Multi-site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs Dataset User's Guide

Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster

Youth Programs (Chafee

Independent Living Evaluation

Project), 2001-2010

NDACAN Dataset Number 161

USER'S GUIDE

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect

Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York 14850

607-255-7799

[email protected]

www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov

Initial release: 3/31/2013

Last Revision: 11/6/2020

Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs (Chafee

Independent Living Evaluation Project), 2001-2010

Data Collected by

Mark E. Courtney, Ph.D.

University of Wisconsin Madison, WI

Matthew W. Stagner, Ph.D.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC

Michael Pergamit, Ph.D.

Urban Institute Washington, DC

Funded by

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Children’s Bureau Administration for

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington , D.C.

Distributed by

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect

User's Guide Written by

Holly Larrabee

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect

in collaboration with

Sarah Hughes, Ph.D. NORC at the University of Chicago Chicago, IL

CONTENTS

· TITLE PAGE

· PREFACE

· ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCE

· PUBLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

· ABSTRACT

· STUDY OVERVIEW

o Study Identification

o Purpose of the Study

o Study Design

o Date(s)of Data Collection

o Geographic Area

o Unit of Observation

o Sample

o Data Collection Procedures

o Response Rates

o Sources of Information

o Type of Data Collected

o Measures

o Related Publications & Reports

o Analytic Considerations

o Detailed Source Information

o Confidentiality Protection

o Extent of Collection

o Extent of Processing

· DATA FILE INFORMATION

o File Specifications

o Data File Notes

PREFACE

The data for Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs (Chafee Independent Living

Evaluation Project), 2001-2010 have been given to the National Data Archive on Child Abuse

and Neglect (NDACAN) for public distribution by Mark E. Courtney, Matthew W. Stagner and

Michael Pergamit. Funding for the project was provided by Office of Planning, Research and

Evaluation and the Children’s Bureau Administration for Children and Families, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services Washington , D.C. (Award Number(s): 233-02-

0059).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCE

Authors should acknowledge the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect

(NDACAN) and the original collector(s) of the data when publishing manuscripts that use data

provided by the Archive. Users of these data are urged to follow some adaptation of the

statement below.

The data used in this publication were made available by the National Data

Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and have

been used with permission. Data from Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth

Programs (Chafee Independent Living Evaluation Project), 2001-2010 were

originally collected by: Mark E. Courtney, Matthew W. Stagner and Michael

Pergamit. Funding for the project was provided by Office of Planning, Research

and Evaluation and the Children’s Bureau Administration for Children and

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington , D.C.

(Award Number(s): 233-02-0059). The collector(s) of the original data, the

funder(s), NDACAN, Cornell University and their agents or employees bear no

responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.

The bibliographic citation for this data collection is:

Courtney, M., Stagner, M., & Pergamit, M. (2013). Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster

Youth Programs (Chafee Independent Living Evaluation Project), 2001-2010

[Dataset]. National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.

https://doi.org/10.34681/0Z22-3491

PUBLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

In accordance with the terms of the Data License for this dataset, users of these data are required

to notify the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect of any published work or report

based wholly or in part on these data. A copy of any completed manuscript, thesis abstract, or

reprint should be emailed to [email protected] . Such copies will be used to

provide our funding agency with essential information about the use of NDACAN resources and

to facilitate the exchange of information about research activities among data users and

contributors.

ABSTRACT

The Children’s Bureau in the Administration for Children and Families contracted with the

Urban Institute and its partners—the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago and the National Opinion Research Center—to conduct an evaluation of selected

programs funded through John Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP). This

evaluation, using a rigorous, random assignment design, was called for in the Foster Care

Independence Act of 1999. The goal of the evaluation is to determine the effects of Independent

Living Programs funded under CFCIP in achieving key outcomes for participating youth

including increased educational attainment, higher employment rates and stability, greater

interpersonal and relationship skills, reduced non-marital pregnancy and births, and reduced

delinquency and crime rates. An initial evaluability assessment was conducted to identify

programs that could be rigorously evaluated and to develop an evaluation design that would

meet the requirements of the authorizing legislation. Programs participating in the evaluation

include an employment services program in Kern County, California; a one-on-one intensive,

individualized life skills program in Massachusetts; and, a tutoring/mentoring program and a

classroom-based life skills training program, both in Los Angeles County, California.

In order to determine the short and long-term effects of Independent Living Programs on key

outcomes noted above, youth are assigned to intervention and control groups and surveyed at

three points over the course of the evaluation. In-person interviews with youth obtain

information on youth characteristics, program interventions and services, moderating factors,

and intermediate and longer-term outcomes. In-person interviews are conducted with program

administrators, community advocates, and directors of community provider agencies. Focus

groups are conducted with youth, independent living program staff, and other agency staff

responsible for referring youth to the programs. Child and family demographics, child welfare

placement history, physical and mental health status, and delinquency history will be obtained

through extracts of state administrative data. This study is being coordinated with other

Children’s Bureau-funded efforts designed to meet the evaluation requirements of CFCIP.

STUDY OVERVIEW

Study Identification

Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs (Chafee Independent Living Evaluation

Project), 2001-2010

Principal Investigator(s):

Mark E. Courtney, Ph.D.

University of Wisconsin Madison, WI

Matthew W. Stagner, Ph.D.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC

Michael Pergamit, Ph.D.

Urban Institute Washington, DC

Funded By:

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation and the Children’s Bureau Administration for

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington , D.C.

Award Number(s):

233-02-0059

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate independent living programs for youth in foster care.

Study Design

This evaluation uses an experimental design, whereby some youth are randomly assigned to be

referred to the service being evaluated while others are referred to “services as usual,” both of

which vary by site. In order to determine the short and long-term effects of independent living

programs on key outcomes noted above, youth in both the treatment and control groups were

interviewed in person at three points over the course of the evaluation. Treatment and control

youth were interviewed shortly after referral and random assignment and follow-up interviews

took place approximately one year and two years later. Where required, the questionnaire was

adapted to specific program sites.

Date(s) of Data Collection

The award period started on 9/28/2001 and concluded on 09/27/2010. Each site has a different

start and end date within that span of time.

Geographic Area

Kern County, California; Massachusetts; and Los Angeles County, California

Unit of Observation

The unit of observation is the youth.

Sample

Site 1

Eligible youth for the Independent Living Life Skills Training (LST) Program in Los Angeles

were those 16 years and older in out-of-home placements (including probation). Referrals to the

program may come from caseworkers or the court may order services be made available to the

youth. Youth who may be ineligible for the program included those with severe learning

disabilities or disruptive behavior problems. Hearing-impaired youth were provided an

interpreter for the program. For the purposes of the Multi-site Evaluation, eligible youth included

all those in care who were able to participate in the program and who (1) reached their 17th

birthday during the intake period or (2) entered care during the intake period and were 17 or

older on the date of entry to care. The target sample size for this site was 450. The sample was

accumulated between September 2003 and June 2004.

Site 2

Eligible youth for the Early Start to Emancipation Preparation Tutoring (ESTEP-Tutoring)

program were referred to the program after an assessment of the youths’ reading and math skills

was conducted by an emancipation-preparation advisor (EPA) with the ESTEP program. The

ESTEP program provided an initial in-home assessment and recruited youth for emancipation

preparation workshops provided on 12 community college campuses. Youth aged 14 to 16 and in

out-of-home care were eligible for the ESTEP program. The sampling frame for the evaluation

was all youth referred for ESTEP-Tutoring during the study period. After assessments were

conducted by EPAs, all youth deemed appropriate for tutoring—that is 1 to 3 years behind grade

level on reading or math—were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. The

target sample size for this site was 450. The sample was accumulated between September 2003

and June 2004.

Site 3

Eligible youth for the Kern county IL-ES sample consists of youth in foster care placements

under the guardianship of the Kern County Department of Human Services who turned 16 years

old between September 2003 and July 2006 or who entered care during that period and were

already at least 16 years old. To be in scope for the study, the youth had to be in out-of-home

care, eligible for Chafee services, and were placed in Bakersfield or a nearby community. The

target sample size for this site was 250. The sample was accumulated between September 2003

and May 2006.

Site 4

Eligible youth for site 4 were youth aged 14 or above in therapeutic foster care in the custody of

DSS with a service plan of Independent Living or likely to be IL. The target sample size was 250

youth. Sample was accumulated between September 2004 and February 2007.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection for the survey was conducted via a computer-assisted personal interview

conducted at a location of the respondent's choosing, usually at home. Portions of the survey

were conducted via Audio Computer Assisted Personal Interview (ACASI), in which the

respondent keyed responses him- or herself while listening to and reading along with

questionnaire items appearing on the laptop screen. Sections conducted via ACASI were the

following: Substance Abuse, Sexual Behavior, Deliquency and Externalizing Behavior, and

Victimization.

Response Rates

The study response rates are as follows:

Baseline total number of completed cases

· Site 1: 469

· Site 2: 463

· Site 3: 263

· Site 4: 194

First follow up response rate (% of baseline)

· Site 1 Round 2: 429 – 91.47%

· Site 2 Round 2: 434 – 93.74%

· Site 3 Round 2: 238 – 90.49%

· Site 4 Round 2: 181 – 93.30%

Second follow up response rate (% of baseline)

· Site 1 Round 3: 413 – 88.06%

· Site 2 Round 3: 413 – 89.20%

· Site 3 Round 3: 237 – 90.11%

· Site 4 Round 3: 179 – 92.27%

Sources of Information

Survey forms administered via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews were used to collect

information.

Measures

Achenbach Adult Self-Report (ASR/18-59)

Achenbach, T.M. (2003). Manual for ASEBA adult forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University

of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Available from:

http://www.aseba.org

Achenbach Youth Self-Report (YSR)

Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Youth Self-Report for Ages 11-18 (YSR) [Instrument]. Burlington, VT:

University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Available from: http://www.aseba.org

Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF)

Only the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) portion of the measure was administered. The

measure was modified to omit questions regarding experience in a war zone or region of terror.

Kessler, R., Andrews, G., Mroczek, D., Ustun, B., & Wittchen, H.U. (1998). The World Health

Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI-SF).

International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7(4), 171-185. doi:

10.1002/mpr.47

Lifetime Experiences Questionnaire

The Lifetime Experiences Questionnaire was administered as questions V0 to V16. Although the

measure is unpublished, it was also used in the Midwest study and is contained in Appendix B of

the Midwest study's final report, available at

http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/CS_97.pdf

Rose, D.T., Abramson, L.Y., & Kaupie, C.A. (2000). The Lifetime Experiences Questionnaire: A

measure of history of emotional, physical, and sexual maltreatment. Manuscript in

Preparation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (MEAFF)

Courtney, M. E., & Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago (2007). Midwest

evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21. Chicago, IL:

Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Ruth, G., Keller, T., Havlicek, J., & Bost, N. (2005). Midwest

evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Retrieved

from: http://www.ncset.org/summit05/docs/NCSET2005_2a_Courtney.pdf

MEFYP Attitudes and Expectations [adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

1997, the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the

Outcomes of Independent Living Project]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Attitudes and Expectations

[Instrument adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Midwest

Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the Outcomes of

Independent Living Project]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Demographics [adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the

Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the National

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Demographics [Instrument

adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Midwest Evaluation of

the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health (Add Health)]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Economic Wellbeing [adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997,

the Precarious Families Study and the Current Population Study]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Economic Wellbeing

[Instrument adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Precarious

Families Study and the Current Population Study]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Education [adapted from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former

Foster Youth, and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Education [Instrument adapted

from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)]. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago.

MEFYP Employment [adapted from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of

Former Foster Youth, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Current Population

Survey, and the National Survey of Family Growth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Employment [Instrument

adapted from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Current Population Survey, and the

National Survey of Family Growth]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Fertility [adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Outcomes

of Independent Living Project, and the National Survey of Family Growth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Fertility [Instrument adapted

from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the Outcomes of Independent Living

Project, and the National Survey of Family Growth]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Living Arrangements [adapted from the household roster of the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-

Being (NSCAW) Household Roster, and the Outcomes of Independent Living Proj

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Living Arrangements

[Instrument adapted from the household roster of the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health (Add Health), the NSCAW Household Roster, and the Outcomes of

Independent Living Project]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Location [adapted from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former

Foster Youth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Location [Instrument adapted

from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth]. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Mental Health [adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and the Midwest

Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Mental Health [Instrument

adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult

Functioning of Former Foster Youth]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Physical Health [adapted from the NLSY 1997, the National Health Interview Survey,

the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Outcomes of Independent Living Project and the

Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Physical Health [Instrument

adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the National Health

Interview Survey, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Outcomes of Independent Living

Project and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth].

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Pro-Social and other Activities [adapted from the NSCAW Protective Factors, the

Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the National

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Pro-Social and other Activities

[Instrument adapted from the NSCAW Protective Factors, the Midwest Evaluation of the

Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth, and the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health (Add Health)]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Relationships [adapted from the Questions for Children in Out-of-Home Care from the

University of California at Berkeley Foster Care Study and the Midwest Evaluation of the

Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth ]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Relationships [Instrument

adapted from the Questions for Children in Out-of-Home Care from the University of

California at Berkeley Foster Care Study and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult

Functioning of Former Foster Youth ]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Services [adapted from the NSCAW Independent Living Module and the Midwest

Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Services [Instrument adapted

from the NSCAW Independent Living Module and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult

Functioning of Former Foster Youth]. University of Chicago.

MEFYP Sexual Behavior [adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and

the National Survey of Family Growth Cycle 6 (2002)]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Sexual Behavior [Instrument

adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and the National Survey of

Family Growth Cycle 6 (2002)]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Social Support [adapted from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of

Former Foster Youth and th e NSCAW Social Support]

Broadhead, W. E., Gehlbach, S. H., DeGruy, F. V., & Kaplan, B. H. (1988). The Duke-UNC

Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine

patients. Medical Care, 26(7), 709-723. Retrieved from: http://journals.lww.com/lww-

medicalcare/Abstract/1988/07000/The_Duke_UNC_Functional_Social_Support.6.aspx

Sarason, I.M. Levine, H.M., Basham,R. B. & Sarason B.R. (1983). Assessing social support:

The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 127-

139. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127

Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., Shearin, E.N., & Pierce, G.R. (1987). A brief measure of social

support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 4(4), 497-510. doi: 10.1177/0265407587044007

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Social Support [Instrument

adapted from the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth and

the NSCAW Social Support]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Sherbourne, C.D., & Stewart, A.L. The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine,

32(6), 705-714. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.

Rand Corporation (1991). Medical Outcome Study (MOS) Social Support Survey instrument and

scoring instructions. Retrieved from:

http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/mos/mos_socialsupport.html

MEFYP Substance Abuse [adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and

Monitoring the Future]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Substance Abuse [Instrument

adapted from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and Monitoring the Future].

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

MEFYP Victimization [adapted from the NSCAW Victimization, and the Midwest Evaluation of

the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth]

Courtney, M.E., Stagner, M.W., & Pergamit, M. (2001). MEFYP Victimization [Instrument

adapted from the NSCAW Victimization, and the Midwest Evaluation of the Adult

Functioning of Former Foster Youth]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Modified Self Report of Delinquency

Elliott, D., & Ageton, S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and

official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110. Retrieved

from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095245

Multi-site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs Comprehensive Youth Questionnaire

Youth Questionnaire. The youth questionnaire is the primary data collection tool used in the

study. It provides the foundation for the impact study, but also offers critical information about

youths’ backgrounds and experiences. The evaluation team designed the youth questionnaire

primarily by using questions from existing surveys. The sources were selected to provide

questions that had been used frequently and would provide good possibilities to compare with

other samples. Four surveys provided the bulk of the questions. The Midwest Evaluation of the

Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (the “Midwest study”) and the National Survey of

Child and Adolescent Wellbeing (NSCAW) provided questions about child welfare and provided

comparison samples of foster youths. In particular, the Midwest Study provided a good

comparison sample of foster youths aging out of care. The National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth, 1997 cohort (NLSY97), and the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health

(AddHealth) provided many of the other questions and allowed comparisons with nationally

representative samples of adolescents aging into their twenties. Special attention to the

questionnaire design and selection of items was made so that the core questionnaire could be

used with youths referred to independent living services at each selected site and so that the

same questionnaire could be used in each round, with minor variations across rounds.

Courtney, M. E., & Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago (2007). Midwest

evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21. Chicago, IL:

Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Dowd, K., Kinsey, S., Wheeless, S., Thissen, R., Richardson, J., Suresh, R., & et al. (2008).

National survey of child and adolescent well-being (NSCAW) waves 1-Restricted release

[dataset]. Available from National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Web site

http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (1997). National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 1997.

Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy97.htm

Harris, K.M., Halpern, C.T., Whitsel,E., Hussey, J., Tabor, J., Entzel, P. & Udry, J.R. (n.d.). The

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design [WWW document].

from Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill. Web site: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III)

Youths completed three tests (described below) from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of

Achievement III (Mather, Wendling, and Woodcock 2001). The unit of measurement used in

these analyses was the age percentile, which indicates youths’ percentile rankings based on a

normative sample. Letter-Word Identification consists of items asking youths to pronounce

words and simpler items asking them to identify letters. Calculation is a measure of the youth’s

ability to perform calculations. The youth completes a workbook with calculation problems of

varying degrees of difficulty. Passage Comprehension consists of passages that the respondent

reads silently. Each passage has a blank and the youth must complete the sentence. Difficulty

varies across items on this test, too, with the simplest items consisting of recognizing words and

following verbal instructions.

Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of

Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing Company. Retrieved from:

http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/wjIIIAchievement/index.html

Related Publications and Final Reports

Users are strongly encouraged to review published works, based upon these data, before

doing analyses. To view a complete list of publications for this dataset, please visit our

online citations collection called “canDL” at:

https://www.zotero.org/groups/421939/candl/tags/161-NORC-Foster-Care/library or go to

the child abuse and neglect Digital Library (canDL) NDACAN webpage.

Analytic Considerations

Data was collected over four sites. The questionnaires differed somewhat by site, as detailed in

the accompanying documentation. Some variable names and labels vary by site, requiring

recoding prior to combining data across sites.

Youths were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, with the expectation that (a)

youths assigned to the treatment group would receive services consistent with the design of the

program and (b) youths in the control group would not receive any services from the program

being evaluated, although they might have received similar services from other sources.

Consistent with the experimental evaluation design, the primary analytic strategy for assessing

the impact of the program is an Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis of differences in observed

outcomes between the treatment and control groups as they were originally assigned. Intent-to-

Treat analyses assume that the treatment provider intends to serve all of the evaluation subjects

that are assigned to the treatment group. This strategy assumes that the treatment and control

groups do not differ systematically across any characteristics that might be associated with

outcomes of interest since the two groups were selected through a random process. Any

outcomes that differ between the two groups in a statistically significant way are assumed to be a

result of the intervention being evaluated. However, as in other experimental evaluations of

social services, there were some violations of the assignment protocol. That is, some members of

the control group received services (crossovers), while some members of the treatment group did

not (no-shows). The crux of the problem presented by crossovers and no-shows (collectively

referred to here as violations) is that both can serve to lessen the observed differences in program

effects across the groups as originally assigned. For more information on this topic, please

consult the final reports.

Youth Questionnaire. The evaluation team designed the youth questionnaire primarily by using

questions from existing surveys. The sources were selected to provide questions that had been

used frequently and would provide good possibilities to compare with other samples. Four

surveys provided the bulk of the questions. The Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of

Former Foster Youth (the “Midwest study”) and the National Survey of Child and Adolescent

Wellbeing (NSCAW) provided questions about child welfare and provided comparison samples

of foster youths. In particular, the Midwest Study provided a good comparison sample of foster

youths aging out of care. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 cohort (NLSY97),

and the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) provided many of the

other questions and allowed comparisons with nationally representative samples of adolescents

aging into their twenties. Special attention to the questionnaire design and selection of items was

made so that the core questionnaire could be used with youths referred to independent living

services at each selected site and so that the same questionnaire could be used in each round,

with minor variations across rounds.

The majority of measures contained in the questionnaire are adapted from multiple sources. In

preparing the user's guide, every effort was made to properly document the questionnaire

sources. Uers may wish to consult the documentation for the source surveys to ensure that

secondary work credits adapted measures. A list of source surveys is contained in the

bibliography.

Detailed Source Information

The listing below contains the name and bibliographic citations for programs, measures, surveys,

and studies that were used to inform, in whole or in part, this data collection effort.

Current Population Survey

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Current population survey.

Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/programs-

surveys/cps.html

Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth

Courtney, M.E., Terao, S., & Bost, N. (2004). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of

former foster youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care. Chicago, IL: Chapin

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Available from:

https://www.chapinhall.org/research/midwest-evaluation-of-the-adult-functioning-of-

former-foster-youth/>/

Courtney, Mark E., & Cusick, G.R. (2010) Crime during the transition to adulthood: How youth

fare as they leave out-of-home care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, 2002-2007.

ICPSR27062-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social

Research [distributor], 2010-12-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27062.v1

Monitoring the Future

Johnston, L.D., Bachman, J.G., O'Malley, P.M., and Schulenberg, J.E.(2008). Monitoring the

future: A continuing study of American youth (12th-grade survey), 2007. ICPSR22480-v1.

Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor],

2008-10-29. doi:https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NAHDAP/studies/22480/version/1

National Health Interview Survey

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Health Interview Statistics. (2012).

National health interview survey. Available from:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/nhis_questionnaires.htm

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

Harris, K.M., Halpern, C.T., Whitsel, E., Hussey, J., Tabor, J., Entzel, P., & Udry, J.R. (2009).

The national longitudinal study of adolescent health: Research design [WWW document].

Available from: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1997). National longitudinal study of

youth, 1997. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy97.htm

National Survey of Child Abuse and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW)

Dowd, K., Kinsey, S., Wheeless, S., Thissen, R., Richardson, J., Suresh, R.,…Smith, K. (2008).

National survey of child and adolescent well-being (NSCAW) combined waves 1-5 data file

user’s manual restricted release version. Available from National Data Archive on Child

Abuse and Neglect. Web site: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov

National Survey of Family Growth

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Center for Health Statistics. (2011). Public use data file documentation, 2006-

2010, National survey of family growth. Retrieved from:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG_2006-

2010_UserGuide_MainText.pdf#Description

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Division of Vital Statistics. (2003). NSFG cycle 6 main study female questionnaire.

Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/C6female_capiliteMar03final.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Division of Vital Statistics. (2003). NSFG cycle 6 main study male questionnaire. Retrieved

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/C6male_capiliteMar03final.pdf

Outcomes of Independent Living Project

DePanfilis, D., & Daining, C. (2003). Assessment of outcomes of independent living final report.

Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland School of Social Work, Center for Families and

Family Welfare Research and Training Group. Available from:

https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/handle/10713/39/discover?filtertype_0=author&filterty

pe_1=subject&filter_relational_operator_1=equals&filter_relational_operator_0=equals&fil

ter_1=University+of+Maryland%2C+Baltimore.+School+of+Social+Work--

Projects+and+Reports&filter_0=Daining%2C+Clara&filtertype=subject&filter_relational_o

perator=equals&filter=Foster+Home+Care

Precarious Families

Frame, L. (1999). The Impact of Welfare on Precarious Families. Berkeley, CA: University of

California at Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, Child Welfare Research Center, Center

for Social Services Research. Available from:

http://cssr.berkeley.edu/research_units/cwrc/project_details.html#precarious

Stagner, M., Kortenkamp, K., & Reardon-Anderson, J. (2002). Work, income and well-being

among long-term welfare recipients: Findings from a survey of California’s precarious

families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from:

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/work-income-and-well-being-among-long-

term-welfare-recipients

Youth Risk Behavior Survey

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Center for Health Statistics. (2013) Youth risk behavior survey. Retrieved from:

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm

Confidentiality Protection

Dates have been changed to either the 1

of the month by the data contributor prior to archiving

or the 15

of the month by NDACAN. A number of string variables have been removed from the

dataset, and as a result, there will be instances where variables appear in the interview survey

documents but are not available in the data files. The variables were either not archived or were

removed by NDACAN for confidentiality protection reasons. A listing of variables removed

from the dataset has been included as a text file called "deleted variables."

Variable MH117 and YSR117 contains verbatim text responses regarding psychiatric

medications the respondent has taken in the past twelve months. References to the specific

month and year in which a medication was prescribed or a participant stopped taking the

medication were modified to delete reference to the specific month. The variable is named

MH117 or YSR117, depending upon the dataset.

Extent of Collection

This collection consists of the User’s Guide, interview questionnaires, a listing of deleted

variables, final interview dispositions (MS Excel and pdf), 12 codebooks and data files

corresponding to each site and round of data collection. The data files are provided in SPSS,

SAS, and Stata native formats, import statements for reading the text data file (.dat) into SPSS,

Stata, and SAS, and tab-delimited format.

Extent of Processing

NDACAN produced the Section 508 compliant User's Guide, Codebooks, 508 Accessible

version of the interview survey documents, 508 accessible version of the final dispositions pdf

document, SPSS, Stata, SAS native files and import statements, text data files, and tab-delimited

data files. In version 2 of the dataset value labels were added to variables based upon the

availability of that information in the survey instruments. Some variables were removed or

recoded for confidentiality protections.

DATA FILE INFORMATION

File Specifications

The dataset contains 12 data files which are organized by site and round of data collection.

No.

Filename

Round1_site1_v#

Round1_site2_v#

Round1_site3_v#

Round1_site4_v#

Round2_site1_v#

Round2_site2_v#

Round2_site3_v#

Round2_site4_v#

Round3_site1_v#

Round3_site2_v#

Round3_site3_v#

Round3_site4_v#

Data File Notes

Data files can be merged within site across rounds by "SU_ID".

There may be variables listed in the interview document that have been removed from the data

files (see “deleted variables”).

Variables associated with looping questions may have substantial missing data for later iterations

of the loop. Variables with missing were preserved in the data file to show that participants were

not limited in the number of responses they could provide.

The missing value codes of -1 = RF (Refused) and -2=DK (Don’t know) apply globally across

all variables in all 12 data files, even if not explicitly appearing in the codebook or the data file’s

value labels.

Variables listed in the codebook with “no value or values unknown” in the “Values” column are

variables where either, it is not appropriate for them to have value labels assigned or for which

the values and the associated labels were not found or explicitly stated in the survey instruments.

It may be possible to derive/assume labels for values in these variables by examining patterns of

value and label use throughout the data and survey instrument files. For example, the values for

Yes and No for variables appearing in the interview survey document, 0 = No and 1 = Yes. For

variables that are derived based upon survey questions, 1= Yes and 2=No.

Acronyms and Abbreviations used in this document:

Acronym/abbreviation

Definition/meaning

ACASI

Audio Computer Assisted Personal Interview

CFCIP

John Chaffee Foster Care Independence Program

DSS

Department of Social Services

EPA

Emancipation-preparation advisor

ESTEP

Early Start to Emancipation Preparation Tutoring

Independent Living

LST

Independent Living Life Skills Training

NDACAN

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect

SAS

Statistical software program named "SAS"

Acronym/abbreviation

Definition/meaning

SPSS

Statistical software program owned by IBM called "SPSS"

Stata

Statistical software program called "Stata"

U.S.

United States

D.C.

District of Columbia

YSR

Achenbach Youth Self Report

TRF

Achenbach Teacher Report Form

CBCL

Child Behavior Checklist

MEAFF

Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth

WJ-III

Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement

CIDI-SF

Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form

ASR

Achenbach Adutl Self-Report

MEFYP

Multi-Site Evaluation of Foster Youth Programs (the name of this

study)

NSCAW

National Survey on Child and Adolescent Well-being

Technical support for this dataset is provided by NDACAN.

Please send your inquiries to NDACANsup[email protected]

Visit the User Support page of the NDACAN website for help

documents and videos ((https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/user-

support/user-support.cfm).