Living Situations and Social Support in the Era of Extended Foster Care

Background and Purpose:

The Fostering Connections Act of 2008 is intended to promote positive transitions to adulthood of foster youth by decreasing vulnerability to experiencing adverse life events and providing resources to build human capital. Previous research has shown that social support is a protective factor by enhancing resiliency and decreasing youths’ likelihood of experiencing housing instability (Collins, Spencer, & Ward, 2010; Curry & Abrams, 2015). However, little is known about differences in social support among youths in foster care as they transition to adulthood, especially in terms of variation in support between in-care and out-of-care youth and across foster care placement types. The current analysis examines how types and sources of social support vary by extended care status and by living arrangements among youth in extended care.

Methods:

This study draws on CalYOUTH interview data collected when participants were 17 and 19 years old. The sample included 611 youths who participated in both interview waves (81% of baseline sample). At wave 2, 477 youth (78%) were still in care while 134 (22%) had exited care. Information on youths’ perceived adequacy of three types of social support (emotional, tangible, and informational) and sources of support (family, peers, and professionals) were gathered using the Social Support Network Questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used to examine differences in social support by care status and by foster care placement type after controlling for youths’ demographic characteristics and baseline measures of social support, relationships with biological family, and psychiatric disorders.

Results: 

Among participants in care at age 17, youths in relative foster care were more likely than youths in therapeutic settings and nonrelative foster care to report adequate tangible support, while youths in congregate care were less likely than those in family and family-like settings to report having adequate emotional support. Among those in care at age 19, youths in nonrelative foster care were less likely than youths in transitional housing placements to have enough people to turn to for emotional support (OR≈.4). When compared to youths in therapeutic foster care homes, youths in supervised independent living placements (OR≈3.2) and nonrelative foster homes (OR≈4.2) were significantly more likely to nominate a peer as a support figure. At age 19, in-care youths were more likely than out-of-care youths to have adequate tangible support (OR≈1.9), to have enough people to turn to for advice (OR≈2.0), and to have nominated a professional as a support figure (OR≈4.8).

Conclusions: 

The analyses suggest that types and perceived adequacy of social support are associated with different living situations. Also, allowing youth to remain in extended care connects them or allows them to remain connected with professionals who provide them with tangible support and guidance, particularly in placements serving youth perceived to need more adult care and supervision. Further research is needed to understand the nature of the relationship between extended care and support from professionals and to identify programs or practices within the care system that can strengthen young people’s social support.