Key findings after one-year include:
- The program boosted earnings by 17 percent, increased housing stability and economic well-being (including a 22 percent decrease in the likelihood of experiencing homelessness), and improved some of the primary outcomes related to health and safety (including improvements in mental health and a decrease in intimate partner violence). However, it did not significantly improve outcomes in the areas of education, social support, or criminal involvement.
- The program was found to be equally effective across different subgroups of youth, including youth with and without histories of juvenile justice custody.
“These young people are often the most vulnerable youth in our communities,” said Patrick Lawler, Youth Villages CEO. “At Youth Villages, we measure all our work, and in the late '90s, we noticed that older teens who had spent the most time in foster care were the youth who had the worst outcomes. We developed the YVLifeSet program in 1999 to address their needs specifically. We’ve gotten great results with the program and are excited that the study shows the program’s effectiveness.”
Young people who have spent time in the foster care or juvenile justice systems often experience poor outcomes as adults. Compared with their peers, they are less likely to obtain a high school credential or to be employed, and more likely to experience homelessness, criminal justice involvement, and mental health concerns, among other issues. The largest random assignment evaluation of a program serving this population, the MDRC study shows that YVLifeSet is one of the only programs that improves multiple outcomes for youth aging out of foster care and juvenile justice.
Results for America and Youth Villages are convening a roundtable of experts to discuss the findings and their broader policy implications on Wednesday, May 20, 8:30-10:30 am, in 2168 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. To register, visit www.youthvillages.org/whatworks.
In 2016, MDRC will release two-year impact findings based on administrative data in the education, employment and earnings, and criminal involvement domains, as well as findings from a benefit-cost analysis.