1. reading RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders Who Were Abused as Children From this article, found interesting or useful in some way. For this reading, prepar

Received 17 November 2011 Received in revised form 2 April 2012 Accepted 5 April 2012 Available online 13 April 2012 Keywords:

Aftercare services Transition-aged youth First generation college students Reentry Foster care Homeless This case study examinesfive federal aftercare support programs for transition-aged youth, including: 1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for single parents, 2) TRIO Student Support Services forfirst gener- ation college students, 3) Second Chance Act for reentry youth, 4) Chaffee Educational and Training Vouchers for foster youth, and 5) Transitional Living Program for homeless youth. Considerable variability in federal funding to states and services provided across these programs are reported. While allfive vulnerable target groups likely need aftercare services of the nine types examined, as indicated by the literature, variations in federal funding levels, both among target populations and across states, raise important questions for so- ciety and federal and state policy makers. More systematic data collection and reporting systems specifying aftercare services provided and outcomes among those served which are accessible to the public, such as www.cfda.govandwww.usaspending.gov, are recommended.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The period in which individuals transition into adulthood, termed emerging adulthood byArnett (2000), represents a distinct stage in development. Emerging adulthood is a recently identified life stage defined by many as the period between adolescence and adulthood, typically between ages eighteen and thirty, but sometimes even to the mid-thirties.Arnett (2000)writes that this stage is,“neither ado- lescence nor young adulthood but is theoretically and empirically dis- tinct from them both.”The theoretical development of this new stage elucidates the dramatic changes that have occurred in the average age at which individuals assume traditional adult roles in their per- sonal and professional lives including independent living andfinan- cial stability (Atwood & Scholtz, 2008).

According toArnett (2000), emerging adulthood is unique in indi- vidual's having left the dependency of childhood and adolescence, but not yet entered the responsibilities of normative adulthood. This is a stage of development also marked by individuals exploring personal and vocational life directions. Emerging adulthood is a time of life when little about one's future has been decided for certain, and there remain a range of possibilities, each requiring separate action.

Though the term emergent adulthood is recently coined, there have been many important contributions to theories of this life stage over the last few decades. As indicated byArnett (2000, 2007), life stageand development theories fromErikson (1968),Levinson (1978),and Keniston (1971)all contributed to the theoretical groundwork for emerging adulthood. However, since their work in the 1960s and 1970s, economics and employment patterns have changed significantly in the United States and elsewhere. It is suggested that many postpone significant transitions of marriage and parenthood until at least the late twenties.

Another important consideration is that though challenges in this life stage are partly due to economic concerns, there is also a subjec- tive sense of attaining adulthood (Arnett, 2007). During emerging adulthood, individuals form identities that follow them throughout adulthood.Arnett (2007)suggests that the“quarterlife crisis”is relat- ed to the issue of identity formation, and has entered mainstream vo- cabulary and popular culture. For example, in his work several decades ago, Erikson observed that identity crisis is a central marker and challenge in late adolescence. During this crisis, individuals eval- uate their abilities, interests, and childhood influences and then use that knowledge to build plans and make choices for the future.

In addition to identity formation, another factor influencing this life stage is the need for advanced education and job skill attainment in order to earn a living wage, a shift from previous generations' abil- ities to obtain living wage employment shortly after high school. This is in part due to the nature of our economy shifting away from being manufacturing-centric to being information-centric. This shift has led to increasing requirements for postsecondary and even graduate ed- ucation in order to enter into a career (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2006).

The delay or inability for individuals to obtain a living wage lead many to postpone marrying or having families and rely on parental or familial support through their twenties (Furstenberg, Kennedy, McLoyd, Rumbaut, & Settersten, 2004). For most emerging adults, Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 ⁎Corresponding author at: College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 325-E Stillman Hall, 1947 College Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, United States. Tel.: + 1 614 292 0425; fax: + 1 614 292 6940.

E-mail address:[email protected](A.S. Mares).

0190-7409/$–see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.007 Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth obtaining adequate employment and education often requires con- siderable familial assistance and support including the provision of basic needs as well as emotional support and positive role modeling and mentoring. As such, the process of attaining independent adult- hood has become more complex and familial support systems have become even more essential to the process (Avery & Freundlich, 2009).

The challenges this life stage present are particularly relevant for at-risk youth because between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, most individuals age out of the juvenile justice, public education, and/or foster care systems that are designed to prepare them for in- dependent living, leaving them with a particular lack of structure and support. In many cases, problems can emerge as completing recommended higher education and training to obtain full-time em- ployment takes additional time. Thus, those who have traditional family structures in place depend upon them longer throughout emerging adulthood, and those without traditional family support or supportive systems become at-risk for unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and other challenges to independent living.

Throughout this complex process of attaining adulthood, emerg- ing adults rely upon their families for significant support including, but not limited to, money, housing, transportation, healthcare, educa- tion assistance, and emotional support. Emerging adults who lack tra- ditional familial support often struggle to meet their basic needs, along with their needs for education and employment. Some suggest that policy and programming has not yet adequately addressed this societal shift to emergent adulthood leaving many individuals with- out essential support networks and resources (Avery & Freundlich, 2009; Collins, 2004). Those most at-risk for emergent adulthood hardships are those who lack traditional familial support, single par- ents,first generation college students, reentry youth, foster youth, and homeless youth.

2. Review of literature on intervention elements for transition-aged youth Despite the significant challenges faced by individuals transition- ing to adulthood, there is groundwork in place for systemic change to assist with smoother transitions. Most studies on transitioning youth highlight the negative outcomes, but a few studies have con- sulted with transitioning youth directly to ascertain possible services that may assist in their transition. From those studies, money man- agement, education, and employment services are most desired (Barth, 1990; Cook, 1991; Daining & DePanfilis, 2007). For former ju- venile offenders, transitional supports such as adult mentors and/or advocates (Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schultz, & D'Ambrosio, 2001), sup- port for reentry to school or job placement (Menon, Blakely, Carmichael, & Snow, 1995) and development of supportive social net- works (Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004) seem effective in improving reentry outcomes. The issue at hand seems to be connecting transi- tioning young adults with the resources available, and supporting them as they work toward independence and self-sufficiency. Effec- tive individual mentoring, case management, support groups, and psycho-education emerge as promising intervention elements for at-risk transition-aged youth.

2.1. Element #1: mentoring All transitioning adults need support systems that will aid them through the unique challenges of their individual process. Mentoring as a form of intervention for vulnerable youth populations is increas- ingly popular (DuBois & Rhodes, 2006; Karcher, Nakkula, & Harris, 2005; Mech, Pryde, & Rycraft, 1995; Todis et al., 2001) and holds sig- nificant promise in addressing the needs of these individuals. Increas- ingly, mentoring programs are promoted as a means of meeting the needs of youth with decreased availability of adult support andguidance (Grossman & Tierney, 1998; Rhodes, Bogat, Roffman, Edelman, & Galasso, 2002). While many youth may experience limit- ed involvement in their lives from caring adults, former foster youth, former juvenile offenders, and homeless youth may be most at-risk.

Since these populations may lack traditional familial support, men- toring emerges as a particularly relevant intervention for their transition.

Thousands of mentoring programs exist today to serve a variety of individuals and needs. Mentoring programs receive corporate and philanthropic support (DuBois & Rhodes, 2006 ) as well as governmen- tal support from recent initiatives and legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (Karcher et al., 2005). It is estimated that over two and a half million American youth are involved in volunteer mentoring programs through their schools or communities, and the numbers continue to rise as more programs are developed (Carson, 2002). Currently, there is a demand for more thorough research into the outcomes of mentorships, best practices, and methods for mentoring special youth populations to best develop effective mentorship programming.

For transitioning youth, a role model they can relate to can be a strong motivating presence. By serving as role models and advocates, mentors can contribute to the positive identity development of their mentees (Rhodes, Liang, & Spencer, 2009; Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006) and assist in goal setting and planning for the future (Britner, Balcazar, Blechman, Blinn-Pike, & Larose, 2006). Men- tors may help to monitor their mentees, and, even more effective, en- courage them to spend more time with healthy relationships and less time with detrimental ones, which is a concern for some individuals (Blechman & Bopp, 2005). To achieve this, it may be helpful to view mentoring relationships within a framework of positive youth devel- opment that emphasizes young people's capacity for being motivated by challenge. Caring mentors can encourage the mentee to make au- tonomous decisions and take responsibility (Britner et al., 2006). In addition, mentors can provide motivation, support, and feedback, all related to positive development. It is suggested that strong mentoring relationships provide both guidance and structure while supporting youth's development as“agents of their own growth.”(DuBois & Rhodes, 2006).

Mentoring as an intervention for special populations poses specific questions and concerns. Transitioning at-risk youth often present a unique need for systems to supplement or substitute traditional famil- ial support that may be lacking. Despite the challenges,DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, and Cooper (2002)determined in a meta- analysis of mentoring program effects that at-risk youth can fully ben- efit from mentoring relationships despite challenges with trust- building. They identify the use of best practices and the formation of strong relationships as factors that contribute to mentoring success, which, again, fall onto the mentorship organization to promote ac- cordingly. Their works suggests that strong mentoring programs for at-risk populations can not only help build a sense of trust in others, but that mentoring may encourage individuals to more readily accept other support services (Britner et al., 2006). Moreover, research in the area of at-risk youth mentoring is growing, however slowly, and re- cent studies focused on the mentoring of special populations have suggested that mentoring can have important positive effects for at- risk youth, including increases in positive self-concept (Turner & Scherman, 1996) and increases in educational attainment (Shiner, Young, Newburn, & Groben, 2004; Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001; Zippay, 1995). AsBlechman and Bopp (2005)state, the diversity and flexibility of the mentoring process is promising. It may be an“elastic” enough intervention to meet the diverse needs of these youth.

2.2. Element #2: case management Given the broad range of needs among at-risk individuals transi- tioning to adulthood, effective case management is paramount. It 1510A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 thus becomes necessary to ensure effective case management approaches to best assist individuals infinding employment or post- secondary education. A review of case management literature for at- risk populations suggests a variety of approaches for doing so. For ex- ample, youth in the juvenile justice system face many challenges, sometimes including mental health and substance abuse, education, and family problems simultaneously (Young, Dembo, & Henderson, 2007). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) supports the development of multistage research on juvenile aftercare models, and has compared a variety of approaches. OJJDP has found resolving issues related to family, peers, education, em- ployment, and substance abuse is essential, but often requires case- work by knowledgeable individuals who are willing to invest considerable effort in problem solving for youth exiting the juvenile justice system. OJJDP has found that a case management approach such as this is effective in reducing recidivism.

The literature suggests that many recent studies of programs for youth exiting the juvenile justice system have focused on increasing surveillance and restraints on youth to reduce recidivism as compared to enhancing programs that address youth's employment or education- al goals. Of the former, much literature is devoted to research on such methods as more contacts with supervising agents, frequent urine tests, and electronic monitoring (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1999; Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004). Though there is some literature on re- habilitation, treatment, and services such as meetings for counseling, drug treatment, family counseling, employment training, it is sparser.

The Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Plan (JJEEP) is one organization that focuses on developing research addressing educa- tional needs and programs for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. They are affiliated with the Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research at Florida State University, and their mission is to en- sure high-quality, comprehensive educational services to students in the Florida juvenile justice program. The programming JJEEP has con- structed is comprehensive and involves careful transitioning out of the juvenile justice system (JJEEP, 2011).

To address the common needs of single parents—including low education, learning disabilities, health problems, or a history of do- mestic violence or substance abuse—another approach is extensive case management with multiple service linkages as-needed.Blank (2007)notes thatflexibility is important when providing supplemen- tal case management to casework involving TANF clients, allowing for different responses to families with different needs. She suggests a new program in which caseworkers regularly assess the TANF reci- pient's employment advancement, child well-being, and the use of services. Individuals may be referred to a network of additional exist- ing services for mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, or job and child care assistance. As needs are identified through case management, TANF caseworkers might then assist fam- ilies in applying for programs to address their needs, such as food stamps and Medicaid (Blank, 2007).

Individuals experiencing homelessness represent another at-risk population that requires specialized case management. Much of the literature on programming for this population is in reference to indi- viduals with mental illness experiencing homelessness. Several pro- grams exist which provide this array of services to this population.

The Comprehensive Opportunities to Assist Consumers who are Homeless (COACH) project provides permanent housing, case man- agement, and vocational services to homeless individuals with men- tal illness (Bianco & Shaheen, 1998; Heslin, Andersen, & Gelberg, 2003). A well respected psychosocial rehabilitation program in Chica- go, Threshholds, is another example of a multi-component services model. In this program, clients are offered housing, employment, mental health treatment, social support, education, and health care.

Staff focused on each area coordinate efforts to help meet the unique individual needs of clients and to assure that services are comprehen- sive (Heslin et al., 2003).2.3. Element #3: peer support Mutual support is an intentional process that assists individuals in developing skills for addressing challenges and issues in their lives.

This method of support may prove particularly helpful with youth transitioning to adulthood. In mutual support groups,Reissman (1990) identifies role changes as significant and helpful to the indi- vidual, particularly the shift from“patient”to“role model”, which is more socially valued. He has coined this the“helper therapy principle”.

The popularity of support groups for adolescents has grown signif- icantly in recent years. In fact, group therapy is the most frequent therapy method used with children and adolescents by mental health professionals in residential, group home, juvenile justice, and inpa- tient facilities. Group therapy has also been found to be helpful for ad- olescents with a variety of disorders including depression, substance abuse, and physical and sexual abuse (Sugar, 1993). Studies also sug- gest that teen mothers who remain in school-based group therapy programs are more likely to complete their high school education than those who are not involved (Litvak, 1991).

2.4. Element #4: psycho-education Achieving successful outcomes in education, employment, and in- dependence is a frequent topic of concern in transition literature for youth with disabilities (Benz, Lindstrom, Unruh, & Waintrup, 2004; Clark & Davis, 2000; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Though not all at-risk youth transitioning to adulthood have disabilities, the psycho-education literature remains applicable.

Areas commonly researched include youths' self-determination, so- cial support, life skills, and hopefulness. These represent characteris- tics, skill sets, and resources that can promote success and quality of life for emerging adults.

Self-determination is defined as“the ability to identify and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself” (Field & Hoffman, 2002). Research suggests that academic achieve- ment, employment, postsecondary enrollment, and overall indepen- dence may all be enhanced through self-determination (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003; Martin et al., 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). In addition, youth who have some form of social support net- work, whether it be family, community resources, or friends, are more likely to experience positive outcomes (Daining & DePanfilis, 2007). Life skills training is the development of competencies related to independent living such as budgeting, acquiring housing, gaining and maintaining employment, and accessing community resources.

Many programs work to develop self-determination and life skills development.

Collins (2004)writes that it is generally not known the extent to which independent living and life skills development is offered to youth emancipating from foster care. For example,Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, and Nesmith (2001)that found 76% of eman- cipated youths reported receiving life skills training. However, only 44% reported assistance obtaining a driver's license and 11% reported helpfinding a job, obtaining health insurance, or obtaining public as- sistance. This suggests that while some youth may have received some training, it may not have been concrete or lacked sufficient follow-through.

Though life skills training is believed by many to be an essential service for emancipating foster youth, there have been few national or rigorous studies examining life skills training programs and methods in the literature. The Westat study of independent living ex- amined outcomes nationwide,finding that skills training in money and credit management, consumer skills, education, and employment led to youths having more success living independently than those receiving no training (Cook, 1991, 1994 ). 1511 A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 Not until recently has a rigorous evaluation of a large life skills training program been conducted. The Urban Institute, Chapin Hall Center for Children, and National Opinion Research Center evaluated such a program serving foster youth in Los Angeles County, California.

Four hundred and eleven emancipating foster youth were randomly assigned to the Life Skills Training treatment group or the usual ser- vices comparison group. Treatment group participants attended ten three-hour life skills classes twice a week at 19 community colleges throughout Los Angeles County. No significant differences were found among a wide range of outcome measures examined between the two groups a year after thefive-week life skills training curricu- lum was completed (ACF, 2008).

3. Selection of federal programs assisting transition-aged youth A search of thewww.federalgrantswire.comdatabase was con- ducted in February 2011 by thefirst author to identify one key federal aftercare program per transition-aged youth population of interest. In addition to serving a target population, other factors considered in selecting programs included 1) broad funding across states (i.e., min- imum of 88% of states funded) (Table 3, last row); 2) large annual budget (i.e., minimum of $40 million) (Table 3, next to last row); and 3) focus on provision of“aftercare”support. Aftercare support was broadly defined as assistance provided to youth who have transi- tioned out of a system of care, which included foster care, secondary education, detention/incarceration, and homeless youth services. Im- portant programs assisting youth to prepare to leave systems of care or to extend state custody (e.g., from 18 to 21 years of age) were de- liberately excluded from this study, including the John H. Chafee Fos- ter Care Independence Program (CFCIP) and Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 for emancipating foster youth. Five programs werefinally selected: 1) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for single parents; 2) Student Support Ser- vices (SSS) for at-risk college students; 3) Second Chance Act (SCA) for reentry youth; 4) Educational and Training Vouchers (ETV) for foster youth; and, 5) Transitional Living for Homeless Youth (TLP) for homeless youth.

4. Description of programs and intervention elements/services provided 4.1. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program for single parents Under welfare reform legislation of 1996, TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program, and the Emergency Assistance program.

The law ended federal entitlement to assistance and instead created TANF as a block grant that provides States, Territories, and Tribes fed- eral funds each year. These funds cover benefits and services targeted to needy families. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 reauthorized the TANF program throughfiscal year (FY) 2010 with a renewed focus on work, program integrity, and strengthening families through healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood. TANF is by far the largest of thefive federal programs examined in this paper. In FY 2010, nearly $16.8 billion was allocated for this program. Nearly 4.4 million persons received assistance, making the per person annual cost of the program around $3800 (Table 1, Column 2).

Detailedfinancial data for TANF reported annually for recentfiscal years is published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser- vices Administration for Children and Families and is accessible at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data. Data are provided for both“assistance”services and“non-assistance” services. Assistance includes payments directed at ongoing, basic needs. Non-assistance includes child care, transportation, and supports provided to employed families, non-recurrent short-term benefits, IndividualDevelopment Accounts (IDAs), refundable earned income tax credits, work subsidies to employers, and services such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling (DHHS, 2009). In FY 2009 Federal TANF expenditures on assistance amounted to $5.7 billion (37%), compared with $9.5 billion (63%) that was spent on non-assistance (ACF, 2011a). Basic cash assistance totaled $4.5 billion (30%), and was the largest single line item in the TANF budget. Non-assistance work-related activities (including vocational life skills training) and combined assistance and non-assistance child- care services each totaled $1.8 billion or 12% of program expendi- tures. Thus, only one intervention element (i.e., psycho-education/ vocational training) is provided through TANF, in addition to two other types of support (i.e., cash and childcare) (Table 2).

4.2. Student Support Services (SSS) program forfirst generation college students SSS is one of three federal programs established in the mid 1960s to foster increased educational opportunity and attainment at both the secondary and postsecondary levels among low-income youth.

Upward Bound and Talent Search—the other two programs— focused on college preparation and admission while SSS helped eligi- ble students stay in college until they earned a college degree. Since 1968, six additional programs have been added to the TRIO umbrella to provide a wider range of services, including the expansion of Up- ward Bound to include programs for veterans and math and science areas of study, the addition of a program to promote doctoral educa- tion among students from underrepresented segments of society, and two programs intended to improve the design and administration of TRIO services.

Only institutions of higher education or combinations of institu- tions of higher education are eligible for SSS program awards. To re- ceive assistance, students must be enrolled in or have been accepted for enrollment in a program of postsecondary education at a grantee institution. Only low-income individuals who arefirst generation col- lege students and students with disabilities with a need for academic support are eligible to participate in SSS projects. Two-thirds of the participants in any SSS project must be either disabled orfirst gener- ation college students from low-income families. One third of the par- ticipants with disabilities must also be low-income students. In FY 2010, $302 million was allocated for this program. Over 200,000 per- sons received assistance, making the per person annual cost of the program about $1480 (Table 1, Column 3).

The most detailed data on SSS services comes from a recently pub- lished program evaluation report conducted by Westat for the US De- partment of Education (Chaney, 2010). This study compared outcomes of 2380 SSS with 2675 non-SSS freshmen students who en- tered college during the 1991–1992 academic year. Nine types of ac- ademic training and support services were identified, including tutoring and counseling provided by professionals and by peers, learning laboratories and workshops, cultural events, and services for the disabled. The most commonly utilized services among SSS stu- dents included professional counseling (e.g., 60% academic counsel- ing, 20% personal counseling, and 19%financial counseling), peer tutoring in mathematics (21%) and English (17%), orientation to col- lege workshops (18%), and study skills instructional courses (16%) (Chaney, 2010, Exhibit 1-1). Academic counseling serves as a form of specialized case management for individuals enrolled into locally operated SSS programs. Thus, SSS provides all four intervention ele- ments: mentoring, case management, peer support and psycho- education (i.e., academic training) (Table 2).

4.3. Second Chance Act (SCA) programs for reentry youth Signed into law on April 9, 2008, the Second Chance Act (P.L.

110–199) was designed to improve outcomes for people returning 1512A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 Table 1 Overview of federal programs for transition-aged youth.

Target population Single parents First generation college Reentry Foster care Homeless Name of program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)TRIO Student Support Services (SSS)Second Chance Act (SCA) Prisoner Reentry InitiativeChafee Educational and Training Vouchers (ETV)Transitional Living Program (TLP) CFDA no.* 93.558 84.042 16.812 93.599 93.550 Authori-zation* Social Security Act, Title IV, Part A, 42 U.S.C 601 et seq.Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1, Section 402D.Second Chance Act of 2007 (H.R. 1593/S. 1060).Social Security Act, Title IV, Part E, Section 477(h); as amended.Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974; The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, Title III, Part B, Section 321, Public Law 110–378, 42 U.S.C 5701–5752.

Objectives* To assist needy families with children so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; to reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.To assist disadvantaged college students to complete the postsecondary education program in which they are enrolled and increase their transfer rates from 2-year to 4-year institutions. To foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of disadvantaged college students.To facilitate offenders' successful reintegration into society.To make available vouchers for postsecondary training and education, to youths who have aged out of foster care or who have been adopted or left for kinship guardianship from the public foster care system after age 16.To help older homeless youth achieve self-sufficiency and avoid long-term dependency on social services.

Beneficiary Eligibility* Needy families with children, as determined eligible by the State, Territory, or Tribe in accordance with the State or Tribal plan submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).Low-income,first generation college students or disabled students who are enrolled or accepted for enrollment at the grantee institution and who are in need of academic support in order to successfully pursue a program of postsecondary education.Varies Youth who emancipated from foster care between 18 and 21 years of age; youth likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age; and former foster care recipients under 21 years of age.

Also youth adopted from foster care or exited foster care to kinship care between ages of 16–23.Homeless youth (ages 16 to 21).

Type of assistance* Formula grants Project grants Project grants Formula grants Project grants Obligations (FY10)* $16,778,939,000 $302,453,000 $99,957,146 $45,351,000 $43,990,000 Number of grants made by type of recipient**297 to state governments 231 to Indian tribes4158 to public institutions 1083 to independent school districts 1023 to private institutions 608 to state or local governments 93 to Indian tribes122 to state or local governments 52 to non-profit agencies 4 to Indian tribes114 to state governments 3 to Indian tribes185 to non-profit agencies 22 to state or local governments 4 to businesses 2 to Indian tribes Websitewww.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/ www.ed.gov/programs/ triostudsupp/www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.

org/about/second-chance-actwww.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/ programs_fund/state_tribal/ jh_chafee.htmwww.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/ programs/tlp.htm Number of youth served 4,370,844*** 204,096**** Unknown Unknown 4472 (FY09)***** Cost per youth served $3839 $1482 Unknown Unknown $9837 * Source: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) program information;www.cfda.gov .

** Source:www.usaspending.gov.

*** Source:www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/2010/2010_recipient_tan.htm.

**** Source:www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/awards.html.

***** Source:www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/508-fysb-congress-0809.pdf. 1513 A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 to communities from prisons and jails. Thisfirst of its kind legislation authorizes federal grants to government agencies and non-profit or- ganizations to provide employment assistance, substance abuse treat- ment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victim support, and other services that can help reduce recidivism. Federal funding for SCA nearly tripled from $28 million in FY 2009 to $82 million in FY 2010. The number of SCA programs nearly doubled fromfive in FY 2009 to nine in FY 2010. The four core SCA programs comprising two-thirds of SCA funding in FY 2010 include a demonstration pro- gram and a mentoring program for adult and for juvenile offenders.

Data could not be found on the number of persons served by the nine SCA programs in FY 2010 (Table 1, Column 4).

The allocation of funding in FY 2010 for SCA offers some indication of the overall types of services provided. Two-thirds of SCA funding was allocated to demonstration projects ($35 million or 43%) and mentoring projects ($19 million or 23%) for adult and juvenile of- fenders. Demonstration project funds are provided to state or local governments for the purpose of developing and implementing com- prehensive and collaborative strategies that address the challenges posed by offender reentry and recidivism reduction. The reentry pro- cess—from initial incarceration to release from detention, jail or pris- on—includes an assessment of individual needs to determine the appropriate level of supervision and post-release services, targeting higher-risk offenders, and using cognitive-behavioral interventions (DOJ, 2011). It is likely that these demonstration projects included some form of case management, life skills training, and counseling services.

Mentoring grants were provided to non-profit agencies and Indian tribes to implement mentoring projects for juveniles and adults to promote the safe and successful reintegration into the community.

Authorized use of grant funds covered a wide range of services, in- cluding employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, and victims' support services.

Two other SCA programs, Family-Based Substance Abuse Treat- ment ($6.6 million or 8%) and Substance Abuse & Criminal Justice Col- laboration ($11.7 million or 14%) represent 22% of the SCA budget allocated to substance abuse counseling and treatment. A seventh program, Technology Career Training Demonstration, earmarked $4.7 million or 6% of the SCA budget for vocational life skills training.

Thus, taken as a whole, SCA provides three intervention elements— mentoring, case management and psycho-education (i.e., life skills training)—in addition to counseling/medical services and housing assistance (Table 2).

4.4. Educational and Training Vouchers (ETV) for foster youth ETV provides funding to states and eligible Indian tribes for vouchers for postsecondary training and education to youths who have aged out of foster care or who have been adopted or left for kin- ship guardianship from the public foster care system after age 16.

Funds may be used to provide vouchers for postsecondary educationand training to youth otherwise eligible for services under the state's or tribe's Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. Vouchers may also be provided to youth who leave foster care for adoption or kin- ship guardianship after age 16, and to youth up to the age of 23, as long as they are participating in the program at age 21 and are mak- ing satisfactory progress toward completing their course of study or training. Vouchers provided to individuals may be available for the cost of attending an institution of higher education up to the lesser of $5000 per grant year or the total cost of attendance. In FY 2010, over $45 million was allocated for this program. Data could not be found on the number of persons served by this program (Table 1, Col- umn 5).

Section 477(i)(4) of the Social Security Act authorizes states to use ETV funds to pay for former foster youth's“cost of attendance”at an institution of higher education (i.e., college, university or postsecond- ary vocational training program) up to $5000 per year (ACF, 2011b).

Cost of attendance varies across institutions due to differences in tu- ition rates and fees, books and training materials, and local market rates for housing, childcare and other education-related expenses in- cluded in the computation of each institution's cost of attendance.

While no specific data are available on the proportion of ETV funds expended on tuition, housing and childcare, it is likely that the major- ity of these funds were used for tuition and fees, given that the na- tional average cost of tuition and fees at public institutions for in- state, full-time attendance during the 2009–10 academic year was $4751 (NCES, 2011a, Column 10). Youth who received ETV grants might have also received additional federal, state/local, and institu- tional grants, which during the 2008–09 academic year averaged $3300 for students attending a public institution (NCES, 2011b, Col- umns 5–7 and 9–11).Nixon and Jones (2007)reported an average ETV award amount of approximately $3400 across six states during the period 2003–07. Thus, approximately 70% ($4751/$6700) of edu- cational grant funds were used for tuition and fees, with the remain- ing 30% used for housing, education-related childcare assistance and other cost of attendance expenses. In contrast to the other four pro- grams, ETV does not include any of the four intervention elements, rather other types of support including childcare, tuition and housing assistance (Table 2).

4.5. Transitional Living Program (TLP) for older homeless youth TLP promotes the independence of homeless youth between 16 and 22 years old who are unable to return to their homes. Grantees provide housing and a range of services, including life skills training, financial literacy instruction, and education and employment ser- vices. Youth might live in group homes or in their own apartments, depending on the program and each young person's independent liv- ing skills, for up to 21 months. Created by a 1988 amendment to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, TLP is one of three major runaway homeless youth programs administered by the Family and Youth Ser- vices Bureau (FYSB). The other two programs include the Basic Center Table 2 Comparison of intervention elements and types of assistance provided by each program.

Intervention element TANF (Single parents)SSS (First gen. college)SCA (Reentry)ETV (Foster care)TLP (Homeless) Mentoring * * Case management * * * Peer support * Psycho-education * * * * Other Counseling/medical** Childcare *** Cash * Tuition* Housing** * 1514A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 Program which provides youth with emergency shelter and services for up to 21 days, the Street Outreach Program which provides infor- mation and referrals to emergency services to assist homeless youth who are at-risk of sexual exploitation or abuse and other dangers.

FYSB began funding transitional living programs in 1990. These programs are designed to help young people who are homeless make a successful transition to self-sufficient living. Transitional liv- ing programs are required to provide youth with stable, safe living ac- commodations, and services that help them develop the skills necessary to become independent. Living accommodations may in- clude host-family homes, group homes, maternity group homes, or supervised apartments owned by the program or rented in the com- munity. In FY 2010 $44 million was obligated for this program, which during the prior year served nearly 4500 individuals. Thus, the average per person annual cost for this program is approximately $9800.

The Family and Youth Services Bureau recently published a report to Congress on Runaway Homeless Youth Act programs. In that report the proportion of TLP clients receiving ten types of services were pre- sented as follows: basic support (including housing) (68%), life skills training (64%), planned aftercare (66%), counseling/therapy (61%), employment (54%), education (54%), program connection (48%), rec- reational activities (41%), physical health care (30%), and community service learning (29%) (DHHS, 2010). Similar to SSS and SCA, the TLP provides a combination of some of the four intervention elements (i.e., case management and psycho-education) and other types of support (i.e., counseling/medical, childcare and housing assistance) (Table 2).

5. Variations in program funding across states Table 3summarizes federal grant data for the transition-aged youth programs described earlier in this paper during FY 2010.

These data were obtained using the Catalog of Federal Domestic As- sistance (CFDA) numbers given in row 3 ofTable 1and the database www.usaspending.gov. Both total and per capita spendingfigures are provided for each program for all 50 states and the District of Co- lumbia. Per capita spending estimates were based on 2010 Census population counts of all persons ages 18–24. States were then ranked from 1 (highest per capita in federal funding) to 51 (lowest per capita federal funding) for each program.

Overall, across allfive programs, the average amount of federal as- sistance provided per capita was $559 (Table 3, column 3, next to last row). There was a six-fold difference between the overall highest per capita state of New York ($1287) and the lowest per capita state of Texas ($198). The remaining four top funded per capita states includ- ed the District of Columbia ($1138), California ($960), Alaska (($867) and Hawaii ($863), in contrast to the remaining four least funded per capita states of South Carolina ($249), Nevada ($242), Alabama ($224), Idaho ($219), and Virginia ($209) (Table 3, columns 3 and 4). Given that TANF represents 97% of the overall total spending (i.e., $16.7 billion out of $17.2 billion), such overall comparisons are mostly due to differences in this one large federal support program for single parents.

A comparison of per capita spending nationally across thefive pro- grams found that federal assistance for single parents averaged $544 per capita, in contrast to $1.31 for homeless youth, $1.39 for foster youth, $2.52 for reentry youth, and $9.59 for at-risk college youth (Table 3, second to last row). Such overall comparisons are without question inadequate and incomplete as there are certainly additional federal programs for each target group. For example, thesefigures do not include the eight other TRIO programs for at-risk college youth, the 55 other programs for reentry youth, the Chaffee Foster Care Inde- pendence Program for foster youth, the two other runaway homeless youth programs etc. Nevertheless, such comparisons of thefive pri- mary programs specifically targeting transition-aged youth suggestthat single parents may receive far more federal assistance thanfirst generation college, reentry, foster, or homeless youth receive.

Among the programs examined for transition-aged youth other than single parents, few patterns emerged from comparisons of state rankings on per capita funding. For example, Montana ranked 1st for SSS/at-risk college youth, 17th for ETV/foster youth, 33rd for SCA/reentry youth and 37th for TLP/homeless youth. Oregon is the only state to rank within the top 20 for all four of these four target groups receiving less federal funding. Maine & Vermont rank within the top 4 among three of these groups. Rankings among the remain- ing states are more mixed or varied among the four groups.

6. Discussion Emerging adulthood is a challenging time for young adults in gen- eral, and especially for young adults with troubled and traumatic childhood experiences resulting in their making important choices in life largely on their own. Recognizing the needs of these individ- uals, Congress has passed legislation to assist these transition-aged youth and appropriated funds to states, Indian tribes, non-profit, and for-profit organizations to develop and operate state and locally operated programs to provide various types of assistance. Thefive federal programs described in this paper illustrate the extent to which federal support for transition-aged youth vary by target popu- lation and state of residence. While one might argue that transition- aged youth in allfive target populations may benefit from four treat- ment intervention elements commonly discussed in the scholarly lit- erature (i.e., mentoring, case management, mentoring, peer support and psycho-education), tailored to meet the special needs for each group, only one of thefive programs examined appeared to include all four of these elements. The four remaining programs appeared to include none, one, two and three of these elements. Five additional intervention elements were identified through the process of describ- ing and analyzing types of services provided, including counseling/ medical, childcare, cash, tuition and housing assistance. Just as total and estimated per capita level of federal funding and level of funding to states varied widely across thesefive programs, so too did the mix of intervention elements and types of services provided vary consid- erably. Thus, this paper illustrates some of the variation by target population and state of residence in both the level of funding and in the types of services provided by federal programs established to as- sist transition-aged youth.

6.1. Limitations First, thefive federal programs examined in this study were se- lected by thefirst author from a pool of 2184 federal assistance pro- grams described on the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance website (www.cfda.gov). Without question an unknown number of these programs provide aftercare services to transition-aged youth/ young adults ages 18–29 and have been excluded from this study.

The task of identifying the total number of federal programs serving the general population of transition-aged youth and thefive at-risk target groups mentioned in this study in particular would require considerable effort and was beyond the scope of this study. Neverthe- less, the purposive sample offive programs included in this study are appropriate as illustrative case examples given their focus on provid- ing aftercare services to a unique target sub-population of transition- aged youth, their funding of programs in all or nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and in the considerable amount of federal funds allocated to these programs.

Next, the accuracy/validity of the per capita expenditure data pre- sented inTable 3are unknown given that the number of persons served by each program in each state for any givenfiscal year is un- known. While the use of general population statistics reported in the 2010 Census for the general population ages 18–24 is a reasonable 1515 A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 denominator to use in computing estimated per capita expenditure data for FY 2010, the true number of actual persons served is unknown.

Finally, the accuracy of the dichotomous summary of types of ser- vices provided is unknown due to the limited availability of service use data available. While the authors made good faith efforts to deter- mine whether a given type of assistance was provided or not based mostly upon the most recently availablefinancial budget data for each program, the asterisks presented inTable 2may be best viewed as“informed guesstimates”for the types of services provided by each program.6.2. Implications Thefindings of this study raise several questions for society and policy makers. First, how much federal support should be provided to thefive transition-aged youth sub-populations examined; namely, single parents,first generation college students, reentry youth, foster youth, and homeless youth? In FY 2010, the federal government obli- gated $16.8 billion of support for single parents through the TANF program. This was 55 times greater than the level of federal support provided tofirst generation college students (at $302 million), 168 times greater than the support provided to reentry youth through Table 3 Federal funding (in millions) offive major transition-aged youth programs provided to states in 2010.

State All 5 Programs TANF SSS SCA ETV TLP Total* Per cap** Rank Total Per cap Rank Total Per cap Rank Total Per cap Rank Total Per cap Rank Total Per cap Rank Alabama 107 224 48 93 195 50 11.7 24.38 7 0.9 1.88 32 0.7 1.41 28 0.6 1.25 29 Alaska 65 867 4 64 849 4 0.5 6.33 42 0.2 2.34 27 0.2 2.69 2 0.5 6.45 5 Arizona 268 423 26 260 410 26 4.7 7.37 34 1.1 1.71 36 1.0 1.59 18 1.0 1.59 22 Arkansas 73 256 45 63 221 47 8.3 29.11 5 0.9 3.07 23 0.3 1.13 36 0.4 1.41 27 California 3766 960 3 3720 948 3 27.5 7.02 37 8.6 2.18 29 6.5 1.65 16 3.9 1.00 34 Colorado 151 310 41 141 289 41 6.5 13.23 21 2.3 4.79 13 0.8 1.56 21 0.3 0.62 45 Connecticut 270 827 6 267 817 6 1.2 3.56 51 1.6 4.96 12 0.5 1.59 19 0.2 0.61 46 Delaware 35 386 30 33 368 29 0.6 6.48 41 0.9 10.25 5 0.1 0.99 43 0.0 0.00 51 D.C. 99 1138 2 98 1122 2 0.4 4.23 49 0.6 6.80 6 0.2 2.45 5 0.2 2.30 14 Florida 577 332 39 562 323 37 7.7 4.43 48 3.5 2.00 31 2.1 1.23 32 1.2 0.67 41 Georgia 338 348 35 331 341 33 3.6 3.74 50 2.1 2.13 30 1.0 0.99 44 0.6 0.62 44 Hawaii 112 863 5 110 841 5 2.2 17.17 14 0.3 2.30 28 0.2 1.18 33 0.2 1.53 23 Idaho 34 219 49 32 207 48 1.6 10.15 29 0.0 0.00 46 0.2 1.07 39 0.2 1.23 30 Illinois 607 487 22 585 469 21 14.1 11.35 25 4.2 3.41 18 1.7 1.38 29 1.8 1.41 26 Indiana 216 331 40 207 318 39 4.8 7.35 35 2.0 3.13 21 1.2 1.83 13 0.8 1.18 31 Iowa 140 459 24 131 428 24 7.4 24.24 8 0.5 1.73 34 0.7 2.17 6 0.8 2.62 11 Kansas 109 379 31 102 354 31 5.5 19.06 11 1.0 3.50 16 0.6 2.12 7 0.2 0.69 39 Kentucky 191 463 23 181 439 23 7.1 17.12 15 2.0 4.78 14 0.5 1.13 37 0.4 0.92 35 Louisiana 171 360 33 164 346 32 5.3 11.09 27 0.3 0.63 45 0.4 0.88 46 0.8 1.69 19 Maine 84 723 11 78 673 11 3.5 30.43 4 1.3 11.63 2 0.2 1.56 22 0.8 6.72 4 Maryland 244 438 25 238 426 25 4.2 7.61 33 1.0 1.71 35 0.7 1.26 31 0.4 0.72 38 Massachusetts 500 738 10 486 717 10 7.6 11.28 26 4.5 6.59 7 1.0 1.48 24 1.0 1.47 25 Michigan 792 813 7 775 796 7 8.0 8.25 31 3.4 3.45 17 1.9 1.97 8 3.1 3.14 9 Minnesota 282 560 18 268 533 18 8.6 17.09 16 3.3 6.56 8 0.6 1.15 34 1.3 2.49 13 Mississippi 91 300 42 87 285 42 3.7 12.13 23 0.5 1.61 39 0.3 1.04 41 0.1 0.33 48 Missouri 228 387 29 217 368 30 6.9 11.79 24 1.7 2.89 24 0.9 1.57 20 1.2 2.02 17 Montana 50 527 20 46 481 20 3.9 41.51 1 0.2 1.75 33 0.2 1.64 17 0.1 0.74 37 Nebraska 65 354 34 59 321 38 3.8 20.74 9 0.3 1.64 37 0.5 3.00 1 1.4 7.63 2 Nevada 60 242 47 56 227 46 1.4 5.52 46 1.4 5.80 10 0.5 1.94 9 0.4 1.61 21 New Hampshire 41 335 38 39 313 40 1.0 7.76 32 1.3 10.66 3 0.1 0.80 49 0.4 3.07 10 New Jersey 412 538 19 404 527 19 5.0 6.51 40 2.2 2.87 25 0.9 1.11 38 0.4 0.52 47 New Mexico 122 601 15 116 568 17 3.4 16.50 17 2.6 13.00 1 0.2 1.05 40 0.5 2.58 12 New York 2553 1287 1 2534 1278 1 13.0 6.53 39 0.0 0.00 46 2.8 1.43 27 2.8 1.40 28 North Carolina 326 348 36 314 334 34 9.8 10.47 28 1.3 1.35 41 0.8 0.83 47 1.0 1.05 33 North Dakota 30 368 32 26 326 36 2.6 32.26 3 0.3 3.11 22 0.1 1.47 26 0.4 4.92 6 Ohio 741 674 12 728 662 12 6.7 6.11 44 3.5 3.20 20 1.6 1.48 25 1.2 1.09 32 Oklahoma 158 416 28 148 388 27 6.7 17.60 12 2.5 6.53 9 0.7 1.85 12 0.6 1.49 24 Oregon 177 494 21 168 468 22 5.4 14.98 20 1.9 5.42 11 0.9 2.46 4 1.2 3.43 7 Pennsylvania 732 580 17 719 570 16 7.2 5.68 45 2.1 1.63 38 1.9 1.48 23 1.1 0.91 36 Rhode Island 96 803 8 95 792 8 0.6 4.71 47 0.3 2.40 26 0.2 1.93 10 0.2 1.67 20 South Carolina 119 249 46 111 232 45 7.4 15.51 18 0.0 0.00 46 0.5 1.01 42 0.1 0.31 49 South Dakota 24 300 43 22 269 43 1.7 20.24 10 0.3 3.60 15 0.0 0.54 51 0.5 6.73 3 Tennessee 204 337 37 199 328 35 4.0 6.55 38 0.6 0.99 44 0.7 1.15 35 0.4 0.66 42 Texas 509 198 51 486 189 51 15.8 6.12 43 3.1 1.21 42 2.3 0.89 45 1.7 0.68 40 Utah 82 257 44 78 247 44 3.0 9.31 30 0.0 0.00 46 0.3 0.79 50 0.2 0.63 43 Vermont 51 787 9 47 730 9 2.2 34.50 2 0.7 10.25 4 0.1 1.78 14 0.7 10.79 1 Virginia 168 209 50 158 197 49 5.8 7.23 36 2.6 3.26 19 0.6 0.81 48 0.2 0.25 50 Washington 416 639 14 404 622 14 8.1 12.51 22 0.8 1.15 43 1.1 1.65 15 1.4 2.15 16 West Virginia 114 674 13 110 652 13 2.9 17.25 13 0.0 0.00 46 0.4 2.52 3 0.4 2.20 15 Wisconsin 329 599 16 318 579 15 8.4 15.29 19 0.8 1.54 40 0.7 1.30 30 1.0 1.81 18 Wyoming 24 419 27 22 386 28 1.5 27.35 6 0.0 0.00 46 0.1 1.93 11 0.2 3.26 8 Total $17.2B $559 $16.7B $544 $294 M $9.59 $77 M $2.52 $43 M $1.39 $40 M $1.31 % States receiving any grant funding100% 100% 88% 98% 98% * Obligation amount (in millions) during FY 2010 (i.e., 10/1/09–9/30/10). Note that these actual expenditures may vary from authorized obligations shown inTable 1due to actual vs. authorized differences and exclusion of 4 US Territories (America Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands).Source:www.usaspending.gov.

** Per capita (in dollars) calculated as follows: obligation amount divided by the 2010 Census population count for all persons ages 18–24.Source: American FactFinder, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table QTP1. 1516A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 the SCA program (at $100 million), and 381 times greater than the support provided to foster and homeless youth through the ETV and TLP programs respectively (at $44–45 million per program). In per capita terms, federal aftercare support for single parents was $544 versus less than $10 forfirst generation college students, $2.50 for re- entry youth, and less than $1.50 for foster and homeless youth.

Whether these levels of federal support are appropriate for these at-risk transition-aged youth sub-groups is a question for society to answer.

Another question raised is which type of assistance should be used to provide states with support for their transition-aged youth? Two programs, TANF and ETV, used formula grants in contrast to the remaining three programs which used project grants. Formula grants are based upon the number of persons meeting certain requirements with the uses of such funds for activities of a continuing nature not confined to a specific project, as prescribed by law or administrative regulation. Project grants are funded for a limited period of time for a specific project, which may include fellowships, scholarships, re- search grants, training grants, traineeships, experimental and demon- stration grants, evaluation grants, planning grants, technical assistance grants, survey grants, and construction grants. Implied with this question is the more fundamental question of whether fed- eral assistance should take the form of a simpler cash or tuition pay- ment, such as were provided to single parents and foster youth, or a more complicated set of services which were provided tofirst gener- ation college students, reentry youth, and homeless youth?

A third question raised is what, if anything, should be done to make federal support per capita expenditures at the state level more consistent and less variable? The roughly six-fold difference in federal per capita expenditures per capita for transition-aged, at- risk youth observed between the“most supportive”state of New York at $1287 and the“least supportive”state of Texas at $198 merits consideration by society and by federal and state policymakers.

Next, what can and should be done about the lack of basic infor- mation regarding the number of individuals served, types of aftercare services provided and aftercare outcomes? In contrast to detailed ex- penditure data (down to individual grantee level, by year) are readily available from thewww.usaspending.govdatabase, there is no com- parable database to provide data on number of persons served, ser- vices provided, or client outcomes. As a result, detailed federal grants expenditures data may be analyzed (e.g.,Table 3), but average cost per individual served data (e.g., last row ofTable 1) and services provided data (e.g.,Table 2) are currently available sporadically, from various sources, and for some programs may only be inferred based on general descriptive information published for each program (e.g., first 6 rows ofTable 1compiled from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance). Outcomes data are even less available and, for the most part, are missing entirely. With such limited information available, society and policy makers are lacking important information when making decisions regarding federal aftercare support programs for transition-aged youth.

Finally, variations in types of assistance provided across thefive programs and target populations, such that could be inferred based on program budgets and reports to Congress, raise the question of whether such variation is justified? Our review of the literature sug- gests that most transition-aged youth may need and benefit from four“core”intervention elements or types of assistance; namely, mentoring, case management, peer support, and psycho-education/ life skills training. While the specific confi guration of each of these four elements may be expected to vary across thefive target popula- tions, the need for all four elements is perhaps shared by allfive groups. Additionally, afifth“other”category or element of support is likely needed to further address the unique needs and challenges facing each of these target populations. For example, the need for cash and childcare assistance among single parents caring for young children is likely justified and perhaps greater than for the otherfour target populations. However, allfive populations likely need as- sistance in attaining safe, affordable housing for themselves and their children. The results of this study suggest that the current patch- work of federal aftercare programs for transition-aged youth is lack- ing in the four common intervention elements, while focusing more on thefifth other element which is less supported in general within the scholarly literature.

7. Conclusion While allfive vulnerable target groups likely need aftercare ser- vices of the nine types examined, as indicated by the literature, vari- ations in federal funding levels, both among target populations and across states, raise important questions for society and federal and state policy makers. More systematic data collection and reporting systems specifying aftercare services provided and outcomes among those served which are accessible to the public, such aswww.cfda.

govandwww.usaspending.gov, are recommended.

References Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (2008).Evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program: Los Angeles County.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration for Children, Families (ACF) (2011a). Fiscal year 2009 TANFfinan- cial data: Web tables A2-A5. Retrieved 9/1/2011, fromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/ programs/ofs/data/2009/tanf_2009.html Administration for Children, Families (ACF) (2011b). Child welfare policy manual; Section 3.5: Independent living, educational and training vouchers. Retrieved 9/1/2011, fromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/ cwpm/policy_dsp_pf.jsp?id=3 Altschuler, D. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1999).Reintegrative confinement and intensive aftercare.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties.The American Psychologist,55(5), 469–480.

Arnett, J. J. (2007). Suffering, selfish, slackers? Myths and reality about emerging adults.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,36(1), 23–29,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-006-9157-z.

Atwood, J. D., & Scholtz, C. (2008). The quarter-life time period: An age of indulgence, crisis or both?Contemporary Family Therapy,30(4), 233–250.

Avery, R. J., & Freundlich, M. (2009). You're all grown up now: Termination of foster care support at age 18.Journal of Adolescence,32(2), 247–257,http:

//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.009.

Barth, R. P. (1990). On their own: The experiences of youth after foster care.Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,7(5), 419–440.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., Unruh, D., & Waintrup, M. (2004). Sustaining secondary transition programs in local schools.Remedial & Special Education,25(1), 39–50.

Bianco, S., & Shaheen, G. (1998).Employing homeless persons with mental illness:

Principles, practices & possibilities.Sudbury, MA: Advocates for Human Potential, Inc.

Blank, R. M. (2007). Improving the safety net for single mothers who face serious barriers to work.The Future of Children,17(2), 183–197.

Blechman, E. A., & Bopp, J. (2005). Mentoring juvenile offenders. In D. L. DuBois, & M. J.

Karcher (Eds.),Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Britner, P. A., Balcazar, F. E., Blechman, E. A., Blinn-Pike, L., & Larose, S. (2006). Mentoring special youth populations.Journal of Community Psychology,34(6), 747–763.

Carson, D. (2002).Mentoring in America 2002: National mentoring poll.Alexandria, VA:

National Mentoring Partnership.

Chaney, B. W. (2010).National evaluation of Student Support Services: Examination of student outcomes after six years. Final report.Rockville, MD: Westat.

Clark, H. B., & Davis, M. (Eds.). (2000).Transition to adulthood: A resource for assisting young people with emotional or behavioral difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Co.

Collins, M. E. (2004). Enhancing services to youths leaving foster care: Analysis of recent legislation and its potential impact.Children and Youth Services Review, 26(11), 1051–1065,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.08.005.

Cook, R. (1991).National evaluation of title IV-E foster care independent living programs for youth: Phase 2final report.Rockville, MD: Westat Inc.

Cook, R. J. (1994). Are we helping foster care youth prepare for their future?Children and Youth Services Review,16(3–4), 213–229.

Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care.Child Welfare, 80(6), 685–717.

Daining, C., & DePanfilis, D. (2007). Resilience of youth in transition from out-of-home care to adulthood.Children and Youth Services Review,29(9), 1158–1178,http:

//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.006.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review.American Journal of Com- munity Psychology,30(2), 157.1517 A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518 DuBois, D. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Youth mentoring:

Bridging science with practice.Journal of Community Psychology,34(6), 647–655.

Erikson, E. H. (1968).Identity: Youth and crisis.New York: W.W. Norton.

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Preparing youth to exercise self-determination: Quality in- dicators of school environments that promote the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and beliefs related to self-determination.Journal of Disability Policy Studies,13(2), 113.

Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities.Remedial & Special Education,24(6), 339–349.

Furstenberg, F. F., Kennedy, S., McLoyd, V. C., Rumbaut, R. G., & Settersten, R. A. (2004).

Growing up is harder to do.Contexts,3(3), 33–41.

Grossman, J. P., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the big brothers big sisters program.Evaluation Review,22(3), 403–426.

Hamilton, S., & Hamilton, M. A. (2006). School, work, and emerging adulthood. In J. J.

Arnett, & J. L. Tanner (Eds.),Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: APA Books.

Heslin,K.C.,Andersen,R.M.,&Gelberg,L.(2003).Casemanagementandaccesstoservices for homeless women.Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,14(1), 34–51.

Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program (JJEEP) (2011). 2009–2010 annual report to the Florida Department of Education. Retrieved 9/1/2011, fromhttp://www.

criminologycenter.fsu.edu/jjeep/pdf/JJEEP%202009-10%20Annual%20Report.pdf Karcher, M. J., Nakkula, M. J., & Harris, J. (2005). Developmental mentoring match characteristics: Correspondence between mentors' and mentees' assessments of relationship quality.The Journal of Primary Prevention,26(2), 93–110.

Keniston, K. (1971).Youth and dissent; the rise of a new opposition.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Levinson, D. J. (1978).The seasons of a man's life.New York: Ballantine Books.

Litvak,J.J.(1991).Schoolbasedgrouppsychotherapy with adolescents: Establishing an effective group program.Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy,3(1), 167–176.

Martin, J. E., Mithaug, D. E., Cox, P., Peterson, L. Y., Van Dycke, J. L., & Cash, M. E. (2003).

Increasing self-determination: Teaching students to plan, work, evaluate, and ad- just.Exceptional Children,69(4), 431–447.

Mech, E. V., Pryde, J. A., & Rycraft, J. R. (1995). Mentors for adolescents in foster care.

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,12 (4), 317–328.

Menon, R., Blakely, C., Carmichael, D., & Snow, D. (1995). Making a dent in recidivism rates: Impact of employment on minority ex-offenders. In G. E. Thomas (Ed.), Race and ethnicity in America Meeting the challenge in the 21st century. New York:

Taylor & Francis.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2011a). Digest of education statistics, 2010; Table 345: Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution: 1964–65 through 2009–10. Retrieved 9/1/2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_345.asp?referrer=report National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2011b). Digest of education statistics, 2010; Table 350: Full-time,first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate stu- dents enrolled in degree- granting institutions, by participation and average amount awarded infinancial aid programs, and type and control of institution: 2000–01 through 2008–09. Retrieved 9/1/2011, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/ tables/dt10_350.asp Nixon, R., & Jones, M. G. (2007).The Chafee Educational and Training Voucher (ETV): Six states' experiences.Washington, D.C.: National Foster Care Coalition and Casey Family Programs.Reissman, F. (1990). Restructuring help: A human services paradigm for the 1990s.

American Journal of Community Psychology,18(2), 221–230.

Rhodes, J. E., Bogat, G. A., Roffman, J., Edelman, P., & Galasso, L. (2002). Youth mentoring in perspective: Introduction to the special issue.American Journal of Community Psychology,30(2), 149–155.

Rhodes, J., Liang, B., & Spencer, R. (2009). First do no harm: Ethical principles for youth mentoring relationships.Professional Psychology, Research & Practice,40(5), 452–458,http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015073.

Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development.Journal of Community Psychology,34(6), 691–707.

Shiner, M., Young, T., Newburn, T., & Groben, S. (2004).Mentoring disaffected young people: An evaluation of mentoring plus.Layerthorpe York, U.K.: York Publishing Services Ltd.

Spencer, M. B., & Jones-Walker, C. (2004). Interventions and services offered to former juvenile offenders reentering their communities: An analysis of program effectiveness.Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,2(1), 88–97.

Sugar, M. (1993). Research in child and adolescent group psychotherapy.Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy,3(4), 207–226.

Thompson, Lynn A., & Kelly-Vance, Lisa (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic achievement of at-risk youth.Children and Youth Services Review,23(3), 227–242.

Todis, B., Bullis, M., Waintrup, M., Schultz, R., & D'Ambrosio, R. (2001). Overcoming the odds: Qualitative examination of resilience among formerly incarcerated adolescents.Exceptional Children,68(1), 119–139.

Turner, S., & Scherman, A. (1996). Big Brothers: Impact on little brothers' self-concepts and behaviors.Adolescence,31(124), 875–882.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) (2009).Temporary assistance for needy families program (TANF), eighth annual report to congress.Washington, D.C.:

Administration for Children and Families.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) (2010).Report to congress on the runaway and homeless youth programs of the family and youth services bureau for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.Washington, D.C.: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance.

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Second chance act adult offender reentry program for planning and demonstration projects:FY 2011 competitive grant announcement.

Retrieved 9/1/2011, fromhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/11SCAdultReentrySol.pdf Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities.A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation.Exceptional Chil- dren,63(2), 245–255.

Young, D. W., Dembo, R., & Henderson, C. E. (2007). A national survey of substance abuse treatment for juvenile offenders.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 255–266,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.018.

Zippay, A. (1995). Expanding employment skills and social networks among teen mothers: Case study of a mentor program.Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,12(1), 51–69. 1518A.S. Mares, M. Jordan / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1509–1518