A Social Ecological Model of Family Constellations of Pre-Adolescent and Adolescent Foster Youth

Background and Purpose: Research has documented the importance of a network of caregiving and familial relationships contributing to foster youth wellbeing (Cushing, Samuels, & Kerman, 2014; Perry, 2006). Few child welfare studies, however, have described the social ecology of adults, relatives, siblings, and others involved in the lives of foster youth, or foster youth perspectives of these individuals. This study took a person-oriented approach to (a) analyze foster youth perceptions of their social connections to (b) develop meaningful network profiles of the constellations of adults surrounding foster youth.

Methods: Quantitative data were gathered over 2011-2013 from a metropolitan Oregon sample of 279 foster youth aged 7-15 living in a family setting. The Essential Youth Experiences instrument (McBeath et al., 2010) captured youth perceptions of the presence, contact frequency, and relationship quality with biological parents and foster caregivers. Youth also reported on the other adults and children in their residence as well as relatives they were in contact with, and indicated how well they were doing in various domains. Caregivers completed the CBCL (Achenbach, 1991) and Parents Report of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms (PROPS; Greenwald & Rubin, 1999). Cluster analysis was used to classify cases according to the social constellations surrounding youth, including network size (household members and contact with relatives), composition (foster or biological family), and relationship characteristics. Youth outcomes were analyzed by cluster assignment.

Results: Five distinct subgroups of youth with unique socio-ecological profiles emerged. In the “Living with Kin” cluster (n=48), youth generally lived with two relative caregivers and multiple related youth. Study youth reported regular contact with most relatives, and had high-quality relationships with their biological mothers, but very low relationship quality and/or no contact with their biological fathers. Youth in the “Parent and Family Support” cluster (n=64) were generally not placed with family members, but reported excellent relationships with both parents and were in regular contact with some relatives. Youth in the “Family Support Only” cluster (n=54) had regular contact with many relatives, but were not likely to be in relative care and reported very low quality relationships and/or no contact with both parents. Youth in the “Mostly Mom” cluster (n=69) were least likely to be in relative care, had the least contact with relatives, reported very good relationships with their mothers, and poor/absent relationships with their fathers. Conversely, youth in the “Mostly Dad” cluster (n=44) generally reported good relationships with their father and poor or absent relationships with their mothers, and visited relatives regularly although they were not likely to be living with family. Profiles were validated using cluster assignment, with statistically significant group differences found in relation to CBCL and PROPS scores.

Conclusion and Implications: Child welfare systems are required to ensure that foster youth have safe, healthy, and durable social relationships. Describing the social-ecological context of foster youth may help child welfare researchers and practitioners better understand the social resources available (or unavailable) to youth. Further research is needed to evaluate the permanency and wellbeing consequences of different socio-ecological memberships.