Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Purpose: As previous research has indicated that foster youth struggle in the primary domains of emerging adulthood (i.e., the school to work transition; the move to independent housing; formation of adult relationships; and parenthood), there is growing concern that foster youth need additional assistance during this period. Though these studies are robust in pinpointing difficulties for foster youth, they provide limited insight into the possible causes. Given that foster youth share many characteristics with other youth who struggle during this period, it is unclear whether foster care, existing risk factors, or a combination of the two creates challenges for foster youth. The primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between these factors and the transition to adulthood for foster youth.

Methods: Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, this study compared the transition outcomes of former foster youth (n=158), matched youth (n=619), and non-matched youth in the general population (n=8194). Youth were matched using propensity score methodology, which models the likelihood to be in foster care based on a set of pre-existing characteristics. A logit model was used to create predicted probabilities of being in care based on existing risk factors. These probabilities were used as the propensity scores to match foster and non-foster youth using nearest neighbor propensity score methods. This allows youth with a history of foster care involvement to be compared to youth who share pre-existing risk factors. Once matched youth were identified, bivariate analysis was used to compare foster youth, matched youth, and non-matched youth on educational attainment, public assistance use, employment, homelessness, marriage, and parenthood. Multivariate analysis, using linear and logistic regression, was used to examine factors that predicted transition outcomes for foster and matched youth.

Results: Bivariate and multivariate analysis revealed that foster youth had similar outcomes to matched youth in all domains. Foster youth and matched fared worse than the non-matched youth in almost all transition domains. Significant differences were found between unmatched youth and the other two groups in educational attainment (p<.01), public assistance use (p<.01), unemployment rates (p<.01), homelessness (p<.01), and teen parenthood (p<.01). This suggests that the pre-existing characteristics that put youth at risk for foster care may contribute to their difficulties in emerging adulthood rather than the experience of foster care itself. Multivariate analysis examining only foster and matched youth confirmed that foster care itself did not impact transition outcomes when controlling for other factors. Instead, sociodemographic characteristics, including race, age, gender, poverty level, and educational attainment predicted outcomes.

Implications: These findings are a substantive departure from past research, which suggested that foster youth were falling behind youth in the general population and comparison youth. The results suggest that foster care is not predictive of worse outcomes when comparing foster youth to youth who share their vulnerabilities. These pre-existing risk factors are instead what leads both groups to struggle compared to youth in the general population. Findings from this study are used to provide policy and practice recommendations for foster youth and other vulnerable youth.