W5 ASSIGN
nteasley
ADOPTION2.pdf
Vol.:(0123456789)1 3
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal (2023) 40:623–642 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-021-00802-8
Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and Educational Outcomes of Adolescents in Adoptive, Foster, and Kinship Care
Ryan D. Heath1,3 · Keunhye Park2 · Sarah Faith Millward1
Accepted: 13 October 2021 / Published online: 30 October 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract Children who grow up outside the care of their biological parents—e.g., those in adoptive, foster, or kinship (AFK) care— experience poorer educational outcomes than their peers. However, the protective factors that could mitigate any risks of AFK care have received less attention. One understudied area is the participation of AFK youth in organized activities (e.g., extracurricular or afterschool programs). Drawing on nationally representative data from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (n = 16,197), this study used multilevel modeling to (1) examine the association of AFK care status with organized activity participation and with educational outcomes; and (2) examine whether such participation moderates any associa- tion between AFK care status and later educational outcomes (GPA, college expectations, college enrollment and college degree). In addition to a binary measure of participation, multiple dimensions of activity participation (i.e., type, breadth, and intensity) were tested as moderators. Findings show that youth in AFK care reported significantly lower rates of activ- ity participation, as well as poorer education outcomes as compared to other youth. However, there was little evidence of moderation: organized activity participation was associated with improved educational outcomes regardless of care status. The possible benefits of participation for youth in AFK care are similar to those for other youth. Implications for the inter- section of child welfare and educational systems are discussed, including the need to ensure developmental opportunities for youth in AFK care.
Keywords Out-of-school time · Extracurricular programs · Afterschool programs · Educational outcomes · Nonparental care · Child welfare
Postsecondary education is a critical element in the transi- tion into adulthood. College education enriches individu- als’ employment prospects, financial resources, as well as adult functioning and well-being (Carnevale et al., 2011; Keyes, 1998; Oreopoulos & Petronijevic, 2013). However, many obstacles to education hinder the progress of vulner- able youth, including children living outside the care of their biological parents. In the United States (U.S.), about 3.1% of
children under 18 years do not live with a biological parent, but reside with kin or other caregivers (Radel et al., 2016). Likewise, 0.6% of U.S. children are specifically in foster care (Child Trends Databank, 2019). Although these youth comprise a small portion of the juvenile population, youth of color are overrepresented within adoptive, foster, and kinship (AFK) care, as are children from lower-resourced families (Bywaters et al., 2016; Fong, 2017; Landers et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019). Youth in AFK care likely benefit from higher educa- tion (Okpych & Courtney, 2014), but face challenges that limit their educational attainment, which, in turn, exacer- bates inequities.
Research indicates that youth who grow up outside the care of biological parents encounter struggles that extend from their caregiver instability (Radel et al., 2016), includ- ing difficulties in school. Adoptive, foster, and kinship care represent different care settings for youth, and those
* Ryan D. Heath [email protected]
1 School of Social Work, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
2 School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
3 School of Social Work, Syracuse University, 244 White Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA
624 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
subcategories themselves are quite heterogenous. How- ever, there are surprising similarities in the educational outcomes of these groups as compared to youth in paren- tal care (Geiger & Beltran, 2017; Juffer & van Ijzendorn, 2012; O’Higgins et al., 2017; Vandivere et al., 2012; Win- okur et al., 2018). Thus, we make these distinctions between the care statuses when possible, but also were struck by the comparable trends. For example, 60% of general population who enroll in a bachelor’s degree program earn one within 6 years, while 41% of adults 25 to 29 years old hold a 4-year degree (McFarland et al., 2019). In contrast, youth growing up in foster care are less likely to obtain a college degree and almost twice as likely to drop out of college than their peers (Day et al., 2011; Frerer et al., 2013; Gillum et al., 2016). While the majority (86%) of older youth in foster care expect to pursue college education (Courtney et al., 2004, 2014; Kirk et al., 2013), only 2–10% attain a 2-year college degree or more by their mid-twenties (Courtney et al., 2011, 2020; Pecora et al., 2006; Wolanin, 2005). Fewer estimates exist for the educational attainment of youth in kinship care in the U.S., but existing research suggests the rates are similar to youth in foster care (Winokur et al., 2018). Likewise, stud- ies of adoptee youth also find they have lower rates of edu- cational attainment than peers who live with their biologi- cal parents (van Ijzendoorn & Juffer, 2016; van Ijzendoorn et al., 2005), though much of this work has been conducted in other countries, such as Sweden and Norway (Dalen & Theie, 2012, 2019; Dalen et al., 2008). Thus, youth who live outside the care of their parents—due to any number of factors—need opportunities that support their educational trajectories.
Given the stark educational disparities between youth in AFK care and their peers, it is important to understand factors that may influence college entry and college com- pletion for this marginalized subgroup. Moreover, further investigation is needed to identify and understand what may potentially reduce or mitigate challenges to educational attainment. To date, longitudinal research on educational experiences for youth living in AFK care is limited. Thus, this paper focuses on the long-term educational outcomes of youth whose primary caregivers are adults that are not their biological parents—specifically those in adoptive, foster, or kinship (AFK) care.
Educational Barriers for Youth in Adoptive, Foster, and Kinship Care
Youth living in AFK care face substantial obstacles in their educational trajectory, including a unique set of challenges less often experienced by other youth. Much research on this topic focuses on foster care youth, specifically, and their challenges often include maltreatment histories, constraints
of the child welfare system, school mobility, special educa- tion access, behavioral health needs, legal system involve- ment, low socioeconomic status, a lack of trauma-sensitive approach, and other life circumstances (Geenen et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2004; Moyer & Goldberg, 2020; Pecora, 2012; Stone et al., 2006; van Ijzendoorn et al., 2005). Even routine processes, such as maintaining and compiling stu- dent records or accessing educational supports can be dif- ficult, given the residential instability and school mobility faced by youth in AFK care (Conger & Finkelstein, 2003; Weinberg & Luderer, 2004; Zetlin, 2006). Beyond the struc- tural barriers, youth in AFK care may experience emotional and psychological hardship, such as feelings of anger and hopelessness, given the structural barriers they face in main- stream and special education systems (Morton, 2015).
Educational Supports and Protective Factors for Youth in Adoptive, Foster, and Kinship Care
In addition to the risks and negative outcomes faced by youth in AFK care, some research emphasizes the factors that support the educational resilience of youth in AFK care. For youth in foster care, Pecora (2012) found that perma- nency and the resulting stability in school placement and mentoring relationships were key to youth success. Though fewer studies examine long-term educational outcomes, social support from adults may be key for youth in foster care (Okpych & Courtney, 2017). O’Higgins et al (2017) highlighted the importance of educational aspirations for youth in foster care as well as kinship care. Similarly, for youth in kinship care, Denby et al. (2017) identified active involvement of extended family as a protective factor. For adopted youth, studies in the U.S. and Nordic counties high- light that a lower age of adoption, stronger support from caregivers, and special education services were positively associated with educational outcomes (Dalen & Theie, 2019; Dalen et al., 2008; van Ijzendoorn & Juffer, 2016; van Ijzendoorn et al., 2005). Several other studies also focus on school and community connectedness as an important factor that promotes positive outcomes among youth in AFK care (Daly et al., 2010; Foster et al., 2017; Lemkin et al., 2018). Thus, youth in AFK care may require not only stabil- ity and specialized support, but also reinforcement of college expectations, social support, adult mentors, and connection to school and community.
More research is needed to understand what opportuni- ties may increase these protective factors. Scholars have repeatedly noted the need for greater collaboration between educational and child welfare systems (Conger & Finkel- stein, 2003; Morton, 2016; Stone et al., 2006; Zetlin, 2006), although the strategies to do so are less apparent. Other
625Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
studies have assessed targeted interventions to support the academic achievement of youth in AFK care, which find some improvements in literacy outcomes, but less so in mathematical competency (Forsman & Vinnerljung, 2012). While educational interventions and special education ser- vices should be made accessible, holistic approaches that go beyond an academic-focus may also be necessary to support the development of youth in AFK care.
Positive Youth Development for Youth in Adoptive, Foster and Kinship Care
With greater focus on the protective factors and educational interventions that support youth in AFK care, recent inter- est has grown in alternative lenses through which to view marginalized youth, including positive youth development (PYD). This approach received growing recognition in the 1990s and early 2000s as a resistance to frameworks that emphasized risks and deficits (Barcelona & Quinn, 2011; Benson et al., 2007; Damon, 2004; Lerner et al., 2011). Instead, PYD frameworks focus on the potential of youth, and the assets they need to grow and to thrive (Larson, 2000; Lerner et al., 2003, 2009). In practice, programs that embody a PYD philosophy have been found to have a variety of posi- tive outcomes for youth (Catalano et al., 2004; Chung & McBride, 2015; Ciocanel et al., 2016; Durlak et al., 2007; Ferrer-Wreder, 2014; Taylor et al., 2017). Many organized activities, such as extracurricular or afterschool programs, explicitly or implicitly implement PYD practices (Dawes et al., 2017; Deutsch et al., 2017; Pittman, 2017a, 2017b; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 2003b; Smith et al., 2017).
PYD programs and practices draw from a variety of theo- retical frameworks, including developmental systems (Ford & Lerner, 1992) and developmental assets theories (Benson et al., 2011; Scales & Leffert, 1999). Developmental sys- tems, and its later incarnation as relational developmental systems, emphasize the interactions of individuals with their social environment, and the role individuals play as produc- ers of their own development (Ford & Lerner, 1992; Lerner et al., 2015). In the case of organized activities, develop- mental systems theorize that the positive youth-adult rela- tionships, skill-building activities, and leadership opportu- nities in these programs are key to helping diverse youth thrive (Lerner et al., 2014). Developmental assets theory, similarly, conceptualizes that external assets (including sup- port from parents, communities and school, positive peer relationships, and involvement in organized activities) can support the development of internal assets, such as young people’s commitment to learning, values, identity, and social competencies (Scales & Leffert, 1999; Scales et al., 2000). Importantly, developmental assets theory specifically names several organized activities as external assets: sports, clubs,
creative arts, and meaningful service to one’s community (Agans et al., 2014; Benson et al., 2011; Scales & Leffert, 1999).
Very few studies have explicitly applied PYD approaches and frameworks to study youth in AFK care. For example, in a randomized-control trial study, Taussig et al. (2019) found that a PYD program reduced mental health and trauma symptoms in a population of youth in foster care who had experienced maltreatment. Oshri et al. (2017) also employed a PYD approach to examine the social-emotional trajecto- ries of children from families investigated for child maltreat- ment. Both studies demonstrated the applicability of PYD approaches for youth in AFK care; thus, there is a need and potential to utilize a PYD approach to examine how other activities may benefit youth in AFK care.
Organized Activities and Positive Youth Development
While previous research identified several protective factors and studied PYD programs for youth in AFK care, limited research appears to have examined the potential impact of participation in organized activities during out-of-school time (OST). Organized activities are defined as structured programs that are facilitated or supervised by adults who can provide a supportive or enriching experience outside of the traditional school day and/or curricula (Heath et al., 2018; Vandell et al., 2015). These programs include extra- curricular activities and afterschool programs, such as sports, school clubs, and performing arts, and they com- monly implement PYD approaches (Deutsch et al., 2017; Pittman et al., 2004; Pittman, 2017a, 2017b). In general, studies find consistent associations between organized activ- ity participation and psychosocial and educational outcomes (Farb & Matjasko, 2012; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Van- dell et al., 2015).
Participation in organized activities is widespread, with about three-quarters of youth regularly participating in at least one type of organized activity per school year (Meier et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2014). However, participation rates are not equal, and disparities persist between racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, with white youth and middle-to- upper income youth most likely to participate (Meier et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2014; Snellman et al., 2015). Such dis- parities are cause for concern: when disadvantaged youth do participate in organized activities, they likely experi- ence equal or stronger benefits as compared to their more advantaged peers (Heath et al., 2018). Sports, in particular, have received attention for their capability to provide PYD to socially vulnerable youth (Anderson-Butcher & Bates, 2021). Thus, more research is needed on the organized activity participation of disadvantaged youth, and activities’
626 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
capability to foster equity (Akiva et al., 2020; Del Razo & Renée, 2013; Fredricks & Simpkins, 2012; Pittman, 2017a, 2017b).
Additionally, scholars have noted methodological short- comings in the literature and called for more rigorous approaches (Farb & Matjasko, 2012; Vandell et al., 2015). In particular, scholars have called attention to the ways in which organized activity participation is conceptualized and measured (Bohnert et al., 2010). Many past studies used dichotomous measures of participation, but such approaches fail to capture the specific types of organized activities, the breadth of different activities youth may participate in, or the level of intensity of their participation (Bohnert et al., 2010). Recent studies have suggested that these different dimensions of participation have varied and nuanced asso- ciations with behavioral and educational outcomes (Aumè- tre & Poulin, 2016; Busseri & Rose-Krasnor, 2009; Busseri et al., 2011; Matjasko et al., 2019; Neely & Vaquera, 2017). However, little research addresses the different dimensions of participation for marginalized youth—including those in AFK care.
Organized Activities Among Youth in Adoptive, Foster and Kinship care
Despite the body of literature demonstrating the possible benefits of organized activity participation, little research has addressed the participation of youth in AFK care. Mul- tiple scholars have noted the importance of developmentally- appropriate experiences for youth in foster care, including sports and other organized activities (Gilligan, 1999, 2000, 2007; Jacobs et al., 2019; Simmons-Horton, 2017; Vacca, 2008). However, youth in AFK care participate at drastically lower rates than their peers in the care of biological parents (Kwak et al., 2017).
Few studies have empirically examined the possible out- comes from activity participation for youth in AFK care. Existing studies have produced optimistic but mixed find- ings regarding psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. For example, Conn et al. (2014) used a nationally representative group of youth in foster, kinship, and residential care and found that youth who participated in the organized group activities were less likely to experience social difficulties, feelings of loneliness, and substance use. In one of the few studies assessing nuanced dimensions of participation, West- Bey (2014) examined a nationally representative sample of foster youth, and found that while few youth participated in organized activities, those who had participated reported improved wellbeing and lower levels of dysfunctional behav- ior, especially among youth who participated at the highest intensity. Moreover, Kwak et al. (2018) analyzed a national longitudinal sample of adolescents who had contact with
child protective services found that youth who participated in academic clubs reported fewer depressive symptoms, while those participating in music and art reported more trauma symptoms. On the other hand, two studies found that for youth in foster care and/or who have histories of child maltreatment, organized activity participation was actu- ally associated with higher delinquency (Perkins & Jones, 2004), though other factors such as placement type and caregiver relationship may better account for that relation- ship (Farineau & McWey, 2011). Qualitative case studies of youth in AFK care illuminate some of the potential key mechanisms of organized activity participation, as youth report an increased sense of self-efficacy and long-term resilience (Drapeau et al., 2007), as well as an improved sense of belonging, school connectedness, positive peer rela- tionships, and having adult mentors (Gilligan, 2000, 2007).
When looking at educational outcomes, a few existing studies find consistent associations between participation and educational outcomes for AFK youth. For example, White et al. (2018) showed that organized activity partici- pation among youth aging out of foster care was significantly associated with higher educational expectations, higher grades, and a higher likelihood of high school completion. Kwak et al. (2018) also found that youth who participated in sports and academic club activities reported higher school engagement. However, questions remain about whether such activities are especially beneficial for AFK youth.
Present Study
Thus, several notable gaps appear in the literature. First, while studies suggest positive educational outcomes of par- ticipation for AFK youth, it has yet rigorously to be tested whether those associations are stronger for youth in AFK care as compared to the general population. Some schol- ars have hypothesized that youth in AFK care may be more likely to benefit from organized activity participation than their peers in the general population (Jacobs et al., 2019; Simmons-Horton, 2017), given their educational challenges and disparities in educational attainment. Second, limited research has tested if such associations persist to college enrollment and degree attainment for youth in AFK care. Third, while many studies have used binary measures of participation, fewer studies examined multiple dimensions of participation (e.g., type, breath, and intensity of participa- tion) among AFK youth.
The current study aims to help fill these gaps in the lit- erature. Specifically, it sought to answer the following three research questions:
627Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
1. What is the association of adopted, foster, and kinship (AFK) care with educational outcomes, as compared to youth in parental care?
2. What is the association of AFK care with multiple dimensions of organized activity participation (any par- ticipation, type, breadth and intensity), as compared to youth in parental care?
3. Do different dimensions of organized activity partici- pation (any participation, type, breadth, and intensity) moderate any association between AFK care and later education outcomes?
Drawing from the frameworks of developmental sys- tems (Ford & Lerner, 1992), developmental assets (Ben- son et al., 2011; Scales & Leffert, 1999), and positive youth development (Benson et al., 2007; Damon, 2004; Lerner et al., 2009), this study examines the following hypotheses: (1) AFK care would be associated with poorer educational outcomes; (2) AFK care would be associated with lower rates of organized activity participation; (3) organized activity participation would moderate the asso- ciation of AFK care with educational outcomes, such that the association between AFK care status and educational outcomes would be weaker with higher levels of activity participation.
Method
Data and Sample
This study used data from the Educational Longitudi- nal Survey of 2002 (ELS:02) that has been previously described in detail (Ingles et al., 2004, 2005, 2007, 2014). In brief, ELS:02 was conducted by the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) in the U.S. Department of Education and collected data on a number of areas of youth lives: home, school, and out-of-school experi- ences. Specifically, ELS:02 recruited a nationally rep- resentative sample of high school sophomores in 2002 (baseline), and followed up with them 2 (2004), 4 (2006), and 10 years later (2012). ELS:02 used a complex sam- pling design and oversampled several underrepresented groups, including Latinx and Asian youth. In the 2002 baseline survey, students were asked about their experi- ences at school and out-of-school, including participa- tion in school-based organized activities. Additionally, in 2002, a parent/guardian survey was delivered to each student’s household, requesting the parent/guardian who was most familiar with the students’ school experience to complete the survey. If the parent/guardian who best knew the child did not live in that household, the receiv- ing parents/guardians were asked to return the survey to
researchers, who then tried to locate the appropriate par- ent/guardian (Ingles et al., 2004).
Measures
Our key study variables included one measure of care status (predictor variable), seven measures of organized activity participation (moderators), and four educational outcomes (dependent variables).
Predictor Variable—Adoptive, Foster or Kinship Care
At Wave I of the survey in 2002, the adults completing the parent/guardian survey were asked to identify their relation- ship to the student, including if they were a biological par- ent, adoptive parent, foster parent, or another family mem- ber. In addition, the survey asked whether the student lived with a biological parent who was not the responding adult. If the parent/guardian reported having a partner who lived with them, they were asked to provide the relationship of that adult to the student. These items were combined to cap- ture one measure of care status (0 = living with one or more biological parents, 1 = living with adopted parent(s), foster parent(s), or other relatives).
Moderators—Organized Activity Participation
During the Wave I of the survey, students were asked several questions about their participation in school-based organized activities. Using a list of over 40 activities, students were asked if they had participated or were currently participat- ing in those activities in that academic year. First, we col- lapsed these responses into a binary measure of any activity participation (0 = no, 1 = yes). We also created four binary measures of participation in specific activity types: sports, performing arts, school clubs, or service groups (0 = no, 1 = yes). Next, each type of activities was summed to create the total number of participating activities as a measure of participation breadth (ranging 0–4), indicating how many different types of activities students reported participating in. Lastly, students were asked how many hours per week they participated in those organized activities, which served as a measure of participation intensity (ranging 0–21 h per week).
Dependent Variables—Educational Outcomes
Four educational outcomes were drawn from the follow-up surveys of Waves II, III, and IV. First, at Wave II in 2004 (2 years after the baseline survey), students were asked about educational expectations—how far they expected to go in school. The responses were recoded into a binary measure of whether or not they expected to obtain a 4-year college
628 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
degree or above (0 = no, 1 = yes). Second, also using the Wave II survey in 2004, a continuous measure of high school GPA was created as reported on the students’ high school transcript (ranging 0.0–4.0). Third, at Wave III in 2006 (4 years after the baseline survey), participants were asked about whether they were enrolled in any type of postsec- ondary schooling, which was recoded into a binary measure of enrollment in a 4-year college degree program (0 = no, 1 = yes). Lastly, at Wave IV in 2012 (10 years after the base- line survey), participants were asked about the highest level of education that they had completed, which was recoded into a binary variable representing completion of a 4-year college degree or more (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Control Variables
Several covariates were accounted for in the analyses by using measures from the first wave of ELS:02. At the student-level, self-reported demographic characteristics were captured: 1) sex (0 = female, 1 = male), 2) racial-ethnic identity (White, Black, Latinx, Asian, and mixed or other race/ethnicity), and 3) educational expectations at the baseline. Additionally, analyses included two measures of student-level contextual factors: 1) a composite variable of seven academic risk factors (ranging 0–7) that measures students’ social and educational history (e.g., years held back, the number of school changes, a sib- ling’s school dropout), and 2) a second composite measure of family socioeconomic quartile (1 = lowest SES quartile, 4 = highest SES quartile). These two variables were previ- ously constructed and used by IES (Ingles et al., 2004). At the school-level, indicator variables for rural and suburban schools was included, with urban schools used as the reference group.
Analytic Plan
Survey Weights
In the analyses presented in this study, survey weights pro- vided by IES were utilized to adjust for the complex sam- pling design and produce nationally representative estimates (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2004; Ingles et al., 2004).
Missing Data
To account for missing data, this study utilized full informa- tion maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation in Mplus. This approach allows for all cases to be included and contribute information to the creation of a model covariance matrix. FIML offers several advantages over strategies using list- wise deletion, as it can accommodate nonnormality and has been demonstrated to produce estimates comparable to mul- tiple imputation (Enders & Bandalos, 2001; Enders, 2001a, 2001b; Larsen, 2011).
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were calculated using Stata (StataCorp, 2013) utilizing sample weights. Frequencies were calculated for categorical variables, while mean and standard errors were calculated for continuous variables.
Mean Differences
To assess differences in study variables across care status, bivariate regressions were conducted that regressed study variables onto care status; bivariate regressions produced t-statistics for differences between care status. Mean differ- ences in educational outcomes by care status and by two measures of participation (any participation and participa- tion intensity) were extracted from Stata and graphed in Microsoft Excel for visual representation.
Multilevel Regression Analyses
Multilevel regression was conducted using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2014; Muthén et al., 2017). For each measure of activity participation, three sets of step-by-step multilevel regression models were estimated across four education out- comes: (1) AFK care; (2) AFK care and organized activity participation; and (3) AFK care, organized activity partici- pation, and an interaction term between AFK care and par- ticipation. To generate interaction terms, each participation measure was multiplied by the measure of AFK care status.
Regression coefficients (B) and odds ratios (OR) for inde- pendent variables were evaluated. In each model, Bs and ORs correspond to the within-school association between AFK care status or activity participation and the relative education outcome, after accounting for school-level dif- ferences in that educational outcome and urbanicity. In all multilevel models, student-level covariates were included at the individual-level; a random intercept by school and urbanicity were included at the school-level. Interclass cor- relation coefficients (ICC) for each outcome were calculated, corresponding to the amount of variance of outcomes that could be accounted for at the school-level; r2 was also cal- culated, representing the amount of variance in the outcome explained by the model.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics of the sample (N = 16,197) are shown in Table 1. The sample was evenly split between males and females, and over one-half identified as white. Respondents
629Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
had an average academic risk of 0.99 (SE = 1.10), and one- third attended schools in urban communities.
A small proportion of youth (5.13%) reported living in AFK care, consistent with previous research. About four- fifths of participants reported having participated in any organized activities; among those who ever participated in such programs, activity types showed the following distribu- tion: sports (53.3%), performing arts (49.9%), school clubs (28.9%), and service clubs (17.2%). Regarding participa- tion breath and intensity, youth reported, on average, partici- pating in 1.5 (SE = 0.02) different types of extracurricular programs and spending 4.59 (SE = 0.08) hours a week for organized activities.
For educational outcomes, 78.3% of the high school sophomores in the study sample reported expecting to com- plete a college degree or more 2 years after the baseline survey (2004), while only 48.7% had actually enrolled in a
4-year degree program within 4 years (2006) and only 38.5% obtained a college degree within 10 years (2012). The aver- age high school GPA was 2.73 (SE = 0.84).
Mean Differences
Mean differences by care status are also shown in Table 1, and several notable trends were present. Overall, youth in AFK care participated in fewer activities with lower inten- sity and narrower breadth than their peers in parental care. Youth in AFK care were significantly less likely to partici- pate in any activity (76.4% vs. 81.1%, p < 0.05), including sports (50.4% vs. 56.6%, p < 0.05), performance (45.6% vs. 51.4, p < 0.05), and service (27.4 vs. 29.8%, p < 0.05). In terms of other dimensions of participation, there was a small but significant difference between youth in AFK care and parental care in breadth (1.35 vs 1.54 types, p < 0.001) and
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and mean differences across care status
* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Overall Parental care (95.4%)
Adoptive, foster or kinship care (4.6%)
Significant differences
Organized activity participation (any type) 79.8% 81.1% 76.4% * Sports 55.3% 56.6% 50.4% * Performance 49.9% 51.4% 45.6% * School clubs 28.9% 29.8% 27.4% Service clubs 17.2% 18.2% 14.2% *
Participation breadth (ranging 0–4 types) 1.50 (.02) 1.54 (.02) 1.35 (.05) *** Participation intensity (ranging 0–40 h/week) 4.59 (.08) 4.83 (.09) 3.32 (.24) *** Educational expectations (college or more) 79.8% 81.7% 71.8% *** GPA (0.0–4.0) 2.67 (.02) 2.73 (.02) 2.42 (.04) *** College enrollment (4-year degree program) 44.7% 47.2% 29.5% *** Educational attainment (4-year degree or more) 34.5% 36.6% 18.9% *** Sex Female 49.4% 50.0% 47.4% Male 50.4% 50.0% 52.5%
Racial/ethnic identity White 60.2% 62.3% 41.1% *** Black 14.4% 13.1% 26.0% *** Latinx 15.9% 15.6% 17.5% Asian 4.2% 4.0% 8.3% *** Other 5.3% 5.0% 7.0%
Socioeconomic quartile Lower 24.9% 23.9% 34.3% *** Middle-lower 25.0% 24.1% 24.6% Middle-upper 25.0% 25.5% 18.4% ** Upper 25.0% 26.5% 22.8%
Academic risk (1–7 risk score) 1.03 (.02) 1.00 (.02) 1.61 (.06) *** Urbanicity Urban 30.2% 29.1% 33.6% Suburban 50.3% 50.8% 46.8% Rural 19.6% 20.0% 19.6%
630 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
a larger difference in intensity (3.32 vs 4.83 h per week, p < 0.001).
In terms of educational outcomes, youth in AFK care were significantly less likely than those in parental care to expect to earn a college degree (71.8% vs. 81.7%, p < 0.001) and had lower high school GPAs (2.42 vs. 2.73, p < 0.001) 2 years after baseline. Youth in AFK care were less likely to enroll in college 4 years later (29.5% vs. 47.2%, p < 0.001), and only half as likely to obtain a college degree 10 years later (18.9% vs. 36.6%, p < 0.001).
Regarding demographic characteristics, youth in AFK care were more likely than those living with biological par- ents to be Black (23.5% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001), Asian (15.9% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001), and other-identified race-ethnicity (7.4% vs. 5.4% p < 0.05), and were less likely to be White (37.3% vs. 59.2%, p < 0.001). They were also more likely to be from the lowest socioeconomic quartile (31.6% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001) and experience more academic risks (1.51 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001) than their peers in parental care. Mean differences in educational outcomes by both care status
and two measures of participation (any participation and intensity) were visualized and are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In the figures, vertical-striped bars on the left cor- respond to means and percentages for youth in AFK care, and horizontal-striped bars on the right correspond to means and percentages for youth in parental care. When examining differences by any participation, visual inspection suggested a slightly flatter curve for AFK care as compared to youth in parental care (Figs. 1 and 2). However, in examining dif- ferences by the more nuanced measure of intensity of par- ticipation, curves appear comparatively parallel for youth in AFK and parental care (Figs. 3–6). Like intensity, the curves between youth in AFK care and parental care also appeared similar for participation breadth (results not shown).
Multilevel Regression Models
Results from multilevel regression models (MLM) are shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. For each education outcome, ICC ranged from 0.106 to 0.212, suggesting that 10.6–21.2%
Fig. 1 Differences in GPA by care status and organized activ- ity participation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Nonparticipant Participant Nonparticipant Participant
G PA
AFK CARE PARENTAL CARE
Fig. 2 Differences in educa- tional expectations, college enrollment, and college degree by care status and organized activity participation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nonparticipant Participant Nonparticipant Participant
AFK CARE PARENTAL CARE
Expect (SE) Enroll (SE) Degree (SE)
631Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
of the variation in outcomes could be accounted for at the school-level; MLM was therefore utilized for remaining analyses.
Findings show that students in AFK care had poorer edu- cational outcomes as compared to their peers in parental care, while organized activity participation was associated
with improved educational outcomes, after accounting for individual-level covariates and school-level variation. In the models including interaction terms, the measure of AFK care status was generally not significant, while the inter- action terms were only significant in models utilizing the any participation measure (Table 2; see details below),
Fig. 3 Differences in GPA by care status and organized activ- ity participation intensity
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk 0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk
G PA
AFK CARE PARENTAL CARE
Fig. 4 Differences in educa- tional expectations by care status and organized activity participation intensity
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk 0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk
% E
X PE
C TI
N G
4 Y
R D
EG R
EE O
R M
O R
E
AFK CARE PARENTAL CARE
Fig. 5 Differences in college enrollment by care status and organized activity participation intensity
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk 0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk
% E
N R
O LL
ED IN
4 Y
R D
EG R
EE
AFK CARE PARENTAL CARE
632 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
suggesting only some evidence of moderation by any activ- ity, but not for the other measures. Sensitivity analyses (not shown) separating youth in adoptive care from those in fos- ter and kinship care showed that these trends were consistent as the combined AFK group, but with decreased statistical power to detect significant differences. Thus, the composite measure of AFK is presented in the results below.
Across the models, several covariates were found to be significantly associated with educational outcomes. Black, Latinx, and other racial/ethnic youth had lower GPAs and lower odds of college degree obtainment than white youth. Higher SES quartiles were associated with stronger educa- tional outcomes, while higher academic risk was associated with poorer educational outcomes (results not shown). At the school level, suburban and rural schools were associated with the higher GPAs, but they were also associated with lower college expectations, enrollment, and degree comple- tion (results not shown). These findings on covariates were consistent across models and educational outcomes.
The analyses below describe the results on the four measures of organized activity participation (any partici- pation, activity type, participation breadth, and participa- tion intensity) across the four education outcomes: college expectations, GPA, college enrollment, and college degree completion.
Any Activity Participation
Table 2 displays results from multilevel regressions examin- ing any organized activity participation. Three regression models are presented for each education outcome: (1) AFK care, (2) AFK care and any participation, and (3) AFK care, any participation, and an interaction term (AFK × any par- ticipation). First, AFK care status was consistently asso- ciated with significantly lower educational expectations (OR = 0.66, p < 0.05), lower GPAs (B = -0.11, p < 0.01), lower college enrollment (OR = 0.60, p < 0.01), and lower
degree attainment (OR = 0.49, p < 0.01). In contrast, par- ticipation in any organized activities was associated with higher educational expectations (OR = 1.94, p < 0.001), higher GPAs (approximately 0.25 points) at the end of high school (p < 0.001), a higher likelihood of college enrollment (OR = 2.47, p < 0.001), and a higher likelihood of degree attainment (OR = 1.91, p < 0.001).
When looking at the magnitude of coefficients and odds ratios, the positive associations of any activity participation with educational outcomes were greater or comparable to the negative associations of AFK care status. For example, youth in AFK care (OR = 0.52) were less likely to obtain a college degree by 48%, but those in AFK care who also participated in any activity (OR = 2.20), such that were 14% more likely to obtain a college degree (0.52 × 2.20 = 1.14) than nonparticipants in parental care. When interaction terms were included in each model, the measure of AFK care status was not significant, while the interaction term between any activity and AFK care were significant for all four outcomes, suggesting possible moderation. However, counter to hypotheses, the values of the B and OR on the interaction terms suggest that the association between the any participation measure and outcomes was slightly weaker association for youth in AFK care.
Activity Type
Regression models assessing the associations of spe- cific activity type with educational outcomes are shown in Table 3. Results on activity type were consistent with earlier results on any participation, with some additional nuance. Overall, all four types of activities (sports, perfor- mance, school clubs, service) were associated with increased educational outcomes. These associations were similar in magnitude across activity type, with service clubs having the largest Bs and ORs. For example, participation in service clubs was associated with the highest odds of completing a college degree by a factor of OR = 2.1 (p < 0.001), while the
Fig. 6 Differences in col- lege degree by care status and organized activity participation intensity
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk 0 hrs/wk 1-4 hrs/wk 5-10 hrs/wk 11+ hrs/wk
% W
IT H
4 Y
R C
O LL
EG E
D EG
R EE
O R
M O
R E
AFK CARE PARENTAL CARE
633Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
odds were lower for sports (OR = 1.42, p < 0.001), perfor- mance (OR = 1.33, p < 0.001), and school clubs (OR = 1.37, p < 0.001).
Examining the relative magnitude of coefficients, the analyses indicate that the negative effect associated with AFK care status was similar in magnitude to the posi- tive effect of activity participation. For example, youth in AFK care (OR = 0.63) who participated only in sports (OR = 1.41) would be almost as likely to enroll in college (0.63 × 1.41 = 0.89) as youth in parental care who did not participate in sports. Similarly, youth in AFK care who participated in any two activities were likely to have the higher GPAs, higher college expectations, higher college enrollment and degree obtainment than youth in parental care who had no participation. In contrast to the previous models with any participation, no interaction terms between activity types and AFK care were significant. This suggests that there were no differences in the associations of specific activity type with educational outcomes between youth in AFK versus parental care.
Participation Breadth
Table 4 displays multilevel regression results examining extracurricular breadth. In the models including both AFK care status and participation breadth, participation in an additional activity was associated with a 45–57% increase in education outcomes: college expectation (OR = 1.45, p < 0.001), college enrollment (OR = 1.57, p < 0.001), and college degree attainment (OR = 1.48, p < 0.001); each addi- tional activity type was also associated with a significant increase in GPA (B = 0.161, p < 0.001). Consistent with pre- vious models, the magnitude of Bs and ORs indicates that the increases in participation breadth were similar to the pos- sible risk of AFK care status, such that youth in AFK care who participated in two or more activities likely had higher expectations, GPAs, college enrollment, and degree obtain- ment than a nonparticipant in parental care. As with models using specific activity type, no interactions terms between AFK care status and participation breadth were significant. This suggests that the association between participation breadth and educational outcomes were similar for youth in AFK and parental care.
Participation Intensity
Table 5 displays multilevel regression results examining par- ticipation intensity. In the models including both AFK and participation intensity, an additional hour spent in activity participation was associated with a 5–7% increase in educa- tion outcomes: college expectation (OR = 1.06, p < 0.001), college enrollment (OR = 1.07, p < 0.001), degree attainment Ta
bl e
2 A
FK c
ar e
an d
an y
pa rti
ci pa
tio n:
O dd
s R at
io s,
Re gr
es si
on C
oe ffi
ci en
ts , a
nd 9
5% C
on fid
en ce
In te
rv al
s f ro
m M
ul til
ev el
R eg
re ss
io n
M ul
til ev
el r
eg re
ss io
n an
al ys
es i
nc lu
de d
stu de
nt -le
ve l
fa ct
or s
(s ex
, ra
ci al
/e th
ni c
id en
tit y,
s oc
io ec
on om
ic q
ua rti
le ,
ac ad
em ic
r is
k, b
as el
in e
ed uc
at io
na l
ex pe
ct at
io ns
), sc
ho ol
-le ve
l eff
ec t
of
ur ba
ni ci
ty , a
nd sc
ho ol
-le ve
l i nt
er ce
pt . ‘
–’ in
di ca
te s t
he p
re di
ct or
w as
n ot
in cl
ud ed
in th
e re
sp ec
tiv e
re gr
es si
on m
od el
; I C
C : i
nt er
cl as
s c or
re la
tio n
co effi
ci en
t; *p
< .0
5, *
*p <
.0 1,
* **
p < .0
01
Ex pe
ct at
io ns
G PA
En ro
llm en
t C
ol le
ge D
eg re
e
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
A FK
c ar
e .6
6* (.4
9— .8
8) .7
1* (.5
6– .9
0) .9
3 (.6
6– 1.
32 )
-.1 1*
* (-
.1 6–
-.0 5)
-.1 1*
* (-
.1 6
to −
.0 5)
.0 2
(- .0
6 to
.0 9)
.6 3*
* (.5
0– .7
8) .6
3* **
(.5 0–
.7 8)
.8 6
(.6 7–
1. 18
) .4
9* **
(.3 7–
.6 4)
.5 2*
** (.4
2– .6
5) .7
2* (.5
5– .9
4) A
ny p
ar tic
ip at
io n
– 1.
98 **
* (1
.7 6–
2. 23
) 2.
02 **
* (1
.7 9–
2. 28
) –
.2 7*
** (.2
4– .3
0) .2
8* **
(.2 5–
.3 1)
– 2.
59 **
* (2
.2 8–
2. )
2. 65
** *
(2 .3
2– 3.
02 )
– 2.
20 **
* (1
.9 3–
2. 51
) 2.
24 **
* (1
.9 6–
2. 56
) A
FK c
ar e
× an
y pa
rti ci
pa tio
n –
– .6
8* (.4
9– .9
2) –
– -.1
7* **
(- ..2
5 to
-. 10
) –
– .6
3* *
(.4 9–
.8 1)
– –
.6 7*
(.5 1–
.8 7)
M od
el fi
t r2 W
ith in
.2 57
** *
.2 54
** *
.2 56
** *
.2 04
** *
.2 08
** *
.2 11
** *
.2 68
** *
.2 71
** *
.2 73
** *
.2 45
** *
.2 57
** *
.2 56
** *
r2 B et
w ee
n .1
36 **
.1 18
** .1
19 **
.0 14
.0 11
.0 11
.1 34
** *
.1 00
** *
.0 99
** .0
79 *
.0 94
* .0
96 *
IC C
.1 06
.1 78
.2 12
.1 62
634 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
Ta bl
e 3
A FK
c ar
e an
d ac
tiv ity
ty pe
: O dd
s R at
io s,
Re gr
es si
on C
oe ffi
ci en
ts a
nd 9
5% C
on fid
en ce
In te
rv al
s f ro
m M
ul til
ev el
R eg
re ss
io n
M ul
til ev
el r
eg re
ss io
n an
al ys
es i
nc lu
de d
stu de
nt -le
ve l
fa ct
or s
(s ex
, ra
ci al
/e th
ni c
id en
tit y,
s oc
io ec
on om
ic q
ua rti
le ,
ac ad
em ic
r is
k, b
as el
in e
ed uc
at io
na l
ex pe
ct at
io ns
), sc
ho ol
-le ve
l eff
ec t
of
ur ba
ni ci
ty , a
nd sc
ho ol
-le ve
l i nt
er ce
pt . ‘
–’ in
di ca
te s t
he p
re di
ct or
w as
n ot
in cl
ud ed
in th
e re
sp ec
tiv e
re gr
es si
on m
od el
. I C
C : i
nt er
cl as
s c or
re la
tio n
co effi
ci en
t; *p
< .0
5, *
*p <
.0 1,
* **
p < .0
01
Ex pe
ct at
io ns
G PA
En ro
llm en
t C
ol le
ge D
eg re
e
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
A FK
c ar
e .6
6* (.4
9— .8
8) .7
2* (.5
5– .9
2) .9
4 (.5
9– 1.
59 )
-.1 1*
* (-
.1 6
to -.
05 )
-.1 0*
* (-
.1 5
to -.
04 )
-.0 3
(- .1
3 to
.0 6)
.6 3*
* (.5
0– .7
8) .6
3* *
(.5 1–
.8 0)
.6 5
(.4 4—
.9 5)
.4 9*
** (.3
7– .6
4) .5
3* **
(.4 3–
.6 6)
.6 2*
(.4 3–
.9 1)
Sp or
t –
1. 38
** *
(1 .2
4– 1.
55 )
1. 38
** *
(1 .2
8– 1.
63 )
– .0
8* **
(.0 6–
.1 0)
.0 8*
** (.0
6– .1
1) –
1. 41
** *
(1 .3
0– 1.
54 )
1. 41
** *
(1 .2
9– 1.
54 )
– 1.
42 **
* (1
.3 1–
1. 55
) 1.
43 **
* (1
.3 1–
1. 56
) A
FK c
ar e
× sp
or t
– –
1. 02
(.5 1–
1. 72
) –
– -.0
4 (-
.1 5
to .0
7) –
– .8
7 (.5
5– 1.
38 )
– –
.9 9
(.6 4–
1. 54
) Pe
rfo rm
an ce
– 1.
35 **
* (1
.2 1–
1. 51
) 1.
41 **
* (1
.2 5–
1. 59
) –
.1 2*
** (.1
0– .1
4) .1
2* **
(.1 0–
.1 5)
– 1.
53 **
* (1
.3 9–
1. 69
) 1.
57 **
* (1
.4 2–
1. 74
) –
1. 33
** *
(1 .2
1– 1.
46 )
1. 33
** *
(1 .2
1– 1.
46 )
A FK
c ar
e ×
pe rf
– –
.6 0
(.2 3–
.8 2)
– –
-.0 8
(- .2
0 to
.0 3)
– –
.8 4
(.5 4–
1. 31
) –
– .8
6 (.5
4– 1.
35 )
Sc ho
ol c
lu bs
– 1.
35 **
* (1
.2 1–
1. 51
) 1.
37 **
* (1
.1 9–
1. 54
) –
.1 5*
** (.1
2– .1
7) .1
5* **
(.1 2–
.1 7)
– 1.
40 **
* (1
.3 0–
1. 53
) 1.
40 **
* (1
.2 7–
1. 62
) –
1. 37
** *
(1 .2
6– 1.
50 )
1. 37
** *
(1 .2
5– 1.
50 )
A FK
c ar
e ×
cl ub
s –
– .7
3 (.4
3– 1.
37 )
– –
.0 2
(- .1
1— .1
5) –
– 1.
34 (.7
7– 2.
35 )
– –
.9 1
(.5 5–
1. 51
) Se
rv ic
e cl
ub s
– 2.
96 **
* (1
.9 6–
2. 69
) 2.
26 **
* (1
.6 4–
2. 37
) –
.3 4*
** (.3
1– .3
7) .3
5* **
(.3 1–
.3 8)
– 2.
28 **
* (2
.0 5–
2. 55
) 2.
29 **
* (2
.0 4–
2. 56
) –
2. 10
** *
(1 .9
1– 2.
32 )
2. 12
** *
(1 .9
2– 2.
33 )
A FK
c ar
e ×
se rv
ic e
– –
1. 16
(.7 6–
3. 59
) –
– -.0
6 (-
.2 3
to .1
0) –
– 1.
46 (.7
8– 2.
71 )
– –
.8 7
(.4 9–
1. 56
) M
od el
F it
r2 W ith
in .2
57 **
* .2
63 **
* .2
63 **
* .2
04 **
* .2
16 **
* .2
17 **
* .2
68 **
* .2
67 **
* .2
71 **
* .2
45 **
* .2
45 **
* .2
46 **
* r2 B
et w
ee n
.1 36
** .1
13 .1
40 **
.0 14
.0 12
.0 12
.1 34
** *
.1 23
* .1
14 .0
79 *
.0 79
* .0
94 *
IC C
.1 06
.1 78
.2 12
.1 62
635Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
Ta bl
e 4
A FK
c ar
e an
d pa
rti ci
pa tio
n br
ea dt
h: O
dd s R
at io
s, Re
gr es
si on
C oe
ffi ci
en ts
, a nd
9 5%
C on
fid en
ce In
te rv
al s f
ro m
M ul
til ev
el R
eg re
ss io
n
M ul
til ev
el r
eg re
ss io
n an
al ys
es i
nc lu
de d
stu de
nt -le
ve l
fa ct
or s
(s ex
, ra
ci al
/e th
ni c
id en
tit y,
s oc
io ec
on om
ic q
ua rti
le ,
ac ad
em ic
r is
k, b
as el
in e
ed uc
at io
na l
ex pe
ct at
io ns
), sc
ho ol
-le ve
l eff
ec t
of
ur ba
ni ci
ty , a
nd sc
ho ol
-le ve
l i nt
er ce
pt . ‘
–’ in
di ca
te s t
he p
re di
ct or
w as
n ot
in cl
ud ed
in th
e re
sp ec
tiv e
re gr
es si
on m
od el
; I C
C : i
nt er
cl as
s c or
re la
tio n
co effi
ci en
t; *p
< .0
5, *
*p <
.0 1,
* **
p < .0
01
Ex pe
ct at
io ns
G PA
En ro
llm en
t C
ol le
ge D
eg re
e
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
A FK
c ar
e .6
6* (.4
9— .8
8) .7
2* (.5
6 –.
92 )
.8 9
(.5 9–
1. 33
) -.1
1* *
(- .1
6 to
-. 05
) -.0
9* *
(- .1
5 to
-. 04
) -.0
4 (-
.1 2
to .0
4) .6
0* *
(.4 7–
.7 7)
.6 4*
* (.5
2– .7
9) .5
4* *
(.3 8–
.7 7)
.4 9*
** (.3
7– .6
4) .5
3* **
(.4 3–
.6 6)
.5 8*
(.4 1–
.8 2)
P ar
tic ip
at io
n br
ea dt
h –
1. 47
** *
(1 .4
0– 1.
54 )
1. 47
** *
(1 .4
0– 1.
55 )
– .1
7* **
(.1 6—
.1 8)
.1 7*
** (.1
6— .1
8) –
1. 56
** *
(1 .5
0– 1.
63 )
1. 55
** *
(1 .4
9– 1.
62 )
– 1.
50 **
* (1
.4 4–
1. 56
) 1.
50 **
* (1
.4 4–
1. 56
) A
FK c
ar e
× br
ea dt
h –
– .8
4 (.6
7– 1.
05 )
– –
-.0 4
(- .0
9 to
.0 1)
– –
1. 13
(.9 3–
1. 38
) –
– .9
6 (.7
9– 1.
16 )
M od
el fi
t r2 W
ith in
.2 57
** *
.2 63
** *
.2 64
** *
.2 04
** *
.2 29
** *
.2 30
** *
.2 68
** *
.2 77
** *
.2 78
** *
.2 45
** *
.2 58
** *
.2 58
** *
r2 B et
w ee
n .1
36 **
.1 26
** .1
26 **
.0 14
.0 11
.0 11
.1 34
** *
.1 08
** *
.1 08
** *
.0 79
* .1
03 *
.1 05
* IC
C .1
06 .1
78 .2
12 .1
62
Ta bl
e 5
A FK
c ar
e an
d pa
rti ci
pa tio
n in
te ns
ity : O
dd s R
at io
s, Re
gr es
si on
C oe
ffi ci
en ts
, a nd
9 5%
C on
fid en
ce In
te rv
al s f
ro m
M ul
til ev
el R
eg re
ss io
n
M ul
til ev
el r
eg re
ss io
n an
al ys
es i
nc lu
de d
stu de
nt -le
ve l
fa ct
or s
(s ex
, ra
ci al
/e th
ni c
id en
tit y,
s oc
io ec
on om
ic q
ua rti
le ,
ac ad
em ic
r is
k, b
as el
in e
ed uc
at io
na l
ex pe
ct at
io ns
), sc
ho ol
-le ve
l eff
ec t
of
ur ba
ni ci
ty , a
nd sc
ho ol
-le ve
l i nt
er ce
pt . ‘
–’ in
di ca
te s t
he p
re di
ct or
w as
n ot
in cl
ud ed
in th
e re
sp ec
tiv e
re gr
es si
on m
od el
; I C
C : i
nt er
cl as
s c or
re la
tio n
co effi
ci en
t; *p
< .0
5, *
*p <
.0 1,
* **
p < .0
01
Ex pe
ct at
io ns
G PA
En ro
llm en
t C
ol le
ge D
eg re
e
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
B (9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
O R
(9 5%
C I)
A FK
c ar
e .6
6* (.4
9— .8
8) .7
3* (.5
7– .9
3) .9
0 (.6
6– 1.
24 )
-.1 1*
* (-
.1 6
to -.
05 )
-.1 0*
* (-
.1 5
to -.
04 )
-.1 2*
* (-
.1 8
to -.
05 )
.6 0*
* (.4
7– .7
7) .6
5* *
(.5 2—
.8 1)
.6 5*
* (.5
0– .8
5) .4
9* **
(.3 7–
.6 4)
.5 3*
** (.4
3– .6
6) .5
8* *
(.4 4–
.7 7)
P ar
tic ip
at io
n in
te ns
ity –
1. 06
** *
(1 .0
5– 1.
07 )
1. 06
** *
(1 .0
5– 1.
07 )
– .0
18 **
* (.0
16 —
.0 20
) .0
18 **
* (.0
16 –.
02 0)
– 1.
07 **
* (1
.0 6–
1. 08
) 1.
07 **
* (1
.0 6–
1. 08
) –
1. 05
** *
(1 .0
4– 1.
06 )
1. 05
** *
(1 .0
4– 1.
06 )
A FK
c ar
e ×
in te
ns ity
– –
.9 3*
* (.8
9– .9
7) –
– .0
06 (-
.0 04
–. 00
2) –
– 1.
00 (.9
6– 1.
04 )
– –
.9 8
(.9 4–
1. 02
) M
od el
fi t
r2 W ith
in .2
57 **
* .2
58 **
* .2
61 **
* .2
04 **
* .2
07 **
* .2
07 **
* .2
68 **
* .2
68 **
* .2
68 **
* .2
45 **
* .2
50 **
* .2
50 **
* r2 B
et w
ee n
.1 36
** .1
11 **
.1 09
** .0
14 .0
12 .0
12 .1
34 **
* .0
99 **
.1 00
** .0
79 *
.1 03
* .1
05 *
IC C
.1 06
.1 78
.2 12
.1 62
636 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
(OR = 1.05, p < 0.001), and a small but significant increase in GPA (B = 0.018, p < 0.001). The coefficients suggest a similar possibility of risk mitigation; a young person in AFK care who participated in organized activities for 5.5 hours per week would likely have a GPA equal to a nonparticipant in parental care. For the later educational outcomes, greater intensity was required to mitigate risk associated with AFK care status. For example, participation of 9.1 hours per week for youth in AFK care would have similar college enroll- ment to nonparticipants in parental care. As with models on activity type and breadth, most interaction terms were not significant (with the exception of educational expecta- tions). This suggests that participation intensity was equally associated with GPA, college enrollment, and college degree attainment for youth in AFK or parental care.
Discussion
These results provide several incremental contributions to the literature, specifically regarding the organized activity participation of youth in AFK care. However, the limitations of the study must be noted when considering its implica- tions. Several limitations emerge from the nature of second- ary data analyses. First, this study drew data from ELS:02, which was advantageous for its nationally representative sample of youth followed for over a decade. However, the characteristics of school and adolescence has changed since 2002, and this likely limits the generalizability of our find- ings to the current experiences of youth. Nonetheless, a lon- gitudinal sample is necessary to assess the long-term asso- ciations of organized activity participation. Second, ELS:02 was not designed to specifically investigate the experiences of youth in AFK care; as a result, the analysis involved the small subsamples of each of these groups. Although our sen- sitivity analyses indicate that trends were similar across the youth in adoptive, foster, and kinship care after controlling for covariates, this study was unable to parse out important differences in the experiences of these groups. This limita- tion warrants further investigation by future research includ- ing larger sample sizes of these subgroups. Third, this study was limited to the measures collected in ELS:02. Informa- tion from the family was collected only at Wave I, and lon- gitudinal measures on the family context might highlight important influences, especially for AFK care youth. Lastly, ELS:02 was an observational study. While we account for several student-level and school-level confounding factors, causal inference is not possible from these findings.
Accepting these limitations, findings suggest several important trends and raise crucial questions for the fields of youth development, social work, and systems working with marginalized youth. This study is one of the first to use large-scale longitudinal data to document trends, long-term
educational outcomes, and potential benefits for AFK youth participating in organized activities. In doing so, this study expands two bodies of literature by melding separate and related areas of research: the care status of the marginalized youth, and their positive youth development through organ- ized activities.
First, living in AFK care was significantly associated with poorer educational outcomes measured 2, 4, and 10 years later, as consistent with past research (e.g., Dalen & Theie, 2019; Day et al., 2011; Gillum et al., 2016; O’Higgins et al., 2017; Winokur et al., 2018). The most striking difference was in college degree obtainment, and these findings likely reflect the challenges youth in AFK care face, including a lack of support as they navigate college and enter adulthood. As stronger supports for youth transitioning from foster care have been found to promote college degree obtainment (e.g., Gillum et al., 2016; Pecora, 2012), organized activities may also help youth in general AFK care.
Second, our descriptive findings note clear disparities in activity participation between youth in parental care and AFK care, though our findings are not as extreme as some past research (Kwak et al., 2017). This difference may reflect the age of the data or sampling bias—i.e., more involved AFK youth may have been more likely to be included in an intensive large-scale national survey as opposed to datasets specific to AFK youth. Nonetheless, youth in AFK care were significantly less likely to participate in organized activities, with fewer activities and for less hours per week. Particu- larly, the difference in participation intensity by 1.5 hours per week may hold the most practical difference between the groups. Results suggest that AFK youth were only slightly less likely to participate in some type of activity, but they were substantially less likely to participate for the same amount of time per week than those in parental care. Such findings may have been obscured by methods that use sim- ple binary measures of participation. Thus, by employing the multiple dimensions of activity participation, this study highlights that participation intensity might be one critical difference in the participation between youth in AFK care and those in parental care.
Third, and perhaps more importantly, our findings suggest that organized activity participation is likely to be equally as beneficial as for youth in AFK care as for those in parental care. The only models that consistently showed any evidence of moderation were those models using the simple dichoto- mous measure of any participation, which actually suggested a weaker association for AFK youth. However, when we used measures that capture participation in more nuanced ways—activity type, participation breadth, and participation intensity—there was no compelling evidence of moderation. Given these results, one interpretation may be that the meas- ure of any participation obfuscates the important difference in participation intensity between youth in AFK care and
637Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
those in parental care. Such an interpretation is consistent with the visual representations of mean differences pre- sented in Figs. 1–6, even if those figures do not account for covariates. We may have reached different conclusions had the study only utilized the binary measure of any participa- tion; therefore, future research on the participation of AFK youth should continue to investigate the multiple dimensions of organized activity participation.
The lack of consistent moderation warrants additional consideration. On one hand, this finding is counter to our hypothesis that AFK youth would experience stronger ben- efits from participation, given the documented challenges and the lack of supports in their environment. On the other hand, the lack of moderation also suggests that organized activity participation holds the same positive associations regardless of youths’ care status.
Fourth, the magnitude of coefficients suggests that posi- tive association of activity participation may protect against or even compensate for any added risk of being in AFK care. If taken at face value, one possible interpretation of these findings is that if AFK youth could participate in at least one type of activity for five to ten hours per week, that might mitigate some negative effects associated with their care status. That difference may come from much-needed opportunities to build relationships with mentors and peers, to increase school connectedness, or to develop other social- emotional skills. This study cannot specifically speak to such mechanisms; future research should specifically test how organized activities may be supporting youth in AFK care. Nevertheless, while the findings do not imply causality, they are consistent with organized activities serving an equally protective role for youth in parental care as well as those in AFK care.
This line of thinking is important for social work policy and practice. Scholars have argued that youth outside of the care of their parents are often denied normative experi- ences that might facilitate healthy development, including participation in organized activities during out-of-school time (Gilligan, 1999, 2000, 2007; Simmons-Horton, 2017). There likewise can be an implicit or explicit emphasis on providing youth in AFK care academic-focused interven- tions (Okpych, 2012; Simmons-Horton, 2017; Zetlin, 2006). This emphasis may be intuitive, given the needs of these students, as well as the lack of scholarship on the organized activity participation of youth in AFK care; limited schol- arship means a smaller evidence base to justify an expan- sion of developmental opportunities to youth in AFK care. Nevertheless, a focus on academic interventions may also overlook the importance of social support, connectedness and educational aspirations as protective factors for AFK youth—all of which are associated with both organized activity participation (Farb & Matjasko, 2012; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Heath et al., 2018; Vandell et al., 2015) and
the educational success of AFK youth (Foster et al., 2017; Lemkin et al., 2018; Morton, 2016; Okpych & Courtney, 2017). To be clear, we would neither claim nor expect that organized activities can address and meet all of the critical and specific needs faced by youth in these systems. These programs should not replace targeted educational supports and interventions for AFK youth. However, the findings here may make a case for youth in AFK care to have the normative developmental opportunities offered by organ- ized activities.
Likewise, this study fits in a larger discussion and more recent shift to incorporate positive youth development (PYD) approaches when working with marginalized youth and those in AFK care. This framing likely reflects an impor- tant shift in how youth are viewed and conceptualized, as well as an incremental contribution to the current knowledge base. Historically, most research on marginalized youth, including those involved in the child welfare system, has focused on challenges and deficits of these youth; however, more recent studies have begun employing PYD approaches to help address their practical and clinical needs (e.g., Oshri et al., 2017; Taussig et al., 2019). Our study’s orientation is both pragmatic and strengths-focused: we acknowledge the possible educational risks youth in AFK care may face, and we aim to identify accessible supports that are already in place in many schools and communities.
Lastly, it is important to recognize the implications regarding issues of equity. The study findings call for addressing a difficult reality: while any benefits produced by program participation among youth in AFK care may be equal to those in the general population, access to these programs may not be equal. Although this study is not test- ing causality, one can argue that any possible “treatment effect” is similar across groups, but the “access to the treat- ment” is not equal. Families with one or more biological parents may be more aware of and supportive of these oppor- tunities, more likely to have social capital and resources to facilitate these opportunities, or more likely to encourage youth participation. Families caring for adoptive, foster, or kinship youth may not have the same knowledge or resources to surround them with supports, while facing constraints brought by SES, racism, and discrimination, as well as the restrictions of child welfare systems—especially kinship and foster care. Nonetheless, findings suggest that once youth in AFK care have access to organized activities, they may have similar benefits. Thus, this study supports the call to increase the developmental opportunities for youth in adop- tive, foster, and kinship care through child welfare practice and policy.
638 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
Conclusion
This study provides data on the organized activity partici- pation and long-term educational outcomes of a nationally representative sample of youth in the care of their parents and those in adoptive, foster, or kinship care. Taking a PYD approach to youth in AFK care, the findings suggest that while youth in these programs may face unequal access, they likely experience similar benefits. Here, we see a case for expanding developmental opportunities for AFK youth. Social workers and other professionals working with youth in AFK care should work to ensure the participation of this marginalized population in organized activities. Doing so is not only one strategy to improve educational and life out- comes, but may advance equity for youth in adopted, foster and kinship care.
Preliminary analyses of the study were presented at the American Education Research Association 2018 Annual Conference and the Society for Social Work and Research’s 23rd Annual Conference in 2019.
Funding This study was funded in part by the Syracuse Office of Undergraduate Research and Community Engagement. The funders played no role in the design, analyses, interpretation of findings or preparation of this manuscript.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to dis- close.
Ethical Approval This research study was conducted using publicly- available deidentified data from the Educational Longitudinal Study of Youth: 2002 (ELS:02). The Institutional Review Board of the first author’s University was consulted and it was determined that IRB review was not required.
Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants and/or legal guardians of minors included in the study at the time of original data collection. This study conducts sec- ondary analyses on publicly-available data from the ELS:02, which was collected by the U.S. Department of Education. For participants under 18 years of age, informed consent was obtained from parents and child assent at each round of data collection; for participants over 18 years of age, informed consent was obtained at each round of data collection (Ingles et al., 2004, 2005, 2007, 2014).
References
Agans, J. P., Champine, R. B., DeSouza, L. M., Mueller, M. K., John- son, S. K., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Activity involvement as an ecological asset: Profiles of participation and youth outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(6), 919–932.
Akiva, T., Delale-O’Connor, L., & Pittman, K. J. (2020). The promise of building equitable ecosystems for learning. Urban Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00420 85920 926230
Anderson-Butcher, D., & Bates, S. (2021). Social work and youth sport. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10560- 021- 00777-6
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, M. (2004). Weighting for unequal probabil- ity of selection in multilevel modeling. Mplus Web Notes, 8(3).
Aumètre, F., & Poulin, F. (2016). Trajectories of breadth of partici- pation in organized activity during childhood. Social Devel- opment, 25(2), 352–369. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ sode. 12142
Barcelona, R. J., & Quinn, W. (2011). Trends in youth development research topics: An Integrative review of positive youth devel- opment research published in selected journals between 2001– 2010. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 18–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5195/ jyd. 2011. 173
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2007). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applica- tions. American Cancer Society. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 97804 70147 658. chpsy 0116
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The con- tribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. In J. V. Lerner, J. B. B. Richard, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 41, pp. 197–230). http:// www. scien cedir ect. com/ scien ce/ artic le/ pii/ B9780 12386 49250 00087
Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J., & Randall, E. (2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: Theoreti- cal and methodological considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 576–610. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54310 364533
Busseri, M. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2009). Breadth and intensity: Salient, separable, and developmentally significant dimensions of structured youth activity involvement. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 907–933. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 02615 1008X 397017
Busseri, M. A., Rose-Krasnor, L., Mark Pancer, S., Pratt, M. W., Adams, G. R., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., & Gallander Wintre, M. (2011). A longitudinal study of breadth and inten- sity of activity involvement and the transition to university. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 512–518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1532- 7795. 2010. 00691.x
Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., & Bos, E. (2016). Inequalities in child welfare intervention rates: The intersection of deprivation and identity. Child & Family Social Work, 21(4), 452–463. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cfs. 12161
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The college payoff: education, occupations, lifetime earnings. Georgetown Uni- versity Center on Education and the Workforce. http:// eric. ed. gov/? id= ED524 299
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124.
Child Trends Databank. (2019). Foster care. https:// www. child trends. org/ indic ators/ foster- care
Chung, S., & McBride, A. M. (2015). Social and emotional learning in middle school curricula: A service learning model based on positive youth development. Children and Youth Services Review, 53, 192–200. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2015. 04. 008
Ciocanel, O., Power, K., Eriksen, A., & Gillings, K. (2016). Effec- tiveness of positive youth development interventions: A meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10964- 016- 0555-6
639Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
Conger, D., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2003). Foster care and school mobil- ity. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 97–103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 32112 93
Conn, A.-M., Calais, C., Szilagyi, M., Baldwin, C., & Jee, S. H. (2014). Youth in out-of-home care: Relation of engagement in structured group activities with social and mental health measures. Chil- dren and Youth Services Review, 36, 201–205. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2013. 11. 014
Conway, K. S., & Li, M. (2012). Family structure and child outcomes: A high definition, wide angle “snapshot.” Review of Econom- ics of the Household, 10(3), 345–374. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11150- 011- 9121-x
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. Chapin Hall Center for Chil- dren at the University of Chicago.
Courtney, M. E., Charles, P., Okpych, N. J., Napolitano, L., Halsted, K., & Courtney, M. (2014). Findings from the California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH): Conditions of foster youth at age 17. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Courtney, M. E., Okpych, N. J., Harty, J., Feng, H., Park, S., Powers, J., Nadon, M., Ditto, D. J., & Park, K. (2020). Findings from the California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH): Conditions of foster youth at age 23. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Courtney, M. E., Terao, S., & Bost, N. (2004). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago
Dalen, M., Hjern, A., Lindblad, F., Odenstad, A., Ramussen, F., & Vin- nerljung, B. (2008). Educational attainment and cognitive com- petence in adopted men—A study of international and national adoptees, siblings and a general Swedish population. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(10), 1211–1219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2008. 03. 006
Dalen, M., & Theie, S. (2012). Internationally adopted children from non-european countries: General development during the first two years in the adoptive family. The Scientific World Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1100/ 2012/ 375436
Dalen, M., & Theie, S. (2019). Academic Achievement among adopted and nonadopted children in early school years. Adoption Quar- terly, 22(3), 199–218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10926 755. 2019. 16274 48
Daly, B., Buchanan, C., Dasch, K., Eichen, D., & Lenhart, C. (2010). Promoting school connectedness among urban youth of color: Reducing Risk factors while promoting protective factors. Pre- vention Researcher, 17(3), 18–20.
Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 13–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00027 16203 260092
Dawes, N. P., Pollack, S., & Sada, G. G. (2017). Key components of engaging after-school programs for children and adolescents. In N. L. Deutsch (Ed.), After-school programs to promote posi- tive youth development: Integrating research into practice and policy (Vol. 1, pp. 13–21). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 59132-2_2
Day, A., Dworsky, A., Fogarty, K., & Damashek, A. (2011). An exami- nation of post-secondary retention and graduation among foster care youth enrolled in a four-year university. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2335–2341. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2011. 08. 004
Del Razo, J. L., & Renée, M. (2013). Expanding equity through more and better learning time. Voices in Urban Education. http:// eric. ed. gov/? id= EJ104 6179
Denby, R. W., Testa, M. F., Alford, K. A., Cross, C. L., & Brinson, J. A. (2017). Protective factors as mediators and moderators of risk effects on perceptions of child well-being in kinship care. Child Welfare, 95(4), 111–136.
Deutsch, N. L., Blyth, D. A., Kelley, J., Tolan, P. H., & Lerner, R. M. (2017). Let’s talk after-school: The promises and challenges of positive youth development for after-school research, policy, and practice. In N. L. Deutsch (Ed.), After-school programs to promote positive youth development: Integrating research into practice and policy (Vol. 1, pp. 45–68). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 59132-2_4
Drapeau, S., Saint-Jacques, M.-C., Lépine, R., Bégin, G., & Bernard, M. (2007). Processes that contribute to resilience among youth in foster care. Journal of Adolescence, 30(6) 977–999. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. adole scence. 2007. 01. 005
Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Kawashima, K., Pachan, M. K., DuPre, E. P., Celio, C. I., Berger, S. R., Dymnicki, A. B., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3–4), 269–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10464- 007- 9112-5
Ehrle, J., & Geen, R. (2002). Kin and non-kin foster care—Findings from a national survey. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(1), 15–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0190- 7409(01) 00166-9
Ehrle, J., & Green, R. (2002b). Children cared for by relatives: What services do they need? Urban Institute Washington, DC.
Enders, C. K. (2001a). The impact of nonnormality on full informa- tion maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation mod- els with missing data. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 352–370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 1082- 989X.6. 4. 352
Enders, C. K. (2001b). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Mod- eling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(1), 128–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 8007S EM0801_7
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430–457. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 8007S EM0803_5
Farb, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2012). Recent advances in research on school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent develop- ment. Developmental Review, 32(1), 1–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dr. 2011. 10. 001
Farineau, H. M., & McWey, L. M. (2011). The relationship between extracurricular activities and delinquency of adolescents in fos- ter care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(6), 963–968. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2011. 01. 002
Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A com- prehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 159–210. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54307 50021 59
Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2014). Advancing child and adolescent well-being through positive youth development and prevention programs. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 3025–3041). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 90- 481- 9063-8_ 164
Fong, K. (2017). Child welfare involvement and contexts of poverty: The role of parental adversities, social networks, and social ser- vices. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 5–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2016. 10. 011
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Sage.
Forsman, H., & Vinnerljung, B. (2012). Interventions aiming to improve school achievements of children in out-of-home care:
640 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1084–1091. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2012. 01. 037
Foster, C. E., Horwitz, A., Thomas, A., Opperman, K., Gipson, P., Burnside, A., Stone, D. M., & King, C. A. (2017). Connectedness to family, school, peers, and community in socially vulnerable adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 321–331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2017. 08. 011
Fredricks, J. A., & Simpkins, S. D. (2012). Promoting positive youth development through organized after-school activities: Taking a closer look at participation of ethnic minority youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 280–287.
Frerer, K., Sosenko, L. D., & Henke, R. R. (2013). At greater risk: California foster youth and the path from high school to col- lege. Stuart Foundation. Retrieved from: http:// www. stuar tfoun dation. org/ docs/ defau lt- docum ent- libra ry/ at- great er- risk- calif omia- foster- youth- and- the- path- from- high- school- to- colle ge. pdf.
Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Phillips, L. A., Nelson, M., McKenna, J., Winges-Yanez, N., Blanchette, L., Croskey, A., Dalton, L. D., Salazar, A., & Swank, P. (2015). Better futures: A randomized field test of a model for supporting young people in foster care with mental health challenges to participate in higher education. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42(2), 150–171. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11414- 014- 9451-6
Geiger, J. M., & Beltran, S. J. (2017). Experiences and outcomes of foster care alumni in postsecondary education: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 186–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2017. 06. 023
Gilligan, R. (1999). Enhancing the resilience of children and young people in public care by mentoring their talents and interests. Child & Family Social Work, 4(3), 187–196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1046/j. 1365- 2206. 1999. 00121.x
Gilligan, R. (2000). Adversity, resilience and young people: The protective value of positive school and spare time experiences. Children & Society, 14(1), 37–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1099- 0860. 2000. tb001 49.x
Gilligan, R. (2007). Spare time activities for young people in care: What can they contribute to educational progress? Adoption & Fostering, 31(1), 92–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03085 75907 03100 113
Gillum, N. L., Lindsay, T., Murray, F. L., & Wells, P. (2016). A review of research on college educational outcomes of students who experienced foster care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 10(3), 291–309. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15548 732. 2016. 11720 56
Heath, R. D., Anderson, C., Turner, A. C., & Payne, C. M. (2018). Extracurricular activities and disadvantaged youth: A compli- cated—But promising—Story. Urban Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00420 85918 805797
Howard, J. A., Smith, S. L., & Ryan, S. D. (2004). A comparative study of child welfare adoptions with other types of adopted children and birth children. Adoption Quarterly, 7(3), 1–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J145v 07n03_ 01
Ingles, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Alexander, C. P., Jewell, D. M., Lauff, E., Mattox, T. L., Wilson, D., & Christopher, E. (2014). Education longitudinal study of 2002: Third Follow-up Data File Docu- mentation (NCES 2014-364). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https:// nces. ed. gov/ pubs2 014/ 20143 64. pdf
Ingles, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Rogers, J. E., Siegel, P. H., Stutts, E. S., & Owings, J. A. (2004). Education longitudinal study of 2002: Base year data file user’s manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Ingles, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Wilson, D., Burns, L. J., Currivan, D., Rog- ers, J. E., & Hubbard-Bednasz, S. (2007). Education Longi- tudinal Study of 2002: Base-year to Second Follow-up Data
File Documentation. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https:// nces. ed. gov/ pubs2 008/ 20083 47. pdf
Ingles, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Wilson, D., Rogers, J. E., Siegel, P. H., Stutts, E. S., & Owings, J. A. (2005). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base-year to First Follow-up Data File Documentation. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https:// nces. ed. gov/ pubs2 006/ 20063 44. pdf
Jacobs, J. M., Wahl-Alexander, Z., & Mack, T. (2019). Strategies for gaining access to deliver sport programs with highly vulnerable youth. Journal of Youth Development, 14(1), 155–164. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5195/ jyd. 2019. 723
Juffer, F., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2012). Review of meta-analytical studies on the physical, emotional, and cognitive outcomes of intercountry adoptees. Routledge.
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quar- terly, 61(2), 121–140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 27870 65
Kirk, C. M., Lewis, R. K., Nilsen, C., & Colvin, D. Q. (2013). Foster care and college: The educational aspirations and expectations of youth in the foster care system. Youth & Society, 45(3), 307–323. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00441 18X11 417734
Kwak, Y., Lu, T., & Christ, S. L. (2017). Organized and unstructured activity participation among adolescents involved with child pro- tective services in the united states. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(4), 495–517. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10566- 017- 9392-3
Kwak, Y., Mihalec-Adkins, B., Mishra, A. A., & Christ, S. L. (2018). Differential impacts of participation in organized activities and maltreatment types on adolescent academic and socioemotional development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 107–117. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2017. 09. 026
Landers, A. L., Carrese, D. H., & Spath, R. (2019). A decade in review of trends in social work literature: The link between poverty and child maltreatment in the United States. Child Welfare, 97(4), 65–96.
Larsen, R. (2011). Missing data imputation versus full information maximum likelihood with second-level dependencies. Struc- tural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 649–662. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 511. 2011. 607721
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth develop- ment. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 55.1. 170
Lemkin, A., Kistin, C. J., Cabral, H. J., Aschengrau, A., & Bair-Merritt, M. (2018). School connectedness and high school graduation among maltreated youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 130–138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2017. 04. 023
Lerner, J. V., Phelps, E., Forman, Y., & Bowers, E. P. (2009). Posi- tive youth development. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.) Handbook of adolescent psychology: Individual bases of adoles- cent development, 3rd Ed. (Vol. 1, pp. 524–558). Wiley. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 97804 70479 193. adlps y0010 16
Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 172–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 480XA DS0703_8
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Benson, J. B. (2011). Positive youth development: Research and applications for promoting thriving in adolescence. In J. V. Lerner and R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (41), 1–17. http:// www. scien cedir ect. com/ scien ce/ artic le/ pii/ B9780 12386 49250 00014
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E., & John Geldhof, G. (2015). Positive youth development and relational-developmental-sys- tems. In R. M. Lerner & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Wiley.
Lerner, R. M., Wang, J., Chase, P. A., Gutierrez, A. S., Harris, E. M., Rubin, R. O., & Yalin, C. (2014). Using relational developmental
641Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and…
1 3
systems theory to link program goals, activities, and outcomes: The sample case of the 4-H Study of positive youth develop- ment. New Directions for Youth Development, 2014(144), 17–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ yd. 20110
Matjasko, J. L., Holland, K. M., Holt, M. K., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2019). All things in moderation? Threshold effects in adolescent extracurricular participation intensity and behavioral problems. Journal of School Health, 89(2), 79–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josh. 12715
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., et al. (2019). The Condition of Education 2019. NCES 2019- 144. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Meier, A., Hartmann, B. S., & Larson, R. (2018). A quarter cen- tury of participation in school-based extracurricular activities: Inequalities by race, class, gender and age? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(6), 1299–1316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10964- 018- 0838-1
Moore, K. A., Murphey, D., Bandy, T., & Cooper, M. (2014). Partici- pation in Out-of-School Time Activities and Programs. Child Trends. http:// www. child trends. org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2014/ 03/ 2014- 13Out ofSch oolAc tivit ies1. pdf
Morton, B. M. (2015). Barriers to academic achievement for foster youth: The story behind the statistics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 476–491. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02568 543. 2015. 10738 17
Morton, B. M. (2016). The power of community: How foster parents, teachers, and community members support academic achieve- ment for foster youth. Journal of Research in Childhood Edu- cation, 30(1), 99–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02568 543. 2015. 11053 34
Moyer, A. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Foster youth’s educational challenges and supports: Perspectives of teachers, foster par- ents, and former foster youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37(2), 123–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10560- 019- 00640-9
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Mplus (7.31). Muthén, B. O., Muthén, L. K., & Asparouhov, T. (2017). Regression
and mediation analysis using Mplus. Muthén & Muthén. Neely, S. R., & Vaquera, E. (2017). Making it count: Breadth and
intensity of extracurricular engagement and high school drop- out. Sociological Perspectives, 60(6), 1039–1062. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07311 21417 700114
O’Higgins, A., Sebba, J., & Gardner, F. (2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kin- ship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 198–220. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2017. 06. 004
Okpych, N. (2012). Policy framework supporting youth aging-out of foster care through college: Review and recommendations. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1390–1396. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2012. 02. 013
Okpych, N. J., & Courtney, M. E. (2014). Does education pay for youth formerly in foster care? Comparison of employment out- comes with a national sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 43, 18–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2014. 04. 013
Okpych, N. J., & Courtney, M. E. (2017). Who goes to college? Social capital and other predictors of college enrollment for foster-care youth. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(4), 563–593. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 694897
Oreopoulos, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2013). Making college worth it: A review of the returns to higher education. The Future of Children, 23(1), 41–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ foc. 2013. 0001
Oshri, A., Topple, T. A., & Carlson, M. W. (2017). Positive youth development and resilience: Growth patterns of social skills
among youth investigated for maltreatment. Child Develop- ment, 88(4), 1087–1099. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cdev. 12865
Pecora, P. J. (2012). Maximizing educational achievement of youth in foster care and alumni: Factors associated with success. Chil- dren and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1121–1129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2012. 01. 044
Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., O’Brien, K., White, C. R., Williams, J., Hiripi, E., English, D., White, J., & Herrick, M. A. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the northwest foster care alumni study. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(12), 1459–1481. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2006. 04. 003
Perkins, D. F., & Jones, K. R. (2004). Risk behaviors and resiliency within physically abused adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(5), 547–563. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2003. 12. 001
Pittman, K. (2017). Why after-school matters for positive youth development. In N. L. Deutsch (Ed.), After-school programs to promote positive youth development: Integrating research into practice and policy (Vol. 1, pp. 1–12). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 59132-2_1
Pittman, K. J. (2017b). Positive youth development as a strategy for addressing readiness and equity: A commentary. Child Devel- opment, 88(4), 1172–1174. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cdev. 12872
Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2004). Blurring the lines for learning: The role of out-of-school pro- grams as complements to formal learning. New Directions for Youth Development, 2004(101), 19–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ yd. 71
Radel, L., Bramlett, M., Chow, K., & Waters, A. (2016). Children liv- ing apart from their parents: Highlights from the National Sur- vey of Children in Nonparental Care. US Department of Health and Human Services.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003a). What exactly is a youth devel- opment program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 480XA DS0702_6
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003b). Youth development programs: Risk, prevention and policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(3), 170–182.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Con- tribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 27–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 480XA DS0401_3
Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthe- sis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Search Institute.
Simmons-Horton, S. Y. (2017). Providing age-appropriate activities for youth in foster care: Policy implementation process in three states. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 383–391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2017. 10. 007
Smith, E. P., Witherspoon, D. P., & Wayne Osgood, D. (2017). Positive youth development among diverse racial–ethnic children: Qual- ity afterschool contexts as developmental assets. Child Devel- opment, 88(4), 1063–1078. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cdev. 12870
Snellman, K., Silva, J. M., Frederick, C. B., & Putnam, R. D. (2015). The engagement gap social mobility and extracurricular partici- pation among american youth. The Annals of the American Acad- emy of Political and Social Science, 657(1), 194–207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00027 16214 548398
StataCorp. (2013). Stata: Release 13. StataCorp, LP. Stone, S., D’andrade, A., & Austin, M. (2006). Educational services
for children in foster care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 53–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J479v 01n02_ 04
Taussig, H. N., Weiler, L. M., Garrido, E. F., Rhodes, T., Boat, A., & Fadell, M. (2019). A Positive youth development approach to improving mental health outcomes for maltreated children in
642 R. D. Heath et al.
1 3
foster care: Replication and extension of an rct of the fostering healthy futures program. American Journal of Community Psy- chology, 64(3–4), 405–417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ajcp. 12385
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cdev. 12864
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2019). The AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY1 2018 Estimates as of August 22, 2019.
Vacca, J. S. (2008). Breaking the cycle of academic failure for foster children—What can the schools do to help? Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 1081–1087. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2008. 02. 003
van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2016). Adoption is a successful natural intervention enhancing adopted children’s IQ and school performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0963- 7214. 2005. 00391.x
van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Poelhuis, C. W. K. (2005). Adop- tion and cognitive development: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children’s IQ and school performance. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 301–316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 2909. 131.2. 301
Vandell, D. L., Larson, R. W., Mahoney, J. L., & Watts, T. W. (2015). Children's organized activities. In M. H. Bornstein, T. Lev- enthal, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes (pp. 305–344). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Vandivere, Sharon, S., Yrausquin, A., Allen, T., Malm, K., & McKlin- don, A. (2012). Children in Nonparental Care: A Review of the Literature and Analysis of Data Gaps. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. https:// aspe. hhs. gov/ basic- report/ child ren- nonpa rental- care- review- liter ature- and- analy sis- data- gaps
Weinberg, L., & Luderer, J. W. (2004). Problems and solutions to improving education services for children in foster care. Pre- venting School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 48(2), 31–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3200/ PSFL. 48.2. 31- 36
West-Bey, N. (2014). Outcome and activity participation trajectories amongst adolescents in the child welfare system (Order No. 3614912) [Doctoral Dissertation, New York University]. Pro- Quest Dissertations & Theses Global.
White, T., Scott, L. D., & Munson, M. R. (2018). Extracurricular activity participation and educational outcomes among older youth transitioning from foster care. Children and Youth Ser- vices Review, 85, 1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. child youth. 2017. 11. 010.
Winokur, M. A., Holtan, A., & Batchelder, K. E. (2018). System- atic review of kinship care effects on safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 19–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10497 31515 620843
Wolanin, T. R. (2005). Higher education opportunities for foster youth: A primer for policymakers. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Zetlin, A. (2006). The experiences of foster children and youth in spe- cial education. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabil- ity, 31(3), 161–165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13668 25060 08470 39
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2023. All Rights Reserved.
- Opportunities for Positive Youth Development: The Organized Activity Participation and Educational Outcomes of Adolescents in Adoptive, Foster, and Kinship Care
- Abstract
- Educational Barriers for Youth in Adoptive, Foster, and Kinship Care
- Educational Supports and Protective Factors for Youth in Adoptive, Foster, and Kinship Care
- Positive Youth Development for Youth in Adoptive, Foster and Kinship Care
- Organized Activities and Positive Youth Development
- Organized Activities Among Youth in Adoptive, Foster and Kinship care
- Present Study
- Method
- Data and Sample
- Measures
- Predictor Variable—Adoptive, Foster or Kinship Care
- Moderators—Organized Activity Participation
- Dependent Variables—Educational Outcomes
- Control Variables
- Analytic Plan
- Survey Weights
- Missing Data
- Descriptive Statistics
- Mean Differences
- Multilevel Regression Analyses
- Results
- Descriptive Statistics
- Mean Differences
- Multilevel Regression Models
- Any Activity Participation
- Activity Type
- Participation Breadth
- Participation Intensity
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
