Placement Mobility for Nonminor Dependents in Extended Foster Care

Background and Purpose: Placement stability is tied to wellbeing among children living in foster care, yet placement stability remains largely unexplored for nonminor dependents (NMDs). The federal Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2008 allows states to provide extended foster care (EFC) for NMDs (between ages 18 and 21). Placement mobility among NMDs differs from minors from a developmental and legal perspective. This gap in knowledge has significant implications for policy and practice, as current policies may not be adequately tailored to meet the unique needs of this population. To fill this gap in knowledge, the current study represents the first comprehensive examination of factors associated with placement mobility in a statewide population of NMDs.

Methods: Using California administrative Child Protective Services records, we identified NMDs who lived in care for at least one week and who turned age 18 between 2016 and 2019 (n=11,820). The outcome variable measures the number of placement moves per year. The independent variables include sociodemographic factors (race/ethnicity, assigned sex) and characteristics of foster care placement both as minors (primary placement type, time spent in care, absence from care, a history of group home care; all before age 18) and as nonminors (primary placement type, length of time spent in care; all after age 18). Negative binomial regression (suited for the outcome of a count variable in a skewed distribution) evaluated the association between foster care placement characteristics and per-year placement moves as NMDs. We report results using incident rate ratios (IRRs).

Results: NMDs experienced a total of 1.67 moves, on average, over the study period, with an average rate of 0.97 moves per year. Supervised Independent Living Placements (SILPs) and Transitional Housing Placements (THPs) were the most common primary placement type for NMDs (38.1% and 23.4%, respectively). The average length of time NMDs stayed in EFC was nearly two years (720.5 days), which varied by placement type. On average, placement settings that NMDs stayed in for the longest period were SILPs (309.3 days) and THPs (180.2 days), whereas placement settings NMDs stayed in for the shortest period were Foster Family Homes (17.7 days) and non-foster care residences (15.3 days). Regression results show that two placement characteristics as minors—absence from care and a history of group home care—were significantly associated with increased EFC mobility (IRR=2.46 and IRR=1.91, respectively; all p<.001). Additionally, placement type as NMDs was associated with EFC mobility, with those living in SILPs being more likely than those living in THPs to experience higher placement mobility (IRR=1.15; p<.001).

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that placements for NMDs tend to be long-lasting and relatively stable in California. However, some placement characteristics during childhood/adolescence were associated with increased placement moves as NMDs. Results indicated that while placement moves may be purposive (e.g., moving for a job or education), placement mobility may also signal continued placement instability in early adulthood. This knowledge can inform the development of policies and practices by policymakers and child welfare agencies that are aimed at improving outcomes for NMDs.