also be ensured in order to gain a better understanding of the
situations of these youth and to subsequently serve them better. This
includes making information housed in these data systems compatible
across the board, such as by using similar terminology and definitions
across systems (as feasible) and tracking progress in similar ways.

Using data well also involves holding states accountable for reporting
accurately in a timely manner. There is speculation that AFCARS
seriously underreports and misreports disability status for foster
youth. The implications of inconsistent, inaccurate, and unreliable data
are immense. When an accurate picture of an extremely vulnerable
population such as this one cannot be assessed, then policymakers and
service providers have no idea how many and what types of resources and
services must be devoted to them to help them thrive. It is the youth
who suffer as a result.

Policy Recommendations

As a response to the issues involved with serving youth with
disabilities in the foster care system, this report makes several policy
recommendations that can be used as a launching pad for further
intensive and detailed discussions with involvement from a wide range of
stakeholders, including the youth themselves. The broader points of
these recommendations follow:

-   Provide increased flexibility to states and communities so programs
    and services can be most effectively structured to meet the needs of
    youth with disabilities in foster care.

-   Increase federal support in the departments of Health and Human
    Services, Education, Justice, and Labor for research and
    demonstrations to identify effective policies and practices that
    lead to positive outcomes for youth with disabilities in foster
    care.

-   Improve training for foster care parents and increase recruitment of
    individuals willing to foster youth with disabilities.

-   Strengthen secondary and postsecondary educational supports for
    these youth to improve access and success.

-   Improve access to individualized, comprehensive transition services
    for youth with disabilities aging out of foster care.

-   Fund the Federal Youth Development Council, authorized by the
    Federal Youth Coordination Act, as well as similar federal
    coordinating efforts.

-   Strategically increase collaboration among the education, juvenile
    justice, child welfare, labor, dependency court, and health and
    mental health systems.

-   Require states to develop a common youth development approach across
    multiple systems to improve outcomes for all youth.

-   Improve training of youth professionals across systems.

-   Provide resources and technical assistance to help states enhance
    their data collection and reporting systems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125267 .anchor}Introduction

Youth with disabilities who are also in the foster care system are one
of the most vulnerable populations in the United States, yet little
attention is focused on the unique challenges they face as they
negotiate their way through multiple systems to adulthood. The National
Council on Disability (NCD) has decided to delve into the confusing and
confounding world faced by these youth, draw attention to their
situations, and start a dialogue about how federal, state, and local
policies and practices can be more supportive of these young people.

There is an enormous overlap of youth with disabilities and young people
in the foster care system. Indeed, many advocates for these youth assert
that foster care is a disability issue because the prevalence of
disabilities among these youth is so high.[^1] Yet many individuals and
systems associated with youth in the foster care system know little
about the disability world and even less about ways to help youth with
disabilities become self-sufficient and self-determined adults. The many
systems that interface with these vulnerable youth, including family
courts, child welfare, juvenile justice, health and mental health, and
education, are disjointed, disconnected, and sometimes even at odds with
one other. This situation is somewhat a result of the inherent
complexities involved in these enormous systems, but blame can also be
placed on the lack of a collaborative attitude owing to weak federal and
state encouragement.

Much more can be done to guarantee that youth with disabilities in
foster care are provided the complete support, encouragement, and
assistance they need to ensure their safety, permanency, and
well-being.[^2] Additionally, more opportunities can be provided to
enable them to meet the adulthood goals of self-determination, enhanced
quality of life, and community integration.[^3] At the same time, it is
worth noting that there have already been a plethora of notable system
and policy improvements in the care for these youth, most of which have
occurred in just the last 15 to 20 years. But while these improvements
provide a ray of hope, there is still much left to be done.

The purpose of this report is to provide policymakers, primarily at the
federal and state levels, with information about youth with disabilities
in foster care, so that policymakers can begin to understand the
characteristics of this population; the challenges they face; how they
fare with regard to safety, permanency, self-determination and
self-sufficiency, enhanced quality of life, and community integration;
and how the complex array of existing programs and services could be
better designed to improve these outcomes.

This report will shed light on the poor outcomes of youth with
disabilities in foster care, especially with regard to education,
employment, and other indicators of well-being. While the federal
investment in the multiple systems with which these youth come in
contact is significant, the disconnectedness and lack of coordination
across programs and agencies call into question the effectiveness of
government efforts. The report will therefore offer policy
recommendations for federal and state policymakers that focus on
improving coordination, holding systems accountable, developing
leadership and the capacity of the system to work more effectively with
these youth, improving transitions to adulthood and educational outcomes
for them, and better data-sharing and information management. A brief
summary of these recommendations will follow at the end of the report
(Chapter 4).

Large numbers of research and policy reports were reviewed and two focus
groups were held with a wide range of experts in the disability, mental
health, child welfare, juvenile justice, family court, and education
fields, including practitioners, administrators, and policy specialists.
These meetings occurred in San Diego, California, and Washington, D.C.
These focus groups helped identify important policy barriers and
recommendations for improving program delivery to youth with
disabilities in foster care. Lastly, several people with and without
disabilities who had received foster care were interviewed about their
personal experiences. Perhaps their stories help frame the need for
systemic and comprehensive change more than any article or piece of
research can. Quotes from these individuals are inserted throughout the
report to illustrate the difficulties they faced as they tried to gain
the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes to become
self-sufficient and self-determined.

These stories clearly demonstrate how broken the system really is. And
it appears that it is not just broken in one or two places for a handful
of youth, but it is broken in many places for a large number of young
people. The fact that the outcomes for youth with disabilities in foster
care are so poor should be evidence enough of the need to take a
comprehensive and serious look at federal and state policies and
programs that serve them, no matter how challenging this may be. While
policy usually deals with discrete problems instead of cross-systems
issues like this one, advocates recognize the serious need for the
interventions on behalf of these particular youth to be holistically
designed to better support them. Significant effort must be dedicated to
crafting new approaches and redesigning existing programs to ensure that
services are comprehensively and strategically delivered on an ongoing
basis. Helping youth with disabilities in foster care reach healthy,
productive adulthood requires taking a broad view of the multiple
programs and policies and basing them on positive youth development
principles so that the programs and policies share common visions and
goals.

For most parents, the goal is to help their children become mature,
self-sustaining, and happy adults who find productive work, develop
meaningful relationships, and earn a living wage. They do this by
creating safe, nurturing environments that allow young people to
explore, learn, and develop, knowing there are multiple safety nets and
caring adults to help when they hit a rocky patch. These are the
underpinnings of healthy youth development, and most young people with
family supports can negotiate the maze of service providers (e.g.,
education, mental health) when needed and remain on track.

But youth with disabilities in foster care are at a severe disadvantage
in moving toward healthy adulthood for a wide range of reasons, not the
least of which may be the disability itself. Having a disability,
compounded by the fact that foster care youth may lack a supportive
adult network to help them develop personal attributes and abilities and
to navigate through some extremely complex systems, blunts or impedes
their efforts to develop the educational, occupational, social,
personal, and life skills for success. In addition, many of the programs
that exist to help youth with disabilities in foster care are not based
on youth development principles, or they lack a youth-centered
philosophy. For example, it is not uncommon for youth with disabilities
in foster care to be pulled out of school in the middle of class for a
court hearing, not only disrupting the learning cycle, but also sending
a message to the youth that schooling is unimportant. In a
youth-centered system that coordinated its systems, every effort would
be made to keep students in class and to arrange for court appearances
after school has ended in the afternoon.

Helping young people prepare for successful adult life is a complex
undertaking. But helping youth with disabilities in foster care do so
requires the commitment, dedication, and hard work of dozens, likely
hundreds, of judges, attorneys, health and mental health care workers,
caseworkers, educators, advocates, foster parents, and all the other
caring adults who come in contact with these youth over the years.
Federal and state policies and programs must be structured to recognize
this long-term investment across systems and to design a new
youth-centered approach. We hope this report will continue the press for
positive change.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125268 .anchor}Chapter 1: Scope of the Issue

Youth with disabilities and youth in the foster care system are two of
the populations considered to be at highest risk of not transitioning
into and leading successful, healthy, and economically sufficient adult
lives. But when youth have disabilities and are *also* in the foster
care system, their vulnerability compounds. Even before they become
adults, they encounter a tremendous number of barriers to living
healthy, safe childhoods and adolescences. Unfortunately, youth with
disabilities are overrepresented in the foster care system for many
complicated reasons.

The Numbers: Youth with Disabilities and Youth in the Foster Care System

On September 30, 2005, approximately 513,000 children and youth were in
the foster care system.[^4] Concurrently, the U.S. Census Bureau has
estimated that just under 13 percent of children ages 6 through 14 have
at least one disability.[^5] Many of these children and youth overlap.

Research conducted in 1993 by the National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect found that of all children abused, about 17 percent had
disabilities.[^6] This rate is about twice the rate for youth without
disabilities,[^7] demonstrating the overrepresentation of youth with
disabilities who are abused. To look at these statistics the other way
around, several studies have also shown that youth with disabilities are
anywhere between 1.6 and 3.4 times more likely to be abused, compared
with youth without disabilities.[^8]

In addition to the severe disproportionality of youth with disabilities
in the foster care system, data shows a serious overrepresentation of
African-American youth in the system. Indeed, these two groups are by
far the most overrepresented groups in the foster care system.[^9]
Furthermore, the Council for Exceptional Children reports that
African-American children are also disproportionately represented in the
special education system.[^10] As will be noted later in this section,
both youth with disabilities and African-American youth also stay in the
foster care system for longer periods than\
other youth.

Although studies like the ones mentioned above can estimate rates of
abuse for youth with disabilities, determining how many youth with
disabilities are actually receiving services in the child welfare system
is difficult owing to various methods of determining, assessing, and
recording disability information on a state-by-state basis. This
important issue will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.5.

Abuse and trauma can also happen *within* the child welfare system. This
abuse is often caused by foster families, youth workers, and other
agency personnel. In one recent study, one-third of foster care alumni
self-reported some form of perceived maltreatment ("by a foster parent
or another adult") while in the system.[^11] Abuse can cause
disabilities as well. The exact percentage of abuse-caused disabilities
is unknown but is estimated to represent a full 25 percent of all
developmental disabilities.[^12]

This muddled picture of abuse and involvement in the child welfare
system for youth with disabilities is partially a result of the fact
that precise cause of abuse cannot often be determined. It is further
frustrated by the inconsistent and sometimes inadequate reporting
methods that states use to record this information. This dearth of clear
information has resulted in a serious, nationwide lack of understanding
about youth with disabilities in the foster care system.

But despite the challenges of obtaining accurate information about youth
with disabilities in foster care, certain information about this
population has been collected. For example, one study has determined
that between 20 and 60 percent of children entering foster care have
developmental disabilities or delays, compared with about 10 percent of
the general population.[^13] These include cerebral palsy, developmental
delays, learning disabilities, mental and emotional health issues, and
speech, hearing, and vision impairments.[^14] Foster care alumni studies
have also found patterns. The Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study (Pecora
et al., 2003) found that more than half of alumni studied had mental
health problems, compared with 22 percent of the general
population.[^15] Of those studied, 25 percent experienced post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), compared with 4 percent of the general
population, and 20 percent experienced major depression, compared with
about 10 percent of the general population. Other commonly diagnosed
mental disorders among these foster care alumni included social phobia,
at 17 percent, panic syndrome, at 15 percent, and generalized anxiety
disorder, at 12 percent.[^16] Regarding physical disabilities, one
California study found that 8 percent of foster youth studied had some
type of physical impairment, compared with between 1 and 2 percent of
the general youth population.[^17]

Needless to say, disabilities are extremely prevalent among youth who
receive foster care, which is what makes these young people's situations
and issues enormously worthy of exploration.

Placements and Permanency for Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care
System

In 2005, the average consecutive stay in foster care was just under 29
months.[^18] While in care, foster youth may reside in a variety of
different settings, including relative family foster care, nonrelative
family foster care, kinship care, guardianship care, and institutional
settings such as group homes, residential centers, and others. For short
periods, most frequently after being removed from home, some youth live
in homeless and emergency shelters, hospitals, or trauma intake
centers.[^19]

Reunification with parents is the most common type of placement that
foster youth receive upon exiting the system. In 2005, it was estimated
that 54 percent of the youth who exited from care were reunified with
their families.[^20] However, reunification does not guarantee stability
and permanence, and indeed, a large number of youth leave and reenter
the system throughout their adolescence; this includes previously
reunified youth. The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) reports that
a full 25 percent of youth who exit out-of-home care will at some point
reenter.[^21] This figure is extremely high. Reentry into the system
often means that youth are abused again or neglected, including in cases
of reunification with birth parents, a significant issue not to\
be overlooked.

The U.S. Children's Bureau (via the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis
and Reporting System \[AFCARS\]) reports that 11 percent of foster youth
exited to kinship care in 2005.[^22] This number represents only
placements upon *exiting* the system; in reality, about 24 percent of
youth live with relatives while they are in the foster care system.[^23]
Another 18 percent of youth live in institutions such as group homes,
residential treatment centers, and different types of hospitals.[^24] A
large percentage of foster youth determined to have disabilities reside
in these types of settings. The issue of institutionalization of foster
youth with disabilities is discussed in full in Chapter 3.1.

Adoption is considered a "permanent" setting for youth, despite the fact
that some adopted youth reenter the foster care system after they are
placed with families. According to the Urban Institute, adoptions from
foster care increased substantially between 1995 and 2005. In 1995,
approximately 26,000 children were adopted from foster care; by 2000,
that number had reached 51,000, and it remained steady through
2005.[^25] (AFCARS data from 2005 reported that 18 percent of foster
youth who exited from care that year exited to adoption.[^26]) The
number of youth waiting to be adopted is declining as well: In 2000,
132,000 children were waiting to be adopted; by 2005, this number had
declined to 114,000.[^27] Despite these positive trends, research still
shows that older youth, especially older youth with disabilities, are
remaining in the foster care system longer, on average, than youth
without disabilities. According to 2005 AFCARS data presented by CWLA, a
full 58 percent of foster youth who exited to emancipation (i.e., "aged
out") that year had been in the system for at least the three
consecutive prior years. Among foster youth with disabilities, *67
percent* of those who exited care via emancipation were in the system
for at least three years.[^28] These numbers clearly show the
disproportionality of both older youth and youth with disabilities in
the foster care system for extended periods.

Outcomes: Young Adults with Disabilities Entering Adulthood from the
Foster Care System

During adolescence, youth in the foster care system with and without
disabilities experience more undesirable situations than the "average"
youth. As a group, they are less likely to graduate from high school,
more likely to come into contact with the juvenile justice system, more
likely to get pregnant earlier, and more likely to experience
homelessness. Approximately 24,000 youth nationwide transition out of
the foster care system via emancipation annually;[^29] as these youth
enter adulthood, these serious issues seldom disappear and are indeed
more often exacerbated.

By the age of 19, nearly 50 percent of young women in foster care have
been pregnant, compared with 20 percent of their non-foster care
peers.[^30] One study of former\
foster youth determined that by age 19, 38 percent of the youth had been
arrested, whereas nationally, only about 7 percent of youth are
arrested.[^31] A full 25 percent\
of adult prisoners have been in the foster care system at some point in
childhood\
or adolescence.[^32]

A survey of foster care alumni found only 43 percent of them to be
employed, and of those, a full 47 percent were earning wages below the
poverty line (i.e., "underemployed").[^33] Thirteen percent of these
youth were determined to be homeless,[^34] although other studies have
estimated that about 22 percent of former foster youth experience
homelessness throughout adulthood.[^35] Approximately 33 percent of
former foster youth have no health insurance, versus 18 percent of the
general population.[^36]

Transition to adulthood is an enormously important issue for youth with
disabilities experiencing foster care and will be covered more fully in
Chapter 3.3.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125269 .anchor}Chapter 2: Systems That
Intersect with Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System

Youth with disabilities in the foster care system come in contact with
many systems throughout their lives---more than "average" youth. Like
all youth, they interact with the **education** system through attending
school. It is hoped that, like most young adults, they will interact
with the **labor** system when they transition to adulthood and enter
into employment. But unlike most youth, they also interact with the
**child welfare** and **foster care** systems. Therefore, they also
interact with the **dependency court** system. Youth with disabilities
will also interact with various **health** systems, and youth with
behavioral or mental health issues specifically will interact with
**mental health** system services. Lastly, youth with disabilities in
foster care have a higher than average chance of coming in contact with
the **juvenile justice** system.

Youth with disabilities in foster care are considered "multisystem"
youth when they come into contact with multiple systems such as the
child welfare, health, mental health, and/or juvenile justice systems.

For these young people, navigating these various systems and fully
understanding their place within them is daunting at best, but can be
impossible at worst. In order to truly succeed, they require multiple
supports and resources, most of which call for the involvement of
reliable, caring, knowledgeable, and often persistent adults. And youth
who have severe disabilities often require even more support. This
report investigates the issues involved in navigating the systems of
care that have been developed to assist these vulnerable youth in their
journey toward adulthood.

Appendix B lists the major federal programs and funding sources by which
youth with disabilities in foster care are most often served via the
systems in which they come in contact.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125270 .anchor}Chapter 3: Challenges and
Proposed Solutions

As noted, youth with disabilities in the foster care system may interact
with multiple systems throughout their childhood and journey to
adulthood, including the child welfare, dependency court, health and
mental health, education, juvenile justice, and labor systems.
Navigating through these complex systems is much more often a challenge
than a smooth ride. Many issues surface, and these issues are often
prevalent across multiple systems and agencies. The largest issues for
this unique population have been identified as the following:

-   Insufficiencies in the federal and state investments in youth with
    disabilities in the foster care system

-   Inadequacies in the provision of education and training services for
    these youth

-   Inadequacies in the provision of transition services and in
    addressing connectivity issues for these youth

-   Coordination, collaboration, and accountability issues for the
    systems involved in serving these youth

-   Issues around the use and sharing of data and information pertaining
    to these youth

The next five sections of this report will investigate these five
crosscutting issues and propose policy recommendations that can help to
address them.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125271 .anchor}Chapter 3.1: Federal and State
Investments in Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System

The federal laws that support children and youth in the child welfare
system have progressed immensely in the last few decades. As a result of
some of these more recently implemented federal laws, foster youth are
supported by more systems and policies, in more ways, and for more
years. Additionally, with the improvements made to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in recent years, more youth receiving
special education services are receiving the supports they need.

But these laws are still far from perfect, and as a result, far too many
youth are still not being supported in the ways they need. Outcomes for
most youth with disabilities in foster care regarding educational
attainment, economic sufficiency, and health are still far too bleak.
Many believe that deeper, broader investments that must be made at the
federal and state levels in order to send a more absolute message that
the futures of youth with disabilities in the foster care system, who
are often more challenged to succeed than youth without special needs,
are of importance to all.

Needed investments involve the following:

-   Granting more spending flexibility to the states so that they can
    make more localized decisions about what is best for their youth

-   Altering eligibility requirements at the federal level to better
    support more youth

-   Using research to inform policy and practice

-   Investing in foster parents so that young people's safety,
    permanency, self-determination, and well-being are enhanced

-   Reducing stigma and increasing knowledge about this population by
    supporting public awareness campaigns around the issues involved

The specific laws mentioned in this section primarily relate to the
child welfare system. However, because such a large percentage of foster
youth are affected by disabilities, these laws are extremely pertinent
to many youth with disabilities as well.

More spending flexibility must be granted to the states to allow them to
address the unique needs of this population.

Through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the Federal Government
currently spends approximately \$5 billion per year to reimburse states
for foster care expenditures on welfare-eligible children and
youth.[^37] Title IV-E is an uncapped entitlement but may be used only
for youth in the foster care system. This money made up 65 percent of
total federal child welfare spending in fiscal year 2004, while adoption
assistance funding (also authorized under Title IV-E) represented
another 22 percent. Federal funding that can be used for preventative
services (but is not always), which mostly comes from the Title IV-B
programs (Subparts 1 and 2) and discretionary programs through the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), made up only 11 percent of
federal child welfare spending in 2004.[^38] Only the remaining 2
percent of federal child welfare funding was spent on independent living
programs,[^39] a noticeably negligible percentage.

(These percentages do not take into account monies from other federal
programs that do not specifically fund child welfare services but are
sometimes used for these purposes, such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families \[TANF\], the Social Services Block Grant \[SSBG\], and
Medicaid. Funds from programs like these, which are used for child
welfare services, totaled another \$5 billion in 2002.[^40])

Despite the billions of federal dollars spent on foster youth, many
child welfare experts believe that the funding structure is too rigid
and is, as a result, hampering states' abilities to truly serve foster
youth. Most argue that better outcomes can be achieved by allocating
additional resources to both prevention services (e.g., family substance
abuse counseling) and reunification services. Many also believe that the
current funding structure, in which the majority of funding goes to the
foster care system, actually *encourages* foster care placement over
prevention services, reunification, and even adoption, which are
considered more family-centric options.[^41] Some, but not all, believe
there should be more federal support for kinship care so that youth are
not unnecessarily placed into the foster care system when they could be
healthily supported by family members instead.[^42]

Flexible spending would expand the list of federally reimbursable child
welfare services, thereby allowing states to prioritize their own
activities (within certain parameters). Some states are already
experimenting with flexible child welfare spending by taking advantage
of a limited number of "demonstration waivers" that have been granted to
a handful of states for the expressed purpose of testing alternative
uses and funding structures for child welfare dollars with the goal of
improving foster youth outcomes. These waivers are cost-neutral, meaning
that states are allotted the same amount of child welfare funding as
they would be normally (e.g., through Title IV-E), but with less strict
guidelines on how these funds must be used, although waiver
demonstration programs do require rigorous evaluations.[^43] Examples of
activities that are being funded in these demonstration programs include
strengthened family assessments; intensive services to reduce
out-of-home placement rates; assisted guardianship and kinship
permanence; family decision meetings; and improved access to substance
abuse\
and mental health treatment.[^44] Since 1996, 19 states have implemented
27 child welfare waiver demonstrations, which, according to a U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation\
issue brief, "indicates widespread interest in more flexible funding for
state child\
welfare programs."[^45]

Some child welfare experts also believe that spending flexibility would
especially help agencies better serve foster youth with mental,
emotional, and developmental disabilities, as it would allow these
agencies to devote resources toward newer care models that current
research shows are demonstrating positive outcomes specifically for
these youth, such as wraparound services and therapeutic foster
care.[^46] (Both of these care models are discussed in more detail later
in this chapter.)

The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care has made its own policy
recommendations regarding the issue of spending flexibility. It promotes
the use and expansion of the federal waiver program and also believes
that when states reduce their foster care expenditures, they should be
allowed to reinvest their unused funds in other sanctioned child welfare
services related to "prevention, treatment, and support once a child
leaves foster care."[^47]

A specific problem that some experts note as being caused by the current
inflexible federal child welfare funding structure is that some parents
are effectively forced to place their children into the foster care
system when the children require special services that the families
cannot afford. This problem indicates that the current funding structure
may not be properly supporting services that would help prevent the need
for foster care placement, especially for young people with special
needs. The Government Accountability Office has reported that in fiscal
year 2001, "child welfare directors in 19 states and juvenile justice
officials in 30 counties estimated that...parents placed over 12,700
children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that
these children could receive mental health services."[^48] The Keeping
Families Together Act, which has been introduced several times by
Congress but not yet enacted, addresses this issue directly. This act
would provide states with grants to build the infrastructure to serve
youth with mental health issues more efficiently while keeping them with
their families.[^49]

One promising strategy being implemented in many states that focuses on
providing preventative family service activities with the goal of
reducing removals of youth from their homes is called "differential
response." Differential response offers local authorities more
flexibility in deciding how to respond to reports of abuse and neglect
by taking into consideration the severity of the issue, the immediacy of
child safety concerns, and individual family needs. In 2007, New Jersey
implemented a new Differential Response Pilot Initiative in four
counties. "Differential response tells families they do not have to wait
for child abuse or neglect to occur before they can get help to keep
their children safe, stable and well," said New Jersey Department of
Children and Families Commissioner Kevin M. Ryan in a press
release.[^50] He continued that it "is about building and maximizing the
use of community resources such as child care, housing assistance, and
wraparound services that target families' unique needs."[^51] According
to the press release, three of the four counties implementing the
initiative "will focus on connecting families to emergency housing and
utility assistance, domestic violence services, day care, mental health,
marital and family counseling, and employment training and placement."
One of the priorities of the program is to provide supports for "at-risk
families" so that "long-term involvement in government programs can be
avoided."[^52]

Some child welfare experts also believe that kinship and guardianship
care should be more fully supported at the federal level. According to a
report released by Generations United, of the approximately 500,000
young people awaiting placement at any given time, 124,000 (about 25
percent) live with relatives.[^53] However, in some states, relatives
receive federal assistance only if these youth remain in the foster care
system---not if the relatives become legal, permanent guardians. [^54]
Some think this restriction deters too many of these adults from
becoming legal guardians. (Usually, the "guardianship" designation
allows a caregiver to access services on behalf of a child or youth, but
unlike adoption, after which parental rights are relinquished, a youth's
birth parent is able to reclaim custody of the child from a
guardian.[^55] The specifics of guardianship laws differ by state.)

Kinship and guardianship care advocates argue that research shows that
children and youth placed in the care of relatives are just as safe, or
safer, compared with youth placed in unrelated foster families.
According to national data, these youth are also less likely to switch
caregivers than nonrelative-placed youth (82 percent were living with
the same caregivers one year later, versus 65 percent of
nonrelative-placed youth).[^56] However, other sources indicate that
youth in kinship care do not necessarily fare better than other
out-of-home youth in terms of living situations and life outcomes and in
some cases actually fare worse. For instance, in 2002 it was found that
54 percent of youth in kinship care were living with families with
incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.[^57] This is one
reason why the federal funding of kinship care is controversial.

The Kinship Caregiver Support Act has been introduced several times in
recent years by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) but has not yet
been enacted. This act would establish a program to provide federal
assistance to states for subsidized guardianship programs to assist
relative caregivers and their children. The Child Welfare League of
America (CWLA), as well as many other child welfare organizations,
endorses this act.[^58] These advocates believe that federal child
welfare funding should be flexible enough at the state level to allow
for the support of kinship and guardianship care as deemed necessary,
and that an investment in kinship care will lead to more positive
outcomes for the families who devote their time and resources to taking
care of their kin, as well as for the youth themselves. This may be an
especially beneficial policy for youth with disabilities in the foster
care system, who are generally adopted less often and\
therefore may be able to find permanency and stability more easily
through the kinship care option.

Eligibility requirements for laws pertaining to this population should
be reexamined to ensure that they are consistent, current, and
supportive.

Although any youth, independent of income status, can be placed into
foster care, today a young person is eligible for federal foster care
support only if his or her family meets income eligibility requirements
from 1996, the last year that the federal Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) program existed before it was replaced by Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[^59] This is because eligibility
requirements have not been updated to take into consideration the new
law or inflation rates since 1996. As a result, from 1998 to 2005, an
estimated 35,000 more children and youth became ineligible for federal
foster care assistance because of their family income levels.[^60] In
1998, 53 percent of all American children in foster care were receiving
support, whereas in 2005, only 46 percent received it.[^61]

Because federal law requires states to ensure the protection and care
for all of their children, states have been forced to make up the
difference between what is required to fund the necessary services and
what they receive from the Federal Government. The states lost an
estimated \$1.9 billion in federal foster care support between 1998 and
2004, an enormous amount of money for the states to make up. [^62]

This "lookback," what the Pew Charitable Trust's "Kids Are Waiting: Fix
Foster Care Now" campaign is calling this policy, ties eligibility to a
program that has not been in existence for 11 years as of 2007,
affecting the eligibility for federal assistance of families who adopt.
Pew asserts that this effect is creating disincentives to adoption for
foster youth.[^63]

Most advocates and foster care experts agree that the outdated
eligibility requirements are unfair to thousands of families and must be
updated to fairly serve all of the low-income youth and families in need
of support, instead of just some of them.

Research should inform policy and practice. Proven best practices should
be endorsed, and information about them should be disseminated at the
federal and state levels.

More now than ever before, research and data collection increasingly
provide us with more accurate and more insightful views into the
situations and outcomes of youth with disabilities and youth in the
foster care system. And the data that has been uncovered about these
populations has both influenced and *been* *influenced* by practice in
multiple fields. With the current focus on accountability and data, more
and more programs and practices are now facing more rigorous evaluation
to determine their effectiveness and worth. But this research and the
insight it brings to multiple systems is all for naught if it is not
used to inform and influence policy in a positive way. Many believe that
the best means to ensure that research is linked to policy and practice
is for the Federal Government to take a primary role in funding not just
data collection, but also research that determines promising practices
and evaluations that measure programs that implement these practices.

As noted earlier, the Federal Government is already investing in
research in the child welfare arena---for example, by evaluating the
states whose child welfare agencies are implementing waiver
demonstration programs to try innovative methods for serving youth in
foster care. Of course, the funding for program and practice evaluations
should extend beyond publicly funded programs so that more
"out-of-the-box" practices can also be taken into consideration.
Research should also be conducted into interventions for specific
populations, such as youth with disabilities in foster care.

However, still more can be done at the federal level regarding research.
For example, while the Children's Bureau performs data collection, it
very rarely funds research. As a result, schools of social work and
other research institutions are left to fund and conduct research on
their own about youth in the child welfare system. Research and the
dissemination of results would be greatly strengthened by support from
the Children's Bureau, which could include providing grants and even
conducting research.

As an example of the importance of using research to inform policy and
practice, the majority of this section focuses on what research is
showing to be characteristic of youth with and without disabilities in
foster care who are placed in group homes and other institutional
placements. It also shares research on promising practices for serving
foster youth with behavioral issues and some severe disabilities.

The group home is one type of institutional residence for youth in the
foster care system. The purpose of most group home placements is to
provide youth with intensive mental health services, including
psychopharmacological therapeutic interventions. According to research,
the most common reasons for being placed in residential treatment
centers are "severe emotional disturbance (clinical depression, PTSD,
anxiety disorders, and so forth); aggressive/violent behaviors;
family/school/community problems; and physical, sexual, or emotional
maltreatment."[^64]

In general, only youth with severe mental health and behavioral problems
are supposed to be placed in group care. Indeed, group homes are
intended to be placements of last resort, as they are considered
extremely "restrictive environments" for youth.[^65] Even so, it has
been shown that youth without mental health problems are assigned to
group care from time to time as a result of the absence of available
foster care placements[^66] (although it is not known how regularly this
occurs). Such placements are especially prevalent for older youth, who
are traditionally more difficult to place into family care. What this
means is that some youth are living in more restrictive settings than
they require.[^67] In fact, most child welfare experts believe that most
foster youth who have disabilities should be placed in noninstitutional
environments, such as family foster homes, whenever possible. The
exception is when these youth need specific, intensive services that are
accessible only in certain settings.[^68] Some believe that
unnecessarily restrictive settings actually worsen certain disabilities
and behavior problems in certain situations. In fact, the Surgeon
General's 2000 report on children's mental health indicated that
"residential treatment has not shown substantial benefit to children and
youth with mental health problems," and that research "hints at the
possibility that residential treatment may have adverse effects because
of the contagion of problem behavior from one child to another."[^69]

Research has determined that many negative characteristics are
associated with foster youth being placed in group homes and other
institutional settings, especially compared with foster youth residing
in foster homes, who have been shown time and time again to generally
fare better.[^70] According to a recent U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services report, 72 percent of institutionalized foster youth
experience problems with family, 57 percent experience problems at
school, 22 percent suffer skill deficits at school, 66 percent are
aggressive, 34 percent have been involved in delinquent behavior, 31
percent have substance use problems, almost half are victims of abuse or
neglect, and about 20 percent experience posttraumatic stress.[^71]
Youth in group homes are more likely than those in foster or kinship
care to report that they do not like the people they live with and that
they see their biological families less.[^72] They are also less
positive in general about their living experiences.[^73]

One study has determined that among young adults who were in foster care
for at least one continuous year, those living in family foster care
settings ended up functioning better as adults than those in group care
in most areas, including attainment of higher levels of education,
lesser likelihood of arrest, fewer substance use problems, higher
likelihood of having close friends, and more satisfaction with income
levels and their lives in general. However, it is important to note that
it is impossible to infer causality regarding these statistics, which
means that it cannot be determined that residential placement type
*causes* negative characteristics and outcomes, because
institutionalized youth may have already been prone to these
characteristics before entering their placements.[^74] Nevertheless,
these statistics are extremely important, because understanding the
barriers that exist for youth in group homes can and should help in
developing strategies to address the special needs of these youth.

One of the negative outcomes of group home placement that foster youth
advocates say can be confirmed, however, is the fact that fewer youth
residing in group homes are adopted. The Child Welfare League of America
has determined through studying Adoption and Foster Care Analysis
Reporting System (AFCARS) data from 2005 that compared with all foster
youth who exited the system in any manner after existing in it long term
(three or more years), those who exited *via emancipation* were 7
percent more likely to live in group homes when they exited, and 5
percent more likely to live in another type of institution.[^75] A
foster care alumnus and special education teacher in the San Diego
Unified School District who teaches foster youth with disabilities notes
that this is because parents often adopt after being foster parents
first. Also, because fewer parents choose to foster youth with behavior
problems, and youth placed in group homes are usually labeled as such,
fewer of these youth end up being adopted or even fostered.[^76] "So,"
this teacher concludes, "one of the major 'outcomes' of group home
placement \[on many occasions\] is the permanent loss of a loving
family."[^77]

Indeed, according to 2005 AFCARS data, 60 percent of adoptive parents
were foster parents first, another 25 percent were relatives, and only
15 percent were "nonrelative," nonfoster parents.[^78] In other words,
85 percent of adopted youth are adopted by relatives or foster parents,
while only 15 percent are adopted by nonrelatives who are not foster
parents.

Research is now beginning to determine best practices that should be
used in group home settings to support youth, as well as alternative
practices that can be implemented in place of institutionalization that
may better help many of the types of youth who are commonly placed into
group homes and other residential settings, including youth with
disabilities.

Despite the 2000 Surgeon General's report referenced earlier, which
found that group homes are not often beneficial to youth and may even be
detrimental to their development, positive findings (from other sources)
have also emerged from residential programs---specifically, those that
use the following types of exemplary practices:

Family involvement, supervision and support by caring adults, a
skill-focused curriculum, service coordination, development of
individual treatment plans, positive peer influence, enforcement of
strict code of discipline, building self-esteem, family-like atmosphere,
and planning and support for post-program life.[^79]

However, the Surgeon General's report maintains that evidence shows
youth with severe emotional or behavioral disorders to have more
positive outcomes when they are provided with "home- and community-based
treatments such as multisystemic therapy, intensive case management, and
treatment foster care,"[^80] instead of being placed in group homes.
"Even for youth in danger of hurting themselves (suicidal, runaways, and
so forth), brief hospitalization or intensive community-based services
may be a more apt intervention than \[residential care\]," according to
the report.[^81]

Two of the more often endorsed alternative methods to caring for foster
youth with disabilities are therapeutic foster care and wraparound
services, as more and more research illuminates their positive effects.
Therapeutic foster care is considered the least restrictive form of
out-of-home therapeutic placement for children and youth with severe
emotional disabilities. Care is provided in private homes with foster
parents who have been specially trained in therapeutic care.[^82]
Program models vary, but all have in common the following: foster
parents are specially trained to handle youth with disabilities, usually
only one young person is cared for per home, a higher foster parent
stipend is awarded, and foster parents receive extensive preservice
training and in-service supervision and support.[^83] Therapeutic foster
care is often funded jointly by child welfare and mental health
agencies.[^84] The Surgeon General's Mental Health Report notes that
therapeutic foster care programs are inexpensive to start because of
limited facility and staff costs; it also references a study that found
that these programs cost half as much as residential treatment center
programs.[^85] Although there are not yet many comprehensive studies
about therapeutic foster care programs, existing research shows
promising trends. All of the studies mentioned in the Surgeon General's
report showed that "youths in therapeutic foster care made significant
improvements in adjustment, self-esteem, sense of identity, and
aggressive behavior. In addition, gains were sustained for some time
after leaving the therapeutic foster home."[^86]

One of the barriers to serving large numbers of youth with therapeutic
foster care is the lack of enough adults who are willing to become
therapeutic foster parents, despite the fact that this service is not
permanent. This issue may be partially due to how expensive the services
are that many youth in therapeutic care need versus how much the state
is willing to pay for them. According to the special education teacher
in San Diego, "In California, a RCL 12 \[Rate Classification Level 12\]
(moderate to high needs) group home is paid \$5,613 per month \[by the
state\] to care for a youth..." But therapeutic foster parents are
"often paid a rate closer to \$700 per month---in spite of the fact that
the higher needs of the youth might require a foster parent to work less
per week or to take more time off from work."[^87] The teacher asserts
that this funding structure ends up favoring institutionalization over
more family-centered options by reimbursing institutions at far higher
rates than therapeutic foster parents---despite the fact that
family-based options are less expensive.[^88]

The Surgeon General's report also references the therapeutic group home
as a relatively new and thus far promising model of care for youth with
serious emotional disturbances. The report recommends that more research
be done on this practice.[^89] When federal agencies support the
performance of research on alternative care models like therapeutic
foster care, they demonstrate their investment in foster youth, and
especially those with disabilities.

"Wraparound services" are considered an approach to care, instead of a
program, and are a relatively newly recognized model of care. According
to the Surgeon General's Mental Health Report, "the wraparound approach
is based on a belief that the child and family should be placed at the
center of an array of coordinated health and mental health, educational,
and other social welfare services and resources, which a case manager
wraps around the patient and family."[^90] Wraparound services have been
shown to be beneficial for all youth who have multiagency needs, but
recent research indicates that the approach is most effective for
children and youth with emotional disturbances.[^91] Providing
wraparound services involves assembling a team of experts to create an
individualized plan of services and then evaluating that plan. The
National Wraparound Initiative, an organization that provides resources
on the wraparound philosophy and effective practices, is working to
create standards for effectiveness around this promising approach to
care.[^92] The Federal Government should support more research on
wraparound services, as well as the work of organizations like the
National Wraparound Initiative, with the goal of more comprehensively
serving youth with disabilities without overinstitutionalizing them.

One example of a program that offers community/family-oriented
wraparound services is a residential program called the Whitaker School
in North Carolina, of which a study was conducted in 2000. This program
operates under the "Re-education model," which is "based on systems
theory in that emotional conflict is derived from interpersonal and
system level problems, such as service provision problems in the mental
health system."[^93] The Whitaker School is particularly targeted to
students who have not been treated successfully in more traditional
residential care programs. Most of the adolescents in the Whitaker
School study had major psychiatric diagnoses such as conduct disorder,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depression, and
PTSD, and 80 percent had documented abuse on their records.[^94] The
success rate (which was based on frequencies of illegal activity, school
attendance, and hospitalization) was found to be 58 percent in this
program, which is significantly higher than the success rate of
traditional residential programs.[^95]

The problems with institutional group care highlighted here, along with
the compelling newly emerging evidence that supports alternatives to
institutionalization, together illustrate the concern that child welfare
research and practice do not always align with the policies and funding
structures developed to support youth, and those with disabilities in
foster care specifically. The Federal Government should be more involved
with relevant research to understand what works for this challenged
population and then better align its policies to support practices that
are deemed promising.

In addition to supporting research that can help ascertain promising
practices for serving youth with disabilities and behavior issues in the
foster care system, the Federal Government should actively disseminate
the high-quality information that is collected. The Pew Commission on
Children in Foster Care recommended this in its 2004
recommendations.[^96] Proper dissemination tactics include providing
technical assistance to help program and agency personnel fully
understand the nuts and bolts, and the hows and whys, of service and
program implementation. Some child welfare advocates and experts also
believe that the government should take one step further by rewarding
(through monetary incentives) the states and programs that implement the
best practices that research has shown to be effective.

One positive step is the development of the various National Resource
Centers (NRC) funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' Children's Bureau. The NRCs conduct free training and
technical assistance for states that request it, appear at conferences,
collect information, and disseminate information on their Web sites.
These efforts should continue to be supported at the federal level to
make more information about "what works" readily available to the
departments and agencies that support foster youth with disabilities.

An investment in the recruitment and training of foster parents is an
investment in safety, permanency, and positive well-being for foster
youth.

The adults who commit to serving as caring, nurturing foster parents are
the single most valuable component of the foster care system. Indeed,
this system is completely dependent on caring people and
well-functioning systems to provide youth with disabilities in foster
care with the support and services they need to thrive. However, not
enough adults make the commitment to care for foster youth, and
especially youth with disabilities, which is part of the reason why most
of the approximately 20,000 youth transitioning out of the foster care
system every year do so unattached to any family. When adults do commit
to fostering youth, many feel frustrated about the lack of training,
support, and resources they receive to prepare them for success.

To give more foster youth, and especially those with disabilities, the
chance to enter into loving, nurturing families, the Federal Government
must make a serious investment in the targeted recruitment of foster
care parents, as well as in thorough training of foster parents and
supporting funding and resources. These investments would assist foster
parents greatly while helping to reduce the disproportionality of youth
with disabilities who are left in the system for prolonged periods.
[^97]

According to research, there is no single "profile" of a family willing
to foster "difficult" youth.[^98] Studies in the 1970s and 1980s
determined that religiously affiliated adults were less likely to adopt
African-American children but more likely to adopt children with mental
or physical disabilities, that politically liberal adults were more
likely to adopt African-Americans, and that single parents were more
willing to adopt children with mental disabilities.[^99] However, a more
recent study tried to establish whether factors such as education and
income levels, marriage status, working in a helping profession, and
having social support from family influenced an adult's decision to
foster children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders.[^100]
Although some patterns were uncovered, significant profiles did not
emerge.[^101]

The study also determined that the youth prospective foster parents
consider least "desirable" to care for are those with HIV, teenagers,
those with fetal alcohol syndrome, drug-exposed infants, youth with
physical disabilities or serious illnesses, and youth with serious
emotional or behavioral problems.[^102] The behavioral problems that
these adults determined to be least acceptable were fire starting,
behaving destructively, and acting out sexually.[^103] Of course, youth
who are less desirable to care for are more likely to remain in the
foster care system for several years and are also more likely to be
institutionalized.[^104] The prevalence of negative outcomes associated
with both long-term and institutionalized foster youth means that more
targeted investment in healthy, accurate placements, as well as
permanency for these youth, is especially necessary.

The authors of the study argue that statistics like those cited above,
despite their limits, are crucial for understanding how to recruit
foster parents to take on more "challenging" foster youth. Because fewer
families are willing to foster youth with disabilities, "it is essential
that agencies target recruitment efforts to attract families who are
willing to foster children with emotional or behavioral problems."[^105]
The authors add that inappropriate placements often lead to compromised
child well-being and more frequent disruptions when they do not work
out.[^106]

"The fostering of kids with disabilities is often low because the idea
is so overwhelming and unfamiliar to \[adults\]," explains an official
at Special Families Foster Care in San Diego, California.[^107] The
truth is that "many older kids in the foster care system are considered
'unadoptable,' and even 'unplaceable,' if they have a disability, so
they are institutionalized," added a program manager in the Juvenile and
Family Law Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges.[^108] This official asserts that agencies must therefore
invest in targeted and comprehensive recruitment strategies to make sure
that the right adults are being recruited and matched with the right
youth, and that they are trained properly to work comfortably with youth
with disabilities.[^109]

Some advocates in the disability community believe that more should be
done to recruit adults with disabilities to care for foster youth with
disabilities. Cox et al. (2003) indicate that targeting recruitment to
more adults working in "helping professions" (such as teachers, social
workers, and hospital employees) may yield more positive results in
terms of matching parents with youth with disabilities and increasing
these young people's permanency outcomes.[^110]

Still another issue in the battle to recruit parents to care for youth
with disabilities is stigma. Child welfare personnel and prospective
foster parents alike have negative perceptions regarding youth with
disabilities. When the recruiters themselves hold negative or
stereotyped attitudes about children with disabilities, they cannot
debunk the stigmas or fears that potential parents may have. A program
manager at the Child Welfare League of America believes that partnering
foster care agencies with disability organizations may help to reduce
stigma at all these levels.[^111]

A prevalent issue that both current and prospective foster parents
acknowledge involves training and support. As the Special Families
Foster Care official noted, many prospective foster parents are
overwhelmed by the idea of fostering youth with disabilities. This can
partially be attributed to the fact that a large majority of parents are
not given any or enough information about disabilities during their
foster parent trainings. Even without taking disability information into
consideration, the number of training hours mandated by the states for
foster parents varies widely and is quite meager in some states. For
example, Minnesota mandates only six hours of (basic foster care)
training, while Utah mandates 32 hours.[^112]

One may infer that training programs with fewer mandated hours teach
little information about the intricacies of fostering youth with
disabilities. However, even more established, national foster parent
training curricula often leave out this information. Two widely used
training curricula are Parent Resources for Information, Development,
and Education (PRIDE) and the Massachusetts Approach to Partnerships in
Parenting (MAPP). Neither provides extensive information about
disabilities to the foster parents they train.

For example, the MAPP curriculum discusses the "effects of maltreatment
on development" and "approaches to behavior management," but that is the
closest it comes to addressing fostering youth with disabilities.[^113]
The PRIDE curriculum discusses the "developmental needs of infants and
children who have experienced trauma, loss, and separation" in its final
training session, but nothing more specifically relevant to disabilities
is discussed.[^114] However, some agencies are working to include
disability information in their trainings. A special education teacher
in the San Diego Unified School District notes that Special Families
Foster Care in San Diego, with whom he is currently training to become a
therapeutic foster parent, uses the PRIDE curriculum for its basic
foster parent training but also adds specific disability information and
other pertinent information to its trainings.[^115] Clearly, this
practice should be replicated more widely so that more parents are
familiar and comfortable fostering youth with a variety of disabilities.

Foster parents who support youth with disabilities often share their
frustrations with the lack of resources, supports, and training they
receive from child welfare agencies. Foster parent Tamara Connor of
Topeka, Kansas, states,

Foster families need training in positive behavior supports. They need
training on how to entertain and provide stimulation to children with
significant disabilities. They need medical training beyond CPR and
first aid. The list can go on and on.[^116]

Janel Sheppard is a foster care alumna who suffered greatly when she was
placed, during her adolescence, with a range of unsuitable foster
parents, including "adults who were drinking heavily, doing drugs, on
the verge of divorce, and were at times extremely physically, mentally,
and emotionally abusive." She says,

If I could change policy or practice related to foster care, I would
change the screening, training, and process for people becoming foster
parents. I would \[also\] make it mandatory for each parent to speak to
a former foster parent \[to get better acquainted with the realities of
fostering a child\].[^117]

Cox et al. (2003) also recommend specific training on disabilities so
that fewer parents will feel uncomfortable fostering these youth and so
that they are fully prepared when they actually do. "Information about
how to effectively foster \[youth with emotional and behavioral
disabilities\] should be highlighted during pre- and post-service
trainings.... \[S\]uch trainings should provide information on effective
discipline strategies as well as information about how to interpret a
child's worrisome behaviors within the context of past trauma."[^118]

While some advocates believe that foster parents caring for youth with
disabilities should receive higher stipends (and many states provide
higher stipends), Connor believes that additional money alone is not
enough. She believes that monetary incentives and adequate training
should go hand-in-hand with added support networks and other resources
for foster parents fostering youth with disabilities:

I believe the key is training, support, and a team of people working
together. I don't believe we \[should\] just pay foster families more
\[for fostering youth with disabilities\]; I believe that we need to
provide support for them. They need staff in their homes providing
hands-on training, providing respite, providing therapy, and just
dropping by to make sure everyone is OK. The state I live in \[Kansas\]
pays our foster families a lot of money to take care of children with
mental retardation and developmental disabilities (MR-DD). It used to be
that the state paid less but then also purchased respite/attendant care
for foster children. I believe that this was much healthier for
everyone; the families are now supposed to purchase it themselves with
the money they get, but most do not. \[As a result\] these families are
at a high risk for burn-out. They could probably benefit from a parent
mentor match---another foster family to help them understand how to
\[care for and\] include a child with significant disabilities in the
family.[^119]

A specific point to reiterate is that ongoing support for foster parents
is absolutely crucial, especially for those caring for youth with
disabilities. Frequent check-ins and the dissemination of up-to-date
resources by foster care agencies can help these parents feel connected
to the support structures they need. Both the Federal Government and
state officials can make ongoing support a higher priority.

The Federal Government must invest in nationwide public awareness
campaigns for youth with disabilities and for\
foster youth in order to increase public knowledge and help reduce
stigma.

Maintaining visibility about a certain issue or population is crucial to
inciting any kind of action on its behalf. This is the purpose of public
awareness campaigns and other communication tactics that are used to
help the public understand a particular issue. Too often, the only
information the public receives on a particular topic is the often
dramatized and inaccurate information propagated by local newspapers and
television news programs, which tend to report on crises, freak
occurrences, and other dramatic events in abundance, leading to a narrow
and skewed public perspective on an issue. People with disabilities are
all too often victims of this negative media attention, but foster youth
also experience negative stigmas that stem from the public's general
lack of awareness about their life situations.

Public awareness campaigns can help mitigate the negative associations
people may have about a particular population. Not only is it important
to introduce a crucial issue to the public by way of these campaigns, it
is just as imperative to show people *why* they *should* consider a
particular issue important to them, for it is this information that
often compels people to act. Few policies have been implemented without
an initial push from a group of noisy stakeholders, and even fewer have
received widespread attention without an adequate base of general public
knowledge on the topic, along with its immediate implications. Senator
Patty Murray (D-WA) made recommendations in this arena at a recent event
sponsored by Casey Family Programs on the educational outcomes of foster
youth. She asserted that it is necessary for advocates of the\
foster care cause to make themselves known to their congressional
representatives\
and to provide them with accurate information about why foster care is
such an important issue.[^120]

What both youth with disabilities and youth in foster care have in
common is that the public has little understanding about their life
situations and characteristics, and that they are stigmatized largely as
a result of this lack of understanding. Both groups are also victims of
their invisibility to the systems, policies, and institutions that
surround and affect them on a daily basis. The consequences of this lack
of public understanding begin with the low self-esteem that affects the
youth themselves (and the myriad negative outcomes associated with it)
and end with the lack of policies and practices to respond to their
needs. For these and other reasons, public awareness campaigns\
and information dissemination for both youth with disabilities and youth
in foster care are crucial.

At the same time, it is crucial to note that such campaigns should not
seek to *separate* youth with disabilities and foster youth from the
general public, but should instead work to help the public better
*integrate* them into the community while recognizing their unique
individuality.

Currently, few national public awareness campaigns target youth with
disabilities in particular. However, the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) launched a national public
service advertising (PSA) campaign in late 2006 that was specifically
aimed at young adults. The campaign's purpose is to "decrease the
negative attitudes that surround mental illness and encourage young
adults to support their friends who are living with mental health
problems."[^121] The campaign's Web site,
*www.whatadifference.samhsa.gov*, provides factual information about
mental illness, offers advice on supporting friends with mental illness,
and breaks down common myths and misunderstandings about those living
with mental illness. SAMHSA's campaign is a very important investment by
the Federal Government to promote knowledge about an often overlooked
and stigmatized issue. More government agencies should follow suit in
order to get the word out about other "invisible" issues like this one.

The Silver Ribbon Coalition's Silver Ribbon Campaign for the Brain is a
non-governmental campaign that represents the interests of all of those
who are affected by brain disorders or disabilities, such as "anxiety
disorders, autism, brain cancer, brain injuries, depressive disorders,
mental health, myelin disorders, Parkinson's disease, obsessive
compulsive disorder (OCD), psychotic disorders, and rare birth defects,"
according to the Coalition's Web site, *www.silverribbon.org*.[^122] The
goals of the campaign are similar to SAMHSA's but broader in nature. The
purpose of the Silver Ribbon Campaign for the Brain is to "promote
public awareness of the need for emotional, social, governmental, and
research support of these individuals" with the hope that "increasing
public awareness will decrease stigma and increase support to result in
improved treatment and eventual cures for those affected."[^123] This
campaign, for which supporters wear silver ribbons, has been vital to
increasing the awareness of how people with "brain disorders" are
stigmatized.

Foster Care Month is the foster care community's awareness campaign. It
was initiated in 1988 as an effort to increase recognition and
appreciation for foster parents across the country.[^124] Over the
years, Foster Care Month (which has always been celebrated during May)
became more focused on the issues surrounding older foster youth,
especially as they transition out of the foster care system.[^125] Casey
Family Programs leads the campaign and is supported by 14 other
organizations, notably including the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' Children's Bureau.[^126] The Foster Care Month campaign
credits itself with being a "significant part of the drumbeat that
ultimately resulted in the passage of the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act."[^127] The campaign's core messages involve teaching
about the magnitude of the issue, the needs of these youth, those
affected, the consequences of not supporting these youth, the importance
of youth in transition, what the country will look like in the year 2020
if no policies are changed to further help foster youth, and advancing a
"call to action." The campaign's call to action involves becoming a
caring foster parent and/or spreading the word about why effective
foster care policies are important.[^128] An important part of the
Foster Care Month campaign is the message that is disseminated about the
negative outcomes associated with foster youth who are poorly cared for
and poorly transitioned to adulthood, including the issues of
"homelessness, poverty, compromised health, unemployment, \[and\]
incarceration."[^129] However, more could be done to expand this message
to include more information about why the general public should care
about foster youth and how the issue affects everyone directly in one
way or another. Additionally, a more strengths-based message would
better help highlight the incredible potential of foster youth and take
some of the emphasis away from their vulnerabilities. The Federal
Government should take initiative in this area to further this important
message and provide an impetus for the states to consider it important
as well.

To reiterate, there are some investments, both specific and broad, that
could be made at the federal level to better support youth with
disabilities in foster care. These critical investments involve granting
more spending flexibility to the states, altering federal program
eligibility requirements, using research to inform policy and practice,\
investing in foster parent recruitment and training, and doing more to
reduce stigma and increase knowledge about youth with disabilities in
foster care. Even small changes in some of these policies could greatly
enhance the quality of life for these uniquely challenged youth.

Summary of Policy Recommendations

1\. More spending flexibility must be granted to the states in order for
them to address the unique needs of this population more wholly.

a.  Flexibility allows states to prioritize their own activities as they
    see fit.

b.  More funding can be allocated to family-centric services such as
    preventative, reunification, and adoption services.

c.  More funding can also be set aside for alternative models of care,
    such as wraparound services and therapeutic foster care.

2\. Eligibility requirements for laws pertaining to this population
should be reexamined to ensure that they are consistent, current, and
supportive.

d.  The eligibility requirements for receiving federal foster care
    support are out-of-date and should be updated to reflect current
    need.

3\. Research should inform policy and practice. Proven best practices
should be endorsed, and information about them should be disseminated at
the federal and state levels.

e.  Current research should be better reflected in policy.

f.  According to research, youth should be placed in family settings
    whenever possible for best outcomes.

g.  Research is also showing wraparound services and therapeutic foster
    care to be promising models, especially for youth with disabilities
    in the foster care system.

h.  The Federal Government should disseminate high-quality research and
    provide technical assistance to the fields of child welfare,
    education, and other systems that intersect with this youth
    population.

i.  The Federal Government should encourage the use of scientifically
    proven best practices, and states and programs should be rewarded
    when they implement them.

4\. An investment in the recruitment and training of foster parents is
an investment in safety, permanency, and positive well-being for foster
youth.

a\. Better targeting foster parent recruitment efforts by prioritizing
placements for youth with disabilities will result in more accurate
placements, which leads to increased permanency for these youth.

b\. Foster parents should receive training on disabilities and caring
for youth with disabilities.

c\. More adults with disabilities should be recruited to serve as foster
caregivers.

d\. Foster parents should receive ongoing support and guidance,
especially when caring for youth with disabilities.

5\. The Federal Government must invest in nationwide public awareness
campaigns for youth with disabilities and for foster youth in order to
increase public knowledge and help reduce stigma.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125272 .anchor}Chapter 3.2: Education and
Training Needs of Foster Youth with Disabilities

Education is often looked to as the necessary intervention in the
ongoing battles to "close the achievement gaps" and "level the playing
field" for all youth. Some even consider access to quality education to
be a silver bullet of sorts. The public education system is required to
provide a free and comprehensive education to all students, including
those who come to school with disparate abilities. Many of these
students are challenged with physical, psychological, emotional, and
learning disabilities. All students have varying levels of support at
home, varying access to preschool, and different socioeconomic levels.
Additionally, cultural, ethnic, and language differences are common. The
task of helping all of these youth succeed is a tremendous challenge,
but one of paramount importance nonetheless. After all, education, which
in this report is inclusive of occupational training, has always been,
and continues to be, the pathway to economic sufficiency in the United
States.

Like every system, the public education system has its limitations,
problems, and inefficiencies. Many have argued that the public education
system fails to provide quality services to one large portion of the
country's youth in particular---disadvantaged youth. This group includes
low-income and minority youth; youth with disabilities; youth in the
juvenile justice, foster care, and other institutional systems; homeless
youth; and other youth who are somehow disconnected, either physically
or emotionally, from society. Sadly, many of these youth experience
multiple disadvantage factors, further challenging them and complicating
their situations. Students in these subpopulations often require
services beyond standard academic interventions, such as health- and
mental health-related services, mentoring, counseling, substance abuse
treatment, conflict resolution skills, self-advocacy skills, and even
basic needs such as housing.

Research has shown that students with disabilities, whether they are in
the foster care system or not, experience poorer educational outcomes
than students without disabilities. Advocates for Children of New York,
a nonprofit group that monitors the New York City Public Schools,
studied the special education population in the school district for
eight years (between the 1996--97 and 2003--04 school years) to better
understand their graduation and dropout rates.[^130] Approximately 15
percent of New York City's students receive special education
services.[^131] Over the study period, just below 12 percent of students
in special education graduated with either a local or Regents
diploma.[^132] (Regents diplomas are more rigorous than New York City's
local diplomas.) Another 12 percent of students in special education
earned individualized education program (IEP) diplomas, which are
designed for students with severe disabilities. Students with emotional
disturbances had the lowest graduation rates, with only 4 percent
receiving local or Regents diplomas.[^133] (Nationally, youth with
diagnosed emotional disabilities have the highest rate of dropping out
of school, at 56 percent,[^134] and only a 20 percent chance of
enrolling in postsecondary education.[^135]) In an *Education Week*
article about the New York City study, the former executive director of
Advocates for Children commented, "What we saw was beyond horrendous. A
tremendous amount of resources are going into special education
services, and the results are not being reflected."[^136] New York
City's percentages are exceptionally low compared with the national
average, which, although higher, still paint a bleak picture of how
special education students fare in terms of high school graduation.
According to the 25^th^ Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in the
2000--01 school year (SY), 47.6 percent of the students with
disabilities ages 14 and older exited school with a regular high school
diploma. The report adds that from SYs 1993--94 to 2000--01, there was
little change in these outcomes.[^137] This data compares with the
national average high school graduation rate for all youth, which is
about 70 percent.[^138]

Regarding postsecondary attainment, more youth with disabilities enroll
in two-year community colleges than any other type of postsecondary
school, but this percentage still hovers only around 20 percent.[^139]
About 9 percent of youth with disabilities attend four-year colleges,
and another 5 percent attend vocational, technical, or business
schools.[^140] These percentages are staggeringly low compared with
national averages. Just under 60 percent of American youth enroll in
some type of college immediately following high school.[^141] Although
the IDEA report to Congress reports that 95 percent of high schools
offer "postsecondary education/training applications assistance" and
"postsecondary and training institutions counseling,"[^142] there
appears to be a disconnect between the preparation students with
disabilities receive in high school and their postsecondary access and
attainment levels.

It is estimated that 30 to 40 percent of foster youth are in the special
education system.[^143] Similar to youth with disabilities, students in
foster care have lower rates of high school graduation, at 50
percent[^144] versus approximately 70 percent for the general
population. When foster youth do graduate, they tend to obtain GEDs more
often than high school diplomas.[^145] Only about 20 percent of foster
youth transition successfully to college, and the rate of completion for
this cohort is only 5 percent (or less) versus 20 percent for their
peers.[^146] These dismal statistics highlight the unmet educational
need of students in foster care and how compounded this unmet need can
be when these youth have mental, developmental, learning, or emotional
disabilities. Success in school---and then in life---is an especially
uphill battle for these youth, which makes it all the more important
that they receive extra supports as necessary.

The following recommendations tackle the myriad barriers to educational
attainment that youth with disabilities in foster care face.

The provision of comprehensive, individualized school services in
nonrestrictive environments is essential to ensuring the educational
success of youth with disabilities in the foster\
care system.

For too many years, educational expectations for students with
disabilities have been low. While the reauthorization of IDEA (P.L.
105-17) in 1997 began to focus on education performance and not just
access to education for students with disabilities (states were required
to "address the performance of children with disabilities on
assessments, dropout rates, and graduation rates"[^147]), momentum was
slow to build in terms of developing rigorous assessment systems. As
IDEA 1997 was being implemented, however, a national debate arose on
setting academic standards for all students, which resulted in the
passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110) in 2001.
(NCLB is actually the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.) One of the principles of NCLB is to ensure that
all students become proficient in core academic subjects by 2014.[^148]
The law requires states to assess students in certain grades annually to
determine "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in meeting proficiency
targets, and to disaggregate data on the performance of all students by
various indicators, including race, ethnicity, sex, and disability
status.[^149] The law established the expectation that all children,
regardless of status or condition, can learn to high standards.

Because NCLB requires data to be disaggregated by subgroup, schools must
report on the performance of students with disabilities and other
disadvantaged students (although not youth in the foster care system).
Recent reports have consistently indicated that students with
disabilities or other disadvantages (such as limited English
proficiency) perform at lower levels on standardized tests or other
assessments than other groups of students.[^150] Because states and
schools are not making AYP for these subgroups, educators have refocused
efforts to provide the necessary educational services and supports to
these subgroups. These efforts include placing more students with
disabilities into the general education curriculum and exposing them to
grade-level coursework,[^151] measuring more students with disabilities
with grade-level assessments, and increasing the exposure of students
with disabilities to highly qualified teachers.[^152] Because of these
changes, states are beginning to report some incremental improvement in
academic performance for students with disabilities.[^153]

Equally important to increasing the rigor of coursework for students
with disabilities is increasing the expectations of educators and the
community about their ability to meet proficiency in core academic
subjects. Because expectations have been raised, attitudes about
students with disabilities are changing, just as attitudes about the
abilities of all disadvantaged students are changing. Students with
disabilities are more frequently placed in general education classes and
spend less time in "pullout" programs than ever before,[^154] which
reinforces the notion that these children can be mainstreamed and meet
the same curriculum expectations as any other child. While progress has
definitely been made for students with disabilities, barriers still
exist to holding high expectations for students who have multiple
challenges, such as students with disabilities in the foster care system
or students with disabilities who have limited English proficiency. With
multiple challenges, these students are harder to serve and require more
comprehensive supports.

School counselors are invaluable resources for all students, regardless
of achievement level or life circumstance. They can help navigate the
often hard-to-understand requirements, regulations, and processes for
numerous procedures, such as the college application process or the
process for creating an IEP. They also help locate necessary or
supportive services, such as after-school programs and tutors,
transportation services for youth with physical disabilities, and sexual
health counseling. Additionally, they help teachers handle behavior
problems they encounter in the classroom. And of immense importance,
school counselors provide an ear for students who need to talk to
someone they can trust. They are sometimes the most stable adults in a
young person's life, especially for highly mobile and disconnected youth
such as youth with disabilities in foster care.

However, there are between 3 and 50 times as many students assigned to
school counselors as what the profession considers to be
appropriate.[^155] Schools in low-income neighborhoods are much more
likely to have the highest ratios of students to counselors, and as
foster youth are disproportionately low-income, this means that most
foster youth have little or no access to school counselors.[^156]

The Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs (ESSCP), which
reside under Title V of NCLB, provide competitive grants to school
districts to create and expand school counseling services that
comprehensively include access to not only certified counselors, but
also to psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers.[^157] However,
this program is extremely underfunded, with only 103 school districts
receiving grants in 33 states and the District of Columbia; thus, the
majority of school-aged youth are not being served by this important
program.[^158] It is also worth noting that elementary schools have
funding priority over secondary schools despite the myriad challenges
high school students face.[^159] The U.S. Department of Education should
increase ESSCP's funding to support more youth, including more secondary
school youth, and funding should be targeted to the highest-need school
districts. Additionally, schools with counselors should consciously
target their time, resources, and expertise to those students who are
most in need, which includes youth with disabilities in\
foster care.

An additional issue around this topic, pertinent to foster youth, is
that there is no formal or informal training available to counselors and
school psychologists (or administrators and teachers) about the unique
educational needs and experiences of students in foster care. Programs
like the San Diego County Office of Education, Foster Youth Services'
Tutor Connection Program address this deficiency. This program pairs
future teachers from California State University, San Marcos (CSUSM)
with foster youth. The CSUSM students are taught about the educational
needs of foster youth, the impact of trauma on educational progress, and
the child welfare system. These future teachers then each provide
one-on-one tutoring to a student in foster care as a community service
project. This particular partnership includes San Diego County's Foster
Youth Services, the county's Health and Human Services Agency, Child
Welfare Services, Casey Family Programs, and CSUSM.[^160] More programs
like this should surely be implemented to increase awareness of the
needs of foster youth among educators.

Another extremely important service for foster youth is mental health
counseling, as many studies have shown that over half of foster youth
have moderate to severe mental health issues.[^161] While the child
welfare system is the main link to mental health services for foster
youth, many believe that mental health services should "come to the
youth" and be provided in their school settings in order to increase
access.[^162] San Diego Unified School District is one school district
making a move in this direction. The district's Licensed Children's
Institutions Program has recently developed several groundbreaking
interventions that bring mental health services to the school
setting.[^163]

Currently, the U.S. Department of Education's Grants for the Integration
of Schools and Mental Health Systems, which reside within Title V of
NCLB, help to serve this much-needed purpose. Under this program,
collaboration between school districts and mental health systems is
mandated in order to "provide, enhance, or improve prevention,
diagnosis, and \[mental health\] treatment services to students," and
grantees are required to evaluate their effectiveness in increasing
access to quality mental health services.[^164] However, this
well-intended program is currently funded at only \$4.9 million, enough
to award just 20 grants.[^165] Funding increases in programs like this
would demonstrate the U.S. Department of Education's accountability and
dedication to providing the services necessary to give youth who
traditionally fall behind, such as those with mental disabilities, a
better chance of success in the long term.

IDEA protects and assists students with disabilities in the public
education system by requiring access to "a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their
individual needs."[^166] IDEA requires public school systems to develop
an appropriate IEP for each eligible student. IEPs are reports that
specify the types of services, supports, and environments that a student
with a disability needs in order to succeed.[^167] The team that
develops each IEP usually includes a student's teacher; parents,
caretaker, or caseworker; the young student, when deemed appropriate;
and a representative qualified to supervise the provision of special
education.[^168] Because IDEA prohibits caseworkers from making special
education decisions on behalf of foster youth, it is often assumed that
a caseworker cannot have any role in educational decision-making on
behalf of a child.[^169] In fact, all caseworkers should help serve as
advocates for the education of the youth they serve. Additionally,
caseworkers should be working with the dependency courts to ensure that
the judge is addressing a young person's education needs.[^170] (Often,
a Court Appointed Special Advocate \[CASA\] is called on for this
purpose as well.) According to a trial judge in the Arizona Superior
Court in Pima County, many courts, like hers, use the Education
Checklist that the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
has created, [^171] which helps judges understand which questions they
should be asking to ensure that the educational needs of the youth are
being addressed.[^172]

The lack of appropriate individuals to serve as educational advocates,
and to hold educational rights, is a recurring problem for systems that
serve youth with disabilities in foster care.[^173] IEPs are often
delayed or not followed due to an inability to identify or locate the
person who holds educational rights.[^174] Laws should require an
educational advocate for each student in foster care. When necessary,
this individual could hold educational rights but could also serve as a
support to other appropriate people in the young person's life who could
hold these rights but might not have the necessary knowledge to advocate
effectively for the child's best interest.

The "least restrictive environment" provision is an extremely important
and relevant part of IDEA for youth with disabilities in foster care.
The 2004 statute reads,

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes,
separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from
the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or
severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular
classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily.[^175]

Despite this statute, it is a sad fact that an overwhelmingly large
percentage of youth with disabilities in foster care end up in more
restrictive settings than are justified. One example of a restrictive
school setting is what are referred to as "non-public schools" (NPSs).
NPSs are schools run by private entities that provide special education
services to students on the basis of their IEPs. Placement into an NPS
is considered one of the most restrictive educational placements
available. [^176] NPSs are often affiliated with group homes; therefore,
many of the youth educated in NPSs are foster youth who have been placed
in special education and institutionalized in a group home of some sort
pursuant to being identified as unfit to be educated in a regular public
school. Although placement into an NPS is appropriate for some foster
youth, studies have shown that youth with disabilities are
overidentified as needing this type of placement.[^177]

In 2001, the American Institutes for Research performed a study on
educational outcomes for children residing in California's group homes,
or Licensed Children's Institutions (LCIs).[^178] The study found that
47 percent of the youth in these placements were enrolled in special
education, and that 46 percent *of them* were being educated in
NPSs.[^179] To give perspective, only 1 percent of special education
students who are not foster youth and not in group homes are educated in
NPSs, and only 4 percent of foster care youth who are not living in
group homes are educated in NPSs.[^180] The study also found that
residing in a group home or LCI increased the chance that youth with
disabilities, and especially those with emotional disturbance, would
attend an NPS, versus youth with emotional disturbance who did not live
in LCIs.[^181] (Indeed, most youth in group homes who are placed in NPSs
are identified as "emotionally disturbed" under IDEA.[^182]) To make
matters worse, "Staff visits to group homes revealed that staff reported
getting little or no educational information from caseworkers and having
great difficulty in getting transcripts from schools," meaning that it
was not likely that IEPs were being adhered to for these youth.[^183]
The authors of this study suggest that NPSs should be used only as
transitional environments that help youth prepare for placement into a
public school.[^184]

A research article published by the National Center for Youth Law
explores this issue further. It reports that, in general, independent of
education placement type, "Youth \[residing\] in group homes are
frequently educated in substandard, unregulated, and unequal
schools."[^185] One large concern is the issue of segregation (and
isolation), as group homes tend to educate only the youth residing in
that particular home.[^186] Foster care alumna Samantha Jo Broderick
claims that while institutionalized in a group home as a teenager, she
was forced to attend a "day school" for severely emotionally disturbed
youth where she saw few "outsiders," was allowed almost no privileges,
and learned very little because the curriculum reached only the
eighth-grade level, which her academic knowledge exceeded.[^187]

Further complicating, and likely exacerbating, these serious matters of
substandard education agencies in California was the fact that financial
incentives in that state have historically encouraged public schools to
place youth in NPSs, as they received a *100 percent reimbursement* for
each group home-placed foster youth enrolled in an NPS, but *no
reimbursement* if they chose to provide the services themselves. But
thanks to the 2005 passage of S.B. 1108, state reimbursements to school
districts are now linked to a youth's residential placement, not his or
her school placement.[^188] This means that school districts now have an
incentive to educate foster youth in public, comprehensive schools and
receive financial assistance to support those youth in the more
inclusive settings. School districts should never be provided financial
incentives to place youth into extremely restrictive learning
environments; students should be placed in them only when absolutely
necessary. Schools, along with the laws that support them, should work
to adhere to IDEA's standards by keeping youth with disabilities who are
in the foster care system in mainstream schools to the full extent
possible.

Eligibility requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act should be expanded to
include all foster youth, and funding should be increased in an effort
to serve more eligible youth.

The average number of school changes per foster youth is three; a large
number of these young people actually experience more than seven
changes.[^189] "Changing schools is particularly disruptive to the
education of foster youth, because it reinforces a cycle of emotional
trauma and abandonment and repeated separations from adults and
friends."[^190] Additionally, research suggests that foster youth lose
an average of four to six months of educational attainment every time
they change schools[^191]---an overwhelming statistic. And higher
frequencies of school changes have been linked with lower graduation
rates and, hence, lower postsecondary attainment.[^192] Therefore,
foster youth should remain in their respective schools of origin as long
as possible in order to limit the detrimental effects of high school
mobility.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 100-77) is the primary
federal law focused on the education of homeless youth, who include
"children awaiting foster care placement."[^193] The law requires states
to have a plan for addressing issues around the enrollment, attendance,
and success of homeless youth in school. It allows for these youth to
remain in their schools of origin regardless of where they are living
(when feasible) and provides for the funding of transportation services
in order to support this allowance.[^194] Hence, the McKinney-Vento Act
addresses some of the negative effects of high mobility that many
homeless and foster youth experience.

The act also eases the transitions of these youth when they do change
schools by allowing them to enroll in and attend school immediately,
even before their school and immunization records have been
transferred.[^195] A U.S. Department of Education report recently
determined that the McKinney-Vento Act is actually making significant
progress toward reducing the barriers to education services for homeless
and many foster youth in the districts that receive this program's
funding.[^196] A trial judge for Division 13 of the Arizona Superior
Court in Pima County says that her county uses the act to assist
dependent youth with the provision of education services more steadily
now that so much recent research has pointed to the negative effects of
high school (and home) mobility for foster youth.[^197]

However, many foster youth advocates, such as Casey Family Programs,
agree that the foster care-specific wording of the McKinney-Vento Act,
which states that youth who are "awaiting foster care placement" are
eligible for services, is too vague, thereby allowing states to take
very different approaches to serving these youth.[^198] As a result,
some states consider all foster youth eligible, including those placed
in long-term care, while others consider only youth in emergency shelter
or short-term placements eligible.[^199] Casey Family Programs believes
that this wording should be changed to incorporate all "out-of-home
youth," which would include foster youth in any type of placement, such
as group homes, foster families, and kinship care, for any length of
time.[^200] The policy director for the National Association for the
Education of Homeless Children and Youth says that her organization
advocates for the expansion of McKinney-Vento Act eligibility
requirements so that states can spend less time determining eligibility
for each child and more time making sure that "school is the oasis of
stability when everything else is turned upside-down."[^201]

Another issue advocates raise pertaining to the McKinney-Vento Act is
that its current appropriation of \$61 million creates a highly
competitive subgranting process, which means that too many eligible
children and youth are left uncovered.[^202] According to Casey Family
Programs, almost half of the 914,225 students identified as eligible
(under current definitions) for the McKinney Vento Act in 2005--06 were
enrolled in school districts that do not have subgrants.[^203]
Therefore, the U.S. Department of Education should strongly consider an
increase in funding for the act in order to provide all eligible youth
with the services they need to succeed in school. Increased support for
the McKinney-Vento Act could specifically have a positive effect on
youth with disabilities in foster care, who often remain in the system
for longer periods and experience many different school and home
placements.

Efforts to maintain foster youth in their schools of origin must be
strengthened at the state level as well. California's Assembly Bill 490
(A.B. 490), which was passed in 2004, is a promising model of a state
program that ensures that foster youth remain in their school of origin
to the extent feasible. A.B. 490 requires that foster youth receive
equal access to a comprehensive education, which includes the right to
immediate enrollment upon changing schools, the right to remain at their
school of origin when home placement changes during the school year,
access to extracurricular activities and to learning in the least
restrictive educational environment, mandated school record delivery to
the new school within two days, excused absences for court-ordered
activities or court appearances for the youth, and more.[^204] Other
states should strongly consider measures like California's A.B. 490 to
better ensure school stability and quality learning experiences for
foster youth, especially those with disabilities, particularly when
McKinney-Vento Act funding cannot serve all youth in need.

States should invest more actively in addressing and eliminating the
barriers to postsecondary learning options that youth with disabilities
in foster care face.

Many foster care alumni believe that the Foster Care Independence Act of
1999 is one of the most important recent foster care laws. This law
established the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP),
which enables states to provide independent living programs and services
to foster youth "aging out" of the foster care system. This law will be
discussed further in Chapter 3.3 of this report.

Added to the CFCIP in 2002 was the Educational and Training Vouchers
(ETV) Program for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, which goes beyond
CFCIP by providing resources specifically to meet the education and
training needs of these transitioning youth.[^205] CFCIP authorizes \$60
million per year for the ETV program, although in 2005, only \$47
million was actually appropriated to the states. The ETV program
provides education and training funds to those foster youth most likely
to be in the system on their 18^th^ birthdays (as well as youth adopted
at age 16 or later); youth up to age 23 are eligible so long as they are
enrolled in a postsecondary education or training program on their
21^st^ birthday.[^206] The ETV program provides vouchers worth up to
\$5,000 per student per year for the cost of attending these
institutions. Prior to the ETV program, no federal assistance was
specifically available to help foster youth participate in postsecondary
education or training programs, although many have been able to
participate in federal student financial aid programs for low-income
students, such as the Federal Pell Grant Program, depending on
eligibility (e.g., must be at least a half-time student).

Foster care alumni who aged out of the system before the ETV program
existed communicate their frustration with having a desire to attend
college but no known money or supports to make it happen. Melinda Foy,
an alumna who turned 18 in the 1980s, says,

My caseworker was great. She drove me to Ferris \[State University\] to
apply for college. However, I was not aware of any services available to
help me transition into college. I was fearful of not having enough
money to live and \[having nowhere to\] go for holidays \[so I never
ended up going to college\]. My worker had great intentions, but I was
not given proper support.[^207]

Melanie Oyler, another foster care alumna who aged out in the 1980s, has
a similar story. She says that she emancipated herself from the
dependency system at the age of 17 because there was "no reason to stay"
due to the nonexistence of transition (or education) programs for foster
youth in the 1980s.[^208] Oyler did eventually go to college, but it
took her eight years to get her associate's degree, all the while
working several jobs at once to support herself.[^209]

Although the chance of foster youth (with or without disabilities)
attending a postsecondary education or training program has increased
since the creation of the ETV program in 2002, the statistics regarding
foster youth attending and succeeding in postsecondary programs are
dismal, with only 20 percent entering these programs and a mere 5
percent succeeding.[^210] Two major monetary factors can be pointed to
as partial causes. First, appropriations for the ETV program are low,
hovering around \$45 million on average, and second, most foster youth
have low incomes and are cannot afford postsecondary education. As a
result of these two factors, only a fraction of eligible foster youth
are truly able to take advantage of the ETV program.

Even more troubling is that some of this small amount of allocated ETV
funding still goes unused by the states due to administrative issues,
creating yet another barrier to access for foster youth with and without
disabilities. In 2003, about *30 percent* (\$12.38 million) of the \$42
million appropriated to the ETV program went unused. Wade F. Horn,
former assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, commented in a 2007 *Youth
Today* article that the funds were not used because the states do not
have a full understanding of what the funds can pay for, states have
insufficient matching funds, there is inadequate marketing to eligible\
youth by the states, and staff inexperience and turnover results in
confusion about the program's guidelines.[^211] The article also notes
that in 2003, three states returned\
more than \$3 million in unused CFCIP funding to the Federal Government
for\
similar reasons.[^212]

Clearly, the Federal Government must invest in state education and
awareness for the CFCIP and EVT programs so that the states can do a
better job of getting the funds and resources to the transitioning
foster youth who need them. Another consideration may be to survey the
states to better understand what barriers are preventing them from
disseminating the funds. The administrative process for obtaining the
funds, either at the state or local program level, may be challenging or
too cumbersome to complete; or the states may not be marketing their
"request for proposals" process at the local level well enough to
attract applicants.

Of course, foster youth, especially those with disabilities, face other,
nonmonetary barriers to attending and succeeding in postsecondary
programs. It has already been noted that a third of all foster youth are
in the special education system. While special education systems provide
students with disabilities many services to help them succeed, it is
still a fact that many school districts do not build their special
education programs around the goal of college attainment. According to a
2003 University of Minnesota study, in many states, an array of diploma
and other exit document options is available to students completing high
school. The options "range from honors diplomas, to the standard
diploma, to certificates of completion or attendance, and others."
[^213] Some of these exit documents are specifically for students
receiving special education services and are too often less academically
rigorous than the average diploma. This fact raises questions about how
well-prepared for postsecondary education students who earn these
diplomas really are.[^214]

Many foster youth also attend alternative high schools (like the NPSs
discussed previously), where higher education attainment is not an
expressed goal of the program.[^215] As noted earlier, a large
percentage of the foster youth in these alternative high school programs
have disabilities. Whether youth with disabilities in foster care are in
special education or alternative school programs, they all have an
uphill battle, as many of them fall victim to low expectations by the
adults in their lives, including their foster parents or other
caretakers, school counselors, and teachers.[^216] As a result, many
youth with disabilities in foster care are not enrolled in
college-preparatory curricula during high school, nor are they advised
about the myriad postsecondary options available and the financial aid
options that exist to help their goals become reality. These students
are hence plagued with the idea that higher education is not something
"people like them" can pursue. When they do attempt to pursue
postsecondary opportunities, navigating the application and financial
aid processes without adult assistance may further hinder their success.
These processes can be intimidating even to an educated adult; a foster
youth who does not have the benefit of a knowledgeable supporting adult
can be overwhelmed by the process and confused by the language in the
complex paperwork required to apply for financial aid.

Fortunately, the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 brought about the
addition of mandatory transition planning for students with disabilities
(within their IEPs).[^217] Transition plans make recommendations about
educational and vocational plans; set goals for an individual's future;
identify services needed, such as counseling; and link students with
necessary resources upon their exit from high school.[^218] But research
shows that the implementation of these transition plans has been slow
and inconsistent across states.[^219] Additionally, there is almost no
alignment of IDEA's IEP transition plan with the transition plan
required by the public child welfare system for foster youth.[^220] But
coordination between public education and public child welfare is
crucial for ensuring that youth with disabilities who are also in foster
care receive the assistance and services they need for successful
transition.

Ineffective transition planning inhibits many students with disabilities
(both foster and nonfoster youth) from receiving the information they
need to understand how to pursue higher education and vocational
opportunities after secondary school. The National Council on Disability
(NCD) also reports that researchers have found six recurring themes
regarding the barriers to postsecondary educational attainment for youth
with disabilities:

-   Deficits in study skills such as test preparation, note-taking, and
    listening comprehension

-   Problems with organizational skills

-   Difficulties with social interaction

-   Deficits in specific academic areas, with reading and written
    composition being the most frequent

-   Low self-esteem

-   Higher school dropout rates[^221]

When youth with disabilities in foster care do make it into a college,
technical program, vocational school, or other form of higher education
or training program, even more barriers hinder their success. With many
financial aid programs, less-than-half-time students and
non-degree-seeking students are not eligible for aid.[^222] However,
many youth with disabilities in foster care are not able to be half-time
students. Many must hold jobs concurrently, and some have disabilities
that prevent them from taking on fuller workloads. An additional issue
is that many institutions of higher education do not provide many
services for students with disabilities, such as resource centers,
counselors, information on accessibility, and networking opportunities,
making institutions unfriendly and daunting places for many students
with disabilities. This issue turns out to be a sort of "catch-22"
situation: Higher education institutions do not provide services for
students with disabilities because many of these youth do not attend
them, and many do not attend them because there are no services
available for them. These institutions should therefore proactively
address this issue by providing the needed services and marketing their
availability to prospective students.

Some youth with disabilities in foster care themselves even caution that
too often, the adults who help them access college consider college
entry to be the ultimate goal, when actually, the achievement of
self-sufficiency should be recognized as the true goal.[^223] "Foster
youth need independent living plans, and these plans need to be closely
linked to accessing jobs and careers, so youth are not just going to
college for 'something to do' \[when they transition out of the child
welfare system\]," asserts Richard Devylder, a foster care alumnus who
was abandoned by his birth parents upon being born with no arms or
legs.[^224] He claims that too many foster youth with disabilities are
"dumped" into college without enough thought for their independent
living needs and plans for self-sufficiency.[^225] Foster care alumna
Samantha Jo Broderick, who experienced bipolar disorder and depression
as an adolescent, agrees. She says that her caseworker fought hard to
get her into college, but that she was not ready for the environment of
college because she did not feel prepared enough at that point to be on
her own.[^226]

Both secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions such
as colleges and occupational and vocational schools, as well as
caseworkers and educational advocates, counselors, and dependency court
judges, must keep this last point in mind when helping youth with
disabilities in foster care create their transition plans and assess
what skills and services they will need to lead a productive adult life.
All of these adults should together be charged with ensuring that each
youth's plan is comprehensive enough to lead to healthy, self-sufficient
adulthood.

Education plays an enormous role in the success of all young people.
Many argue that it should be especially prioritized for traditionally
disadvantaged populations, because it is these youth who often end up
underserved due to the challenges of meeting their unique needs. Youth
with disabilities and foster youth are two such populations, and those
who hold both characteristics are even more challenged. The multiple
systems that work to ensure their education success must, therefore,
more consciously work together to better these young people's
educational outcomes. At the same time, other entities, such as systems
of higher education and their financial aid programs, must step up to
better serve these youth.

Summary of Policy Recommendations

1\. The provision of comprehensive, individualized school services in
nonrestrictive environments is essential to ensuring the educational
success of youth with disabilities in the foster care system.

a.  Funding for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling\
    Programs should be increased and prioritized to serve the
    highest-need school districts.

b.  School personnel such as teachers, principals, and counselors should
    be trained on foster care issues.

c.  Funding for the Integration of Schools and Mental Health Systems
    should be supported more fully by the U.S. Department of Education.

d.  Every student in foster care, and especially those with
    disabilities, should have an educational advocate such as a Court
    Appointed Special Advocate. Caseworkers and dependency court judges
    should take more central roles in advocating for foster youth's
    educational needs.

e.  Nonpublic schools should be used only when absolutely necessary for
    youth with disabilities in foster care and only as transitional
    learning environments, not permanent ones.

2\. Eligibility requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act should be
expanded to\
include all foster youth, and funding should be increased in an effort
to serve more eligible youth.

a.  States should expand eligibility requirements for this act to
    include *all* foster youth in any type of living placement.

3\. States should invest more actively in addressing and eliminating the
barriers to accessing postsecondary learning opportunities that youth
with disabilities in foster care face.

a.  Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program's Education
    and Training Vouchers should be increased to serve more needy youth,
    and the application process should be simplified.

b.  Teachers, caseworkers, and foster parents must raise their
    expectations for postsecondary learning attainment for youth with
    disabilities in foster care.

c.  Postsecondary education institutions must provide better services
    and resources and a more welcoming environment for youth with
    disabilities in foster care.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125273 .anchor}Chapter 3.3: Transitions to
Adulthood and Connectivity

Thousands of foster youth, youth with disabilities, and other vulnerable
populations such as youth in the juvenile justice system, youth in
poverty, and high school dropouts reach their 18^th^ birthdays and enter
adulthood every day. Although many will go on to healthy, productive
adulthoods, unfortunately, a large number of these youth fall through
the cracks, unable to succeed for one reason or another. The
repercussions felt by these young people are profound, with significant
numbers drifting into homelessness, unemployment, and the criminal
justice system. Concurrently, many of them enter the social and
behavioral health care systems in disproportionate numbers, at a
dramatic cost to taxpayers. It is indeed a compelling situation for
these youth and the adults and systems charged with supporting and
assisting them.

The Youth Transition Funders Group Foster Care Work Group,[^227] which
is committed to helping foster youth make successful transitions to
adulthood, identifies four major groups of youth who often "do not make
successful transitions" to adulthood:

-   Those who do not complete high school

-   Youth deeply involved in the juvenile justice system

-   Young, unmarried mothers

-   Adolescents who experience foster placement[^228]

D. Wayne Osgood, a professor at Pennsylvania State University,
identifies seven "vulnerable populations," adding "homeless and runaway
youth, youth involved in special education, youth with serious mental
disorders, and youth with physical disabilities" to the above
list.[^229] Many young people experience at least two of these
characteristics or situations at least once in their lives, further
exacerbating their situations. For example, a recent Vera Institute of
Justice study found that foster youth were overrepresented in the
juvenile justice system.[^230] Although less than 2 percent of New York
City's youth population were in the foster care system, foster youth
accounted for 15 percent of those admitted into juvenile
detention.[^231]

Osgood cites several reasons why transitions to adulthood present
exceptional challenges to these extremely vulnerable groups of youth:

-   Limited abilities, for many youth with disabilities

-   Unreliable or nonexistent family support, for foster, runaway, and
    homeless youth

-   Daunting tasks of transitions, especially for youth with
    disabilities

-   Systems exacerbating problems in some cases, especially for formerly
    incarcerated and special education youth[^232]

A further challenge for foster youth in particular is the fact that so
many have lived through periods of great instability, with frequent
changes in living arrangements and schools. These youth have also
experienced multiple social workers and case managers, as well as
varying levels of quality in the services they have received.

Young people become disconnected primarily as a result of dropping out
of school; running away from their homes, foster care placements,
rehabilitations, and detention centers; or merely failing to take part
in societal experiences, such as getting a job, spending time with
friends, and joining clubs. This population experiences little
consistency or permanency in their family situations; thus few, if any,
adults have the role of mentoring and guiding these youth. Even when
connected to some or all of these institutions and experiences, youth
are still at risk of disconnecting, as many foster youth do not have
caring adults to encourage, advise, and guide them, and many youth with
disabilities can end up feeling isolated, lonely, and even rejected by
these\
societal experiences.

Chapter 3.2 of this report highlighted the dismal postsecondary access
and success statistics for youth with disabilities in and out of the
foster care system. In terms of employment for youth with disabilities
leaving high school, according to one study, although 7 out of 10 youth
surveyed claimed to have been employed at some time or another after
leaving high school, only 4 out of 10 were actually employed at the time
the study was done.[^233] This is "substantially below the 63 percent
employment rate among same-age out-of-school youth in the general
population," the report notes.[^234] Similarly, almost one-half of
former foster care youth have incomes below the poverty line, and they
are employed at only a 43 percent rate, on average. [^235] Clearly,
youth with disabilities and youth in foster care are not faring well in
the early years of their transitions to adulthood.

There is a consensus among those who work with these populations that
the issues related to disadvantaged youth's transitions to adulthood are
routinely overlooked. Many think that this results from the assumption
that because youth are given adult rights at the age of 18, they should
all be able to live up to the expectations of being adults at that age.
However, youth development experts assert that this is an incorrect
assumption, and that in fact, the *majority* of 18-year-olds---not just
vulnerable populations---do not feel ready for adulthood and
self-sufficiency on their 18^th^ birthdays.[^236] Although the
populations and circumstances listed above are often noted as "unique"
in transitions literature, in fact, almost all 18- to 21-year-olds need
at least some type of support to help them truly reach self-sufficiency.
Indeed, even well-connected and well-resourced college students often
need monetary support for tuition, room, and board.

The overall message is that almost all young adults need support systems
to help them transition into healthy, productive adulthoods, but that
youth at risk of becoming disconnected, and already-disconnected youth,
face more barriers to successful transition. Because of their
circumstances, these youth require programs and efforts that go beyond
what the "average" young person needs. This is especially true for youth
involved in the child welfare system, as they are frequently "dropped"
from many supports at age 18. "We have no children to spare," reminded
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) at a recent event sponsored by Casey Family
Programs that examined the educational needs of foster youth.[^237] Her
point speaks to the absolute need to ensure the healthy transition of
*all* youth to adulthood, no matter how challenging.

No matter how unique each individual's circumstances are, disconnection
from the mainstream systems as a whole is not a small issue. Indeed,
hundreds of young people exit out of foster care, get pregnant, drop out
of high school, get arrested, and run away from home every day. And a
significant number of people with disabilities remain disconnected from
society throughout their lives because they do not receive assistance
toward community integration. For these reasons, it is obvious that a
national, multilevel investment is absolutely necessary if policymakers
and other stakeholders are serious about improving the outcomes for
these disconnected populations. Though much has been done in the last
few years to address the needs of youth in transition from state custody
and the needs of transitioning youth with disabilities, much more
remains to\
be done.

Youth development experts assert that the lack of interest and
willingness to invest in youth with disabilities in foster care is in
part due to the lack of information about the challenges facing this
population. Unfortunately, the youth themselves have no natural base of
advocacy, since their families are often absent and their professional
caregivers are overwhelmed with individual case situations. On this
note, the Foster Care Work Group asserts,

The starting point for any reform is changing the public's awareness,
and image, of the population. The public and policymakers at the local,
state and federal levels must conclude that society has an interest in,
and obligation to, helping these youth make it.[^238]

Changing these attitudes requires providing information to the public at
large about the negative outcomes that often occur for this young adult
population *and* for the systems with which they interact when proper
supports are not in place. For example, the business community must see
these young people as future employees who may not have the abilities to
acquire and maintain meaningful employment if they are not given access
to the skills they need to thrive. Additionally, a targeted campaign
must be directed at stakeholders who have a more specific role in
working with foster youth and youth with disabilities.

Fortunately, since 1999, the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP) has mandated transition plans for foster youth, and since the
1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), the individualized education program (IEP) process has included
a transition plan for students in special education. While it is
commendable that these two mandated systems have been put into place,
research is showing that they do not yet work well together, resulting
in too many youth with disabilities transitioning to adulthood without
adequate preparation. This issue is discussed in more detail below.

Cross-systems collaboration on the provision of transitional services is
essential.

The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169), which
established CFCIP, has proven to be an invaluable program for youth
aging out of the child welfare system. CFCIP enables states to provide
independent living programs and services to these youth until the age of
21.[^239] Prior to CFCIP, substantially more youth were dropped from
services on their 18^th^ birthdays with no safety net.[^240] Melanie
Oyler, a foster youth in the mid-1980s who emancipated herself at age
17, reflects,

I didn't receive any \[transition\] support whatsoever. There were no
services for youth \[in the 1980s\], and thus, my being in the State's
care at that time did not make sense to me---there was no reason \[to
stay in the system\], and emancipation was my only option to get out of
the hell that I was in, and to try and make a "normal" kind of life for
myself (i.e., to make my own decisions legally). I fervently wish there
had been some support of any kind at all for me, as I struggled
immensely with not having anyone to help guide me along and teach me
things.[^241]

CFCIP, along with its companion legislation, the Educational and
Training Vouchers Program (ETV), which provides resources specifically
to meet the education and training needs of these transitioning youth,
helps provide thousands of foster youth with job skills, life skills,
and educational attainment every year. However, states' CFCIP monies are
not sufficient to serve all foster youth with transition services. A
2004 General Accounting Office (GAO) survey showed that only about 44
percent of foster youth eligible for independent living services indeed
received them, and it is not clear from this report how comprehensive
the services actually were when provided.[^242] Indeed, the independent
living services that are provided usually do not offer all of the
comprehensive services these youth, and especially youth with
disabilities, need to make successful transitions. Mark E. Courtney's
renowned 2005 *Midwest Evaluation* of transitioning foster youth showed
that, for example, only "23 percent of those studied received training
on balancing a checkbook, 25 percent assistance with finding an
apartment, \[and\] 22 percent meal planning and preparation
training."[^243] Services like these are particularly important for
youth with disabilities, who often require more assistance with them
than the "average" foster youth.

Despite the resources attached to CFCIP and ETV, youth with disabilities
in foster care must still navigate too many challenges and barriers to
truly become self-determined or self-sufficient. These young people in
particular require a comprehensive, multisystem transition support
network. It is unrealistic to imagine that the child welfare system
alone can provide the resources necessary to address the employment,
education, health care, housing, and family challenges of this
population.

Regarding youth in the special education system, since 1997 the IEP
process has provided services to develop transitions plan for youth in
need. Starting around age 14, a team involving the student and his or
her parent(s) (when possible), school personnel, the student's attorney
or guardian *ad litem* (when appropriate), and representatives from any
agencies that are deemed necessary participants (such as vocational
rehabilitation or child welfare) is convened to discuss the youth's
plans after high school.[^244] The team works with the youth to
determine what goals are desired and what curriculum and/or special
services are needed to support these transition goals. At age 16, this
plan is revisited and revised as needed.[^245] At that stage, the team
also discusses what services should be provided until the youth
transitions out of high school, including additional classes, access to
independent living and/or employment skills, and connections to
community organizations and agencies. These services may include those
offered not by the school but through other agencies; in these cases,
such as if a student requires vocational rehabilitation, these agencies
are expected to participate in the IEP transition planning process and
provide the necessary resources when needed.[^246] Prior to IDEA's
reauthorization in 1997, the service links to adult systems were not
mandated.[^247]

The creation of both the CFCIP and the IEP transition programs has been
a significant step for ensuring healthy transitions of these youth to
productive, thriving adulthoods. But unfortunately, these two systems
often operate in isolation of one another.[^248] This lack of
coordination results in a one-dimensional approach and often creates yet
another missed opportunity for the young person to succeed. Key findings
have emerged from a recent study that compared transition plans for
youth in special education in the foster care system versus youth only
in special education.[^249] Transition plans for the *foster youth in
special education* were 31 percent less likely to include postsecondary
education plans than plans for students in special education.[^250]
These plans were also less likely to include goals for developing
independent living skills, with only 16 percent of plans having these
goals; and they included less advocate involvement, with a family member
or foster parent being present for planning\
meetings only 42 percent of the time.[^251] Additionally, only 31
percent of the transition plans for foster youth in special education
indicated that a caseworker had attended\
the meetings.[^252]

The study provides several possible reasons why these transition plans
for youth in special education and in the foster care system are so
deficient. One is that IDEA's IEP process relies heavily on parent
participation, without explicitly addressing who must be involved if
parent involvement is not an option. [^253] At the same time, the role
of the caseworker or a guardian *ad litem* is not well defined by
IDEA.[^254] This could be one reason why caseworkers are often not
involved, thus leaving the young person without a significant advocate.
And as will be discussed in Chapter 3.4, the lack of collaboration
between child welfare and schools, as well as the lack of understanding
about the child welfare system by educators and vice versa, it is a
further challenge to creating collaborative IEP and foster care
transition plans that work toward the same goals. Although several
improvements that directly affect foster youth were made to the IEP
process during IDEA's 2004 reauthorization, correct implementation at
the ground level remains a challenge.

There are positive examples of comprehensive and collaborative
transition planning processes, notably within the San Diego Unified
School District (SDUSD). The Transition Resources for Adult Community
Education (TRACE) program is the school district's community-based
program for young adults with disabilities, ages 18--22, which provides
services to youth as they transition from public school to adult
life.[^255] According to a program diagnostic resource teacher at SDUSD,
individualized services that link education with independent living
skills are key for keeping vulnerable youth like those with disabilities
in or out of foster care from dropping out of school and becoming
disconnected from society.[^256] The TRACE program ensures that all
students, regardless of the severity of their disabilities, are "capable
of living, working, and participating in their community."[^257] TRACE
uses a "person-centered planning" approach, and a key component of the
program is development of transition goals across multiple "life
domains," including "Adult Education, Vocational, Recreation/Leisure,
Self-Advocacy, Community, and Domestic Skills." [^258] SDUSD links each
student's IEP with his or her TRACE transition plan.[^259]

But these cross-systems collaborations should occur not only between
systems serving juveniles; they should also be linked with the
adult-serving systems to create a continuum of opportunities for the
youth involved in them. In particular, they should include links between
secondary and postsecondary education systems, the juvenile and adult
justice systems, and juvenile and adult mental health systems. Although
collaborations between juvenile and adult systems are often challenging,
they must communicate with one another in order to better align service
delivery choices and goals for the youth they serve. Aligning juvenile
and adult services also enhances opportunities for connectivity and
community integration in adulthood for youth with disabilities leaving
the foster care system.

Collaborations across systems should also be occurring across different
sectors, not just systems. Community organizations, youth groups, and
businesses all have roles in helping provide transition services to
youth with disabilities in foster care, in addition to the "usual"
systems such as child welfare and education. One of the leading national
organizations that facilitate these types of collaborations is the Jim
Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, whose mission is "to help youth in
foster care make successful transitions to adulthood."[^260] The
initiative encourages an integrated approach that involves the young
person in the transition process. It provides grants to states and
cities, technical assistance for program development, and
coalition-building with multiple stakeholders, including "the private
sector, faith-based and community-based organizations, child welfare and
workforce development agencies, local governments, and high schools and
universities."[^261] Programs like the Jim Casey Initiative are leading
the way for communities that want to learn how to create youth-driven
systems that depend on healthy collaborations across all sectors,
resulting in enhanced services and improved outcomes for youth exiting
foster care.

One of the issues surrounding the challenge of creating a collaborative
approach is accountability. Chapter 3.4 of this report discusses the
importance of cross-systems collaborations and coordination, as well as
the importance of determining accountability systems so that systems are
required and perhaps even provided with incentives to collaborate. These
recommendations also hold true for services related to transitions to
adulthood. Some believe that transition services are administered in
such a fragmented manner because, as the Foster Care Work Group asserts,
while there are indeed some *programs* available to help transitioning
youth,

There are no *systems or government agencies*, \[emphasis added\] like
schools and child welfare agencies, which have the responsibility of
helping young adults experiencing difficulty in making the transition to
adulthood... There needs to be system that has responsibility for
reaching out to those not making it, with adequate dedicated resources,
in the same way that resources are provided for youth attending
college.[^262]

This network of services could be facilitated by the funding and
implementation of the Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L.
109-365)[^263] and by adding explicit language to existing legislation
related to the coordination of transitional services among state
agencies and systems. An example of this cross-systems coordination
would be a collaboration between schools and child welfare agencies to
create comprehensive transition plans that emphasize more specific and
individualized personal, career, and education goals for each youth.

Accountability for the services provided by these different systems and
entities could also be achieved by the implementation of, and strict
adherence to, performance measures. Although many state and federal
programs now require programs to be measured on their outcomes, at the
ground level many programs do not adhere to these performance measures
as strictly as they could.

Transition services for youth with disabilities in foster care should be
comprehensive and individualized and offer a full range of appropriate
services.

Because of the high prevalence of disconnection from society among
foster youth, especially those with disabilities, the Youth Transition
Funders Group Foster Care Work Group has developed five overarching
program-level recommendations to ensure that foster youth are
"connected" by age 25. (Age 25 is considered to be a pivotal age;
research has shown that individuals who are not connected to society by
this age are at a much higher risk of never connecting at all.[^264])
These recommendations are for programs to "advocate and support
educational attainment, facilitate access to workforce development
opportunities, provide financial literacy education, encourage savings
and asset development, and create entrepreneurship opportunities."[^265]

The Foster Care Work Group adds that that the focus should be on
educational attainment for 14- to 17-year-olds, while the focus should
be on connections to the workforce for 18- to 24-year-olds.[^266]
"Ensuring that youth complete high school seems to be an especially
important factor for successful youth development and adult
self-sufficiency," this report asserts.[^267] These recommendations are
also relevant for youth with disabilities.

The National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
(NCWD/Youth) espouses recommendations for youth with disabilities in and
out of foster care in particular. NCWD/Youth has created a guide that
can help different stakeholders, including the youth, ascertain what is
needed under different circumstances. Under the "Connecting Activities"
section of the guide, NCWD/Youth determines that the following services
may be needed:

-   *All youth may need:* mental and/or physical health services,
    transportation, tutoring, financial planning and management,
    post-program supports through structured arrangements in
    postsecondary institutions and adult service agencies, and
    connections to other services and opportunities (e.g., recreation).

-   *Youth with disabilities also may need:* appropriate assistive
    technologies, community orientation and mobility training, exposure
    to post-program supports (e.g., independent living centers),
    personal assistance services (e.g., interpreters), and
    benefits-planning counseling.

-   *Foster youth may also need:* opportunities to obtain a driver's
    license, library card, voter registration, birth certificate, or
    medical records; adults who can serve as adult systems "navigators;"
    transitional and long-term housing; safety information for personal
    relationships and independent living; access to financial aid
    opportunities for college; parenting information and childcare;
    information on health care; connections to municipalities; and
    foster care caseworkers making connections in work and community on
    behalf of these youth.[^268]

The sheer number of these recommendations, and the fact that they
require the participation of many individuals and organizations from
different systems, illustrates just how complex the support process for
youth with disabilities who are exiting foster care is, as well as how
much planned orchestration is required.

According to a former employee of the National Council on Disability,
the disability community deems another skill necessary for youth with
disabilities to obtain during their transitional period: exposure to the
independent living philosophy.[^269] The independent living philosophy
empowers people with disabilities by focusing on building
self-determination and self-respect and by working to ensure equal
opportunities for them.[^270] Many disability experts and advocates
agree that teaching this philosophy to youth with disabilities is
essential to their psychological growth and the key to a healthy
adulthood. This philosophy is also important for young people who have
experienced foster care. Because the child welfare system has
traditionally emphasized child protection, these young people are not
often encouraged to be independent or to negotiate situations that
include some degree of controlled risk. Therefore, it is important for
the ideas of self-determination and personal empowerment to be passed
along from child welfare personnel to the youth they serve.

Foster care alumna Samantha Jo Broderick asserts that it is also
important to provide not only "access to" or "information about" life
skills, as alluded to in the list above, but also *hands-on* skills
development opportunities.[^271] She states that the problem with many
life skills classes is that they will teach young people the facts, but
"the real-life follow-up is nonexistent." Her examples include "actually
cooking something, learning to shop at a grocery store with a budget,
and riding mass transit," all of which she learned about but never
actually attempted to do until she was on her own, at which time she was
fearful of trying them.[^272] Broderick identifies the Ansell-Casey Life
Skills Assessment[^273] and its connected tool as "a free, but seriously
underutilized exemplary resource that typically is not used to its full
potential" by agencies and programs that teach life skills.[^274]

Among the "connecting activities" that NCWD/Youth considers highly
important are activities that connect youth with disabilities and youth
in foster care to their peers, including support networks. Child welfare
and disability advocates alike express their frustration with the dearth
of support networks available to these young adults. Richard Devylder, a
foster care alumnus who was born with no arms or legs, says that his top
recommendation is for programs to provide networking opportunities,
especially social ones, to youth with disabilities aging out of foster
care, because "these are often especially isolated youth."[^275]

Broderick agrees. She claims that the best networking experience she
ever received was when her independent living coordinator gave her the
chance to attend Destination Future 2001: National Youth Leadership
Conference.[^276] Destination Future is an annual conference
administered by the University of Oklahoma's National Resource Center
for Youth Services.[^277] The goals of the conference are to increase
youth civic engagement and develop their leadership skills, and to
"provide a mechanism for youth in care or recently emancipated from care
to inform service providers and policymakers on the issues that impact
children and youth in out-of-home care."[^278] Broderick says that the
conference enabled her to connect with other foster youth with
disabilities and come to understand that others were in situations
similar to hers. She also says that the self-advocacy skills she learned
at the conference were absolutely essential to her growth and entrance
into a healthy adulthood, adding that the workshops she attended taught
her to transform her curiosity and frustrations into a positive
outlet---by becoming a leader in the foster care community.[^279]
Broderick believes that more of these networking and empowerment
opportunities should be provided to youth with disabilities aging out of
foster care.[^280]

Fortunately, there are now more national networking organizations than
ever before for youth with disabilities and youth who are in or alumni
of the foster care system, mostly thanks to the World Wide Web. Two
national foster care networking groups are Foster Club[^281] and Foster
Care Alumni of America. [^282] The National Council on Independent
Living[^283] and the National Youth Leadership Network[^284] also help
many youth and adults with disabilities connect with one another.
Support organizations like these provide the essential, although often
overlooked, service of networking and facilitating connections among
people in similar circumstances.

More should be done to ensure *access* to appropriate transition
services for youth with disabilities in the foster care system.

As noted above, individualized, comprehensive, and appropriate
transition services that meet all of the needs of the youth who require
them are essential. However, *access* to these essential services is
often the largest challenge for youth with disabilities involved in the
child welfare system. Many services are truly accessible only to young
people who are readily able to seek them out on their own. This is most
unfortunate, because youth with disabilities aging out of foster care
are often already disconnected from society and therefore not capable of
seeking out these services. Young people with disabilities who are
transitioning from group homes or other residential programs are even
less likely to be able to seek out the unique services they may need,
because many such youth are disconnected from their community's
resources as a result of their institutional settings.

A systems-level example of the lack of specific outreach to foster youth
is the college application process. Federal financial aid forms do not
specifically ask applicants if they are in foster care, thereby making
it almost impossible for colleges to link foster youth with aid for
which they may be eligible.[^285] (However, many *states* have financial
aid programs specifically tailored to foster youth, some of which even
completely waive tuition costs.[^286]) Additionally, valuable federal
programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, which assist low-income and
first-generation college students, "do not effectively reach out to
foster youth or take into account their unique circumstances."[^287]

Another barrier to accessing services exists particularly for foster
youth who are identified by the child welfare system as not being
eligible for transitional services owing to the (sometimes perceived)
severity of their disability. An example is transitional housing
programs to which only more "stable" youth may apply. For example, one
county-run California transitional housing program's eligibility
requirements state that only (18- to 20-year-old) "youth who have
demonstrated an ability to live independently" and "who have a legal
source of income and/or are working full/part time" may apply for the
program.[^288] Not only is this first requirement extremely subjective,
but both requirements end up disqualifying the transitioning foster
youth who need services like these the most. To make matters worse,
programs like this one often have very long waiting lists, and the youth
applicants often do not have access to temporary housing during the
waiting time.[^289] In fact, few model housing programs will seek out
and provide appropriate services for the most difficult-to-serve youth,
often considered to be those with mental and emotional disabilities. It
is no surprise, therefore, that individuals with these types of
disabilities are more likely to experience long-term homelessness.[^290]

This access issue is especially prevalent for foster youth residing in
group homes and other institutions (where many youth with disabilities
are placed). A special education teacher in the SDUSD who teaches foster
youth with disabilities asserts that there is usually an unintended
cutoff of services after youth living in group homes age out of care
because eligibility requirements give preference to more "connected
youth" who have the adult supports available to help them navigate
complex systems.[^291] This teacher said that in theory,
institutionalized youth should be more connected to accessing services
than the average foster youth, as they live with youth workers who are
specifically trained to care for them, but in reality, transitions are
often extremely abrupt for these youth, because they are linked to
supports that often end abruptly when the young person leaves the group
home on his or her 18^th^ birthday. "Eighteen years old---payment
stops---meaningful adult attention stops. End of story," the official
stated.[^292] He adds that "this shows, rather starkly, how being
connected to a 'system' is no match for being connected to other people
and/or family."[^293]

On a personal note, regarding eligibility of services, Samantha Jo
Broderick, who transitioned out of the New Jersey child welfare system
in 2002, claims that she was denied access to many independent living
services while a teenager.[^294] She believes that she was considered
not "stable" enough to ever be able to live on her own because of her
bipolar disorder diagnosis. She says she was essentially offered no
choice other than a lifetime of institutionalization, despite her
assertion that she was mentally and emotionally capable of independent
living.[^295] Broderick's point also brings to light the importance of
access to Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) and other advocates
for youth with disabilities when they transition out of the foster care
system.

Many who study and work in foster care, as well as some foster care
alumni themselves, believe that the barriers to accessing services for
youth with disabilities transitioning out of foster care can sometimes
be attributed to the lack of sufficient training for child welfare
workers on the specific needs of these youth. Tom Wolanin of the
Institute for Higher Education Policy reports in *Higher Education
Opportunities for Foster Youth* that this may be partially a result of
the child welfare system (and therefore its workers) considering
preparing foster youth for independent living "something of an anomaly,"
as,

The dominant thrust of their efforts is to arrange for foster youth to
have a permanent place where they will be safe.... The independence
program runs against the grain by requiring that foster youth be
equipped to care for themselves rather than being placed where others
will care for them.[^296]

Whether this reflection is indeed accurate, many believe more efforts
should be placed on specifically training more caseworkers on the
particular nuances of the transition period. This training should
include legal rights and benefits for foster youth with and without
disabilities, service and program cutoff dates, the psychological and
physical needs of these youth, and knowledge about where these youth can
go to access the services they need. One foster care alumna, Melinda
Foy, expressed her opinions on this now that she is a foster care worker
in Michigan:

As a current foster care worker, I see many problems with our system.
Even though we have more services now \[than when I was a foster youth
in the 1980s\], workers are not properly trained for children aging out.
I regularly see teenagers in the following situation: Girl, age 18, with
a baby; placement is in a foster home. The 18-year-old has no driver's
license, no housing, no employment, no education, and no means of
income. And the youth workers have no idea what to do with a youth like
this, because they are not properly trained. Most workers are not
experienced in how to transition children out of the system... Workers
and agencies need to understand that teenagers are much more
time-consuming. If they are wards of the state, the caseworker is
essentially their parent.[^297]

She adds that most of Michigan's foster youth with disabilities who are
prevented from becoming independent by the state are "just simply
transitioned into the community mental health agencies or adult foster
care" instead of being given the help they need to gain
self-sufficiency.[^298] Because these complex systems are so difficult
to understand, and because staff turnover is so high, she said the staff
never receives the appropriate amount of training to work well with the
youth in these systems. As a solution, Foy says, "I would like to see
some workers in each county specializing in children aging out." She
believes that every agency should invest in hiring a few caseworkers who
specifically work with youth ages 16 and older and who specialize in
independent living skills. They should also be trained on disability
issues for these youth. Foy says that not only has she used the life
skills that she has acquired through trainings and conferences for her
own benefit, but she has also been able to "empower" the foster youth
she now oversees by sharing the information with them:[^299]

When I saw the need in my county, I started an IL \[independent living\]
group for my caseload. The group meets monthly to track IL progress on
such things as obtaining driver's training, Social Security cards, birth
certificates, etc. We also explore all options of education and much
more. Youth who participate in these support groups are empowered to
succeed.[^300]

To fully invest in both access to and the provision of transition
services for youth with disabilities in foster care, a state must commit
to this investment head-on and devote the necessary resources to make
serving all of these youth a reality. As noted earlier, this is a
challenge for most states, which usually do not receive enough CFCIP and
ETV funds to help all youth. Nonetheless, a few states are overcoming
the hurdles and leading the way. Most important, these states began with
an acknowledgment and understanding of the unique issues facing these
youth. One of these examples is North Carolina, which runs NC LINKS, a
statewide foster care independence program. The goal of NC LINKS is

\[t\]o build a network of relevant services with youth so that they will
have ongoing connections with family, friends, mentors, the community,
employment, education, financial assistance, skills training, and other
resources to facilitate the transition to adulthood.[^301]

CFCIP mandates that all foster youth between ages 16 and 18 be provided
transition services, so NC LINKS provides these services, but North
Carolina's counties are also urged to serve 13- to 15-year-olds, as well
as 18- to 21-year-olds.[^302] NC LINKS is devoted to seeking out those
youth who need services most. Additionally, a "positive youth
development" approach is used for service delivery, which means that
county agencies encourage each young person's active participation in
the decision-making process for their individual service plans.[^303] NC
LINKS is an outcomes-based program, which is unique; it has identified
seven outcomes around its goals that the Federal Government uses to
measure its success.[^304] North Carolina allocates \$2.1 million of
federal and state CFCIP monies to finance the NC LINKS program provided
by each county.[^305] The state sets aside an additional \$400,000 to
reimburse counties for additional services; this extra, more flexible
funding ensures that all of the services needed to help youth exiting
care can be provided. [^306] This includes services provided for those
youth with disabilities. Many other states should follow North
Carolina's lead in providing comprehensive services for a broader age
range of foster youth in order to better ensure the futures of more
youth in need.

It is clear that removing the barriers and systemic challenges to
accessing transitional services would greatly enhance the ability of
youth with disabilities aging out of foster care to obtain these
services. Addressing these challenges includes removing the unrealistic
requirement that many programs have for youth to seek out the services
themselves, and investing in the extra efforts needed to bring the
services to those who need them. Only then will it be possible to reach
those who most need the supports.

Youth should be eligible for needed transition services beyond\
age 21.

An additional access issue pertains to age eligibility requirements for
the transition services that are available. Right now, the CFCIP program
requires states to use a portion of their funds for services for former
foster youth ages 18 to 21, and states may even spend up to 30 percent
of their funding on housing assistance for these youth.[^307] This is a
very positive step toward providing transitional services to youth who
have aged out of the system. Still, some youth development experts
believe that these services should be extended to youth past the age of
21, perhaps to 23 or 24, as many young people, such as youth with
disabilities and English-language learners, still need these services at
older ages.[^308] While high-quality independent living services
programs help most youth become independent, healthy, productive adults
by age 21, the need to continue these services for youth beyond age 21
should be recognized.

Some states are already leading the way in these efforts, such as
California, which recently implemented the Transitional Housing Program
for Foster/Probation Youth (THP-Plus). THP-Plus is a transitional
housing placement opportunity for emancipated foster youth, ages 18 to
24, who have emancipated the child welfare system. The goal of THP-Plus
is to provide a "safe living environment" while helping youth achieve
self-sufficiency so that they can learn life skills upon leaving the
foster care system. Counties in California electing to participate in
the program must provide supervised independent living housing and
support services.[^309]

Connecticut runs an independent living program through the Department of
Children and Families, Adolescent Services, in which youth up to age 24
are eligible to receive aftercare services. Aftercare services include
access to alumni groups/workshops, referrals to housing, employment,
counseling, and education, and access to a directory of community
resources.[^310]

It is ideal for all youth to receive all of the transition and
independent living supports they need by the age of 21 and be able to
live healthy, economically sufficient lives by that age. However, this
ideal is not often the reality for those youth in particularly
challenging life situations, such as youth with disabilities leaving
foster care. These youth often need ongoing supports for longer periods
to be able to thrive. For this reason, both the child welfare and
vocational rehabilitation systems should make the necessary services
available up to age 24 for those who need them.

Summary of Policy Recommendations

1\. Cross-systems collaboration on the provision of transitional
services is essential.

a.  The IEP transition planning process and the Chafee Foster Care
    Independence Program process must be better aligned to help youth
    with disabilities in foster care transition to adulthood and achieve
    self-sufficiency.

b.  Juvenile and adult systems should increase collaboration efforts to
    streamline transitions for youth with disabilities aging out of
    foster care.

c.  Community organizations and the business sector should play stronger
    roles in providing transition services.

2\. Transition services for youth with disabilities in foster care
should be comprehensive and individualized and offer a full range of
appropriate services.

a.  Transition services should include exposure to the independent\
    living philosophy, hands-on life skills opportunities, and\
    networking opportunities.

3\. More should be done to ensure *access* to appropriate transition
services for youth with disabilities in the foster care system.

a.  Colleges and other postsecondary learning institutions should better
    reach out to youth with disabilities.

b.  Transition plans must take into account access to housing for both
    youth with disabilities and foster youth.

c.  Institutionalized youth with disabilities in foster care are at
    great risk of being disconnected from society's networks and should
    therefore be provided access to even more connecting services.

4\. Youth should be eligible for needed transition services beyond age
21.

a.  State child welfare agencies should make transition services
    available for youth with disabilities up to age 23 or 24 when deemed
    appropriate.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125274 .anchor}Chapter 3.4: Coordination,
Collaboration, and Accountability Across Systems

We need to address the compartmentalization of the government entities
responsible for foster children. At present, there is no one state
agency with authority for children in foster care. The disjointed
governmental 'parenting' of foster youth creates a failure to share
information and a lack of coordinated decision-making.

This 2005 quote[^311] by a former member of the Pew Commission on
Children in Foster Care speaks to the serious need for cross-systems
collaboration to better hold all stakeholders accountable for America's
foster youth. Many think that these collaborative efforts must start
with an endorsement from the Federal Government in order for the states
to be able to first envision and then operationalize such a considerable
task. Legislation such as the Federal Youth Coordination Act (FYCA)
(P.L. 109-365), passed in 2006, as well as other programs, can help the
Federal Government to facilitate the implementation of such endeavors.
But coordination is needed at the local agency, school, and program
levels as well in order for this vision of multilevel, multisystem
accountability to become a reality.

The following recommendations pertain to the serious need for
coordination, collaboration, and accountability structures across the
myriad systems that impact youth with disabilities in foster care.
Specifically, the recommendations speak to the need for a strengthened
federal oversight role, strategic systems collaborations, and stronger
federal- and state-level leadership and accountability structures. They
also advocate for a cross-systems streamlined youth development
approach, better cross-training for the adults who work with these young
people, and enhanced and coordinated efforts in identifying abuse and
disabilities quickly so that services can be provided in a\
timely manner.

A strengthened federal oversight role is necessary for an effective
collaboration and accountability among youth-\
serving entities.

The primary purposes of FYCA are to create a federal coordinating body
to facilitate interagency coordination and collaboration and to support
state-level coordination efforts. It was created by the White House Task
Force for Disadvantaged Youth, which was charged with developing
recommendations to strengthen the federal response to the needs of
children and youth, with a focus on coordination and
accountability.[^312] FYCA establishes a Federal Youth Development
Council (FYDC). If this FYDC were to be implemented, its membership
would be made up of 11 federal department secretaries and heads of
agencies; representatives from youth-serving nonprofits, foundations,
and faith-based organizations; and various youth.[^313] The FYDC's
agency heads and department secretaries can and should be the states'
points of contact at the federal level for technical assistance and
oversight issues regarding the creation of strategic state-level agency
collaborations. Although FYCA has not yet been funded, efforts are being
made in Congress to appropriate \$1 million to the Act in 2008.[^314]

Despite the lack of funding for FYCA, there are federal and state
efforts to increase cross-systems collaboration. One important piece of
progress was the tripling of the Court Improvement Program's (CIP)
authorized funding in 2005 from \$10 million to \$30 million.[^315] This
program was originally authorized in 1993 through what is now referred
to as the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program and expanded
in 2001.[^316] It provides grants to the highest court in each state
(plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to test new approaches
to improving juvenile and family court performance. These grants allow
the court systems to assess their foster care and adoption laws and
judicial processes and to develop and implement plans for system
improvement. Some typical CIP activities are the development of
mediation programs, creation of linked agency-court data systems,
implementation of "one judge/one family" models, and improvement of
representation for children and families.[^317]

The tripling of CIP's funding in 2005 was due to the addition of two new
grants (at \$10 million each) to the program.[^318] One of these grants
provides funds to courts for data collection and analysis, with the goal
of strengthening the court's role in ensuring safety and well-being for
youth in the foster care system. The other grant provides funding for
the cross-training of legal, judicial, and child welfare agency staff at
the same time.[^319] These new grants are discussed in more detail in
other sections of this report. What is most important about all three of
these CIP grants is their strengthened requirement for cross-systems
collaboration between child welfare and the juvenile courts at a
minimum, but also among other systems when desired by the states.

It may be too early to tell if these new grants and their emphasis on
collaboration are truly helping more foster youth achieve safety,
permanency, and well-being, as their implementation did not begin until
2006. However, an extremely promising step was taken in April 2006,
when, in a rare yet outstanding move, representatives from 49 of the
states' highest courts and child welfare agencies met to develop action
plans to improve outcomes for their foster youth.[^320] Additionally,
some states have already begun implementing statewide interagency task
forces and commissions to tackle their action plans.[^321]

With this type of help and endorsement from the Federal Government,
states are more empowered to enforce collaborations across agencies and
departments such as child welfare, education, dependency courts, labor,
health, and juvenile justice in an effort to streamline and improve
services to vulnerable youth. Without this federal endorsement, few
incentives would exist to encourage this type of endeavor, which takes
immense effort, not to mention a strong willingness to put the efforts
of the collaborative before the individual needs of each department
involved.

Collaborations at the state level, such as those mandated under the CIP,
should lead the way to the development of *local* interagency
workgroups, each of which could work both independently and collectively
to focus on different uniquely challenged groups of youth. These local
workgroups would be accountable to the state commissions and work to
inform them about specific issues facing the vulnerable youth in their
communities. Youth with disabilities in and out of the foster care
system are examples of these types of unique, underserved groups.
Workgroups that focus on such populations would ideally include
representation from the state agencies and departments mentioned above,
but would also include the parents and youth involved in these systems.
This representation would ensure that those who are most knowledgeable
about certain issues could share this information with other
departments, thereby enhancing their knowledge base exponentially and
better enabling them to work collaboratively.

Samantha Jo Broderick, an alumna of the New Jersey foster care system,
is currently working in that state's Department for Children and
Families. Regarding the impact that high-quality systems collaboration
has on youth, she said, "I would ideally see the barriers come down
between child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice, substance abuse,
and special education, so that funds could creatively support
multisystem, \[otherwise referred to as\] 'deep end,' kids."[^322]

For the Federal Government to best perform its oversight role in
facilitating the coordination, collaboration, and accountability efforts
at the state level, some key practices must be instituted. These more
specific recommendations follow.

Strategic state and local level coordination and collaboration efforts
must be considered a priority.

Collaboration, especially at high levels, is difficult. Therefore, it
should be managed strategically, with much thought to which systems
collaborations would yield the most beneficial results. Some experts in
the foster care field believe that the "hub" of collaboration should be
the highest state dependency court system, but that this system should
work very closely with the state executive offices.[^323] One of the
primary tasks of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) is to
increase the accountability of the child welfare system, which
inherently promotes more collaboration of the dependency courts with the
child welfare system. The goals of this collaboration are to promote
timely permanency for foster youth and to ensure the safety and
well-being of abused and neglected children and youth.[^324] While this
act has greatly streamlined collaborations between the dependency courts
and child welfare, in order to truly reach the act's goals, both the
courts and the child welfare agencies have to rely on the cooperation of
other systems, such as the health and mental health systems, juvenile
justice (when necessary), and the education system (specifically, the
child's school).

Some of these cross-systems collaborations are easier than others. The
juvenile justice and dependency courts naturally tend to collaborate
with one another most often, especially in counties where both
dependency and delinquency courts are administered by the same court
system, such as Pima County, Arizona.[^325] Not all counties and states
use this administrative approach, but "others should definitely follow
suit," because it eases this necessary collaboration, commented a trial
judge in Division 13 of the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County.[^326]
Of course, this model does not work for all states. Another promising
model that both New York and California are using is to have an office
of children within the state court system.[^327]

The dependency courts are required to collaborate with both the health
and mental health systems. This interaction, which is facilitated
through child welfare, enables the courts to obtain crucial medical
information about the children for whom they must work to provide
suitable placement and services. But these systems do not necessarily
collaborate in a streamlined manner. When the collaboration is working
well, Child Protective Services (CPS) alerts the appropriate agencies
that a child has been removed from the home, and the child receives
mental and physical assessments in a timely manner, usually within *24
to 72 hours of the removal*. The purpose of these assessments is to
determine what services the young person needs, such as special
education services, mobility equipment, or mental health counseling.
Assessments also help determine which type of placement (e.g., kinship
care, group home) is most appropriate. When assessments are done on time
and the voices of all critical partners and stakeholders, including the
youth and their families, are heard, the first hearing can be held a few
days after a child's removal from the home. Ideally, the judge has all
the information necessary by the time of this hearing and is therefore
able to make an educated decision on behalf of the young person at that
time.

But when this collaboration is *not* working well, collaboration between
CPS and the health and mental health systems is usually not streamlined
and the health assessments may not happen in a timely manner. In this
situation, the judge may lack the appropriate information to make
knowledgeable decisions on behalf of the youth at the first hearing.
This can leave the young person in a state of uncertainty for weeks or
even months, with little access to needed services. This situation
especially negatively affects dependent youth with disabilities. The
timely assessments of these young people's mental and physical health,
coupled with the rendering of services to address their needs in these
areas, are often crucial to their livelihood. This breakdown of
collaboration between child welfare and the health systems is largely a
result of lack of capacity for large caseloads at child welfare
agencies, which are notoriously underfunded, but it can also result from
a dearth of system accountability. An official in the Juvenile and
Family Law Department of National Council on Juvenile and Family Court
Judges (NCJFCJ) recommends that the Federal Government work through
legislation to better align the mandated timelines for the dependency
courts, child welfare, and the health and mental health systems, so that
ASFA can reach its\
intended goals.[^328]

As noted earlier, the CIP grants help states reach these goals and
should therefore be supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. A promising way in which some states are choosing to
operationalize their CIPs is through the Model Dependency Courts
Initiative, whose funding is earmarked through Congress to NCJFCJ
through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.[^329]
This project is currently being administered in 21 states and the
District of Columbia. Through it, NCJFCJ provides training and technical
assistance "to improve the courts' handling of child abuse and neglect
cases to ensure more timely decision-making in permanency
planning."[^330] According to the official at NCJFCJ, a key component of
these improvement plans is to foster cross-systems collaboration.[^331]
In 1997, Pima County in Arizona became a Model Court implementation
site.[^332] Since then, many positive changes have occurred in the
system. Before the implementation, it took dependent children an average
of 3.2 years to move through the court system; with the Model Court
program, the average is now 1.6 years.[^333] Before Model Court, the
first meaningful hearing for the dependent youth did not occur until 90
days after filing a dependency petition---now, a Preliminary Protective
Hearing is held between five and seven days after a youth is removed
from the home.[^334] Thanks to Pima County's success, according to the
Pima County trial judge, the Model Court process has been made the
standard for dependency cases in every Arizona county.[^335] This
official believes that efforts such as the Model Court program are best
practices that the Federal Government should continue to fund.[^336]

An important role of the dependency court system is to determine how a
child or adolescent's well-being will be ensured---and education is a
large part of a child's well-being. Disabilities and other
characteristics that have an impact on decisions regarding education
services are identified during the health and mental health assessments.
From these assessments, a team (usually involving caseworkers, attorneys
representing parents and child, mental health specialists, and education
liaisons) determines what education services are needed and where the
child can best access them. A high-quality assessment of necessary
services is best facilitated when schools collaborate with the courts by
submitting school records to them, sitting at the table to discuss what
the child needs, and willingly helping to provide the necessary
services. However, according to the official at NCJFCJ, this
collaboration is tricky, because "the education community and its
individual schools are relatively autonomous, so getting key
decision-makers to sit at the table with juvenile and family courts to
address policy issues is a major challenge."[^337] But as the chief
executive officer for Casey Family Programs asserted at a Capitol Hill
briefing on educating foster youth, "The child welfare and education
systems must work together and do what they have to do to help foster
youth."[^338] The onus is on both of these systems to ensure that
appropriate education services are provided for foster youth, but the
courts can play a larger role by taking advantage of the tools that have
been created (most notably, by NCJFCJ and Casey Family Programs) to help
judges understand the questions they should be asking about a youth's
education plan.[^339]

Another barrier to collaboration with education on behalf of serving
youth with disabilities in the foster care system involves the
delinquency courts. Abused or neglected youth are more likely than
nonabused and nonneglected youth to be arrested as juveniles, at 27
percent versus 17 percent, respectively.[^340] Additionally, the
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice asserts that "the
prevalence of mental disorder among youth in the juvenile justice system
is two to three times higher than among youth in the general
population."[^341] As evidenced by these statistics, a large number of
young people with disabilities in the foster care system are also coming
into contact with the juvenile justice system. Indeed, some advocates
regard the juvenile justice system as the "dumping ground" for troubled
youth, many of whom have emotional disturbances, developmental delays,
and learning disabilities, and who teachers consider too difficult to
manage.[^342] Some of these youth are also foster youth. Two major
policies may be exacerbating the problem of "dumping" youth into the
juvenile justice system when they are believed to be "acting out." One
is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB); the other is "zero tolerance"
policies, which many school districts around the United States have
adopted.

Some believe that the stringent guidelines of NCLB, which place
sanctions on schools whose subgroups of students (broken down by race,
disability status, and English proficiency level, among other groups) do
not make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP), are creating a "culture of
exclusion" in the public schools.[^343] They say that the law's
high-stakes testing provision ends up benefiting schools that push out
students who are not high achievers so that they will not bring down the
school's achievement levels.[^344] Students who are excluded are
disproportionately those with mental and emotional
disabilities[^345]---some of whom are foster youth. These youth are at
high risk of being removed from school, often by the police, and
transferred to the juvenile justice system. Foster youth are more apt to
end up in the justice system, according to the NCJFCJ official, as they
usually have no caretakers to make placement decisions on their
behalf.[^346] "Identified as 'troublemakers,' these kids are even more
difficult to get back into school once they are out," she added.[^347]
According to her, this is especially true for older adolescents.

Often these youth are not welcomed back because of the schools' zero
tolerance policies. "Zero tolerance" refers to a policy that enables
schools to punish students harshly after any type of first
infraction---frequently by means of expulsion. It was originally
introduced as a response to students bringing guns to school, but the
policy can be used however a school sees fit; there are no legal
guidelines that must be followed. Many individuals and organizations
think that zero tolerance policies not only fail to reduce bad
behaviors, but that they actually harm students by expelling and
punishing them instead of working to deal with the real causes of the
negative behavior. According to an American Bar Association (ABA)
juvenile justice policy brief,

Zero tolerance has become a one-size-fits-all solution to all the
problems that schools confront. It has redefined students as criminals,
with unfortunate consequences... Zero tolerance is theoretically
directed at students who misbehave intentionally, yet it also applies to
those who misbehave as a result of emotional problems, or other
disabilities, or who merely forget what is in their pocket after
legitimate nonschool activities. [^348]

Disability rights and advocacy groups, including the National Council on
Disability, agree with ABA's stance and add that the policy most
negatively affects students with disabilities by pushing more of them
into the juvenile justice system.[^349]

This "culture of exclusion" consequence is more likely to be diminished
when the education, juvenile justice, and dependency court systems work
to educate each other and then develop a streamlined process for
managing these youth that puts the youths' best interests at the
forefront.

Other important collaborations between the juvenile and adult systems
and the community as a whole must occur to improve the lives of youth
with disabilities in the foster care system. These collaborations
include linking efforts between the child welfare system, independent
living centers, IEP transition plans, and labor systems to ensure a
streamlined effort toward connecting youth to the adult world upon their
exit from juvenile systems of care. They also include a conscious effort
to integrate these youth into the communities in which they live, as
many youth with disabilities are not fully provided the necessary
integration services and opportunities.

Large percentages of both foster youth and youth with disabilities enter
adulthood unemployed and without the skills they need to acquire gainful
employment.[^350] The Federal Government has been attempting various
methods of addressing this important problem. A recent attempt is a
series of demonstration projects initiated by the U.S. Department of
Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA). In 2004, ETA
awarded grants to five states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York,
and Texas) to implement programs to improve educational, employment, and
self-sufficiency outcomes for youth transitioning out of foster
care.[^351] A major piece of these projects involved collaborations
between child welfare agencies and community organizations and
businesses. An ongoing evaluation of the program has already shown that
"frequent and structured opportunities for ongoing communication among
lead agencies, community partners, and youth are critical to creating an
effective program."[^352] While it is too early to tell if these
projects will truly have a positive impact on foster youth's
self-sufficiency, these types of collaboration-centered investments are
crucial for building cross-systems competencies, which will should
result in enhancing these young people's lives.

Taking the success of these demonstration projects into consideration,
another promising way to enhance state-level collaboration of the
systems that interact with youth with disabilities in foster care
entails involving state-level boards such as the Workforce Investment
Act's (WIA) Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs). WIA requires state WIBs
to include the governor, two members of each chamber of the state
legislature, elected officials, and representatives appointed by the
governor from the business sector, labor organizations, state agency
heads, as well as "individuals with experience in delivering programs
and youth services."[^353] At the local level, WIBs usually include
representatives from local business, education providers, labor
organizations, community-based organizations (including those serving
individuals with disabilities and veterans), economic development
agencies, and "One-Stop" program partners.[^354] To promote more
comprehensive collaborations at the state level, however, agencies that
are not usually involved with the WIBs, such as the state child welfare
agencies and dependency courts, should participate. This way, the views
of the child welfare sector regarding workforce issues for young adults
would be taken into consideration at the state level.

It is imperative to designate a systems-level leader of these
coordination efforts, and then to create an accountability system that
supports the leadership.

Cross-systems collaboration benefits not only the agencies,
organizations, and departments that work on behalf of youth with
disabilities in foster care, but also the youth themselves, which of
course is the end goal. But collaboration cannot be maintained without a
system of accountability in place to ground it.

Accountability systems must always be headed by a leading body that is
well connected to all of the systems around it. In the case of
coordinating systems that interact with youth with disabilities in
foster care, some experts see the natural systems-level leader of these
efforts as the dependency courts---and more specifically, the highest
state court, often the state's supreme court.[^355] "When the courts act
as leaders, systems improve," asserted a trial judge in the Arizona
Superior Court in Pima County.[^356] From her viewpoint, judges are in
the unique position of being able to "rise up above the fray" and see
the broad picture of what needs to happen to make things better for the
dependent youth. Judges are also in a position to use federal law---in
the form of ASFA---to help them work more collaboratively with the child
welfare system, she noted.[^357] But as mentioned previously, this
leadership should be jointly managed with executive office to make this
leadership even stronger.

It is this Arizona judge's opinion that to complete the accountability
structure, the courts must have, in addition to their jurisdiction over
the child welfare system, similar control over the health and mental
health systems.[^358] Historically, dependency court judges have not had
leverage over these systems.[^359] Aligning this accountability through
federal law would further ensure that foster youth, and especially those
with disabilities, receive the services they need in the timeliest
manner possible. This official stipulated that judges are indeed
responsible for child well-being, despite not being direct service
providers, and that they can demonstrate their responsibility by using
their authority to ensure that "the agencies that *are* \[directly\]
responsible for child well-being fulfill that responsibility."[^360]
However, she added that no system can or should be solely responsible
for ensuring the well-being of foster youth; every system must do its
part.[^361] This point of view further illustrates the importance of
joint leadership with the executive office in order to strengthen the
role of the courts in ensuring child well-being.

Another way the Federal Government can enhance the accountability of
these cross-systems collaborations is by improving the data systems in
place to better monitor child welfare systems and the youth outcomes
they produce. These data systems include the Child and Family Services
Reviews (CFSRs), the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System, and the State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems. The
CFSRs in particular are and should continue to be used as a vehicle for
ensuring accountability. The purpose of this system is to ensure that
the child welfare agencies and courts are working to enhance the safety,
permanency, and well-being of foster youth.[^362] The new data-focused
CIP grants[^363] can help strengthen all of these data systems and
should therefore continue to be supported and monitored by the Federal
Government. All of these data systems are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 3.5.

Developing a common and streamlined youth development approach across
all systems and programs will enable policymakers and service providers
to improve outcomes for\
all youth.

Although coordinating services across systems is extremely important,
the *approach* taken by these systems is just as important to improving
the outcomes for youth with disabilities in the foster care system.
Multiple systems work to improve outcomes for youth in different arenas.
Because the goals of these systems vary, their approaches and processes
naturally vary as well. However, the varying processes often create a
barrier to cross-systems collaboration. This report argues, however,
that *all* systems and programs are capable of instilling the "youth
development" approach into their curricula, independent of individual
program purpose. These systems and programs include in- and
out-of-school youth-serving programs, independent living programs,
foster parent trainings, institutions where youth may reside,
incarcerated youth programs, and many more. This report further argues
that infusing the youth development approach into multiple systems and
programs would better facilitate cross-systems collaboration.

The youth development approach is a comprehensive, promising method that
is broadly used by youth-serving programs to improve developmental and
social outcomes for a wide variety of young people, including those with
disabilities.[^364] Ideally, this approach would have an increased
chance of effecting positive change on a broader level if it were
infused into every system and program that comes in contact with youth.
However, *truly* comprehensive youth development systems that reach
across multiple systems and sectors are challenging to accomplish and
therefore almost never exist in their entirety in a community.

Despite the challenges, many organizations have created "frameworks"
that can help to incorporate the youth development approach into and
across programs and systems. The National Collaborative on Workforce and
Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth), an interagency workgroup, has
developed "Guideposts for Success" to help families, institutions, and
the youth themselves through the transition to adulthood. These
"Guideposts" make specific recommendations about what types of youth
development services and activities all youth need, what youth with
disabilities may need, what foster youth may need, and even what youth
in foster care with disabilities may specifically need.[^365] For
example, services and activities that these latter youth in particular
may need include being "engaged in creating, modifying, and integrating
their Individualized Education Program, Transition Plan, Independent
Living Plan, Individualized Plan for Employment, and/or other
\[school-based\] individualized planning tools." The services also
include enabling youth with disabilities in foster care to learn "how to
access and make connections to and between the child welfare system and
various disability programs and services."[^366]

NCWD/Youth has also put forth recommendations for the "Five Areas of
Youth Development"---working, learning, thriving, connecting, and
leading.[^367] According to NCWD/Youth, *all* youth thrive when all five
of these areas are incorporated into the programming of youth-serving
entities, especially if the involvement of youth with disabilities is
facilitated with *conscious* consideration (by addressing access issues,
hiring willing and knowledgeable staff, and partnering with other
disability organizations to stay in tune with these young people's
needs).[^368]

New Ways to Work is another organization that has set up a framework to
incorporate the youth development approach. Its framework, entitled "All
Youth -- One System," differs slightly in that the four content
"elements" of a comprehensive youth-serving system---Academic
Achievement, Career Preparation, Community Services and Supports, and
Youth Leadership---are supported by a fifth element: a Comprehensive
Youth Development Approach.[^369] New Ways to Work recently updated its
"All Youth -- One System" framework to consider the needs of both foster
youth and youth with disabilities. Like many other approaches, the
framework requires cross-systems collaboration to serve youth in a
comprehensive manner. It demonstrates once again that ensuring
self-sufficiency for all youth, including foster youth and youth with
disabilities, is everyone's job.

Although rare, positive examples of communities infusing the youth
development approach across many different systems do exist. The
Maternal and Child Health Bureau's Division of Services for Children
with Special Health Care Needs funds the development of Healthy & Ready
to Work state model programs, which focus on the healthy transitions of
children and youth with special health care needs.[^370] These programs
use a youth development framework to reach their goals of healthy
community integration and employment for youth with disabilities.[^371]
Several states have received demonstration grants for these projects in
recent years. One example is Maine's Adolescent Training Partnership.
This program's goal was to use collaborations between several different
partners (such as juvenile and adult education, labor/workforce
development, health care, independent living centers, and parent
organizations) to promote successful transitions of youth into adulthood
and employment. The program's 2001 evaluation showed that it enhanced
the well-being of these youth.[^372] Opportunities like these should be
nationally supported and made available to all states and local
communities.

Youth workers should be trained across fields to better understand and
provide for the diverse needs of youth with disabilities in foster care.

This recommendation asserts that when communities (and states)
coordinate their systems by adopting the same approach to helping
vulnerable youth, the improvement in cross-systems collaboration help
provide all youth with the tools they need to thrive. This
recommendation by nature necessitates the implementation of a more
comprehensive training structure for all adults who work on behalf of
youth.

Youth involved in multiple systems, such as youth with disabilities in
foster care, often require complex services. Providing high-quality
assistance to these youth calls for the expertise of youth workers who
are knowledgeable about a range of issues, including mental health
deficiencies, substance abuse, disabilities, and child abuse. They must
understand the ins and outs of processes such as creating IEPs,
accessing transitional housing, applying for Medicaid, understanding a
dependent child's legal rights, and navigating the juvenile justice
system. While no one youth worker is expected to know everything about
all these things, more could be done to raise the competency levels of
the many types of adults who come in contact with multisystem youth,
including teachers, caseworkers, mental health specialists, school
counselors, and even employers. Of course, this approach also includes
helping foster and adoptive parents to learn about disabilities, a topic
that is discussed in Chapter 3.1.

For example, teachers should know the basics about how the foster care
system works so that they are familiar with the general situation of
foster youth when they have them in the classroom. This
knowledge-sharing across the schools and child welfare agencies would
help limit the confusion and frustration that teachers often feel when a
child is called to appear in court in the middle of the school day.
(Conversely, if caseworkers and dependency judges had a better
understanding and appreciation of the fact that frequent school day
interruptions have a damaging effect on the education of youth, they
might be less inclined to schedule hearings between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00
p.m.) Teachers should also be provided with basic information about the
causes and symptoms of disabilities, such as learning disabilities,
developmental delays, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the
latter of which is extremely prevalent among foster youth.[^373] This
basic knowledge can help educators identify disabilities early on and
enable them to help the student access appropriate services. Some
experts even believe that both disabilities and the foster care system
should be taught as part of the curriculum for teaching degrees.[^374]

Equally important is the need for child welfare workers such as
caseworkers and CPS workers to understand and be able to correctly
identify disabilities so they can work to help these youth in the best
ways possible. According to a brief published by the Institute on
Community Integration at the University of Minnesota, "Only 19 state
child protection systems collect data related to disability in their
state registries, and only seven require child protection workers to be
trained in recognizing and entering disability data."[^375] The authors
of this brief recommend the following:

While all child welfare workers need not become experts in disability
services, they should know enough about disability issues to recognize
when a child is in need of disability screening, and know who to
collaborate with in the disability field."[^376]

Tamara Connor, who has been a foster and adoptive parent for 18 years
for multiple youth with disabilities, feels very strongly about
caseworkers being trained on disability issues, the lack of which she
sees as an enormous and perpetuating problem. She said,

Our typically developing children usually have a voice; those with
disabilities often do not. They often have therapy available to them;
those with disabilities often do not. And our social workers know how to
interact with typically developing children---but they often don't have
a clue how to support children with disabilities.[^377]

Foster care alumna Samantha Jo Broderick added another point regarding
educating caseworkers about disabilities---educating them on sensitivity
issues.[^378] She argues that many foster youth are victims of being
labeled by their caseworkers and other adults in their lives, which can
have an extremely debilitating effect on how youth with disabilities in
foster care see themselves. Broderick said that she herself was a victim
of this type of labeling, and that the single most positive message she
received from a caseworker was, "You're normal," which she never heard
from anyone during her life in care until the age of 17, upon her fourth
entry into an emergency shelter.[^379] As an adult, Broderick now
understands that she had formed a picture of herself based on how all of
the adults in her life---including group home, shelter, and other
institution staff; several abusive caregivers; and caseworkers---had
labeled her. (Broderick was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and
depression when she was a teenager.)[^380] As a result of her personal
experiences, Broderick advocates for teaching sensitivity issues to
caseworkers, educators, and other adults who work directly with youth
with disabilities in foster care.

The new CIP grants administered by the PSSF program that focus
specifically on the cross-training of individuals working with
multisystem youth are a hopeful new investment that should be supported
to communicate the importance of an adequately trained workforce.[^381]

Systems must collaborate to ensure that abuse, neglect,\
and disabilities are identified more accurately and quickly,\
so that youth are connected with the services they need in a timely
manner.

A point from above that is worth reiterating is the importance of
identifying disabilities in children and youth as early as possible so
that the systems that interact with youth can provide services and other
supports in a timely manner. Foster youth often do not have advocates
(like parents) in their lives to ensure that necessary supports are
being provided at all times. The only way to ensure that foster youth
receive the necessary support is through cross-systems communication.

Strong collaboration between the courts, child welfare, and the health
and mental health systems is crucial to cross-systems communication.
When medical assessments are accomplished as soon as a child or
adolescent is removed from the home, the judge and the team (of experts
and other stakeholders working on behalf of the child) are better able
to make timely, educated decisions about the services that should be
provided, such as mental health counseling, the creation (or alteration)
of an IEP, or certain medications.

The issue of identifying disabilities accurately and quickly crops up
often in the realm of education. As noted in Chapter 3.2, about
one-third of all foster youth receive special education services.[^382]
But some experts believe that one-third is an underestimate of the true
number of foster youth who need these services, because child welfare
workers not trained to identify disabilities, know what type they are,
and know what services are needed.[^383] On the other hand, other
experts think that these youth are being either *over*identified or
*mis*identified as needing special education services when they are
merely having trouble adapting to a new school environment.[^384] These
experts tend to agree that "disability" is label that professionals such
as educators overuse when they do not know or are not inclined to find
out what is really going wrong for the youth.[^385]

A similar argument exists for diagnosing learning disabilities in
children and youth. The Child Welfare League of America warns against
misdiagnosing learning disabilities as other types of mental health
issues:

Even though some three million school-age children are classified as
having specific learning disabilities (LD), this category of special
need is often widely misunderstood. Surveys of both parents and
educators confirm that many people mistakenly link LD with mental
retardation and disorders of mental health and believe that, left alone,
children are likely to outgrow LD over time.[^386]

The Learning Disabilities Association of America confirms that LDs
cannot be\
cured or "fixed," and that they are often misidentified; however, the
organization\
notes that people with LDs can achieve success in life, work, and school
with the\
proper supports.[^387]

An important issue pertaining to the identification and understanding of
disabilities with abused youth pertains to ensuring that the
caseworkers, child protective service workers, caregivers, and other
adults working closely with the youth understand that young people with
disabilities may have difficulty communicating their abuse to others. An
official at the Chadwick Center for Children and Families in San Diego,
an emergency shelter for abused and neglected children, comments that
(especially young) children with emotional or developmental disabilities
cannot always effectively communicate their trauma or abuse.[^388] An
unfortunate consequence is that authorities do not always consider these
youth to be reliable sources of information and therefore do not trust
them to give accurate information. As a result of this lack of knowledge
about the effects of mental and emotional disabilities on children's
communication capabilities, adults may either become frustrated and give
up on trying to obtain information, or not believe the young person's
claims because of his or her\
disability status. [^389] Both of these responses can result in CPS
finding cases to\
be unsubstantiated.

Foster care alumna Samantha Jo Broderick has personal experience with
authorities not trusting her testimonials owing to her disability.[^390]
She said that her claims of sexual abuse by both foster family members
and treatment facility staff were "ignored or determined to be
unsubstantiated" by authorities because of her mental health
diagnosis.[^391] Broderick believes that these authorities considered
her to be lying. She added that she was also strongly discouraged by
authorities from reporting intrasystem abuse by way of verbal threats
and physical attacks, causing her to recant out of fear.[^392]
Situations like these are more often avoided when CPS workers and other
authorities have a better base of knowledge about the effects of abuse
and varying disabilities on communication, trust, and other factors.

In conclusion, there are a multitude of reasons why cross-systems
collaboration and accountability is a huge piece of improving the
systems that most affect youth with disabilities in foster care. It is
in the young people's best interest that systems work together to share
information and streamline their processes so that the varying and often
immense needs of these youth can be met in a timely and orderly manner.
It is imperative that the Federal Government aid with this collaboration
by helping to develop a sound accountability system across multiple
agencies that is supported by high-quality leadership and accurate
national data systems. These endorsements at the federal level would be
both valuable and effective for reaching the goal of improving outcomes
for youth with disabilities in the foster care system.

Summary of Policy Recommendations

1\. A strengthened federal oversight role is necessary for effective
collaboration and accountability among youth-serving entities.

a.  The Federal Youth Coordination Act, which supports the Federal Youth
    Development Council, should be funded to provide stronger management
    over the laws that affect youth with disabilities in foster care.

b.  Programs that encourage high-level collaboration, such as the Court
    Improvement Program, should continue to be supported at the\
    federal level.

2\. Strategic state and local level coordination and collaboration
efforts must be considered a priority.

a.  Timelines for assessing, placing, and providing services to youth
    with disabilities in foster care should be consistent and aligned
    across agencies and programs.

b.  The dependency court and child welfare systems must collaborate with
    schools to ensure that youth with disabilities in foster care are
    not being disproportionately placed into the juvenile justice
    system.

c.  Child welfare agencies and schools must collaborate with the
    workforce system to help youth with disabilities aging out of foster
    care access job skills and employment.

3\. It is imperative to designate a systems-level leader of these
coordination efforts, and then to create an accountability system that
supports the leadership.

a.  The dependency court system can and should act as a systems-level
    leader in the effort to better care for youth with disabilities in
    foster care.

b.  An accountability system can be built on existing data and reporting
    systems such as the Child and Family Services Reviews.

4\. Developing a common and streamlined youth development approach
across all systems and programs will enable policymakers and service
providers to improve outcomes for all youth.

5\. Youth workers should be trained across fields to better understand
and provide for the diverse needs of youth with disabilities in foster
care.

a.  Teachers and other school personnel should be educated about the
    foster care system in order to better understand what is needed to
    work with foster youth.

b.  Child welfare and dependency court personnel should be educated
    about disabilities so that they are better able to meet the needs of
    these youth when they enter the child welfare system.

6\. Systems must collaborate to ensure that abuse, neglect, and
disabilities are more accurately and quickly identified, so that youth
are connected with the services they need in a timely manner.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125275 .anchor}Chapter 3.5: Using and Sharing
Data

Because youth with disabilities in foster care come into contact with
many systems throughout their lives, more information is collected about
them than about the average person. Most systems, such as child welfare,
juvenile justice, education, and health and mental health, maintain
files on the children, youth, and adults who pass through them. Even so,
very little research is available on the experiences of youth with
disabilities in the foster care system. While raw data on these youth
frequently exists, the challenge is to make the data useful in ways that
will inform policy and practice. One of the most basic challenges is
identifying which children in a particular system are in foster care and
which have disabilities. When it is feasible to identify these youth,
another challenge is ensuring that this data is organized in a way that
is useful to policymakers and other stakeholders.

In recent years, child welfare data systems have improved dramatically.
In the 1990s, the Federal Government, through the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), made resources available to states to
develop Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS).
SACWIS is a case management system that caseworkers use to house
information and run reports on the youth who come in contact with the
child welfare system, including youth with disabilities in foster
care.[^393] HHS requires states use SACWIS to submit data semiannually
on children in foster care and those who have been adopted, for purposes
of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS).[^394] States also submit data on reports of abuse or neglect
through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).[^395]
Another rich source of information about the child welfare system is the
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). This review process, done by
states together with HHS, is designed to collect information about how
child welfare systems are functioning to serve families.[^396] Reports
produced through this process draw on data from a variety of sources to
consider a state's progress and compliance on several federal
indicators. The CFSRs are useful to improving both the administration of
the programs that serve youth in the child welfare system and the
outcomes of the children and youth themselves, in terms of safety,
permanency, and well-being.[^397]

Other systems collect and house data as well. Similar to the child
welfare data systems, these other systems are nuanced and are missing
pertinent information. As mentioned in Chapter 3.2, the individualized
education programs (IEPs) kept on students with disabilities in public
education systems help track these youth in order to provide services
and improve student outcomes, but neither NCLB's nor IDEA's reporting
systems collect information on youth in foster care. Juvenile justice
departments maintain files on the youth who go through them, but these
systems may not consistently collect information on which youth are in
foster care and which have disabilities. And of course, health and
mental health records are maintained for youth with disabilities in
foster care; however, with these records as well, youth in foster care
might not be consistently identified.

Despite the numerous and ever-improving data systems in place, there are
still many unknowns about youth with disabilities in the foster care
system. For example, it is extremely difficult to assess which of a
young person's disabilities are caused by abuse and which are intrinsic
to his or her impairment. This unknown information is inherently hard to
decipher but is further complicated by many (especially abused or
traumatized) young people's inability to communicate, as well as by
inadequate disability assessments that may result from untrained
personnel or other complicating factors.[^398] Nonetheless, improvements
can be made to various systems to enable them to uncover important
information about these youth.

For information systems to truly act as tools for helping the youth with
whom they come in contact, with an overall goal of improving services
and youth outcomes, the following basic principles must be in effect:

-   Adequate funding to build capacity

-   Identification, consistency, and accuracy

-   Improvements in collected information

-   Cross-systems data sharing

These principles are discussed below, with accompanying recommendations.

The Federal Government must continue to support the development and
improvement of data systems and provide assistance to states for their
use.

Data systems housing information on youth served by public service
systems are generally supported by the Federal Government. SACWIS is an
example of a federal data system that requires federal funding and
support. HHS provides a 75 percent match per year to states during their
planning, design, development, and/or installation of SACWIS, and a 50
percent match after the implementation for the operation of the
system.[^399] Currently, most states are running operational SACWIS
systems, many more are still developing and improving their systems, and
a few are still using non-SACWIS models, meaning that not all states are
currently using the SACWIS system but will likely be in the near
future.[^400] This continued funding (currently at about \$2 billion,
but rising as more states implement systems[^401]), coupled with
technical assistance to state child welfare agencies, is absolutely
necessary to help all states build and maintain the systems they need to
house pertinent information about dependent children and youth.

AFCARS is another data system that warrants continued support at the
federal (HHS) level. AFCARS compiles case-level information on all
children and youth in foster care, as well as on youth who are adopted
under the auspices of a state's child welfare agency. This includes
demographics information and specific information about foster care
system entry and exit dates and types of exits.[^402] It is one of the
reporting systems that is enabled by SACWIS. States are required to
submit AFCARS data semiannually to the Administration for Children and
Families at HHS.[^403] In 2003, the Child Welfare League of America
(CWLA) responded to an HHS request for comments regarding the
improvement of AFCARS; some recommendations included "an ongoing process
for state input, flexibility to make changes to the system without
legislative intervention, and improvements of data quality (the
reliability, validity, relevance and appropriate application of the
AFCARS data)."[^404] CWLA also noted the importance of funding to
support these changes in order to avoid unfunded mandates.[^405] AFCARS
is an extremely important reporting system, because it provides a
nationwide picture of the children and youth in foster care and those
who have been adopted. Federal monetary investments in its improvements
are investments in the overall effort to help these vulnerable youth
succeed. Technical assistance and training can further help agency
administrators input AFCARS information accurately and analyze the
reports meaningfully. More recommendations pertaining to AFCARS follow.

In general, it is important that the Federal Government continue to
invest in existing data systems so that states have the capacity to
utilize them. Without federal support, this responsibility falls to the
states, many of which are already cash-strapped and would not be able to
keep a truly useful system afloat without assistance.

Reporting methods and definitions should be made consistent across
programs and information systems.

As mentioned above, one of the barriers to assessing the situations of
youth with disabilities in foster care is the fact that too much about
this population is unclear. This barrier directly affects agencies'
ability to provide necessary services to these young people. Because the
child welfare system's current data systems do not enable agencies to
gain a full understanding of this vulnerable, complex population,
policymakers and other stakeholders cannot truly assess what is needed
to help\
these youth, nor can they allocate appropriate funds to programs that
can respond to those needs.

Consistency of reporting methods and terminology definitions is one
extremely important piece of achieving reliability in the data that
systems collect and upon which stakeholders base decisions. As
mentioned, each state submits AFCARS reports to HHS twice a year.
Although AFCARS reports have been required since 1995, it was not until
1998 that penalties were implemented for noncompliance, resulting in
more complete and consistent reporting from 1998 on[^406]---relatively
recently. In these reports, states submit information on 45 adoption
data elements (or variables) in one report and 89 foster care data
elements in the other. Foster care data elements include gender, birth
date, race, ethnicity, number of previous stays in foster care, service
goals, availability for adoption, and dates of removal and
discharge.[^407] Seven of these data elements pertain to disabilities,
or "special needs." Disabilities assessed include "Mental Retardation,
Visually or Hearing Impaired, Physically Disabled, Emotionally
Disturbed, and Other Diagnosed Condition" (which includes chronic
illness such as HIV/AIDS and other disabilities that states
include).[^408] Clinical diagnoses by "qualified professionals" are
required to categorize a youth as having a disability.[^409]

Some experts believe that the list of disability choices needs to be
updated and that terminology should be examined for accuracy and perhaps
be made more specific.[^410] Some states agree. In the Washington State
AFCARS Assessment Review Findings, the state reviewers comment that the
disability-related data elements do not offer enough answer choices to
help caseworkers best describe a youth.[^411] For each disability
listed, such as "mental retardation," caseworkers can note only whether
the youth has been diagnosed with it (coded "Yes") or not ( "No").
Definitions of the disabilities, including severity indicators, are
limited and are therefore interpreted differently by different
states.[^412] For example, an analysis of 2003 data from AFCARS of
foster youth documented as having "mental retardation" found that more
than 12 percent of Wyoming youth were reported as having this
disability, versus less than 1 percent (0.27%) of New Jersey
youth.[^413] It is unlikely that two states house such radically
different youth in their child welfare systems; therefore, differences
in reporting and/or in the definition of the term "mental retardation"
by the different states are likely. Without consistency in terminology
and definitions, the coded data has limited meaning.

As a result of this issue, researchers speculate that AFCARS may
underreport the prevalence of disabilities.[^414] Underreporting is an
enormous barrier to obtaining accurate information about youth with
disabilities in the foster care system, further impeding systems'
abilities to provide services to these youth. Underreporting may result
when disability assessments are not done consistently, not done at all,
or not reported correctly, as in the above example of Wyoming and New
Jersey. According to a researcher working with the Child Welfare
Research Program at the Urban Institute, "If assessments for
disabilities are not done or not done systematically, then children with
disabilities who are not assessed might not be identified."[^415] To
explain further, in AFCARS, the data element to indicate disabilities
offers states the option of noting that the child has not been assessed
for a disability; in the group that is not assessed, those who have
disabilities would not be identified. As a result, states that do not
assess all or most children may undercount the number of youth in their
foster care systems with disabilities.[^416] To improve this situation,
state departments of human services should require their health and
mental health systems to perform assessments for disabilities on all
youth in foster care.

A research newsletter published by the Institute on Community
Integration at the University of Minnesota sums up these issues and
their implications well:

Federally mandated data collection \[in 2003\] identified only 11
percent of children in care as having a developmental or medical
condition, a proportion far lower than would be expected given
prevalence in the general population, much less the higher incidence of
disability caused by abuse or neglect. In 1999, Washington State
reported no children in foster care had disabilities and Florida
reported 21 of 34,254; that same year North Dakota reported 46.7 percent
of children in foster care had disabilities... If we don't know who has
and who does not have a disability and where they are, how can we be
sure we're providing them with what they need?[^417]

This issue also pertains to recording the data accurately and completely
at the local level for AFCARS reporting purposes. If caseworkers do not
enter information about disabilities and the results of assessments into
the data system, ACFARS information will be less complete. Similarly,
when local agencies submit data element information for the youth they
serve, they must not only have the same understanding of the terms that
are used---especially for sensitive issues like disability status---but
they must also commit to reporting the information accurately and
collecting all existing information to ensure an accurate report.

Fortunately, by now, most states are doing well at submitting
information for each data element and for each child. Yet not all states
are consistent, and the inconsistencies result in incomplete information
about youth in the child welfare system. For example, in 2004, while
Virginia submitted information for every child in the child welfare
system on every data element relating to disability (9,641 out of
9,641), New York submitted disability information on *none* of its
49,530 youth in the child welfare system.[^418] Some of the reasons may
be that disability information is not be available, the data may be
inaccurate, or disabilities may be reported inconsistently or in a way
that is not usable for AFCARS. Despite this serious reporting issue, it
is encouraging to see that most states are reporting correctly, and
states with issues like New York's are in the minority. To continue to
improve reporting, caseworkers at child welfare agencies must be
required to fill out all SACWIS fields, including all disability fields.

In the education arena, two major laws require significant data
reporting on youth with disabilities. NCLB requires schools and states
to report on academic outcomes on standardized tests for various
subgroups of students, including students with disabilities, and these
reports are drawing attention to these students' instructional
needs.[^419] IDEA requires schools and states to report on various
educational outcomes for youth with disabilities, such as the number of
students with disabilities who earn regular or special high school
diplomas, who are expelled from school, and who have testing
accommodations, as well as the disproportionality of racial or ethnic
groups in special education, and post-high school outcomes.[^420] As
noted previously, neither law requires the identification of youth in
foster care, so while these laws shed light on the academic performance
of students with disabilities, there is no way to know at an aggregate
level how many students with IEPs are in foster care or how they are
performing on a range of indicators. Both laws should consider expanding
their data collection requirements to include this subpopulation.

The implications of inconsistent, inaccurate, and unavailable data are
immense. When an accurate picture of youth with disabilities in foster
care cannot be provided, then policymakers have no idea how many and
what types of resources and services must be devoted to these vulnerable
youth to help them thrive. It is the youth who suffer\
as a result.

Therefore, whenever feasible, all systems that come into contact with
youth with disabilities in foster care should contain fields in their
data systems that providers must fill out to indicate both the foster
care and disability status. This information would substantially improve
the ability to analyze and paint a more accurate picture of these youth
as they navigate through the various systems. This idea may not be
feasible yet. Providers in other systems may not always know a young
person's status in these two areas, since most cross-systems
communications are still quite weak. Confidentiality also may pose a
problem; systems may not want to include information about foster care
status because of sensitivity concerns. The Federal Government should
examine these issues to assess how to better collect accurate
information about multisystem youth like youth with disabilities in
foster care.

The information collected through the Child and Family Services Reviews
should be enhanced to better incorporate the unique needs of youth with
disabilities.

Apart from the AFCARS data, for which improvement recommendations have
been discussed in the previous pages, the CFSRs can and should continue
to be enhanced in order to assess more deeply and accurately the
compliance of the state child welfare agencies and the outcomes they are
producing for youth with disabilities in the foster care system.

HHS has been reviewing the state child welfare systems since 1994, when
an amendment regarding state system compliance was added to the Social
Security Act.[^421] But it was not until changes to these reviews were
made in 2000 that HHS's review process started focusing not only on
agencies' systems competencies but also on the youth outcomes that
resulted from the states' efforts. This newer review system, the CFSRs,
is administered by HHS's Children's Bureau.[^422] AFCARS is a
substantial data source for this review process. Another important
addition to the review process in 2000 was the implementation of federal
assistance to the states to enhance their capacity to produce positive
outcomes among the children and youth they serve. This process is called
states' Program Improvement Plans (PIPs).[^423]

The CFSRs cover the following seven indicators that are relevant to
safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes:

Safety

-   Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

-   Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and
    appropriate.

Permanency

-   Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

-   The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved
    for families.

Family and Child Well-Being

-   Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's
    needs.

-   Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational
    needs.

-   Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and
    mental\
    health needs.[^424]

The CFSRs also measure competency in seven "systemic factors":

-   Statewide Information System

-   Case Review System

-   Quality Assurance System

-   Training

-   Service Array

-   Agency Responsiveness to the Community

-   Foster and Adoptive Parenting Licensing, Recruitment, and
    Retention[^425]

For each of the outcomes, the needs of youth with disabilities are
particularly salient. In terms of safety, youth with disabilities are
more at risk of maltreatment[^426] and therefore may be more at risk
than other youth of being abused in foster care or once they are
reunified with their parents or adopted. Regarding permanency, it may be
more difficult to find adoptive homes for youth with disabilities or to
put in place the needed services to support the child's biological
parents in caring for the child, should reunification be the goal.
Finally, in terms of well-being, youth with disabilities have very
specific developmental needs that will need to be addressed,
particularly if they are making the transition to adulthood and aging
out of the foster care system. For all of these reasons, the CFSRs may
want to look specifically at youth with disabilities as a special
population within the child welfare system.

The first "round" of CFSRs was done with all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico from 2001 to 2004. At that time, no state or
territory was found to be in "substantial conformity" in all of the 14
outcome and systems competency areas.[^427] In fact, the median state
performance was in substantial conformity in only 6 of the 14 areas,
with no state achieving conformity in more than 9.[^428] Therefore,
since 2004, all of the states and territories have been working to
implement their PIPs, which target the specific areas with which each
state needs the most help.[^429]

The less-than-optimal results of the first round of CFSRs show that much
work still needs to be done on all of these outcomes. A 2004 GAO report
shows that states are confronting barriers to implementing their PIPs in
order to reach procedural compliance.[^430] The most common challenges
affecting PIP implementations were insufficient funding and staff;
states must stretch their existing, often meager resources to implement
new and sometimes costly strategies. Regarding this important issue,
CWLA argues that "without new, dedicated federal resources to assist
states \[in implementing\] the needed improvements... states will
continue to struggle to fully meet the needs of the children in their
care and comply with federal expectations\[.\]"[^431]

Youth remaining in the foster care system for long periods is still a
serious issue nationwide, especially for older youth with disabilities
and African-American youth.[^432] CWLA believes that one thing that can
be done to help is to further improve the CFSRs in an effort to better
assess these permanency issues, better hold states accountable for them,
and continue to invest at the federal level in helping states with these
improvements. The organization believes that these efforts will lead to
more healthy permanency outcomes---as well as better safety and
well-being---for all foster youth, including disadvantaged youth. In a
2006 statement submitted to the Senate Finance Committee on the
"Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead for America's Child Welfare
System," CWLA notes,

The CFSR process is important but the measurements used in the CFSR
process can be improved. The scope and reliability of measurable
outcomes need to be refined to improve comparability among states and to
also produce measures that reflect good practice in the field. The
current measures fall short in these areas.[^433]

The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care joins CWLA with this
suggestion. In 2004, the Pew Commission made its own highly regarded
recommendations regarding improving outcomes for foster youth; one of
its propositions was that the "CFSRs should include more and better
measures of child well-being \[and\] use longitudinal data to yield more
accurate assessments of performance over time\[.\]"[^434]

Now in round two of the CFSRs, HHS is making efforts to obtain feedback
from child welfare experts such as CWLA and the Pew Commission about the
status of the CFSR process, and the American child welfare system as a
whole, via public hearings and requests for statements and comments.
This is a positive step toward helping to make this hugely important
review system the best it can be, so that states can be held accountable
and foster youth can thrive as a result of their actions.

An additional recommendation for the second round of the reviews is to
take the desired outcomes of the disability community into consideration
as well. These include ensuring that people with disabilities are
self-determined, are well-integrated into their communities, and are
experiencing enhanced quality of life. These outcomes notably parallel
the desired outcomes for foster youth, which are safety, permanency, and
well-being. If these outcomes were more consciously taken into
consideration for the youth with disabilities in the foster care system,
these young people's unique needs would likely be supported more fully.

Information and data must be shared across systems\
whenever feasible.

Chapter 3.4 of this report dealt with the serious need for the different
systems and agencies that come in contact with youth with disabilities
in foster care to work collaboratively with one another. An incentive
for making this happen, and easing the process, would be to facilitate
the sharing of data and information across these entities. The
often-cited barriers to information sharing include technical capability
barriers; lack of understanding about what information sharing is legal;
and negative, fearful, and uninspired attitudes toward this kind of data
sharing. Therefore, cross-systems information sharing would need to
involve both the technical elements that help data systems interface
more easily and organizational and attitudinal elements to enhance
cross-systems communications, trust, and basic attitudes toward sharing.
The sharing of data across systems faces a plethora of challenges, but
nonetheless it holds great importance in the effort to better track,
understand, and care for youth with disabilities in the foster care
system.

As discussed in Chapter 3.3, too many youth with disabilities, and too
many youth in foster care, become "disconnected" from society during
their journey to adulthood. All types of disconnected youth are
extremely challenging to track, because they are inherently not attached
to any systems or programs that would maintain information about them.
As a result, almost no research has been able to grasp a full picture of
what these young people's outcomes truly look like, and specifically,
how youth with disabilities in the foster care system have fared. Mark
E. Courtney and Amy Dworsky's *Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth* (2005) is one of the only reliable
longitudinal studies that has succeeded in following a cohort of foster
youth from when they were in the foster care system in their teens to
the years after they exited.[^435] (The *Northwest Foster Care Alumni
Study* examined former foster youth between the ages of 20 and
33.[^436])

One of the largest challenges for tracking foster youth is that they are
a highly mobile population. They change both residences and schools
often, as noted in Chapter 3.2. For this reason, and because youth in
foster care, especially those with disabilities, have a greater chance
of becoming disconnected from society during their journey to adulthood,
tracking them across the systems they encounter is of crucial
importance. Tracking these youth helps us to better understand their
circumstances. In turn, this understanding enables agencies and programs
to "bring the services to the youth"---a task that is often needed but
rarely possible.

One way to carry out this task is to institute statewide and/or
countywide ("comprehensive") data systems that bridge the necessary
departments and agencies, such as education, child welfare, juvenile
justice, and health and mental health. These comprehensive data systems
would improve the interface between the individual systems and ideally
would hold all pertinent and relevant information about all foster youth
in the state, including detailed information about disabilities. A
former Pew Commission member supports this idea with the assertion that
"communication networks that enable organizations and data systems to
'talk' to one another must be developed. Without meaningful data and the
ability to track children's progress, children and families will
continue to pay the price of our inattention."[^437]

Some states are already investing in data systems that "talk" to one
another. Kansas has recently augmented a preexisting database that had
initially housed information about foster youth with IEPs but now houses
education, child welfare, and juvenile justice information for *all*
foster youth in the state. An official at the Children & Family Services
department in Kansas's Social and Rehabilitative Services commented
about the system's functionality, saying, "When the system is working
well, schools know much more about the students \[who are foster youth\]
and are able to provide services to them faster."[^438]

An approach to identifying this population when systems are not able to
"talk" to each other is to link administrative sources using a common
identifier, if available (e.g., a Social Security number), or
probabilistic matching techniques that use available information such as
names and birth dates to determine the likelihood that two cases are the
same. For example, the Urban Institute, together with the University of
California-Berkeley and the University of North Carolina, is conducting
a study for HHS's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE) that uses Social Security numbers to link foster care
data with unemployment insurance data and assess outcomes for youth
aging out of foster care.[^439]

One other example is an analysis done by researchers in Utah. At the
state's Department of Human Services, researchers linked foster care
data with data from several other agencies, including the Department of
Workforce Services, the Department of Health, the Board of Regents
(higher education), and the Department of Public Safety, to identify a
variety of outcomes for youth transitioning out of foster care.[^440]
This methodology could be very applicable if the population of youth
with disabilities in foster care were identified in a particular state's
SACWIS system and then linked to other agency data using Social Security
numbers or probabilistic matching techniques. Agencies would need to
work together to develop data-sharing agreements and support the
analysis, but this approach may be less resource intensive than
redeveloping or reorganizing data systems to talk to each other.

Sharing information across the child welfare, dependency court, and
education systems is often cited as one of the most necessary, as well
as challenging, collaborations of all. Further complicating the
situation is the fact that many youth workers and educators are not
clear on what types of information can be legally shared and with whom.
A helpful guidebook titled *Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality
and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children in
Foster Care*, by Kathleen McNaught of the American Bar Association's
Center on Children and the Law, is an important tool that should be used
to clarify this point.

*Mythbusting* examines the barriers caused by lack of information and
unclear regulation language that hinder the child welfare and education
systems from interacting on behalf of foster youth. The book sums up
this issue as follows:

Child welfare and education systems share responsibility to ensure
children in the child welfare system receive an appropriate
education.... However, confidentiality rules and regulations that
control the release of education and child welfare records are often
unclear, and can hinder the appropriate transfer and disclosure\
of information.[^441]

One of the biggest of these "confidentiality regulations" is the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The most basic definition of
FERPA is the following:

FERPA is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education
records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an
applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education. FERPA gives
parents certain rights with respect to their children's education
records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the
age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level.[^442]

Specifically, FERPA requires schools to obtain a parent's written
permission in order to release a student's school records (with certain
exemptions, as indicated below). It is important to know that FERPA and
IDEA define "parent" differently. FERPA defines parent as a "parent of a
student and includes a natural parent, a guardian, or an individual
acting as a parent in the absence of a parent or guardian," while IDEA's
definition includes foster parents, relatives with whom the child lives,
and surrogate parents.[^443] Because "parent" is defined broadly under
FERPA, child welfare workers can technically be considered parents for
purposes of FERPA (but not for IDEA), meaning that they may indeed
access students' educational records.

In addition, contrary to popular belief, one of FERPA's "exceptions" to
the written parental consent mandate is that school records may be
released without these permissions to "comply with a judicial order or
lawfully issued subpoena."[^444] This means that judges can order the
release of these records if they are needed to make decisions about a
dependent child or young person's education. Another exception exists
for "organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the
school."[^445]

Other pertinent laws with confidentiality are the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA), which includes requirements related to
confidentiality for youth who have been abused or neglected, and the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA), which requires
confidentiality of information for youth receiving assistance under
Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act.[^446] According to
*Mythbusting*, numerous "myths" surround the question of which records
and information for foster youth can be shared across systems, and with
whom. These misunderstandings about FERPA, CAPTA, and AACWA can severely
hinder an institution's ability to help youth with or without
disabilities in the foster care system. But misunderstandings can be
avoided easily if the Federal Government invests in disseminating
information about legal information sharing so that "lack of
information" no longer creates a major barrier to helping these youth.
Schools, caseworkers, judges, and all other stakeholders absolutely must
be able to navigate these protection laws in order to help, protect, or
ensure youth's well-being.

In addition to "information-sharing myths," another barrier to sharing
information is attitudes toward sharing. Creating and working with data
systems that interface with each other requires extra training for those
who must input and disseminate accurate and timely information. But
sharing data also usually requires more frequent interagency meetings,
which can be difficult to schedule and which can fall off the radar if
those involved are neither mandated nor inspired to attend regularly.
And last but definitely not least, consensus about the goals of data
sharing across systems can be difficult to reach, as different systems
have different accountability measures and laws by which abide, as well
as different visions of success. "Remember that systems don't
collaborate for altruistic reasons," reminded a judge at Arizona's
Superior Court in Pima County.[^447] She asserted that it only happens
when necessary, when mandated, or when systems need to ensure that there
will not be a negative impact from *not* doing it.[^448] Therefore,
mandates, incentives, and of course funding support may be necessary
steps to help alter agency representatives' mind-sets about the
importance of sharing data.

McNaught of *Mythbusting* adds that states and/or counties must formally
"establish the *importance* of sharing education information with the
child welfare system" to encourage the community to essentially "buy in"
to the effort.[^449] Florida is highlighted in the book as a positive
example; the state passed a statute in 2004 requiring interagency
agreements among education, child welfare, and other key stakeholders.
McNaught reports that "this law has led to the establishment of the
first-ever statewide interagency agreement in Florida"---no small
victory.[^450]

When states and counties invest in tracking their most vulnerable youth,
such as youth with disabilities in the foster care system, with the goal
of not letting them fall through the cracks, they send the message that
these youth are important. Having the capability to track these youth
across systems means having the capability to help connect them to the
services they need in a timely and organized manner. But these
connections cannot be accomplished unless systems are capable of and
actively working to communicate with one another and share information.
For this to happen, the Federal Government must make a serious
commitment to the effort by infusing collaborative language into
legislation and funding the technology and training that can make this
data sharing a reality. Specific recommendations include investing in
resources to support states in developing systems that talk to each
other, supporting research that links data using common identifiers or
Social Security numbers, and supporting training for administrators on
confidentiality issues around data sharing.

Summary of Policy Recommendations

1\. The Federal Government must continue to support the development and
improvement of data systems and provide assistance to states for their
use.

a.  Funding for the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
    Systems (SACWIS) and Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
    System (AFCARS) should be increased, and enhanced technical
    assistance support should be provided to states to improve data
    collection\
    and analysis.

2\. Reporting methods and definitions should be made consistent across
programs and information systems.

a.  All data-reporting systems should include indicators of disability
    and foster care status when possible.

b.  Terminology and definitions pertaining to disability status, as
    reported by AFCARS, must be updated and made more specific to
    facilitate clear, consistent reporting of disability status for
    youth in foster care.

c.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child
    Left Behind (NCLB) should consider expanding their data collection
    requirements to include foster care status.

3\. The information collected through the Child and Family Services
Reviews (CFSRs) should be enhanced to better incorporate the unique
needs of youth with disabilities.

a.  The information collected through the CFSRs should be expanded to
    include well-being indicators for youth with disabilities.

b.  In general, the continued support and enhancement of the CFSRs to
    include better measures of well-being helps more youth achieve
    permanency in a timely manner.

4\. Information and data must be shared across systems whenever
feasible.

a.  Building statewide and/or countywide multiagency data systems would
    enhance the sharing of vital information on all youth.

b.  States and counties should implement mandates and provide incentives
    to agencies and departments in order to encourage cross-systems data
    sharing.

c.  Employees of various agencies should have a general understanding of
    information protection laws so they are aware of the types of
    information that can be legally shared across systems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125276 .anchor}Chapter 4: Policy
Recommendations

Improving the various programs and systems that affect youth with
disabilities in foster care can help lead these young people to
self-determination, enhanced quality of life, and community integration,
as well as ensure their safety, permanency, and well-being. This report
contains numerous recommendations for national, state, and local
policymakers as well as practitioners in the various systems. However,
the recommendations highlighted in this section have broader systemwide
implications. It is strongly recommended that these recommendations be
used as the launching pad for further intensive and detailed discussions
about this policy issue with involvement from a wide range of
stakeholders, including youth.

**Provide increased flexibility to states and communities so programs
and services can be most effectively structured to meet the needs of
youth with disabilities in foster care.** More flexibility awarded to
state child welfare agencies can lead to more help where it is needed
for preventative services, alternative care models, transition services,
and school-based mental health programs, among many other appropriate
services for youth with disabilities in foster care. Allowing a
percentage of funds from one program to be shifted to meet the purposes
of another is one possible approach; allowing waivers and block granting
of funds is another.

**Increase federal support in the departments of Health and Human
Services, Education, Justice, and Labor for research and demonstrations
to identify effective policies and practices that lead to positive
outcomes for youth with disabilities in foster care.** High-quality
research and program evaluations should be supported at the federal
level to demonstrate which programs and policies are truly effective for
youth with disabilities in foster care.

**Improve training for foster care parents and increase recruitment of
individuals willing to foster youth with disabilities.** State child
welfare agencies should increase their efforts to identify and recruit
adults who are willing to foster or adopt the highest-need youth,
including youth with disabilities, to reduce the high numbers of these
youth left in the system for long periods. Training programs for foster
parents should include a focus on working with youth with disabilities
and should provide ongoing support to help these adults best support
these youth.

**Strengthen secondary and postsecondary educational supports for these
youth to improve access and success.** The U.S. Department of Education
and state education agencies should provide additional services to high
school students with disabilities in foster care when needed, such as
school-based mental health services and counseling, with the goal of
helping them attain higher graduation rates. In addition, students with
disabilities should always be educated in the "least restrictive
environment" possible. Finally, these education agencies should increase
access to and success in postsecondary learning opportunities by
removing the monetary and nonmonetary barriers that stand in the way of
youth with disabilities in foster care.

**Improve access to individualized, comprehensive transition services
for youth with disabilities aging out of foster care.** State child
welfare agencies should enhance the transitional supports that are
available for these youth to improve their life outcomes. They should
also extend the availability of transition services to youth with
disabilities through age 24 when necessary to enable them to lead
healthy, self-sufficient lives.

**Fund the Federal Youth Development Council, authorized by the Federal
Youth Coordination Act (FYCA), as well as similar federal coordinating
efforts.** This council is charged with developing an interagency plan
to implement federal youth policy more strategically for disadvantaged
youth, such as youth with disabilities in foster care. Federal support
of FYCA and its council would greatly facilitate a stronger federal role
in serving these youth, as well as more cross-systems collaboration
efforts involving the many systems that interact with these youth.

**Strategically increase collaboration among the education, juvenile
justice, child welfare, labor, dependency court, health, and mental
health systems.** Efforts should be made to increase collaboration among
all of these systems so that youth with disabilities in foster care can
achieve greater well-being in their adolescence and into adulthood.
State dependency court systems can serve as leaders in many of these
collaboration efforts, and cross-system accountability measures should
be developed.

**Require states to develop a common youth development approach across
multiple systems to improve outcomes for all youth.** The youth
development approach is broad enough to be applicable to multiple
youth-serving programs. Research indicates that this approach is
successful in helping a full range of youth, including those with
disabilities, achieve self-sufficiency and self-determination, as well
as educational, employment, and developmental skills.

**Improve training of youth professionals across systems.** Multiple
federal and state agencies can and should encourage and support
cross-training of professionals who work with youth with disabilities in
foster care so that all service providers have an understanding of both
the foster care system and disabilities. The cross-training should
include adults working in schools, child welfare agencies, health and
mental health agencies, youth development programs, and many more. This
measure will help these adults better address young people's needs in a
timely manner.

**Provide resources and technical assistance to help states enhance
their data collection and reporting systems.** Federal agencies that
require data collection and reporting, particularly the departments of
Education and Health and Human Services, must better ensure that
information is being collected and recorded at the local level in a
consistent and timely manner so that youth are tracked accurately.
Additionally, youth with disabilities in foster care could be better
assessed if all data systems tracked both disability and foster care
statuses and if child welfare agencies were specifically asked to report
on the well-being of youth with disabilities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125277 .anchor}Appendixes

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125278 .anchor}Appendix A: Glossary of Relevant
Terms

**Children's Shelter (or Receiving Home):**\
An emergency shelter to which children are taken by police or child
welfare workers after being removed from the home, while decisions are
made about their future placements. A child's stay may be as short as
one night or as long as 30 days, and sometimes longer. Some shelters
house more than 100 children and youth at a time.

**Family Foster Home:**\
A family with agency-certified foster parents, often not related to the
youth who is placed there. Placements are temporary; some of these
fostered youth are adopted by their foster families, while most are
reunited with their birth parents eventually.

**Foster Family Agency:\
**A private agency, often a nonprofit organization, that recruits,
trains, and supervises specially trained foster parents. These foster
parents are certified by the Foster Family Agency, not directly by the
county government.

**Group Home:**\
Generally, a six- to eight-bed home that provides care for youth taken
out of their homes. (However, some group homes are much larger, with 100
beds or more.) Most group homes provide intensive mental health services
and other special services.

**Kinship Care:**\
Temporary care for youth taken out of their homes, provided by the
youth's relative(s). Adults who provide kinship care are not usually
licensed.

**Nonpublic School (NPS):**\
A school run by private entities that provides special education
services to students based on the needs enumerated in their IEPs.
Placement into an NPS is considered to be one of the most restrictive
educational placements available. NPSs are often affiliated with group
homes.

**Residential Treatment Center:\
**A facility whose primary purpose is to provide individually planned
programs of mental health treatment in conjunction with residential care
for seriously emotionally disturbed children and youth.

**Therapeutic Foster Care:**\
A type of care provided in private homes by foster parents who have been
specially trained in therapeutic care. It is considered the least
restrictive form of out-of-home therapeutic placement for children and
youth with severe emotional disabilities. Typically, each therapeutic
foster home cares for only one youth.

**Wraparound Services:**\
An approach that places the child and family at the center of an array
of coordinated health and mental health, educational, and other social
welfare services and resources. Wraparound services are a relatively new
approach to working with youth with disabilities, especially those with
emotional disturbances.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125279 .anchor}Appendix B: Relevant Federal
Programs and Systems

  ----------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Program              **[Purpose]{.underline}**          **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**
  Name]{.underline}**                                        

  ***Adoption and Foster  Data system that collects          AFCARS
  Care Analysis and       case-level information on all      
  Reporting System***     youth in foster care, as well as   
                          on adopted youth.                  

  ***Adoption and Safe    Established timelines and          ASFA
  Families Act***         conditions for filing termination  
                          of parental rights (1997).         

  ***Adoption Assistance  Requires states to develop         AACWA
  and Child Welfare       procedural systems for case        
  Act***                  management, permanency planning,   
                          and foster care placement (1980).  

  ***Americans with       Prohibits discrimination against   ADA
  Disabilities Act***     persons with disabilities (1990).  

  ***Architectural        Requires that buildings            ABA
  Barriers Act***         constructed with public dollars be 
                          made accessible to those with      
                          disabilities (1968).               

  ***Child Abuse          Provides funds and technical       CAPTA
  Prevention and          assistance for child abuse         
  Treatment Act***        prevention and intervention        
                          services and research (1974).      

  ***Child and Family     Federal review process that        CFSR
  Services Reviews***     assesses the state child welfare   
                          agencies' systems competencies and 
                          their resulting youth outcomes.    

  ***Carl D. Perkins      Funds programs, services, and      Perkins Act
  Career and Technical    activities designed to improve     
  Education Improvement   career and technical education     
  Act***                  programs, especially for high-need 
                          youth (1984).                      

  ***Court Improvement    Gives flexible grants to state     CIP
  Program***              courts to test new approaches      
                          toward improving the juvenile and  
                          family court systems.              

  ***Education and        Part of the John H. Chafee Foster  ETV
  Training Vouchers       Care Independence Program.         
  Program for Youth Aging Provides resources specifically to 
  out of Foster Care***   meet the education and training    
                          needs of youth aging out of foster 
                          care.                              

  ***Elementary and       Provide grants to school districts ESSCP
  Secondary School        to create and expand school        
  Counseling Programs***  counseling services.               

  ***Family Educational   Protects the privacy of student    FERPA
  Rights and Privacy      education\                         
  Act***                  records (1974).                    

  ***Federal Youth        Facilitates interagency            FYCA
  Coordination Act***     collaboration and supports         
                          state-level coordination efforts   
                          on behalf of disadvantaged youth   
                          (2006).                            

  ***Grants for the       Mandate collaboration between      (None Used)
  Integration of Schools  school districts and mental health 
  and Mental Health       systems in order to provide,       
  Systems***              enhance, and improve mental health 
                          treatment services to students.    

  ***Indian Child Welfare Strengthens the role of tribal     ICWA
  Act***                  governments in determining the     
                          custody of Native American         
                          children (1978).                   

  ***Individualized       Mandated by the Individuals with   IEP
  Education Program***    Disabilities Education Act.        
                          Individualized document that       
                          describes the personal and         
                          academic goals for a youth in      
                          special education, as well as any  
                          supports that are needed to help   
                          achieve\                           
                          those goals.                       

  ***Individuals with     Guarantees youth with disabilities IDEA
  Disabilities Education  the right to a free appropriate    
  Act***                  public education in the least      
                          restrictive environment (1975).    

  ***John H. Chafee       Offers assistance to help current  CFCIP
  Foster Care             and former foster care youth       
  Independence Program*** achieve self-sufficiency (1999).   

  ***McKinney-Vento       Ensures that homeless youth        McKinney-Vento Act
  Homeless Assistance     (including those awaiting foster   
  Act***                  care placement) have access to     
                          free and appropriate education     
                          (1986).                            

  ***Medicaid (Title XIX  Provides health care coverage for  Medicaid
  of the Social Security  children\                          
  Act)***                 and their parents, the elderly,    
                          and people\                        
                          with disabilities.                 

  ***National Child Abuse National data collection and       NCANDS
  and Neglect Data        analysis system used to track      
  System***               abuse and neglect.                 

  ***No Child Left Behind Mandates stronger accountability   NCLB
  Act***                  of all public\                     
                          K--12 schools, with the goal of    
                          proficiency for all students       
                          (2001).                            

  ***Promoting Safe and   Provides more flexible funding to  PSSF
  Stable Families Act***  the states for foster care         
                          prevention efforts; established    
                          the Court Improvement Program      
                          (2006).                            

  ***Social Security Act, Provide federal support for foster Title IV-E and Title IV-B
  Title IV-E and Title    care, adoption assistance, and     
  IV-B***                 prevention programs.               

  ***Statewide Automated  Case management system that        SACWIS
  Child Welfare           caseworkers use to house           
  Information Systems***  information and run reports on     
                          youth in the child welfare system. 

  ***Temporary Assistance Provides financial assistance and  TANF
  for Needy Families***   supportive services to high-need   
                          families.                          

  ***Workforce Investment Provides workforce investment      WIA
  Act***                  services and activities through    
                          local One-Stop Career Centers      
                          (1998).                            
  ----------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125280 .anchor}Appendix C: Promising Practices
and Exemplary Programs

Bridges...from School to Work

The Bridges program is sponsored by the Marriott Foundation for People
with Disabilities. Bridges develops and supports mutually beneficial job
placements to meet the workforce needs of local employers and the
vocational goals of young people. The program is designed to assist
youth with disabilities, both in and out of school; youth who are
pregnant or have a child; youth in or transitioning out of foster care;
and urban and minority youth. Bridges assists in training youth while
also providing employers support with issues such as communication,
supervision, and discipline. A unique career development plan is created
and built on each youth's individual interests, long-term goals, and
needs and obstacles. http://www.marriott.com/bridges/default.mi

Destination Future

Destination Future is an annual youth leadership conference for youth in
or transitioning out of foster care. Young people ages 16 through 20 who
demonstrate leadership abilities are encouraged to attend. Attendees
participate in small-group discussions that focus on issues pertaining
to out-of-home care. They are encouraged to voice their opinions about
policy issues that affect them and become advocates for the foster youth
cause. http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/conferences/df06/index.html

Foster Youth ePassport

Recognizing the need for foster care youth to have transportable,
complete, and accurate school and medical records, ePassport offers an
Internet-based solution. A secure online management tool keeps track of
young people's immunizations, drug allergies, school admissions, and
more, and it allows records to be updated and managed in real time. Data
tracked by ePassport is accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
which can expedite traditionally long processes such as receiving
medical care and enrolling in school*.*
http://www.connectforkids.org/node/481

NC LINKS

The goal of NC LINKS, a state-run program for North Carolina youth
transitioning out of foster care, is to build a network of relevant
services for youth so that they will have ongoing connections with
family, friends, mentors, the community, employment, education,
financial assistance, skills training, and other resources to facilitate
the transition to adulthood. NC LINKS, provided by the North Carolina
Division of Social Services, offers an Independent Living Program as
well as an Education and Training Voucher Program. Because of North
Carolina's commitment to serving youth for as long as possible, NC LINKS
begins offering its services to youth at age 13 and extends services
through age 21 for those who request them. http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/\
dss/links/index.htm

Pima County, Arizona, Model Dependency Court Program

Started in 1997, the Pima County Model Dependency Court Program was one
of the first Model Courts in the country. The primary goal of the
program is to design and manage dependency court processes that result
in active judicial oversight, timely case processing, and shorter
temporary placements for dependent children and youth. Since the
program's start, initiatives that have been implemented successfully
include the following: improving collaboration with Child Protective
Services and the behavioral health system to enhance the timeliness of
health assessments and the delivery of appropriate services, improving
dependency data collection systems to streamline case management and
enhance reliability, and increasing the use of alternative dispute
resolution tactics*.*
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dcsd/improve/model.htm

Transition Resources for Adult Community Education (TRACE)

TRACE is San Diego Unified School District's program for students with
disabilities, ages 18 through 22, who are transitioning out of high
school into adulthood. According to its Web site, "The purpose of TRACE
is to ensure that every student, regardless of the severity of his or
her disability, is capable of living, working, and participating in
\[the\] community." TRACE uses the "person-centered planning approach"
to ensure that students are involved in making their own decisions about
their futures. Topics addressed in TRACE include accessing adult
education and vocational programs, seeking out recreational
opportunities like clubs and community centers, learning to
self-advocate, using community services like public transportation, and
learning domestic skills like cooking and budgeting.
http://www.sandi.net/depts./specialed/trace.htm

Treehouse

Treehouse provides services for foster care youth in King County,
located near Seattle, Washington. The Treehouse vision is to create a
place for foster youth to thrive and to have "a safe place to dream."
Emphasis is placed on community supports, as the program seeks the help
of community members and organizations to achieve its mission. Services
are focused on providing key material needs such as clothing, learning
opportunities such as tutoring, and enrichment activities such as summer
camp. http://www.treehouse4kids.org

Whitaker School

The Whitaker School in Butner, North Carolina, is a long-term treatment
program for adolescents with emotional disabilities, ages 13 through 17.
A large percentage of the Whitaker School's students have been diagnosed
with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and/or attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. In this nonmedical alternative program, "staff
mobilizes the home community resources to build a network of services to
meet the students' individual needs and the needs and expectations of
the family, school, and community," according to the school's Web site.
Adolescents attending the Whitaker School are provided individual
guidance on increasing academic, social, and behavioral competencies
that can be transferred into less restrictive environments.
http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/mhddsas/whitaker.htm

Youth Connections

Youth Connections extends the services for youth leaving foster care or
other state custody by offering a support system to bridge the path from
youth to adulthood. It is a partnership between Monroe Harding and the
Tennessee Department of Children Services. These organizations work in
conjunction with the Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policies, Tennessee
Youth Advisory Council, Nashville Career Advancement Center and Teaching
Kids to Dream. One service offered is the Jim Casey Opportunity
Passport™, which helps youth learn about financial management, the
banking system, saving money for education, insurance, and health care.
In addition, foster youth gain streamlined access to educational,
training, and vocational opportunities. Life skills classes and mentors
assist in resume writing, job coaching, and employment training.
Information on housing is made available, as is furniture assistance.
http://www.tnyouthconnections.net

Youth Empowerment Services (YES)

Begun in 1999, YES is a partnership of the San Diego field office of
Casey Family Programs, the San Diego Workforce Partnership, and ACCESS,
Inc., a local nonprofit provider of youth and employment training
programs. Its goal is to help young people ages 14 through 21 develop
the skills to get and keep a job so they are able to live on their own
after foster care. More than a dozen programs and services are offered,
including Youth to Youth (foster care alumni mentor current foster
youth), Pre-Employment Traineeship (for 13- through 16-year-olds),
physical and mental health services, education support, Door of Hope
Project (for pregnant and parenting teens), internships, and driving
school. http://www.access2jobs.org/Programs/\
Programs.htm#Program1

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125281 .anchor}Appendix D: Mission of the
National Council on Disability

Overview and purpose

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal
agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the United States
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote
policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal
opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the
nature or significance of the disability and to empower individuals with
disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living,
and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

Specific duties

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs,
    practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities
    conducted or assisted by federal departments and agencies, including
    programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance
    and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations
    pertaining to federal programs that assist such individuals with
    disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such policies,
    programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in
    meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging
    disability policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities in
    the Federal Government, at the state and local government levels,
    and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination
    of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school
    reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with
    disabilities, access to health care, and policies that act as
    disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.

-   Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of
    Education, the director of the National Institute on Disability and
    Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of federal agencies
    about ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic
    self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration
    into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

-   Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice,
    recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
    information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.

-   Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and
    impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42
    U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).

-   Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the
    Rehabilitation Services Administration, the assistant secretary for
    Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department
    of Education, and the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the
    programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
    amended.

-   Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
    Administration with respect to the policies and conduct of the
    administration.

-   Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research,
    service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and
    implementation of research findings affecting people with
    disabilities.

-   Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the
    Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the
    recommendations of this council for legislative and administrative
    changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with
    NCD's purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and
    productivity of individuals with disabilities.

-   Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual
    report titled *National Disability Policy: A Progress Report*.

International

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S.
government's official contact point for disability issues. Specifically,
NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission for Social Development on\
disability matters.

Consumers served and current activities

Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs
affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency
charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues
of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age,
disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific
functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance.
NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living,
community integration, and employment opportunities for people with
disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to
addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and eliminating
barriers to their active participation in community and family life.

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In
fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually became ADA. NCD's present
list of key issues includes improving personal assistance services,
promoting health care reform, including students with disabilities in
high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, promoting equal
employment and community housing opportunities, monitoring the
implementation of ADA, improving assistive technology, and ensuring that
people with disabilities who are members of diverse cultures fully
participate in society.

Statutory history

NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department
of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984
(P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent agency.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc179125282 .anchor}Endnotes

[^1]: Remarks made by several attendees at the American Youth Policy
    Forum Advisory Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007).

[^2]: These are the official measured outcomes for the child welfare
    system. United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Child
    and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet*, available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm>
    (viewed on March 7, 2007).

[^3]: In this report, the terms "self-determination, enhanced quality of
    life, and community integration" have been chosen to communicate the
    desired adult outcomes for people with disabilities. See National
    Council on Disability, *Livable Communities for Adults with
    Disabilities* (December 2, 2004), available at
    [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications\
    /2004/LivableCommunities.htm](http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/LivableCommunities.htm)
    (viewed on June 13, 2007).

[^4]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^5]: Kelly Mack, *Children with Disabilities*, Child Welfare League of
    America, Children's Voice Article, July/August 2002, available at
    [http://www.cwla.org/articles\
    /cv0207childrendisabilities.htm](http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0207childrendisabilities.htm)
    (viewed on April 2, 2007).

[^6]: ARCH National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis Care
    Services, *Abuse and Neglect of Children with Disabilities*,
    Factsheet Number 36, September 1994, available at
    <http://www.archrespite.org/archfs36.htm> (viewed on April 2, 2007).

[^7]: *Id.*

[^8]: Cheryl A. Larson and Lynda Anderson, *Children with Disabilities
    and the Child Welfare System: Prevalence Data*, 19, 1 Impact
    (University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration),
    Fall/Winter 2005/06, at 6, available at
    <http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/191/over6.html> (viewed on March
    5, 2007).

[^9]: Data from 2005 show that 32 percent of American foster youth were
    African American and 41 percent were white, despite the fact that
    the U.S. population for that year was around 13 percent African
    American and 80 percent white, despite the fact that abuse and
    neglect are believed to occur at the same rates for both African
    Americans and Whites when all other characteristics are controlled
    for. Casey Family Programs, a foster care service and advocacy
    organization, asserts that this disproportionality is partly caused
    by racism in the child welfare system that results in the
    overreporting of abuse and neglect for African Americans and the
    underreporting for whites. It is also, Casey asserts, due to the
    fact that the median length of stay is 18 months for African
    Americans and 10 months for white children. United States Department
    of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
    Families, Children's Bureau, *The AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005),
    available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb\
    /stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm)
    (viewed on February 20, 2007); United States Census Bureau, *State &
    County QuickFacts: USA*, available at
    <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html> (viewed on
    March 19, 2007); Casey Family Programs, *Disproportionality Fact
    Sheet* (June 16, 2006), available at
    <http://www.casey.org/MediaCenter/MediaKit/DisproportionalityFactSheet.htm>
    (viewed on February 15, 2007). Also see Endnotes 28 and 97 about
    this topic.

[^10]: Council for Exceptional Children, IDEA Reauthorization
    Recommendations, at 7 (April 2002), available at
    [http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PolicyAdvocacy\
    /IDEAResources/IDEA_reauth_4-2002.pdf](http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PolicyAdvocacy/IDEAResources/IDEA_reauth_4-2002.pdf).

[^11]: Peter J. Pecora et al., *Assessing the Effects of Foster Care:
    Early Results from the Casey National Alumni Study*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 30 (2003), available at
    [http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/\
    923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf](http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf)
    (viewed on February 22, 2007).

[^12]: ARCH National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis Care
    Services, *Abuse and Neglect of Children with Disabilities*,
    Factsheet Number 36, September 1994, available at
    <http://www.archrespite.org/archfs36.htm> (viewed on April 2, 2007).

[^13]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 3 (2007).

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: Peter J. Pecora et al., *Assessing the Effects of Foster Care:
    Early Results from the Casey National Alumni Study*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 32-34 (2003), available at
    [http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1\
    /923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf](http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf)
    (viewed on February 22, 2007).

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: United States Census Bureau, *Sex by Age by Physical Disability
    for the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 Years and Over*,
    2005 American Community Survey, Table C18004, available at
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/)
    (viewed on May 22, 2007); Voices of Individuals and Communities
    Empowering Society (VOICES), *Understanding Disability*, available
    at <http://www.voices4all.org/Understanding_Disability.htm> (viewed
    on May 22, 2007).

[^18]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^19]: For definitions of these different types of residences, see
    Appendix A.

[^20]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^21]: Child Welfare League of America, *Supporting Documentation for
    CWLA's Statement on Optimal Child Welfare Service Delivery*
    (September 15, 2005), available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/financingoptimaldelivsupport.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^22]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^23]: Pew Charitable Trusts and Generations United, *Time for Reform:
    Support Relatives in Providing Foster Care and Permanent Families
    for Children*, at 1--2 (2007).

[^24]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^25]: Jennifer E. Macomber, *An Overview of Selected Data on Children
    in Vulnerable Families*, Urban Institute, at 4 (January 12, 2006),
    available at <http://www.urban.org/publications/311351.html> (viewed
    on April 4, 2007).

[^26]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^27]: Jennifer E. Macomber, *An Overview of Selected Data on Children
    in Vulnerable Families*, The Urban Institute, at 4 (January 12,
    2006), available at <http://www.urban.org/publications/311351.html>
    (viewed on April 4, 2007).

[^28]: African Americans are also disproportionately represented in the
    foster care system for prolonged amounts of time. According to
    CWLA's assessment of 2005 AFCARS data, of all the exits from foster
    care that year (for any reason, including emancipation, adoption,
    reunification, guardianship, and kinship care), 28.3 percent of
    these youth were African American, but when just *exits to
    emancipation* are viewed for African Americans, whites, and
    Hispanics, *35.3 percent* of African Americans exited this way,
    meaning that a disproportionate number of long-term African-American
    foster youth remained in the system until they aged out at 18. The
    Child Welfare League of America addresses disproportionality issues
    for adolescents, youth with disabilities, and African Americans in
    the following source: O. Jane Morgan et al., *Long-Term Foster Care:
    The Forgotten Child*, Child Welfare League of America Conference,
    (unpublished presentation), CWLA, (February 26, 2007) (given to
    author by Kelly Mack, Program Manager, CWLA, on March 20, 2007).
    Also see Endnotes 9 and 97 about this topic.

[^29]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^30]: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, *Science Says:
    Foster Care Youth*, 27 Putting What Works to Work, at 1 (August
    2006), available at
    <http://www.teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/science_says_27_fostercare.pdf>
    (viewed on February 16, 2007).

[^31]: Office of Children's Administration Research, *Foster Youth
    Transition to Independence Study*, at 5 (2004), available at
    [http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca\
    /FYTfinal2004.pdf](http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/FYTfinal2004.pdf)
    (viewed on February 16, 2007).

[^32]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 20 (2005).

[^33]: Office of Children's Administration Research, *Foster Youth
    Transition to Independence Study*, at 4 (2004), available at
    [http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca\
    /FYTfinal2004.pdf](http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/FYTfinal2004.pdf)
    (viewed on February 16, 2007).

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: Peter J. Pecora et al., *Assessing the Effects of Foster Care:
    Early Results from the Casey National Alumni Study*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 2 (2003), available at
    <http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf>
    (viewed on February 22, 2007).

[^36]: *Id.* at 37.

[^37]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
    the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, *Federal Foster
    Care Financing*, ASPE Issue Brief, August 2005, at 15.

[^38]: *Id.*

[^39]: *Id.* at 17, Figure 8.

[^40]: *Id.* at 15--16.

[^41]: *Id.* at 16.

[^42]: See, for example, Pew Charitable Trusts and Generations United,
    *Time for Reform: Support Relatives in Providing Foster Care and
    Permanent Families for Children* (2007).

[^43]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau,
    *Summary of the Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations*
    (April 2006), available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb\
    /programs_fund/cwwaiver/summary_demo2006.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/summary_demo2006.htm)
    (viewed on February 18, 2007).

[^44]: See United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office
    of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, *Federal
    Foster Care Financing*, ASPE Issue Brief, August 2005, at 17; United
    States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
    Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Summary of the Title IV-E
    Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations* (April 2006), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/summary_demo2006.htm>
    (viewed on February 18, 2007).

[^45]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
    the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, *Federal Foster
    Care Financing*, ASPE Issue Brief, August 2005, at 17.

[^46]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental
    Health Services, *Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General*,
    at 174 (1999), available at
    <http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/surgeongeneralreport/C3.pdf>
    (viewed on April 23, 2007); Richard P. Barth, *Institutions vs.
    Foster Homes: An Empirical Base for a Century of Action*, University
    of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Social Work, at 14 (June
    17, 2002).

[^47]: Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, *Fostering the Future:
    Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care:
    Executive Summary*, at 15--18 (2004).

[^48]: Government Accountability Office, *Child Welfare and Juvenile
    Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping
    States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental
    Health Services* (GAO-03-397), GAO Highlights, April 2003, available
    at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03397.pdf> (viewed on May 4,
    2007).

[^49]: The Library of Congress, THOMAS, Summary of the Keeping Families
    Together Act (S. 382/ H.R. 687) (January 24, 2007), available at
    <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00382:@@@L&summ2=m&>
    (viewed on April 18, 2007).

[^50]: Press Release, New Jersey Department of Children and Families,
    Four Counties and the State Partner in New Initiative for Family
    Support Services (April 25, 2007) (source: email from Samantha Jo
    Broderick, Statewide Youth Coordinator, New Jersey Department for
    Children and Families, April 25, 2007, on file with author).

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: *Id.*

[^53]: Pew Charitable Trusts and Generations United, *Time for Reform:
    Support Relatives in Providing Foster Care and Permanent Families
    for Children*, at 1--2 (2007).

[^54]: *Id.* at 1.

[^55]: Adoption.com, Alternatives to Adoption: Guardianship, at
    [http://adopting\
    .adoption.com/child/guardianship-2.html](http://adopting.adoption.com/child/guardianship-2.html)
    (viewed on May 2, 2007).

[^56]: Pew Charitable Trusts and Generations United, *Time for Reform:
    Support Relatives in Providing Foster Care and Permanent Families
    for Children*, at 3 (2007).

[^57]: The Urban Institute, *Children in Kinship Care*, Assessing the
    New Federalism, available at
    <http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900661.pdf> (viewed on May 2, 2007

[^58]: Child Welfare League of America, *Summary of the Kinship
    Caregiver Support Act (S. 985)*, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/summarykinshipact.htm> (viewed on May
    2, 2007).

[^59]: Pew Charitable Trusts, *Time for Reform: Fix the Foster Care
    Lookback,* at 1 (2007).

[^60]: *Id.*

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: *Id.*

[^63]: *Id.* at 4.

[^64]: Richard P. Barth, *Institutions vs. Foster Homes: An Empirical
    Base for a Century of Action*, University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, School of Social Work, at 7 (June 17, 2002).

[^65]: *Id.* at 2.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: *Id.*

[^68]: Barth recommends that group homes specifically be used for only
    the following types of youth: youth who have run away from foster
    care, youth who are destructive or self-destructive, and youth who
    are moving back into the community from more restrictive settings
    such as juvenile detention centers or psychiatric hospitals. *Id.*
    at 24--25.

[^69]: *Id.* at 6.

[^70]: *Id.*, Executive Summary, at i.

[^71]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 5 (2007).

[^72]: Richard P. Barth, *Institutions vs. Foster Homes: An Empirical
    Base for a Century of Action*, University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, School of Social Work, at 4 (June 17, 2002).

[^73]: *Id.*

[^74]: *Id.* at 18.

[^75]: O. Jane Morgan et al., *Long-Term Foster Care: The Forgotten
    Child*, Child Welfare League of America Conference, (unpublished
    presentation), CWLA (February 26, 2007) (emailed to author by Kelly
    Mack, Program Manager, CWLA, on March 20, 2007).

[^76]: Email Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (April 18, 2007).

[^77]: *Id.*

[^78]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *The
    AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^79]: Richard P. Barth, *Institutions vs. Foster Homes: An Empirical
    Base for a Century of Action*, University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, School of Social Work, at 6 (June 17, 2002).

[^80]: *Id.*

[^81]: *Id.*

[^82]: Adopting.org, Therapeutic Foster Care and Group Homes, at
    <http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/therapeutic-foster-care-therapeutic-group-homes.html>
    (viewed on April 23, 2007).

[^83]: *Id.*

[^84]: *Id.*

[^85]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental
    Health Services, *Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General*,
    at 176--178 (1999), available at
    <http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/surgeongeneralreport/C3.pdf>
    (viewed on April 23, 2007).

[^86]: *Id.*

[^87]: Email Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (June 18, 2007). Also see the California Department
    of Social Services, Children and Family Services Division, Foster
    Care Rates Bureau Web site, at [http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov\
    /cfsweb/FosterCare_1447.htm](http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cfsweb/FosterCare_1447.htm)
    (viewed on June 27, 2007).

[^88]: *Id.*

[^89]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental
    Health Services, *Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General*,
    at 176--178 (1999), available at
    <http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/surgeongeneralreport/C3.pdf>
    (viewed on April 23, 2007).

[^90]: *Id.* at 174.

[^91]: *Id.*

[^92]: See the National Wraparound Initiative's Web site at
    [http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/nwi\
    /index.htm](http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/nwi/index.htm) for more
    information.

[^93]: Richard P. Barth, *Institutions vs. Foster Homes: An Empirical
    Base for a Century of Action*, University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, School of Social Work, at 14 (June 17, 2002).

[^94]: *Id.*

[^95]: *Id.*

[^96]: Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, *Fostering the Future:
    Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care:
    Executive Summary*, at 17--18 (2004).

[^97]: Similar to the disproportionality issue that exists for youth
    with disabilities in foster care, this issue is also pertinent for
    African-American children in the system. According to Casey Family
    Programs, "Many studies have revealed that one major contributor to
    disproportionality of children of color \[in foster care\] is their
    slower rates of exit from care." In general, children of color are
    less likely to be adopted or reunited with their families when
    compared with white children, and as a result remain in the system
    for longer periods of time, on average. Casey's recommendations
    around this issue involve improving the system of care as a whole
    for African-American youth by addressing issues around their
    entrance, their service within, and their exit from the system.
    Casey Family Programs, *Disproportionality Fact Sheet* (June 16,
    2006), available at
    <http://www.casey.org/MediaCenter/MediaKit/DisproportionalityFactSheet.htm>
    (viewed on February 15, 2007). Also see Endnotes 9 and 28 about this
    topic.

[^98]: Mary Ellen Cox et al., *Willingness to Foster Children with
    Emotional or Behavioral Problems*, 29(4) Journal of Social Service
    Research, 2003, at 44.

[^99]: *Id.* at 27.

[^100]: *Id.* at 28.

[^101]: *Id.*

[^102]: *Id.* at 26.

[^103]: *Id.* at 23.

[^104]: Telephone Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (May 18, 2007).

[^105]: Mary Ellen Cox et al., *Willingness to Foster Children with
    Emotional or Behavioral Problems*, 29(4) Journal of Social Service
    Research, 2003, at 24.

[^106]: *Id.*

[^107]: Telephone Interview with Danielle Maleska, Special Families
    Foster Care (April 24, 2007).

[^108]: Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March 22, 2007).

[^109]: *Id.*

[^110]: Mary Ellen Cox et al., *Willingness to Foster Children with
    Emotional or Behavioral Problems*, 29(4) Journal of Social Service
    Research, 2003, at 43.

[^111]: Email Interview with Kelly Mack, Program Manager, Child Welfare
    League of America (June 3, 2007).

[^112]: National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and
    Permanency Planning, *Foster Parent Pre-Service Training*, Hunter
    College School of Social Work, (January 16, 2007).

[^113]: The Home for Little Wanderers, MAPP Training, available at
    <http://www.thehome.org/site/content/programs/mapp_foster_new.asp>
    (viewed on March 23, 2007).

[^114]: Child Welfare League of America, PRIDE, About Module 11,
    available at <http://www.cwla.org/pubs/pubdetails.asp?PUBID=1048X>
    (viewed on March 23, 2007).

[^115]: Email Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (April 18, 2007).

[^116]: Email Interview by the National Council on Disability with
    Tamara Connor, Foster Parent (January 27, 2007) (Borrowed with
    permission).

[^117]: Email Interview with Janel Sheppard, Foster Care Alumna (May 4,
    2007).

[^118]: Mary Ellen Cox et al., *Willingness to Foster Children with
    Emotional or Behavioral Problems*, 29(4) Journal of Social Service
    Research, 2003, at 42.

[^119]: Email Interview by the National Council on Disability with
    Tamara Connor, Foster Parent (January 27, 2007) (Borrowed with
    permission).

[^120]: Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Remarks at the Casey Family
    Programs Education Roundtable, Washington, DC (May 22, 2007).

[^121]: Press Release, PR Newswire, SAMHSA and Ad Council Unveil
    National Mental Health Anti-Stigma Campaign, (December 4, 2006),
    available at <http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/adcouncil/25953/>
    (viewed on May 10, 2007).

[^122]: Silver Ribbon Coalition, at <http://www.silverribbon.org/>
    (viewed on May 10, 2007).

[^123]: *Id.*

[^124]: National Foster Care Month, History and Origins of National
    Foster Care Month, at
    <http://www.fostercaremonth.org/TheCampaign/HistoryAndOrigin/Pages/default.aspx>
    (viewed on May 10, 2007).

[^125]: *Id.*

[^126]: National Foster Care Month, Partnerships, at
    [http://www.fostercaremonth.org\
    /TheCampaign/Partners/Pages/default.aspx](http://www.fostercaremonth.org/TheCampaign/Partners/Pages/default.aspx)
    (viewed on May 10, 2007).

[^127]: National Foster Care Month, History and Origins of National
    Foster Care Month, at
    <http://www.fostercaremonth.org/TheCampaign/HistoryAndOrigin/Pages/default.aspx>
    (viewed on May 10, 2007).

[^128]: National Foster Care Month, 2007 National Foster Care Month Core
    Messages, at
    <http://www.fostercaremonth.org/TheCampaign/CoreMessages/Pages/default.aspx>
    (viewed on May 10, 2007).

[^129]: *Id*.

[^130]: Christina A. Samuels, *Report Raps NYC Special Education
    Graduation Rate*, Education Week, June 15, 2005, available at
    <http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/06/15/40speced.h24.html>
    (viewed on April 16, 2007).

[^131]: *Id.*

[^132]: *Id.*

[^133]: *Id.*

[^134]: Institute of Education Sciences, *National Longitudinal
    Transition Study 2: Facts from NLTS2, High School Completion by
    Youth with Disabilities*, at 3 (November 2005), available at
    <http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/NLTS2_selfdeterm_11_23_05.pdf> (viewed
    on April 15, 2007).

[^135]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 28 (2005).

[^136]: Christina A. Samuels, *Report Raps NYC Special Education
    Graduation Rate*, Education Week, June 15, 2005, available at
    [http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles\
    /2005/06/15/40speced.h24.html](http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/06/15/40speced.h24.html)
    (viewed on April 16, 2007).

[^137]: United States Department of Education, Office of Special
    Education Policy, *25^th^ Annual Report to Congress on the
    Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*,
    at 69 (2003), available at [http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual\
    /osep/2003/index.html](http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html)
    (viewed on May 18, 2007).

[^138]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 7 (2005).

[^139]: Mary Wagner et al., *After High School: A First Look at the
    Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities: A Report from the
    National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)*, SRI
    International, Executive Summary at 3 (2005), available at
    [www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf](http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf)
    (viewed on May 17, 2007).

[^140]: *Id.*

[^141]: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)
    Information Center, College-Going Rates of High School Graduates --
    Directly from HS (2004), available at
    [http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=63&\
    year=2004&level=nation&mode=data&state=0](http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=63&year=2004&level=nation&mode=data&state=0)
    (viewed on June 7, 2007).

[^142]: United States Department of Education, Office of Special
    Education Policy, *25th Annual Report to Congress on the
    Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*,
    at 75 (2003), available at
    [http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep\
    /2003/index.html](http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html)
    (viewed on May 18, 2007).

[^143]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 3 (2007).

[^144]: *Id.*

[^145]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 3 (2007).

[^146]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Executive Summary at
    vii (2005).

[^147]: Westat, *Calculating Graduation and Dropout Rates: A Technical
    Assistance Guide,* at 1 (1999), available at
    [www.ideadata.org/docs/TAdocumentongraduationanddrop\
    outrates.doc](http://www.ideadata.org/docs/TAdocumentongraduationanddropoutrates.doc)
    (viewed on May 4, 2007).

[^148]: United States Department of Education, *Growth Models: Ensuring
    Grade-Level Proficiency for All Students by 2014*, available at
    [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead\
    /account/growthmodel/proficiency.html](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/proficiency.html)
    (viewed on May 15, 2007).

[^149]: United States Department of Education, *No Child Left Behind:
    The Facts About... Making Gains Every Year*, available at
    [http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp\
    /yearly.html](http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/yearly.html)
    (viewed on May 15, 2007).

[^150]: See, for example, Christina A. Samuels, *Report Raps NYC Special
    Education Graduation Rate*, Education Week, June 15, 2005, available
    at [http://www.edweek.org\
    /ew/articles/2005/06/15/40speced.h24.html](http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/06/15/40speced.h24.html)
    (viewed on April 16, 2007); United States Department of Education,
    Office of Special Education Policy, *25th Annual Report to Congress
    on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act* (2003), available at
    <http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html>
    (viewed on May 18, 2007); Richard Spiccuza et al., *Participation
    and performance of limited English proficient students during second
    attempts on a graduation exam* (2000), University of Minnesota,
    National Center on Educational Outcomes, available at
    <http://www.education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/MnReport28.html>
    (viewed on June 27, 2007).

[^151]: Eileen Ahearn, *In Forum: Access to the General Education
    Curriculum*, National Association of State Directors of Special
    Education (September 2005), available at
    [http://www.nasdse.org/publications/Acess%20to%20the%20General%20Education%20Curriculum.pdf](http://www.nasdse.org/publications/Acess to the General Education Curriculum.pdf)
    (viewed on July 3, 2007).

[^152]: Angela Minnici, *Students with Disabilities' Provisions of the
    No Child Left Behind Act: Summary of a Roundtable Discussion and
    Guidance Principles for Reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB* (June 2007),
    Center on Education Policy, available at
    <http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=203>
    (viewed on July 3, 2007).

[^153]: Telephone Interview with Mabrey Whetstone, State Director of
    Special Education, Alabama Department of Education (May 9, 2007);
    Telephone Interview with Douglas Cox, Assistant Superintendent,
    Division of Special Education and Student Services, Virginia
    Department of Education (April 30, 2007); Telephone Interview with
    Martha Thurlow, Director, University of Minnesota, National Center
    on Educational Outcomes (March 19, 2007); Telephone Interview with
    Pat Hozella, Eastern Division Chief of Compliance, Monitoring and
    Planning, Bureau of Special Education, Pennsylvania Department of
    Education (April 4, 2007).

[^154]: United States Department of Education, Office of Special
    Education Policy, *25^th^ Annual Report to Congress on the
    Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*,
    at 46 (2003), available at [http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual\
    /osep/2003/index.html](http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html)
    (viewed on May 18, 2007).

[^155]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 13 (2005).

[^156]: *Id.*

[^157]: United States Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act,
    P.L. 107-110, Title V, Part D, Subpart 2, Sect. 5421: Elementary and
    Secondary School Counseling Programs, available at
    <http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg68.html> (viewed on May
    4, 2007).

[^158]: Scott Joftus, *White Paper: Educating Children in Foster Care:
    The McKinney-Vento and No Child Left Behind Acts*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 21 (2007).

[^159]: *Id.*

[^160]: Lustig was one of the creators of Tutor Connection. Email
    Interview with Michelle Lustig, Coordinator, San Diego County Office
    of Education, Foster Youth Services (June 5, 2007).

[^161]: Peter J. Pecora et al., *Assessing the Effects of Foster Care:
    Early Results from the Casey National Alumni Study*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 1 (2003), available at
    <http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf>
    (viewed on February 22, 2007).

[^162]: Email Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (June 18, 2007).

[^163]: *Id.*

[^164]: United States Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act,
    P.L. 107-110, Title V, Part D, Subpart 14, 20 U.S.C. 7269 (2005):
    Grants for the Integration of Schools and Mental Health Systems,
    available at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/mentalhealth\
    /index.html](http://www.ed.gov/programs/mentalhealth/index.html)
    (viewed on May 4, 2007).

[^165]: Scott Joftus, *White Paper: Educating Children in Foster Care:
    The McKinney-Vento and No Child Left Behind Acts*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 22 (2007).

[^166]: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 94-142.

[^167]: *Id.;* United States Department of Justice, *A Guide to
    Disability Rights Laws: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*
    (September 2005), available at
    <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm> (viewed on May 4, 2007).

[^168]: *Id.*

[^169]: Kathleen McNaught, *Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality
    and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children
    in Foster Care,* American Bar Association Center on Children and the
    Law, at 20 (January 2007).

[^170]: *Id.*

[^171]: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, *Asking
    the Right Questions: A Judicial Checklist to Ensure that the
    Educational Needs of Children and Youth in Foster Care are Being
    Addressed* (April 2005), available at
    [http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories\
    /dept/ppcd/pdf/2005educationchecklistfulldoc.pdf](http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/2005educationchecklistfulldoc.pdf)
    (viewed on May 2, 2007).

[^172]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^173]: Email Interview with Michelle Lustig, Coordinator, San Diego
    County Office of Education, Foster Youth Services (June 5, 2007).

[^174]: *Id.*

[^175]: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 108-446, 20
    U.S.C. 2648 (2004), available at
    <http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html> (viewed on June 15,
    2007).

[^176]: Sarah Woodward, *California Moves to Improve Group Home*
    Schools, XXV, 4 Youth Law News (National Center for Youth Law),
    October--December 2004, at 1.

[^177]: *Id.*

[^178]: Richard P. Barth, *Institutions vs. Foster Homes: An Empirical
    Base for a Century of Action*, University of North Carolina at
    Chapel Hill, School of Social Work, at 12--13 (June 17, 2002).

[^179]: *Id.*

[^180]: *Id.*

[^181]: *Id.*

[^182]: *Id.*

[^183]: *Id.*

[^184]: *Id.*

[^185]: Sarah Woodward, *California Moves to Improve Group Home*
    Schools, XXV, 4 Youth Law News (National Center for Youth Law),
    October--December 2004, at 1.

[^186]: *Id.*

[^187]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^188]: Sarah Woodward, *California Moves to Improve Group Home*
    Schools, XXV, 4 Youth Law News (National Center for Youth Law),
    October--December 2004, at 2.

[^189]: *Id.* at 29.

[^190]: *Id.*, Executive Summary at vi.

[^191]: *Id.* at 29.

[^192]: Scott Joftus, *White Paper: Educating Children in Foster Care:
    The McKinney-Vento and No Child Left Behind Acts*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 12 (2007).

[^193]: Mc-Kinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Act, P.L. 100-77; United
    States Department of Education, *FY 2003 Guidance for the Education
    for Homeless Children and Youth Program*, at 1 (July 2004),
    available at [http://www.ed.gov/programs\
    /homeless/guidance.pdf](http://www.ed.gov/programs/homeless/guidance.pdf)
    (viewed on May 17, 2007).

[^194]: *Id.*

[^195]: *Id.*

[^196]: United States Department of Education, *Report to the President
    and Congress on the Implementation of the Education for Homeless
    Children and Youth Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless
    Assistance Act,* Executive Summary at i (2006), available at
    <http://www.ed.gov/programs/homeless/rpt2006.doc> (viewed on May 17,
    2007).

[^197]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^198]: Scott Joftus, *White Paper: Educating Children in Foster Care:
    The McKinney-Vento and No Child Left Behind Acts*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 17 (2007).

[^199]: *Id.*

[^200]: *Id.*

[^201]: Barbara Duffield, Policy Director, National Association for the
    Education of Homeless Children and Youth, Remarks at Casey Family
    Programs Capitol Hill Briefing, Washington, DC (April 24, 2007).

[^202]: Scott Joftus, *White Paper: Educating Children in Foster Care:
    The McKinney-Vento and No Child Left Behind Acts*, Casey Family
    Programs, at 17 (2007).

[^203]: *Id.*

[^204]: National Center for Youth Law, *Ensuring Educational Rights and
    Stability for Foster Youth, AB 490 Summary* (December 2003),
    available at [http://www.youthlaw.org\
    /fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/events_trainings/ab490/AB490_Summary.pdf](http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/events_trainings/ab490/AB490_Summary.pdf)
    (viewed on June 4, 2007).

[^205]: National Foster Care Coalition, *Frequently Asked Questions III:
    About the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and the Chafee
    Educational and Training Voucher Program*, at 7 (May 2005) available
    at <http://nationalfostercare.org/docs/FAQIII.pdf> (viewed on June
    15, 2007).

[^206]: *Id.*

[^207]: Email Interview with Melinda Foy, Foster Care Alumna (April 18,
    2007).

[^208]: Telephone Interview with Melanie Oyler, Director of Corporate
    Relations and Fund Development, Family Services of Metro Orlando,
    Inc. (April 26, 2007).

[^209]: *Id.*

[^210]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Executive Summary at
    vii (2005).

[^211]: Erika Fitzpatrick, *Unhappy Returns: U.S. Foster Care Funds*,
    16, 1 *Youth Today*, December 2006/January 2007, at 3,6.

[^212]: *Id.*

[^213]: D.R. Johnson and M.L. Thurlow, *A national study on graduation
    requirements and diploma options for youth with disabilities
    (Technical Report 36),* University of Minnesota, National Center on
    Educational Outcomes (October 2003), available at
    <http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical36.htm> (viewed
    on June 15, 2007).

[^214]: *Id.*

[^215]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 37 (2005).

[^216]: *Id.* at 38.

[^217]: National Council on Disability, *Improving Educational Outcomes
    for Students with Disabilities* (May 14, 2004), available at
    [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications\
    /2004/educationoutcomes.htm](http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm)
    (viewed on May 25, 2007); Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act, P.L. 105-17.

[^218]: Wrightslaw.com, IEP and Transition Planning: Frequently Asked
    Questions, at <http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/trans.faqs.htm>
    (viewed on May 21, 2007).

[^219]: National Council on Disability, *Improving Educational Outcomes
    for Students with Disabilities* (May 14, 2004), available at
    [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications\
    /2004/educationoutcomes.htm](http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm)
    (viewed on May 25, 2007).

[^220]: Sarah Greenen, *Transition Planning for Foster Youth with
    Disabilities: Are We Falling Short?* American Academy of Pediatrics,
    Fostering Futures Project, at 6--7 (Spring 2004), available at
    [http://www.aap.org/advocacy/hfca/FosteringFutures\
    Awareness2.pdf](http://www.aap.org/advocacy/hfca/FosteringFuturesAwareness2.pdf)
    (viewed on May 21, 2007).

[^221]: National Council on Disability, *Improving Educational Outcomes
    for Students with Disabilities* (May 14, 2004), available at
    <http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm>
    (viewed on May 25, 2007).

[^222]: United States Department of Education, Free Application for
    Federal Student Aid Web Site, FAQs: Eligibility, at
    <http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/faq003.htm> (viewed on April 3, 2007).

[^223]: Richard Devylder, Remarks at the National Council on Disability
    Executive Board Meeting, San Diego (January 31, 2007).

[^224]: *Id.*

[^225]: *Id.*

[^226]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^227]: The Youth Transition Funders Group is a network of grantmakers
    whose mission is to help all youth make a successful transition to
    adulthood by age 25. The group's Foster Care Work Group works to
    strengthen the child welfare system so that more foster youth, in
    particular, will transition to adulthood successfully. Visit the
    Youth Transition Funders Group's Web site for more information:
    [www.ytfg.org](http://www.ytfg.org/).

[^228]: Youth Transition Funders Group Foster Care Work Group and The
    Finance Project, *Connected By 25: A Plan for Investing in
    Successful Futures for Foster Youth*, at 3 (March 2004).

[^229]: D. Wayne Osgood, *Rethinking the Safety Net for Vulnerable Young
    Adults: Opening Remarks*, Adolescence and the Transition to
    Adulthood Conference, (unpublished presentation), Pennsylvania State
    University and MacArthur Research Network on Transitions to
    Adulthood (October 18, 2006) (on file with author).

[^230]: Dylan Conger and Timothy Ross, *Reducing the Foster Care Bias in
    Juvenile Detention Decisions: The Impact of Project Confirm*, Vera
    Institute for Justice, at 7 (June 2001), available at
    <http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/146_182.pdf> (viewed on
    February 23, 2007).

[^231]: *Id.*

[^232]: The terms noted here are those used by the cited author and are
    not necessarily the terms that NCD deems most appropriate. D. Wayne
    Osgood, *Rethinking the Safety Net for Vulnerable Young Adults:
    Opening Remarks*, Adolescence and the Transition to Adulthood
    Conference, (unpublished presentation), Pennsylvania State
    University and MacArthur Research Network on Transitions to
    Adulthood (October 18, 2006) (on file with author).

[^233]: Mary Wagner et al., *After High School: A First Look at the
    Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities: A Report from the
    National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)*, SRI
    International, Executive Summary at 3, (2005), available at
    [www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf](http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf)
    (viewed on May 17, 2007).

[^234]: *Id.*

[^235]: Office of Children's Administration Research, *Foster Youth
    Transition to Independence Study*, at 4 (2004), available at
    [http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca\
    /FYTfinal2004.pdf](http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/FYTfinal2004.pdf)
    (viewed on February 16, 2007).

[^236]: One study has found that on average, only about 40 percent of
    youth feel that they have reached adulthood on their 18^th^
    birthdays. Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, *Conceptions of the* *Transition
    to Adulthood Among Emerging Adults in American Ethnic Groups*, 100
    New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, Summer 2003, at
    67, Table 5.2, available at
    <http://www.jeffreyarnett.com/articles/ARNETT_conceptions_ethnic_groups.pdf>\
    (viewed on June 18, 2007).

[^237]: Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Remarks at the Casey Family
    Programs Education Roundtable, Washington, DC (May 22, 2007).

[^238]: Youth Transition Funders Group Foster Care Work Group and The
    Finance Project, *Connected By 25: A Plan for Investing in
    Successful Futures for Foster Youth*, at 23 (March 2004).

[^239]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, The
    John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/state_tribal/jh_chafee.htm>
    (viewed on March 12, 2007).

[^240]: The CFCIP places more emphasis than the previous federal
    Independent Living Program on youth aging out of foster care by
    requiring states to use up to 30 percent of their funding on the
    provision of services for youth ages 18--21 and by allowing states
    to extend Medicaid benefits to these youth as well. Child Welfare
    League of America, Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, available
    at [http://www.cwla.org/advocacy\
    /indlivhr3443.htm](http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/indlivhr3443.htm)
    (viewed on May 18, 2007).

[^241]: Email Interview with Melanie Oyler, Director of Corporate
    Relations and Fund Development, Family Services of Metro Orlando,
    Inc. (April 20, 2007).

[^242]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 19, (2005).

[^243]: *Id.*

[^244]: Wrightslaw.com, IEP and Transition Planning: Frequently Asked
    Questions, at <http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/trans.faqs.htm>
    (viewed on May 21, 2007).

[^245]: *Id.*

[^246]: *Id.*

[^247]: *Id.*

[^248]: See, for example, Sarah Greenen, *Transition Planning for Foster
    Youth with Disabilities: Are We Falling Short?* American Academy of
    Pediatrics, Fostering Futures Project (Spring 2004), available at
    <http://www.aap.org/advocacy/hfca/FosteringFuturesAwareness2.pdf>
    (viewed on May 21, 2007).

[^249]: *Id.*

[^250]: *Id.,* at 3--4.

[^251]: *Id.*

[^252]: *Id.*

[^253]: *Id.* at 5--6.

[^254]: *Id.*

[^255]: San Diego Unified School District, Special Education Programs
    Division Web site, TRACE Program, at
    <http://www.sandi.net/depts/specialed/trace.htm> (viewed on May 21,
    2007).

[^256]: Terri Linehan, Program Diagnostic Resource Teacher, San Diego
    Unified School District, Remarks at the National Council on
    Disability Executive Board Meeting, San Diego, CA (January 31,
    2007).

[^257]: San Diego Unified School District, Special Education Programs
    Division Web Site, TRACE Program, at
    <http://www.sandi.net/depts/specialed/trace.htm> (viewed on May 21,
    2007).

[^258]: *Id.*

[^259]: Terri Linehan, Program Diagnostic Resource Teacher, San Diego
    Unified School District, Remarks at the National Council on
    Disability Executive Board Meeting, San Diego, CA (January 31,
    2007).

[^260]: Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative Web Site, at
    [http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org\
    /aboutus.htm](http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/aboutus.htm) (viewed on
    May 22, 2007).

[^261]: *Id*.

[^262]: Emphasis added by authors. Youth Transition Funders Group Foster
    Care Work Group and The Finance Project, *Connected By 25: A Plan
    for Investing in Successful Futures for Foster Youth*, at 24--25
    (March 2004).

[^263]: The Federal Youth Coordination Act (FYCA) was created in 2006 by
    the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, which was
    charged with developing recommendations to strengthen the federal
    response to the needs of children and youth. See Chapter 3.4 for
    more information about FYCA.

[^264]: See, for example, Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, *Conceptions of the*
    *Transition to Adulthood Among Emerging Adults in American Ethnic
    Groups*, 100 New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
    Summer 2003, at 64, available at [http://www.jeffreyarnett.com/\
    articles/ARNETT_conceptions_ethnic_groups.pdf](http://www.jeffreyarnett.com/articles/ARNETT_conceptions_ethnic_groups.pdf)
    (viewed on June 18, 2007).

[^265]: Youth Transition Funders Group Foster Care Work Group and The
    Finance Project, *Connected By 25: A Plan for Investing in
    Successful Futures for Foster Youth*, at 16 (March 2004).

[^266]: *Id.* at 3.

[^267]: *Id.* at 21.

[^268]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 21--22 (2007).

[^269]: Jeff Rosen, Former General Counsel , National Council on
    Disability, Remarks at the American Youth Policy Forum Advisory
    Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007).

[^270]: For more information about the "independent living" philosophy,
    visit the Independent Living Institute at
    [www.independentliving.org](http://www.independentliving.org/),
    Independent Living USA at [www.ilusa.com](http://www.ilusa.com/),
    and the National Council on Independent Living at
    [www.ncil.org](http://www.ncil.org/).

[^271]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^272]: *Id.*

[^273]: The Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment (ACLSA) is an evaluation
    of youth independent living skills. It is anonymous and is
    "appropriate for all youths regardless of living circumstances,
    whether with one parent, in foster care, in group homes or in other
    places." Learn more about ACLSA and download the tool at
    [www.caseylifeskills.org](http://www.caseylifeskills.org/).

[^274]: Email Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    26, 2007).

[^275]: Richard Devylder, Remarks at the National Council on Disability
    Executive Board Meeting, San Diego (January 31, 2007).

[^276]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^277]: For more information on Destination Future, visit
    [www.nrcys.ou.edu](http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/).

[^278]: Destination Future, Goals, available at
    [http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/conferences/df06\
    /index.html](http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/conferences/df06/index.html)
    (viewed on June 28, 2007).

[^279]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^280]: *Id.*

[^281]: Foster Club offers three separate Web sites, one for children,
    one for adolescents, and one for adults, which provide targeted
    resources for each of these groups. They are used primarily as
    networking tools for children and adolescents and provide research
    articles, media kits, position papers, as well as advocacy and
    support tools on the adult Web site. All three sites include
    information on foster youths' rights. For more information, visit
    [www.fosterclub.org](http://www.fosterclub.org/).

[^282]: Foster Care Alumni of America is a membership organization with
    several statewide chapters that work to convene foster care alumni
    as well as advocate on behalf of policies and practices that affect
    them. For more information, visit
    [www.fostercarealumni.org](http://www.fostercarealumni.org/).

[^283]: The National Council on Independent Living provides members with
    tools for effective independent living advocacy, as well as a
    members-only "peer-to-peer" online message board, among many other
    services. For more information, visit
    [www.ncil.org](http://www.ncil.org/).

[^284]: The National Youth Leadership Network is completely governed by
    individuals under age 28 who have disabilities and promotes the
    inclusion of young leaders with disabilities by advocating for
    policies that support them. It also runs quarterly Web casts for
    youth with disabilities to network with one another. For more
    information, visit [www.nyln.org](http://www.nyln.org/).

[^285]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 40 (2005).

[^286]: *Id*.

[^287]: *Id.*, Executive Summary at vii.

[^288]: The source of this information is a brochure published by a
    housing program in San Diego, California, whose information remains
    in confidence with the author.

[^289]: Email Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (April 18, 2007).

[^290]: "While only four percent of the U.S. population has a serious
    mental illness, five to six times as many people who are homeless
    (20--25 percent) have serious mental illnesses." National Resource
    Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness, *Why are so many people
    with serious mental illnesses homeless?*, available at
    <http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/facts/facts_question_3.asp> (viewed on
    April 20, 2007).

[^291]: Email Interview with Jerry Hobbs, Teacher, San Diego Unified
    School District (April 18, 2007).

[^292]: *Id.*

[^293]: *Id.*

[^294]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^295]: *Id.*

[^296]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 18 (2005).

[^297]: Email Interviews with Melinda Foy, Foster Care Alumna (April 18,
    2007 and May 9, 2007).

[^298]: *Id.*

[^299]: *Id.*

[^300]: *Id*.

[^301]: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division
    of Social Services, NC LINKS: Helping Teens Make a Successful
    Transition from Foster Care to Self Sufficiency, available at
    <http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/links/index.htm> (viewed on May 25,
    2007).

[^302]: *Id.*

[^303]: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division
    of Social Services, *Family Services Manual, Chapter IV, Section
    VIII*, at 1 (October 2006) (Provided by the Division of Social
    Services; on file with author).

[^304]: *Id.* at 1--4.

[^305]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 14--15 (2007).

[^306]: *Id.*

[^307]: Child Welfare League of America, *Funding Resources for Child
    Welfare*, July 2003, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/financingfunding.htm> (viewed on May
    10, 2007).

[^308]: The Youth Transition Funders Group is dedicated to promoting
    programs and policies that serve youth through age 24 with the hopes
    of ensuring their connectivity to society by age 25. See
    [www.ytfg.org](http://www.ytfg.org/) for more information.
    YouthBuild is one organization that serves youth through age 24
    owing to its belief that many youth still need services past age 21.
    See [www.youthbuild.org](http://www.youthbuild.org/) for more
    information. California's Conservation Corps admits youth up to age
    25 to its program. See [www.ccc.ca.gov](http://www.ccc.ca.gov/) for
    more information. Youth Service America, a national resource center
    that partners with thousands of organizations committed to
    increasing the quality and quantity of volunteer opportunities for
    young people, also serves youth through the age of 25. See
    [www.ysa.org](http://www.ysa.org/) for more information.

[^309]: California Department of Social Services, Children and Family
    Services Division, Children and Youth Permanency Branch, Independent
    Living Program Policy Unit, *Transitional Housing Program for
    Emancipated Foster/Probation Youth (THP-Plus)* brochure, available
    at <http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/THP-PlusBrochure.pdf>
    (viewed on May 2, 2007).

[^310]: Connecticut Department of Children and Families, *Policy Manual:
    Adolescent Services*, *Aftercare*, available at
    <http://www.dir.ct.gov/dcf/Policy/Adoles42/42-5-5.htm> (viewed on
    May 2, 2007).

[^311]: William C. Vickrey, Editorial, *A better life for foster youth*,
    San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2005, at B-9, available at
    [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a\
    /2005/05/18/EDGHUCQLRB1.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/18/EDGHUCQLRB1.DTL)
    (viewed on March 12, 2007).

[^312]: National Collaboration for Youth, Federal Youth Coordination Act
    Information Center, at
    [http://www.youthcoordinationact.org](http://www.youthcoordinationact.org/).

[^313]: *Id.*

[^314]: Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Deborah Stabenow (D-MI), Letter to Tom
    Harkin, Chair, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and
    Education, and Arlen Specter, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Labor,
    Health and Human Services and Education (April 20, 2007), available
    through the National Collaboration for Youth Web site, at
    <http://nassembly.org/ncy/documents/04092007LETTERFYCAFunding.pdf>
    (viewed on July 3, 2007).

[^315]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Court
    Improvement Program*, available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/state_tribal/ct_imprv.htm>
    (viewed on February 27, 2007).

[^316]: *Id.*

[^317]: *Id.*

[^318]: Home at Last, *New Federal Funds Available to Improve Dependency
    Courts*, 10 Online Newsletter (July 18, 2006), available at
    [http://fostercarehomeatlast.org\
    /newsletter/index.php?NewsletterID=10](http://fostercarehomeatlast.org/newsletter/index.php?NewsletterID=10)
    (viewed on June 5, 2007).

[^319]: *Id.*

[^320]: Press Release, National Center for State Courts, *National
    Effort Unveiled to Improve the Nation's Foster Care System*, (April
    13, 2006), available at [http://www.ncsconline\
    .org/D_Comm/PressRelease/2006/CallToAction06.HTML](http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Comm/PressRelease/2006/CallToAction06.HTML)
    (viewed on June 8, 2007).

[^321]: Visit Home at Last's Web site for information on what many
    states are implementing. Home at Last, *Pursuing Foster Care
    Reform---State Court Commissions and Task Forces*, at
    <http://fostercarehomeatlast.org/docs/files/CollaborationChart.pdf>
    (viewed on June 8, 2007).

[^322]: Email Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    17, 2007).

[^323]: Sue Badeau, Executive Director, Philadelphia Children's
    Commission, Remarks at the American Youth Policy Forum Advisory
    Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007); Telephone Interview with
    Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National Council of Juvenile and Family
    Court Judges (March 22, 2007); Telephone Interview with Judge
    Patricia Escher, Trial Judge, Division 13, Arizona Superior Court,
    Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^324]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau,
    Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89), available at
    [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws\
    /public_law/pl105_89/pl105_89.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/public_law/pl105_89/pl105_89.htm)
    (viewed on June 18, 2007).

[^325]: Pima County Juvenile Court Web site, at
    <http://www.pcjcc.pima.gov/index.asp> (viewed on April 24, 2007).

[^326]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^327]: Home at Last, *Pursuing Foster Care Reform---State Court
    Commissions and Task Forces*, at 5, 8, available at
    [http://fostercarehomeatlast.org/docs/files\
    /CollaborationChart.pdf](http://fostercarehomeatlast.org/docs/files/CollaborationChart.pdf)
    (viewed on June 8, 2007); Telephone Interview with Sue Badeau,
    Executive Director, Philadelphia Children's Commission (June 6,
    2007).

[^328]: Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March 22, 2007).

[^329]: United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
    and Delinquency Prevention, *Program Summary, Model Dependency
    Courts Initiative*, at
    <http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/Programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=4&ti=1&si=&kw=model+courts&strItem=Funding%2C+Programs%2C+Publications%2C+Events%2C+State+Contacts%2C+Press+Releases&strSingleItem=&p=search&PreviousPage=SearchResults>
    (viewed on March 22, 2007).

[^330]: *Id.*

[^331]: Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March 22, 2007).

[^332]: Pima County Juvenile Court, Child and Family Services Web site,
    at <http://www.pcjcc.pima.gov/cfs_intro.htm> (viewed on April 24,
    2007).

[^333]: Arizona Supreme Court, *Court Improvement Program*, at
    <http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dcsd/improve/> (viewed on March 22,
    2007).

[^334]: *Id.*

[^335]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^336]: The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
    (NCJFCJ) has created *Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines*, a book of
    best practices setting forth "the essential elements of effective
    practice in juvenile delinquency cases." (The book is similar to the
    NCJFCJ's *Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child
    Abuse and Neglect Cases*, which was created to assist the Model
    Dependency Courts in their efforts.) Currently, approximately 15
    court systems pay a fee to NCJFCJ to operationalize these
    guidelines. Cathy Lowe, a program manager at NCJFCJ, thinks it is
    imperative that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
    Prevention also fund these efforts to help the juvenile delinquency
    courts improve their practices. Visit NCJFCJ's Web site for more
    information about the *Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines* at
    [http://www.ncjfcj.org/content\
    /view/411/411/](http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/411/411/).
    Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March 22, 2007);
    Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^337]: Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March 22, 2007).

[^338]: William Bell, CEO, Casey Family Programs, Remarks at Casey
    Family Programs Capitol Hill Briefing, Washington, DC (April 24,
    2007).

[^339]: Visit <http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/572/432/> and
    [http://www.casey.org\
    /Resources/Publications/RoadMapForLearning.htm](http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/RoadMapForLearning.htm)
    for more information about the tools that NCJFCJ and Casey Family
    Programs (respectively) have created.

[^340]: Child Welfare League of America, *Fact Sheet: CWLA Juvenile
    Justice Division*, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjdfactsheet.htm>
    (viewed on June 29, 2007).

[^341]: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, *Key
    Issues*, Key Issue 2, available at
    <http://www.ncmhjj.com/faqs/default.asp> (viewed on June 3, 2007).

[^342]: Rhonda Basha, Supervisor, Youth Policy Team, United States
    Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Remarks
    at the American Youth Policy Forum Advisory Meeting, Washington, DC
    (March 14, 2007); Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program
    Manager, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March
    22, 2007).

[^343]: Telephone Interview with Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National
    Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (March 22, 2007).

[^344]: Steve Light, *U.S. "school reform" throws students into the
    street*, World Socialist Web Site (August 13, 2003), available at
    [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003\
    /push-a13.shtml](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/push-a13.shtml)
    (viewed on June 27, 2007); Public Education Network, *Open to the
    Public: The Public Speaks Out on No Child Left Behind, A Summary of
    Nine Hearings: September 2005--January 2006*, available at
    <http://www.publiceducation.org/2006_NCLB/main/National_Report_2.asp>
    (viewed on June 27, 2007); Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters,
    *Pushed Out or Pulled Up? Exit Exams and Dropout Rates in Public
    High Schools*, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (2004).

[^345]: Gail L. Sunderman, *The Unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How
    Negotiated Changes Transform the Law*, The Civil Rights Project, at
    46 (February 2006).

[^346]: *Id.*

[^347]: *Id.*

[^348]: Ralph C. Martin, II, *Zero Tolerance Policy Report*, American
    Bar Association, ABA Juvenile Justice Policies (February 2001),
    available at [http://www.abanet.org/crimjust\
    /juvjus/zerotolreport.html](http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/zerotolreport.html)
    (viewed on March 22, 2007).

[^349]: National Council on Disability, *Testimony of the National
    Council on Disability: Juvenile Detention Centers: Are They
    Warehousing Children with Mental Illness?* (July 7, 2004), available
    at
    <http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/testimony/2004/juvenile_07-07-04.htm>
    (viewed on June 29, 2007); National Council on Disability,
    *Addressing the Needs of Youth with Disabilities in the Juvenile
    Justice System: The Current Status of Evidence-Based Research* (May
    1, 2003), available at [http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom\
    /publications/2003/juvenile.htm](http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/juvenile.htm)
    (viewed on June 29, 2007).

[^350]: See Chapter 3.3.

[^351]: Institute for Educational Leadership, *Program Evaluation of the
    U.S. Department of Labor Foster Youth Demonstration Projects:
    Overview of the Report on the Sites* (March 2006), available at
    <http://www.iel.org/programs/casey.html> (viewed on March 23, 2007).

[^352]: *Id.*

[^353]: United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training
    Administration, *Overview of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
    (P.L. 105-220)*, available at
    <http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/wia/Runningtext2.htm> (viewed on
    March 23, 2007).

[^354]: *Id.*

[^355]: Sue Badeau, Executive Director, Philadelphia Children's
    Commission, Remarks at the American Youth Policy Forum Advisory
    Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007); Telephone Interview with
    Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National Council of Juvenile and Family
    Court Judges (March 22, 2007); Telephone Interview with Judge
    Patricia Escher, Trial Judge, Division 13, Arizona Superior Court,
    Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^356]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^357]: *Id.*

[^358]: *Id.*

[^359]: See the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care's child
    welfare system timeline for more information. Kasia O'Neill Murray
    and Sarah Gesiriech, *A Brief Legislative History of the Child
    Welfare System*, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care,
    available at
    <http://pewfostercare.org/research/docs/Legislative.pdf> (viewed on
    January 5, 2007).

[^360]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^361]: *Id.*

[^362]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Child
    and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet*, available at
    [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit\
    /cfsrfactsheet.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm)
    (viewed on March 7, 2007).

[^363]: Home at Last, *New Federal Funds Available to Improve Dependency
    Courts*, 10 Online Newsletter (July 18, 2006), available at
    [http://fostercarehomeatlast.org\
    /newsletter/index.php?NewsletterID=10](http://fostercarehomeatlast.org/newsletter/index.php?NewsletterID=10)
    (viewed on June 5, 2007).

[^364]: For more information on the youth development approach, see
    National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, *Positive Youth
    Development: What is Positive Youth Development?*, available at
    <http://www.ncfy.com/publications/ydfactsh.htm> (viewed on June 8,
    2007); Academy for Educational Development, Center for Youth
    Development and Policy Research, *What Is Youth Development?*,
    available at <http://cyd.aed.org/whatis.html> (viewed on June 8,
    2007); Glenda L. Partee and Samuel Halperin, *Preparing Youth for
    Careers, Lifelong Learning, and Civic Participation*, American Youth
    Policy Forum, at 5--7 (2006), available at [http://www.aypf.org\
    /publications/PreparingYouthforCareersLifelongLearningandCivicParticipation.pdf](http://www.aypf.org/publications/PrearingYouthforCareersLifelongLearningandCivicParticipation.pdf)
    (viewed on June 8, 2007).

[^365]: Visit the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for
    Youth to download all of the Guidepost documents, at
    [http://www.ncwd-youth.info/resources\_&\_Publications\
    /guideposts/](http://www.ncwd-youth.info/resources_&_Publications/guideposts/).

[^366]: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth,
    *Negotiating the Curves Toward Employment: A Guide About Youth
    Involved in the Foster Care System*, at 9--13 (2007).

[^367]: *Youth Development and Youth Leadership in Programs*, 11 Info
    Brief (National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for
    Youth), January 2005.

[^368]: *Id.* at 7.

[^369]: New Ways to Work, *All Youth---One System*, at
    [http://www.newwaystowork.org\
    /ayos.html](http://www.newwaystowork.org/ayos.html) (viewed on March
    26, 2007).

[^370]: Healthy and Ready to Work, *About HRTW*, at
    [http://www.hrtw.org/about_us\
    /index.html](http://www.hrtw.org/about_us/index.html) (viewed on
    March 26, 2007).

[^371]: *Id.*

[^372]: For more information about Maine's program outcomes, visit
    HRTW-ME: Adolescent Transition Partnership, at
    <http://www.hrtw.org/about_us/proj_files/hrtw_me.html>.

[^373]: One study of foster care alumni found that 25 percent of them
    experienced posttraumatic stress disorder, which compares with only
    4 percent of the general population. Peter J. Pecora et al.,
    *Assessing the Effects of Foster Care: Early Results from the Casey
    National Alumni Study*, Casey Family Programs, at 32--34 (2003),
    available at
    <http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf>
    (viewed on February 22, 2007).

[^374]: Kathleen McNaught, Assistant Director, American Bar Association,
    Center on Children and the Law, Remarks at the American Youth Policy
    Forum Advisory Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007); Michelle
    Lustig, Coordinator, San Diego County Office of Education, Foster
    Youth Services, Remarks at the Casey Family Programs Education
    Roundtable, Washington, DC (May 22, 2007).

[^375]: Elizabeth Lightfoot and Traci LaLiberte, *Serving* *Children
    with Disabilities in the Child Welfare System: Barriers and
    Strategies*, 19, 1 Impact (University of Minnesota, Institute on
    Community Integration), Fall/Winter 2005/06, at 8--9, available at
    <http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/191/over7.html> (viewed on March
    5, 2007).

[^376]: *Id.* at 9.

[^377]: Email Interview by the National Council on Disability with
    Tamara Connor, Foster Parent (January 27, 2007) (Borrowed with
    permission).

[^378]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^379]: *Id.*

[^380]: *Id.*

[^381]: Home at Last, *New Federal Funds Available to Improve Dependency
    Courts*, 10 Online Newsletter (July 18, 2006), available at
    [http://fostercarehomeatlast.org\
    /newsletter/index.php?NewsletterID=10](http://fostercarehomeatlast.org/newsletter/index.php?NewsletterID=10)
    (viewed on June 5, 2007).

[^382]: Thomas R. Wolanin, *Higher Education Opportunities for Foster
    Youth*, Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 28 (2005).

[^383]: *Id.*

[^384]: *Id.*

[^385]: Remarks from various attendees at the American Youth Policy
    Forum Advisory Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007).

[^386]: Sheldon H. Horowitz, *Exceptional Children: Navigating Learning
    Disabilities and Special Education*, 14, 6 Children's Voice (Child
    Welfare League of America), December 2005, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/voice/0512exceptional.htm> (viewed on March 27,
    2007).

[^387]: Learning Disabilities Association of America, *Learning
    Disabilities: Signs, Symptoms and Strategies*, at
    <http://www.ldaamerica.org/aboutld/teachers/understanding/ld.asp>
    (viewed on March 27, 2007).

[^388]: Debbie Davies, Lead Forensic Interviewer, Chadwick Center for
    Children and Families, Remarks at the National Council on Disability
    Executive Board Meeting, San Diego, CA (January 31, 2007).

[^389]: *Id.*

[^390]: Telephone Interview with Samantha Jo Broderick, Statewide Youth
    Coordinator, New Jersey Department for Children and Families (April
    25, 2007).

[^391]: *Id.*

[^392]: *Id.*

[^393]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *About
    SACWIS*, available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/about.htm>
    (viewed on March 15, 2007).

[^394]: *Id.*

[^395]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Federal
    & State Reporting Systems: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
    System (NCANDS), available at [http://www.acf.hhs.gov\
    /programs/cb/systems/index.htm#ncands](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/index.htm#ncands)
    (viewed on March 15, 2007).

[^396]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Child
    and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet*, available at
    [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit\
    /cfsrfactsheet.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm)
    (viewed on March 7, 2007).

[^397]: *Id.*

[^398]: Nancy Rosenau, *Supporting Family Life for Children with
    Disabilities: What We Know and Don't Know*, 19, 1 Impact (University
    of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration), Fall/Winter
    2005/06, at 2--3, available at [http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact\
    /191/over2.html](http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/191/over2.html)
    (viewed on March 5, 2007).

[^399]: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 103-66, Subpart 2, 42
    U.S.C. 674 (1993).

[^400]: See the states' SACWIS Status page on the Children's Bureau Web
    site for more information, at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/statestatus.htm>.

[^401]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *About
    SACWIS*, available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/about.htm>
    (viewed on March 15, 2007).

[^402]: To specifically see some of the information that AFCARS
    collects, view the 2005 report. United States Department of Health
    and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
    Children's Bureau, *The AFCARS Report* (Fiscal Year 2005), available
    at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm>
    (viewed on February 20, 2007).

[^403]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *About
    AFCARS*, available at
    <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/afcars/about.htm>
    (viewed on March 15, 2007).

[^404]: Child Welfare League of America, *CWLA Comments to HHS on the
    Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)*,
    June 25, 2003, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/afcarscomments030625.htm> (viewed on
    May 15, 2007).

[^405]: *Id**.***

[^406]: National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Family Life
    Development Center, Cornell University, *Adoption and Foster Care
    Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS): User's Guide and Codebook
    for Fiscal Years 2000 to Present*, at 8 (October 2002), available at
    <http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/Datasets/UserGuidePDFs/AFCARS_Guide_2000-Present.pdf>
    (viewed on May 24, 2007).

[^407]: *Id.* at 11.

[^408]: Terms used here are those used by the Federal Government in the
    AFCARS report. *Id.* at 44--46.

[^409]: *Id*.

[^410]: The Child Welfare League of America is one organization that
    agrees that existing disability choice lists need to be reexamined.
    Child Welfare League of America, *CWLA Comments to HHS on the
    Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)*,
    June 25, 2003, available at
    [http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/afcarscomments\
    030625.htm](http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/afcarscomments030625.htm)
    (viewed on May 15, 2007).

[^411]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *AFCARS
    Assessment Review Findings---Foster Care Elements, State:
    Washington, Report Period Under Review: April 1, 2002*--*September
    30, 2002*, available at
    [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research\
    /afcars/aar/wa/arfindings.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/aar/wa/arfindings.htm)
    (viewed on May 15, 2007).

[^412]: National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Family Life
    Development Center, Cornell University, *Adoption and Foster Care
    Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS): User's Guide and Codebook
    for Fiscal Years 2000 to Present*, at 8 (October 2002), available at
    [http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/Datasets/UserGuidePDFs\
    /AFCARS_Guide_2000-Present.pdf](http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/Datasets/UserGuidePDFs/AFCARS_Guide_2000-Present.pdf)
    (viewed on May 24, 2007).

[^413]: Sarah M. Hughes, *Foster Youth with Disabilities: Compounded
    Barriers in the Transition to Adulthood*, National Opinion Research
    Center at the University of Chicago, at 5 (2007) (Paper presented at
    the annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, April 3--6,
    2007, Chicago; cited with permission from the author).

[^414]: The authors have gathered this information anecdotally through
    various child welfare researchers, such as Jennifer Macomber,
    Director of the Child Welfare Research Program, at the Urban
    Institute (Email Interview, May 7, 2007), and Sarah M. Hughes, a
    researcher at the National Opinion Research Center at the University
    of Chicago (Telephone Interview, May 17, 2007).

[^415]: Email Interview with Jennifer Macomber, Director of the Child
    Welfare Research Program, The Urban Institute (May 7, 2007).

[^416]: This information can be ascertained by looking at the AFCARS
    Codebook. National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Family
    Life Development Center, Cornell University, *Adoption and Foster
    Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS): User's Guide and
    Codebook for Fiscal Years 2000 to Present*, at 8 (October 2002),
    available at
    <http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/Datasets/UserGuidePDFs/AFCARS_Guide_2000-Present.pdf>
    (viewed on May 24, 2007).

[^417]: Nancy Rosenau, *Supporting Family Life for Children with
    Disabilities: What We Know and Don't Know*, 19, 1 Impact (University
    of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration), Fall/Winter
    2005/06, at 2, available at [http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact\
    /191/over2.html](http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/191/over2.html)
    (viewed on March 5, 2007).

[^418]: National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Family Life
    Development Center, Cornell University, *AFCARS User's Guide, Foster
    Care File, Annual Supplement, 2004, NDACAN Dataset Number 124,
    Version 1*, at 7--24, available at [http://www.ndacan\
    .cornell.edu/NDACAN/Datasets/UserGuidePDFs/124_AFCARS_2004_FosterCare_Supplement.pdf](http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/Datasets/UserGuidePDFs/124_AFCARS_2004_FosterCare_Supplement.pdf)
    (viewed on May 15, 2007).

[^419]: United States Department of Education, *No Child Left Behind:
    The Facts About... Making Gains Every Year*, available at
    <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/yearly.html> (viewed on
    May 15, 2007).

[^420]: United States Department of Education, Office of Special
    Education Policy, *25th Annual Report to Congress on the
    Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act*,
    Executive Summary at xv--xvi (2003), available at
    <http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html>
    (viewed on May 18, 2007).

[^421]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Child
    and Family Service Reviews Fact Sheet*, available at
    [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit\
    /cfsrfactsheet.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm)
    (viewed on March 7, 2007).

[^422]: *Id.*

[^423]: *Id.*

[^424]: *Id.*

[^425]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
    the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, *Federal Foster
    Care Financing*, ASPE Issue Brief, August 2005, at 12.

[^426]: Research conducted in 1993 by the National Center on Child Abuse
    and Neglect found that of all children abused, about 17 percent had
    disabilities. This rate is about twice the rate for youth without
    disabilities. ARCH National Resource Center for Respite and Crisis
    Care Services, *Abuse and Neglect of Children with Disabilities*,
    Factsheet Number 36, September 1994, available at
    <http://www.archrespite.org/archfs36.htm> (viewed on April 2, 2007).

[^427]: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
    the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, *Federal Foster
    Care Financing*, ASPE Issue Brief, August 2005, at 12.

[^428]: *Id.*

[^429]: United States Department of Health and Human Services,
    Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, *Child
    and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet*, available at
    [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit\
    /cfsrfactsheet.htm](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm)
    (viewed on March 7, 2007).

[^430]: Government Accountability Office, *Child and Family Service
    Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved Guidance Could Enhance
    HHS's Oversight and State Performance* (GAO-04-333), GAO Highlights,
    April 2004, available at [http://www.gao.gov/highlights\
    /d04333high.pdf](http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04333high.pdf)
    (viewed on May 8, 2007).

[^431]: Child Welfare League of America, *Statement of the Child Welfare
    League of America Submitted to the Senate Finance Committee on the
    Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead for America's Child Welfare
    System*, May 10, 2006, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/financingtestimony060510.htm> (viewed
    on May 8, 2007).

[^432]: See Chapter 1. O. Jane Morgan et al., *Long-Term Foster Care:
    The Forgotten Child*, Child Welfare League of America Conference,
    (unpublished presentation), CWLA, (February 26, 2007) (given to
    author by Kelly Mack, Program Manager, CWLA, on March 20, 2007).

[^433]: Child Welfare League of America, *Statement of the Child Welfare
    League of America Submitted to the Senate Finance Committee on the
    Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead for America's Child Welfare
    System*, May 10, 2006, available at
    <http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/financingtestimony060510.htm> (viewed
    on May 8, 2007).

[^434]: Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, *Fostering the
    Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster
    Care: Executive Summary*, at 16 (2004).

[^435]: Visit Chapin Hall's Web site at
    <http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355> for full
    access to all of the reports pertaining to this study.

[^436]: Peter J. Pecora et al., *Assessing the Effects of Foster Care:
    Early Results from the Casey National Alumni Study*, Casey Family
    Programs, 2003, available at
    <http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/4E1E7C77-7624-4260-A253-892C5A6CB9E1/923/CaseyAlumniStudyupdated082006.pdf>
    (viewed on February 22, 2007).

[^437]: William C. Vickrey, Editorial, *A better life for foster youth*,
    San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2005, at B-9, available at
    [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a\
    /2005/05/18/EDGHUCQLRB1.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/18/EDGHUCQLRB1.DTL)
    (viewed on March 12, 2007).

[^438]: Telephone Interview with Ruth Santner, Reintegration/Foster Care
    Program Manager, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative
    Services, Children and Family Services (January 17, 2007).

[^439]: Jennifer Macomber et al., *Leveraging Child Welfare
    Administrative Data: Making Links to Court, Employment, Vital
    Statistics, and Recruitment Program Data* (unpublished
    presentation), The Urban Institute (2006) (Presented at the National
    Child Welfare Data and Technology Conference, July 19, 2006; cited
    with permission from the author).

[^440]: Utah Department of Human Services, *Assessing Outcomes of Youth
    Transitioning from Foster Care*, October 2006, available at
    [http://www.hs.utah.gov/pdf/Assessing\
    OutcomesofYouth_oct%203.pdf](http://www.hs.utah.gov/pdf/AssessingOutcomesofYouth_oct 3.pdf)
    (viewed on June 11, 2007).

[^441]: Kathleen McNaught, *Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality
    and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children
    in Foster Care*, American Bar Association Center on Children and the
    Law, at 6 (January 2007).

[^442]: United States Department of Education, Family Educational Rights
    and Privacy Act (FERPA), at
    <http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html> (viewed on
    April 25, 2007).

[^443]: Kathleen McNaught, *Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality
    and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children
    in Foster Care*, American Bar Association Center on Children and the
    Law, at 24 (January 2007).

[^444]: United States Department of Education, Family Educational Rights
    and Privacy Act (FERPA), at
    <http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html> (viewed on
    April 25, 2007).

[^445]: *Id.*

[^446]: Kathleen McNaught, *Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality
    and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children
    in Foster Care*, American Bar Association Center on Children and the
    Law, at 29--30 (January 2007).

[^447]: Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
    Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).

[^448]: *Id.*

[^449]: Kathleen McNaught, *Mythbusting: Breaking Down Confidentiality
    and Decision-Making Barriers to Meet the Education Needs of Children
    in Foster Care*, American Bar Association Center on Children and the
    Law, at 43 (January 2007).

[^450]: *Id.*