Reconnecting Youth to Opportunity

Insight

Winter 2013-2014

Reconnecting Youth to Opportunity

A Review of Current GCYF Topics and Issues

Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families (GCYF) is a membership association of grantmaking institutions. The mission of GCYF is to engage funders across all sectors to continually improve their grantmaking on behalf of children, youth, and families. GCYF serves as a forum to review and analyze grantmaking strategies, exchange information about effective programs, examine public policy developments, and maintain ongoing discussions with national leaders. Representatives of more than 500 private, corporate, community, and family foundations of all sizes participate in GCYF events and programs. Member interests range from the development of public policies benefiting children to specific program areas, such as early childhood, youth development, and family support. Those who participate in GCYF are a diverse group, ranging from trustees to executive directors to program officers.

Insight WINTER 2013-2014

What’s Inside

4

Mission Critical: Strategies to Help Disadvantaged and Disconnected Youth Reach Their Full Potential By Kisha Bird, Senior Policy Analyst and Project Director, Campaign for Youth, Center for Law and Social Policy

8

Creating Employment Opportunity for Our Most Vulnerable Youth: A Policy and Practice Framework By Jessica R. Kendall, JD and Lisa Pilnik, JD, MS on behalf of the Youth Transition Funders Group

14

Investing in Justice-Involved Youth By Diane Sierpina, Senior Program Officer, The Tow Foundation

17

Youth for Change: Seven Recommendations for Funders to Engage Youth in Giving

19

Acknowledgments

By Wokie Weah, President of Youthprise and Neese Parker, Youth Philanthropy Innovator

Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families l www.gcyf.org

Mission Critical: Strategies to Help Disadvantaged and Disconnected Youth Reach Their Full Potential By Kisha Bird, Senior Policy Analyst and Project Director, Campaign for Youth Center for Law and Social Policy

P

overty and unemployment persist in the face of declining federal, state, and local investment in education, job training, and social supports that help individuals and families survive and provide pathways out of poverty. Disadvantaged and disconnected youth are especially vulnerable during these uncertain economic times.

More than 16 million children in the United States (U.S.)— 22% of all children younger than 18 years—live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level ($23,550 a year for a family of four).1 Many young adults are also poor, with approximately one in five adults age 18 to 24 living in poverty.2 In 2011, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps) served more than 6 million young adults parents ages 18 to 25 years.3 A quarter of parents and other caregivers receiving cash assistance under TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) were between 20 and 24 years old, and another 7 percent were under age 20.4 Youth are experiencing a steady decline in labor force participation. Youth and young adults between 16 and 24 years account for nearly 30% of all unemployed people. Despite progress toward improving high school graduation rates, far too many young people still fail to complete high school on time. Graduation rates for youth of color continue to lag behind those of their White counterparts and are particularly low for Black male students, with just 52% who enroll in ninth grade graduating 4 years later.5 Meanwhile, 6.7 million youth ages 16 to 24 years are not attached to school or work; 3.4 million are “chronic,” spending most of their time between ages 16 to 24 years unattached,6 and many do not have a high school diploma. Young people with limited education fare even worse in the labor market. Only 36% of youth who lack a secondary credential and are not enrolled in school are employed. For African Americans and Hispanics, these issues are further compounded by the fact that they are more likely to live in communities of concentrated poverty, where violence and criminal activity are more prevalent. These youth are more likely to experience violence, be victims of violence, and fall into criminal activities as a means of survival.7

4 | Winter 2013-2014

Youth of color are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems, which has major ramifications for their future education and employment outcomes.8 Research suggests that “youth who move across systems experience disruption in their home lives as well as in the educational system,” and that those who spend time in juvenile facilities are “less likely to succeed at education and employment at the same level as youth who were never incarcerated.”9 Young people in the foster care system also have lower education and employment outcomes and need increased supports to ensure a healthy transition into adult life. Each year, an estimated 25,000 young people “age out" of the U.S. foster care system, meaning they have reached an age where they are no longer eligible to receive formal support from the system. A Chapin Hall study of former foster youth found that 20% had no high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED) and 47% were unemployed.10

What Are the Implications of Not Acting Now to Support Disadvantaged and Disconnected Youth? We will face a grave future if we continue to ignore disadvantaged youth. There are three critical implications of national inaction: 1. There is a fiscal burden to both youth and taxpayers. Dropping out of high school has the impact of a permanent recession for our youth and presents grave personal and societal consequence.11 The estimated average lifetime earnings for a high school dropout is $1.198 million, 47% less than that of an individual with a bachelor’s degree. Studies have shown that, over a lifetime, a high school dropout costs taxpayers $292,000 more than a high school graduate because of reduced tax revenue, public assistance, and incarceration.12 With budgets tight and our economic outlook in question, these are costs we simply cannot afford. 2. America’s ability to compete in the global economy is at risk. Low-cost, low-skilled jobs that require only a high school diploma are not as accessible or lucrative as they were in the 1960s and 1970s. Jobs in the construction, natural resources, installation, repair, and transportation industries are

Insight


either disappearing or no longer pay a family-sustaining wage. In today’s economy, postsecondary education is a prerequisite to good jobs that open the door to the middle class. By 2018, we will need 22 million new postsecondary degrees to meet demand. However, current research suggests that we will fall short by at least 3 million.13 3. The magnitude of the problem will increase as population demographics shift. The demographics of the American population are rapidly changing. By 2043, a majority of Americans will be people of color. The fastest growing segments of our labor force have some of the lowest levels of education attainment. As the predominantly White baby boomer generation retires, the share of the labor force held by minorities will increase significantly. Recognizing this demographic shift is critical to developing effective policies that concentrate resources where they are most needed and help low-income people rise out of poverty and pursue careers that pay family-sustaining wages.

How Can We Help Young People Reach Their Full Potential? Teachers, practitioners, advocates, systems, and policymakers must envision disadvantaged and disconnected youth as successful individuals. Consistent with that vision, we must 1. Dismantle perceptions. Youth are extremely resilient. But, too often, interventions established by well-meaning individuals—such as youth service practitioners, policymakers, and advocates—fail to consider that. In a national study of high school dropouts, researchers found that 88% had passing grades and 74% would have stayed in school if they had it to do over again.14 A Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) survey of nearly 200 youth from 13 communities who participated in the Department of Labor Youth Opportunity Program15,16 found that about one third of dropouts actively tried to re-enroll in high school but encountered obstacles. Seventy-two percent also spent time looking for work after dropping out. Only half of males of color said they found jobs before enrolling in a youth development and recovery program. 2. Have high expectations. The same CLASP survey found that young people, regardless of their educational status, had high aspirations. When asked about their goals for the next 5 years, 40% of youth said they intended to go college and 65% said they had found a career they wanted to pursue. Despite their experiences with dropping out of high school, these students maintained high expectations for themselves—in sharp contrast to the low expectations they felt adults in their lives, including teachers, had for them and what they could accomplish in life. In another survey of dropouts, 69% of

Insight

individuals reported not feeling motivated and expressed disappointment that the adults in their lives had not sought to inspire them.17 3. Actively remove stigmas. To overcome barriers and place youth on a path toward career success, practitioners must actively challenge their own prejudices. When dealing with young offenders, for instance, employers may have a sense of fear or apprehension based on a youth’s involvement in the juvenile justice system.18 Program staff themselves are often responsible for labeling youth as “troubled,” which can influence employers’ behaviors. Low expectations, coupled with our perceptions of youth of color, strongly influence policy and program design. 4. Promote a community-wide intervention strategy. There is no single system responsible for all out-of-school, out-ofwork youth. All community stakeholders and people who touch the lives of youth must work together, aligning systems for seamless support that ensures youth successfully complete their education and transition to the job market. This collaborative approach, which includes both public and private investment, is necessary to ensure vulnerable youth do not fall through the cracks. Accordingly, national investments should l l

l

l

Target communities of high youth distress and serve disconnected and high-risk youth; Build community capacity to create and/or strengthen a comprehensive delivery system and leverage community and public resources; Create multiple pathways19 that blend education, training, and postsecondary education support and focus on dropout prevention and recovery; and Expand work experience, including subsidized jobs, internships, on-the-job training, and summer and transitional jobs to support career exploration and employment for youth across the age continuum.

5. Fundamentally change national policy. To truly address the needs of disadvantaged youth, we need a comprehensive national youth policy that is long-term in scope and impervious to political whims. Cornerstone youth legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Higher Education Act (HEA), and Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (Perkins) provide a launching point for this new policy approach. Other major legislation, including TANF and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), offer significant opportunities to advance education, employment, and health outcomes for this population. Key questions to consider include

Winter 2013-2014 | 5


l l

l

l

l l l

l

l

Are local areas maximizing the targeting allowed through WIA Youth Activities formula funds? How are states allocating resources to programs for young adults in a way that aligns with WIA Title I Adult and Title II Adult Education funding and policies? Are state education agencies planning and allocating resources for dropout recovery and multiple education pathways? Are state and local education agencies ensuring that adequate resources are available to implement dropout recovery and recuperative strategies for struggling and returning students? How do TANF work programs consider the educational and developmental needs of young adults? How can programs serving “youth” and programs serving “TANF recipients” work together more effectively? How could work-study, TRIO programs, Pell, and other financial aid resources be streamlined to promote access to postsecondary education and credential attainment? How are health and human services agencies working with other youth-serving agencies to open access and affordability to physical, behavioral, and mental health services? How are workforce development efforts in the health care field aligned with youth employment policies and practices?

l

Integrating national and local research on best practice and promising approaches into their funding approaches to avoid duplication and “reinventing the wheel”?

Conclusion Leaders at all levels - in both the public and private sphereshave to see investment in youth as Mission Critical to the economic and social vitality of the nation – not in some distant time in the future but now. Mission Critical? Yes, mission critical. Mission Critical refers to any factor of a system whose failure will result in the failure of that entire business operation. In other words, if we allow our youth to fail by failing to sufficiently believe in and support them as they struggle to become engaged and productive citizens of our democracy, we place the entire American democracy at risk. Investing in our young people, especially the most disadvantaged among us, is not a limited engagement – a onetime infusion of public funds, a single program strategy, or a time-limited initiative. It requires sustained and ongoing resources, strategic thinking, leadership development, civic engagement, and policy transformation - all applied towards a unified vision of mobility and opportunity for all young people regardless of zip code, gender, or race/ethnicity. When we rely on short-term fixes to long-term challenges we limit our collective ability to dream, vision, and build a better reality and future on behalf of and with young people themselves.

What Are Potential Roles for Philanthropy? All community stakeholders have a role to play. Funders are especially critical because they can challenge peers and public systems to rethink how they use current resources and help change their perceptions of low-income youth and young people of color. Funders can leverage their influence to ask critical questions. Are investments l l l

l l l

Targeting communities of high youth distress? Serving disconnected and high-risk youth (high school dropouts and those at imminent risk of dropping out)? Building community capacity to create and/or strengthen a comprehensive delivery system that leverages community and public resources? Encouraging organized and coordinated discussions about national, state, and local policy development? Learning from local and regional foundations about local experience, challenges, and opportunities?

“I wasn't going anywhere with my life… At first I didn’t want to try [this program], but I decided to do it because my friend [who told me about it] was doing so well—having fun and improving academically. He convinced me to go to school, and that was the best decision I could have made. I was exposed to different opportunities and experiences that changed the way I looked at the world. Two years of job training, and then I earned my high school diploma. Once I finished, my caseworkers asked me what I wanted to do next, and that was the first time I thought about going to college. I’ve always had an interest in the environment and my caseworkers helped me connect that interest to a career. I now know that I want to be an environmental analyst.” —Antoine, a 23-year-old from Los Angeles, California shares his experience in being reconnected to school, training, support and ultimately opportunity.

Leveraging public dollars and incentivizing cross-systems approaches to meet demands in the population?

6 | Winter 2013-2014

Insight


References 1

National Center for Children in Poverty web site, http://www.nccp.org

2

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2012). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2011 Current Population Reports. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf

3

CLASP analysis of 2011 ACS data.

4

Falk, G. (2012). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): welfare-towork revisited. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42768.pdf

5

Holzman, M. (2012). The urgency of now: the Schott 50 state report on public education and Black males. Cambridge, MA: The Schott Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.blackboysreport.org

6

Belfield, C., Levin, H., & Rosen, R. (2012). The economic value of opportunity youth. Civic Enterprises. Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/summerjobs/pdf/EconomicValue.pdf

7

8

Bryant, R. (2013). Taking aim at gun violence: rebuilding community education and employment pathways. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/TakingAim-at-Gun-Violence.pdf Campaign for Youth Justice. (2011). Key facts: youth in the justice system. Retrieved from http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/KeyYouthCrimeFacts.pd f

11

Lovell, P., & Minow, J. (2009). Reclaiming our nation’s youth. Washington, DC: First Focus. Retrieved from http://www.firstfocus.net/sites/default/files/r.2009-8.6.lovell.pdf

12

Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., & McLaughlin, J. (2009). The consequences of dropping out of high school. Boston, MA: Center for Labor Market Studies. Retrieved from http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/wpcontent/uploads/The_Consequences_of_Dropping_Out_of_High_School.pdf

13

Holzer, H. J., & Lerman, R. I. (2007). Workforce alliance, America’s forgotten middle skilled jobs. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPdf/411633_forgottenjobs.pdf (containing labor force projections for America).

14

Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio Jr, J. J., & Burke Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: perspective of high school dropouts. Civic Enterprises. Washington, DC Retrieved from https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/TheSilentEpidemic306FINAL.pdf

15

Harris, L. (2006). Learning from the Youth Opportunity experience. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0514.pdf

16

Youth Opportunity was a grant program authorized under the Workforce Investment Act. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Labor awarded substantial Youth Opportunity grants to 36 high-poverty urban, rural, and Native American communities to provide programs and supports at scale to change the education and labor market outcomes for 14- to 21-year-old youth.

17

Bridgeland, The silent epidemic.

9

Justice Policy Institute. (2009). The costs of confinement: why good juvenile justice policies make good fiscal sense. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_REP_CostsofConfinemen t_JJ_PS.pdf

18

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2005). Overcoming barriers to employment for youth in the juvenile justice system: a practical guide. Juvenile Sanctions Center 2(5). Retrieved from http://www.pcenj.org/clientImages/39657/JJ%20Employment%20Barriers.pdf

10

Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Brown, A., Cary, C., Love, K., & Vorhies, V. (2011). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 26. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

19

Tsoi-A-Fatt, R. Reauthorizing ESEA: considerations for dropout prevention and recovery. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/ESEARecommendations2010.pdf (containing definition of multiple education pathway strategies for out-of-school and disadvantaged youth).

Insight

Winter 2013-2014 | 7


Creating Employment Opportunity for Our Most Vulnerable Youth A Policy and Practice Framework By Jessica R. Kendall, JD and Lisa Pilnik, JD, MS on behalf of the Youth Transition Funders Group Royce M. entered foster care at age 2 because his mother could no longer take care of him. Royce returned to her care several years later and bounced from school to school and homeless shelter to homeless shelter until returning to foster care at 14. Today Royce, 19, is in community college, is involved in Oregon’s foster youth advocacy group, and has a fulltime job at a home for disabled youth and adults. His path to stable employment, however, was not an easy one. Royce struggled for years to get a job. “At first, the only jobs I could get were the kinds of jobs other people didn’t want,” he said. “I didn’t have [job] connections through my parents or their friends like other kids.” Ultimately, a supportive caseworker connected Royce to job opportunities. She helped him make connections and build his network. Today, Royce has a job he enjoys because someone in his life took the time to listen and help.

D

espite positive signs that the economy is recovering from the Great Recession, young people, like Royce, continue to struggle to find employment, with millions between the ages of 16 and 24 out of a job and not in school.1 Without the necessary credentials, skills, career access, or guided support from caring adults, many may face an array of negative consequences, including poverty, joblessness, criminal justice system involvement, or homelessness.2 For vulnerable youth (young parents, or those in the foster care or juvenile justice system), these risks may be even greater.3 Policymakers, youth-serving organizations, employers, legislators, public agencies, and grantmakers can do more to help vulnerable young people seize opportunities for success by helping them build skills that lead to gainful employment, tailoring their education to their specific needs, providing adult guidance and support, and giving them better access to benefits.

Many Vulnerable Youth Face Unique and Significant Challenges to Career Success Vulnerable youth must often focus much of their attention on complicated (and adult) situations, such as parenting, remaining connected to family, or maintaining the same, stable school or home environment. Without supportive adults and appropriate educational and career readiness opportunities, keeping one’s sights on future employment security and success becomes incredibly difficult.

8 | Winter 2013-2014

Here is the reality:

Young parents have poorer educational and career outcomes. Research shows that having a child at a young age can negatively affect a young parent’s school and job experiences. A 2008 national survey found that only 51% of teenage mothers completed high school by age 22 (compared with 89% of other youth).4 Pregnant and parenting young women are often “pushed out” into inferior academic programs and penalized for school absences, despite antidiscrimination protections for them under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.5 Research also shows that teen fathers face greater financial hardship, reduced educational attainment, and less stable marriage patterns.6 In addition, young parents comprise a considerable proportion (21%) of youth who are not currently working or in school.7 Foster and justice system–involved youth are more likely to have children than young people in the general population. Nearly half of former young women who’ve experienced foster care have been pregnant at least once by age 19, compared with 31% of young women in the general population.8 And 15% of incarcerated young men age 10 to 20 have or are expecting children compared with only 2% of the general young male population.9

Youth in foster care struggle to f ind jobs. Children and youth in foster care have a 50% chance of moving five or more times and are half as likely to graduate from high school, and 50% to 60% have moderate to severe mental health problems.10

Insight


Career opportunities and educational success for the estimated 26,000 youth who “age out” of the foster care system annually are particularly dire.11 A recent study found that 25% of former foster youth will be incarcerated within 2 years, almost half will have no job earnings in the 4 years after leaving care, and 65% will not have a place to live.12 Youth aging out of foster care earn less and are less likely to have a job, compared with demographically similar low-income youth.13

Court-involved youth struggle to complete school. Youth leaving the justice system also face numerous and significant challenges. A recent study noted that on any given day approximately 90,000 youth are in residential confinement across the United States. No other experience is more likely to result in later adult problems or unhealthy social and psychological development.14 In addition, most of these youth, many of whom are 16 or 17 years old, test at a fourth-grade level in reading and a third-grade level in math. Upon discharge, they face great difficulty re-integrating into school, with only 15% of returning students graduating. Instead, between 50% and 70% are re-arrested within a year of discharge.15

Research and work being done in the field point to five key approaches that, together, can help vulnerable youth find and maintain long-term gainful employment:

1. Help youth graduate from postsecondary, vocational, training, or certificate programs. Completing high school and a postsecondary program (such as college, a 2-year degree, or a certificate program) is critical to finding a livable-wage job with long-term career prospects.16 Yet this can be a monumental task for a young person who may have little or no support at home, is significantly behind in school, or is frequently absent due to his or her unstable living arrangement or his or her own parenting responsibilities. That’s why it is essential that grantmakers support initiatives that will help these vulnerable youth graduate through innovative means.

How can grantmakers help? Support programs that foster educational continuity.

To tackle the barriers facing all young workers, we must identify and overcome the unique workforce challenges facing our most vulnerable youth. Policymakers, grantmakers, employers, schools, government, and community-based youthserving organizations must commit to finding solutions that work, identifying interests and skills and matching them to jobs, as well as ensuring training programs are available and accessible. If they do not, these young people are at the greatest risk of suffering from the ill consequences of having neither the skills nor the job prospects to transition successfully into adulthood. We cannot solve the problems facing all youth out of work or school without focusing specifically on our most vulnerable, who often require different solutions from various stakeholders. Failure to identify and implement sound solutions may harm not only today’s young people, but also another generation of children, the economy, and our communities. By highlighting approaches that work and helpful policies that interconnect the many systems and stakeholders that touch the lives of these vulnerable young people, the following framework can help guide system stakeholders to best practices and grantmakers to shared visions, and set the bar high for all young people.

Building a Policy and Practice Framework That Leads to Employment Success All young people need and deserve the education, skills, and support required to secure livable-wage jobs with long-term career prospects. Creating effective policies and practices to address the needs of all young people out of work or school requires an understanding of the interventions they need to help them find economic and job security.

Insight

Youth in foster care may change schools each time they are placed in a new foster or group home. Youth in detention may not receive academic instruction that aligns with state education standards. Young parents, particularly mothers, may not have reliable, affordable, and accessible child care to allow them to attend school, may be redirected to academically inferior educational programs, or be subjected to discrimination for school absences and lack of participation in extracurricular activities. For many of these youth, policies that “push out” or make it difficult to re-enroll in school also present significant barriers to school completion. To help combat these challenges, policymakers and youthserving systems can support and implement policies and laws that minimize school placement changes for youth in foster care, such as the federal Fostering Connections or McKinney-Vento acts. Grantmakers can also provide funding to improve access to transportation, encourage extracurricular participation, and help promote common academic standards and requirements between schools.

Support programs that offer competency-based, flexible, and skills-based education. Students at risk of disengagement are more likely to remain connected when instruction is more tailored and customized to their strengths and needs, which in some instances may entail enrollment in alternative programs or schools.17 Grantmakers and policymakers should support education systems that offer flexible, individualized, and competency-based school approaches that can be documented, are transferable, and lead to nationally and industry-recognized credentials that can be built upon as life situations change.

Winter 2013-2014 | 9


Common Strategies From the “Opportunity” Youth Dialogue Many organizations are focusing on reconnecting all youth to school and employment. Here are some strategies organizations are using to keep youth focused on completing school and getting a job: l

l

l l

l

Align policies to improve efficiency and funding. Replicate successful programs, such as AmeriCorps, Vista. Enact federal and state policies that broaden eligibility criteria for assistance programs to reach disconnected youth and streamline intake procedures.

l

Create easier and better paths to access employment, through more flexibility in schools, engagement of employers, and better internship/mentorship opportunities.

References Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2012). Youth and work: restoring teen and young adult connections to opportunity. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/Y/youthandwor kpolicyreport/kidscountyouthandwork.pdf Civic Enterprises, et al. (2012). Opportunity road: the promise and challenge of America’s forgotten youth. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.civicenterprises.net/medialibrary/docs/opportunity_road.pdf

Create strong corporate tax credits for companies that employ disconnected youth.

Bridgeland, J., & Mason-Elder, T. (2012). National roadmap for opportunity youth. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises. http://www.civicenterprises.net/MediaLibrary/Docs/Opportunity%20Youth%20 National%20Roadmap%20Final%202012.pdf

Develop cross-sector community collaborations, which may include prioritizing funding, promoting collaborative use of data across agencies.

National Youth Employment Coalition. (2013). Promoting postsecondary success of court-involved youth—lessons from the NYEC postsecondary success pilot. Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition. Available at http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/nyec-court-involvedyouth-postsecondary201305.pdf

Increase collection and use of data on youth out of school or work and the programs that serve them.

White House Council for Community Solutions. (2012). Community solutions for opportunity youth. Washington, DC. Retrieved at http://www.serve.gov/newimages/council/pdf/12_0604whccs_finalreport.pdf

Further, education systems should offer credits through multiple pathways, such as community-based, project-based, or online/distance learning; vocational and academic program options that have multiple points of entry, such as afternoon and evening classes or a second enrollment period after fall freshman year; and general equivalency diploma (GED) programs that are connected to postsecondary opportunities and put vulnerable youth on a pathway to further training and career development.18

2. Ensure youth have vocational (hard) and soft skills. The importance of soft skills cannot be understated for vulnerable youth, many of whom have not been exposed at home, at school, or in the community to good workplace habits.19 Having vocational skills as well as pre-employment and good workplace habits not only increases career options, but also increases the likelihood young people will be able to maintain early job opportunities. To help these vulnerable youth gain valuable vocational and soft skills, grantmakers should focus on funding training programs and making sure youth are aware that these training programs exist.

How can grantmakers help? Support training programs that focus on issues important to employers, high-demand occupations, and core competencies.20 A recent survey of employers found that some of the biggest barriers to youth finding jobs are that employers perceive youth 10 | Winter 2013-2014

to have inferior work-related (soft) skills and that youth do not understand how to properly complete application forms.21 To help overcome these barriers, grantmakers should support programs that work with employers to identify the skills they are looking for in entry-level positions to help focus instruction for vulnerable youth, ensure youth receive nationally and industryrecognized credentials for the soft and hard skills they master,22 and use labor demand information to ensure that they prepare youth for high-demand occupations.

Link youth to training programs. Supporting the creation of employer–training program partnerships can be particularly valuable in high-demand fields such as science, engineering, and technology where vulnerable young people could help fill current labor shortages. Training programs that focus on competency-based learning and have flexible scheduling options rather than using traditional trajectories of a single pathway to completion will also increase youth success rates.23 In addition, policymakers should ensure that youth can participate in these programs, despite justice or child welfare system involvement, and that state and federal funding streams can be used to support this training.24

3. Offer ongoing career counseling and support. Young people connected to consistent, supportive adults who help guide their career planning have better chances at later employment success.25 A recent literature review found that a critical component to a comprehensive, successful career pathway

Insight


program is that young participants receive counseling, as well as social and personal support.26 Particularly for system-involved youth, creating connections with caring adults can help build their “personal capital” to seek out and strive for school and career successes and “social capital” to create expanded networks of support and career guidance. Policymakers play an integral role in ensuring that education systems and youth-serving systems, as well as community-based providers and workforce investment programs, are able to offer this type of personal support to vulnerable youth. They should continue to enact work investment laws27 that not only include work support services, but also provide young people with adult support opportunities, such as community-based job shadowing and career-oriented mentorships in schools. Private- and publicsector employers and occupational organizations can help shape these local workforce development policies by participating in workgroups, committees, and other private–public partnerships.

Grantmakers can help ensure that vulnerable young people achieve job market success by providing funding for programs that help young people identify career strengths and interests and use employment specialists to develop concrete career plans.

4. Ensure youth have meaningful and gainful job experiences, mentorships, or internships with transferrable workforce skills. Young people who have early workforce experiences, such as internships, volunteer positions, or in-school or summer jobs, are more likely to engage in the workforce in adulthood.28 This is particularly important for vulnerable youth who often have limited exposure to real-world workplace experiences and little support from family or other caring adults to find jobs or internship opportunities. These early job experiences will not only increase a young person’s “personal capital,” but also teach him or her valuable vocational and soft skills that can be used in later job opportunities.

Shared Principles and Goals Collaboration among youth-serving systems, community-based organizations, schools, employers, and policymakers requires shared goals and a shared understanding of what principles are guiding their efforts. The following principles should guide this work toward ensuring vulnerable youth achieve career success: l

l

l

l

Individualized approach: Identifying each young person’s needs and ensuring that approaches are personalized to his or her strengths is critical to ensuring success. Young people who are disconnected or at risk for disconnection are not a homogenous group and responses must be tailored to the different, unique situations each youth faces. Data-driven and cost-effective: Policies and funding initiatives must be driven by what works to ensure limited resources are invested wisely. Varied pathways to success: Solutions and strategies to assist vulnerable youth must be varied and flexible and combine education, training, and supportive services. Youth engagement: Youth must be invested in the strategies used to help them succeed. They must feel empowered in the path they choose to gain employment and be knowledgeable about how to find and apply for jobs that fit their interests and skills.

To help these vulnerable youth find mentorships, internships, or entry-level jobs, grantmakers should fund programs and policies that help young people learn about job opportunities as well as provide long-term monitoring and support.

How can grantmakers help? Support programs that identify job prospects. Agencies and programs serving vulnerable youth should maintain updated information about local and regional job market needs, available jobs and training, and worker preparation programs. In addition, these agencies should form partnerships with supportive local employers who will hire and mentor vulnerable youth. These agencies can help ensure vulnerable youth’s success by communicating the value and importance of employment and volunteer opportunities to caseworkers, probation officers, other staff, parents, relative caregivers, foster parents, or other essential adults.

Fund programs that provide long-term monitoring and support. Many vulnerable youth start a job, but are not able to keep it because of logistical barriers, poor workplace (or soft) skills, or other personal challenges. To help young people stay employed, community-based programs can offer support and resources to vulnerable youth for at least a year after entering the workforce by offering ongoing job-coaching services.29 Agencies and programs serving vulnerable youth can also help young people leverage early work experiences to identify later employment opportunities.

Ensure logistical supports are in place. Many vulnerable youth do not have the resources to consistently go to and succeed in early job opportunities. Many

Insight

Winter 2013-2014 | 11


of the challenges they face may seem simple, such as a lack of appropriate attire or bus tokens, but these are real and significant barriers to keeping a job. Grantmakers can help vulnerable youth stay employed by providing funding to agencies and programs that help young people have the attire, transportation, and reliable, affordable, and accessible child care they need to go to work. Grantmakers can also provide funding to programs that regularly check in with working young people to help identify and overcome logistical barriers that may make it difficult or impossible for them to continue working, and, if possible under their state laws, assist court-involved youth with expunging or sealing their juvenile records, which often acts as a significant impediment to job opportunities.

5. Offer youth coordinated services and assistance from public- and private-sector support systems. Vulnerable youth often have numerous social, emotional, mental, and physical health needs. Building formal partnerships across youth-serving systems is essential to ensuring that youth receive the assistance they need in a way that is efficient, reliable, and does not duplicate efforts. It also builds infrastructures between agencies that allow each system to understand the challenges vulnerable youth face and design collaborative and centralized solutions, which will ultimately allow youth to focus more time and energy on career readiness and job opportunities. The most economical way to ensure that these young people receive help, without having too much redundancy among different agencies, is to find ways that various organizations can work together.

How can grantmakers help? Encourage different agencies to enter into formal agreements. An important early step in forming partnerships between system players is to create formal agreements or memoranda to explain the groups’ shared visions and how they can legally and appropriately share information and data. In addition, each organization should clearly spell out the roles, functions, resources, and funding to be aligned and shared between each agency that participates in the coordinated approach.

Incorporate career readiness into comprehensive approaches. Youth-serving systems seeking to develop formal partnerships and relationships should think broadly about how they can work together. This includes workforce investment programs and career centers that may often serve the entire adult population, but can also help young people identify and secure jobs. Their input on local job market trends and needs, as well as resources that can be offered to the young person, should be woven into holistic plans for support.

12 | Winter 2013-2014

Access community support. Vulnerable youth must understand what public assistance programs are available to them and how to access and use them. This includes public benefits, housing assistance, mental and behavioral health, substance abuse, and workforce investment programs. Grantmakers should provide funding to market these programs to the young people they are trying to serve.

A Call to Action and Next Steps Building a policy and practice framework that supports real, long-term job successes for vulnerable youth is no easy task. It requires the efforts of many public and private system stakeholders who are sensitive to the needs, aspirations, and developmental stages of vulnerable youth. But with so many young people out of work and school and so many having young children of their own, their struggles cannot be ignored. Grantmakers, policymakers, youth-serving organizations, child welfare, juvenile justice, and education systems must meet and create task forces, coalitions, or committees to assess how they are helping vulnerable youth succeed in the labor market. Using the five priority areas discussed in this article as a guide, they should conduct thorough gap analyses of what works, what does not work, and what is missing in their local policies and practices infrastructure. To actualize these recommendations, they should take stepped approaches, create new public–private partnerships through informal or formal agreements, and hold regular interagency meetings to enhance or revamp current practices and policies. To help spur these efforts, grantmakers should organize meetings of local stakeholders to identify and discuss local challenges facing vulnerable youth and identify best approaches and practices. In doing so, grantmakers can also start to identify ways to blend or align funding and work with community stakeholders to develop and implement change that will ultimately lead to real and measurable outcomes for all vulnerable young people. _________________________________ Jessica R. Kendall and Lisa Pilnik are co-founders of Child & Family Policy Associates (www.childfamilypolicy.com), a Marylandbased consulting firm that offers research, writing, training and strategic guidance on a range of child and family issues. Pilnik and Kendall worked with leading members of the Youth Transition Funders Group to develop a policy and practice framework around supporting employment pathways for our most vulnerable young people. This article outlines that framework and is contributed to Insight through our partnership with the Youth Transition Funders Group. The Youth Transition Funders Group was formed in 2001 by funders dedicated to improving the lives of our nation's most vulnerable young people. Foundations involved in YTFG are

Insight


the numerous negative consequences for youth who drop out of high school, including not finding work or earning less). Also see Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Breaking barriers 2: plotting the path away from juvenile detention and toward academic success for school-age African American males. Retrieved from http://www.cbcfinc.org/oUploadedFiles/BreakingBarriers2. pdf (showing promising results for extracurricular programs offered in detention facilities).

committed to achieving a common mission – ensuring that this nation's young people are successfully connected by age 25 to institutions and support systems that will enable them to succeed throughout adulthood. YTFG has adopted the theme, “Connected by 25,” to describe this mission. 17

Patrick, S &Sturgis, C. (2013). Necessary for success: building mastery of worldclass skills: a state policymakers guide to competency education. A Competency Works Issue Brief, International Association for K-12 Online Learning Retrieved from http://www.competencyworks.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/inacol_cw_issuebrief_building_mastery_final.pdf

18

Jobs for the Future. Key design features of a GED to college pathway. Retrieved from http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/GEDtocollege_design_elements_ 072109.pdf

19

Schiraldi, V., et al. (2002). Barriers and promising approaches to workforce and youth development for young offenders. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid=%7B9852 3A2D-F8E2-404F-B7EC-6D0DD96AF38A%7D

20

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2013). Supporting the academic success of pregnant and parenting students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (citing the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; and Bridgeland, J., et al. The silent epidemic: perspectives of high school dropouts. [2006]. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

See, eg., Putter, Learn to earn; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2005). Overcoming barriers to employment for youth in the juvenile justice system: a practical guide. Retrieved from http://cgscmo.org/JuvenileSanctionsCenter.pdf

21

National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (2012). Title IX at 40: working to ensure gender equity in education. Retrieved from http://www.ncwge.org/TitleIX40/TitleIX-print.pdf

Harrington, P., et al. (2013). Signaling success: boosting teen employment prospects. Commonwealth Corporation. Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.commcorp.org/resources/documents/BoostingTeenEmploymentP rospects_042013.pdf

22

See, e.g., the National Career Readiness System, one of several national “soft skills” credential programs that can attest to an individual’s job readiness.

23

Literature review: career pathways programs, OPRE Report #2013-24, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ opre/cp_lit_review_final_62613_edits.pdf

24

Civic Enterprises and America’s Promise Alliance. (2012). Opportunity road: the promise and challenge of America’s forgotten youth. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.civicenterprises.net/medialibrary/docs/opportunity_road.pdf

25

U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth; National Collaborative for Workforce and Disability for Youth. Supporting foster youth to achieve employment and economic self-sufficiency; Public/Private Ventures. (2002). Serving high-risk youth: lessons from research and programming. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/ServingHighRiskYouth.pdf

26

Literature review: career pathways programs.

27

See Bridgeland, J., et al. (2012). A bridge to reconnection: a review of federal funding streams reconnecting America’s opportunity youth—a plan for reconnecting one million opportunity youth each year. Civic Enterprises. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/resources/A_Br idge_To_Reconnection.pdf (discusses the federal Workforce Investment Act and other federal laws relevant to young people finding employment).

28

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Employment outcomes for youth who age out of foster care through their middle twenties. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/fosteremp/execsum.htm#Positive. See also Literature review: career pathways programs.

29

U.S. Department of Justice. Task Force on Employment and Training for CourtInvolved Youth; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Employment Outcomes for Youth; Youth Transition Funders Group. (2010). Ensuring youth transitioning from foster care are connected by 25: lessons learned from the foster care work group; Putter, Learn to Earn.

References 1

www.civicenterprises.net/MediaLibrary/Docs/econ_value_opportunity_youth

2

Bridgeland, J., & Mason-Elder, T. (2012). National roadmap for opportunity youth. Civic Enterprises. Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.civicenterprises.net/MediaLibrary/Docs/BelfieldLevin%20Economics%20Investment%20OppYouth%20Sept%202012.pdf

3

4

5

See, e.g., FSG. (2012). Conrad N. Hilton Foundation children and youth in foster care strategy development landscape research findings. Retrieved from http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/images/stories/PriorityAreas/FosterYouth/D ownloads/Foster_Youth_Landscape_Deck.pdf; Putter, C. (2012). Learn to earn: PACTT helps delinquent youths gain academic and job skills. Models for Change. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/354

6

Healthy Teen Network. The unique needs of young fathers: fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.healthyteennetwork.org/vertical/sites/%7BB4D0CC76CF78-4784-BA7C-5D0436F6040C%7D/uploads/%7B831934FA-3A1B42BB-8ED4-425528E23D5E%7D.PDF

7

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2012). Youth and work: restoring teen and young adult connections to opportunity . Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/Y/youthan dworkpolicyreport/kidscountyouthandwork.pdf

8

Dworsky, A. (2009). Remarks for Congressional Roundtable: preventing pregnancy among youth in foster care. Chapin Hall. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/policymakers/PDF/DworskyFosterPreg nancy.pdf

9

Sedlak, A. & Bruce, C. (2010). Youth’s characteristics and backgrounds: findings from the survey of youth in residential placement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://syrp.org/images/Youth%20Characteristics.pdf

10

See, e.g., Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative. Youth leaving foster care: what policymakers need to know. Retrieved from http://jimcaseyyouth.org/sites/default/files/documents/Policymakers%20Need %20to%20Know.lorespdf.pdf

11

See, e.g., Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative. Youth leaving foster care.

12

FSG, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Children and Youth in Foster Care.

13

See, id., (citing Hook, J., & Courtney, M. [2010.] Employment of former foster youth as young adults: evidence from the midwest study. Chapin Hall). Chicago, IL.

14

Youth Transition Funders Group. (2012). Juvenile justice reform, a blueprint. Retrieved from http://www.ytfg.org/documents/Blueprint_JJReform.pdf

15

Putter, Learn to Earn.

16

See, e.g., Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University and the Chicago Alternative Schools Network. (2009). Left behind in America: the nation’s dropout crisis, Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois. (highlighting

Insight

Winter 2013-2014 | 13


Investing in Justice-Involved Youth By Diane Sierpina, Senior Program Officer, The Tow Foundation

B

ad kids. Troublemakers. Those adolescents who repeatedly try our patience. And those who, frankly, scare us. Many find their way into the justice system, some because they are deviants, but most because they were victimized, traumatized, and failed by schools, communities, or even their families. Juvenile justice youth typically do not garner empathy or support from foundations or the public at large. They are the young people who often are not welcome in school or afterschool programs and for whom there are few mentors or champions. Many need costly academic, health, or mental health services. Others need a caring adult’s guidance. Some are parents themselves. All of them need opportunities … and hope. In 1999, The Tow Foundation, a private family philanthropy based in Connecticut, made a decision that these are exactly the youth the board and staff wanted to help. There were no private funders in the state targeting support to this population. Here was an opportunity for the foundation to highlight a problem, invest in solutions, measure results, and change lives. The challenge to reform a complicated, costly public system was daunting. According to the Court Support Services Division of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, in the late 1990s, approximately 12,000 youths were being referred to juvenile court annually in Connecticut, mostly for minor offenses. And nearly 700 of these youths were confined each year in the state’s draconian juvenile prison or other residential programs away from home for crimes committed at ages 15 or younger. This small state held the distinction of having the largest number of youth under age 18 in the adult criminal system. And the governor was rushing the construction of a new youth prison of 240 beds that was modeled after an adult facility in another state. After a year of research and site visits to facilities, Tow staff became more and more committed to the cause of changing this system that was damaging youth for life. They saw young people restrained by burly guards, marched in lock-step across prison grounds, and confined in stark cells with very narrow windows. If you asked confined youth what they wanted to be when they grew up, the answer often was “corrections officer.” In the eyes of these young people—most of them poor and minorities—there were few options and there was little hope. The cost for this type of treatment? Nearly $300,000 per bed a year to taxpayers and an unofficial recidivism rate of more than 60%.

Why Invest in Juvenile Justice Youth? The answer is simple. Today, we have the benefit of extensive research on adolescent brain development and the impact of trauma on young lives. It has been repeatedly documented that a 14 | Winter 2013-2014

high percentage of youth involved in the juvenile justice system have experienced at least one traumatic event in their lives, suffer from mental health issues or learning disabilities, come from broken homes and poor communities, have been abused or neglected, have been exposed to violence, and/or have absent, dysfunctional, or cognitively impaired parents. Many have been homeless, sex trafficked, and gone hungry. We know zerotolerance school policies that result in suspensions, expulsions, and arrests significantly increase the risk of school failure and juvenile justice involvement. And we know that detention and confinement of youth exacerbate mental health issues and increase the risk of academic failure, recidivism, and a future in the adult criminal system, where they are more at risk for abuse and trauma. In 2007, The Tow Foundation conducted an analysis to document the economic benefit of investing in success for these youth rather than paying for failure. According to a 2006 report by the Finance Project and Public/Private Ventures, The Costs of Out-of-School Time Programs: A Review of the Available Evidence, the median annual cost at that time for one youth to participate in an after-school program was $3,800. We also learned that the cost to attend Yale University was $46,000; and to be part of the Job Corps training program, $37,800. At the same time, the annual cost of a bed in Connecticut’s juvenile detention center was $119,000; in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (the youth prison), $295,000; and in the adult prison, $44,000. Professors Mark Cohen and Alex Piquero, in a December 2007 report entitled, New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth, estimated that the median cost to society for a high-risk youth’s life of crime was approximately $3.8 million. Was there a better way to help youth and communities without jeopardizing public safety and at less cost to taxpayers? The foundation decided to find out.

Overcoming Challenges and Barriers Juvenile justice youth are like other youth, experts say, except they have more needs and face more barriers. Said Garland Walton, Chief of Staff at Domus Kids in Stamford, Connecticut, “when we meet a kid at 5 years old, he has a dream. When we see that kid at age 15, he may have been abused, traumatized, or lived in car.” There usually is a sordid story behind a 13-year-old selling drugs, she said. One such youth witnessed his mother’s abuse by a boyfriend. To stop his mother from prostituting herself to pay the rent, he sold drugs. Nonprofits that work with the high-risk/high-need youth involved in the juvenile justice system have lots of these horror

Insight


stories. To turn these kind of lives around takes patience, empathy, resourcefulness, dedication…and funding. The vast majority of Tow Foundation juvenile justice grantees have received foundation support for more than 5 years and some for up to 16. Tow staff develop relationships with service providers and advocates through participation in local and state coalitions. In this way, we learn about the challenges faced by the field and the gaps in services that could be addressed with seed money. In addition, funders often can gain access to policymakers when others cannot. Tow staff and board members have built relationships with state officials, judges, and legislators, establishing the foundation as a thought leader and resource.

thoughtfully in high-risk and court-involved youth, including an emphasis on life skills, job readiness, and employment. In recent years, the foundation has invested approximately $350,000 annually in these areas to expose youth to careers and a life with promise for success. “Often we are told that juvenile justice kids are not interested in work,” said Dr. Brett Rayford, chief of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families’ Adolescent & Juvenile Justice Division. “That is a falsehood. Work is a game-changer. If you give kids options to gain skills and earn money, they will always pick that. These programs instill hope that they can change their futures. They develop the kids that the streets don’t.”

“Funders bring a different perspective to the table,” said William Carbone, executive director of the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division, which is responsible for juvenile detention, probation and diversionary programs. “They bring new ideas and a different way of asking questions. Often, they can fund a pilot or jumpstart an initiative. They can be helpful in connecting us with national groups and leveraging their funding with national philanthropists.” To help promote public policy reform, the stakeholders must have a shared vision and a common message. A foundation can help bring advocates, providers, and families together to create these common goals and action steps. The Tow Foundation and its partners saw the need to create a statewide coalition around juvenile justice reform and founded the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, which has been the catalyst of most of the state’s major juvenile justice policy and practice changes of the past 10 years. The Alliance motivated the state to adopt a juvenile justice strategic plan and to invest in diversion and alternatives services. In 2000, the state was investing $300,000 in community-based, family-focused treatment programs. By 2009, it was $39 million. The Alliance also led the effort to raise the age that a youth could be adjudicated as a juvenile from 16 to 18, enabling thousands of 16- and 17-year-olds to avoid prosecution and punishment in the adult criminal system. In recent years, the Alliance, including Tow staff, has been successfully advocating policy changes around school discipline, mental health treatment, and racial disparities.

Support of Life Skills and Employment In 1997, Emily Tow Jackson, the foundation’s executive director, asked the president of a large social service agency, FSW, based in Bridgeport, Connecticut, for which of his many programs did he have the most difficulty raising money. He immediately said the program that helped youth on parole from residential placement reintegrate into the community. Parole typically ended a month or two later, which was insufficient time to assist the youth, he reported. The foundation awarded a small grant and the improved youth outcomes intrigued its board of directors. No one knew at the time that this grant would galvanize The Tow Foundation to invest more deeply and

Insight

Why The Tow Foundation Will Stick With Juvenile Justice Reform Since 1999, The Tow Foundation has awarded more than 320 juvenile justice–related grants totaling in excess of $12 million and currently invests more than $2 million annually. Each year, it has been easy to measure success through The Tow Foundation’s own advocacy efforts, alone and in coalitions, and the results the Winter 2013-2014 | 15


foundation’s grantees have achieved with their advocacy and direct services. But the true test results became clear earlier this year with the release of a comprehensive report on Connecticut’s successful reforms by the Justice Policy Institute called Juvenile Justice in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth 1. The report outlines all the policy and practice changes that have taken place over more than a decade that have helped justice-involved youth gain skills, stay out of trouble, and think more positively about their futures, all at no risk to public safety and at less cost in 2012 than in 2002 after adjusting for inflation. Now, according to the Court Support Services Division of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, approximately 10,000 youths are referred to court annually, a drop of nearly 14% over the 1999 figure, and just over 200 youths are confined annually in Connecticut’s secure facilities —even with the addition of 16- and 17-year-olds into the juvenile system. One of the three state detention centers has been closed. The Tow Foundation has hope for the future. The Connecticut report, with lessons and insights for other jurisdictions, is in the hands of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Governors Association, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Congress, and many others with influence. The new director of the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention, Robert Listenbee, has opened his door to funders as partners and is particularly interested in using and encouraging states to use a wellness framework to address the needs of youth caught up in the juvenile justice system. National funders, such as Annie E. Casey, Public Welfare, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundations, have collaborated with regional philanthropies, such as Tow, to advance state-based reform, and have provided valuable research to the field. These national and local funders, and many others, have benefited from the research, resources, and networking provided through membership in the Youth

16 | Winter 2013-2014

Transition Funders Group (http://www.ytfg.org), a coalition of philanthropists focused on improving outcomes for youth ages 14 to 24 struggling to transition into successful adulthood. As we learn more about the causes of juvenile delinquency, school failure, and trauma, and the tremendous impact that such things as restorative justice and mediation, mentoring, life skills, academic support, legal services, health care, housing, and work can have on the outcomes for youth, we welcome the involvement of a broad range of funders in the conversation about our most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. They need our attention and they deserve a better future.

About The Tow Foundation The Tow Foundation, based in New Canaan, Connecticut (www.towfoundation.org), was founded in 1988 by Leonard and Claire Tow. It envisions a society where all people have the opportunity to enjoy a high quality of life and have a voice in their community. The foundation makes strategic investments, primarily in advocacy, that promote juvenile justice reform in Connecticut, New York and nationally, and in four other program areas through invited projects – higher education, cultural institutions, medical innovation and vulnerable families. Diane Sierpina has been with the foundation since 1998 and also serves on the steering committee of the Youth Transition Funders Group (www.ytfg.org) and as co-chair of its Juvenile Justice Work Group.

References 1

Mendel, R. A. (2013). Juvenile justice in Connecticut: how collaboration and commitment have improved public safety and outcomes for youth. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/4969

Insight


Youth for Change: Seven Recommendations for Funders to Engage Youth in Giving Wokie Weah, President of Youthprise and Neese Parker, Youth Philanthropy Innovator ____________________________________________________

There is growing evidence that supports authentic youth engagement as a key strategy for improving outcomes for young people. ____________________________________________________

A

t the core of youth engagement efforts are youth–adult partnerships, considered by many to be the highest form of youth engagement. These partnerships create a framework for meaningfully engaging youth in their own development and in efforts to transform communities. At Youthprise, young people are included and engaged throughout our grantmaking process as reviewers of competitive grants, in the due diligence process, and as board members who ultimately approve funding recommendations. Youthprise’s grantmaking portfolio is 4 million dollars with 32% dedicated to authentically engaging youth. In 2012, we launched a Youth Philanthropy Fund, in which young people are the key decisionmakers on the redistribution of funds and development of funding strategies that will be used by Youthprise in the future. Currently, our Youth Philanthropy Fund represents an initial investment of $170,000 to pilot and test the strategies they develop. This process has provided valuable lessons and insights. It has not been easy, and by no means have we perfected youth engagement in philanthropy, but we believe our grantmaking process has been enriched. We have seven recommendations for grantmakers seeking to engage youth in philanthropy. 1. Make an earnest, long-term commitment and investment in youth in philanthropy. To build trust and perfect the craft, grantmakers should be prepared to make a long-term investment in engaging youth. Young people want to know that a grantmaker is committed. The engagement of young people should not be siloed and under-resourced. Accordingly, funders must strive to stretch themselves to ensure an adequate amount of resources are allocated to youth philanthropy initiatives. This will require making a sufficient investment of capital over time, thereby affording young people viable opportunities to impact their communities through these initiatives.

Insight

2. Find multiple ways to incorporate youth in grantmaking organizations. This includes seeking out ways to involve youth from communities of color and other marginalized populations, as services and support are often focused on meeting the needs of these populations. Youth Philanthropy is not just about making grants, it is also about seeding the next generation of philanthropists and concerned citizens and investing in cross-sector partnerships that empower young people to invest in issues impacting their communities. We work with youth councils and engage them in a design thinking process to come up with innovative solutions to real community problems. 3. Engage youth in defining philanthropy. If funders truly want young people to feel like equal partners in the philanthropy, they should be engaged early on to help define the work. During the formative stage of our Youth Philanthropy initiative, a team of young people guided us in developing our Youth Philanthropy model. A key component of this process involved gaining an understanding of how youth define philanthropy. After participating in a series of brainstorming and strategic planning sessions, the team of youth reached a consensus, defining youth philanthropy as l

l

A collaborative process in which youth, driven by their love for others, lead the allocation and redistribution of resources—time, talent, treasure, funding, skills, stories, and ideas—toward the just and authentic enrichment of young people; and Young people’s deep identification with their communities and their drive to co-create a new reality.

4. Be open to challenging how the terms “grant” and “grantee” are defined. Grantmakers may often first look to supporting programming of traditional nonprofits to meet the needs of youth. Although this can be an effective strategy, young people may have different ideas about how to resource community change. Incorporating the voice and perspectives of youth will require flexibility and a paradigm shift for grantmakers. Recommendations from young people have led us to creatively supporting informal spaces and institutions in the broader community that organically facilitate healthy Winter 2013-2014 | 17


youth development. Our Youth Philanthropy efforts have led to direct investments in young people and their ideas. Our Change Fellowship Program is an example of how we are making a deeper investment in young people by equipping them to actually make the changes they deem important in their communities, such as launching an out-of-school program or implementing an innovative solution to a critical issue in their community. 5. Create innovative ways to secure and evaluate funding requests. Standard request-for-proposal grantmaking practices may not always be the best strategy to enlist participation from youth. Funders must look beyond the narrative-oriented, board-driven proposal review process and establish more interactive practices that appeal to youth and engage them in the process from beginning to end. Youthprise recently launched the Mobilize the Power of Youth Video Contest, which requires prospective grantees to develop a video or slideshow that showcases how their organization supports young people’s vision and equips them to leave a legacy of change. Youth participation in developing the response is incentivized, and youth have significant input in selecting the winners. Grantmakers must work with youth to generate creative ideas, utilize technology, and provide genuine opportunities for youth to contribute to funding decisions in a meaningful way. 6. Challenge traditional outcome measures. Oftentimes, standards for success of youth-serving programs are determined by funders and other stakeholders who are not in touch with the priorities and issues that concern young people. If young people are to truly be invested in youth philanthropy initiatives, they must have a material role in defining success. Youthprise’s research team recently conducted interviews with youth on issues that were important to them. Findings revealed a clear disparity in what youth labeled as important and the focus of programs from the organizations that serve them. Funders must be receptive to the notion that young people may have a different vision of positive outcomes and what it means to be healthy, educated, and productive. Doing so will lessen the chances of establishing outcome measures that, although they are achieved, have little or no relevance to the young people whom they are meant to benefit.

18 | Winter 2013-2014

7. Trust the expertise and perspectives of young people while challenging them to think critically. Young people have a strong desire to be trusted and to be heard. Today’s youth have great minds, innovative ideas, and the ability to make significant contributions to the dialogue on several issues by adding a fresh outlook that comes from a different perspective. Notwithstanding their desire for a seat at the table, youth also recognize the need for adult input and direction to help them think critically. Youth appreciate having adults respectfully challenge their ideas and provide guidance and direction in a mutually deferential environment. Funders should explore avenues for intergenerational partnerships that allow youth and adults to establish a mutually beneficial learning environment. Engaging young people in youth philanthropy initiatives will require intentional, long-term efforts on the part of grantmakers. These endeavors should be built upon a framework that focuses on genuine adult–youth partnerships and creates opportunities for youth to be authentically involved in all aspects of planning, implementation, and evaluation. As grantmakers work together to advance these recommendations in their respective sectors, we can collectively transform youth philanthropy in the 21st century to a model that truly leverages and values the vision, talents, skills, and ingenuity of today’s youth. To achieve this, we envision three fundamental shifts for grantmakers: seize the opportunity to reposition youth as essential community change agents, challenge traditional giving structures, and redesign the allocation of funds so that they are aligned with the visions of the communities being served.

About Youthprise Youthprise’s mission is to champion learning beyond the classroom so all Minnesota youth thrive. Founded in 2010 by the McKnight Foundation, Youthprise’s strategies include grantmaking, capacity building, policy, and communications, research, and evaluation. To achieve its mission, Youthprise works collaboratively with youth, community-based programs, government entities, private foundations, and other stakeholders to reposition youth as assets and build strong systems in support of youth. For more information about Youthprise, visit http://www.youthprise.org/.

References 1

Smith, D. (2013, August 22). Personal relationships help close the achievement gap. MinnPost. Retrieved from http://www.minnpost.com/ community-voices/2013/08/personal-relationships-help-close-achievementgap

Insight


Acknowledgments GCYF would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for sharing their insights, expertise, and time to produce this issue of Insight:

Writing & Editing: • • • • • • • • •

Ron White, Executive Director, GCYF Natacha Blain, JD, PhD, Associate Director, GCYF Kisha Bird, Senior Policy Analyst and Project Director, Campaign for Youth, Center for Law and Social Policy Jessica R. Kendall, JD, Consultant, Youth Transition Funders Group Neese Parker, Youth Philanthropy Innovator Lisa Pilnik, JD, MS, Consultant, Youth Transition Funders Group Diane Sierpina, Senior Program Officer, The Tow Foundation Wokie Weah, President, Youthprise Michelle Quirk, Editor

Design & Production • ImagePrep Studio

This publication is supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Insight

Winter 2013-2014 | 19

Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 540 Silver Spring, MD 20910 p 301-589-GCYF f 301-589-4289 [email protected] www.gcyf.org