Teen living programs for young mothers receiving welfare: An analysis of implementation and issues in service delivery

RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

Abstract

Changes in welfare programs are likely to have several important effects on populations served by social workers. While most attention has addressed the work requirement and time limits imposed by welfare reform, other aspects of the legislation also require attention. Living requirement legislation for teen parents receiving welfare has led the state of Massachusetts to develop Teen Living Programs (TLPs). TI-Ps are residential programs that allow teen parents to fulfill the living requirement when they are unable to live in the home of a parent or adult guardian. Data collected during program site visits to report on the implementation of the programs are used in this paper. This report identifies and analyzes issues related to service delivery that may be useful to social workers, policymakers, and program developers interested in supporting adolescent mothers affected by living requirement legislation. Analysis includes discussion of programming and staff, standardization of services, flexibility and individualized services, the residential model, and limitations of the program response.

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) led to several changes in the welfare system at federal, state, and local levels. One specific change in the eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is the requirement that teen parents must fulfill certain living requirements in order to obtain assistance. States have varied considerably in their response to this requirement in terms of the arrangements and settings considered acceptable, the circumstances under which exemptions are allowed, the assistance provided to the teen to secure an approved setting, and other factors in policy implementation (CLASP, 2000). Massachusetts, using federal block grant funds, has implemented a formal program and statewide network of alternate living arrangements.

Teen parents have received substantial attention in recent years because of their risk for long-term poverty and its associated disadvantages. Prior interventions for teen mothers, particularly those on welfare, have focused mostly on education and training opportunities, sometimes with child care or parenting skills components (e.g., Maynard, 1995). Current TLPs have also included life skills and other training components similar to those of independent-living programs for foster care youth (Brickman, Dey, & Cuthbert, 1991). As a residential setting, features of congregate care programs (e.g., chores, rewards, etc.) and ongoing staff interaction and support are also part of the programming. Thus, the program model uniquely incorporates elements of self-sufficiency programming, parenting skills, and the safety and structure of residential settings.

Although, in general, social workers have not had major roles in implementing welfare changes (Lens & Pollack, 1999), the Massachusetts TLP model of services is delivered through state contracts with private agencies, and in many of these agencies social workers have key roles as direct service staff and program administrators. Moreover, social workers have repeatedly emphasized the importance of evaluating welfare changes and their effects on clients (VidekaSherman & Viggiani, 1996). One piece of evaluation is to provide description, explanation, and understanding of the issues surrounding implementation of the program.

The purpose of this paper is to describe key issues related to the implementation of this program and the delivery of the services to the teen parents. Data were collected as part of a larger evaluation focusing on the effects of welfare reform on teen parents and their children. TLP site visits were conducted to gather information about the programs and their operation. The visits lasted between 2 and 5 hours. A two-person team conducted the visits in spring 1998 to 21 of the 22 programs. The majority of the visit was spent interviewing the program director regarding agency description and history, staffing issues, program goals, program history and development, consumer profile, program components, client exits, and summary comments on program strengths and weaknesses. At most sites, at least one direct care staff person was also interviewed using an identified subset of the questions from the interview guide. Written notes were recorded during the site visit. When available, printed materials about the program and agency (e.g., client contract, program rules) were also collected. Data were analyzed according to the categories of the interview guide (e.g., staffing issues, program goals, etc.) to identify key issues in the delivery of the program to the teen parents. Commonalities across sites as well as unique findings within sites were identified.

PrograM Goals

Massachusetts Teen Living Programs are designed to meet the needs of those teen parent welfare recipients who are unable to live in the home of a parent, adult relative, or guardian due to abuse, neglect, or other circumstances. In supervised residential settings teens are provided a safe place to live and are supported by a combination of mandated and voluntary services to develop skills that lead to good parenting and self-sufficiency. The desired outcomes of TLP services include completion of high school or high school equivalency program (GED); increased parenting skills and promotion of a nurturing relationship between parent and child leading to a reduction in the numbers of supported reports of child abuse and neglect; reduction in repeat pregnancy rates; improved health outcomes for teen parents and their children; attainment of healthy growth and development of the children of teen parents; and an increased ability to live independently, including the reduction of dependence on welfare (Department of Social Services [DSS], 1996). As stated in the program specifications, TLPs are designed to "enable teen parents to develop, in a safe and supportive setting, the requisite skills and knowledge to be competent parents and to lead independent and productive lives after completion of the program" (DSS, 1996).

Organizational Structure

The program is funded by the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), the state welfare agency and is managed by the Department of Social Services (DSS), which contracts with private agencies to provide the residential and program services. DSS is also responsible for conducting the assessment to determine if, in fact, teens are unable to live with a parent, guardian, or adult relative. Sites reported relatively few difficulties working with the two large state agencies and only limited and anticipated difficulties related to program start-up (e.g., questions about which agency was responsible for which elements of the program). Consistent with state agency missions, program sites report that the DTA places greater program emphasis on economic self-sufficiency whereas DSS places greater program emphasis on parenting skills and child safety.

Teens are informed of the living requirement when they apply for welfare benefits at the local DTA office. If a teen states that she is unable to live at home or with an adult relative or guardian, she is referred to DSS for an assessment. Within 30 days the teen must accept the DSS recommendation that she either return home or enter a TLP. If she refuses the recommendation, she becomes ineligible for TAFDC (Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children). If the recommendation is to enter a Teen Living Program, DSS will send the referral along with the assessment to the individual program. The program director then contacts the teen and she is invited to visit the program.

At the time of the evaluation, the TLP network had 22 sites throughout the state and a total of 110 beds. Massachusetts is a state with a strong nonprofit sector and all of the contracted agencies had an established history of providing services to youth and families. Several were a part of a larger multi-service agency. Others had more specific program missions related to issues such as empowerment of women, homelessness, or runaway youth.

Program capacity ranged from three beds tolO beds with an average of about seven beds. When they planned their TLP programs, most agencies (16 of 21) chose or had access to facilities that dictated the development of a "group" housing model. The mothers and children lived in settings where they share kitchen and living room space. However, six agencies implemented the "apartment model." Here, mothers and children lived in separate apartments, typically sharing with one other household. One agency offered both options at its site.

Some sites operate emergency beds for DTA clients who have an immediate need for housing and who have no alternative place to live during the assessment period. Several programs also have program beds funded by other sources (e.g., Department of Housing and Urban Development). There was reported frustration in needing to hold open beds from one funding source at the same time there was a need from another source but no open beds available for that client.

Implemented through numerous contracted agencies, each individual agency's mission and history impacted the emphasis provided in delivering services. Although clearly stated to be an educational intervention designed to develop skills, sites reported internal and cross-site discussions and debate on the extent to which the TLP model is educational versus therapeutic. Programs that had served the housing needs of young mothers prior to welfare reform have suggested that these previous populations were higher functioning and the primary program emphasis had been on finding permanent housing. Several sites reported shifting their emphasis from an original education and supportive model to more of a therapeutic model as the level of needs appeared to be greater among the DTA clients than what had been anticipated. Although all programs have access to specialized services, none is equipped with in-house services to deal with problems related to violent behavior, substance abuse, or serious mental health issues.

A second area in which there was discussion regarding the program philosophy was the extent to which the program should emphasize communal supports and congregate living versus fostering independency and self-sufficiency. Apartment model programs clearly emphasized independence, although they also provided support and nurturance. The congregate models emphasized group living, group decision-making, and joint meal planning and preparation. Some sites expressed concern, however, that there was too much emphasis on the "house" and that this did not allow the young mother to practice skills in independent decisionmaking. For instance, although the majority of the programs collected food stamps and engaged in joint meal planning, shopping, preparation, and dinnertime, one site made meal planning an individual activity to allow teen moms to make these decisions independently and to allow teens to practice these skills. Other sites emphasized the emotional needs of the teens and consequently the need to emphasize the group in order to provide needed support.

Two issues related to referrals were identified. First, some sites felt there was a greater need in their communities than was reflected by the number of available programs and beds. At several sites, there was a concern that young women were being diverted from entering the program, or, that the program was not being publicized, thereby encouraging young women to stay in unsafe environments. Second, sites do not have the right to refuse referrals. This issue was raised at a few sites that reported they have taken teens who did not fit the program (e.g., who had psychiatric symptoms or cognitive delays).

Within program sites, there were varying staff configurations and programs appeared to be trying out different staffing patterns to best meet client needs. As is common in residential programs, a chronic issue across sites was the difficulty of finding and maintaining a cadre of good relief workers. Because of the hours (overnight/on call) and low pay, staff turnover is a continuous problem. Most sites also saw a need for more staff coverage; individualized attention to teens' emotional needs can be compromised when staff are spread too thin. Programs attempted to hire staff reflective of the diversity of clients. For the most part, the descriptions of staff that were given in the course of the site visits appeared to be multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. Sites serving large populations of Latinas had staff who spoke Spanish. Through staff interviews it is not possible to assess, however, the clients perceptions' of whether the staff is appropriately diverse or whether their own individual culture is sufficiently represented by the staff.

Program Components

One assumption of the TLP intervention is that a broad array of comprehensive services is most effective for helping this disadvantaged population. Others (e.g., Schorr, 1979) have long argued for the importance of comprehensive services. Jackson (1999), in particular, has argued that strategies to bring single-mother families out of poverty should utilize a combination of meaningful employment, educational resources beyond high school, and child care resources.

To achieve these outcomes, the program theory emphasized a series of components (several are discussed individually below) that are common to both teen parent and youth-development programs. Each program visited was found to be providing all the specified components. Depending on several factors, such as community and agency resources, program history, staff strengths, and individual program philosophy, individual sites were found to emphasize some components more than others. For example, programs that were part of a large, multi-service agency generally had access to a broader array of counseling services; programs in certain locations had better access to transportation; programs with a history in shelter services had more experience and knowledge about housing resources. Key elements of the program components are summarized in Table 1. Some of the most critical components are discussed more fully below.

Education. Because of its emphasis in welfare reform, educational programming received substantial attention at each site. All sites offered a variety of educational options including access to public high schools, technical or vocational training programs, GED programs, and community college systems. Although several educational options are available, in reality GED programs were utilized most frequently. Among those without a high school diploma, the GED option tended to be preferred because of the teen mothers' discomfort returning to school when they were not at an age-appropriate grade level. Despite this access to education, and the program and policy emphasis on education, problems with attendance remained. Some problems were related to teen motivation to attend and others to competing demands (e.g., welfare appointments, sick children, etc.). One site suggested that the DTA school attendance requirement was too basic and that additional grade-oriented requirements might provide more incentive for the teen mothers to complete school requirements. Another site suggested that because the academic skill level of many clients is so low, tutoring and literacy services are also needed.

Employment services. Consonant with the policy of welfare reform legislation aimed at teen parents, the emphasis of the TLPs was on educational services rather than immediate employment. Encouraging the teen moms to work while in the program was not emphasized, both because of the educational and other program requirements and because part-time work in addition to school attendance would interfere with the parent-child interaction time that is also critical to client success. Employment-related issues (e.g., appropriate dress, job application and resume writing, interviewing techniques) were addressed through life skills instruction. A few sites, depending on their agency and community resources, offered some limited employment or training experiences.

Child Care. Three sites had on-site child care and 18 used community child care. Most sites prefer having on-site care but many were limited by site size or other restrictions. For those sites without on-site child care, several child care options were usually available in the community. The exception was infant day care, which was reportedly scarce in all communities. In terms of their role in accessing appropriate child care, sites checked out existing child care options, provided support to the teen mothers in selecting appropriate child care, and facilitated transportation to child care. A potential problem was finding child care services that matched the schedule of the school or GED program the mother attended. On the other hand, some sites had access to school, GED, or training programs that had on-site day care and sometimes transportation services as well. This was considered an optimal situation.

Health services. All sites had access to health care services for the teen parents and children. Some reported excellent relationships with local providers, particularly if they had specialized services for teen mothers. Others had relationships with a visiting nurses program, or another communitybased health care service, which provided preventive and educational services at the program site. In a few areas there were problems related to access. Although health services were available, there could be delays in getting appointments, long waits at clinics, and obstacles in getting previous medical records.

Life skills training and parenting skills training. DSS's curriculum for independent living skills was utilized. Consistently, sites reported that it had good and useful material, but that for higher skilled clients it was too basic. Sites supplemented the curriculum with additional materials, activities, and speakers from the community, depending on the particular mix of clients in the program. Parenting skills were taught through a variety of means, including curricula, community parenting groups, and guest speakers. In addition to the formal parenting skills meetings, sites also emphasized parenting skills through modeling of behavior and ongoing, informal contact with the teen mothers.

The two program components with which sites reported continuing difficulties were housing search assistance and follow-up services.

Housing search assistance. Virtually all sites discussed substantial limitations in providing housing search assistance and the needed linkage to appropriate, safe, and moderately priced housing that the teen parents needed upon exiting the program. The private housing market is expensive, and the waiting lists for public housing or Section 8 housing are extensive.

Aside from the immediate difficulty of helping the teen mothers find appropriate housing, the tight housing market influenced entry into the TLP as well as the timing of exit. Sites reported that some teens viewed entry into the TLP as a means to move up the housing priority list and that teens who wanted their own apartment would use the TLP as a stepping stone to get it. Teens who entered the program under these circumstances were often unhappy when faced with the many program requirements. It was more commonly reported that teens doing well in the program had moved out prematurely when an apartment became available because they feared they would otherwise fall to the end of the housing list and an apartment might not be available at a later time.

For the most part, appropriate transitional housing was not available to the young women leaving the TLPs. A few sites had related programs to which the teen might transition. For example, two sites also operated transitional living programs. Moving into the transitional living program was a fairly automatic option for the teens in these TLPs. Most teens wanted this option and worked to remain in the TLP until there was an opening. Programmatically, the relationship between the two programs was helpful because it allowed teens in the TLP to have role models of slightly older young women who were a few steps ahead in achieving their goals.

Follow-up services. Programs attempted to maintain contact with former clients but generally expressed having a difficult time consistently following up with young women who had left the program. With limited staff time, particularly when programs were full, sites were restricted in their ability to sufficiently follow up with clients. All sites expressed their availability and willingness to talk with former clients who drop by or call when they need support or advice. Teens are also invited back for celebrations and events and can continue to participate in family and parenting skills groups, activities, etc. A newly implemented DSS standard states that follow-up services are to be provided every 6 months for up to 2 years.

Program Completion and Outcomes

Teens parents can exit the program in one of several ways: they may choose to leave, they may become ineligible (when they turn 20 or if they lose custody of their child), or they may be asked to leave. If they are under 18 and do not return to a parent, adult guardian, or other DSS-approved setting, they will typically lose their benefits.

Teens are no longer subject to the living requirement when they reach the age of 18 and may at that point leave the TLP and continue to receive benefits. Alternatively, they may choose to remain in the program until the age of 20. Most choose to leave the program at some point before age 20. Although not common, sometimes clients remain in the program less than 1 month. Staff suggest that these are circumstances in which the teen mom had no idea what the program was about and had been anticipating fewer rules and less structure; the teen mom has parents who are not supportive of her placement in the program; or the teen mom enters in a desperate, but temporary situation and is able to quickly identify an alternative living situation. It is most common that the clients stay for a longer period time (average length of stay is 71 months) but few stay until they reach the age of 20, and most do not formally graduate or complete their service plan. Several sites expressed discomfort with criteria for graduation and program completion'. Many teens reportedly made good progress during the time they were in the program but could not be classified as having graduated (e.g., completing all their goals).

Serious infractions (e.g., aggressive, dangerous, psychotic behavior) can result in immediate terminations. Most terminations were for less immediately serious behaviors and were due instead to chronic behaviors and the inability to work with the program (e.g., constant AWOL). Commonly, residents are given numerous warnings for such behavior; several sites expressed reluctance to terminate clients, stating that the program is usually the best and sometimes only option for the young families.

Detailed reporting and analysis of program outcomes is reported elsewhere (Collins, Stevens, & Lane 2000).

Among the key results were the followingS:

* 65% reported engaging in some type of education or training

* 44% reported having been employed

* 71% reported currently receiving TAFDC

* 16% reported having been homeless at some point

* 95% were insured through Medicaid or private health insurance

* 97% reported having sought medical care for their child (mostly for check-ups and preventive care)

* 28% reported that they had been pregnant since leaving the TLP

* 14% reported that they had suffered physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

* 18% stated that a report for suspected child maltreatment had been filed on behalf of their child

In comparison with stated program intent, the most successful outcomes were determined to be those related to educational progress, utilization of health services, and reduction in use of TAFDC. Less successful outcomes were determined to be those related to homelessness, repeat pregnancy, and victimization. Although causal relationships between program components and outcomes cannot be supported due to methodological limitations, the successful outcomes appear to be those over which the program had greater control. In comparison, issues related to housing stability, pregnancy, and victimization are influenced by multiple factors, many of which cannot be directly addressed by the components of the program (e.g., the housing market, opportunities, vulnerability factors).

Profile of Teen Clients

Although the focus of this article is on the description of the program and key implementation issues, a description of the teen clients is helpful in understanding the population served by the program. In another component of the study, interviews were conducted with 72 current residents and 127 former residents (Collins, Stevens, & Lane, 2000). Examination of the characteristics of the current residents provides a snapshot view of the profile of teen clients. At the time of the evaluation, all but two current residents were interviewed (97%). Although young males are technically eligible for the program if they are receiving TAFDC, at the time of the evaluation, all program clients were female. Average age at entry was approximately 18 years (M= 18.09). Program sites reported that for younger teen parents (14-16), use of kinship care or a foster home was the preferred alternative. The largest racial/ethnic group was Latina (36%), followed by African American (26%), Caucasian (22%), and "Other" (15%). This racial/ethnic distribution is not proportionate to the overall Massachusetts teen welfare population. An analysis of data from the entire DTA caseload of teenage parent welfare recipients in the year following welfare reform found that 52% of recipients were White, 27% were Hispanic, 18% were Black, and 2% were from other racial backgrounds. One possibility for the disproportion is the location of the programs; there are few programs in the smaller towns and rural areas where the population is generally Caucasian, and more programs in the larger cities with significant populations of Latino and African American families.

At intake into the program, 57% of the teen mothers were already parents, 25% were pregnant, and 18% were both pregnant and parenting. Before entering the TLP most of the 72 young women (56%) had lived with their families in a selfdescribed "permanent" living situation ("a place you plan to stay indefinitely") whereas 44% lived in a "temporary" situation ("a place you don't plan on staying very long"). Of those in a temporary situation, 15% lived in a setting such as a foster home, transitional housing program, or shelter. Most had some previous work experience (81%) and slightly more than halfwere enrolled in school (51%). Another 21% were enrolled in a GED program.

The reasons teen mothers provided as to why they entered the program, included the following: couldn't get along with family (41%), parents were not available (24%), parents' home was too small (17%), they had been kicked out of their home because of pregnancy (13%), there was drug use in their home (9%), they suffered abuse in their home (3%), and they had wanted their own apartment (3%). These data identify a wide variety of family difficulties that lead the teen mothers to enter a TLP.

Critical Issues in Implementation

Programming and staff. Both the long-term nature and the comprehensiveness of the services were identified by staff as critical strengths of the program and are consistent with recommendations for assisting disadvantaged populations (Jackson, 1999). Limited access to child care and education have repeatedly been identified as barriers to self-sufficiency and thus are at the forefront of TLP services. In addition, several staff commented that a critical element of the program was the relationship between staff and clients. Support, guidance, emotional connection, and consistent were identified as essential for emotional growth as well as to provide encouragement to continue in the fairly demanding program. Analvsis of consumer satisfaction data has found that in addition to the utility of program components, teens also identified relationship with program staff to be important in influencing their feelings about the program (Collins, Lemon, & Street, 2000).

Standardization. Site visit data indicate that all sites were delivering services in accordance with program specifications. Existing variation and emphasis was attributed to differences in agency and program history, agency and community resources, and strengths of program staff. Programs were divided as to whether more standardization is needed; some viewing this to be a program improvement, others suggesting that it deteriorates agencies' strengths in providing the best service. This tension is common in contracting relationships between government agencies and nonprofits; balance is needed between maintaining standardization in service delivery and allowing agencies the independence to provide services consistent with their strengths (Hassel, 1997). As the programs continue to operate, and an increased number of young families are served, it may be possible to identify particular program elements related to positive outcome. For this reason, some amount of program variation appears desirable. Moreover, state contracting procedures can be used to identif, programs that do not achieve sufficient program success and appropriate corrective action can be taken.

Flexibility and individualized services. Comprehensive services should be used in a flexible and individualized manner to best serve client needs (Schorr, 1988). In our examination of the TLPs, it was commonly noted that the program serves a population with diverse needs. Some teens primarily have housing needs; some need education and employment training in addition to housing; some have multiple needs related to histories of abuse, domestic violence, and longterm poverty. Consequently, many sites feel pulled toward a more therapeutic model of services, although this was not the intent of the program, nor are adequate therapeutic resources available. Moreover, programs cannot assume that teen mothers on welfare have substantial psychosocial problems; such assumptions can lead to increased stigmatization of the entire population of welfare mothers. Accurate assessment at program intake should identify both assets and needs of the teen mothers and appropriate case plans can utilize the comprehensive services offered in sufficient combination for each individual. Some teen mothers may need little beyond a safe place to live, access to either education or employment, and support to reach her goals. Other teen mothers may require a wider range and greater depth of services, Neither group is served well by over- or underestimating its needs.

Appropriateness of residential model. The limitations of group living are well-known and include agency incentives to keep beds filled, neglect of individual needs in a group setting, the proliferation of rules and consequences, and the difficulties of fostering independence in a group setting which requires some level of conformity. Thus, some skepticism of a residential model for meeting the needs of these young women is warranted. On the other hand, the vulnerability of young mothers to violence has been documented (Boyer & Fine, 1992; Collins, 1998) and the extraordinarily high housing cost in many communities is likely to increase the dependence of the young mother and hence her vulnerability to violent relationships. Thus, the immediate physical safety of the young family is a positive outcome that should not be overlooked, regardless of whether other outcomes (e.g., welfare use, educational attainment, parenting skills) are attained.

Program satisfaction data have indicated that many of the young mothers appreciate the safety of the setting although many chafe at the rules, consequences, and responsibilities associated with residential programs (Collins, lemon, & Street, 2000). Although DTA considers the programs to be voluntary, many young women feel forced to participate because the cost of not participating is the termination of benefits. Removal of the coercion of the threat of benefit termination would increase the choices available to young mothers, empower them to make decisions, and create a more positive atmosphere in the groups' living situation.

Limitations of the program response. The study also identified systemic factors that worked against the teen moms and that influenced the programs' ability to achieve optimal outcomes. In general, some sites felt that there was a fair amount of discrimination against teen moms; that welfare reform, in general, was too punitive (e.g., too many rules); and that the systems (e.g., school, health care, housing services) with which the teen parents interacted created barriers to their success. In particular, some sites noted that the local public school system was not welcoming of teen moms and that local health providers did not treat them with respect. Furthermore, these problems were identified while the teens were in the program, during which time they had advocates among the staff to help them get what they needed. They are likely to have more serious difficulties accessing services when they are on their own.

Outcome data reported elsewhere (Collins, Stevens, & Lane, 2000) identified that the follow-up outcomes for which success was most evident (e.g., health indicators, educational progress) were those over which programs had the greatest control (i.e., programs linked teens to health and educational services). Those outcomes indicating limited success (e.g., stable housing) were those over which programs had much less control (i.e., access to stable housing is strongly influenced by the housing market). Consequently, in addition to programming to aid teen mothers and their children, efforts must also focus on enhancing the larger social environment for teens, particularly through the creation of educational and employment opportunities for teens and the encouragement of societal attitudes supportive of young families. Without this emphasis, programs will be limited in their impact regardless of their comprehensiveness, flexibility, or staff commitment to individual client well-being.

Conclusion

In addition to examining the outcomes of changes in welfare policy, evaluation of the implementation of policy is also needed. This is particularly true of service strategies, which are typically decentralized and subject to staff interpretation. While this evaluation demonstrated that program sites were delivering services according to program specifications, it also identified some of the barriers and challenges to service delivery. Ongoing attention to implementation issues is necessary for improving the services to teen parents, and consequently, the program's potential impact on teen parents' well-being.

1 Since the evaluation was conducted the criteria for program graduation have been redefined with more focus on the extent of accomplishments while in the program.

2 Results reported are based on follow-up interviews with 127 teen mothers who had been out of the program an average of 1 year. The results report outcomes that occurred since the teen parent left the program.

References

Boyer, D., & Fine, D. (1992). Sexual abuse as a factor in adolescent pregnancy and child maltreatment. Family Planning Perspectives, 24, 4-11.

Brickman, A. S., Sheryl, D., & Cuthbert, P. (1991). A supervised independentliving orientation program for adolescents. Child Welfare, 70, 69-80. Collins, M. E. (1998). Factors influencing sexual victimization and revictimiza

tion in a sample of adolescent mothers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 3-24.

Collins, M. E., Stevens, J. W., & Lane, T. S. (2000). Teen parents and welfare reform: Findings from a survey of teens affected by living requirements, Social Work, 45, 327-338.

Collins, M. E., Lemon, C., & Street, E. (2000). A consumer view of teen living programs: Teen parents' satisfaction with program components and services. Families in Society, 81, 284-293.

CLASP. (2000). State Policy Documentation Project. Available online at http://www.spdp.org/reprexpl.htm.

Department of Social Services. (1996). Teen living program specifications.

Teen living Programs: Request for Proposals. Boston: Author.

Hassel, B. C. (1997). Balancing acts: What charter schools teach us about government-nonprofit contracting. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quartery, 26, 442-465.

Jackson, A. P. (1999). The effects of nonresident father involvement on single Black mothers and their young children. Social Work, 44, 156-166.

Jansson, B. (1994). Social policy: From theory to practice (pp. 373-406). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lens, V., & Pollack, D. (1999). Welfare reform: Back to the future! Administration in Social Work, 23(2) 61-77.

Maynard, R (1995). Teenage childbearing and welfare reform: Lessons from a decade of demonstration and evaluation research. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 1-2, 309-332.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). PL. 104-193. 1996.

Social Policy Action Network. (n.d.). How government-sponsored second chance homes work: A quick o verview. Available online at www.spanonline.org

Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle ofdisadvantage. New York: Doubleday.

Videka-Sherman, L., & Viggiani, P. (1996). The impact of federal policy changes on children: Research needs for the future, Social Work, 41, 594-600.

Mary Elizabeth Collins, PhD, is assistant professor, Boston University School of Social Work, Boston. Terry S. Lane. MSS, is co-director, program department The Boston Foundation, Boston, and Joyce West Stevens, PhD, DSW, is associate professor, Boston University School of Social Work. Correspondence regarding this manuscript may be addressed to the first author at mcollins@bu.edu or 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215

Authors'note. This study was completed under contract to the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.

Manuscript Received: June 23, 2001

Revised: April 8, 2002

Accepted: August 14, 2002

Copyright Families in Society Jan-Mar 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved