Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1402–1414 | Cite as

Youth Subgroups who Receive John F. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Services

  • Ka Ho Brian Chor
  • Hanno Petras
  • Alfred G. Pérez
Original Paper


To date over two billion dollars have been invested in the John F. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) to help youth who are transitioning out of foster care to achieve self-sufficiency through an array of independent living services. Although states are required to report CFCIP service provision to the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), the degree of heterogeneity of the aging out population from the service receipt perspective and state implementation is unknown. The CFCIP calls for a deeper understanding of the underlying patterns of services receipt to prepare for youth’s successful transition to adulthood. Based on the population of 68,057 first-time youth who received CFCIP services in FY2011-FY2013 from the NYTD, we used multi-level latent class analysis (MLCA) to identify underlying combinations of service receipt that may be influenced by youth-level and state-level characteristics. We identified the most preferred model based on interpretability, fit statistics, and split-half replication. The optimal model was a three-class, MLCA solution characterized by a high-service receipt profile, an independent living assessment and academic support receipt profile, and a limited service receipt profile. Among male and female youth, age, education level, and whether states serve youth aged 18 or above were significant characteristics associated with LCA profile membership. States could benefit from understanding existing service receipt patterns and gaps to optimize decisions on service delivery in order to meet youth needs and to identify specific services that may prepare youth aging out of foster care towards positive outcomes.


Foster care Transitional age youth Aging out of care Independent living services Latent class analysis Child welfare policy 



The authors would like to thank the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) Summer Research Institute’s staff and faculty for their assistance with the NYTD data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The authors received permission from the NDACAN to use the NYTD data. This study does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Addressing racial disproportionality in child welfare. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.Google Scholar
  3. Congressional Research Service. (2016). Youth transitioninng from foster care: Background and federal programs. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, R. J. (1994). Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their future? Children and Youth Services Review, 16(3), 213–229. Scholar
  5. Courtney, M. E., Charles, P., Okpych, N. J., & Halsted, K. (2014). California youth transitions to adulthood study (CalYOUTH): Baseline youth report. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.Google Scholar
  6. Courtney, M. E., Hook, J. L., & Lee, J. S. (2010). Distinct subgroups of former foster youth during young adulthood: Implications for policy and practice. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Courtney, M. E., Lee, J., & Perez, A. (2011). Receipt of help acquiring life skills and predictors of help receipt among current and former foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(12), 2442–2451. Scholar
  8. Courtney, M. E., Terao, S., & Bost, N. (2004). Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Dworsky, A., & Havlicek, J. (2009). Review of state policies and programs to support young people transitioning out of foster care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Festinger, T. (1983). No one ever asked us… A postscrpit to foster care. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hagenaars, J. A. & McCutcheon, A. L. (Eds.) (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Henry, K. L., & Muthén, B. (2010). Multilevel latent class analysis: An application of adolescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 193–215. Scholar
  13. Jones, L. P. (2014). Former foster youths perspectives on independent living preparation: Six months after discharge. Child Welfare, 93(1), 99–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, C. C., & Courtney, M. E. (2015). Evaluating the self-expressed unmet needs of emancipated foster youth over time. Children and Youth Services Review, 57, 9–18. Scholar
  15. Keller, T. E., Cusick, G. R., & Courtney, M. E. (2007). Approaching the transition to adulthood: Distinctive profiles of adolescents aging out of the child welfare system. Social Service Review, 81(3), 453–484. Scholar
  16. Lee, J. S., Courtney, M. E., & Hook, J. L. (2012). Formal bonds during the transition to adulthood: Extended foster care support and criminal/legal involvement. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 6(3), 255–279. Scholar
  17. Little, R. J. A. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(431), 1112–1121. Scholar
  18. Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods 2, (551–611). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Masyn, K. E., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2010). Exploring the latent structures of psychological constructs in social development using the dimensional–categorical spectrum. Social Development, 19(3), 470–493. Scholar
  20. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDaniel, M., Courtney, M. E., Pegamit, M. R., & Lowenstein, C. (2014). Preparing for a “next generaion” evaluation of independent living programs for youth in foster care: Project overview OPRE Report # 2014-71. Washingon, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluatoin, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  22. Muthén, B., & Shedden, K. (1999). Finite mixture modeling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics, 55(2), 463–469. Scholar
  23. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012.). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh edition Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  24. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015). Extending foster care beyond age 18: Extending foster care policy toolkit—Paper 1 of 5. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
  25. National Data Archives on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2016). National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD): Services file user’s guide. Ithaca, NY: National Data Archives onChild Abuse and Neglect.Google Scholar
  26. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. Scholar
  27. Okpych, N. J. (2015). Receipt of independent living services among older youth in foster care: An analysis of national data from the U.S. Children and Youth Services Review, 51, 74–86. Scholar
  28. Reilly, T. (2003). Transition from care: Status and outcomes of youth who age out of foster care. Child Welfare, 82(6), 727–746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. Scholar
  30. Shpiegel, S., & Cascardi, M. (2015). Adolescent parents in the first wave of the National Youth in Transition Database. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 9(3), 277–298. Scholar
  31. Shpiegel, S., & Ocasio, K. (2015). Functioning patterns among older adolescents in foster care: Results from a cluster analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 58, 227–235. Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016a). AFCARS Reports. Adoption & Foster Care Statistics.
  33. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016b). HHS FY 2017 Budget in Brief—ACF—Mandatory. ACF Budget Overview.
  34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). Child welfare policy manual: 3.1B TITLE IV-E, independent living, certifications and requirements, age.
  35. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Foster care - Effectiveness of independent living services unknown: Report to The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives (GAO/HEHS-00-13). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  36. Vermunt, J. K. (2003). Multilevel latent class models. Sociological Methodology, 33(1), 213–239. Scholar
  37. Yates, T. M., & Grey, I. K. (2012). Adapting to aging out: Profiles of risk and resilience among emancipated foster youth. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 475–492. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chapin Hall at the University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.American Institutes for ResearchWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.California State University StanislausTurlockUSA

Personalised recommendations