Distinct Subgroups of Care-Experienced Youth and Their Outcomes in Early Adulthood: Results from a Latent Class Analysis

Background and Purpose: Person-centered approaches such as latent class analysis (LCA) can identify practice-relevant subgroups of people that elude variable-centered approaches (Weller et al., 2020). For example, Keller et al. (2007) analyzed data from the Midwest Study to identify four distinct subgroups of youth in foster care based on their foster care history, educational experiences, and other characteristics. The four groups differed in their experiences with foster care, education, social support, and behavioral health at age 17. Despite the potential of LCAs, the research on youth in care infrequently used the approach. This study identifies latent subgroups of CalYOUTH participants and assesses whether they differ in age-21 outcomes.

Methods: The sample includes 727 CalYOUTH participants. Informed by Keller et al. (2007), we used LCA to identify latent subgroups based on several age-17 indicators: current employment, grade retention, parental status, problem behavior (expelled or incarcerated), current placement type, placement instability, runaway history, and age entered care. Statistical indices (e.g., BIC, Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio test) and interpretability informed the class selection. Validation analyses were conducted to assess whether the classes differed in other substantively important age-17 characteristics. Finally, regression analyses assessed whether the latent classes significantly differed (p<.05) in several age-21 outcomes.

Results: LCA results indicated that a 3-class solution best fit the data and had good interpretability. Class 1 (33% of the sample) included youth who entered care at an early age, had more than one foster care episode, tended to live with kin or foster parents, and were roughly average in other indicators. Class 2 (21%) included youth who entered care as adolescents, were often placed in congregate care, and were high in placement instability and problem behaviors. Class 3 (46%) included youth who entered care in adolescence, were mostly placed in homes with kin or foster parents, and were lowest in placement instability, grade repetition, and problem behaviors. Validation analyses found that Class 2 tended to be lowest in emotional stability, had more negative views of foster care and caseworkers, and had higher rates of sexual abuse experience and behavioral health problems. Most outcome differences emerged between Classes 2 and 3, with Class 2 experiencing higher rates of homelessness, mental health issues, arrest, and parenthood, and lower levels of secondary and postsecondary education success, social support, and physical health.

Conclusions and Implications: Our results identified subgroups of youth with distinct profiles in terms of their involvement with foster care, school difficulties, parental status, and incarceration history. Nearly half of the youth (Class 3) had the most positive experiences in foster care at age 17 and tended to fare well in outcomes at age 21. The other two groups, particularly Class 2 (about one-fifth of the youth), had less favorable foster care experiences and had the most challenging transition to early adulthood. Findings highlight the importance of identifying distinct groups of youth so that they can be met with supports that differ in intensity and focus (e.g., mental health for Class 2) to promote better outcomes.