Navigating the Housing and Foster Care Systems in Los Angeles County: A Longitudinal Case Study of 24 Transition Age Youth

The foster care system is a significant contributor to youth homelessness, with an estimated one-third of youth experiencing homelessness having a history of foster care system involvement. Despite California's investment to extend foster care benefits up to the age of 21 since 2012, many youth in Los Angeles County continue to struggle with housing stability as they transition into adulthood.

Issue

To help identify the housing needs of foster care transition age youth (TAY), we conducted a year-long study following 24 unstably housed TAY in Los Angeles County. Our research aimed to answer the following three critical questions:

• What proportion of the enrolled TAY achieved stable housing during the study period, and what were the pathways through which housing stability was achieved?
• What key factors facilitated or impeded youth from securing stable housing?
• Did stable housing correlate with improvements in other life domains, including health, well-being, quality of life, employment, income, or service use?

This longitudinal study provides valuable insights into the housing trajectories of TAY and the complex interplay of factors that influence housing stability. By examining the relationship between housing status and various outcomes, we sought to identify the potential benefits of stable housing for this vulnerable population.

Approach

We used a mixed method (i.e., qualitative and quantitative) approach to address the study aims. We recruited a diverse sample of 24 TAY (ages 18–25) who had been involved with the foster care system and were unstably housed in Los Angeles County in 2023. Youth were recruited from drop-in centers, transitional housing or shelter settings, and from the streets and represented the eight Service Planning Area in Los Angeles County. We attempted to interview each participant once a month for up to one year. We obtained a 91 percent interview response rate, with 16 youth completing all 12 interviews, and housing status data for 99 percent of the person-months across the study period.

Key Findings

By the conclusion of the study, most youth participants had secured shelter, with only one individual who remained unsheltered. This represents a significant improvement in immediate housing stability for the cohort.

One-half of the sample obtained their own long-term accommodations by the end of the study period. However, many of these placements came with the following limitations:

• Such housing was specifically designated for youth ages 18–24.
• There were time limits to their stays (up to two years).

These restrictions suggest that a considerable portion of the youth may face another housing crisis in the near future when they age out of their current accommodations or reach the time limits of their housing.

Despite progress, significant housing insecurity persists:

• One-third of the participants still resided in temporary accommodations, which put them at risk for future homelessness.
• Youth required assistance to secure long-term housing, which indicates a need for continued supportive services for unstably housed TAY.
• On average, participants moved 15 times over the course of the year-long study, which demonstrates the lack of residential permanency of this group. The number of moves decreased for youth who were stably housed in their own long-term housing unit.
• Our analysis revealed that being sheltered relative to being unsheltered was associated with reduced depressive symptoms, reduced days of binge drinking, hallucinogen and illegal substance use, and increases in having government-issued identification and other legal documentation. We also found similar evidence when participants were stably housed. Moreover, stable housing was associated with improved quality of life, reduced health care, public assistance, and probation service use.
• Further research with larger, more-diverse samples over longer time frames may be necessary to fully understand the factors that influence youth housing stability. In general, youth with foster care involvement are at extreme risk of experiencing homelessness even with the additional benefits granted more than a decade ago to foster youth up to the age of 21.

Recommendations

These findings can help to shape more-effective interventions and support systems for foster youth as they age out of care and seek to establish stable, independent lives. Specifically, our research findings point to several policy recommendations:

• Continue to provide and improve case management and wraparound services—including housing navigation, connections to health care, work and school or job training engagement strategies—to TAY with foster care involvement. In our study, TAY who found long-term housing were connected to the housing resource through support from various service providers to people experiencing homelessness across Los Angeles County.
  • Youth who stay engaged in the foster care system may experience significant financial benefits that may help them become stably housed.
  • Case management and other services may need to be tailored to accommodate the highly mobile nature of this group. That is, service receipt should not be dependent on geography.
• Many TAY with foster care involvement have children; therefore, appropriate supports should include parental supports and family housing options.
• Most unstably housed TAY with foster care involvement reported having a serious mental health disorder, which suggests that the provision of ongoing mental health supports with the housing options is needed.
• Provide support to TAY with foster care involvement beyond age 24. Many of these youth need additional support beyond this age.
  • Streamline the transition from the Youth and Adult Coordinated Entry systems to reduce barriers for youth who are unstably housed when they turn the age of 25.
  • At the time of this report, only one TAY service provider in Los Angeles County had expanded services up to the age of 30 in response to the need for support for this population beyond the common end date of 24 years of age.
• Incentivize housing developers through a combination of financial incentives and regulatory relief to create more low-cost housing in transit-friendly urban cores with integrated supportive services to serve this population and other low-income populations.
  • For example, during our study, four participants were placed in a new multifamily affordable housing apartment complex with comprehensive case management on-site within the urban core of the City of Lancaster. This housing has access to public transportation, schools, grocery stores, health clinics, and pharmacies. It is unclear whether these participants would have found stable housing otherwise.
• Increase supports for families in extreme poverty. Housing stability is linked to increased risk of child neglect and abuse. Moreover, as of 2024, the number of people transitioning into homelessness exceeded the number of people transitioning out of homelessness. Therefore, preventing involvement in the foster care system altogether may be one of the best ways to address homelessness among this population. Family supports could take the following forms:
  • housing vouchers and subsidized housing options
  • earned income tax credits to families
  • eviction prevention services (e.g., emergency rental assistance, free tenant legal services)
  • cash disbursements to lower-income households.