Prevalence and Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence Among Youth with Foster Care Histories

Background and Purpose: A small but growing body of research suggests that adolescents and young adults involved with the child welfare system and those transitioning out of foster care are at heightened risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). Understanding youths’ experience with IPV and the factors that predict IPV are central to prevention and treatment of this public health problem. However, few studies have examined the prevalence and correlates of IPV among youth in foster care (Katz et al., 2020). Further, previous work has shown the importance of including non-physical forms of IPV (e.g., psychological abuse) to IPV measures (Charles et al., 2007). This study aimed to address these gaps in research.

Methods: The sample includes 600 youths who completed the Wave 1 and Wave 3 interviews of the CalYOUTH Study and had no missing relationship status data. The outcome variable (Wave 3) is a six-category IPV measure: not in a relationship, in a relationship without IPV, victimization only, perpetration only, bidirectional (victimization and perpetration), and emotional abuse/coercion/control. Youth-level predictors (Wave 1) and state child welfare administrative data captured demographic characteristics, IPV of biological parent/caregiver before entering care, behavioral health disorders, foster care and maltreatment history, and other risk and protective factors. We used multinomial logistic regression to predict youths’ IPV status, with “in a non-IPV relationship” designated as the reference category.

Results: More than half (56%) of all participants were in a relationship at age 21, and of those, nearly two-fifths (36%) reported experiencing any IPV, with emotional abuse/coercion/control (6.8%) and bidirectional IPV (6.4%) being the most commonly reported types. Females were less likely than males to report victimization (relative risk ratio [RRR] = .22, p<.05). Multiracial and Hispanic youth were significantly more likely than white youth (p<.01) to report victimization and emotional abuse/coercion/control. Sexual minority youth (SMY) were at greater risk than their non-SMY peers for experiencing victimization (RRR = 3.55, p<.05), perpetration (RRR=9.40, p<.001), and bidirectional IPV (RRR=3.92, p<.01). Youth whose caregiver had experienced victimization were more likely to experience victimization in their own relationship (RRR=8.84, p<.01). Aspects of youths’ foster care history also significantly (p<.05) predicted IPV risk including emotional abuse, greater foster care placement instability, and sexual abuse while in care. Finally, youth with anxiety and alcohol/substance use disorders each increased the risk of certain types of IPV.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings contribute to the growing research on IPV among transition-age foster youth by documenting the high prevalence of IPV and the common experience of psychological abuse and bidirectional violence. Another important contribution is the finding that self-identified sexual-minority youth are more likely than non-SMY to experience multiple forms of IPV, calling for child welfare administrators and practitioners to implement protective provisions. The findings also point to the risk of intergenerational transmission of victimization among youth who had caregivers who were also victims, reflecting the enduring effects of violence across generations. Future research is needed to further examine how aspects of emancipation and foster care history may protect or increase exposure to IPV.