Education & Protocol Training for Philadelphia Defender Association, Child Advocate Unit

1. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Education & Protocol Training for
Defender Association Child Advocate Unit
What’s Involved with Aging-Out of the Foster Care System?
The Big Picture: Transitioning to Adulthood
Elizabeth E. Brait
April 2003
1

2. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Gleniese Davis, of Children Services, Inc., Cleopatra Anderson of DHS,
Ron Sprangler, of AIC, Jenny Pokempner, of Juvenile Law Center, Michael Lewis, Joyce
Batchelor, and Jim Haley, of Philadelphia Defender Association for their time and interest.
Interviews and meetings with these individuals had an important impact in helping me
understand the whole picture as I have described in this protocol. I also would like to thank Joan
Davitt, my professor at Bryn Mawr College School of Social Work and Social Research, who
offered me unlimited and useful support and guidance to be able to write this protocol. Also, Roy
Zipris of Philadelphia Defender Association, who read my first draft and offered editorial
support. I want to thank all the social workers and lawyers (at DACAU and outside agencies)
who I have had the good fortune to get to know and work with who have helped me understand
the child welfare system. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge all the youth whose files I
have read and those who I have met. I attribute much of my learning from the information I have
learned about their lives.
2

3. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
We have put in place here the building blocks of giving all of our children what should be their
fundamental right– a chance at a decent, safe home; an honorable, orderly, positive upbringing; a
chance to live out their dreams and fulfill their capacities. –President William J. Clinton
Part I: The Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997
In 1997, President Clinton enacted ASFA in an effort to modify the 1980 Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act so that neglected and abused youth were guaranteed safety. He did so, by
changing the approach of the child welfare system from family centered to child centered.
The intention of ASFA is to preserve the health and safety of the child first. ASFA “took further
steps to promote safety and permanence for children who have been alleged or determined to be
abused and/or neglected (Children Defense Fund Web site, 2003).”
• ASFA included additional guidelines that provided states incentives to change policies and
practices in order to promote child safety as paramount. Adoption or other permanent options
should be pursued when a child is taken from an unsafe home. Under ASFA, foster care is
intended to be a temporary placement.
• ASFA imposed new timelines to promote moving youth out of temporary foster care and into
permanency more quickly; this including two mandatory hearings.
• First hearing: within 12 months of foster care placement a permanency hearing must be held.
At fifteen months of placement a termination of parental rights (TPR) must be held.
TPR:
• The court must find grounds for termination(the grounds are state specific)
• Adopted children with special needs youth are ensured health coverage.
• ASFA states that “reasonable efforts must be made in order to preserve and reunify the
family. However, under ASFA, the “reasonable efforts” requirement focuses more on the
child then on the welfare of the family. Under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act of 1980, it was the reverse.
• In aggravated circumstances, ASFA excuses the state (bypasses) from making “reasonable
efforts to reunify or to preserve the family.” Aggravated circumstances include: if a parent
committed voluntary or involuntary murder of another child of that parent, felony assault,
aided and abetted, attempted, conspired, solicited to commit murder, or injury to a child, or
another child of that parent (American Bar Association, 1998).
3

4. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Permanency Options Under ASFA
ASFA Permanency Options for Youth in Foster Care for PA
Permanency Options Description
Return to Parents Once parents are determined no longer to be a risk for the child’s safety
and well being.
Adoption Termination of parental rights must be filed
Kinship A family member who takes on legal guardianship
Subsidized Permanent “Allows caregivers to receive support (until the youth is 18), as in foster
Legal Custody (SPLC) care, but eliminates the court appearances and deadlines that the law
imposes on children in foster care (Benson, 2003).” Eligibility for services
for the youth, such as board extensions and SIL are eliminated once youth
turns 18. Since support is terminated at 18, then what happens to the
youth? The permanent guardians no longer receive services and could
choose to remove themselves from being responsible for care of the
youth?
Alternate Planned Permanent Only referred to if the previous four goals can not be obtained. Essentially,
Living Arrangement (APPLA) this is long-term foster care.
Alternatives, Not Recognized as Permanency Options under ASFA
Not recognized under ASFA as Permanency Options
Long-term foster care or APPLA According to ASFA, APPLA is not considered a permanency option in
PA. Under ASFA, foster care is intended to be a temporary living
situation, and long-term foster care or APPLA, can be considered only
after all options have been pursued.
Independent living Independent living can be a permanency option; however, it is not
explicitly stated in ASFA or in the PA Juvenile Act. A youth must be
legally emancipated (before or after 18).
How Does Permanency Planning Under ASFA Affect Teenagers?
Currently, there is a high percentage of teenage youth in foster care (Charles, K., et al, 2000, p.
10). Additionally, “between 20,000 and 25,000 youth age out of the foster care system each year
unprepared or marginally prepared to transition into adulthood (Charles, K., et al, 2000, p. 10).
Many of these youth end up in homeless shelters, on welfare, in prison, and have unplanned
pregnancies.
Research done by the University of Oklahoma, National Resource Center for Youth and
Development (NRCYD, 2000) has focused on what permanency means for children in the
dependent system, specifically for adolescents. Additionally, their research regarding
adolescence also focused on the role of social workers, problems that are prevalent for youth in
care, and barriers to achieving permanence. NRCYD discovered that adolescents want the “long-
term stability they feel a family will bring even as adults (Charles, K., et al, 2000, p. 8).” The
study suggests that the child welfare system needs to develop better strategies and collaboration
with other agencies to address building community and family bridges for youths that exit the
dependent system. They recommends that social workers need to treat each client individually,
communicate directly with the client, and have a solid understanding of developmentally
appropriate behavior, especially regarding the psychological defenses and risks that might affect
4

5. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
a youth’s developmental growth. Many youths in care have experienced abuse, neglect, or were
forcibly removed from their homes, that resulted in trust and mental health issues.
NRCYD 5 Barriers to Achieving Permanence for Adolescents In The Dependent System:
• The first barrier, permanency, is not often prioritized for adolescents due to their
developmental stage, individuation. Often adolescents are opposed to adoption or
permanency placement. The results of the NRCYD study suggest that the adolescent’s
rejection is due to their own “fear of rejection, loyalty to birth family, lack of knowledge
about permanency options, and/or a desire to stay with siblings (Charles, K., et al, 2000, p.
14).”
• The second barrier: sequential case management is the primary method of practice. Instead,
NRCYD recommends that concurrent planning for adolescents is more effective and could
reduce the length of time youth stay in foster care by focusing on the goals for an adolescent,
as well as meeting the guidelines of ASFA.
• The third barrier: the limited permanency options and the limitations of the permanency
options available for older youth in care. In fact, NRCYD remind us that many adults enjoy
working with adolescents, challenging the myth that questions the unadoptability of
adolescents.
• The fourth barrier: family and/or significant others often have limited involvement in the
permanency planning.
With the integration of ASFA, some of these barriers have begun to be addressed by some
workers. The current options available for dependent youth for permanency are still limited, and
do not address the needs of youth in all situations.
Additional Criticism of ASFA
• The current options available for dependent youth for permanency are still limited, and
do not address the needs of youth in all situations. In PA, DHS recognizes SPLC as a
permanency option. Opponents of SPLC believe that SPLC is not a permanency option.
When the youth turns eighteen, the permanent guardian no longer receives services from
DHS, and could choose to no longer care for the youth. Youths that agreed to SPLC are
no longer eligible for services after eighteen, such as board extensions and SIL. What
happens to these youth? There needs to be a middle ground that addresses the gap
between long-term placement and SPLC, neither SPLC nor long-term foster care offer
the panacea that fills this gap.
• The new timeline for moving youth out of foster care does not address the reality of case
over load pre-ASFA. In addition, the NRCYD identified that “the time needed to
implement and maintain a biannual review system of the hundred’s of DHS custody cases
for children who had been removed from their homes, after AFSA was implemented
exacerbated the case overload problem (Zahn, C., 2000).”
• “Courts do not have unbridled discretion to engage in the kind of social engineering that
could result if they were allowed to remove children simply by deciding [that] another
5

6. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
home offers more advantages then another (Stein, 2000, p. 589).” However, evidence has
shown that judicial discretion is implemented in cases that uphold the requirements of
ASFA. A similar argument can be made regarding the role of social workers and their use
of discretion when upholding the tenets of ASFA. Some believe that social workers have
been influenced by their personal moral belief system when interpreting the safety of a
youth, as opposed to looking at the situation from a purely legal or more objective lens.
• In some jurisdictions, child welfare cases are heard by courts of general jurisdiction, not
specifically a family or juvenile courtroom. In these cases, the future of the youth may
not be addressed appropriately because the judge may not have the experience or
expertise found in a family or juvenile courtroom. However, some family and juvenile
courtrooms may have a similar problem of inexperienced judges, who need to be trained
on issues that related to youth in care and permanency.
• ASFA has been criticized for positioning parental rights’ against their children’s rights
(Stein, 2000). It is argued that, because the focus is primarily on the safety and well being
of the youth, the relationship between the youth and his/her parent or guardian gets
factored out, therefore positioning parent rights against children’s rights.
• The intent of ASFA is to increase the number of youth available for adoption, however
only a small percentage of the total youth that are ready for adoption, get adopted (Stein,
2000, p.591). The majority of these youth who are ready for adoption, but never get
adopted are older. According to the literature, some of the reasons that adoptions are not
pursued are because these youth are “older, of color, part of a sibling group, or physically
or mentally disabled (US General Accounting Office, 1999).”
6

7. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
“It is ironic that while one state agency, the Department of Public Welfare removes children from their
parents’ care, and places them in foster homes in different school districts to protect them, another
agency bars children from entering school, denying them equal access to a public education
(Steinberg, et al., 2002).”
Part II: Aging Out of the Dependent System
Aging Out Of The Foster Care System: What Is It? How Does It Affect Youth?
Aging out of the foster care system refers to youth that are transitioning from dependent care to
adulthood. At eighteen, youth in care are eligible to request a board extension allowing them to
stay in care until they are twenty-one so that they can continue to prepare for their future. The
youth must be enrolled in an educational, vocational (cosmetology, auto), and/or treatment
program in order to maintain the board extension. However, once these youth turn twenty-one,
they are no longer eligible for a board extension, are discharged from the dependent system, and
expected to live independently.
Independent Living Program (IL or ILP)
Independent Living Program is a process of preparation by DHS for youth in care. “The federal
law requires that each youth age sixteen and older have an IL plan as part of their Family Service
Plan (FSP). In Pennsylvania, it is required that each county must submit an IL form, similar to
the FSP, to use in developing IL plans for individual youth (Pokempner, J., et al., 2003, p.9).”
Each youth should receive a copy of their IL plan. The IL plan should address the youth’s goals
regarding education, vocation and career, physical and mental health, housing, relationships with
a positive adult role model and family, community resources, and life skills. Additionally, they
are referred to a program for independent living preparations, in Philadelphia this program is
called Achieving Independence Center (AIC).
What Do Social Workers Need To Know?
It is important that social workers understand the issues and problems that dependent youth are
confronted with, especially during adolescence. This developmental stage is when the adolescent
begins to define who they are, where they belong, and what they need to do to prepare for adult
responsibilities. It is well documented that youth in care have additional challenges. Their
resilience compared to non-dependent youth is not as well developed. Often, these youths have
developmental delays in areas of age appropriate needs, milestones, and academic settings. They
struggle with appropriate social behavior and challenges recognized as normative developmental
behavior. The literature recognizes that these youth were forcibly separated from their families,
often due to abuse and neglect, and they may not have developed attachments to positive adult
figures in their lives. It is also likely they are struggling with complex trust issues.
Problems and Trends with Foster Care and for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood
Research on outcomes for dependent youth have shown that “youth in foster care are often worse
off than the general population of teens who are living in poverty (Benson, 2003).” Most families
provide adolescents the security of a home to fall back on while they transition into adulthood.
On the other hand, often without such security, youth exiting the foster care system face
challenges that compromise their ability to successfully transition into adulthood.
7

8. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
These youth are particularly vulnerable. Often, they are emotionally unprepared for adult
responsibilities and they lack life skills required for successful independent living. A discharge
of youth at eighteen and/or twenty-one has led to significant negative outcomes, such as poverty,
unemployment, incarceration, and homeless. “Nearly 40% of foster care youth fail to graduate
high school, an almost equal number end up on welfare, within two years, a third have children
out of wedlock, and about 18% end up in prison (Heyman, 2003).”
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, began to address these problems by
designating money for each state to use to help discharged youth transition more easily into
adulthood. However, not all youth are made aware of independent living programs, and not all
states are using the full percentage of money allocated for youth towards independent living
programs.
The two tables below reflect identify problems and trends that affect youth in the dependent
system, from the literature and interviews used for this research. The first table covers challenges
aging out youth face. The second table covers criticism’s youth have reported as problems they
experienced while in the foster care system.
Identified Problems and Trends for Aging Out Youth:
• Developmental delay and problems (behavioral and • Truancy, academic problems, undereducation, and
emotional) adjusting to school, social situations, school failure. Also, many foster youth have
poor physical, health, and mental health changed placements and school districts. This
(Wertheimer, 2002). increases their risk at failing, missing school until
they are re-enrolled (Steinberg, et al., 2002)1.
• Teens at 18, even with training, are unprepared for • Unemployment and unskilled; foster care aged out
independent living. youth earn less then non-foster care youth (George,
2002)
• No positive adult role model or support and • Limited life skills and not learning skills to enable
difficulty with attachment them to live outside the dependent system. Youth
are dependent on other people to make decisions,
since the county has been responsible for decisions
made regarding that youth.2
• Mental health issues and health care coverage • Early parenthood
• Welfare, poverty • Lack of affordable housing, housing instability,
and homelessness
1
Late last year the PA Board of Education rejected a proposed policy change to help foster children enroll in
schools quicker. Re-enrollment into a new school can be slowed down by missing paper work, or missed pre-
enrollment meetings with foster parents. Until re-enrollment occurs, foster children are not allowed to return to
school; therefore jeopardizing their academic success. The Education Law Center, a non-profit in PA outlined
some recommendations that would help foster children get back to school quicker when a placement has
changed. The Board of Education in PA chose to ignore those recommendations. Some view the
inconsistencies, of Pennsylvania’s 501 public school districts as discrimination against children in foster care,
and that these youth are being punished because of out-dated bureaucratic protocols.
2
Including youth in all decision making processes enables them to learn and develop this skill that will be useful
for youth once they leave the dependent system.
8

9. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Systemic Problems, Trends and Assumptions with the Dependent System:
• Multiple Workers • Youth are not safe
Some youth have had multiple workers “Young people who age out of the child welfare
and their needs do not get addressed system are not safe. They experience great risks in
emotional, economic, and physical safety.
• Multiple Placements • Adolescents not always included
Some youth have lived in multiple placements that Adolescents are not always invited to meetings that
were unsuccessful and they feel the system failed focus on their permanency planning
them.
• Problems with education • Family not always included
Poor education support and opportunity pre and post Family involved with the youth are not always
high school. Youth pre-high school graduation, are invited to meetings that focus on permanency
forced to change schools, if their placement is planning
changed to a new county or neighborhood. This
often results in a gap(s) in their education process
(Steinberg, 2002).
• Older youth get under considered • If a youth refuses adoption, try again
Adoption and guardianship for an adolescent is not If a youth refuses adoption, he/she is may never be
treated with the same feasibility as pre-adolescent asked again. There is an assumption that youth
youth would not change their mind.
• Poor future planning • Reuniting family, adoption, or guardianship
Youth have reported that the path to self sufficiency “Once requirements of ASFA are met and
is often rapid, sometimes unplanned for and independent living begins, few efforts are made to
unexpected, and results in their feeling “dumped” reunite youth with family or re-visit the possibility
by the system that cared for them (Nixon, 1999).” of adoption or legal guardianship (Ansell, 2002).”
• Limited emotional support • The assumption
Limited emotional support from “An assumption that teens would prefer to pursue
a positive adult role model in placement, and no or independent living and that older teens are too old
limited family connections or support. for a permanent placement (Ansell, 2002).”
“A major flaw in the thinking that leads to these assumptions is the notion that permanency is a
placement, a place to live, an address (Ansell, 2002).”
Instead of recognizing that permanency represents:
• a connection,
• having a place to always go back to,
• knowing that there are people there who will always welcome you,
• a place with people who you know and care about to share holidays with,
• a state of mind, beyond an address and a temporary place to call home, that after the
youth turns 18, he/she may not be able to stay connected with.
9

10. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Reported Success for Youth In Care
It is also important to recognize what is working for youth in care. The table below outlines some
areas found in the literature that have helped youth who have aged out be more successful.
Successes for youth in care
• Employment while in care • Emotional and services support increases
“Youth who had jobs while in care were the most outcome success after care
successful at maintaining jobs after they left care “Youth who received support in order to attend
(Eilertson, 2002)” post-secondary educational and vocational programs
were more likely to obtain living-wage employment
(Nixon, 1999)”
• SIL participation increases outcome success • Family and a connection with a positive adult
after care increases youth success after care
“Youth who participate in SIL programs are more Family or family-like ties are critical and have
successful in learning independent living skills contributed to youth’s success in transition to
(Nixon, 1999)” adulthood.
The Foster Care System In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania accepts children into the foster care system who have issues other then abuse and
neglect, such as truancy or youth who have forced delinquency charges that stem from
dependency issues. The Pennsylvania foster care system was “set up as a child protective system
and was geared towards children who were abused and neglected (Benson, 2003).” However, it
was not geared towards addressing the shifting needs of older children who have compounded
issues as seen with delinquents.
According to a March 3, 2003 planning committee meeting at Family Court (1801 Vine Street)
in Philadelphia PA, the number of youth in foster care over the last ten years have remains the
same, yet there has been an increase in older youth in the dependent system. Over the last ten
years, adolescents twelve and older have increased by 58% from 2,373 (1992) to 3,745 (2002),
while youth under twelve have decreased by 20% (Benson, 2003).
A Legal Problems Verse A Social Problem
It is also important to recognize that these youth, although they may get in to trouble with the
law before or after they age out, they first came into a public system by way of a social problem.
This is significant because so many of the youth that have left the foster care system end up
incarcerated. Yet, many of them have come from backgrounds that are deeply seeded in social
problems, like abuse, neglect, poverty, and/or they have collected emotional and social problems
while in the dependent system.
Once the youth turns eighteen, he/she is confronted with aging out of care, if the youth gets in
trouble with the law he/she will be charged in the adult system, not in the child welfare system.
Yet, these youth have complex problems that are rooted to some degree in child welfare system.
Even though these youth are considered a legal adult, they often are struggling with the transition
of independent living and the responsibilities of adulthood, and are developmentally not at full
maturity for their age. Mean while, these youth are confronted with the challenges that most non-
foster children face until they are at least in their early twenties. The law does not differentiate
this gap and often the outcome for these youth leaves little compassion and assistance in helping
them to make better choices.
10

11. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Clearly, youth of all ages and backgrounds need to take some personal responsibility for their
actions. However, it must not be negated that these youth often were not taught the same value
systems of right verse wrong that so many non-foster children are exposed too. Additionally,
many of these youth have faced physical and mental traumas, and have not had a positive role
model to steer them towards good choice making. Yet, the current welfare system and related
government, upholds foster youth to a higher standard, then youth who have never had the
complex problems found among foster children.
11

12. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Independent living is not about protecting and controlling it is about letting go.
– Mark Kroner, The Lighthouse Project, CA
Part III: Adolescent Initiative Program / Achieving Independence Center
This year the Adolescent Initiative Program was replaced by the Achieving Independence Center
(AIC). AIC is a DHS sponsored collaborative intended to address the needs of youth sixteen to
twenty-four. All youth in care are referred to AIC after they turn sixteen, by their DHS social
worker as part of their independent living plan. As youths needs change, the youth is also eligible
to continue to use the services at the AIC until they are twenty-four.
Some supporters of the independent living practice believe that it is critical to start IL planning at
fourteen, and if you wait till the youth is a junior or senior in high school, it may be too late to
prepare them (Eilertson, 2002).
AIC Location And Information
Achieving Independence Center
Mellon Independence center
701 Market Street, Concourse level
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-574-9194
AIC programs and services
• Life skills • Educational Support
• Employment and training • Housing
• Hands-on job training • Technology
• Mentoring • Teen parenting
Who Qualifies?
• Foster care youth between sixteen and twenty-four years
• Youth between sixteen and twenty-four who have been discharged from the foster care
system are eligible for services at AIC, as long as they were in the foster care system
when they were sixteen.
What Is The Role Of A Child Advocate?
• Ensure that each client sixteen and older participates in AIC. Sometimes, DHS workers
may not follow through with connecting clients to this resource.
• Advocate for all youth in dependent care to have access to AIC, not just those who were
in the system at sixteen. This is particularly important for youth who have aged out of the
system before AIC existed, or were previously discharged from the foster care system
before they reached sixteen, but could benefit from the AIC services.
12

13. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
“What does life look like for these “system kids”? How do they turn themselves into productive,
self-sufficient adults without the financial, emotional and social support that most young people
get from families, friends, and communities?” – Christine Eiliertson
Part IV: Board Extensions
What Is It And How Does It Work?
In Pennsylvania, “the Juvenile Act requires that an extension of care be permitted when a youth
is in a course of instruction or treatment. In fact, under the Juvenile law a youth cannot be
discharged from care without a hearing. In PA, a hearing before discharge is required, there are
no other regulations or standards for discharging youth, however, local courts are developing
discharge protocols (Pokempner, J., et al., 2003, p.12).”
Adjudicated youth are eligible for a board extension at eighteen allowing them to continue in the
foster care system until they are twenty-one. In order to receive a board extension the youth
needs to request a board extension from DHS (described below). They also need to meet certain
criteria and have an education or vocational goal to pursue during this extended period.
Process for CASW To Follow
• CASW receives a monthly print out of clients sixteen and older
• The CASW needs to write each client a letter addressing the client responsibility with future
planning (AIC eligibility) and board extension eligibility. See the Letter from CAUSW to
youth (Appendix).
• Once the client turns seventeen, the CASW needs to send them a second letter addressing the
same issues.
The CASW Role with Clients
In addition to the letters, the CASW needs to discuss with clients their eligibility for independent
living / future planning services.
The CASW needs to make sure that each client is:
• compliant with their Individual Service Plan (ISP) goals,
• attending and doing well in school, or at least showing improvement
• has shown appropriate behavior in home and at school,
• doing what he/she needs to do to meet all goals
• If the youth is not compliant, the CASW needs to make their client aware that they will
could lose eligibility for a board extension and all other services through DHS, except
AIC (independent living), once they turn eighteen1
1
AIC is suppose to be offered to all youth in care once they turn sixteen and extended to them until they turn twenty-
four. (See Part III: Adolescent Initiative Program / Achieving Independence Center)
13

14. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Board Extensions: General Board Extension And A Specific Board Extension
There are two types of board extensions, a general and a specific board extension.
General Board Extension (for youth with special needs)
• Goal: Mental Health (MH) Treatment
• The youth must be enrolled in a treatment program in order to receive a board extension.
• When the youth turns twenty-one, DHS and the Office of MH/MR collaborate in
planning a discharge plan that will address the youth’s special needs
Specific Board Extension
• These youth have successfully completed AIP/AIC (required).
• These youth are enrolled in an SIL program, in foster care, or in kinship.
• Youth still in high school at eighteen can be eligible as long as they participate in
finishing high school, and/or acquiring a post high school educational, college or
vocational (auto, cosmetology) opportunity.
• Sometimes youth work part time depending on SIL program requirements.
• In the event, the youth did not complete AIP/AIC they must be enrolled in AIC
concurrent with SIL in order to gain life skills and other additional training, needed.
Board Extension May Be Requested If The Youth Is
• Committed to the DHS in placement
• Between 18 and 21 years old
• Demonstrates their level of motivation and commitment. The youth is attending, getting
good grades or showing improvement in school, compliant with their ISP goals, and/or
with treatment program (if applies).
• Enrolled in AIC, educational, vocational, or other training that is intended to enhance the
youth’s ability to live independently and to become self sufficient
• For youth with substance problems, they must be enrolled in a substance abuse program
• For youth with mental health problems, it could be argued that the youth needs additional
services to address his/her problems and that he/she is not ready for independence. In this
case, a board extension would allow additional time for the youth to receive the treatment
he/she needs, until age twenty-one.
Additionally, the Youth Must Meet the Following Expectations
• The youth must meet with the DHS social worker to determine future goals, to outline how
goals will be achieved, and identify how long it will take to achieve his/her goals.
• The DHS social worker and the youth should explore all alternatives and options for
financing the achievement of goals.
• Identifying and utilizing available services appropriate
Applying For A Board Extension in Philadelphia, PA
The youth needs to write their DHS social worker requesting a board extension before well
before his/her eighteenth birthday.
Once A Board Extension Is Granted
Once granted a board extension, the youth must request a renewal of the board extension every
six months until his/her twenty-first birthday.
14

15. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Discharge Plans
Whether the youth is discharged at eighteen or twenty-one, discharge plans should cover the
following areas:
• Educational or vocational goals • Daily living skills
• Employment • Connection to community services
• Housing • Connection to a positive adult role model
and/or family member
• Mental health / medical coverage
*(borrowed from Pokempner, J., et al., 2003, p.13)
Discharge plans should be more comprehensive a simply stating where the youth will be
residing. Since the Juvenile Act in Pennsylvania does not have any standard or protocol for
discharging youth, it is particularly important that CA uphold the criteria outlined (Pokempner,
J., et al., 2003, p.12-13) above. Especially, since so many aged-out youth face problems such as
homelessness, incarceration, and unemployment.
15

16. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Board Extension Letters (sample copies for each are in the Appendix section)
Letter From DHS to Youth
The Department of Human Services writes the client when he/she is seventeen. The letter also
includes a Board Extension Request Form that the client must fill out and sign. Parents or
guardians, child advocate, agency social worker, and anyone else appropriate should also receive
a copy of this letter sent to youth. See sample copy in the Appendix section.
Letter From CAUSW to Youth
The CAUSW needs to send each eligible youth a letter after the youth turns sixteen. The intent is
to inform the youth of their eligibility for a board extension and the process that he/she needs to
follow in order to receive extended services. Enclosed with this letter is a sample letter that
shows the youth what to write in their letter to DHS requesting a board extension. See sample
copy in the Appendix section.
Letter From Youth to DHS
The youth needs to write a letter to his/her DHS social worker requesting his/her desire to
receive a board extension. If the youth chooses to request a board extension, they need to meet a
number of expectations, (see previous, section titled Expectations the youth must meet in order to
request a board extension). The youth must also return a signed Board Extension Request Form
to DHS that accompanied the initial letter sent by their DHS worker. See sample copy in the
Appendix section.
The Letter From The Youth To DHS Must Include
• A statement that the youth is requesting continued services and support until he/she is
twenty-one in order to complete his/her education and training goals.
• The specific educational or vocational training or treatment program that the youth is or
will be attending.
• The dates of the program from start to finish must be identified.
• A letter of verification from an admission counselor or other administrative authority of the
educational or vocational program chosen stating the youth has been accepted and is
enrolled.
Monthly Print-Outs Identifying Clients 16 + Years
Each month CAUSW supervisors will give each CAUSW a list of clients who are sixteen and
older. These clients are eligible for AIC if sixteen and board extensions if seventeen or older.
Early Interventions Recommendation: Social Service Checklist Summarizing Clients Needs
A standard checklist that addresses all aspects of youth’s needs, including youth with specialized
needs could improve youth outcome potential. Such a checklist could identify the youth’s
individual needs; in order to, better prepare the youth for his/her future.
16

17. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
“The child welfare systems and foster care programs need to become more aware of why these
kids are not prepared (Morris, 2002)”–Ann Stanton, Lark Street Center, San Francisco, CA
Part V: Supervised Independent Living Programs (SIL)
Supervised Independent Living Programs provide youth, sixteen to twenty-one, with their own
apartments, and services such assisted life skills training, socialization activities, counseling,
medical, living allowances (food, personal needs, clothes), and if needed, child care.
While in SIL, the youth’s priority is to focus on their educational or vocational goals. As long as
they are enrolled and participating in a training program, the youth is provided services. The goal
of the SIL programs is for the youth to be ready to transition into adulthood when they are
discharged from DHS at twenty-one.
Who Is Eligible?
Youth between sixteen and a half to twenty-one are eligible to live in a supervised independent
living arrangement and are enrolled in educational or vocational training.
Often dependent youth are academically behind their peers who are not in the dependent system.
Many of these youth have low reading and math skills. Therefore, because these youth are
behind academically they may not qualify for SIL because they are unable to do the academic
work.
SIL Programs in Philadelphia, PA
Tabor Services, Inc. Children’s Services, Incorporated (CSI)
57 E. Armat Street 1315 Walnut Street, 3rd floor
Philadelphia, PA 19144 Philadelphia, PA 19107-4703
215-348-4071 215-546-3503
www.tabor.org www.childrensservicesinc.org
Delta WAWA
Presbyterian Children’s Village (PVC) MORDY
Regulations to Maintain SIL Status:
• Participating in an educational or vocational program
• Seek and obtain part-time employment
• Meet with DHS SW and provider SW on a regular assigned basis
• Attend Adolescent Initiative Program (AIP) and complete program
Referral Process to SIL:
DHS sends a social summary of the child’s progress to the provider agency. This summary
includes placement history, any runaway/AWOL reports, school attendance, and support
services. Once the agency receives the child’s social summary a meeting is scheduled with the
client, provider agency, and DHS.
The provider agency then will decide as to whether they agree or disagree to supervise the client
during extended care. DHS notifies the client as to the final agency decision. If the agency does
17

18. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
not agree to supervise the child, the DHS worker may advocate on behalf of the child, or the
worker may choose to search for another provider agency to supervise the child.
Child advocates can play an intermediary role and also advocate for their clients to participate in
an SIL program.
18

19. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
“Youth who grow up in state care face a series of challenges that may be exacerbated by the need
to leave care earlier (Sheehy, 1999).”
Part VI: John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Also known as the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 and the Independent Living program.
Signed by President Clinton on November 18, 1999, this act increases funds allocated to each
state in order to assist discharged youth in making a smoother transition into independent living
(adulthood).
From Child Welfare League Of America’s Web Site, The Independent Living Program
Includes (Quoted from www.cwla.org):
Increases Funds To States To Assist Youth To Make The Transition From Foster Care To
Independent Living
• Federal Funds for Independent Living Program is doubled from $70 million to $140
million a year.
• Allocated funds are to be used to help youth transition from foster care to independent
living. The youth are offered an opportunity to participate in an educational or vocational
program to obtain necessary employment skills, and also to teach youth independent
living skills such as shopping, paying bills, laundry, and prevention methods for
substance abuse, pregnancy, and health problems. The funds are supposed to also help
connect the youth with an adult who could provide a safe, positive, and stable
relationship.
• States must contribute a 20% state match for Independent Living Program funds.
• States must use federal training funds (authorized by Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act) to help foster parents, adoptive parents, group home workers, and case managers to
address issues confronting adolescents preparing for independent living.
Recognizes The Need For Special Help For Youth Ages 18 - 21 Who Have Left Foster Care
• States must use some portion of their funds for assistance and services for older youths
who have left foster care but have not reached age 21.
• States can use up to 30 percent of their Independent Living Program funds for room and
board for youths ages 18 to 21 who have left foster care.
• States may extend Medicaid to 18, 19 and 20-year-olds who have been emancipated from
foster care. Access to the new independent living funds is not contingent upon states
exercising that option.
Offers States Greater Flexibility In Designing Their Independent Living Programs
• States can serve children of various ages who need help preparing for self-sufficiency
(not just those ages 16 and over as in previous law), children at various stages of
achieving independence, and children in different parts of the state differently; they also
can use a variety of providers to deliver independent living services
• The asset limit for the federal foster care program is changed to allow youths to have
$10,000 in savings (rather than the current $1,000 limit) and still be eligible for foster
care payments.
19

20. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Establishes accountability for states in implementing the independent living programs.
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) must, in consultation with federal,
state, and local officials, advocates, youth service providers, and researchers, develop
outcome measures to assess state performance. Outcomes include educational attainment,
employment, and avoidance of dependency, homelessness, non-marital childbirth, high-
risk behaviors, and incarceration.
• HHS must also collect data necessary to track how many children are receiving services,
services received and provided, and implement a plan for collecting needed information.
HHS must also report to Congress and propose state accountability procedures and
penalties for non-compliance.
States must coordinate the independent living funds with other funding sources for
similar services.
• States are subject to penalty if they misuse funds or fail to submit required data on state
performance.
• $2.1 million is set aside for a national evaluation and for technical assistance to states in
assisting youth transitioning from foster care.
Who Qualifies?
Youth ages 18-21 and who have been discharged from the dependent foster care system
National Programs Identified as Model Programs Include
IL / SIL Programs Location
Casey Family Program & Casey Family Services
Light House Youth Services Cincinnati, OH
Bridges Los Angeles, CA
CA Youth Connection CA
Tubman House (Waking the Village) Sacramento, CA
Independent Living Youth Advisory Board Maryland
Foster Care Youth Partnership New York
Department of Health & Human Services, Cedar Rapids, IA
Four Oaks of Iowa
Supervised Apartments and Independent CT
Living (SAIL)
Independent Living For Tomorrow (LIFT), Alexandria, VA
Residential Youth Services
Denver Department of Human Services Denver, CO
Alive-E Youth In Transition
Volunteer Mobile Inc., Connections Mentor Program AL
The Kings Ranch/Hannah Homes Living Program AL
What is Title IV-E Independent Living Program?
Title IV-E was enacted in 1986. Title IV-E “provided states with the resources to create and
implement independent living services (Kellam, 1999).” With the addition of the 1999 act John
H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, a portion of the funds available can be used for
older youth between eighteen and twenty-one that have already aged out of the foster care
system. The 1999 act allows states to use up to 30% of the allocated funds for room and board
20

21. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
for these youth. However, according to a DHS worker interviewed, PA is not utilizing the entire
30% for this target group.
21

22. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Part VII: Appendix – Inserts (Not included in this document)
Sample Board Extension Letters
a) Sample letter from client to DHS
b) Sample letter from CAUSW to client
c) Sample letter from DHS to client
DHS: Board Extension Policy
DHS: Permanence
DHS: SPLC (Supervised Permanent Legal Custody)
22

23. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Resources for Youth Related Issues: Foster Care, Aging Out, and Independent Living
PA Resources
The National Resource Center for Youth Services Pennsylvania's Child Family Service Review (2002)
(NRCYS) at the University of Oklahoma http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/PDFs/CFSR/Pennsylvaniz_CF
http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/ SR.pdf
PA State related info:
http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/NRCYD/State_Pages_f/state_p
a.htm
PA State Foster Parent Association Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children,
http://www.psfpa.com/ Youth and Families
P.O. Box 2675, Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675
William Wilson
(717) 214-3810 / fax (717) 214-3784
wiwilson@state.pa.us
National Resources
The Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) The Administration for Children and Families
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/ (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/index.html
Casey Family Programs Orphan Foundation of America (OFA)
www.casey.org/ http://www.orphan.org
National Resource Center for Youth Development, Waking the Village
The University of Oklahoma College of Continuing Sacramento, CA
Education, a contracted organization of the US http://www.wakingthevillage.org/
Department of Health and Human Service, Children’s
Bureau
4502 East 41st Street, Bldg 4W
Tulsa, OK 74135-2512
(918) 660-3700 / fax (918) 660-3737
www.nrcys.ou.edu
National Estimates of Runaway / Throwaway Youth Children’s Village Appreciation for Youth (WAY)
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196466.pdf New York
Youth 15-17 make up 2/3rds of the youth in this Offers a scholarship program for youth and has a high
category (NRCYD, 2002) success rate for youth outcomes that go through their
program. Might be a good model to look into.
Child Trends
http://www.childtrends.org
FYSB Transitional Living Programs in Pennsylvania
Northern Cambria Community Three Rivers Youth
Development Corporation 2039 Termon Avenue
4200 Crawford Avenue, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Northern Cambria, PA 15714 Peggy B. Harris
Beth Miller (412) 766-2215 ext. 18 / tryyouth@aol.com
(814) 948-4444 / ncamdevl@surfshop.net
Centre County Youth Service CH Pennsylvania Under 21
410 South Fraser Street 417 Callowhill Street
State College, PA 16801 Philadelphia, PA 19123
Norma Keller Jerome Kilbane
(814) 237-5731/ ysb@ccysb.com
Valley House Independent Living Program
Edinboro, PA
23

24. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Bibliography
Achieving Independence Center, (2003) Real skills for success, Brochure, Philadelphia, PA
American Bar Association, (1998) The Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997
Anderson, Cleopatra, (2003) Interview, Department of Human Service, former AIP Program
Director, Philadelphia, PA
Anderson, Gary, (2002) Aging out of foster care: policy implications for the state of Michigan,
MSU School of Social Work, Institute for public policy and social research,
www.ippsr.msu.edu/Applied Research/Anderson.htm
Ansell, D. I., (2002) The dilemma of either/or permanency vs. independent living, National
resource center for youth development, fall/winter
APA Online, (2003) Congress passes the foster care independence act,
www.apa.org,ppo/issues/pfosterkids.html
Benson, Clea, (2003) Older children crowd city foster-care system, Philadelphia Inquirer, Local
and Regional
Brown, J. A., (2002) Worker helps teens in foster care become self sufficient, News & Record,
Sunday City edition, People & Places, p28
Center for Public Policy Priorities, (2001) All grown up, nowhere to go, Texas teens in foster
care transition, Texas foster care transitions project, The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Charles, K., et al, (2000) Permanency Planning: Creating life long connections, What does it
mean for adolescents?, The University of Oklahoma, National Resource Center for Youth
Development, www.nrcys.ou.edu
Child welfare league of America, (1999) Foster care independence act of 1999, summary of key
provisions of legislation, www.fatherfamilylink.gse.upenn.edu/policy/recent/9912/9912.htm
Children’s Defense Fund, (2003) Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA),
www.cdfactioncouncil.org/asfa.htm
Children’s Services, Incorporated, SIL handbook, Philadelphia, PA
Collins, M. E., (2001) Transition to adulthood for vulnerable youths: a review of research and
implications for policy, University of Chicago Press social service review, June 2001, v75, i2,
p271
Cox, Rachel (1998) Abstract, Foster Care Reform, CQ Researcher, CQ Press, Vol. 8, No. 1
24

25. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Craig, C., Herbert, D., (1997) A state examination of the children: an examination of
government-run foster care, www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/s210/s210.html
Davis, Gleniese, (2003) Interview, Children Services, Inc., MSW and Program Administrator,
Philadelphia, PA
Department of Children and Families, State of Connecticut, (2003) Policy manual, adolescent
services, www.state.ct.us/dcf/policy/adoles42/42-1.htm
Eilertson, c., (2002) When foster care ends: for teens who grew up in foster care, starting life on
their own is jarring, sometimes frightening change. What are states doing to support their
transition to adulthood?, National conference of state legislatures, State legislatures,
v28,i8,p24(3)
Graf, ben, (2002) Information packet: Foster care independence acy – 1999, National resource
for foster care and permanency planning at the Hunter College school of social work, NY,
George, R. M., et al., (2003) Employment outcomes for youth aging out of foster care, final
report, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children,
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-agingout02/
Heyman, J. D., (2003) Sink or swim: at 18 most foster kids are pushed out of the system. Two
years later half have babies or are in prison. New programs offer hope, but many, says one 20-
year old, it’s like being thrown out into the wild, People Weekly, Time, Inc. v59, i2, p66+
Juvenile court judges’ commission commonwealth of PA (1999)The Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.
sec.6301 et seq. with appendix,
Kellam, Susan, (1999) Clinton signs foster care independence act, Connect for kids, children and
foster care, www.connectforkids.org/content1552/content_show.htm?attrib_id=314…
Kellam, Susan, (2000) Foster youth lobby congree, Connect for kids, children and foster care,
www.connectforkids.org/content1552/content_show.htm?attrib_id=314…
Kellam, Susan, (2000) Maryland takes a first step towards foster care independence, Connect for
kids, children and foster care,
www.connectforkids.org/content1552/content_show.htm?attrib_id=314…
Kroner, Mark, (1999) CWLA Testimony of Mark Kroner before the house ways and means
subcommittee on human resources for the hearing on foster care independent living, Child
welfare league of America, May 13, 1999
Morris, J., (2002) Freedom at 18 can be free fall for unprepared, Knight Ridder/Tribune News
Service, pK2070
25

26. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
National center for research family support, (2002) Youth aging out of care, Casey Family
Programs, www.casey.org/cnc/policy_issues/youth_aging_out.htm
National Legislation, (2002) New law expands support to foster care youth transitioning to
independence, March 31, 2000, www.casane.org/refernce/foster-independ.htm
National Resource Center for Youth Development, (2003) Pennsylvania: a state web-based fact
sheet, The University of Oklahoma College of Continuing Education, a contracted organization
of the US Department of Health and Human Service, Children’s Bureau,
www.nrcy.ou.edu/NRCYD/State_Pages>f/state_pa.htm
Nixon, Robin, (1999) CWLA Testimony before the ways and means subcommittee on human
resources for the hearing on challenges confronting older children leaving foster care, Child
welfare league of America, March 9, 1999
Philadelphia Department of Human Services Children and Youth Division Policy Manual,
(2000), History of CYD, Provisions of Service (1000 – 1010), Board Extensions (5270 –
5271.3), Adolescent Initiative (5710), Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia Department of Human Services, (2002) Social worker court presentation guidelines
for children in alternative planned permanent living arrangements (APPLA), Philadelphia, PA
Pittman, Karen, (2003) Aging out or aging in, www.ytyt.org/infobank/document.cfm/parent/297
Pokempner, Jenny, (2003) Interview, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, PA
Pokempner, J., and Rosado, L. M., (2003) Dependent youth aging out of foster care in
Pennsylvania: a judicial guide, 3rd edition, Juvenile Law Center
Powell, A., (2002) Aging out can be a life crisis for foster youth, Harvard University Gazette,
Boston, MA, www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/01.17/01-foster.html
Public law, (1999) Foster care independence act of 1999, Public law 106-169, 106th congress
Robinson, R., (2002) Brownstone to house Applewood Program, Crains Cleveland Business, p8
Sakis, N., (2002) Transition from independent living homes for older teens in foster care to
complete independence, NPR, August 26, 2002, 10 AM news edition
Sheeny, Alfred, M., et al (1999) Promising Practices: Supporting transitions of youth served by
the foster care system, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service and National Resource
Center for Youth Services, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Shors, B., (2003) Foster care’s end start of trouble; many face poverty, jail after support
withdrawn. Spokane spokesman-review, main news, p.A1
Social security legislation bulletin (1999) The foster care independence act of 1999, November
24, 1999, 106-12, www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_112499.html
26

27. Elizabeth E. Brait
Education & Protocol Training
Spangler, Ron, (2003) Interview, Achieving Independence Center, Program Director,
Philadelphia, PA
State Legislatures, (2002) More adoptions out of foster care, National Conference of State
Legislatures, v28, i9, p7(1)
Stein, T., (2000) The Adoption and Safe families act: creating a false dichotomy between
parents’ and childrens’ right, Families in society: the journal of contemporary human services,
families international, inc., p586
Steinberg, A., Peckham, S., Silver, J., (2002) PA needs to ease enrollment for foster care, equal
access to education, Philadelphia Inquire, September 3, 2002,
www.ssw.upenn.edu/CCPPR/steinberg_article.htm
Support Center for Child Advocates, (1998) What’s Up, the adoption and safe family act:
towards safety and permanency for children, Fall 1998,
www.advokid.org/Newsletter/Fall98_wn.pdf
U. S. Department of health and Human Services (2001) Reports to congress: Developing a
system of program accountability under the John H. Chafee Foster care Independence Program,
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb
Wertheimer, R., (2002) Youth who “ages out” of foster care: troubled lives, troubled prospects,
Child trends research brief, publication #2002-59, Washington, D.C.
Zahn, Clay, (2000) A new approach to permanency planning reviews, the movement towards
timely permanence, National Resource Center for Youth Development, The University of
Oklahoma College of Continuing Education, a contracted organization of the US Department of
Health and Human Service, Children’s Bureau, NRCYD Update Newsletter, spring/summer
27