Distinct Subgroups of Former Foster Youth During Young Adulthood: Implications for Policy and Practice

Background and Purpose: The Fostering Connections Act imposes responsibilities on states and young people in order for states to receive reimbursement; youth who do not or cannot participate in the employment and/or education activities required for eligibility, and who do not meet criteria for a “medical condition,” will not be eligible to remain in care past age 18. Information on the characteristics and needs of former foster youth making the transition to adulthood is needed to assist states as they decide whether and how to implement the law's older youth provisions. To help inform this process, this study used information provided by young people participating in the Midwest Study to identify distinct subgroups of young adults making the transition to adulthood.

Method: We used Latent Class Analysis (LCA) (Goodman, 1974; McCutcheon, 1987) to identify subgroups of former foster youth participating in the Midwest Study (n = 584; 92% of those interviewed at age 23-24 and 80% of the baseline sample). Our analysis generated distinctive multi-dimensional profiles based on selected indicators of factors with theoretical relevance to the transition to adulthood for foster youth: living arrangement; education; employment; resident and non-resident children; and crime.

Findings: A four-class model best fit the data. Class 1, the largest group (n = 222; 36.3% of the sample), we refer to as Accelerated Adults because it appears most likely as a group to have successfully made key transitions (e.g., living independently, beginning to raise children; completing their secondary education) during early adulthood and is the group most likely to report feeling the need to “grow up” faster than its peers. Class 2, making up about one-quarter of the Midwest Study population at age 23 or 24 (n = 147; 25.2% of the sample), we refer to as Struggling Parents; their experience is dominated by their parenting, generally under very difficult circumstances. Class 3, making up about one-fifth of the former foster youth (n = 123; 21.1% of the sample), we refer to as Emerging Adults because this group most clearly exhibits the characteristics of the young people about whom the developmental scholar Jeffrey Arnett (2000) coined the term; they are delaying some transition markers (e.g., living on their own; finishing school; having children) while generally avoiding hardship and are less likely than their peers to see themselves as growing up fast or taking on adult responsibilities. Class 4, making up a bit less than one-fifth of the Midwest Study population at 23 or 24 (n = 102; 17.5% of the sample), we refer to as Troubled and Troubling because it exhibits a wide range of psychosocial problems and poses challenges to the broader community.

Implications: While some foster youth making the transition to adulthood are doing reasonably well and are likely to fare well in foster care past age 18, other may fall through cracks in current policy. States will need flexibility in federal regulation under Fostering Connections in order to support young struggling parents and youth with significant psychosocial barriers to employment and education.