The economic self-sufficiency of Wisconsin's former foster youth

27 (2005) 1085ndash1118

wwwelseviercomlocatechildyouth

The economic self-sufficiency of Wisconsinrsquos

former foster youth

Amy DworskyT

Chapin Hall Center for Children University of Chicago 1313 East 60th Street Chicago

Illinois 60637 United States

Received 6 November 2004 received in revised form 19 December 2004 accepted 22 December 2004

Available online 17 February 2005

Abstract

This study uses administrative data to examine the self-sufficiency of 8511 former foster youth

who were discharged from Wisconsinrsquos out-of-home care system between 1992 and 1998 and were

at least 16 years old at the time they were discharged Three indicators of self-sufficiency were

measured employment earnings and public assistance receipt The youth were followed from the

quarter in which they were discharged through the fourth quarter of 2000 Most were employed in at

least one of the first eight quarters after their discharge but relatively few had earnings in all eight

Quarterly earnings increased over time but remained very low Earnings were still below the poverty

threshold even eight years post-discharge Nearly one fifth of the youth received AFDCTANF cash

assistance in at least one of their first eight quarters after their discharge and nearly one third

received food stamps Implementation of welfare reform was associated with a reduction in public

assistance receipt although other economic factors are also likely to have contributed to this

downward trend Relationships between these outcome measures and both the demographic

characteristics and out-of-home care experiences of these former foster youth were examined using

multivariate statistical techniques The policy and practice implications of the findings are discussed

D 2005 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Keywords Economic self-sufficiency Former foster youth Wisconsin

0190-7409$ -

doi101016j

T Tel +1 77

E-mail add

Children and Youth Services Review

see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

childyouth200412032

3 256 5164

ress adworskychapinhallorg

A Dworsky Children and Youth Services Review 27 (2005) 1085ndash11181086

1 Introduction

Approximately 20000 foster youth bage outQ of care each year (US Department of

Health and Human Services 1999) These foster youth include both those who entered as

young children and grew up in care as well as those who did not enter care until adolescence

In fact youth who entered care after their thirteenth birthday comprise a majority of those

who eventually age out (US Department of Health and Human Services 2002)1

Regardless of the age at which they entered care the transition to independent young

adulthood is not an easy one No longer wards of the state yet unable to turn to their

parents or other family members for financial andor emotional support many of these

foster youth must make the transition to young adulthood largely on their own Nor can

they count on the state for continuing support once they have been discharged from

care2

Several studies have examined the outcomes of this transition by interviewing samples

of foster youth after they aged out Although such studies are relatively few in number

their findings are consistent as well as troubling Not only does this research suggest that

former foster youth are likely to experience problems across a variety of domains but also

that they are often not prepared to live independently as self-sufficient young adults

According to these studies many foster youth do not graduate from high school before

or after they age out (Barth 1990 Cook Fleishman amp Grimes 1991 Courtney Piliavin

Grogan-Kaylor amp Nesmith 2001 Festinger 1983 Jones amp Moses 1984) When they are

employed their earnings tend to be low (Barth 1990 Cook et al 1991 Courtney et al

2001 Festinger 1983) It is not uncommon for former foster youth to receive means-tested

welfare benefits such as AFDCTANF food stamps andor Medicaid (Barth 1990 Cook

et al 1991 Courtney et al 2001 Festinger 1983 Jones amp Moses 1984) or to depend on

less formal assistance from friends or family (Cook et al 1991 Courtney et al 2001

Jones amp Moses 1984) Finally these studies indicate that former foster youth are at high

risk of housing instability and even homelessness (Barth 1990 Cook et al 1991

Courtney et al 2001 Festinger 1983)

Unfortunately this research also suffers from two major limitations First only one of

the aforementioned studies (ie Courtney et al 2001) involved former foster youth who

had been in care after the federal Title IV-E Independent Living Program was fully

implemented (Courtney amp Barth 1996 Courtney et al 2001 McDonald Allen

Westerfelt amp Piliavin 1996)3 Second most of the studies have methodological problems

including small non-random samples and sample attrition (Courtney et al 2001

Maluccio amp Fein 1985 McDonald et al 1996) that raise questions about the validity and

generalizability of their results

1 Forty-five states and the District of Columbia provided sufficient data to examine whether foster youth who

aged out of care had entered care before or after their thirteenth birthday (US Department of Health and Human

Services 2002) Wisconsin which was among those 45 states reported that 85 of the foster youth who aged out

of care in 1999 were at least 13 years old when they entered care2 Recent changes in federal legislation have the potential to increase the availability of after-care services for

former foster youth These changes are discussed below3 Even the study by Cook et al which was ostensibly an evaluation of the Title IV-E Independent Living

Program involved foster youth who were discharged from care just as that program was being implemented

A Dworsky Children and Youth Services Review 27 (2005) 1085ndash1118 1087

One way to avoid some of these methodological problems is to use administrative

data4 Because this approach is far less expensive and time-consuming than conducting

interviews sample size is usually not an issue when administrative data are used

Administrative data are also conducive to following former foster youth over time

without significant sample attrition Such an approach would also be consistent with the

growing use of administrative data in other child welfare research on out-of-home care5

The primary drawback of this approach is that administrative data are collected to meet

accountability and internal monitoring needs and hence may be less than ideal for

answering questions of interest to researchers (Courtney amp Collins 1994 Goerge

1997)

An early example of this approach was study of public assistance receipt among

youth discharged to independent living from New York Cityrsquos child welfare system

Pettiford (1981) compared the September 1980 public assistance rolls for both AFDC

and Home Relief cases in New York City to a list of all New York City foster youth

discharged to independent living between June 1979 and June 1980 in order to estimate

the percentage of former foster youth who had received public assistance since their

discharge from care6

More recently researchers at Chapin Hall Center for Children examined labor market

outcomes of foster youth from California Illinois and South Carolina who aged out of

care during the year they turned 18 (Goerge et al 2002) The study covered a period of

13 quarters the four quarters prior to their 18th birthday the quarter in which they

turned 18 and the eight quarters following their 18th birthday No more than 45 of the

foster youth in any of the three states had earnings in a given quarter while between

14 and 30 had no earnings in any of the 13 quarters Mean quarterly earnings rose

approximately $500 over the 13 quarters but remained very low (ie $1089ndash1364) The

researchers also found that these foster youth were more likely to have been employed

but earned significantly less than foster youth who had been reunified within four years

of their 18th birthday7

The purpose of this study is to examine the self-sufficiency of former foster youth

who were at least 16 years old when they were discharged from Wisconsinrsquos out-of-

home care system Although it is similar to the Chapin Hall study in its exclusive

reliance on administrative data it differs from that study in two important respects First

the sample includes former foster youth who experienced discharge outcomes other than

4 Administrative records have sometimes been used to identify the sample of youth to be interviewed or to

obtain case history information such as reason for and type of out-of-home care placement5 For example researchers have used administrative data to study foster care exits and re-entries (eg Courtney

1994 1995 Courtney Piliavin amp Wright 1997 Goerge 1990 Wulczyn 1991) to compare kinship and non-

relative foster care (eg Barth Courtney Berrick amp Albert 1994 Courtney amp Needell 1997 Testa 1997) and

to examine the relationship between race and length of stay in care (eg Goerge 1990 McMurtry amp Lie 1992)6 A major limitation of this study is that former foster youth who received public assistance elsewhere in New

York or in other states were not counted as recipients7 Illinois youth who aged out of care were no more likely to have been employed than Illinois youth who were

reunified when a multivariate model was used


aging out and reunification (ie running away institutionalization relative placement or

adoption) Second it looks not only at labor market outcomes but also public assistance

receipt

2 Methodology

This research is based on state administrative data from three different sources

21 Human services reporting system (HSRS)

This state-wide human services data collection system contains a Substitute Care

Module that provides individual level data about all of the children who are placed in

Wisconsinrsquos out-of-home care system including information about their demographic

characteristics (eg gender birth date raceethnicity) and out-of-home care experiences

(eg entry and exit dates placement type discharge outcome)

22 Client assistance and re-employment support (CARES)8

This state-wide public assistance data collection system contains client-specific

information about program participation and benefits provided to low-income individuals

and families including AFDCTANF food stamps and child care assistance9

23 Unemployment insurance (UI) wage reporting system

This database contains quarterly wage records for all employees in Wisconsin who are

covered under the statersquos unemployment insurance laws10 Every quarter employers are

mandated to report the total amount of wages paid to each employee in a covered job

Each record contains the employeersquos social security number the employerrsquos identification

number the quarter in which the wages were paid and the total amount of wages paid

during that quarter

24 Sample selection

The Substitute Care Module of the Human Services Reporting System (HSRS) was

used to identify foster youth who were discharged from Wisconsinrsquos out-of-home care

system between January 1 1992 and December 31 1998 and who were at least 16 years

8 Prior to 1995 the statersquos public assistance data collection system was the Computer Reporting Network

(CRN)9 Because CARES tracks Medicaid eligibility but not Medicaid claims it provides no information about the

receipt of Medicaid benefits10 Approximately 94 of Wisconsin workers are engaged in covered employment (Terry Ludeman Wisconsin

Department of Workforce Development personal communication June 10 2002)


old on the date of their discharge A total of 10183 foster youth met these selection

criteria11 However the results presented below include only the 8511 foster youth or

787 of the total sample for whom valid social security numbers could be identified

This restriction was necessary because social security numbers were used to link the HSRS

data to both the CARES and UI data12

Because the CARES and UI data were only available through the end of calendar year

2000 the observation period ranged from as few as eight quarters for those who were

discharged in the fourth quarter of 1998 to as many as 36 quarters for those who were

discharged in the first quarter of 1992 Thus the analyses were limited to the first eight

post-discharge quartersmdashie the maximum number of quarters for which all of the former

foster youth were observed13 All of the dollar values reported below were converted to

2000 dollars using the Consumer Price Index

3 Demographic characteristics and out-of-home care experiences of former foster

youth

The demographic characteristics and out-of-home care experiences of the 8511 former

foster youth whose outcomes were examined are summarized in Table 1

This sample of former foster youth is predominantly White and males outnumber

females by a ratio of nearly three to two Although Milwaukee County accounted for

a disproportionate share of Wisconsinrsquos out-of-home care caseload throughout the

1990rsquos only 20 of these former foster youth had been in Milwaukee Countyrsquos

care14

The mean age at most recent entry was between 15 and 16 years old but the

distribution was highly skewed Only 26 were 12 years old or younger when they last

entered care compared to 896 who were at least 15 years old15 This most recent out-of-

home care entry was also the first entry for a majority of these former foster youth Forty-

12 The implications of this restriction are discussed below13 The quarter in which foster youth were discharged was treated as the first post-discharge quarter if the

discharge date was between the first day of the first month and the fifteenth day of the second month in that

quarter The quarter in which foster youth were discharged was ignored and the following quarter was treated as

the first post-discharge quarter if the discharge date was between the sixteenth day of the second month and the

last day of the third month in that quarter Discharge cohort refers to all of the former foster youth who had been

discharged in a particular year14 In 1999 Milwaukee County accounted for 173 of Wisconsin residents under age 18 (US Census Bureau

2000) but was responsible for 553 of the statersquos out-of-home care caseload on December 31st of that year

(Courtney amp Dworsky 2001)15 Although young children ages birth to five years old account for an increasing percentage of the children

entering out-of-home care (Goerge Wulczyn amp Harden 1997) 29 of the children who entered care in 1999

were ages 11ndash15 and 11 were ages 16ndash18 (US Department of Health and Human Services 2002) In

Wisconsin adolescents accounted for an even higher percentage of the 1999 entry cohort 411 were 11ndash15

years old and 153 were 16ndash18 years old (US Department of Health and Human Services 2002)

11 This does not include the 21 foster youth who were transferred to a private child welfare agency or the seven

foster youth who died while in out-of-home care

Table 1

Demographic characteristics and out-of-home care experiences of former foster youth (N=8511)

Frequency Percentage

Gender

Female 3487 4097

Male 5021 5899

Missing 3 004

RaceEthnicity

African American 1669 1961

White 6034 7090

Native American 297 349

Asian 159 187

Hispanic 270 317

Missing 82 096

Adjudicated status at most recent out-of-home care entry

CHIPSmdashabuse andor neglect 1322 1553

CHIPSmdashother 1971 2316

Delinquent 4625 5434

JIPS-status offender 309 363

Voluntary placement 284 334

Placement type prior to discharge

Foster home 4465 5246

Group home 2297 2699

Child caring institution 1749 2055

County responsible for the provision of out-of-home care services

Milwaukee 1733 2036

All other counties 6778 7964

Discharge outcome

Reunified 4886 5741

Placed with relatives 381 448

Adopted 63 074

Reached age of majority or completed education 1514 1779

Discharged to independent living 373 438

Ran away 628 738

Transferred to institutional setting (eg correctional facility psychiatric hospital) 666 783

Exit year

1992 1157 1359

1993 1180 1386

1994 1149 1350

1995 1242 1459

1996 1277 1500

1997 1264 1485

1998 1242 1459

Pre-discharge employment

Employed in at least one of the four quarters prior to discharge 4445 522

Employed in quarter prior to discharge 3085 362


Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean

Age at most recent entry 160 156

Age at first entry 150 147

Age at discharge 170 168

Number of placements during the most recent episode 10 14

Cumulative number of placements 20 24

Cumulative number of episodes 10 18

Number of months in care during the most recent episode 86 139

Cumulative number of months in care 128 202


nine percent had experienced at least one prior episode of out-of-home care compared to

59 who had not16

Given the age at which these former foster youth entered their most recent episode of out-

of-home care it should not be surprising that more than half had been adjudicated delinquent

compared to 39 who had been adjudicated children in need of protection (CHIPS)17

A majority of these former foster youth had spent less than 12 months in out-of-home

care since their most recent entry and nearly half had spent less than 12 months in out-of-

home care altogether18 Most had experienced only one placement during their most recent

episode and two thirds had experienced fewer than three placements when all of their out-

of-home care episodes were taken into account19

Most of these youth were discharged prior to their 18th birthday and more than half

had been living in a foster home prior to discharge20 The most common discharge

outcomes for these former foster youth were reunification and relative placement followed

by aging out and discharge to independent living

Finally more than half of these former foster youth were employed in at least one of the

four quarters prior to their discharge and more than one third were employed in the quarter

immediately before they left care

4 Labor market outcomes Employment and earnings

Eighty percent of these former foster youth were employed in at least one of the first

eight quarters after their discharge and there was relatively little variation in this

percentage over time (Table 2)

17 Only 7 had been adjudicated status offendersjuveniles in need of protection (JIPS) or placed voluntarily

The HSRS code for adjudicated status was missing for one youth

19 Throughout this paper episode refers to an uninterrupted period in out-of-home care placement refers to each

distinct period of time in a given type of foster home or other out-of-home care setting Youth can experience

multiple placements during a single episode as well as multiple episodes over time20 Although most Wisconsin foster youth age out at the statutorily defined age of 18 years old some are 19 or 20

years old Youth can also be discharged to independent living before their eighteenth birthday

16 More specifically 233 had experienced one prior episode 149 had experienced two or three and 41

had experienced four or more This also explains why the distribution of age at first entry into out-of-home care

was still highly skewed 695 of these former foster youth were at least 15 years old when they first entered out-

of-home care 207 were 13 or 14 years old and 118 were 12 years old or younger

18 Because total length of stay in care ranged from less than 12months (473) to 60months or more (57) all of

the multivariate analyses include cumulative number of months in out-of-home care since first entry as a covariate

Table 2

Employment during the first eight post-discharge quarters by discharge cohort (N=8511)

Discharge Year Percentage employed in at least one quarter

1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800


There was a small but statistically significant gender difference in employment at the

bivariate level 825 of the females and 783 of the males were employed in at least one

of the first eight quarters after their discharge These former foster youth were employed in

a mean of 37 of the first eight quarters after their discharge excluding the 1702 former

foster youth who were never employed increases the mean to 47 (Table 3)

However the number of quarters in which former foster youth were employed each

year did not appear to increase with time since discharge (Table 4)

Mean and median earnings for the first eight post-discharge quarters were $5170 and

$2322 respectively (Table 5) Although excluding those former foster youth who were not

employed in any of their first eight post-discharge quarters increases mean earnings to

$6463 and median earnings to $3709 this is still substantially less than a full-time

minimum wage worker would have earned over the same eight quarters21 In fact their

total earnings for that two year period were below the poverty threshold for a household of

one in a single year for every year between 1992 when that threshold was $7299 to 2000

when that threshold was $895922

Although previous studies have found higher earnings among male than female former

foster youth (Cook et al 1991 Courtney et al 2001) the females in this sample earned

significantly more during their first eight post-discharge quarters (mean=$5495

median=$2746) than the males (mean=$4945 median=$2026) at the bivariate level

However this difference disappeared when the comparison was limited to those who were

employed Among those former foster youth females earned a mean of $6663 and a

median of $3985 during their first eight post-discharge quarters males earned a mean of

$6043 and a median of $348423

The earnings of these former foster youth did increase over time Nevertheless they

remained very low Indeed mean and median earnings for four quarters were still below

the poverty threshold even eight years post-discharge (Table 6)

21 A full-time minimum wage worker would earn a total of $9373 per year given the current minimum wage of

$515 per h and assuming 35 h of work per week Even at the lower minimum hourly wage of $425 that was in

effect prior to August 1996 a full-time minimum wage worker would have earned a total of $773522 In determining whether these former foster youth should be categorized as poor one would take not only their

earnings but also other sources of income into account23 Again this difference could reflect the fact that previous studies would have captured earnings from jobs not

covered under the statersquos UI laws

Table 3

Number of quarters with earnings during the first eight post-discharge quarters

Number of quarters N Percentage of Sample Percentage of Employed

0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000


Although the labor market outcomes of these former foster youth were generally

poor there was a considerable amount of variation among sample members with

different demographic and out-of-home care history characteristics This variation was

examined using two multivariate techniques Table 7 shows the parameter estimates

from two Cox proportional hazard models in which the dependent variable was the first

post-discharge quarter in which former foster youth were employed The hazard can be

thought of as the instantaneous risk that an event will occur at a particular time given

that the event has not already occurred Hazard models allow for censored observations

that do not experience the event (Allison 1984 1995) and that they can incorporate

covariates whose values change over time24 The most common hazard model the Cox

proportional hazard is a semi-parametric model that does not require specification of a

baseline hazard function Rather it assumes that hazard ratios remain constant (ie

proportional) over time25 The Cox proportional hazard model is particularly appropriate if

one is interested in the effects of explanatory factors on the baseline hazard (Allison 1984

1995) The two models were identical except that the second included a time-varying

covariate equal to zero if the quarter preceded implementation of the statersquos TANF

program in September 1997 and to one if the quarter followed TANF implementation26

Former foster youth whose first employment was not observed were treated as censored

cases27

24 Technically such an observation is said to be right-censored That is the observation period ends before the

event can occur An observation is said to be left-censored if there is a risk of experiencing the event before the

observation period begins25 For additional information about the Cox proportional hazard model see Allison (1984) or Yamaguchi

(1991) Although the model also assumes that the effects of the covariates are time invariant interactions between

time and any of the covariates can be incorporated into the model by including additional terms (Allison 1984

1995)26 The third quarter of 1997 was treated as a bbefore-TANFQ quarter27 Parameter estimates for continuous variables can be interpreted as the effect of a unit change in the covariate

on the log of the hazard controlling for all of the other covariates in the model Parameter estimates for

dichotomous variables can be thought of as the difference between the log of the hazard for the group whose

value is one and the log of the hazard for the group whose value is zero (Yamaguchi 1991)

Table 4

Number of quarters with earnings in each post-discharge year

Full sample Employed in at least one post-discharge quarter

Post-discharge year Na Mean Median Na Mean Median

First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30

a Because former foster youth were not observed for the same number of post-discharge quarters the number of

observations gradually declines after the first two years


All else being equal being employed prior to discharge and being discharged at an

older age were associated with an increased hazard of becoming employed28 Conversely

being male being non-White (but not Asian) being adjudicated CHIPS for reasons other

than abuse or neglect or being placed voluntarily and experiencing a discharge outcome

other than reunification relative placement or adoption were associated with a decreased

hazard of becoming employed However there was no relationship between the hazard of

first employment and TANF implementation

Table 8 shows the parameter estimates from a tobit model in which the dependent

variable was total earnings for the first eight post-discharge quarters29 The tobit model

was appropriate in this case because a significant minority of these former foster youth had

zero earnings during their first eight post-discharge quarters and hence the distribution of

the dependent variable was highly skewed30

All else being equal being employed prior to discharge being discharged at an older

age and belonging to a later discharge cohort were associated with an increase in total

earnings for the first eight post-discharge quarters Conversely being African American

or Hispanic being placed voluntarily and running away or being transferred to an

29 The parameter estimates in Table 8 are not as directly interpretable as parameter estimates from an ordinary

least squares regression See Roncek (1992) for a discussion of how the effects of the independent variables on

the dependent variable can be calculated30 Tobit models are often used with censored samples where only limited information is known about the value

of the dependent variable for sample members whose value on that dependent variable is above or below some

threshold In this case where the threshold is a lower limit the sample is said to be censored from below If the

threshold is an upper limit the sample is said to be censored from above The tobit model is also related to the

two-equation sample selection model in that the latter reduces to a single equation if the same process which

determines the value of the dependent variable also determines whether the dependent variable exceeds the

threshold that must be exceeded for it to be observed (Berk amp Ray 1982) In fact when these data were analyzed

using a sample selection model with a selection equation that predicted the probability of being employed and a

substantive equation that predicted earnings among former foster youth who were employed the results were

generally consistent with those shown in Table 8 and are available from the author upon request For additional

information about tobit models see Breen (1996) and Long (1997)

28 The relationship between pre- and post-discharge employment could reflect unobserved differences between

former foster youth who had been employed prior to discharge and former foster youth who had not

Table 5

Total earnings for the first eight post-discharge quarters

Full sample Employed in at least one of the

first eight post-discharge quarters

N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463

Standard Deviation 8188 8686


institution setting were associated with a decrease in total earnings for the first eight

post-discharge quarters

5 Public assistance receipt

Nearly 17 of these former foster youth were recipients of AFDCTANF cash

assistance and nearly a third were food stamp recipients in at least one of the first eight

quarters after their discharge (Table 9)31

Not surprisingly given that single mother families have long comprised the majority of

AFDCTANF caseloads receipt of AFDCTANF cash assistance was nearly three times

higher among females (269) than among males (95) It is possible that a smaller

gender difference would have been observed if receipt of Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) by former foster youth with disabilities had also been included in the measure

because eligibility for SSI is not limited to those caring for dependent children Although

the gender difference was not as large food stamp receipt was 17 times higher among

females (434) than among males (252) To some extent this probably reflects the fact

that the rules regarding food stamp receipt are more stringent for able-bodied adults

without dependent children32

The sample mean for months of AFDCTANF cash assistance receipt during the first

eight post-discharge quarters was 137 for months of food stamp receipt it was 28 When

the analysis is limited to those former foster youth who received benefits these means

increase to 825 and 85 respectively (Table 10)33

The variation in public assistance receipt among these former foster youth was analyzed

using the same multivariate techniques that were used to analyze the variation in labor

31 To be counted as an AFDCTANF cash assistance or food stamp recipient former foster youth had to be

identified as the head of an AFDCTANF or food stamp case between January 1 1992 and December 31 2000

Former foster youth who were only dependents on the case of a parent or other individual would not have been

counted as recipients32 Under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act able-bodied adults

without dependents were eligible for food stamps in only three months during any 36 month period unless the

able-bodied adult without dependent children is working or participating in a training program for at least 20 h per

week33 These figures do not include months in which former foster youth participated in Wisconsinrsquos TANF program

but were not eligible for a monthly cash payment or in which they received no benefits because of sanctions for

non-compliance with work or other requirements

Table 6

Total earnings by post-discharge year

Post-discharge year All former foster youth Former foster youth with post-discharge employment

Na Median Mean Na Median Mean

First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388




market outcomes Table 11 shows the parameter estimates from two pairs of Cox

proportional hazard models in which the dependent variable was the first post-discharge

quarter of public assistance receipt The first pair modeled the hazard of AFDCTANF

cash assistance receipt the second pair modeled the hazard of food stamp receipt The two

models in each pair are identical except that the second includes a time-varying covariate

equal to zero if the quarter preceded implementation of the statersquos TANF program in

September 1997 and one if the quarter followed TANF implementation34 Former foster

youth who did not receive public assistance during the observation period are treated as

censored cases

Being non-White receiving services from Milwaukee County and being discharged

from a foster or group home were associated with an increased hazard of receiving AFDC

TANF Conversely being male being adjudicated CHIPS being transferred to an

institutional setting being in care longer being discharged at an older age and being

discharged after 1993 were associated with a decreased hazard of receiving AFDCTANF

Although TANF implementation was also associated with a decreased hazard of receiving

AFDCTANF all of the other relationships remained significant when this time-varying

covariate was added to the model Not only is this finding consistent with the reduction in

AFDCTANF caseloads discussed above but in addition it seems reasonable given the

TANF programrsquos more stringent work requirements It is also worth noting that although

pre-discharge employment was strongly related to employment and earnings it was not

related to public assistance receipt in any of the models

Many of these same relationships were observed when dependent variable was food

stamp receipt Being non-White receiving services from Milwaukee County being

discharged from a foster home and experiencing more placements were associated with an

increased hazard of receiving food stamps Conversely being male being transferred to an

institutional setting aging out or being discharged to independent living being in care

longer and being discharged after 1994 were associated with a decreased hazard of

receiving food stamps Although adding the time-varying covariate to the model did not

change these results the relationship between TANF implementation and food stamp

34 The third quarter of 1997 was treated as a bbefore-TANFQ quarter

Table 7

Parameter estimates from Cox proportional hazard model predicting the first quarter of post-discharge

employment (N=8511)

Covariates Beta coefficients

Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White

County providing services

Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status

CHIPSmdashabuseneglect 0309 0311




Delinquent




Child caring institution

Discharge outcome

Aged out or discharged to independent living 0849 0847

Ran away 2312 2311

Transferred to other state institution 2537 2539

Reunification relative placement or adoption

Total number of episodes 0033 0030

Total number of placements 0012 0014

Total number of months in care 0007 0007

Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992

Age at discharge in years 0595 0593

Pre-discharge employment 7922 7927

TANF implementation 0437

2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8

Parameter estimates from tobit model predicting total earnings during the first eight post-discharge quarters

(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity

African American 380122

Native American 66551

Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status

CHIPSmdashabuseneglect 32320

CHIPSmdashother 44842

JIPS-status offender 31351

Voluntary placement 140521

Delinquent

Placement type at discharge

Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome

Aged out or discharged to independent living 16772

Ran away 193444

Transferred to other state institution 198503


Total number of episodes 16023

Total number of placements 15083

Total number of months in care 527

Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992

Age at discharge in years 159208

Pre-discharge employment 617434

Log likelihood 7276499

p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9

Receipt of public assistance benefits during the first eight post discharge quarters (N=8511)


Received AFDCTANF cash assistance 1414 166

Received food stamps 2779 327

Received AFDCTANF cash assistance andor food stamps 2925 344


receipt was significant and positive (in contrast to the significant but negative coefficient

in the AFDCTANF model) This means that TANF implementation was associated with

an increase in the hazard of receiving food stamps While other studies have found a

reduction in food stamp caseloads following TANF implementation (Rosso 2001 US

General Accounting Office 1999a Wilde Cook Gundersen Nord amp Tiehen 2000

Zedlewski amp Brauner 1999) the positive coefficient in this model could reflect an

increasing reliance on food stamps rather than cash assistance to help make ends meet

since Wisconsinrsquos TANF program was implemented3536 It also reflects the fact that food

stamp receipt was twice as high as AFDCTANF receipt

Table 12 shows the parameter estimates from two tobit models in which the dependent

variable was the number of months in which these former foster youth received public

assistance during their first eight post-discharge quarters The tobit model was appropriate

in this case because the median number of months in which these former foster youth

received public assistance was zero and hence the distribution of the outcome variable

was highly skewed particularly in the case of AFDCTANF receipt37


from a foster or group home were associated with an increase in the number of months in

which former foster youth received AFDCTANF Conversely being male being

transferred to an institutional setting being discharged at an older age and being

discharged after 1995 were associated with a decrease in the number of months in which

former foster youth received AFDCTANF

With the exception of being discharged from a group home all of the factors that were

related to the number of months in which former foster youth received AFDCTANF

were also related to the number of months in which former foster youth received food

stamps In addition experiencing more placements was associated with an increase in the

number of months of food stamp receipt while running away from care being in care

35 In fact the decline in food stamp participation was greater in Wisconsin than in any other state (GAO

1999ab) According to an evaluation of Wisconsinrsquos food stamp program by the statersquos Legislative Audit Bureau

there were 147370 fewer food stamp participants in July 1999 than in March 1995mdasha reduction of 452

(Legislative Audit Bureau 2000) However food stamp caseloads were higher in 2000 than in 1999 reversing a

decade long trend (Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 2002c)36 Consistent with this hypothesis nearly twice as many of the former foster youth who were food stamp

recipients first received food stamps after as compared to before TANF was implemented37 These data were also analyzed using a sample selection model with a selection equation that predicted the

probability of receiving public assistance and a substantive equation that predicted the number of months of

benefit receipt among recipients Although the substantive findings were not very different from those presented

here the correlation of one between the error terms in the selection and substantive equations raises questions

about the stability of the parameter estimates The results of these models are available from the author upon

request

Table 10

Number of months of public assistance receipt during the first eight post-discharge quarters

AFDCTANF Food stamps AFDCTANF andor food stamps

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

Standard Deviation 392 597 55 657 572 670


longer and being discharged in 1995 were associated with a decrease in the number of

months of food stamp receipt

6 Welfare reform and public assistance receipt

The years during which these former foster youth were discharged from care coincided

with a series of policy changes that completely transformed welfare in Wisconsin

Beginning in the 1980s the state obtained a total of 11 waivers from the US Department

of Health and Human Services that allowed it to experiment with its welfare program38

By the time the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996 had replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant Wisconsinrsquos cash assistance caseload

had already declined 65 This caseload reduction continued at an accelerated pace after

the statersquos TANF program was implemented in September 1997 and was one of the largest

experienced by any state (US Department of Health and Human Services 2001b)39

Although some of the reduction in Wisconsinrsquos cash assistance caseload can probably

be attributed to the robust economy and low unemployment rate that characterized the late

1990rsquos it seems likely that the reform of Wisconsinrsquos welfare program also played a role40

As in other states cash assistance is time-limited and no longer an entitlement However

Wisconsinrsquos TANF program is decidedly more work-based than the TANF program in any

other state Only participants with significant barriers to employment are eligible for

monthly cash payments and receipt of those payments is contingent upon participation in

assigned community service jobs or other work-related activities41

There is some evidence that the statersquos welfare reforms had an effect on public

assistance receipt among these former foster youth First the percentage of former foster

38 These waivers which included Learnfare Bridefare and Work Not Welfare were made possible by Section

1115 of the Social Security Act Some applied only to select counties or involved a small percentage of the total

AFDC caseload (Corbett 1995)39 Although TANF cash began to rise in 2001 that is beyond this studyrsquos observation period (Wisconsin

Department of Workforce Development 2003)40 For discussions about the relative impacts of welfare reform and economic conditions on caseload reductions

see Blank (2001) Danzinger (1999) and Schott Greenstein and Primus (1999)41 Participants who are deemed job ready are not eligible for cash payments but may receive case management

services as well as food stamps childcare subsidies andor medical assistance Only parents of newborns less than

12 weeks old are exempt from the work requirements

Table 11

Parameter estimates from Cox proportional hazard model predicting the first quarter of public assistance receipt

(N=8511)

Covariates AFDCTANF Food stamps

Model I Model II Model I Model II

Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity

African American 7532 7522 5349 5366

Native American 7096 7116 2887 2876

Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status

CHIPSmdashabuseneglect 1646 1643 0171 0196

CHIPSmdashother 1446 1464 0455 0412

JIPS-status offender 2245 2207 0561 0593

Voluntary placement 0558 0562 1082 1331

Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome

Aged out or discharged to

independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473

Transferred to other state institution 4442 4444 2522 2526

Reunification relative

placement or adoption

Total number of episodes 0285 0286 0213 0207

Total number of placements 0236 0235 0675 0675

Total number of months in care 0039 0039 0050 0050

Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992

Age at discharge in years 2427 2429 0449 0460

Pre-discharge employment 0288 0262 0309 0340

TANF implementation 4050 4583

2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12

Parameter estimates from tobit model predicting the number of months of public assistance receipt during the first

eight post-discharge quarters (N=8511)


Intercept 316037 79091

Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676

Hispanic 41012 29265

Missing 50879 41792

White

County Providing Services

Milwaukee 48110 35916

All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent

Placement Type at Discharge




Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992



Log likelihood 7419012 13514434

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13

Receipt of public assistance benefits during the first eight post discharge quarters by discharge year (N=8511)

Discharge year Received AFDCTANF Received food stamps Received AFDCTANF andor

food stamps

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293


youth who received AFDCTANF during their first eight post-discharge quarters fell with

each succeeding discharge cohort (Table 13)

What makes this trend particularly interesting is that there was little variation in the

percentage of former foster youth who were employed during their first eight post-discharge

quarters over this same period In other words it does not appear that former foster youth

who might otherwise have received public assistance became employed instead

Second beginning with the foster youth who were discharged in 1994 each succeeding

discharge cohort received AFDCTANF in fewer of the first eight quarters after their dis-

charge There was a similar trend in food stamp receipt but it was not monotonic (Table 14)

Third implementation of the statersquos TANF program was associated with a decreased

hazard of receiving AFDCTANFmdashbut an increased hazard of food stamp receipt (See

Table 11) This evidence notwithstanding the extent to which these trends should be

attributed to welfare reform as opposed to a robust economy or the low unemployment rate

remains unclear

7 Summary and discussion of results

The results presented above are based on an analysis of state administrative data for a

sample of 8511 former foster youth who were discharged from Wisconsinrsquos out-of-home

Table 14

Mean number of months of public assistance receipt during the first eight post-discharge quarters by discharge

year (N=8511)

Discharge

year


Full sample Recipients only Full sample Recipients only Full sample Recipients only

1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896


care system between 1992 and 1998 and who were at least 16 years old on the date of

their discharge Like the results of earlier studies they provide ample reason to be

concerned about the economic well-being of youth being discharged from out-of-home

care

71 Employment and earnings

Although the vast majority of these former foster youth were employed in at least one

of the first eight quarters after they were discharged from care most experienced at least

one quarter in which they did not work Even more troubling these former foster youth

earned substantially less during the first eight quarters after their discharge than a full-time

minimum wage worker would have earned over the same period of time Indeed their total

earnings for that two year period were below the poverty threshold for a single year And

while the earnings of these former foster youth did increase over time over time the

increase was not enough to bring them out of poverty even eight years after they had been

discharged from care

In contrast to prior studies which have found either no gender difference in employment

(Courtney et al 2001) or that female former foster youth were less likely to be employed

(Cook et al 1991 Festinger 1983) the likelihood of being employed during the first

eight post-discharge quarters was higher for the females (825) than for the males

(783) among this sample of former foster youth This relationship between gender and

employment was also evident at the multivariate level Being female was associated with

an increased hazard of first becoming employed

There are at least three plausible explanations for this gender beffectQ First it couldreflect differences between the attributes of the male and female former foster youth in this

sample such as differences in educational attainment for which this study did not control

Second it is possible that males were more likely than females to have been engaged in

uncovered employment which the UI data would not have captured42 And third it could

be due to the higher rate of incarceration among male former foster youth reported by

Courtney et al (2001)43

What makes this gender difference in employment particularly interestingly is that

it did not translate into a gender difference in earnings once other factors were

controlled This could reflect the well-documented gap in earnings between men and

women (US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001) That is male

former foster youth may have earned more per hour worked once they became

employed44

Consistent with the well-documented racialethnic gap in employment and earnings

there was a strong relationship between the labor market outcomes of these former foster

43 Alternatively it could be argued that males were more likely to resort to illegal activities because they were

less likely to have been employed44 According to the 1996 Consumer Population Survey median weekly earnings for full-time workers were

$302 among 16ndash24 year old males and $273 among 16ndash24 year old females (US Department of Labor Bureau

of Labor Statistics 1996)

42 This could account for some of the discrepancy between the results of this study and the results of previous

research based on survey data


youth and their raceethnicity45 Regardless of whether the outcome measure was

employment or earnings African American and Latino former foster youth fared more

poorly than their White counterparts

Another strong predictor of labor market outcomes among these former foster youth

was employment prior to discharge Pre-discharge employment was positively related to

both the hazard of becoming employed and to earnings during the first eight post-

discharge quarters What is not clear from these data is whether this beffectQ reflects a

causal relationship It could be that pre-discharge employment was simply a proxy for

some other factor such as motivation for which this study did not control

There was also a relationship between the type of discharge these former foster youth

had experienced and their labor market outcomes It makes sense that being

institutionalized would be associated with less favorable labor market outcomes in that

institutionalization would reduce if not eliminate opportunities for employment

Conversely being reunified placed with relatives or adopted may have been associated

with more favorable labor market outcomes because youth who had experienced one of

those discharge types would have been in a better position to get help from family

members with connections to employers and knowledge about employment opportuni-

ties46 More difficult to explain is why both running away and aging outbeing discharged

to independent living were negatively related to employment but only running away was

negatively related to earnings

Finally the positive relationship between labor market outcomes and age at discharge

could indicate that employers were using age as a proxy for desirable characteristics such

as maturity or reliability It is also possible that older former foster youth were more

mature or more reliable In either case former foster youth who were older when they were

discharged seemed to have less trouble finding employment and employers seemed willing

to pay them more


One third of these former foster youth received either cash assistance or food stamps

during the first eight quarters after their discharge In other words they were discharged

from state care only to become dependent on the state yet again47 However chronic

welfare recipiency was relatively rare Among recipients the mean number of months of

benefit receipt during the first eight post-discharge quarters was between eight and nine

47 Comparing these results to the results of other studies is complicated by the fact that different researchers have

defined bwelfare dependenceQ in different ways

45 For example the 1996 Consumer Population Survey found that that 48 of White 16ndash19 year olds and 73 of

White 20ndash24 year olds in the non-institutionalized civilian labor force were employed compared to 26 of African

American 16ndash19 year olds and 56 of African American 20ndash24 year olds (US Department of Labor Bureau of

Labor Statistics 1997) Median weekly earnings for full-time workers were $295 among Whites who were 16ndash24

year olds and $269 among African Americans who were 16ndash24 year olds (US Department of Labor Bureau of

Labor Statistics 1996)46 However it could also reflect unobserved differences between those foster youth who were reunified placed

with relatives or adopted and those who experienced other discharge outcomes


That there was a strong and consistent relationship between gender and public

assistance receipt was not surprising Only former foster youth caring for dependent

children would have been eligible for AFDCTANF and single mothers with children have

always comprised the overwhelming majority of AFDCTANF caseloads Moreover

although male (as well as female) former foster youth who were not caring for dependent

children would have been eligible for food stamps if their income were sufficiently low

the rules regarding food stamp receipt are more stringent for able-bodied adults without

dependent children48 It is possible that a smaller gender difference would have been

observed if receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) by former foster youth with

disabilities had also been included in the measure because eligibility for SSI is not limited

to those caring for dependent children

The other demographic characteristic related to public assistance receipt was race

ethnicity Being non-White increased the hazard of receiving both cash and food stamp

benefits It was also associated with more months of benefit receipt This relationship

makes sense given that African American and Latino former foster youth experienced less

favorable labor market outcomes

Several factors could explain the positive relationship between public assistance receipt

and being in the care of Milwaukee County One possibility is that the Milwaukee County

youth were not as well prepared for the transition to young adulthood as those who had

been in the care of other counties For example there may have been differences in the

quality of independent living services provided or the percentage of foster youth who

received those services It is also possible that the bdemandQ for public assistance was

greater in Milwaukee County because Milwaukee County had a consistently higher

unemployment rate The problem with this explanation is that there was no relationship

between being in the care of Milwaukee County and labor market outcomes49 Finally

Milwaukee County is one of the few counties in the state where TANF is administered by

private rather than public agencies However it is not clear why this would lead to the

observed relationship Nor would it account for any differences prior to September 1997

when Wisconsin began to implement its TANF program50

The positive relationship between being discharged from a foster or group home and

public assistance receipt might seem counter-intuitive given that youth discharged from

those settings would be less likely to have a disability or behavioral problem than youth

discharged from a child caring institution (CCI) It could reflect the exclusion of

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) a means-tested cash benefit for persons with

disabilities from the outcome measure Alternatively it could be due to differences

between those former foster youth who were discharged from a CCI and those who were

discharged from a foster or group home for which the models did not control For example

48 Under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act able-bodied adults



week49 In every year between 1993 and 2002 the average monthly employment rate was higher in Milwaukee

County than in the state as a whole (Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 2002ab)50 The last two explanations assume that former foster youth who had been in the care of Milwaukee County

remained in Milwaukee County after their discharge and conversely that former foster youth who had been in the

care of other counties did not migrate to Milwaukee County


if incarceration were positively related with being discharged from a CCI but negatively

related with public assistance receipt then public assistance receipt would be negatively

related to being discharged from a CCI51

There were also negative relationships between public assistance receipt and (1) being

transferred to an institutional setting (2) being discharged at an older age and (3) length of

stay in care The first of these relationships probably reflects the fact that former foster

youth would not have been eligible for public assistance while they were institutionalized

The second might be explained by the positive relationship between labor market

outcomes and age at discharge The third could indicate that youth who remain in care

longer have more time to prepare for living independently after their discharge52

73 Impact of welfare reform

Although there was no evidence of a relationship between the labor market outcomes of

these former foster youth and welfare reform the data do suggest that welfare reform did

have an impact on public assistance receipt Specifically the percentage of former foster

youth who received benefits decreased with each successive discharge cohort and

beginning with the 1994 discharge cohort each succeeding discharge cohort received cash

assistance in fewer of the first eight quarters after their discharge53 Moreover in addition

to these cohort effects there was a negative relationship between TANF implementation

and the hazard of first public assistance receipt Just how much of this effect should be

attributed to welfare reform as opposed to other factors such as a robust economy or the

low unemployment rate is not clear

Less expected was the positive relationship between TANF implementation and food

stamp receipt However upon closer examination it appears to reflect the fact that the

number of former foster youth who first received food stamps after TANF implementation

was nearly twice the number who first received food stamps before TANF implementation

8 Study limitations

The limitations of this study and their implications are discussed below Most are

related to the administrative data that were used

81 Measurement of employment and earnings

There are a number of problems with using UI wage reporting data to measure

employment and earnings First the UI data do not capture earnings from employment not

51 Incarceration would be negatively correlated with public assistance receipt because former foster youth would

not be eligible for public assistance if they were incarcerated

53 Although the statersquos TANF program was not implemented until September 1997 Wisconsin began reforming

its welfare system almost a decade before Thus the relationship between being discharged in 1995 or 1996 and

public assistance receipt is not inconsistent with the hypothesis

52 Length of stay in care was only related to the number of months of food stamp receipt


covered under Wisconsinrsquos unemployment insurance laws or from employment in other

states54 Second because earnings reported to state UI agencies are used to determine UI

payroll taxes there is a financial incentive for employers not to report all of the wages they

pay to workers in covered jobs or to categorize workers as independent contractors rather

than regular employees (Kornfeld amp Bloom 1999) And third the UI data provide no

information about hourly wages number of hours worked or the dates of employment for

which workers were paid The lack of information about dates of employment is

particularly unfortunate because one can only measure employment in the crudest of

waysmdashie the number of quarters in which earnings were reported It also makes it

difficult to examine transitions between spells of employment and spells of public

assistance receipt55

82 Measurement of public assistance receipt

The problems with using CARES data to measure public assistance receipt among these

former foster youth are twofold The data would not capture benefits that former foster

youth received while living in another state Nor would they capture cash assistance in the

form of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or General Relief provided in Wisconsin56

As noted above the exclusion of these other cash benefits for which some former foster

youth who were not caring for dependent children might have been eligible could help

explain the large gender beffectQ57

83 Problems with HSRS data

One major problem with the HSRS data is that HSRS did not include a field that

reliably distinguished between relative and non-relative foster care placements until

October 1997 when new federal reporting requirements mandated states to make this

distinction (Scott Tews Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services personal

communication June 2000 Tews 2000)58 Thus it was not possible to compare the

57 This might explain why 144 (n=1227) of these former foster youth appeared to have had no income during

their first eight post-discharge quarters

55 Former foster youth could have been concurrently employed and receiving cash assistance under AFDC if

their earnings were sufficiently low This would not have been possible under Wisconsinrsquos TANF program

because former foster youth who were employed would have been ineligible for cash assistance56 In 1996 Wisconsinrsquos statewide General Relief program was replaced by a Medical Relief Block Grant for

Milwaukee County and General Relief block grant for all of the other counties in the state Counties are not

required to participate in this block grant program and can use their block grant funds to provide cash andor

medical assistance (Gallagher 1999 Watson amp Gold 1997)

58 HSRS indicated that only 38 of the 5418 former foster youth in this sample who were discharged from a

foster home placement had been living with kin and this does not appear to be a peculiarity of this sample

According to HSRS only 67 of the 8288 children in a foster home placement on December 31 1999 were

placed in relative foster homes Among children in Milwaukee County it was 94 (Courtney amp Dworsky 2001)

54 The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development estimates that approximately 6 of Wisconsin

workers are engaged in uncovered employment (Terry Ludeman Wisconsin Department of Workforce

Development personal communication June 10 2002 Ludeman 2002) However this percentage could be

higher (or lower) among particular sub-groups (Hotz amp Scholz 2001)


outcomes of former foster youth who had been placed in non-relative foster homes to those

of former foster youth who had been placed with kin This is a significant limitation

because there are least two reasons to hypothesize that foster youth who are placed with

kin will be less prepared for independent living than those who are placed with non-

relative foster families59 First compared to non-relative foster parents kinship caregivers

tend to be older and in poorer health to have fewer financial resources and to be less

educated (Berrick Barth amp Needell 1994 Dubowitz Tepper Feiglelman Sawyer amp

Davidson 1990 Dubowitz et al 1994) These attributes may make it more difficult for

kin to prepare foster youth for independent living Second children placed with kin tend to

receive fewer services than those placed in non-relative foster homes (Berrick et al 1994

Dubowitz et al 1990 1994 Goerge Van Voorhis Grant Casey amp Robinson 1992)

Thus child welfare agencies may be less likely to provide independent living services to

youth who are placed in kinship foster care On the other hand research also shows that

placements with kin tend to be more stable than placements with non-relatives (Berrick et

al 1994 Courtney amp Needell 1997 Dubowitz et al 1990 Inglehart 1994) Although

this study failed to find much of a relationship between stability as measured by the

number of placements youth had experienced and either labor market outcomes or public

assistance receipt for placement stability there is

The HSRS data are limited in at least two other respects First because HSRS does not

track the provision of independent living services this study could not compare the

outcomes of former foster youth who had received independent living services to those of

former youth who had not Second because HSRS provides no information about

educational attainment it was impossible to examine the relationship between the

outcomes of these former foster youth and the years of schooling they completed Nor was

it possible to control for differences in educational attainment that might have contributed

to some of the relationships that were observed

84 Range of outcomes measured

This study could only examine indicators of self-sufficiency that could be measured

with the CARES and Unemployment Insurance data Although employment earnings and

public assistance receipt are key indicators of self-sufficiency they are not the only ones

For example the administrative data provide no information about homelessness

economic hardships or food insecurity these former foster youth might have experienced

Nor was it possible to determine whether these former foster youth were being supported

by a parent other relative spouse or partner with whom they were living with

85 Potential sources of selection bias

There were several potential sources of selection bias in this study First because social

security numbers were needed to link the HSRS records to both the CARES and UI data

the results presented were based on the sample of 8511 former foster youth whose social

59 According to AFCARS data 356 of the children in a foster home placement on September 30 1999 were

being cared for by kin (US Department of Health and Human Services 2001a)


security number could be identifiedmdash787 of the 10183 former foster youth who were

eligible for inclusion There were two notable differences between the youth for whom

social security numbers were identified and the youth for whom they were not First

although both groups were predominantly White African Americans comprised a larger

percentage of the group with identifiable SSNs And second Milwaukee County was more

likely to have provided out-of-home care services to the group with identifiable SSNs even

though counties other than Milwaukee provided out-of-home care services to the majority

of both groups Given these differences and the fact that both raceethnicity and county

providing care were related to the outcomes that were measured the parameter estimates

from the multivariate models could be biased60

Second social security numbers were obtained for 1654 former foster youth whose

SSNs were missing from their HSRS records by matching of first name last name sex and

date of birth to the CARES data61 Although this significantly increased the sample size

the 1654 former foster youth were not a random sample of the groups whose HSRS

records were missing SSNs Again this could bias the reported parameter estimates

And third these former foster youth were not randomly assigned to their out-of-home

care experiences (eg placement type discharge outcome) Rather their out-of-home care

experiences probably resulted from some confluence of individual family worker agency

and county level factors62 Hence it is possible that some of the relationships that were

observed between the outcomes that were measured and the measures pertaining to out-of-

home care could reflect unobserved factors for which this study did not control rather than

their out-of-home experiences per se63

9 Policy program and research implications

The policy implications of this study for the provision of independent living services

and for child welfare services more generally as well as a number of implications for

future research are discussed in turn below

For many years the needs of older foster youth were largely ignored by federal child

welfare policy The landmark federal child welfare legislation the Adoption Assistance

62 Indeed some characteristics of out-of-home care may be endogenous to others For example there is some

evidence that the likelihood that foster youth will exit care via one route (eg emancipation) rather than another

(eg running away) is related to their placement history characteristics (Courtney amp Barth 1996) Dealing with

this endogeneity would require a more elaborate model than the two-equation models that have traditionally been

used63 For example research suggests that placement in congregate care settings is positively correlated with

behavioral problems (Courtney 1994 1998)

60 The possibility of selection bias was examined by estimating three bivariate probit models In each model the

selection equation predicted the probability that a social security number was identified for a given former foster

youth The substantive equations predicted the probability of being employed and the probability of receiving

public assistance Although the rho for the model involving employment was statistically significant the other

two rhorsquos were not61 Similar matching procedures could not be used to obtain social security numbers from the Unemployment

Insurance data because the UI data file does not include other identifying information such as name or date of

birth


and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (PL 96-272) contained no provisions for federal funding

to help states prepare their foster youth for independent living (DeWoody Ceja amp

Sylvester 1993) It was not until 1986 when Congress amended the Social Security Act in

1986 to include the Title IV-E Independent Living Program that federal funding for this

purpose became available to the states64 Unfortunately despite an increase in

appropriations from 45 million dollars for fiscal year 1987 to 70 million dollars in fiscal

year 1992 federal funding did not keep pace with the growing number of eligible foster

youth and only a fraction of the foster youth who were eligible for services actually

received them (US Department of Health and Human Services 1999)65

Thus it is probably not surprising that more than a decade after the Title IV-E

Independent Living Program was established there was little evidence that the outcomes

of former foster youth had significantly improved (US Department of Health and Human

Services 1999) On the contrary the few studies that were done seemed to indicate that

foster youth were still not adequately prepared to live as independent young adults

Like these other studies this research demonstrates that there is good reason to be

concerned about the self-sufficiency of former foster youth Most of these former foster

youth experienced one or more periods with no employment during the first two years

after their discharge from out-of-home care and their earnings when they were employed

were very low In addition a significant percentage of these former foster youth received

AFDCTANF andor food stamp benefits during those first two post-discharge years

Although the outcomes of these former foster youth are very troubling there is at least

some reason to be optimistic that the situation will improve In response to the concerns

that were again being raised about the unmet needs of older foster youth Congress passed

the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 Title I of this legislation replaced the Title IV-E

Independent Living Program with the newly established John H Chafee Foster Care

Independence Program which doubled the maximum amount of money that states could

draw down each year to 140 million dollars66 In addition to giving states a fiscal incentive

to enhance their independent living programs the Foster Care Independence Act mandates

states to provide the US Department of Health and Human Services with data on a variety

of outcome measures (eg educational attainment employment avoidance of depend-

66 States are now required to use at least some portion of their funds to provide follow-up services to former

foster youth who already aged out and are allowed to use up to 30 of their funds to pay for the room and board

of 18ndash20 year old former foster youth The Foster Care Independence Act also increased the amount of assets that

foster youth can accumulate and still be Title IV-E eligible from $1000ndash10000 This development gave states the

option of extending Medicaid coverage to 18ndash20 year old former foster youth and eliminated the prohibition

against contracting with private for-profit independent living service providers using federal funds

64 States could use their independent living funds to provide educational services for youth working towards a

high school diploma or GED employment services for youth who needed vocational training or career planning

and housing services for youth who wanted help finding a place to live However a provision in the law

prohibited states from using their Title IV-E funds for independent living subsidies or transitional housing (Allen

Bonner amp Greenan 1988 Barth 1990)65 Under the original legislation federally funded independent living services could only be provided to Title IV-

E eligible youth between the ages 16 and 18 years old The eligible population was expanded in 1988 to include

all 16 to 18 year old foster youth regardless of their Title IV-E eligibility status and to former foster youth who had

been discharged from care within the past six months Starting in 1990 states had the option of providing

independent living services to former foster youth until age 21


ency homelessness non-marital childbirth incarceration and high-risk behaviors) and

requires the US Department of Health and Human Services to conduct evaluations of

innovative or potentially significant state efforts to prepare foster youth for independent

living67 Whether this increased funding will lead to improved outcomes among future

cohorts of former foster youth remains to be seen

In the meantime it is possible to make some recommendations based on the results of

this study as to what states like Wisconsin can do to better prepare foster youth for living

as independent young adults Although Wisconsinrsquos Independent Living Program has been

in existence since 1987 it was not until July 1 2001 that Independent Living Program

funds were allocated to all of the statersquos 72 counties68 Prior to that date the number of

counties funded to provide independent living services varied from year to year and

counties funded for one year were not necessarily funded for the next However the

number of counties funded in any given year tended to increase over time69

91 Implications for the provision of independent living services

First this research suggests that employment and training services should be major

components of any independent living program as should opportunities for employment

including subsidized job placements while foster youth are still in care Independent

living program funds could be used to pay for some of these employment and training

services but foster youth would also be eligible for youth employment and training

services funded under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (US Department of Labor

2000)70

Second although the educational attainment of these former foster youth could not be

ascertained from the HSRS data previous studies have consistently found that many

former foster youth do not have a high school diploma or even a GED (Barth 1990 Cook

et al 1991 Courtney et al 2001 Festinger 1983 Jones amp Moses 1984) and there is no

reason to believe that these former foster youth were any different in this regard

particularly given their poor labor market outcomes71 This suggests a need for states to do

more to ensure that foster youth graduate from high school or at least obtain a GED and

have the opportunity (and financial resources in the form of tuition assistance) to pursue

higher education

70 The Workforce Investment Act consolidated the year-round youth training program and the summer youth

employment program that had previously been funded under the Job Training and Partnership Act Low-income

youth are eligible for WIA-funded employment and training services if they face at least one of several barriers to

employment including foster care placement specified in the Act (US Department of Labor 2000)71 This is supported by Courtney et alrsquos recent study of Wisconsin youth who aged out of foster care in the mid-

1990rsquos Approximately one third of the former foster youth in their sample had no high school diploma when they

were interviewed 12ndash18 months post-discharge

67 Because there have been so few methodologically sound evaluations of independent living programs (US

Department of Health and Human Services 1999 US General Accounting Office 1999b) relatively little is

known about their effects on the self-sufficiency of former foster youth Several program evaluations including

prospective studies with random assignment are currently in the field68 This change was facilitated by the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 which doubled the amount

of federal independent living program funds that could be allocated to the states69 In addition two Indian tribesmdashLac du Flambeau and Ho-Chunkmdashand the Division of Juvenile Corrections

have also been funded to provide independent living services


Third although provision of employment training and educational services should lead

to better labor market outcomes and hence reduce the need for public assistance some

former foster youth will still not earn enough to support themselves If these former foster

youth are caring for dependent children they may be eligible for TANF If they have a

disability they may be eligible for SSI However neither of these programs would be an

option for non-disabled former foster youth without dependent children72 Moreover state

TANF programs were not designed to deal with the special circumstances of recently

discharged former foster youth Thus states might consider using some of their

independent living program funds to provide a stipend to former foster youth who have

little or no income during the first 12ndash18 months after their discharge from care

Finally this study suggests that the need for independent living services is not limited

to foster youth whose permanency plan is aging out or discharge to independent living

Even if former foster youth who experience those discharge outcomes are more likely to

be living on their own and responsible for their own support than former foster youth who

were reunified placed with relatives or adopted these data seem to indicate that the latter

cannot necessarily count on their families for support73 Moreover because child welfare

agencies cannot always predict which foster youth will eventually age out it does not

make sense to limit the provision of independent living services to foster youth for whom

aging out or discharge to independent living is the permanency plan Although this policy

would be more costly in the short-term a reduction in public assistance receipt as well as

increased revenue from higher earnings could make it cost effective in the long-term

A number of these policy recommendations are similar to those contained in the

Wisconsin Independent Living Advisory Committeersquos 2001 report Independent Living for

Children in Out-of-Home Care (Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services

2000)74

92 Implications for child welfare policy

This research has implications not only for the use of independent living program

funds but also for child welfare policy more generally speaking First it points to the

potentially adverse effects of placement instability and hence implies that additional

attention should be paid to minimizing the number of placements foster youth experience

while they are in care75 Second it suggests that at least under some conditions former

foster youth may benefit from remaining in care for a longer period of time Third it seems

73 Specifically former foster youth who had aged out or been discharged to independent living had a lower

hazard of receiving public assistance received food stamps in fewer months during their first eight post-discharge

quarters and received more AFDCTANF and food stamp benefits than former foster youth who were reunified

placed with relatives or adopted74 The Independent Living Advisory Committee was charged with making policy and program recommenda-

tions to the Division of Child and Family Services regarding the provision of independent living services to youth

aging out of care as well as recommendations regarding the evaluation of those services75 In fact reducing the number of placements foster youth experienced was one of the recommendations made

by Wisconsinrsquos Independent Living Advisory Committee

72 In fact 521 (n=4432) of these former foster youth had no earnings from covered employment and received

no AFDCTANF benefits during the first quarter after their discharge from care


to indicate that there may be some advantages to being discharged at an older age and

hence that the practice of discharging youth to independent living prior to age 18 may not

be in the best interests of some foster youth76

Finally unless independent living preparation becomes as much a part of permanency

planning as preventing placement and moving children into permanent homes the

outcomes of former foster youth are unlikely to improve It would be particularly ironic if

Wisconsin fails to adequately prepare its foster youth for the transition from the out-of-

home care system to self-sufficiency at a time given the emphasis over the past decade on

the self-sufficiency of welfare recipients

93 Research implications

In addition to the policy and program implications already discussed this study also has

implications for future research First additional research is needed not only on the

outcomes of former foster youth who aged out or were discharged to independent living

but also on the outcomes of those who experience other discharge outcomes The study by

researchers at Chapin Hall which compared the outcomes of youth who aged out to those

of youth who were reunified is a step in this direction Moreover given our current lack of

knowledge about the effects of independent living services on the outcomes of foster youth

who age out of care it is not at all clear that foster youth who experience other discharge

outcomes would benefit from independent living services or that they would benefit from

same types of services to the same extent Thus evaluations of independent living

programs should include foster youth for whom the permanency plan is not discharge to

independent living in their samples Not only could this research examine the relationship

between discharge outcome and the effects of independent living services but it could also

address the cost-effectiveness question raised above

Second while this study demonstrates the adverse consequences of placement

instability additional research is needed to better understand the relationship between

multiple placements and adverse post-discharge outcomes For example is it because

placement instability disrupts schooling that former foster youth who experienced more

placements also experienced less favorable outcomes or is some other mechanism

involved

Third although there was some evidence that longer stays in care could in fact have

positive effects it does not follow that foster youth should necessarily remain in out-of-

home care longer than they otherwise would More research is needed to determine both

which youth are likely to benefit from longer stays in care and the conditions under which

those benefits are likely to be realized For example does it matter whether foster youth

are in a foster home group home or child caring institution And do foster youth benefit

from longer stays in care even if they do not receive independent living services

Answering these questions is particularly important because some foster youth may be

adversely affected by longer stays in care

76 Again this is consistent with one of the Wisconsin Independent Living Advisory Committeersquos

recommendations namely that foster care services be extended beyond the age of 18


Fourth additional research is needed to identify those youth who are most likely to

benefit from remaining in care after age 18 Moreover studies should examine whether the

relationship between the outcomes of former foster youth and the age at which they were

discharged from care can be explained by differences in educational attainment That is

were foster youth who were discharged at an older age more likely to have completed high

school or to have pursued post-secondary education

Fifth although former foster youth who had been discharged from foster or group

homes experienced more favorable employment-related outcomes than former foster youth

who had been discharged from child caring institutions additional research is needed to

determine why For example are there differences between the employment opportunities

that are available to youth who are placed in foster or group homes and those that are

available to youth who are placed in child caring institutions Or alternatively are there

differences between foster youth who are placed in foster or group homes and those who

are placed in child caring institutions Distinguishing between these explanations is

important because they have different policy implications The first implies a need for

equal opportunities whereas the second implies a need for different services

Finally although it was hypothesized that at least some of the relationships that were

observed might be due to differences in incarceration rates this hypothesis could not be

tested Thus additional research is needed to examine whether there are differences in

incarceration rates among former foster youth with different demographic characteristics

or out-of-home care experiences and if so whether those differences can explain any of

the relationships that were observed77

References

Allen M Bonner K amp Greenan L (1988) Federal legislative support for independent living Child Welfare

67 19ndash32

Allison P (1984) Event history analysis Regression for longitudinal event data Newbury Park CA7 Sage

Publications

Allison P (1995) Survival analysis using the SAS system A practical guide Cary NC7 SAS Institute

Barth R (1990) On their own The experiences of youth after foster care Child and Adolescent Social Work 7

419ndash440

Barth R Courtney M amp Berry M (1994) Timing is everything An analysis of the time to adoption and

legalization Social Work Research 18 139ndash148

Berk R amp Ray S (1982) Selection biases in sociological data Social Science Research 11 352ndash398

Berrick J Barth R amp Needell B (1994) A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family homes

Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation Children and Youth Services Review 16 33ndash63

Blank R (2001) Welfare reform and the economy Welfare reform and beyond brief 7 Washington DC7

Brookings Institute

Breen R (1996) Regression models Censored sample-selected or truncated data Thousand Oaks CA7 Sage

Publications

77 Although the 54 high school graduation rate among Cook et alrsquos sample was much lower than the 1990

high school graduation rate of 78 for 18ndash24 year olds it was almost the same as the high school graduation rate

among 18ndash24 year old young adults whose income was below the poverty threshold Given that the families of

children who are placed in care are disproportionately poor it is possible that the former foster youth would have

been educationally disadvantaged even if they had never been placed in care Cook et al did not address this

possibility


Cook R Fleishman E amp Grimes V (1991) A national evaluation of Title IV-E foster care independent living

programs for youth Phase 2 Final Report vol 1 Rockville MD7 Westat Inc

Corbett T (1995) Welfare reform in Wisconsin The rhetoric and the reality In D Norris amp L Thompson (Eds)

The politics of welfare reform (pp 19ndash40) Thousand Oaks CA7 Sage Publications

Courtney M (1994) Factors associated with the reunification of foster children with their families Social Service

Review 68 81ndash108

Courtney M (1995) Reentry to foster care of children returned to their families Social Service Review 69

81-108 226-241

Courtney M (1998) Correlates of social worker decisions to seek treatment-oriented out-of-home care Children

and Youth Services Review 20 281ndash304

Courtney M amp Barth R (1996) Pathways of older adolescents out of foster care Implications for independent

living services Social Work 41 75ndash83

Courtney M amp Collins R (1994) New challenges and opportunities in child welfare outcomes and information

technologies Child Welfare 73 359ndash378

Courtney M amp Dworsky A (2001) Children in out-of-home care in Wisconsin 1990ndash1999 Madison WI7

Department of Health and Family Services

Courtney M amp Needell B (1997) Outcomes of kinship foster care Lessons from California In J Berrick R

Barth amp N Geilbert (Eds) Child welfare research review (pp 130ndash150) New York7 Columbia University

Press

Courtney M Piliavin I Grogan-Kaylor A amp Nesmith A (2001) Foster youth in transitions to adulthood A

longitudinal view of youth leaving care Child Welfare 80(6) 685ndash717

Courtney M Piliavin I amp Wright B (1997) Transitions from and returns to out-of-home care Social Service


Danzinger S (Ed) (1999) Economic conditions and welfare reform Kalamazoo MI7 WE Upjohn Institute for

Employment Research

DeWoody M Ceja K amp Sylvester M (1993) Independent living services for youths in out-of-home care

Washington DC7 Child Welfare League of America

Dubowitz H Feiglelman S Harrington D Starr R Zuravin S amp Sawyer R (1994) Children in kinship

care How do they fare Children and Youth Services Review 16 85ndash106

Dubowitz H Tepper V Feiglelman S Sawyer R Davidson N (1990) The physical and mental health

and educational status of children placed with relatives Final report Report prepared for the Maryland

Department of Human Resources and the Baltimore City Department of Social Services Baltimore

MD

Festinger T (1983) No one ever asked us A postscript to foster care New York7 Columbia University Press

Gallagher L J (1999) A shrinking portion of the safety net General assistance from 1989 to 1998 Washington

DC7 The Urban Institute

Goerge R (1990) The reunification process in substitute care Social Service Review 64 422ndash457

Goerge R (1997) Potential and problems in developing indicators on child well-being from administrative data

In R Hauser B Brown amp W Prosser (Eds) Indicators of childrenrsquos well-being (pp 457ndash471) New York7

Russell Sage Foundation

Goerge R Bilaver L Lee B Needell B Brookhad A amp Jackman W (2002) Employment outcomes for

youth aging out of foster care Washington DC7 US Dept of Health and Human Services Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Goerge R Van Voorhis J Grant S Casey K amp Robinson M (1992) Special education experiences of foster

children An empirical study Child Welfare 71 419ndash438

Goerge R Wulczyn F amp Harden A (1997) An update from the multistate foster care data archive Foster

care dynamics 1983ndash1994 Chicago7 Chapin Hall Center for Children

Hotz V Scholz J (2001) Measuring employment and income for low-income populations with administrative

and survey data Discussion paper 1224-01 Madison WI Institute for Research on Poverty

Inglehart A (1994) Kinship foster care Placement service and outcome issues Children and Youth Services


Jones M amp Moses B (1984)West Virginiarsquos former foster children Their experiences in care and their lives as

young adults New York7 Child Welfare League of America


Kornfeld R amp Bloom H (1999) Measuring program impacts on earnings and employment Do unemployment

insurance wage reports from employers agree with surveys of individuals Journal of Labor Economics 17

168ndash197

Legislative Audit Bureau (2000 August) An evaluation The food stamp program Madison WI7 Author

Long J (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables Thousand Oaks CA7 Sage

Publications

Ludeman T hterryludemandwdstatewiusi (2002 June 10) Re UI coverage [Personal email]

Maluccio A amp Fein E (1985) Growing up in foster care Child and Youth Services Review 7 123ndash134

McDonald T Allen R Westerfelt A amp Piliavin I (1996) Assessing the long-term effects of foster care A

research synthesis Washington DC7 Child Welfare League of America

McMurtry S amp Lie G (1992) Differential exit rates of minority children in foster care Social Work Research amp

Abstracts 28 42ndash48

Pettiford P (1981) Foster care and welfare dependency A research note New York7 Human Resource

Administration Office of Policy and Program Development

Roncek D (1992) Learning more from tobit coefficients Extending a comparative analysis American

Sociological Review 57 503ndash507

Rosso R (2001) Trends in Food Stamp Program participation rates 1994 to 1999 Washington DC7

Mathematica Policy Research Institute

Schott L Greenstein R amp Primus W (1999) The determinants of welfare caseload declines A rejoinder

Washington DC7 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Testa M (1997) Kinship foster care in Illinois In J Berrick R Barth amp N Geilbert (Eds) Child welfare

research review (pp 101ndash129) New York7 Columbia University Press

Tews S htewsdwdstatewiusi (2000 June) Re HSRS data [Personal email]

US Census Bureau (2000) Population estimates for counties by age group July 1 1999 Retrieved June 8

2002 from httpwwwcensusgovpopulationestimatescountycacawi99txt

US Department of Health and Human Services (1999) Title IV-E independent living programs A decade in

review Washington DC7 US Government Printing Office

US Department of Health and Human Services (2001a) The AFCARS Report Retrieved May 28 2002 from

httpwwwacfdhhsgovprogramscbpublicationsafcarsjune2001htm

US Department of Health and Human Services (2001b) State by state welfare caseloads since 1993 Retrieved

May 28 2002 from httpwwwacfdhhsgovnewsstatscase-famhtm

US Department of Health and Human Services (2002) Child welfare outcomes 1999 Annual report Safety

permanency and well being Washington DC Department of Health and Human Services Retrieved May 28

2002 from httpwwwacfdhhsgovprogramscbpublicationscwo99indexhtml

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (1996) Usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers

Table 2 Median usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers by age race Hispanic origin and sex

Washington DC Bureau of Labor Statistics Retrieved June 22 2002 from httpwwwblscensusgovcps

pubwkyeng2q96htm

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (1997) Employment and earnings Annual average 1996

Table 3 Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population by age sex and race Washington

DC Bureau of Labor Statistics Retrieved June 22 2002 from httpferretblscensusgovmacro171996

empearn3_000htm

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000) Employment status of the civilian non-institutional

population by sex age race and Hispanic origin 2000 annual average Washington DC Bureau of Labor

Statistics Retrieved June 22 2002 from httpwwwblsgovlaustable12full00pdf

US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001) Highlights of womenrsquos earnings in 2000

Washington DC7 Bureau of Labor Statistics

US General Accounting Office (1999a) Food stamp program Various factors have led to declining

participation (RCED-99-185) Washington DC7 Author

US General Accounting Office (1999b) Foster care Effectiveness of independent living services unknown

(HEHS-00-13) Washington DC7 Author

Watson K amp Gold S (1997) The other side of devolution Shifting relationships between state and local

governments Washington DC7 The Urban Institute


Wilde P Cook P Gundersen C Nord M amp Tiehen L (2000) The decline in food stamp program

participation in the 1990rsquos Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report 7 Washington DC7 US Dept of

Agriculture Economic Research Service

Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services Division of Children and Family Services Independent

Living Advisory Committee (2000) Independent Living For Children In Out-Of-Home Care Madison WI

Author

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (2002a) Local area unemployment statistics (LAUS)

19902001 Historical series Madison WI DWD Retrieved June 22 2002 from httpwwwdwdstatewius

lmilaus_hist_month_2011htm

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (2002b) Wisconsin unemployment rates 1960 to most

current Retrieved on June 10 2002 from httpwwwdwdstatewiuslmilaus_adjusted_state98htm

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (2002c) Wisconsin Works and related program data Food

stamp caseload assistance groups by calendar year 1992ndash2000 Retrieved on June 10 2000 from http

wwwdwdstatewiusdesresearch5Fstatisticsfs5Fdatahtm

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (2003) Wisconsin Works and related programs data

Retrieved on July 26 2004 from httpwwwdwdstatewiusdwsrsdataw2datahtm

Wulczyn F (1991) Caseload dynamics and foster care reentry Social Services Review 65 133ndash156

Yamacuchi K (1991) Event history analysis Newbury Park CA7 Sage Publications

Zedlewski S amp Brauner S (1999) Are the steep declines in food stamp participation linked to falling welfare

caseloads Washington DC7 Urban Institute

The economic self-sufficiency of Wisconsins former foster youth

Introduction

Methodology

Human services reporting system (HSRS)

Client assistance and re-employment support (CARES)8

Unemployment insurance (UI) wage reporting system

Sample selection

Demographic characteristics and out-of-home care experiences of former foster youth

Labor market outcomes Employment and earnings

Public assistance receipt

Welfare reform and public assistance receipt

Summary and discussion of results

Employment and earnings


Impact of welfare reform

Study limitations

Measurement of employment and earnings

Measurement of public assistance receipt

Problems with HSRS data

Range of outcomes measured

Potential sources of selection bias

Policy program and research implications

Implications for the provision of independent living services

Implications for child welfare policy

Research implications

References


1 Introduction

Approximately 20000 foster youth bage outQ of care each year (US Department of

Health and Human Services 1999) These foster youth include both those who entered as

young children and grew up in care as well as those who did not enter care until adolescence

In fact youth who entered care after their thirteenth birthday comprise a majority of those

who eventually age out (US Department of Health and Human Services 2002)1

Regardless of the age at which they entered care the transition to independent young

adulthood is not an easy one No longer wards of the state yet unable to turn to their

parents or other family members for financial andor emotional support many of these

foster youth must make the transition to young adulthood largely on their own Nor can

they count on the state for continuing support once they have been discharged from

care2

Several studies have examined the outcomes of this transition by interviewing samples

of foster youth after they aged out Although such studies are relatively few in number

their findings are consistent as well as troubling Not only does this research suggest that

former foster youth are likely to experience problems across a variety of domains but also

that they are often not prepared to live independently as self-sufficient young adults

According to these studies many foster youth do not graduate from high school before

or after they age out (Barth 1990 Cook Fleishman amp Grimes 1991 Courtney Piliavin

Grogan-Kaylor amp Nesmith 2001 Festinger 1983 Jones amp Moses 1984) When they are

employed their earnings tend to be low (Barth 1990 Cook et al 1991 Courtney et al

2001 Festinger 1983) It is not uncommon for former foster youth to receive means-tested

welfare benefits such as AFDCTANF food stamps andor Medicaid (Barth 1990 Cook

et al 1991 Courtney et al 2001 Festinger 1983 Jones amp Moses 1984) or to depend on

less formal assistance from friends or family (Cook et al 1991 Courtney et al 2001

Jones amp Moses 1984) Finally these studies indicate that former foster youth are at high

risk of housing instability and even homelessness (Barth 1990 Cook et al 1991

Courtney et al 2001 Festinger 1983)

Unfortunately this research also suffers from two major limitations First only one of

the aforementioned studies (ie Courtney et al 2001) involved former foster youth who

had been in care after the federal Title IV-E Independent Living Program was fully

implemented (Courtney amp Barth 1996 Courtney et al 2001 McDonald Allen

Westerfelt amp Piliavin 1996)3 Second most of the studies have methodological problems

including small non-random samples and sample attrition (Courtney et al 2001

Maluccio amp Fein 1985 McDonald et al 1996) that raise questions about the validity and

generalizability of their results

1 Forty-five states and the District of Columbia provided sufficient data to examine whether foster youth who

aged out of care had entered care before or after their thirteenth birthday (US Department of Health and Human

Services 2002) Wisconsin which was among those 45 states reported that 85 of the foster youth who aged out

of care in 1999 were at least 13 years old when they entered care2 Recent changes in federal legislation have the potential to increase the availability of after-care services for

former foster youth These changes are discussed below3 Even the study by Cook et al which was ostensibly an evaluation of the Title IV-E Independent Living

Program involved foster youth who were discharged from care just as that program was being implemented











1997)


































receipt

2 Methodology


















during that quarter

24 Sample selection






















youth







care14



















Table 1



Gender

Female 3487 4097

Male 5021 5899

Missing 3 004

RaceEthnicity


White 6034 7090


Asian 159 187

Hispanic 270 317

Missing 82 096












Milwaukee 1733 2036


Discharge outcome

Reunified 4886 5741


Adopted 63 074



Ran away 628 738


Exit year

1992 1157 1359

1993 1180 1386

1994 1149 1350

1995 1242 1459

1996 1277 1500

1997 1264 1485

1998 1242 1459





Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean











59 who had not16
































Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References











1997)


































receipt

2 Methodology


















during that quarter

24 Sample selection






















youth







care14



















Table 1



Gender

Female 3487 4097

Male 5021 5899

Missing 3 004

RaceEthnicity


White 6034 7090


Asian 159 187

Hispanic 270 317

Missing 82 096












Milwaukee 1733 2036


Discharge outcome

Reunified 4886 5741


Adopted 63 074



Ran away 628 738


Exit year

1992 1157 1359

1993 1180 1386

1994 1149 1350

1995 1242 1459

1996 1277 1500

1997 1264 1485

1998 1242 1459





Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean











59 who had not16
































Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References




receipt

2 Methodology


















during that quarter

24 Sample selection






















youth







care14



















Table 1



Gender

Female 3487 4097

Male 5021 5899

Missing 3 004

RaceEthnicity


White 6034 7090


Asian 159 187

Hispanic 270 317

Missing 82 096












Milwaukee 1733 2036


Discharge outcome

Reunified 4886 5741


Adopted 63 074



Ran away 628 738


Exit year

1992 1157 1359

1993 1180 1386

1994 1149 1350

1995 1242 1459

1996 1277 1500

1997 1264 1485

1998 1242 1459





Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean











59 who had not16
































Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References















youth







care14



















Table 1



Gender

Female 3487 4097

Male 5021 5899

Missing 3 004

RaceEthnicity


White 6034 7090


Asian 159 187

Hispanic 270 317

Missing 82 096












Milwaukee 1733 2036


Discharge outcome

Reunified 4886 5741


Adopted 63 074



Ran away 628 738


Exit year

1992 1157 1359

1993 1180 1386

1994 1149 1350

1995 1242 1459

1996 1277 1500

1997 1264 1485

1998 1242 1459





Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean











59 who had not16
































Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 1



Gender

Female 3487 4097

Male 5021 5899

Missing 3 004

RaceEthnicity


White 6034 7090


Asian 159 187

Hispanic 270 317

Missing 82 096












Milwaukee 1733 2036


Discharge outcome

Reunified 4886 5741


Adopted 63 074



Ran away 628 738


Exit year

1992 1157 1359

1993 1180 1386

1994 1149 1350

1995 1242 1459

1996 1277 1500

1997 1264 1485

1998 1242 1459





Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean











59 who had not16
































Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 1 (continued)

Median Mean











59 who had not16
































Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 2



1992 779

1993 778

1994 807

1995 817

1996 803

1997 813

1998 800

Total 800

































Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 3



0 1702 200 ndash

1 749 80 110

2 798 94 117

3 836 98 123

4 836 98 123

5 890 105 131

6 796 94 117

7 808 95 119

8 1096 129 161

Total 8511 1000 1000




















cases27










Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 4




First 8511 174 200 7528 197 20

Second 8511 200 200 7528 226 20

Third 7439 209 200 6648 234 30

Fourth 6190 211 200 5579 235 30

Fifth 4896 210 200 4440 232 30

Sixth 3667 208 200 3316 230 30

Seventh 2504 206 200 2255 228 30

Eighth 1321 198 200 1203 218 30



































Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 5




N 8511 6809

Median 2322 3709

Mean 5170 6463


































Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 6




First 8511 559 1974 7528 840 2232

Second 8511 1191 3196 7528 1727 3613

Third 7439 1683 4234 6648 2437 4737

Fourth 6190 1914 4988 5579 2784 5534

Fifth 4896 2182 5595 4440 3150 6169

Sixth 3667 2302 6188 3316 3273 6843

Seventh 2504 2491 6780 2255 3609 7529

Eighth 1321 2154 7639 1203 3495 8388












censored cases






















Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 7


employment (N=8511)


Model I Model II

Gender

Male 0962 0963

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 0458 0459

Hispanic 1467 1467

Missing 0026 0027

White


Milwaukee 0122 0236

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 2312 2311






Discharge year

1998 0139 0314

1997 0592 0403

1996 0168 0099

1995 0550 0517

1994 0313 0295

1993 0211 0216

1992




2 log likelihood 12601219 12601149

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 8


(N=8511)


Intercept 2518935

Gender

Male 15000

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 63970

Hispanic 119685

Missing 113095

White


Milwaukee 31574

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 24922

Group home 507


Discharge outcome


Ran away 193444






Discharge year

1998 77008

1997 97084

1996 36582

1995 25054

1994 44319

1993 17790

1992




p b 005

p b 0001


Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 9











































request

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 10



Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

Full

sample

Recipients

only

N 8511 1414 8511 2779 8511 2925

Median 0 70 0 70 0 70

Mean 137 825 28 85 298 896

































Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 11


(N=8511)



Gender

Male 14125 14168 6934 6912

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 7033 7097 3361 3281

Hispanic 5563 5588 2946 2942

Missing 5516 5536 4934 4907

White


Milwaukee 4216 4219 2891 2897

All other counties

Adjudicated status





Delinquent


Foster home 3592 3593 1657 1664

Group home 1944 1938 0223 0230


Discharge outcome


independent living

0768 0776 1422 1427

Ran away 0521 0497 0496 0473







Discharge Year

1998 19485 15260 6435 10802

1997 11946 9845 5780 8548

1996 5992 4941 3308 4854

1995 2618 2074 2274 3078

1994 1576 1323 1051 1413

1993 0512 0623 0147 0001

1992




2 log likelihood 2968140 2966724 6661307 6656012

p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 12





Gender

Male 93922 56595

Female

Raceethnicity



Asian 75070 53676


Missing 50879 41792

White



All other counties

Adjudicated Status





Delinquent





Discharge outcome


Ran away 3081 18792






Discharge year

1998 155725 38525

1997 104183 46342

1996 45556 28532

1995 12256 22033

1994 5236 3769

1993 9503 4254

1992




p b 005

p b 001

p b 0001


Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

Table 13



food stamps


1992 259 224 425 367 445 385

1993 301 255 458 388 483 409

1994 265 231 430 374 458 399

1995 252 203 395 318 428 345

1996 186 146 376 294 399 313

1997 97 77 335 265 348 275

1998 54 44 360 290 364 293















remains unclear




Table 14


year (N=8511)

Discharge

year



1992 195 879 340 938 329 969

1993 226 882 377 967 413 1012

1994 210 903 344 909 382 951

1995 162 793 353 798 303 873

1996 114 777 347 831 270 881

1997 049 634 202 755 207 632

1998 020 496 213 732 200 598

Total 137 825 280 855 298 896





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References





care





























employed44



































to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References



























to pay them more























































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References








































































8 Study limitations








































































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References





























































































































birth




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References




































































2000)70









higher education






































2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References


























2000)74















































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References































involved



































References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References
























References


67 19ndash32


Publications



419ndash440







Brookings Institute


Publications






possibility









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References









81-108 226-241











Press






Employment Research








MD
























168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References




168ndash197



Publications
































pubwkyeng2q96htm




empearn3_000htm


















Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References







Author
















Introduction

Methodology




Sample selection









Study limitations










References

The economic self-sufficiency of Wisconsin's former foster youth

Documents

Transcript of The economic self-sufficiency of Wisconsin's former foster youth