Second Chance Homes: Providing Services for Teenage Parents and Their Children
This report is available on the Internet at:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/2ndchancehomes00/
To obtain a printed copy of this report, send the title and your name and mailing address to:Human Service Policy, Room 404E Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 200 Independence Av, SW Washington, DC 20201
Fax: (202) 690-6562
- The Difficult Life Circumstances Facing Teen Parents and Their Children
- Second Chance Homes: A Promising Strategy to Break the Cycle of Dependency
- What Major Resources are Available?
The difficult life circumstances of most teenage mothers and their children have intensified interest in finding ways to support young mothers in their efforts to become self-sufficient, delay subsequent childbearing, and promote awareness of child development early in their children's lives in order to break the cycle of poverty and reliance on welfare. One innovative service delivery option available is the establishment of "Second Chance Homes" for teenage mothers and their children. Second Chance Homes offer stable housing and other supportive services to teenage mothers, with the intent of providing teens with the skills and knowledge necessary to become more effective parents and lead productive, independent lives.
[ Go to Contents ]
In recent years there have been significant declines in both teenage pregnancy and birth rates, with teen pregnancy rates reaching their lowest level since statistics have been collected. While this is good news, there are still far too many teens having children before they are ready. In fact, nearly 500,000 teenage girls become parents each year.(1) Roughly 40 percent of these teenage parents are under age 18; more than three-fourths are unmarried; and the majority of parenting teens do not have the economic or social resources in place to provide for themselves or their children. Moreover, teenage mothers are more likely to have additional children in quick succession, limiting their life options even further than having only one child.(2) Although the number of repeat births to teenage girls also has declined since 1991, there are still over 100,000 second or higher order births to teenagers annually.(3)
A large number of teenage mothers are poor. Studies estimate that as many as 60 percent of teenage mothers are living below the poverty line, and as many as 80 percent rely on welfare for support for at least some portion of time following a teen birth.(4) Earlier research indicates that women who gave birth as teens relied on public assistance for support for substantially longer periods of time than other families.(5) The impoverished circumstances of teenage mothers are exacerbated by the fact that many have limited academic skills, have dropped out of high school, and come from backgrounds with few role models or opportunities for improving their livelihoods.
Many teenage mothers have a difficult time juggling the dual roles of parent and teen. These responsibilities are often undertaken in the context of stressful environments, many of which are characterized by poverty, poor housing, domestic violence, abuse, and unsafe neighborhoods. Research has shown that a large percentage of teenage mothers have experienced sexual and/or physical abuse, often by a household member.(6) These teenage mothers face an even greater risk of repeat pregnancy and other health problems.
The long-term, negative consequences of teenage childbearing affect both parent and child. Both are likely to face poverty, low levels of educational attainment, and long-term dependence on public assistance. Concerns about the negative effects of teenage childbearing on both the mother and her child(ren) have become more salient. Research indicates that children of teenage mothers are more likely to be born prematurely and to be of low birth weight than children born to women who are older.(7) Compared to children born to older women, children of adolescent mothers, in general, do not do as well in school, have higher reported incidences of abuse and neglect, have higher rates of foster care placement, and are more apt to run away from home.(8) As these children get older, the boys are 2.7 times more likely to be involved in criminal behavior, and the girls are 33 percent more likely to become teenage mothers themselves, increasing the likelihood that they will rely on public assistance.(9)
[ Go to Contents ]
While there are many teenage mothers who never enter any social welfare system, others do not have the supports that they need to make it on their own. Many teenage mothers are not necessarily able to remain at home with their parents, either for reasons of overcrowding in the home, abuse and neglect, or financial difficulty. They may not have family, friends, or other resources available that enable them to meet the basic needs for themselves or their children. Teenage mothers who are unable to live at home with their families are vulnerable on many fronts. They encounter all of the demands of parenting and being a teen, and are often faced with the additional need for stable housing. Without other supports, these teenage mothers are likely to experience periods of homelessness, spend time in foster care, or rely on welfare for assistance.(10)
Younger teenage mothers may face additional challenges as a result of their age. These young mothers may experience difficulty finding a place in which to live with their children. For instance, homeless shelters, battered women's shelters and transitional living programs may not always accept teenagers who are under the age of 17, nor do these programs generally accept young children. Further, placement in foster care does not always ensure that the mother and child will remain together the placement of both the teenage mother and her child together is contingent on the availability of a trained foster care provider or group home that is willing to take both the teen and her child. Young mothers who are homeless come up against many of the same hurdles as young mothers in foster care, including poverty, barriers to education and other supports. Their primary need is housing. One study indicates that 80 percent of minor mothers who are homeless are unable to find long-term stable living arrangements, and could be in need of a Second Chance Home or similar arrangement.(11)
There is not a single definition of a Second Chance Home, but the common elements include support, supervision, and a safe place to live. The term "Second Chance Home" can refer to a group home, a cluster of apartments, or a network of homes that integrate housing and services for teen mothers and their children who cannot live at home because of abuse, neglect or other extenuating circumstances. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) introduced legislation in 1999 (S.208) that defines Second Chance Homes as entities that "provide custodial parents under the age of 19 and their children with a supportive and supervised living arrangement in which such parents would be required to learn parenting skills, including child development, family budgeting, health and nutrition, and other skills to promote their long-term economic independence and the well-being of their children."(12)
Second Chance Homes can be discrete programs or they may be run by agencies with broader missions and services. Second Chance Homes can be more transitional in nature, with shorter-term stays, or the services and programs can be provided over a longer time period. Some maternity homes, a type of Second Chance Home, are funded to address needs during pregnancy and to prepare for transition after delivery, and therefore allow residential stays often only during pregnancy and a very short time after delivery. Those that offer longer stays for the mother and child are designed to help minor/teen mothers plan for and develop a transition plan for another place to live. (13) In some instances, Second Chance Homes also involve the fathers of the children to provide assistance with parenting and provide fathers with access to services they may need to become good parents, acquire skills or gain employment. Second Chance Homes may also help reconnect young mothers with their families.
Churches and non-profit organizations have been operating group homes or maternity homes for teen mothers for many years. There has been a resurgence of interest in Second Chance Homes that has been driven in part by the welfare reform law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA P.L. 104-193) as well as the support of the President, many members of Congress, and state officials. One provision of this welfare reform legislation, specifically pertaining to the living arrangements of minor parents, stipulates that mothers who are minors must live with their family members or another responsible adult as a condition of receiving cash assistance. If a minor mother does not meet this requirement, the state is required to provide an alternative living arrangement, such as a Second Chance Home.(14) While most minor mothers live with family members or other adults, there are some who are not able to live at home or with relatives. These minor mothers on welfare are most likely to be in need of a Second Chance Home or an alternative living arrangement.
A number of non-governmental organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and the Social Policy Action Network (SPAN), have been actively encouraging the creation and expansion of Second Chance Homes. One estimate indicates that there are as many as 50 Second Chance Homes already operating in the United States. The Second Chance Homes National Directory, published by SPAN in October, 2000, lists 100 homes in 29 states. At least six states (Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Nevada, Georgia and Texas) have allocated resources to Second Chance Homes, making a statewide commitment to serve young mothers who have no other place to go. There are other states that are considering this option.(15) In his FY2001 budget, President Clinton proposed providing $25 million in federal funding to support the creation and expansion of Second Chance Homes.
Second Chance Homes potentially offer the opportunity to address a wide range of needs for teenage mothers and their children. These programs can impact areas such as pregnancy outcomes, health of newborns, parenting style, maternal well-being and economic self-sufficiency, and child development. The underlying intent of Second Chance Homes is very much in keeping with the objectives of the welfare legislation, promoting the self-sufficiency of young mothers while at the same time emphasizing the well-being of their children.
Among existing Second Chance Homes networks, there is tremendous variation in how the programs are run and how they are funded. Massachusetts, for instance, operates a statewide network of homes which is run by two state agencies: the Department of Social Services and the Department of Transitional Assistance. As of October, 2000, there were 21 programs across the state some of which are group homes or supervised shared apartments. Each program is different in structure and approach, but all of the programs offer stable housing and supports to young mothers and their children who do not have a place to live. Some programs maintain emergency beds for teens who have an immediate need for housing and who have no alternative place to live during the assessment period. These beds are typically for teen mothers who are in need of short term residence.(16) The state covers most program operating costs and pays providers for services. These services are only available to teen TANF recipients.
In New Mexico, there are currently 9 Second Chance Homes across the state. Unlike Massachusetts, the state has limited oversight of the programs. Instead, state officials offer local communities start-up money and provide guidance on how to piece together the programmatic services and structure, serving teens from a wide range of backgrounds (including juvenile justice and foster care).
The two largest sources of federal funds within the Department of Health and Human Services come from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to states (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) and the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the Social Security Act). These two programs provide funds to states that may be important sources of support for young parents and can be used to fund Second Chance Homes. In addition, there are other federal funding sources, such as Child Welfare and Foster Care funds provided to the states, the Independent Living Program, and the Transitional Living Grant Program.
Because Second Chance Homes include housing along with programs and services, there are also several potential sources of funds within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In addition to the Community Development Block Grant, there are the Supportive Housing Program funds and the Emergency Shelter Grants Programs both for homeless individuals. Additionally, properties for Second Chance Homes can be acquired through HUD programs such as the Dollar Homes Program, the Non-Profit Sales Program and under the McKinney Act Title V Program.
Existing estimates of operating costs for Second Chance Homes vary greatly, depending on the structure of the home, the nature of the services provided, and the length of stay for both the mother and her child(ren). Estimates of the cost for a mother and her child range from anywhere between $20,000 to $63,000 per year.(17) Many of the funding sources that are available for the establishment and operation of Second Chance Homes offer some flexibility on how the funds can be used but some restrictions remain, particularly in relation to costs associated with the construction of facilities to house Second Chance Homes and who is served by them.
Under the TANF block grant and other available sources of funding, states have increased flexibility in designing programs to serve teenage parents, and more generally families in need. However, the block grant system has also decentralized programs and information, making it at times more challenging for states to gather information or evaluate their options. The appendix provides more details on the major funding resources that are available through the Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development.
The age and circumstances of teenage mothers who could be in need of a Second Chance Home "slot" present major challenges to service delivery. Indeed, more often than not, minor parents who are not able to live with their parents cannot do so due to violence in the home, physical abuse, or unsafe living conditions. These circumstances suggest that the service needs of some of these mothers are greater than the service needs of other teen mothers. Providing services in a residence requires individualized attention and trained committed staff. The following are some of the challenges to effective service delivery based upon both the characteristics of the service recipients and the nature of the services themselves.
Differing Levels of Need. Part of the intrinsic appeal of Second Chance Homes is the ability to offer tailored services to the individual, with direct knowledge of the services needed. For instance, the primary service needs of some teens may be a stable living environment, education or employment, while others may have multiple needs related to histories of physical and sexual abuse, domestic violence, and long-term poverty. Experiences from Massachusetts suggest that it is best to offer a range of services, with the ability to tailor services to each individual.(18) Given that there is variation in the service needs of teenage mothers, programs either have to be very flexible and comprehensive in nature or there will be both unmet needs and misused resources. It may be more harmful than beneficial to assume that all young mothers need the same core set of services.(19)
Need for Structured Environment. The design of some programs already in existence is quite structured and in many instances restrictive. This stems from a belief among program operators that in order to really help young mothers and enforce behavioral change, they need lots of structure and opportunities to learn all of the skills that are intended to help them improve their parenting and be able to provide for their children.(20) Often this very prescriptive orientation means that nearly every hour is accounted for with participation in some form of activity, leaving little or no free time. As a result, some mothers may be reluctant to stay and forfeit some of their freedoms.
Evidence from Massachusetts indicates that some mothers dropped out due to the severity of the rules and regulations. Some mothers chose not to remain in a Second Chance Home for other reasons: they missed their families; they succumbed to pressure from their boyfriends; or some had persistent drug or alcohol problems that were in violation of house rules, which meant that they could not remain in residence and had to seek treatment (if they chose to) elsewhere. The average length of stay in some of these homes is 6 months, making the provision of long-term services very difficult.(21)
Some homes have experienced success with a service model that begins with a highly structured environment, but offers teens more autonomy and flexibility as they progress through the program. For instance, in the Second Chance Homes in Rhode Island, teens begin by living in a highly structured group home with 24-hour supervision. As they make progress in school and improve their parenting skills, they move into a shared apartment situation with 16-hour supervision. In the last stage of the program, as teens prepare for independent living, they move into individual apartments and a case manager provides guidance and supervision for eight hours each day.(22)
Coordination of Services. Many Second Chance Homes are intended to be comprehensive in nature, necessitating interactions with many different types of agencies. Deciding which agency has overall responsibility for coordinating services for participating teenage parents needs to be done up front, as this influences the overall program orientation and functioning.
Quality of service may be contingent upon program staff. Service delivery and overall program success will likely be contingent upon the individuals who are running the program and delivering services. It takes a tremendous amount of patience and commitment on the part of program staff when dealing with many of the issues that are facing resident teens and their young children. Recruitment, training and retention of staff are issues that need to be given careful consideration.
Need for community support. Many of the characteristics of a model Second Chance Home (committed staff, comprehensive services, highly structured environment) suggest that the program design and service delivery must be highly responsive to the needs of the community, and specifically the young women who are in need. The infrastructure and public support for these homes need to be in place in order for a program to be sustained.
There have been several process analyses of Second Chance Homes describing the service delivery approaches specific to individual programs as well as the number and characteristics of teens served by the programs. Several of these evaluations have provided considerable insight into the needs of young mothers and their children, and have offered good suggestions on what the next direction should be in terms of defining or refining programs serving young mothers and their children. In addition to documenting how programs operate and offering descriptive information about teens and their children, in some cases the studies also include documentation of outcomes (e.g. employment, education or pregnancy) that were measured by the programs.
To date, there is very limited rigorous evaluative information on the effectiveness of Second Chance Homes. Several states or programs have reported successful results in terms of reduced repeat pregnancies (compared with the state average), higher rates of school completion, lower child abuse and neglect, improved maternal and child health, higher participation in employment, and reduced welfare dependency. However, use of these results to make informed policy or program design decisions is limited because: 1) the results have typically been based on self-reported information from participants (not independently verified); 2) the information is based on a very small number of young mothers; and 3) the information reflects only the outcomes of those who stayed with the programs or were able to be tracked after leaving. Further, in almost all cases, there has been no comparable group with which to compare outcomes in order to determine whether the participation in a Second Chance Home made a real difference compared to what would have otherwise happened.
Massachusetts, with perhaps the most established network of Second Chance Homes, operates 21 homes across the state. Data collected by the Department of Transitional Living Programs in Massachusetts indicate that there were fewer pregnancies among teens in Second Chance Homes than the statewide average. While this finding is encouraging, it is descriptive and suffers from the lack of comparison with a comparable group- one with similar circumstances or motivation.
The need for evaluation is being recognized as a key component in new program design. For instance, in one design document for Second Chance Homes, it is suggested that any new program build evaluation activities, such as tracking outcomes of participants, into the everyday operations. In addition to informing program operators and funders of the overall success of the program in achieving the intended outcomes, this kind of process evaluation evidence can be very useful in informing others who are interested in starting or redesigning a Second Chance Home about policy issues and operational lessons.(23) While serving a useful purpose, there are several limitations to this information, however, in terms of assessing program effectiveness.
As more programs seek to conduct rigorous program evaluations, there are several key issues and challenges to consider. These include:
- Program size and capacity. The majority of existing Second Chance Homes are residential in nature, accommodating small numbers of teenage mothers and their children (often 6 or 8 teen mothers at one time). This structure is often conducive to the program setting and service delivery, but it makes any kind of rigorous impact evaluation more difficult due to the smaller sample sizes.
- Measurements. Second Chance Homes offer the opportunity to address a variety of issues that can effect outcomes for both the mother and child. Some of the outcomes are easily quantified, such as the attainment of a high school diploma or GED. Others, such as parenting skills or increased self-esteem, are more difficult to measure and the anticipated impact may not surface for extended periods of time.
- Comparison. A rigorous impact evaluation requires the comparison of two groups that are otherwise comparable except for participation in a Second Chance Home. Ideally, the strongest and most defensible comparison is between two groups that have been selected at random to either receive program services or not. Neither program operators nor researchers would support the denial of services to teens and their children for purely research purposes. However, often where there is more demand for service than capacity to serve, applicants can be randomly selected into the program as space allows. Those not selected can be included in the study to compare outcomes.(24)
Additionally, the nature of the program makes it difficult to definitively answer questions on program effectiveness without the ability to construct a comparison group that takes into account not only socio-demographic characteristics, but also such traits as motivation, willingness to comply with authority, or emotional/mental health status.
- Follow-up and tracking. Many of the key outcomes that Second Chance Homes aim to improve can only be measured after an extended period of time. For instance, while the attainment of a high school diploma could be achieved in a relatively short time frame, there are some program impacts that may not surface for quite some time. Many of the positive outcomes, such as long-term employment, increased subsequent earnings and self-sufficiency, and some of the child development outcomes do not surface immediately. Moreover, measuring program effectiveness is complicated by the difficulty in determining how much of the change in outcome is attributable to the intervention, when the average length of stay is less than one year. Many of the evaluations have collected data on teens who were in the program, but have had more difficulty tracking teens who have left the program.(25)
[ Go to Contents ]
Second Chance Homes can "...provide teenage moms and their babies with an environment that is safe, supportive, and supervised." (26) Second Chance Homes can provide access to child care, education, job training, counseling and parenting instruction helping teen parents to take responsibility for their lives and for their children's futures. Determining how funds can be used for the purposes of establishing a Second Chance Home requires coordination and very clear goals for both the program and the community/setting. It also requires information sharing, technical assistance and guidance, documentation, and attention to evaluation design to ensure that there is accurate and reliable information on program characteristics and outcomes for teens and their children, and, where possible, rigorous evaluation to assess program effectiveness.
[ Go to Contents ]
|Name of Resource||What Aspects of SCH Can These Funds Pay For?||Restrictions on Funding||Who Receives Funds?||Where can I get more information?|
|HHS Sources of Assistance|
|Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant
State Maintenance of Effort Dollars (MOE)
|Planning & operating costs; cash assistance to teens; parenting & life skills classes; child care; job training & placement; counseling; case management; follow-up services. Also, anything that reasonably meets the four broad purposes of TANF. For MOE all of the above.||Cannot be used for facility construction or medical care except family planning; "assistance" such as housing an cash aid can only go to needy teens. For MOE, all funds must be spent on needy families. States define who is needy.||States, in the form of block grants; states decide how funds are spent within context of TANF; plan that must be reviewed and certified by HHS. For MOE, state decides how funds are spent.||State contacts for this funding stream are provided through this site: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/|
|Child Care Development Fund (CCDF)||Child care assistance for low-income families who are working or attending training/education; quality improvement efforts such as grants or training for child care providers.||CCDF cannot be used for construction or major renovation (except for Indian Tribes). Families receiving subsidies must meet income eligibility requirements and have children under age 13 (or age 19 if not capable of self care).||States, Territories, and Indian Tribes in the form of formula block grants.||State contacts for this funding stream are provided through this site: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/|
|Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)||Planning & operating costs; parenting & life skills classes; child care; job training & placement; counseling; case management; follow-up services.||Cannot be used for facility purchase, construction, renovation; medical care except family planning; cash aid; unlicensed child care; drug rehab; public education; room and board; services in hospitals, nursing homes, or prisons.||States, in the form of formula block grants; states must report to HHS on how funds are spent and who is served.||State contacts for this funding stream are provided through this site: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg|
|Child Welfare Services Title IV-B Subpart 1 and 2 Funds||Child welfare services, family preservation and reunification, family support, adoption promotion and support.||All children receiving State or Federal foster care funds must also receive certain protections under Title IV-B.||States and Indian Tribes receive Title IV-B subpart 1 and 2 funds on a formula basis.||www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/|
|Independent Living Program||Room and board (for youth aged 18-21 only); education; life skills training; counseling; case management.||Funds must be spent on youth between the ages of 18 and 21 to assist them in making the transition from foster care to independent living.||States, on a formula basis.||www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/|
|Transitional Living Program for Homeless Youth||Housing, life skills training, interpersonal skills building, education, job training, health care.||Funds can only be used to serve youth aged 16-21 for up to 18 months who are: homeless, including those for whom it is not possible to live in a safe environment with a relative; and who do not have an alternative safe living arrangement.||HHS awards 3-year competitive grants to multi-purpose youth service organizations.||www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/|
|HUD Sources of Assistance|
|Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)||Facility purchase, construction, renovation; planning operating costs; parenting & life skills classes; child care; job training & placement; counseling; case management; follow-up services.||At least 70 percent of funds must benefit low and moderate income families; states and communities must prepare action plan with community input.||States, major cities, urban counties, in the form of formula block grants.||Contact your local HUD office. A listing is available at: www.hud.gov/local.html|
|HUD Supportive Housing Program||Facility purchase, construction, renovation; new or increased services to the homeless; operating expenses; some admin costs.||Funds must be spent on homeless persons only; 25 percent set aside for families with children; 25 percent set aside for disabled; 10 percent set aside for supportive services not provided with housing. Homeless minors may be eligible to receive services under this funding source unless they are considered wards of the state under applicable state law.||HUD awards 3-year, renewable competitive grants to states, tribes, cities, counties, other governmental entities, private non-profits, community mental health associations.||Contact your local HUD office. A listing is available at: www.hud.gov/local.html|
|HUD Emergency Shelter Grants||Facility renovation; operating costs; homelessness prevention; employment, health, drug abuse, education services.||Funds must be spent on the homeless or those at risk of being homeless; only 5 percent of funds can be used for admin costs, and 30 percent for prevention and services. Homeless minors may be eligible to receive services under this funding source unless they are considered wards of the state under applicable state law.||States, major cities, urban counties, in the form of formula grants.||Contact your local HUD office. A listing is available at: www.hud.gov/local.html|
|Rental Assistance Vouchers||In general, the voucher pays the landlord the difference between 30% of a renting family's gross income and the price of the rental unit, up to a local maximum.||Teenage mothers may be eligible for vouchers. However, the voucher program requires that a lease be signed by the renter, and in some states minors may not sign a lease. Individual PHAs determine whether a shared housing facility is an acceptable use for the voucher. The PHA must approve the renter and the unit according to various eligibility criteria.||In order to receive a voucher, a renter must apply to his/her local Public Housing Authority.||Contact your local Public Housing Authority.|
|HUD's Dollar Homes Program||Property acquisition.||Local governments (cities and counties) can purchase HUD owned homes for $1 each, plus closing costs, to create housing for families and communities in need. Local governments can purchase these homes and then convey them to non-profit organizations for use.||www.hud.gov/dollarhomes
Also, the full text of Housing Notice 00-7 ("Implementation of $1 Home Sales to Local Governments Program") can be downloaded at www.hudclips.org (Click on "Housing Notices")
|HUD's Non-Profit Sales Program||Property acquisition.||Direct sales of properties foreclosed by the Federal Housing Authority. Discounts of 30% off the list price are offered if the property is not eligible for FHA insurance and is located in a HUD-designated "revitalization" area. Other properties are offered at 10% discounts off list price (or 15% if five or more properties are purchased and closed in a single transaction). These discounts apply to sales in both restricted and general property listings.||Non-profit organizations can purchase properties at a discount through this program.||www.hud.gov/goodneighbor/ nonprofitsales/|
|Other Sources of Assistance|
|McKinney Act Title V Program||Property acquisition.||Properties are leased without charge for a period of 1 to 20 years, but the entity providing homeless services must pay for operating and repair costs.||Surplus properties can be made available to States, local governments and non-profit organizations for use to assist the homeless. Available properties are listed in the HUD Federal Register notice listing property availability. HHS handles the application portion of the program.||Within HUD: at the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs (202) 708-1234
From HHS: (301) 443-2265
|Military Base Closures||Property acquisition.||When a military base is being closed, a Local Redevelopment Authority is designated to redeploy the assets of the base.||Contact your Local Redevelopment Authority|
[ Go to Contents ]
1. Ventura, S., Martin, J., Curtin, S., Matthews T. and Park, M. (2000). Births: Final Data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports, 48(3). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
2. Haveman, R., Wolfe, B. and Peterson, E. (1997). Children of Early Childbearers as Young Adults. In R. Maynard (Ed.). (1997). Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
3. Ventura, S., Curtin, S., and Matthews, T. (2000b). Variations in Teenage Birth Rates, 1991-1998: National and State Trends. National Vital Statistics Reports, 47(6). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
4. Maynard, R. (Ed.). (1993). Building Self-Sufficiency among Welfare-Dependent Teenage Parents. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
5. Bane, M. and Ellwood, D. (1994). Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Boyer, D. and Fine, D. (1990). Victimization and Other Risk Factors for Child Maltreatment Among School Age Parents: A Longitudinal Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
7. Moore, K., Morrison, D., and Greene, A. (1997). Effects on the Children Born to Adolescent Mothers. In R. Maynard (Ed.). (1997). Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Coley, R. and Chase-Lansdale, P.L. (1998). Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenthood: Recent Evidence and Future Directions. American Psychologist, 53(2), 152-166.
8. Moore, K., Miller, B., Morrison, D., and Glei, D. (1995). Adolescent Sex, Contraception and Childbearing: A Review of Recent Research. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.
Moore, K., Morrison, D., and Greene, A. (1997). Effects on the Children Born to Adolescent Mothers. In R. Maynard (Ed.). (1997). Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Goerge, R. and Lee, B. (1997). Abuse and Neglect of the Children. In R. Maynard (Ed.). (1997). Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
9. Grogger, J. (1997). Incarceration-Related Costs of Early Childbearing. In R. Maynard (Ed.). (1997). Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Haveman, R., Wolfe, B. and Peterson, E. (1997). Children of Early Childbearers as Young Adults. In R. Maynard (Ed.). (1997). Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Bane, M. and Ellwood, D. (1994). Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zill, N., Moore, K., Smith, E., Stief, T., and Coiro, M. (1995). The Life Circumstances and Development of Children in Welfare Families: A Profile Based on National Survey Data. In Chase-Lansdale, P. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). Escape From Poverty: What Makes a Difference for Children? 38-59. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, K., Morrison, D. and Glei, D. (1996). Welfare and Adolescent Sex: The Effects of Family History, Benefit Levels, and Community Context. Journal of Family & Economic Issues, 16(2-3), 207-237.
10. Data collected from the Teen Living Program in the state of Massachusetts indicates that the majority of teens reported having multiple living situations or experiencing periods of homelessness prior to the time they entered a Second Chance Home. See: Sawyer (2000). Teen Living Program Network: FY '99 Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Social Services and the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.
11. Levin-Epstein, J. (1999). Seeking Safe Haven: Two States' Approaches to the Minor Parent TANF Living Arrangement Rule. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
12. Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 (S.208).
13. Most homes will allow teens to stay for two years or longer, but teens do not usually stay that long. Reich, K. and Kelly, L. (2000). A Place to Call Home: Second Chance Homes in Georgia. Washington, DC: Social Policy Action Network.
14. (42 U.S.C. §608 (a)(5)(B)(iii)).
15. Reich, K. and Kelly, L. (2000). A Place to Call Home: Second Chance Homes in Georgia. Washington, DC: Social Policy Action Network.
16. Collins, M., Lane, T., and Stevens, J. (2000). Teen Living Programs: An Analysis of Implementation and Issues in Service Delivery. Boston University School of Social Work: Boston, MA. Paper prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.
17. Sylvester, K. (1999). Second Chance Homes and the TANF Minor Parent Living Arrangements. Washington, DC: Social Policy Action Network.
18. Collins, M. (1998). Evaluation of Programs for Teen Parents and Their Children. Boston University School of Social Work: Boston, MA. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.
19. Collins, M., Lane, T., and Stevens, J. (2000). Teen Living Programs: An Analysis of Implementation and Issues in Service Delivery. Boston University School of Social Work: Boston, MA. Paper prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.
20. Sylvester, K. (1999). Second Chance Homes and the TANF Minor Parent Living Arrangements. Washington, DC: Social Policy Action Network.
21. The average length of stay reflects teens who entered the program and stayed for less than one month as well as teens who remained in residence for a longer term. See Collins et al., (2000).
22. Reich, K. and Kelly, L. (2000). A Place to Call Home: Second Chance Homes in Georgia. Washington, DC: Social Policy Action Network.
23. Reich, K. and Kelly, L. (2000). A Place to Call Home: Second Chance Homes in Georgia. Washington, DC: Social Policy Action Network.
24. Massachusetts currently has a waiting list for most beds, but it took some time to establish the program. Outreach to the teen parent community through the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) teen specialists has helped to increase the awareness of the Second Chance Homes as an acceptable resource for pregnant and parenting teens. See: Sawyer, C. (2000). Teen Living Program Network: FY '99 Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Social Services and the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.
25. One characteristic of young mothers who are in unstable living arrangements is their transience. For instance, in studies of the Independent Living Program, program participants had multiple placements in a very brief time period. See: Westat, Inc. (1991). A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youths. Phase 1: Final Report. Rockville, MD: Author. Also Westat, Inc. (1991). A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs for Youths. Phase 2: Final Report. Rockville, MD: Author. Contract # 105-87-1608. Prepared for DHHS, ACF, ACYF.
26. President Clinton's weekly radio address to the nation. August 12, 2000.