Nowhere to Belong: Exploring LGBTQ+ Youth Experiences in Group Homes and Congregate Placements

Abstract

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more (LGBTQ+) youth are overrepresented in foster care and are more vulnerable to placement instability, rejection, and harm. This qualitative phenomenological study examined the lived experiences of 18 LGBTQ+ foster care alumni who had spent at least 1 year in congregate care or group home placements. Participants were recruited through foster care alumni associations and advocacy networks using purposive and snowball sampling methods. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to identify core patterns across participant narratives. The study reveals patterns of rejection of LGBTQ+ identities, emotional isolation, and systemic neglect in congregate care and group home placements. Participants shared insightful narratives that describe the ways in which congregate care placements often occur in the aftermath of family rejection and placement disruption, and how these environments served to reinforce internalized narratives in which youth feel unworthy of love and unfit for family. The overwhelming experience was one of emotional isolation, heightened surveillance, and inadequate efforts to establish permanency. Findings underscore the need for child welfare agencies and policymakers to reduce the system’s reliance on congregate care and to expand affirming, family-based placements that promote safety, connection, and belonging for LGBTQ+ youth.

Keywords

LGBTQIA+LGBTQ issues subjects of practice trauma abuse/neglect/violence foster care child welfare

Background

Overrepresentation and Disparities

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and more (LGBTQ+) youth are significantly overrepresented in the foster care system. In their seminal study exploring the representation of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care, found that 30.4% of youth in care identified as LGBTQ+. This finding suggests that LGBTQ+ youth are nearly three times higher than the general adolescent population (11.2%). This overrepresentation is not only a numerical one. While overrepresentation refers to the disproportionately high number of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care compared to their prevalence in the general population, disparities describe the unequal experiences and outcomes these youth face once in care, including higher rates of rejection, instability, and victimization. The overrepresentation of LGBTQ+ youth is accompanied by deeper disparities in experience and outcomes in nearly all aspects of the foster care experience. LGBTQ+ youth in care are more vulnerable to harassment, rejection, victimization, depression, and placement disruption when compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts (Baams et al., 2019; McCormick et al., 2016; The Trevor Project, 2022).

These risks are further compounded for youth with intersecting marginalized identities. African American and American Indian LGBTQ+ youth, in particular, face disproportionately high levels of system involvement and worse outcomes across nearly all indicators (Bermea et al., 2018; Gutierrez, 2024).

Family Rejection and Systemic Shortcomings

The reasons that LGBTQ+ youth come into contact with and enter the foster care system are often linked closely to how they are treated around their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ryan et al. (2009), in their seminal study on the relationship between family acceptance and mental and behavioral health outcomes, found that family rejection of LGBTQ+ youth significantly increases the risk of homelessness, mental health distress, and later system involvement. Yet, rather than providing affirmation and authenticity to youth, many placements reinforce experiences of rejection and hostility. Foster caregivers and child welfare staff often lack the basic competence and cultural humility needed to provide affirming care to LGBTQ+ youth (Wilber et al., 2006), and even professionals with affirming attitudes are provided little preparation to meet these youths’ needs, especially when it comes to navigating issues related to gender identity, trauma, and healthy relationships (Salazar et al., 2023).

Disproportionate Placement in Congregate Care

There is a strong reliance on placing LGBTQ+ youth in congregate and group home settings. While congregate care and group home placements make up only 14% of the total percentage of placements for youth in care, that number is more than twice as high for LGBTQ+ youth (Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). A recent study found that 13.2% of all youth in congregate care settings had LGBTQ+ identities, a stark overrepresentation considering their proportion of the general foster care population (Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). The pattern of over-reliance on group home and congregate care placements is especially alarming given that these placements are largely considered to be much more restrictive and punitive and much less relational and developmentally supportive than more family-based placement settings such as kinship and foster family homes (Ryan et al., 2009; Wilson & Kastanis, 2015; Yang et al., 2021).

The pathway into group homes for LGBTQ+ youth is often paved by numerous placement disruptions, behavioral labels, or being deemed “difficult to place.” These labels are disproportionately used with LGBTQ+ youth, and these congregate placements often lead to even further disconnection, emotional dysregulation, and disruptions in a youth’s identity development (Bermea et al., 2018; Brandon-Friedman & Fortenberry, 2019).

Harm Within Institutional Placements

Previous qualitative studies offer some insight into the impact that more institutional and restrictive placements such as group homes can have on LGBTQ+ youth. Bermea et al. (2018), in their study, found that staff in more residential settings are more likely to pathologize same-sex relationships, miss indicators and warning signs of dating violence in queer relationships, and minimize the emotional significance that these relationships have on youth. Brandon-Friedman and Fortenberry (2019) highlighted that sexual minority youth (SMY) in care report lower sexual autonomy, higher victimization, and more frequent engagement in survival strategies, such as transactional sex, than their heterosexual peers.

These studies provide further evidence of the ways that institutional and congregate care settings both fail to affirm the identities of youth and keep them safe and also how they compound the experiences of trauma, rejection, and instability (Bermea et al., 2018; Brandon-Friedman & Fortenberry, 2019; Ryan et al., 2009). This leaves youth to internalize the messages that they are unfit for a family, undeserving of connection, and unworthy of permanency, all messages that echo the messages of past experiences (McCormick et al., 2016; Salazar et al., 2023).

The Foster Care-to-Prison Pipeline

The “foster care-to-prison pipeline” exemplifies the structural overlap between child welfare and the criminal legal system. Seventeen percent of individuals in state and federal prison report a history of foster care (Janczewski et al., 2025; Yi & Wildeman, 2018). National studies show that as many as 25% to 35% of youth formerly in foster care experience incarceration by age 26, and over 60% report at least one arrest or juvenile justice contact before adulthood (Courtney et al., 2011; Summersett Williams et al., 2019). Rates of high-risk behaviors are similarly elevated, with foster youth reporting higher incidences of substance use, running away, and survival behaviors such as transactional sex compared to their nonsystem-involved peers (Brandon-Friedman & Fortenberry, 2019; Franchino-Olsen, 2021). Placement in congregate care increases these risks due to higher surveillance, behavioral criminalization, and trauma responses being misinterpreted as delinquency (Yang et al., 2021).

For LGBTQ+ youth, these risks are intensified. They are overrepresented in both foster care and juvenile justice systems and are frequently criminalized for survival behaviors such as running away, truancy, or engaging in sex work to meet basic needs (Simmons-Horton, 2021). These systemic failures reflect not only a lack of protective structures but also a profound absence of belonging and care.

Rationale for the Study

While existing research demonstrates the disproportionate overrepresentation of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care and highlights some of the systemic barriers that they encounter, much less attention has examined the ways that these disparities manifest in specific placement settings such as congregate care and group homes. LGBTQ+ youth are much more likely to be placed in congregate care settings, placements that often occur in the wake of disruptions in more family-based placements where experiences of rejection are common (McCormick et al., 2016; Salazar et al., 2023). Yet the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ youth who are placed in group homes remain unexplored in the child welfare literature.

Congregate care placements are largely considered to be the most restrictive and least desirable of all placement options for youth in foster care. While some research notes that these settings can provide short-term safety, structure, and access to therapeutic services for youth with acute needs (Leathers et al., 2019), studies consistently show that long-term reliance on congregate care is associated with poorer developmental, relational, and permanency outcomes—especially for LGBTQ+ youth (Bermea et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2021). Research on the experiences of youth placed in congregate care settings suggests that they can exacerbate trauma, reinforce patterns of isolation, and enhance a youth’s risk for involvement in the criminal legal and juvenile justice systems (Ryan et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2021). For many LGBTQ+ youth who already carry the emotional wounds of rejection and invisibility, being placed in group homes can often feel like a confirmation of earlier constructed narratives that they don’t belong in a family. Furthermore, these more restrictive and punitive environments can limit identity development, expose youth to increased forms of surveillance and restriction, and deprioritize meaningful plans for permanency. This study is guided by an ecological and trauma-informed framework, recognizing that the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in congregate care are shaped by interactions across individual, relational, and systemic levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Perry & Szalavitz, 2017).

A growing body of research indicates that, compared with family-based care, congregate settings are linked to higher placement disruption and surveillance, behavioral criminalization, weaker relational permanence, and poorer developmental and mental health outcomes for adolescents, with LGBTQ+ youth experiencing added identity-based harms (Bermea et al., 2018; Brandon-Friedman & Fortenberry, 2019; Ryan et al., 2009; Summersett Williams et al., 2019; Wilson & Kastanis, 2015; Yang et al., 2021). Accordingly, this study addresses the problem of how LGBTQ+ foster care alumni who spent substantial time in congregate care describe safety, connection, belonging, and pathways to permanency within these placements.

This study aims to fill a sizable gap in the literature by centering the voices of LGBTQ+ foster care alumni who spent a substantial amount of time in congregate care. Through an examination of the ways that youth experience safety, connection, and belonging within congregate care and group home placements, the study seeks to deepen our understanding of how experiences of systemic neglect and identity-based harm converge in these settings. The findings can offer critical insights into both policy and practice. The voices of LGBTQ+ youth with lived experiences in congregate care can offer insights into pathways that can reduce the system’s reliance on congregate care, improve the placement decisions for LGBTQ+ youth, and promote affirming, trauma-informed alternatives. Accordingly, this study sought to explore how LGBTQ+ foster care alumni who spent substantial time in congregate or group home placements experienced safety, connection, belonging, and pathways to permanency within these settings.

Study Methods

Participants and Recruitment

This qualitative phenomenological study was conducted in 2020 and 2021 in the United States. A total of 18 LGBTQ+ young adults were recruited to participate. To meet participation eligibility, participants were required to have spent at least 1 year of their foster care placement in a group home or congregate care setting. Congregate care was defined as any residential placement where five or more youth were housed simultaneously. Inclusion criteria required participants to (a) identify as LGBTQ+, (b) be between the ages of 18 and 29 at the time of the interview, and (c) have experienced at least one full year in a congregate or group home placement while in foster care. Individuals were excluded if they had never lived in a congregate care setting, were under 18, or were unable to provide informed consent. Recruitment was completed in partnership with several foster care alumni chapters, foster care advocacy groups, and youth-led organizations serving aged-out foster youth across the United States.

Both purposive and snowball sampling techniques were utilized to recruit a diverse and representative sample. Recruitment materials included flyers with study information that were emailed to members of alumni networks and shared on numerous social media platforms. Interested individuals were asked to complete a short screening questionnaire to verify that they met all study eligibility requirements. The study was reviewed and approved by the lead researcher’s Institutional Review Board (Approval Code #0000075), and all participants were provided informed consent to participate.

A final sample included 18 study participants. All participants reported having an LGBTQ+ identity, with a diverse range of sexual orientations and gender identities represented throughout the sample. The study sample was geographically diverse, with participants representing multiple regions of the United States. Half of the study’s participants were from the state of Texas.

Data Collection

The study’s lead researcher conducted each of the 18 interviews over the Zoom platform. Interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes in duration. Interviews used a semi-structured format that allowed for consistency across participants while also providing a level of flexibility to identify and pursue topics that emerged in the discussion. Interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of participants and were immediately transcribed verbatim for data analysis. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and were ensured that all identifying information would be immediately removed from the data as the first step in transcription.

Instrumentation

The interview protocol constructed for this study aimed to explore participant experiences across a range of domains. These domains included youth entry into congregate care, experiences of rejection and acceptance, dynamics related to placement experiences, and the participant’s perceptions of safety and connection. The development of the protocol was largely informed by existing literature on the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care, trauma-informed care, and knowledge about congregate care settings. In addition, feedback from adult alumni of foster care, some with LGBTQ+ identities, was sought out to help inform the interview protocol.

The following core questions guided the interviews:

Can you explain your journey through foster care and how you best understand your initial placement in a group home or congregate care setting? What is your understanding of the rationale that was used for your placement in congregate care?

If possible, can you speak to any of your experiences related to rejection before entering congregate care? How about while you were in congregate care placements?

Can you discuss what living in a group home or congregate care setting was like for you? How did you experience being there as an LGBTQ+ young person?

How did you interpret or make sense of being in congregate care as opposed to being placed in a traditional family placement?

What were your relationships like with staff and peers? Did you feel safe? Connected? Seen? Heard?

What happened after your last placement in congregate care?

How did you understand and interpret permanency during and after your group home experience? Did you feel it was possible and prioritized?

Looking back, what support, if any, do you think would have made the biggest difference for you?

What, if anything, would you want professionals, caregivers, or policymakers to know about the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in group settings?

Follow-up probes were used to seek out specific examples and explore emotional and relational dynamics of participant experiences. The guide was pilot-tested with two foster care alumni prior to the full data collection, allowing for a few minor revisions to improve clarity and flow.

Data Analysis

Interview transcripts were immediately uploaded into a qualitative analysis software program to better support the organization and coding of data. An inductive thematic analysis was used, following the six-phase approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), to analyze the data. The process began with the lead researcher conducting multiple readings of each data transcript to develop a level of familiarity with the data. A combination of inductive and deductive strategies was then implemented to generate initial codes that reflected both the structure of the interview guide and patterns that emerged organically from participant narratives.

The researchers maintained analytic memos and routinely revisited the coding decisions to ensure consistency and reflexivity and to enhance the rigor and validity of the study’s data. Validation strategies followed established qualitative rigor criteria for credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Nowell et al., 2017) and included member checking with a subset of participants to confirm the accuracy of interpretations, peer debriefing with colleagues familiar with foster care and LGBTQ+ research, maintaining an audit trail of analytic decisions, and achieving thematic saturation once no new patterns emerged across interviews.

The lead researcher maintained a reflexive journal throughout data collection and analysis to acknowledge potential biases and the influence of professional experience in child welfare. Variations in participant age and gender identity were examined during coding to ensure diverse perspectives were represented, and thematic saturation was determined once no new themes emerged across interviews.

Characteristics of the Sample

Eighteen LGBTQ+ young adults participated in this study. All participants had been placed in at least one congregate care or group home setting during their time in foster care as a child. Participants represented multiple geographic regions of the United States. The study sample’s racial and ethnic composition consisted of seven participants who identified as White, six as Black or African American, and five as Hispanic/Latinx. Participant ages ranged from the youngest participant, who was 19 years old, to the oldest, who was 27. The majority of participants aged out of care between the ages of 18 and 21 years.

All study participants reported having an LGBTQ+ identity, with a diverse range of identities across sexual orientation and gender identity. This included individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, nonbinary, and queer. Recruitment efforts prioritized the inclusion of voices that are often underrepresented in child welfare research, and the sample reflected a diverse range of experiences, regions, and placement types.

Participants reported extensive placement histories during their time in foster care. On average, youth experienced 6.35 different placements while in foster care. One participant was placed in 13 different placements, 9 of those placements being in group homes, congregate care, and shelter-based settings. Nearly half of the study’s sample shared that they spent over half of their entire duration in foster care placed in group homes or other congregate care settings and often cycled through multiple institutions over the course of their foster care experience. These patterns provide important context for understanding participants’ reflections on safety, connection, and permanence within institutional settings.

Results

Theme 1: From Rejection to Restriction: Pathways into Foster and Congregate Care

This theme encompasses two interrelated subthemes that trace participants’ journeys from early family rejection to the systemic processes that led to their placement in congregate care. Together, these subthemes reveal how identity-based rejection and placement breakdowns created a pathway from instability to institutionalization.

Across interviews, participants described multi-layered journeys into congregate care, journeys often shaped by early family rejection, a lack of stable or affirming placements, and perceptions of being “too difficult to place.” While not every participant linked their identity directly to their entry into care, most described a progression in which their LGBTQ+ identity was met with hostility or indifference at home, followed by increasing placement instability and ultimately institutionalization.

Subtheme 1.1: Family Rejection and System Entry

The majority of participants attributed their entry into foster care at least in part to their family’s rejection or inability to support their LGBTQ+ identity. Several were explicitly kicked out of their homes after coming out, while others described running away, being emotionally neglected, or missing school due to housing instability. All participant names used in quotations are pseudonyms assigned to protect confidentiality and reflect the diversity of gender and cultural identities within the sample. Jade shared, “I had been couch surfing for months after my mom found out I was trans. Eventually, school caught on and that’s how CPS got involved.”

Notably, a smaller group of participants reported that their initial entry into care was unrelated to their identity, citing issues like parental substance use, domestic violence, or neglect. However, even among these participants, many described how their identity became salient after entering care, often shaping how they were treated in placements and how quickly they transitioned into congregate care settings.

Most participants recalled being placed in traditional foster family homes immediately after entering care, with a few initially placed with relatives or extended family members. When asked whether child welfare professionals explored kinship placements or fictive kin networks, most participants expressed uncertainty or skepticism. Marcus noted, “I had a teacher who would’ve taken me, but I don’t think they ever asked.” Others stated bluntly that they didn’t believe kinship placements were ever pursued, particularly after their identity became known.

Subtheme 1.2: Placement Breakdown and the Road to Congregate Care

Participants frequently described a pattern of failed or disrupted foster placements that eventually led to placement in a group home or congregate care setting. For some, this followed multiple disruptions; for others, it happened after a single placement. Many expressed the belief that their identity—and the lack of foster families willing to accept it—was a primary driver of this transition.

“I remember my caseworker said, ‘There’s nowhere else right now. You’ll have to go to a group home,” Zoe shared. Another recalled asking to be moved after repeated misgendering in a foster home and being told that her only option was a facility across the state.

While some participants had a history of running away or behavioral challenges, many emphasized that their placement in congregate care felt disproportionate to their needs. They described being placed alongside youth with high behavioral or clinical needs, despite not sharing those profiles themselves. “It felt like punishment,” Micah said. “Like I was being grouped in with kids who had way more going on than I did.”

Youth of color were especially likely to note that their race compounded placement challenges. Black and Latinx participants described feeling unwanted both for their identity and their racial background. “It wasn’t just that I was gay—it was that I was Black and gay,” Sam reflected. “They didn’t even try to find a foster home.”

Some participants reported that their own efforts to seek safety—by running away or asking to be moved—ultimately contributed to their institutionalization. “I kept asking to leave because the family hated me,” said Milo. “Eventually, they just said I was too much trouble and moved me to a group home.”

These narratives illustrate the cumulative nature of rejection in both family and system settings. Rather than finding healing or affirmation, many participants experienced the transition into congregate care as a deepening of disconnection, an institutional response to identity-based harm that had gone unaddressed in earlier placements.

Theme 2: Nowhere to Belong: Experiences of Disconnection, Vigilance, and Survival in Group Homes

This theme includes three interrelated subthemes exploring how participants navigated safety, isolation, and identity-based harm within congregate care. These subthemes capture the emotional toll of disconnection and the survival strategies youth developed in response to inconsistent safety and affirmation. While the road to congregate care was marked by instability and rejection, participants’ experiences once placed in group homes were equally complex, often defined by a pervasive sense of disconnection, emotional exhaustion, and the challenge of finding safety and affirmation in institutional settings. Although some participants noted moments of support and connection, the dominant themes were of loneliness, alienation, and a deepening internalization of not belonging.

Subtheme 2.1: Emotional Isolation and Disconnection

Nearly all participants described the group home setting as emotionally isolating. Many had been moved far from their hometowns and school districts, with limited or no contact with friends, family, or siblings. “It was like being cut off from everything that reminded me of who I was before care,” one participant explained. “Even my little brother—I didn’t see him for years” (Casey).

The physical structure and emotional tone of group homes often reinforced the feeling that participants did not belong in a family. Even in placements where staff were well-meaning or rules were fair, youth noted that the absence of familial connection created a profound and lingering void. “Even the good homes weren’t homes,” Riley shared. “You eat at a long table with a bunch of kids, and then you go to a room you share with two other people. It’s not family. It’s just . . . where you are.”

Several participants spoke to the psychological impact of this environment, especially when placements changed frequently. Being moved from group home to group home not only disrupted any potential relationships but also confirmed narratives of unworthiness many had developed in childhood. “It just backed up everything I’d been told growing up—that I was too much, that no one wanted me, that I’d never have a family” (Logan).

Subtheme 2.2: Safety, Bullying, and Identity-Based Harm

While some group homes offered pockets of safety and care, participants routinely described safety as inconsistent and unreliable. Bullying and harassment by peers were common, and many participants reported that staff either ignored these incidents or, worse, blamed the victim. “When I told staff what was happening, they said I was ‘too sensitive’ or ‘bringing it on myself,’” Avery recalled. “I stopped saying anything.”

Several participants described direct experiences of homophobia, transphobia, or gender policing from staff. Misgendering, verbal harassment, and refusal to respect pronouns were frequently cited. “I had a staff member who would call me by my deadname on purpose. He would loudly say it just to see if anyone would laugh,” one participant shared. “I felt erased every day” (Cam).

These violations were made more painful by the power dynamics inherent in group care. With limited recourse and high staff turnover, participants often felt they had to develop hyper-attunement to their surroundings to protect themselves. Many described learning how to “read the room,” assess adult behavior, and determine whether staff members were safe, indifferent, or potentially harmful. “You had to figure out really fast who was on your side,” one said. “And it changed constantly. Someone good would leave, and someone awful would take their place” (Jordan).

This constant vigilance was described as emotionally exhausting and further isolating. Several participants said they became quieter, more withdrawn, or “shut down” to avoid being targeted. Others adapted by blending in or performing in ways they believed would make them more acceptable or invisible.

Subtheme 2.3: Moments of Affirmation

Despite these challenges, a number of participants recalled having at least one staff member who offered genuine support and affirmation. These individuals, often younger or more culturally competent, played critical roles in helping participants feel seen, respected, and human. “She was the only one who asked me what I needed,” Jade youth recalled. “She told me being trans should never be a problem for anyone.”

Some participants remain in touch with these staff members today and credit them with helping them survive emotionally difficult years. These relationships, while rare, were often described with deep gratitude and significance: “She didn’t save me,” Z said, “but she made me feel worth saving.”

Theme 3: Never Meant to Stay: The Elusiveness of Permanence in Congregate Care

This theme contains three interrelated subthemes that describe how instability, stigma, and limited permanency planning shaped participants’ experiences in group homes. Collectively, they illustrate the transience and emotional uncertainty that defined participants’ time in care. Even in placements where participants felt relatively safe or supported, the dominant experience of group homes was one of impermanence, both emotionally and structurally. Youth consistently described living in a state of emotional suspension, never fully able to settle or invest in relationships, knowing that one wrong interaction could trigger a sudden move or complete disruption.

Subtheme 3.1: Always Anticipating the Next Move

Participants often expressed a quiet but constant anxiety about placement instability. The lack of permanence in group home settings was not always tied to overt crises or behavioral issues but to the unpredictability of staff decisions, house dynamics, or facility policies. “You piss off the wrong staff member on the wrong day, and suddenly your bed’s gone,” one participant shared. “You just never felt safe to mess up. . .not even a little” (Cam).

Even when participants described positive experiences with certain placements, they emphasized the temporary nature of those moments. “I liked the place,” one youth recalled. “But I never stopped wondering how long it would last. It never felt like it was my home. Places like that are not supposed to feel like home, even if everyone constantly tells you that you are home” (Jasper).

This instability extended beyond the walls of the home. Many youth were moved across school districts or towns multiple times, making it difficult to maintain friendships or continuity in education. Several noted the stigma of being identified as living in “the children’s home,” with one participant sharing that she would ask to be dropped off a few blocks from her school so that classmates wouldn’t know where she lived.

Subtheme 3.2: Marked by Reputation, Denied Family Permanency

The stigma of group home placement extended beyond peer dynamics. Participants expressed a shared understanding that once they were placed in a congregate setting, it was highly unlikely they would be placed back with a family. “It was like once you’re there, you’re there,” Cam explained. “They say it’s temporary, but nobody’s trying to move you again—not into a home. You’re stuck.”

Many described group homes as spaces associated with “bad kids,” reinforcing the belief that they had been labeled as unworthy of family-based care. Even those who had been placed there simply due to lack of available foster homes, particularly LGBTQ+ youth and youth of color, felt this label was impossible to shake. “I wasn’t acting out, I just didn’t want to be misgendered and harassed every day,” one participant said. “But I got treated like I was the problem” (Zoe).

Some participants connected this internalized stigma with a sense of finality. “It felt like I had passed a point where they were even trying to find me a family,” Sage said. “Group homes were where I’d be until I aged out.”

Subtheme 3.3: Missed Opportunities for Planning and Support

For many, the transience and institutional nature of congregate care limited meaningful planning for life after care. Participants who had spent time in family-based placements before entering group homes observed stark differences in aftercare planning. “My friend in a foster home had people talking to her about college, her future. I didn’t get that,” one youth shared. “They didn’t even ask me what I wanted to do” (Logan).

Some youth did receive transitional support from staff members who were committed to their success, especially in group homes with dedicated case managers or independent living staff. “One person there really pushed for me to get into this program after I aged out,” one participant recalled. “She actually cared” (Rowan).

Still, these experiences were the exception, not the norm. The absence of stable, long-term relationships, combined with a lack of individualized aftercare planning, left many participants to navigate the transition to adulthood with minimal preparation or guidance. Some had been arrested while in group homes, often for running away, possession, or altercations—and described their exit from care as abrupt and unsupported. In the words of Rowan: “They fed me and kept me off the streets. But I never felt like I was supposed to stay. And when I left, it was like no one really noticed.”

Theme 4: We Deserve More Than a Bed: What Youth Want Professionals to Know

This theme encompasses four subthemes highlighting participants’ recommendations for system reform and affirming practice. These subthemes emphasize creativity in finding families, the deeper meaning behind placement decisions, the role of affirming care, and the importance of consistent professional presence. At the conclusion of each interview, the interviewer provided participants with an opportunity to reflect on what they wished child welfare professionals better understood about the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth who are placed in group homes and congregate care settings. Participant responses to this question were deeply personal and often rooted in feelings of grief and frustration, but responses also included thoughtful insights and concrete recommendations for change. At the heart of their reflections was a charge for a deeper level of intentionality when it comes to caring for LGBTQ+ youth. In addition, participants called for more inclusive approaches to placement and permanency, along with a greater willingness from child welfare professionals to stand up for and advocate on behalf of LGBTQ+ youth in care.

Subtheme 4.1: Creativity and Courage in Finding Families

Many participants shared that they had people in their lives—teachers, coaches, neighbors, or parents of friends—who they believed would have taken them in if given the opportunity. But when they voiced these possibilities to professionals, they were often dismissed or ignored. “I remember telling my worker about someone who would take me. She kind of smiled and said, ‘That’s not how this works,’” one participant recalled. “But why not? Why not at least try?” (Riley).

Participants urged professionals to think beyond traditional definitions of family and to actively pursue placements with trusted adults already in a young person’s life. They emphasized that doing so could prevent the need for congregate care altogether and that the failure to explore these options often felt like an unwillingness to fight for them. “It felt like the system didn’t want to do the hard work to find me someone,” one youth said. “So they just put me in a building” (Cam).

Subtheme 4.2: The Message Behind the Placement

Several participants spoke to the emotional toll of being placed in a group home and the deeper narrative it seemed to confirm. For LGBTQ+ youth who had already experienced rejection by family and society, being placed in a nonfamily setting often reinforced the belief that they were inherently unfit for family life. “When you put a queer kid in a group home, they’re not just losing a family, they’re getting a message that they don’t belong in a home” (Zoe).

Even when group homes were safe or well-run, the structural reality that they were not family-based settings carried emotional weight. Youth described the experience as one of “settling” of learning to survive without connection. “You can like the staff, you can like the rules,” one participant explained. “But at the end of the day, you’re still not in a family. And you know that” (Logan)

Subtheme 4.3: Placement Prevention Through Affirming Care

Another key message was that congregate care might have been avoidable for many if their early placements had been with better-prepared, affirming families. Participants called for more comprehensive training for foster parents around LGBTQ+ identities—not just basic information but deeper cultural humility and an understanding of what affirmation really looks like. “I didn’t need a rainbow flag. I needed someone who would listen when I said I didn’t feel safe,” Jade explained.

Multiple participants believed they had been labeled “difficult” or “behavioral” because of trauma responses to nonaffirming environments, which then made them more likely to be moved to restrictive placements. “If someone had actually asked why I was acting out, they might have realized I just needed to feel safe,” one shared. “But no one ever asked” (Sam).

Subtheme 4.4: Staying Close and Paying Attention

Finally, participants emphasized the importance of staying closely connected to youth in group settings. Several spoke about workers who rarely visited, didn’t know what was happening in the homes, or failed to intervene when mistreatment occurred. “People think these homes are safe just because there are rules,” one participant said. “But rules don’t stop bullying. Rules don’t stop staff from making you feel like crap for who you are” (Reese).

They called on social workers, case managers, and advocates to remain present, ask questions, and build trust—not just with staff, but directly with the youth. “If you’re going to put a kid in a place like that, you better be showing up. You better be watching,” said Ash, “because no one else is.”

Discussion

This study sought to better understand the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth who spent time in congregate care or group home placements while in foster care. Participants shared powerful narratives offering critical insights into experiences of emotional isolation, systemic neglect, and stigmatization that often accompanied their journeys through institutional and restrictive placements. Their insights shed light on the many ways that the child welfare system fails to disrupt and repair early narratives of rejection and abuse that young people might carry with them into foster care. These narratives also point to the ways that the system actively reinforces those narratives and systematically confirms to youth that they do not belong in a family or that they are unworthy of love and connection.

Consistent with existing research (e.g., Salerno et al., 2022) participants in the current study shared stories of family rejection. These narratives were both overt and subtle. Their experiences of family rejection often served as a common precursor to their entry into foster care. For some participants, responses to their LGBTQ+ identities from families and professionals largely shaped their experiences in care and placed them directly on a path into congregate care. Placement in group homes often signaled to youth that they were perceived as too difficult, too different, or too unwanted to be placed in a family setting.

The narratives shared in this study reinforce the deep emotional impact of congregate care placements. Even when youth reported feeling physically safe or appreciated certain staff members, the absence of permanency and connection left a lasting imprint. Group homes were rarely viewed as places of healing or growth; instead, they were experienced as institutional holding spaces that confirmed existing wounds. As one participant reflected, “It was like the world kept proving that I didn’t belong anywhere.”

A pattern that emerged in the data and proved to be alarming was the system’s failure to explore or support placements with fictive kin, teachers, friends’ parents, or community members. These potential caregivers might have provided stability, familiarity, and emotional safety and, in some cases, could have prevented youth from being placed in a foster care system that often does more harm than good. Despite youth clearly expressing a desire for these fictive kin placements, their suggestions often went ignored and dismissed. This finding aligns with recent calls for the child welfare system to reimagine and prioritize kinship, and it raises critical questions about whose families and whose futures are considered worth investing in.

The consequences of these systemic failures are far-reaching. Participants described a pipeline from group care to criminalization, with several noting arrests for running away, altercations, or substance use while in care. Others spoke of their experiences aging out of care with almost no support and minimal aftercare planning. Furthermore, many participants noted that the level of aftercare support and planning available to them paled in comparison to their peers placed in family-based care. These stories mirror national trends that show higher rates of homelessness, incarceration, and mental health crises among LGBTQ+ youth with a history of group home placement (Dworsky & Courtney, 2010; Feinstein et al., 2011).

What stands out most powerfully in these narratives is not just the harm, but the missed opportunities for healing. Again and again, youth described people in their lives who could have been there for them—including adults they trusted, peers who cared, and staff who made a difference. The question is not whether these youth are unplaceable, but whether the system is willing to do what it takes to place them with intention, creativity, and care.

In many ways, the placement of LGBTQ+ youth in congregate care represents a failure of imagination. Rather than investing in belonging, the system settles for compliance. Rather than cultivating connection, it manages behavior. But these youth are not looking for management—they are looking for someone to fight for them, believe in them, and build with them a future that includes safety, family, and dignity.

Limitations

While this study offers important insights into the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ foster care alumni placed in congregate care, several limitations should be noted. The study’s qualitative design and relatively small sample size limit the generalizability of findings to broader populations of youth in care. Participants were recruited primarily through foster care alumni and advocacy networks, which may have resulted in a sample with higher levels of engagement and self-advocacy than youth currently in care. Although validation strategies such as member checking, peer debriefing, and maintenance of an audit trail were used to enhance credibility, the findings remain interpretive and shaped by participant recall. Future research would benefit from longitudinal and mixed-methods designs to further explore how early experiences of rejection and institutional placement affect long-term outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Research

The findings from this study offer several important implications for improving the care, placement, and long-term outcomes of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care—particularly those placed in group homes or congregate care settings.

Practice

Child welfare professionals must do more to create and identify family-based placements that are safe and affirming for LGBTQ+ youth. Participants were clear in their call for more fictive kinship placements with trusted adults, teachers, coaches, and friends who are often overlooked as viable and willing placement alternatives for LGBTQ+ youth.

Placement decision practices should not simply consider immediate availability and should seek to prioritize the impact that congregate care placement has on the developmental and emotional well-being of youth. Child welfare professionals should have an acute awareness of the ways that placing youth in congregate settings can reinforce harmful narratives of unworthiness, especially for those who have already endured experiences of rejection. When congregate care placements are the only viable placement option, practitioners must engage more actively in their visitation and supervision. Similarly, child welfare professionals should hold providers accountable for creating affirming and safe environments for youth.

Efforts to train foster care providers and group home staff must be more expansive and go well beyond current practices of basic awareness of LGBTQ+ identity. The narratives shared in this study detail experiences of youth being subjected to apathy, misgendering, and more overt forms of discrimination and hostility. While affirming care requires a level of respect for pronouns and identity, care should also engage trauma-informed principles that recognize the collective harm of experiences of family rejection, identity suppression, and institutionalization.

Policy

Systemic reform is needed to reduce the over-reliance on group homes and to center the developmental and relational needs of LGBTQ+ youth in placement planning. Agencies should be required to exhaust kinship and fictive kinship options, including those identified by youth, before defaulting to congregate care. Formal policy changes that expand definitions of kin and allow youth voice in identifying trusted adults could significantly reduce unnecessary institutionalization.

Placement monitoring policies must also be strengthened. Participants shared powerful accounts of neglect, bullying, and discrimination occurring within group homes, often without meaningful accountability. Clear mechanisms should be in place for youth to report mistreatment safely, and group homes must be evaluated not only for compliance but also for their ability to provide identity-affirming care. Placement policies should explicitly require staff training in cultural humility and LGBTQ+ –affirming practices.

Finally, permanency planning policies must be revisited to ensure that youth in group care are not excluded from meaningful preparation for adulthood. Several participants noted receiving little to no transition planning compared to peers in foster homes. Policy must mandate equitable access to educational support, housing planning, and aftercare services for all youth, regardless of placement setting.

These findings also carry important implications for social work education and training. Integrating the voices and experiences of LGBTQ+ youth with histories in foster and congregate care into classroom discussions and supervision can help students develop the cultural humility, trauma awareness, and advocacy skills needed to support affirming and trauma-informed practice.

Future Research

This qualitative study provides critical insights into the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in group home and congregate care settings. It also demonstrates that a need for further research exists to explore best practices for providing affirming care in placement. In addition, more research is needed that evaluates the long-term impacts of placing LGBTQ+ youth in congregate care settings. Quantitative studies that explore the relationship between congregate care and group home placement and LGBTQ+ youth’s vulnerability for increased criminalization, homelessness, and adverse mental health outcomes could offer a number of insights to inform practice and policy.

Longitudinal research designs following youth for longer durations and across placement transitions can help to better understand the relationship between early experiences of rejection and instability and longer-term outcomes. Furthermore, studies that examine the effectiveness of fictive kinship placements for LGBTQ+ youth, and the barriers professionals encounter in pursuing them, can offer insights into enhancing placement stability and permanency outcomes.

Conclusion

The over-reliance on placing LGBTQ+ youth in congregate care settings is a reflection of systemic failures to provide affirming family-based placements where youth are physically and emotionally safe. This study makes clear that congregate care and group home placements frequently deepen existing wounds of rejection, isolation, and instability and reinforce existing narratives that these youth internalize, in which they feel unfit for family and undeserving of permanence.

These outcomes and experiences are hardly inevitable and unavoidable. Participant narratives offered clear insights that are both actionable and practical. These insights include pursuing placements with trusted and affirming adults, training caregivers in affirming care, remaining present and active in youths’ lives, and holding systems accountable for the environments they create. If we are willing to listen and to act, then we have the opportunity to not just improve care but to affirm the fundamental dignity, worth, and authenticity of every LGBTQ+ young person who comes into contact with the child welfare system.

Footnotes

Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Adam McCormick

Natalie Beck Aguilera

References

Baams

Wilson

B. D. M.

Russell

S. T.

(2019). LGBTQ youth in unstable housing andfoster care. Pediatrics, 143(3), Articlee20174211. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/143/3/e20174211/76787/LGBTQ-Youth-in-Unstable-Housing-and-Foster-Care?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Bermea

A. M.

Rueda

H. A.

Toews

M. L.

(2018). Queerness and dating violence among adolescent mothers in foster care. Affilia, 33(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109917737880

Brandon-Friedman

R. A.

Fortenberry

J. D.

(2019). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on sexual well-being among youth formerly in the foster care system. Child Welfare, 97(6), 165–186.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Courtney

M. E.

Dworsky

Lee

J. S.

Raap

(2011). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 26. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. https://www.chapinhall.org/research/midwest-evaluation-of-the-adult-functioning-of-former-foster-youth/

Dworsky

Courtney

(2010). Assessing the impact of extending care beyond age 18 on homelessness: Emerging findings from the Midwest Study (Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago). https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Midwest_IB2_Homelessness.pdf

Feinstein

Greenblatt

Hass

Kohn

Rana

(2011). Justice for all? A report on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth in the New York juvenile justice system. Urban Justice Center.

Franchino-Olsen

(2021). Vulnerabilities relevant for commercial sexual exploitation of children/domestic minor sex trafficking: A systematic review of risk factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018821956

10.

Gutierrez

(2024). Listening to LGBTQ+ foster youth: Identity, safety, and the experience of belonging. Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. https://chci.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FINAL.Gutierrez-Eduardo.pdf

11.

Janczewski

C. E.

Mersky

J. P.

Kaiser

(2025). From foster care to incarceration: A prospective analysis of the National Youth in Transition Database. Child Abuse & Neglect, 164, 107469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107469

12.

Leathers

S. J.

Spielfogel

J. E.

Geiger

Barnett

Vande Voort

B. L.

(2019). Placement disruption in foster care: Children’s behavior problems, foster parent support, and parenting experiences. Child Abuse and Neglect, 91, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.012.

13.

McCormick

Schmidt

Terrazas

S. R.

(2016). Foster family acceptance: Understanding the role of foster family acceptance in the lives of LGBTQ youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.005

14.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13.

15.

Perry

B. D.

Szalavitz

(2007). The boy who was raised as a dog. Basic Books.

16.

Ryan

Huebner

Diaz

R. M.

Sanchez

(2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524

17.

Salazar

A. M.

Barkan

S. E.

Rankin

L. F.

Woo

C. B.

Rozekova

Fowler

N. E.

Haggerty

K. P.

Shogren

Salzer

(2023). Evaluation of a brief foster parent/case worker training to support relationship-building skills and acceptance of LGBTQ+ youth in care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 17(1), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2021.2011531

18.

Salerno

J. P.

Gattamorta

K. A.

Williams

N. D.

(2022). Family rejection, racism, and identity concealment among sexual and gender minority college students. Journal of American College Health, 70(8), 2453–2462

19.

Simmons-Horton

S. Y.

(2021). “A bad combination”: Lived experiences of youth involved in the foster care and juvenile justice systems. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 38(6), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00693-1

20.

Summersett Williams

Martinovich

Kisiel

Griffin

Goldenthal

Jordan

. (2019). Can the development of protective factors help disrupt the foster care-to-prison pipeline? An examination of the association between justice system involvement and the development of youth protective factors. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 15(2), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2019.1600109

21.

The Trevor Project. (2022). National survey on LGBTQ youth mental health 2022. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/

22.

Wilber

Ryan

Marksamer

(2006). CWLA best practice guidelines for serving LGBT youth in out-of-home care. Child Welfare League of America. https://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bestpracticeslgbtyouth.pdf

23.

Wilson

B. D. M.

Kastanis

A. A.

(2015). Sexual and gender minority disproportionality and disparities in child welfare: A population-based study. Children and Youth Services Review, 58, 11–17.

24.

Yang

McCuish

Corrado

(2021). Is the foster care–crime relationship a consequence of exposure? Examining potential moderating factors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 19(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204020939643

25.

Wildeman

(2018). Can foster care interventions Diminish justice system inequality? Future of Children, 28(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2018.0002