Bill Overview
Title: Access to Foster Care to 21 Act
Description: This bill allows certain youth who have reached the age of 18 to voluntarily reenter foster care.
Sponsors: Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27]
Target Audience
Population: Youth aged out of foster care eligible for reentry until 21
Estimated Size: 60000
- Youth who have aged out of the foster care system but are under 21 can voluntarily reenter foster care.
- This extends support for individuals who may still require assistance in transitioning to independent living.
- The act primarily impacts those who have reached the age of 18 but are not yet 21.
- It aims to improve outcomes for youth who are at high risk of instability without a supportive network.
Reasoning
- Target population is estimated to be around 60,000 youth eligible to reenter foster care.
- Budget constraints allow for servings a limited portion of these individuals, necessitating targeting of those most at risk of instability.
- Not all eligible youth will choose to reenter, limiting the actual number impacted by the policy.
- The policy is expected to improve wellbeing by providing stable housing and support, especially for those struggling with homelessness or unemployment.
Simulated Interviews
Part-time Barista (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reentering foster care could provide the stability I need to focus on school and work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Unemployed (NewYork, NY)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think going back into foster care could save me from my current situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 1 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm considering reentering for additional support while I adjust to college life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Artist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reentering sounds like a good idea, but I worry about the restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy would have been useful in the first two years after aging out.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wouldn't reenter, but it could help those worse off.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Waitress (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be my backup plan if things go south.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Delivery Driver (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m managing on my own but keeping the option open.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 2 |
Unemployed (Detroit, MI)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need this policy to stabilize my life and start working.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 1 |
Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reentering could provide extra support to ease my financial stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 2: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 5: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 100: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Key Considerations
- Costs are variable depending on state-specific foster care cost structures and eligibility requirements.
- Reentry prioritizes youth without alternative support systems, resulting in varying uptake.
- Cross-benefits such as reduced reliance on social services and better outcomes are long-term and indirect.