Residential Settings of Young Adults Under AB 12: A Preliminary Investigation

Background and Purpose:Young people transitioning into adulthood from the foster care system often face a unique set of challenges during this time in the life course (Courtney, Dworsky, & Pollack, 2007; Courtney, Lee, & Perez, 2011; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Dworsky, et al, 2013).  These challenges have led to large changes in federal and state legislation.  As of January 1, 2012, young adults in care in California at age 18 are eligible to participate in extended foster care if they follow one of several requirements, including residing in one of five types of residential settings.  While the discussion surrounding these residential settings played a crucial role in the support and passage of the legislation (Mosley & Courtney, 2012), to this point relatively little is known about them. This paper is one of the first to examine the residential settings of non-minor dependents in extended foster care in California.  

Methods: Sixty-one young adults in extended foster care participated in focus groups. Upon completion of the focus group, young adults had the opportunity to participate in a private interview to further discuss any issues of interest to them. Over half (N=35) of the young adults participated in this second phase of research.  Over 80% (N=29) of these interviews took place at the respondent’s residence.  Focus groups and interviews centered on young adults’ experiences in the past year with AB 12.  In particular, participants discussed their experiences under AB 12, the types of places they had resided in, their relationships with caregivers, guardians, and/or caseworkers, and their views on ways to improve their experiences under the law.  Young adults residing in all of the living arrangements available under AB 12 participated in these discussions. 

Results: While youth generally reported satisfaction with AB 12, and their ability to remain in foster care, there were some common challenges among youth. Many youth reported constraints in choosing their residential settings.  Given this, youth often found themselves having to travel great distances to attend school and/or work. Youth also reported numerous financial challenges, including barriers to obtaining adequate funds to get an apartment and the difficulty of balancing their own financial needs with those of financially constrained family and peers. The quality of apartment and neighborhood also varied greatly among the youth in this sample.  Finally, youth struggled to balance the sometimes opposing ideas they had about life as an adult with the financial and residential constraints they faced as young adults in extended foster care.

Conclusions/Implications: Overwhelmingly, young adults remain confident that AB 12 will provide them the chance for a more stable adulthood than leaving care at 18 would afford.  Yet, these young people also paint a very complex picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the living arrangements supported by the law.  Given the centrality of their living situation to their overall well-being, future research should involve further investigation of the residential settings of young adults who remain in the care of the state.