Mixed methods analysis reveals challenges in mental health and relationships for multisystem youth, indicating a need for better support systems.
Abstract Exploring mental health among multisystem youth (i.e., those involved in both the juvenile justice system and foster care system) is critical as these youth may be at an increased risk of experiencing insecure housing, poverty, abuse, and limited social support. This may impact their relationships, coping skills, and general well-being. Previously, research has studied foster care and juvenile justice youth; however, limited research exists on multisystem youth’s mental health experiences. This study aimed to examine multisystem youth’s protective factors and barriers, particularly their mental health and personal relationships. The study utilized a mixed-methods approach to collect data from multisystem youth in Texas. Quantitative data were collected via a cross-sectional questionnaire, where participants were asked to respond to questions about their demographics, attitudes, and behaviors about their system-involved experiences (N = 1,464, 14–20 years old, x̄ age: 16.35; 49.2% females). Qualitative data was collected via nine focus groups where participants spoke about their life experiences in foster care and their dual involvement in the juvenile justice system (N = 39, 28% females, 66% Hispanic/44% White). Qualitative results indicated that multisystem youth experience challenges in regard to building and maintaining healthy relationships as well as identifying and gaining access to support systems. Quantitative results suggested that depression, self-esteem, positive coping skills, and negative coping skills are impacted by most of the study’s predictor variables. Finally, gender differences were observed among males and females at different stages of the predictor variables. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trejos‐Castillo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: