TY - JOUR
T1 - A Critical Analysis of Foster Youth Advisory Boards in the United States
AU - Forenza, Brad
AU - Happonen, Robin G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - Background: The enactment of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act brought welcome attention to young people aging out of foster care, and sought to include them in both case planning and policy dialog. Foster Youth Advisory Boards help to promote such inclusion, though the implementation of those boards has not been formally analyzed. Objective: This critical analysis of foster youth advisory boards in the United States answers the following questions: (1) What/where are each of the Youth Advisory Boards in the United States? (2) How is each board implemented? (3) How would a young person aging out of care (or a practitioner working with this population) access its local board? Methods: A content analysis of public child welfare agency programs was conducted to identify youth advisory boards in each of the United States and the District of Columbia to identify implementing agencies and contact information. Results: While every state and Washington, D.C. had a version of Youth Advisory Board, some boards were implemented exclusively through public child welfare agencies and others through public/nonprofit partnerships. Contact information for each of the 51 boards was identified and is displayed. Conclusions: Youth Advisory Boards have proliferated throughout the United States since the enactment of Chafee programming. They can be useful, pro-social mediums to include foster youth in case planning and policy dialog, while simultaneously promoting a sense of leadership, mentorship, and ecological permanence. Implications for policy, practice, and research are explored.
AB - Background: The enactment of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act brought welcome attention to young people aging out of foster care, and sought to include them in both case planning and policy dialog. Foster Youth Advisory Boards help to promote such inclusion, though the implementation of those boards has not been formally analyzed. Objective: This critical analysis of foster youth advisory boards in the United States answers the following questions: (1) What/where are each of the Youth Advisory Boards in the United States? (2) How is each board implemented? (3) How would a young person aging out of care (or a practitioner working with this population) access its local board? Methods: A content analysis of public child welfare agency programs was conducted to identify youth advisory boards in each of the United States and the District of Columbia to identify implementing agencies and contact information. Results: While every state and Washington, D.C. had a version of Youth Advisory Board, some boards were implemented exclusively through public child welfare agencies and others through public/nonprofit partnerships. Contact information for each of the 51 boards was identified and is displayed. Conclusions: Youth Advisory Boards have proliferated throughout the United States since the enactment of Chafee programming. They can be useful, pro-social mediums to include foster youth in case planning and policy dialog, while simultaneously promoting a sense of leadership, mentorship, and ecological permanence. Implications for policy, practice, and research are explored.
KW - Aging out
KW - Child welfare
KW - Foster care
KW - Youth advisory boards
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955197579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10566-015-9321-2
DO - 10.1007/s10566-015-9321-2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84955197579
SN - 1053-1890
VL - 45
SP - 107
EP - 121
JO - Child and Youth Care Forum
JF - Child and Youth Care Forum
IS - 1
ER -