Why a Foyer in Philadelphia?

The 2006 Report Card, Philadelphia Safe and Sound’s annual summary of trends among the city’s youth, reveals that the well-being of children and teenagers throughout the Philadelphia area is in considerable jeopardy. High rates of exposure to poverty and violence among Philadelphia’s youth present serious obstacles to the creation of “safe, supportive communities and environments” for children and adolescents (Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 42). Statistical reports are alarming:

• According to estimates, more than one in four children in Philadelphia lived in poverty in 2003. Between 2003 and 2004, the percentage of Philadelphia’s youth living in poverty rose by 1.8%, to 30.3% (Mayes, 2007; Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 24).

• In 2005, the number of homeless youth in Philadelphia reached 3,275 (Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 24).

• The recent increase in the homicide rate city-wide is of particular concern for the city’s youth; between 2005 and 2006, homicides of youth between the ages of 7 and 24 rose by 41% (Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 43).

The prevalence of poverty and violence in Philadelphia-area communities dramatically impacts the city’s youth population. By creating unsafe communities, violence, poverty, and crime “can affect many aspects of [youth] well-being, from health to education performance to their likelihood of engaging in high-risk behavior and crime” (Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 43). Indeed, Safe and Sound reports increases in the rate of high-school dropout and youth crime. Youth dropout has become “a major concern”: within four years of entering high school, over 25% of youth in Philadelphia’s public schools drop out (Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 55). The number of youth arrested for drug-related offenses in Philadelphia increased by 3% between 2005 and 2006. In this same one-year period, youth arrests for major crimes rose by 12% (Mayes, 2007; Philadelphia Safe and Sound, 2006, p. 46). “Both victimization and perpetration are up among kids in the city,” observed Anne L. Shenberger, president of Safe and Sound (Mayes, 2007).

A number of initiatives, including violence-reduction and work-readiness programs, have developed in order to address these disturbing trends among Philadelphia-area youth and to prepare at-risk teens for successful entrance into the workforce and adulthood. Vastly underserved, however, is the population of Philadelphia youth aging out of foster care. Although foster youth face substantial obstacles to success in transitioning to independence, there is a severe deficit in Philadelphia-area resources that address the needs specific to this population.

Behavioral health issues, tenuous or often abusive relationships with family members, social stigmatization and isolation, and frequent interruptions in medical care and schooling number are among the obstacles that face foster children (Lopez & Allen, 2007; Morris, 2007). Largely as a result of these challenges, youth transitioning out of foster care are at significantly higher risk for mental or physical illness, incarceration, joblessness, disruptions in schooling, teen pregnancy, and dependence on public assistance than are youth who have not been in foster care (Allen, 2004). Each year, the more than 20,000 youth nationwide who age out of foster care “are expected to suddenly make the transition to independence with no financial resources, poor access to health care, few personal and family connections and little if any continuing support from the foster care system” (Lopez & Allen, 2007, p. 345). Although preparing older foster youth for their transition to independence is the responsibility of the Department of Human Services (DHS), in practice DHS relegates these youth to ‘lowest-priority’ status and focuses the vast majority of its resources on younger foster children instead (Allen, 2005, 11).

These factors alone pose significant challenges to foster youth’s successful emancipation from the foster system. The transition to self-sufficiency proves even more difficult, however, because it is irreversible: for youth leaving care, “there is no option to return [to foster care] in times of difficulty” (Stein, 2006, p. 274). Research on foster youth indicates, too, that the transition to adulthood tends to occur at an earlier age for foster children; while foster children typically leave foster care to become independent at 16-18 years old, children not in foster care generally do so in their early twenties (Stein, 2006, p. 274).

The lack of adequate resources for child welfare recipients is particularly pronounced for foster youth who self-identify as sexual minorities (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender). Social-service professionals are generally ill-equipped to respond to issues facing this population (Mallon, Aledort & Ferrera, 2002, p. 410). Many shelters and transitional-housing organizations, particularly those that are faith-based, deny services to LGBT youth; even group homes that do not discriminate based on sexual orientation often fail to provide safe environments for LGBT youth, a population often subject to verbal and physical harassment (Ray, 2006, p. 4-5). The deficit in services designed specifically to meet the unique needs of LGBT foster and homeless youth creates significant barriers to success in these populations’ transition to independent living. Not surprisingly, LGBT youth who exit care are at particularly high risk for mental illness, depression, delinquency, and alcohol and drug abuse (Ray, 2006, p. 2).

Without adequate resources facilitating their transition to independence, emancipated foster youth face troubling futures. In a study (Jonson Reid & Barth, 2000) of foster youth leaving care in California, 16.3% of youth were reported to have been jailed, hospitalized, abducted, or killed after leaving care (Mallon et al., 2002, p. 413). Research indicates that roughly 50% of foster youth ages 18-24 have finished high school, as compared to 85% of youth who have not been in foster care; as well, foster youth are more likely than other youth to be suspended, expelled, or prevented from advancing to the next grade level (Shirk & Stangler, 2006, p. 3). According to a 2003 study by the Vera Institute of Justice, foster youth are twice as likely to drop out of school as youth not in foster care (Armstead, 2005). Compounding the barriers to employment resulting from disruptions in their educational history, because foster youth typically do not have a permanent residence when they exit care, these young adults often struggle to find jobs.

Studies of youth aging out of care reveal the significant deficit in services designed to facilitate these young people’s transition to adulthood. In Morris’s study (2007) of youth who had left foster care in California, interview subjects consistently identified their preparation to leave care as inadequate, particularly with regard to housing and job placement. As a result, Morris recommends “develop[ing] policies to provide housing, transitional and employment training, and knowledge of services available upon emancipation” (Morris, 2007, p. 427). I

n his review of research on foster youth, Stein (2006) emphasizes that, in comparison with their contemporaries who have not been in foster care, youth leaving care are confronted with greater barriers to success but are expected to transition to independence in a much shorter period of time. Foster youth are “denied the psychological opportunity and space to focus or to deal with issues over time, which is how most young people cope with the challenges of transition” (Stein, 2006, p. 274). Stein advocates the development of initiatives that “provid[e] opportunities for more gradual transitions from care that are more akin to normative transitions” (p. 278).

The need is great for services addressing the specific needs of homeless youth and youth leaving care. In order to facilitate these young people’s successful transition from dependency to self-sufficiency, the provision of housing, life skills training, and career development services is of paramount importance. In Philadelphia’s communities, the prevalence of violence, crime, and poverty presents significant barriers to the well-being of young people and produces a climate in which more and more of the city’s youth are compelled to practice high-risk behaviors. Without adequate external assistance in transitioning to independence, youth leaving care and homeless youth are susceptible to involvement in activities that are destructive to themselves, their families, and their communities.