Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Care-experienced young people (CEYP)’s sense of belonging is challenged by systemic instability of frequent placement and support networks changes. Belonging is critical for well-being and identity development, however, there are no known reviews scoping the available information on CEYP’s belonging development. This scoping review aimed to identify what features aid the development of CEYP’s sense of belonging. JBI scoping review methodology guided the search for English qualitative studies on CEYP’s belonging experiences. A framework analysis using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model (1979) organised findings. Results showed a global increase in interest in belonging for CEYP, particularly from Western countries over the last five years. Direct relations (microsystems) with caregivers and peers were most frequently considered important for CEYP’s belonging. This was alongside cooperation between care and birth families and an accepting culture for their identity characteristics, including their care status. Belonging was nurtured by services providing opportunities for connections and links formed between CEYP’s microsystems over time. This review provides a synthesised definition of belonging for CEYP and raises awareness of ways to form belonging. Implications require society to provide opportunities for experiences that promote belonging for CEYP across ecological systems, focussing on community, ethnic, cultural and religious spaces.

Plain Language Summary

When young people can’t stay with their birth families, they face major changes for example, new people, places and communities. These changes deeply affect their sense of belonging. This “sense of belonging” can be described as feeling connected, part of something, accepted or ‘at home’, and it has been shown that a loss of sense of belonging often connects to more loneliness, depression, anxiety and anger. Having a sense of belonging can help young people develop an understanding of who they are and who they can rely on. It is important to consider what young people who are in out-of-home care think about their sense of belonging; to raise awareness in practice, strengthen areas they find belonging and develop more opportunities within this group. To do this, in this paper, we found studies where care-experienced young people and care leavers spoke about their sense of belonging and we put the findings together relating to the type of relationship or support they referred to. To organise the young people’s experiences, we grouped the findings into different levels of relationships they discussed, from direct relationships (like with carers and friends) to broader support systems and communities. From this, we formed a new definition of what belonging means to care-experienced young people. We found that direct relationships with others, such as carers and friends, were the factors young people mentioned most frequently, and that being accepted for who they were included an understanding of their status as being in care and their ethnicity. It was felt that greater attention could be given to opportunities for the young people to develop a sense of who they are in relation to their new neighbourhoods, community, and their ethnic, cultural and religious beliefs.

Keywords

sense of belonging care-experienced looked after children scoping review young people

Introduction

Sense of Belonging

The concept of a sense of belonging is a complex and multifaceted experience that could be considered and defined in multiple ways (Allen et al., 2021). These definitions of belonging include experientially, as acceptance and deep connection, feeling part of a system or environment (Hagerty et al., 1992); or psychologically as a relational basic need that we desire to obtain, that shapes our sense of identity and well-being (Ainsworth, 1989; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1943). Both definitions include the importance of connection to individuals, groups and places, influenced by wider societal values and constructs developed through an element of consistency and interactions across time.

Youth is an important time to consider belonging given social-emotional development, alongside social identity development (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1969). Belonging acts as a protective factor during life stressors, for example, through meaningful and reliable connections. Belonging has also been associated with better outcomes and experiences of adjustment to adulthood (Sulimani-Aidan & Kovach, 2024). Baumeister and Leary (1995) reviewed the literature about the effects of threatened social attachments and the impact of loss of significant relationships. They concluded that the associated loss of belonging often corresponds with experiences of loneliness, depression, anxiety and anger.

Children in Out-of-Home Care and Belonging

Children are typically placed in out-of-home care following concerns about significant harm to them in their family of origin. Therefore, care experienced young people (CEYP) have likely experienced developmental trauma from family separation, alongside the precipitating event that required them to be removed from their birth parents’ care. All these factors place their well-being at risk. CEYP’s placements often involve frequent moves, which may disrupt the formation of emotional connections to people or places. In 2024 31% of children looked after by local authorities had more than one home placement (Department of Education (DfE), 2024). This movement can also disrupt school and community placements. Given these changes, it would be important to understand features relating to CEYP developing belonging. Given the experiential element of belonging, it would be informative to hear directly from the CEYP about their experiences.

Analytical Framework for This Review

As belonging has a multifaceted definition and can be considered from different layers of interpersonal and environmental influences, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) was used to consider different features and systemic influences of belonging considered by CEYP. Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that a child’s development has environmental influences that are interconnected and influence their growth and behaviour. The theory proposed the individual is at the centre of the framework and development is shaped by contexts: the microsystem (direct relationships with others), mesosystem (interaction between microsystems, e.g. home-school communication), exosystem (indirect influences e.g. services), macrosystem (societal attitudes) and chronosystem (changes over time, e.g. care placement moves).

Preliminary Search for Reviews

A preliminary search for reviews using CINAHL and PsychINFO (EBSCOhost) relating to CEYP’s sense of belonging was undertaken in December 2023. No reviews specifically addressing the topic were found.

Research Aim

This review will generate an understanding of the literature available on belonging for CEYP, how CEYP understand their belonging, and what are the gaps in this research area. This will allow researchers and practitioners to utilise the available information to support the development of belonging for CEYP.

Methods

Design and Positionality

This scoping review was reported in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) and guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). This review mapped and analysed available data on CEYP experience of belonging development. The research team were White British, without lived care experience and all had worked with CEYP, which generated curiosity regarding the development of belonging. This position was held in mind and reflected upon during the interpretation of findings to minimise bias.

Eligibility Criteria

An overview of the participants, concept and context guided inclusion criteria and was applied to the studies (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Inclusion Criteria Applied to Studies

	Inclusion	Exclusion
Population	Youth who were in out-of-home care including foster care, kinship care and residential care at the time of the study up to 25-years-old. Youth that were older than 25-years-old and reflecting on their experiences during care will also be included.	Youth in the care of biological parents, adopted youth, in secure youth care units, or homeless youth. Carers, staff or other observations of CEYP, rather than firsthand information.
Concept	Views and experiences of sense of belonging development. Sense of belonging did not need to be defined but ‘belonging’ needed to be explicitly referred to.	Focus only on qualitative information about lack of sense of belonging.
Context	Qualitative studies, including but not be limited to, phenomenology, grounded theory, qualitative description, thematic analysis and case studies.	Quantitative studies.
Sources	Journal articles; dissertations; surveys or books with novel data. Secondary data will be considered if the qualitative information and focus is novel from the original article.	Reviews using secondary data reported elsewhere.
Other	Full-text available. Published in the English language or translated to the English language.	Full-text unavailable. Unavailable in the English language

Search Strategy

The search strategy was developed with consultation from the University of Surrey Library team, and through a search of PsycInfo (EBSCO) of subject headings with the terms (DE “Belonging”) AND (DE “Foster Children” OR DE “Foster Care”). The index terms and text words in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles were used to develop the full search strategy (see Table 2). Studies published and dissertations from any date were included. Grey literature databases were not searched. This search strategy was implemented on 23rd September 2024 across six databases: ASSIA (ProQuest); CINAHL with full-text; Medline; PsycInfo (EBSCOhost); and Emcare; Social policy and practice (OVID).

Table 2.

Key Search Terms

Search terms
(“out of home care” OR “child* in care” OR “foster care” OR “Foster Youth” OR “Foster child” OR “looked after child*” OR “care journey” OR “alternative care” OR “care experience”) AND (“sense of belonging” OR “belonging” OR “belongingness” OR “feeling to belong”)

Screening and Selection

A total of 1762 studies were uploaded onto Rayyan.ai., with 1423 remaining after duplicate removal. Titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer, then full texts of maybe and included papers reviewed and exclusions recorded, 20% of studies were independently reviewed for reliability at each stage. There was substantial agreement of full-text screening (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.72; Cohen, 1960), and the four conflicts were discussed against eligibility criteria and resolved. Reference list screening yielded no additional inclusions. In total, 38 studies met eligibility criteria (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process (Adapted from Tricco et al., 2018)

Data Extraction

A data extraction table created by the research team was piloted for five studies by two reviewers independently, data extraction was consistent, and the table was used for the remaining studies. The data extracted included researchers/date; study source; current or retrospective views; geographical location; aims; methodology; demographics; type of care; context belonging was considered; definition of belonging; theoretical framework; ecological systems considered; conclusions; recommendations; quotations regarding belonging.

Quality Appraisal

A methodological quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) UK (2024) Qualitative Checklist was included in line with updated guidance (Peters et al., 2020). This was not used to filter studies but contextualised the methodological rigour and clarity of reported findings, to ensure that any findings and implications drawn from the review considered the literature quality. Each study was assessed using the 10 CASP item checklist, scored out of ten, with responses recorded as ‘yes’ scored one and ‘no’ or ‘can’t tell’ scored zero. This ensured that only clearly demonstrated quality criteria contributed to the overall score.

Data Synthesis

A table was used to present extracted data from the 38 included studies. A narrative summary provided an overview of findings relating to the research question, charted using a population, context, concept framework. Quantitative data such as frequences of categories and qualitative data summarising findings in relation to CEYP’s belonging was presented. Study findings related to belonging were thematically organised using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model.

Results

Findings from Scoping Review

Table 3 presents an overview of the 38 relevant studies extracted for this scoping review, which focused on the features related to a development of belonging for CEYP.

Table 3.

Study Characteristics

Author, year, location	Literature source (Journal name)	Type of care setting	Participant demographics	Methodology	Research aims	Key findings	Quality appraisal/10
Current views
Bamba and Haight (2009), Western Japan	Peer reviewed journal article (Children and Youth Services Review)	State care, childcare institution	N = 9 Ages: 10–15 Gender: 5 males Ethnicity: Not stated	Participant observation and in-depth semi-structured interviews with youth	1) How do maltreated, institutionalised Japanese children experience their Ibasho creation? 2) What are some challenges to children's Ibasho creation observed by their caregivers? Ibasho ‘connotes a place where one experiences a peace of mind, reassurance, security, acceptance, and belonging.’	All children identified contexts in the childcare setting as their Ibasho, these included private and social spaces. Children also felt Ibasho with peers or trustworthy adults, and developing community through having helping roles and activities.	8
Bengtsson & Luckow (2020), Denmark	Peer reviewed journal article (Childhood)	Foster care	N = 11 Ages: 8-15 Gender: 7 girls, 4 boys Ethnicity: Not stated	Participatory-oriented method of video diaries in addition to semi-structured interviews. Focus on 2 girls video diaries in analysis.	How do children living in foster care create senses of belonging across diverse family relationships.	For children living in foster care, sense of belonging is not accomplished once and for all but is an ongoing process of feeling at home and being recognised as a rightful member of diverse family settings.	7
Biehal et al (2010), England, UK	Book	Long-term foster care (6 or more years)	N = 12 Ages: 8–17 Gender: Not stated separately from adopted youth Ethnicity: Not stated	Interviews with children and their foster carers (or adoptive parents)	How best to meet the needs of children who cannot safely be reunited with their parents.	A key factor in whether a child feels a sense of belonging is the way they locate their foster family in relation to their birth family.	7
Burgess et al (2010), Scotland	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Kinship care: formal and informal basis	N = 12 Ages: 11–17 Gender: 5 males, 7 females Ethnicity: Not stated	Semi-structured interviews with young people	To develop understanding of children’s experiences of living with kinship carers by offering them an opportunity to express their views about any aspects of their living situation that they felt were important.	In most cases the young people in kinship care formed a strong bond with their carers. Most felt they belonged with their new family.	9
Christiansen et al (2013), Norway	Peer reviewed journal article (British Journal of Social Work)	Foster care	N = 43 Ages: 13–20 Gender: 12 female, 31 males Ethnicity: 36 Norwegian, 2 minority, 5 mixed ethnic.	Longitudinal structured interview study, few months after placement, 1 yr after placement, 4–5 yrs after placement, 8 years after placement	To ask whether young people who have lived in foster homes for a minimum of four years have achieved a sense of belonging and have become part of the family, and what contact they and their foster-carers envisage in the future.	These findings indicated that a sense of belonging has been established between the young people and their foster families. Almost all young persons also had a sense of belonging to their birth family, and some emphasised this as why they did not feel entirely part of the foster family.	8
Degener et al (2023), Netherlands	Peer reviewed journal article (Qualitative Social Work)	Foster care	N = 10 Ages: 12–20 Gender: 6 female, 4 male Ethnicity: 2 Northern-African, 4 Eastern-African, 1 southern African, 2 bicultural, 1 minority-majority.	Longitudinal, qualitative interview procedure	What ethnic identity fluctuations are present in Dutch transculturally placed ethnic minority foster youth’s narratives	Findings showed that a change in identity towards associating more with the ethnic majority of the foster family, developed a sense of belonging.	6
Degener et al (2020), Netherlands	Peer reviewed journal article (Children and Youth Services Review)	Foster care	N = 20 Ages: 11–19 Gender: 10 boys, 10 girls Ethnicity: 1 Moroccan and Dutch, 1 Turkish and Dutch, 1 Caribbean and Dutch, 1Surinamese and Turkish, 4 Moroccan, 1 Surinamese, 5 Caribbean, 5 East-African, 1 Brazilian.	Interviews based off pictures the youth were asked to take of people and objects they were emotionally close to	How do transcultural placements in foster care influence the ethnic identity of foster youth with an ethnic minority background during adolescence?	Youth felt belonging to their ethnic roots, this included recognising the importance of spaces with others from the same ethnic minority background and visiting the country of their birth parents.	10
Emond (2014), Ireland	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Residential care	N = 16 Ages: 8–18 Gender: 11 males 5 females Ethnicity: Not stated	Data was gathered using a range of techniques including questions, life snake, drawings and a board game devised for the project. Interviews and handbook.	To explore the meaning and experience of peer relationships to one group of children living in residential care in Ireland.	Belonging seemed related to being accepted by one's peer group and not being seen as different because of their care status.	9
Francis et al (2021), England, UK	Peer reviewed journal article (Adoption & fostering)	Looked after children in local authority	N = 36 Ages: 10–12 Gender: 61% girls, 39% boys Ethnicity: 69%White British, 14% White/Black Caribbean/African, 8% Asian, 3% Thai and South African, 3% other dual heritage and 3% Polish.	Qualitative data collection through multi-method techniques and creative methods to facilitate free discussion.	To facilitate the child’s voice and gather children’s views about their move from primary to secondary school.	The children often voiced the value of social connections, key adults to keep them safe and familiarity with their environment. They specifically emphasised the significance of friendships as a tool for supporting their transition, belonging and well-being.	8
Fylkesnes et al (2021), Norway	Peer reviewed journal article (British Journal of Social Work)	Foster care, kinship care	N = 178 Ages: 11–18 Gender: 91 males Ethnicity: Not stated	Survey, and written accounts on open-ended questions	To examine young people’s written accounts to identify what constitutes appropriate help and support from adults, from the perspectives of young people in foster care	Belonging related to being treated as part of the foster family, but being given time to let this belonging develop, as well as having peers and community places of belonging.	9
Hedin (2014), Sweden	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Kinship care, network families, traditional foster families	N = 15 Ages: 14–18 Gender: 8 males, 7 females Ethnicity: 9 Swedish, 3 outside of Europe (immigrant youth), 3 unstated (unaccompanied children)	Interviews, network maps and ‘beepers’ where text messages were received six times a day for six days with the questions: where are you; with whom; what are you doing; how does it feel?	To explore how young people’s sense of belonging among their families and friends has been influenced by their everyday life experiences since the previous study 1 year ago.	This paper illustrated the importance of what one can call an ‘open foster family’, which means a family that is willing to let the foster youth into the activities and rituals of everyday life and is open to cooperating with the adolescent’s birth family.	7
Johnson et al (2020), Midwestern region of united states	Peer reviewed journal article (Children and Youth Services Review)	Foster care	N = 46 Ages: 9th–12th grade Gender: 20 males, 26 females, Ethnicity: 13 Black, 12 white, 1 Asian/pacific islander, 1 Latinx, 10 multiracial. Sexuality: 3 bisexual, 1 gay, 28 heterosexual, 2 other, 12 no response.	Semi-structured focus group interviews with foster youth	(a) How do youth in foster care describe and make meaning of their sense of belonging in school?; and (b) What factors help facilitate or thwart belongingness?	In pursuit of belonging, the foster youth made deliberate decisions about disclosing their identity as a “foster youth.” Youth often concealed their foster identity, but feeling accepted by friends who know this identity helped develop belonging.	9
Ie (2022), Spain	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Foster care	N = 14 Ages: 10–22 Gender: 7 girls, 7 boys. Ethnicity: 12 had ethnic majority background	The study had a multi-method approach that included photos, drawings, social network map, recall and semi-structured interviews.	To explore how ‘family’ is conceptualised by young people in foster care.	Belonging developed from household routines and activities that 'normal' families engage in as well as taking part in community activities.	8
López et al (2024), Cantabria, Spain	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Youth Services Review)	Residential care	N = 15 Ages: 14-21 Gender: 9 female, 1 male, 1 trans male, 1 trans woman, 1 non-binary, 1 bigender ,1 doubts of gender fluid. Ethnicity: 13 white, 1 black, 1 Roma. Sexuality: 9 bisexual; 4 homosexual; 1 heterosexual; 1 pansexual.	Narrative semi-structured interviews with LGBTQ+ youth in care	Seeks to understand LGBTQ+ youths’ processes of resilience development through relationships with care professionals in the child welfare system.	By care professionals creating a welcoming and inclusive environment with gender and sexual diversity, youths felt accepted in their identities which fostered a sense of belonging.	10
Mörgen and Rieker (2022), Switzerland	Peer reviewed journal article (Children & Society)	Foster care, unaccompanied minor refugees	N = 4 Ages: 10–18 Gender: Not stated Ethnicity: Not stated (1 grew up in Afghanistan, 1 Iran, 1 Ethiopia)	Problem centred interview with adolescents and foster parents separately	How are feelings of belonging negotiated within the context of a foster family? What different meanings are ascribed to ‘home’ and ‘family’?	A sense of belonging to family-like constellations is continuously being established and negotiated situationally through social, physical and caring practices. ‘Belonging’ and ‘being at home’ are thought of as dimensions of ‘doing family’ that change situationally and are negotiated with others.	6
Pithouse and Rees (2015), UK	Book	Foster care	N = 16 Ages: 9–16 Gender: 8 females, 8 males Ethnicity: 6 Black British, 10 White British	In-depth sensitive exploratory interviews, eco-map, group exercise vignette, audio diary	To offer an 'inside' view of the everyday lives of foster carers and their children and the children and young people who are fostered.	Foster homes that offer warmth and acceptance and which connected the child to affirming relationships with extended kin and to positive activities in the community, provided an ecology of care that reinforced a child's sense of worth and belonging	7
Rogers (2017), UK	Peer reviewed journal article (British Journal of Social Work)	Foster care (to remain long-term based on care plans)	N = 10 Ages: 12–14 Gender: 5 female 5 male. Ethnicity: 8 white British, 2 white British and Caribbean	Semi-structured interview schedule and task based visual methods. Eco-maps, photo elicitation methods.	To explore how the young people in this study experience and manage stigma in their day-to-day lives.	Participants particularly valued support from their peers who were also living in foster-care, as it enabled them to form an ingroup, which presented them with a valuable sense of belonging.	7
Skoog et al (2015), Sweden	Peer reviewed journal article (British Journal of Social Work)	Foster, kinship care and institutional care	N = 12 Ages: 8–18 Gender: 6 female, 6 male Ethnicity: not stated	Interpretive phenomenology - qualitative interviews	Investigates how children who have experienced instability in substitute family care describe their sense of belonging and relationships with adults who share responsibility for caring for them.	Foster youths craved belonging which was felt to some extent by feeling part of the foster family, which was felt in ways such as having inside jokes. But the instability of foster placements made it difficult to develop sense of belonging.	8
Stephenson and Källström (2020), Sweden	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Kinship care	N = 11 Ages: 16–21 Gender: 5 females, 6 males Ethnicity: Not stated (They had fled from Somalia, Ethiopia, or Afghanistan)	Individual semi-structured interviews with young people	Firstly, how young migrants in kinship care in a Swedish suburb describe what different places mean to them and secondly what these descriptions can tell us about their sense of belonging.	A vital aspect of creating a sense of belonging to the local community is relationships with the kinship carers and friends who can be seen as local members of networks within a transnational social space.	9
Wilson and Milne (2013), Scotland	Briefing funded by Economic and Social Research Council	Foster care, residential care, kinship care	N = 22 Ages: 10–23 Gender: 13 men, 9 women Ethnicity: Not stated	3 activities alongside 3 interviews, activities involved photographs of favourite places, 3-minute recordings of sounds that make them feel good, dream home with music and film making or song writing	To explore how young people who are looked after, feel like they belong or do not belong in places that they live.	Feelings of belonging to a place were supported by diverse factors including access to private spaces; being able to personalise own spaces; feeling integrated within communal activities, sense of security, and animals.	6
Retrospective Views
Cardinali et al (2023), Northwestern Italy	Peer reviewed journal (Frontiers in Psychology)	Foster care	N = 26 Ages: 19–25 Gender: 14 women, 12 men Ethnicity: Italian	Semi-structured and open-ended response interviewing procedure.	The study aimed to investigate relational outcomes of Italian emancipated foster youth across open-ended reflections about their perceptions of their relationships with the biological and foster family, with partner and peers.	Foster youth referred to a sense of belonging in care developing out of foster parent's identification as their family; a sense of home; acceptance from partners family and welcoming into the local community.	9
Golden Guzman (2023), U.S.	Thesis	Foster care, residential care, kinship care	N = 22 Ages: 19–29 Gender: 16 female, 4 non-binary, 2 male. Ethnicity: 59% identified as a person of colour	Phase 2 involved qualitative data which involved an optional creative list activity and semi-structured interviews	How are perceptions of belongingness (neighbourhood & cultural) shaped by community ethnic/racial composition, ecological factors, or other influences?	CEYP may be most able to find belongingness in settings where they can be assured of emotional support, physical safety, and unconditional acceptance from staff, teachers and caregivers.	10
Griffin (2004), Texas	Thesis	Kinship care, foster care, residential care	N = 18 Ages: 18-25 Gender: 11 males 7 females Ethnicity: 9 Hispanic/mexican American, 4 African American, 4 white, 1 mixed	Semi-structured interviews, three over time, first focussing on constructing a timeline involving relationships, second about time since foster care, third on quality of relationships.	How does the foster care system shape the relational worlds of foster youth?	Foster parents created a sense of family by communicating to the foster child through their words and actions five important relational messages: we love you, you are part of our family (belonging), we accept you, you are important to us, and we will support you.	10
Montgomery (2018), California and Hawaii	Thesis	Foster care	N = 10 Ages: 18–25 Gender: 6 female 4 male Ethnicity: 1 identified as Caucasian, 2 Caucasian as a small part of mixed ethnicity, most carried mixed ethnicities.	Unstructured interview	To determine the factors which helped foster care alumni to persevere and to succeed. To report the value of relationships in the development of independence and successful functioning in the lives of these young people.	This sense of belonging played a vital role in the lives of participants. Several discussed the importance of feeling connected to others and being “loved no matter what,” by their foster parents. Sense of belonging was also described with coaches, teammates and mentors.	10
Nurcombe-Thorne et al (2018), South Africa	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Residential care	N = 6 Ages: 18–21 Gender: 4 female, 2 male Ethnicity: 3 mixed race, 2 African, 1 white.	Semi-structured interview and focus group discussion	To create a space for previously looked after young people, to share their care experiences.	The familial role played by the residential care social system, with a multitude of different people—adults and children, professionals and non-professionals—taking on family-like roles stood out in this study. This appears to have contributed to sense of belonging, being valued, and the sense of security experienced, while living in care.	9
Schoenewald (2016), North-eastern Ohio	Thesis	Foster care	N = 10 Ages: 18–23 Gender: 8 females, 2 males Ethnicity: 5 white; 4 black; 1 Mexican.	Open ended question interviews and photo elicited interviews	The purpose of this study was to explore ambiguous loss and belonging within the experience of foster care.	To develop a sense of belonging, rituals and family values need to be understood and learned, and time living within that family is needed to do so. Belonging to foster families may be improved by encouraging and supporting routine contact between foster children and their biological families. Remaining in one school and taking part in school activities are also important for belonging.	10
Schofield (2002), Not stated	Peer reviewed journal article (Child and Family Social Work)	Foster care	N = 40 Ages: 18–30 Gender: 30 female, 10 male Ethnicity: 32 White British, 8 minority ethnicity	Interviews with former foster youth	To explore is it possible for foster families, where there are no biological or legal ties between carers and children, to provide care, concern and family membership not only through childhood but also into adult life?	The meaning of ‘belonging’ to a foster family is multidimensional. From the accounts given by the former foster youth in the study it seemed to comprise at least five separate, though connected and mutually reinforcing, features: family solidarity, family rituals, family relationships, family identity and family culture.	6
Snow (2013), Canada	Peer reviewed journal article (International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies)	Foster care	N = 5 Age: not stated Gender: 4 males, 1 female Ethnicity: Not stated	Group discussions around the concept of belonging, placed within the context of theoretical literature	To speak to the fundamental need to belong by using theory to reflect on the writing of young people with experiential knowledge about belonging within the context of Crown Wardship status.	Belonging was developed through sports teams and a support spaces for foster youth with other peers in the care system.	9
Soyez et al (2024), Sweden, Czech Republic, Flanders, Ireland, Catalonia and Ontario.	Peer reviewed journal article (Journal of Social Work)	Out of home care	N = 74 Ages: 21–33 Gender: 40 women, 34 men Ethnicity: Not stated	Semi-structured interviews	To look at the value and effects of early work experience (before 18) for CEYP’s experience on personal and social development, specifically in promoting social inclusion.	Work helped young people gain a sense of normality: having a job was a way for them to be (seen as) like other young people. It could be a first step in developing a sense of belonging. Building consistent long-lasting relationships also was important for sense of belonging.	8
Stewart (2016), Southeast Michigan	Thesis	Foster care	N = 8 Ages: 24–28 Gender: 7 females, 1 male Ethnicity: 8 black youths	In-depth semi-structured interviews with former foster youth	To document the voices of Black youth who have been emancipated from the foster care system, paying particular attention to resiliency and its impact on individuals as they traverse the road of independence and self-sufficiency	Established routines, celebrations, special gifts, recognition of birthdays, acceptance of biological parents, and consistent family activities helped them feel like more than just foster children—an embarrassing and isolating label they found hard to escape.	10
Storer et al (2014), Washington	Peer reviewed journal article (Children and Youth Services Review)	Foster care	N = 20 Ages: 18–21 Gender: 18 female 2 male Ethnicity: 9 African American, 5 white, 3 Latino/Hispanic, 6 other	Focus group discussions	To provide a descriptive account of the foster youth and caregiver relationship, and explore what qualities and experiences foster youth desire from their caregivers	Genuine relationships with foster families, caring interactions in the family, and setting boundaries you may expect within a ‘family’ were felt to form belonging.	8
Sulimani-Aidan and Kovach (2024), Israel	Peer reviewed journal article (Emerging Adulthood)	Residential care, foster care	N = 47 Ages: 18–29 Gender: 33 female, 13 male, 1 transgender Ethnicity: Israeli, 59% identified as Israeli-Jewish, 14% as newcomers from the FSU, 12% as Ethiopians, 8% as Muslims, and 7% as being from other backgrounds.	Semi-structured interviews with care leavers	To explore care leavers’ perceptions of the influence of their out-of-home placement experiences in shaping their lives during the transition to adulthood	Care leavers spoke of meaningful relationship they had with staff members in care, teachers and counsellors, as something that helped them feel safe and gave them a sense of belonging.	8
Current and retrospective views
Carter (2011), England, UK	Peer reviewed journal article (Journal of Social Work Practice)	Therapeutic community - residential care	N = 8; 3 ex residents, 5 current residents Ages: not stated Gender: not stated Ethnicity: not stated	Semi-structured interviews with former residents	For current and ex residents to describe the experience of living at Thornby Hall (out-of-home care) and the difference they feel it made.	Relationship-based practice is important to develop a sense of belonging. All residents described the feeling of being wanted by forgiving staff who want to be there; and a feeling of belonging where staff and peers understand you and you can be yourself.	10
Gayapersad et al (2019), Kenya	Peer reviewed journal article (Child & Youth Care Forum)	Kinship care - charitable children institutions	N = 30 Ages: 11–23 Gender: male and female Ethnicity: Not stated	Participant observation and in-depth interviews	The goal was to examine whether and how alternative kinship structures were reproduced in charitable children’s institutions.	Belonging was formed through care that was received consistently and similar to a traditional family setting.	9
Negård et al (2020), Norway	Peer reviewed journal article (Children and Youth Services Review)	Residential care combined with foster care	N = 11, 8 current, 3 former resident Ages: 11–17, 18–27 Gender: not stated Ethnicity: not stated	Individual, paired or group interviews with all participants. Participatory observations of the former residents aged 18 or older.	What significance do social life and communities with other children have in the stories of children growing up in long-term public care?	Emphasised the significance of consistently belonging to a community of children in care as a source of vital social participation, learning, and development with supportive and lasting relationships among children. The findings also stressed the necessity of professional facilitation to enable relationships among children.	8
Steenbakkers et al (2021), Netherlands	Peer reviewed journal article (Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry)	Foster care	N = 44 Ages: 16–28 Gender: 35 females, Ethnicity: 8 reported a culture/ethnic identity different to Dutch.	Qualitative responses to “what is the most positive memory you have of when you were in family foster care?”	What are the most positive memories young people have of family foster care?	A 'normal' family environment by restoring the normal everyday life within the foster family and continuous support and opportunities to grow, contributed to creating a sense of belongingness.	8
Wright and Collings (2023), Australia	Peer reviewed journal article (Journal of Youth Studies)	Out-of-home care	N = 11 Ages: 16–25 Gender: 9 female 2 males Ethnicity: 4 aboriginal, 2 from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.	Photovoice with semi-structured interviews that involves several stages: the identification of an issue with community importance, participant recruitment, photovoice training, identification of photo assignments, discussion of photo assignments, data analysis and a forum to share with policy makers and influential advocates	How do young people with experience of out-of home care view permanency?	Belonging came from everyday activities of family life and small acts of belonging (seeing photo displayed or being given a pet) as well as having access to one's culture.	9
Wulleman et al (2023), Belgium	Peer reviewed journal article (Journal of Public Child Welfare)	Foster care	N = 5, on-going foster care = 2 Ages: 20–35 Gender: 3 female, 2 male Ethnicity: 2 underrepresented ethnic group, 3 dominant ethnic group	Focus group discussions with former and current foster youth	How does discourse play a role in the construction and maintenance of family identity in foster care, both within and outside of families, as well as providing insights into the psychological and social dynamics of foster care, such as belonging and identity formation.	Family terminology was crucial in comprehending foster care relationships including a sense of belonging, because it shaped family relationships and identity, playing an important role in affirming, reflecting, protecting, normalizing, refuting and legitimizing family ties.	9

Note. Aims and key findings were directly extracted from papers when the links to sense of belonging were succinctly described.

Narrative Synthesis

Population

There were 20 studies that focused on qualitative data from youth currently in care (n = 512; 8–23 years old), 12 studies that presented qualitative information from care leavers (n = 286; 18–33 years old), and 6 studies presented data from both (n = 109; age 11–27 years old). The care settings in the review were foster care (n = 19); residential care (n = 4); undefined state CEYP (n = 4); kinship care (n = 3). Studies with a combination of care settings including foster, kinship and residential care (n = 8). There were 23 studies that recorded ethnicity or culture of the CEYP youth; and a range of ethnic backgrounds were evident (see Table S1 in the online supplementary material).

Thirty-three studies recorded the distribution of gender of participants (N = 842) of which 43.6% were male (n = 367), 55.2% were female (n = 465), less than 1% were transgender (n = 3); non-binary (n = 6); or other (n = 1). Two studies reported sexuality comprising of a combined sample of 61, of which 47.5% were heterosexual (n = 29); 8.2% homosexual (n = 5); 19.7% bisexual (n = 12); 1.6% pansexual (n = 1); 3.3% reported other (n = 2); 19.7% no response (n = 12).

Context

The studies were published between 2002 and 2024, with only three studies prior to 2010 and almost half (18/38) of studies published from 2020. Most studies were published in peer-reviewed journals (31), five were thesis-based studies and two were in books with novel data. Of the studies, 23 were in Europe (including seven in the UK), eight in North America, two in Africa, two in Asia, one in Australasia, and one covered both Europe and North America.

Theoretical Frameworks

A theoretical framework or perspective was referenced by 16 (42%) studies. While there was little overlap in the theories used as a framework, they could be grouped into four different themes (see Table 4). This diversity highlights the absence of a dominant conceptual lens of belonging for CEYP. Studies which did not directly refer to a theoretical framework spoke of the importance of focussing on the views, perspectives and relationships of the CEYP.

Table 4.

The Extracted Theoretical Frameworks and Perspectives From the Included Studies

Themes	Theories referenced	Papers referencing as theoretical framework
Importance of relationships and social connection	Maslow’s hierarchy of needs	Schoenewald (2016)
		Snow (2013)
		Golden Guzman (2023)
	Hagerty’s theory of human relatedness	Schoenewald (2016)
	Relational representations: Attachment theory/object relations/social cognitive theory	Griffin (2004)
	Attachment theory only	Schofield (2002)
	Symbolic interaction theory	Snow (2013)
	Symbolic interaction theory	Gayapersad et al. (2019)
Social context impacting individual development	Ecological systems theory	Golden Guzman (2023)
	Life course theory	Sulimani-Aidan & Kovach (2024)
	Migration theory	Mörgen & Rieker (2022)
	Intersectionality theory	López et al. (2024)
	Relatedness as socially constructed	Ie (2022)
	Interaction ritual chains theory	Hedin (2014)
	Multiple attachment to places	Stephenson & Källström (2020)
	Community of practice	Negård et al. (2020)
Resilience and adaptation	Relational, developmental and social models of resilience	Storer et al. (2014)
	Relational, developmental and social models of resilience	Schofield (2002)
	Social ecological theory of resilience	Stewart (2016)
	Social ecological theory of resilience	López et al. (2024)
Identity formation and meaning making	Theory of habitus	Snow (2013)
Identity formation and meaning making	Educational sense of belonging	Johnson et al. (2020)

Methodology

Creative techniques such as photos, video diaries and drawing, alongside interviews were used in eleven studies focused on youth currently in care (n = 11/20), and two studies which sought retrospective perspectives (n = 2/12). For studies with both current and retrospective views, half solely used interviews.

Quality Appraisal

Half of the included studies clearly met most CASP criteria (score >8), while the other half scored between six and eight, indicating that several key criteria were met but with some limitations; a full breakdown of the CASP scores is provided in Table S2 in the online supplementary material. Areas of weakness were ethical transparency around details on the consent process, and reflexivity as many only briefly acknowledged researcher positionality or did not explicitly consider its influence on interpretation. These should be considered when interpreting the review’s conclusions.

Concept

Research Aims

The focus of included studies was summarised into five broader categories (see Table 5). These included directly referencing the experience of developing or fostering belonging; more broadly the needs, views and experiences of CEYP; relationships in the care system; resilience in the care system; ethnic identity of transculturally placed foster youth.

Table 5.

Focus of the Research

Sense of belonging (13)	Needs, views, experiences of CEYP youth (13)	Relationships in care (8)	Resilience in the care system (2)	Ethnic identity (2)
Current	Current	Current	Current	Current
Bamba and Haight (2009)	Biehal et al. (2010)	Emond (2014)	López et al. (2024)	Degener et al. (2023)
Bengtsson and Luckow (2020)	Burgess et al. (2010)	Ie (2022)	Retrospective	Degener et al. (2020)
Christiansen et al (2013)	Francis et al. (2021)	Retrospective	Stewart (2016)
Hedin (2014)	Fylkesnes et al. (2021)	Cardinali et al. (2023)
Johnson et al (2020)	Pithouse & Rees (2015)	Griffin (2004)
Mörgen and Rieker (2022)	Rogers (2017)	Montgomery (2018)
Skoog et al (2015)	Retrospective	Schofield (2002)
Stephenson and Källström (2020)	Nurcombe-Thorne et al. (2018)	Storer et al. (2014)
Wilson and Milne (2013)	Soyez et al. (2024)	Both
Retrospective	Sulimani-Aidan & Kovach (2024)	Negård et al. (2020)
Golden Guzman (2023)	Both
Schoenewald (2016)	Carter (2011)
Snow (2013)	Gayapersad et al. (2019)
Both	Steenbakkers, et al., 2021
Wulleman et al (2023)	Wright & Collings (2023)

Definition and Context of Belonging

Belonging was only defined by 15 studies (39.5%; See table 6). The definitions extracted could be arranged into experiential definitions focusing on the feeling and experience of belonging; psychological definitions, focusing on the link of belonging to well-being; and conceptual definitions focusing on the ideas and principles of belonging.

Table 6.

The Studies Where ‘Belonging’ Was Defined

Experiential definitions	Psychological definitions	Conceptual definitions
Carter, 2011	Soyez et al. (2024)	Schoenewald (2016)
Francis et al., 2021	Montgomery (2018)	Snow (2013)
Hedin, 2014	Steenbakkers et al. (2021)	Mörgen & Rieker (2022)
Johnson et al., 2020	Golden Guzman (2023)	Griffin (2004)
López et al. (2024)	Cardinali et al. (2023)	Bengtsson & Luckow (2020)

The context where belonging was defined also varied including in schools; family and care settings; being part of a group, system and connecting with others more broadly. The remaining studies spoke of belonging but did not define the concept.

Framework Analysis Using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model

Overview

The findings and recommendations of the included studies were extracted and placed into the Bronfenbrenner system (See Table 7). All studies referenced direct relations (microsystem), and most studies considered aspects associated with the macrosystem. The exosystem was where the most recommendations for change were identified. Only two studies contained data relating to belonging that could be placed into all five of Bronfenbrenner’s systems (Francis et al., 2021; Schoenewald, 2016).

Table 7.

Systems Referenced in Relation to Sense of Belonging for Each Study

Microsystem

Referenced most within the microsystem were the direct relationships with CEYP’s caregivers. These included two studies that referenced the importance of the discourse used in the care setting impacting feelings of belonging, for example referring to a foster family without the ‘foster’ label as shown by the following quote, “She don’t categorize me as a foster child. And I actually felt a part of that family.” (Griffin, 2004).

Other less referenced features that related to belonging and the microsystem included direct relations in church (Schoenewald, 2016); having one’s own space (Bamba & Haight, 2009; Wilson & Milne, 2013); with mentors (Montgomery, 2018); to pets (Wilson & Milne, 2013; Wright & Collings, 2023) with foster siblings (Francis et al., 2021; Golden Guzman, 2023) and through relationships during early work experience (Soyez et al., 2024).

Mesosystem

Seventeen studies highlighted the interactions between microsystems which supported CEYP’s belonging. Key findings emphasised collaboration between birth and foster families to maintain birth family contact, and carers facilitating connections with other care settings, peers and community networks. Recommendations focussed on strengthening mesosystem links through coordinated support from social services and schools particularly focussing on transition points for young people such as between homes and schools, careful consideration of family terminology, training for carers on promoting belonging, and collaboration with birth parents to support a sense of ethnic belonging.

Exosystem

Communal activities including sports programmes and youth centres were thought by youth to help develop belonging (Pithouse & Rees, 2015; Wilson & Milne, 2013); alongside, systems that provided connection and emotional support, for example, the availability of holiday-placement families and counsellors (Nurcombe-Thorne et al., 2018; Sulimani-Aidan & Kovach, 2024). Studies suggested that policies should include training CEYP’s carers about how to develop a secure base and belonging for youth; development of support systems from schools and teachers when youth experience home transitions; alongside supporting youth to talk to others about their care status. Studies also recommended creating community settings that could provide a space of belonging where CEYP can be supported in self-expression and connection with others.

Macrosystem

Twenty-one studies addressed macrosystem influences on belonging. CEYP highlighted the importance of community acceptance for their care status and other identities, such as LGBTQ+. A quotation from Snow’s (2013) study emphasised the power of community acceptance “It is a powerful thing knowing that you can be comfortable in who you are in a space and having the freedom from being judged by experiences that have forever changed you and in which you had no control.” Stigma relating to care status was frequently discussed, with belonging linked to efforts to ‘fit in’ through work experience or alignment with family norms. Cultural and ethnic values within foster families, and the alignment with birth families, shaped how young people felt about belonging, alongside broader belief systems such as religion (Schoenewald, 2016). For migrant youth, learning the culture and values of the new country also fostered belonging (Stephenson & Källström, 2020).

The need for societal change, including challenging defining youth by their care status was emphasised (Francis et al., 2021); alongside, recognising racial identity as integral to foster belonging (Stewart, 2016), which was represented in the feelings experienced when connecting with others of the same ethnic background ‘“There are a few boys with a Surinamese background in my football club, and I like that.” “What do you like about them?” “Well, it’s not that it is easier to talk with them, but it is just a good feeling.”’ (Degener et al., 2020).

Chronosystem

Studies highlighted the role of time in belonging development; these included making sense of birth family history and life story, understanding cultural backgrounds across place and time, and allowing time following transitions to develop belonging. The on-going process of feeling “at home” and recognised as family was also emphasised (Bengtsson & Luckow, 2020). Several studies recommended supporting youth to process histories and memories to make sense of transitions; prioritising friendships and social connections during school transitions (Francis et al., 2021); and equipping carers with the knowledge of children’s past experiences to inform future support (Bamba & Haight, 2009).

Discussion

This scoping review was the first to consider the features related to sense of belonging development for CEYP across any geographical location, available in the English Language. This review shows a gathering interest in the field globally, with almost half the studies being published in the last five years. While all included studies scored at least 6/10 in the quality appraisal, their main weaknesses lay in researcher reflexivity and ethical transparency, which should be considered when interpreting the review’s findings. Across studies definitions of belonging varied and researchers considered many different vantage points to form an understanding of belonging. This included perspectives from youth currently in care, retrospective accounts from care leavers and reflections across various care settings.

From the available CEYP literature, the following synthesised definition of sense of belonging is offered for consideration: the subjective experience of being emotionally connected, accepted, and valued within the multiple systems in which a CEYP is embedded. It involves feeling psychologically safe, integrated and able to express one’s authentic self. For CEYP, belonging is dynamically formed and reformed through stable, supportive relationships and places, a sense of identity continuity and the feeling of being ‘at home’.

A sense of belonging and young people’s views and experiences were the focal point of research. Unsurprisingly owing to the disruption in these young people’s lives the theoretical frameworks were predominantly located in the importance of relationships, social connection, and social context impacting developmental trajectories, and how young people adapted and made meaning from their experiences.

Findings and recommendations were synthesised using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; see Figure 2), providing a framework to consider belonging across multiple layers of interconnected systems.

Figure 2.

The synthesised sense of belonging findings for care-experienced young people (CEYP). (Model adapted by the author from Bronfenbrenner, 1979)

This review found that belonging among CEYP is shaped by multiple, interacting systems. Immediate relationships with caregivers, peers, teachers and birth families were consistently central, while mesosystem connections and exosystem supports contributed. At a broader level, the macrosystem were influential alongside the role of time and transitions. Together these findings demonstrate belonging is not confined to individual relationships but embedded in wider networks and contexts, and an evolving process given how CEYP engagements change across time.

Belonging in the Microsystem

The studies in this review mainly centred on belonging with peers and caregivers, perhaps owing to the importance placed with family belonging to protect youth from negative adolescent outcomes (King et al., 2018). Fewer studies focussed on direct interactions in school. This is notable given that school is the developmental setting most consistently available beyond the care environment. School belonging has been acknowledged as an important protective factor for the resilience of young people, but care demographics have not been considered (Sanders & Munford, 2015). One study in this review found that some high school youth conceal their care status to form belonging with peers (Johnson et al., 2020). Another mentioned the importance of teachers developing trust with CEYP to form a sense of belonging and safety within school (Sulimani-Aidan & Kovach, 2024). This review suggests forming trusting relationships is critical to developing belonging but can be challenged by the stigma of a care status.

Belonging through Mesosystem Links

Collaboration between birth families, foster families, and social services (mesosystem) was represented as important for belonging within the current review. Previous research has shown that links to birth parents and CEYP's family, support a foster child’s identity (Andersson, 1998). Studies beyond this review recommend social services should be involved in supporting the youth within their continued relations to birth families (Collings et al., 2018; Hedin, 2015). Foster youth in western countries felt both families were important to them (Wissö et al., 2019) and supportive relationships between foster and birth families nurtured more effective upbringings (Linares et al., 2006). This may relate to pride and self-worth felt by the foster youth about the respect between sets of parents. Recommendations from a review of Global South care-experienced adults reflected on the prioritisation of family preservation, then kinship placement, and safely facilitated continued contact with biological family (Wilke et al., 2023). This research and the current review indicate a sustained understanding of the importance of collaboration between care and birth families on belonging, despite time passing and other societal influences.

There was minimal focus on how the connection between caregivers, the school and neighbourhood may support belonging which needs to be addressed.

Exosystem: Shaping Indirect Belonging

Within the exosystem, youth reflected on community activities and systems in place that facilitated connection. The importance of support service availability has also been reflected on in research on care leavers in the global south (Wilke et al., 2023). Work experience opportunities and holiday families were key to CEYP feeling part of one’s surrounding systems, including school, work and communities, and mirrored the experiential definition of belonging (Hagerty et al., 1992). A gap in the research was the lack of engagement with culturally sensitive support and connection with the CEYP birth culture which, as described by Allen et al. (2021) likely impacts belonging.

Macrosystem: Sociocultural Acceptance and Belonging

Macrosystem reflections centred around the need for an accepting environment towards identity characteristics such as sexuality, ethnicity, culture, and care status. Adolescence is a critical time for developing one’s position in the world and sense of identity, that is influenced by your social context and groups you belong to. The process of belonging was largely unidirectional with CEYP fitting in, but there was some evidence of family accommodating to their identities (Mörgen & Rieker, 2022).

Demographics were collected by studies, but intersectional identities were not considered in relation to belonging. This neglects to recognise how someone’s identity shapes their experience with the cultural and societal context, including belonging formation (Crenshaw, 1991). Both LGBTQ + youth and youth from ethnic minority groups are overrepresented in child welfare systems and likely not placed with carers from the same ethnic or cultural backgrounds (Dettlaff et al., 2018; Mitchell Dove and Powers, 2018). Research has emphasised the importance of LGBTQ + identity acceptance and the significance of establishing connections with others of the same birth culture or ethnic background in supporting CEYP’s belonging (López et al., 2024; Phinney, 1990). The research gap of intersectional identity consideration on belonging parallels how definitions of belonging often focus on social connection, and neglect connections to place, culture and social structures (Allen et al., 2021).

This review found a lack of consideration of how the care families cultural and societal views shaped youth belonging. There are cross-cultural differences in the views around how you raise a child, for example most societies place the responsibilities to raise a child with larger kinship groups or communities (Seymour, 2013, p. 115). As stated by the traditional African proverb, ‘It takes a village to raise a child’, yet there is a bias towards exclusive parenting in western literature including in dominant attachment theories (Bowlby, 1969). In this review of studies accessible in English, most studies were published in Western countries and focussed on belonging with their caregivers and peers. Further research is needed to cover cultural experiences located in other countries and considering experiences of the wider community, neighbours, local events or religious groups. Investigating youth access to their birth culture or religious spaces may reveal additional sources of in-group belonging.

Belonging over Time: The Chronosystem

Finally, chronosystem findings involved supporting youth to understand their family backgrounds and acknowledging that belonging developed over time, rather than being static. Less consideration was given to questions around what groups were consistent for youth when having to move care placements (for example, schools, community, peers), which may have related to youth not having consistent experiences or may have related to research focussing on the care system rather than community resources. Additionally, the reviewed studies did not consider how belonging might differ by age, failing to account for distinct identity developmental stages and key transitional periods like the move to secondary school when analysing qualitative accounts of belonging.

Strengths and Limitations

This review provided a rigorous synthesis of research on belonging among CEYP, applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to capture influences across contexts. The review centred young people’s voices by prioritising qualitative studies, enabling insight into relational and experiential dimensions of belonging. Efforts to minimise bias included double-screening of papers and piloting data extraction processes. However, the decision to exclude studies focusing solely on ‘not belonging’ may have limited understanding barriers of belonging. Additionally, restricting the search to English language publications may have limited cultural diversity.

Implications

Research

This review contributes to the theoretical development of belonging for CEYP by proposing a multidimensional definition encompassing emotional connection, psychological safety, authenticity, stable and supportive relationships, identity continuity and integration across contexts. Adopting this standardised definition promotes consistency across studies enabling clearer synthesis and stronger policy recommendations.

Future research should attend to researcher positionality and cultural lenses, which were rarely considered in the included studies, yet critically shape interpretations of belonging. Greater attention to participants’ demographics, community and cultural contexts is also needed to capture intersectionality in belonging experiences. Further research should also consider a developmental lens with belonging to reflect the dynamic nature of belonging across the lifespan.

Policy and Practice

Findings emphasise the need for training and guidance to support carers in promoting belonging, with particular focus on collaboration between social services, schools and families to manage transitions and maintain connections with significant adults during periods of change. Beyond the microsystem, schools and communities play a crucial role in creating safe spaces, supporting cultural and ethnic connections, and facilitating peer relationships. Belonging should not be seen as the responsibility of young people alone, but shared across systems, requiring coordinated agency from carers, teachers, social workers, and wider society. Systems should be in place to provide opportunities for connection and belonging, that develops a sense of identity beyond the ‘care status’ that separates CEYP from others.

Conclusion

This scoping review mapped available research and research gaps on the features related to sense of belonging development for CEYP. This review highlighted the complexity of combining findings around belonging for CEYP, given the variety of conceptualisations of belonging, alongside layers and contexts belonging has been considered in. It was emphasised how accepting relationships and spaces for different parts of a youth’s identity, including their care status was important for developing belonging. Further consideration needs to be given to how research and policy explore and provide opportunities for experiences of belonging at each level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems, particularly considering community, ethnic, cultural and religious spaces.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Promoting a Sense of Belonging Among Care-Experienced Young People: Insights From a Scoping Review

Supplemental Material for Promoting a Sense of Belonging Among Care-Experienced Young People: Insights From a Scoping Review by Megan Critchlow, Mary John and Abby Dunn in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Megan Critchlow

Mary John

Abby Dunn

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Dr Megan Critchlow is a Clinical Psychologist and University of Surrey graduate. Her research and clinical interests are informed by a dedication to supporting individuals who have faced early life adversity. Her work focuses on how a sense of belonging is cultivated for children in care, alongside developing a grounded theory of trauma-informed workforce motivation to support the sustainable delivery of care for vulnerable populations and their systems.

Mary John is an Associate Professor and Consultant Clinical Psychologist whose clinical and research work has focused on addressing the psychological needs of vulnerable children and young people. This has included developing psychological interventions and working with individuals and their networks to enhance the opportunities of young people reaching their potential.

Dr Abby Dunn is an NIHR Advanced Fellow and mental health researcher whose work is focused on the intersection of parenting and mental health. This includes developing interventions which seek to limit the intergenerational transmission of mental illness.

References

Ainsworth

M. S.

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.4.709

Allen

K. A.

Kern

M. L.

Rozek

C. S.

McInereney

D. M.

Slavich

G. M.

(2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

Andersson

(1998). Föräldrakontakt och familjetillhörighet ur fosterbarns perspektiv [Parental contact and family belonging from foster children’s perspectives]. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 5(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.1998.5.1.2929

Bamba

Haight

(2009). Maltreated children's emerging well-being in Japanese state care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.02.006

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Bengtsson

T. T.

Luckow

S. T.

(2020). Senses of belonging when living in foster care families: Insights from children’s video diaries. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 27(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219881667

Biehal

Ellison

Baker

(2010). Belonging and permanence outcomes in long-term foster care and adoption. British Association for Adoption & Fostering.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment: Basic Books.

Bronfenbrenner

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

10.

Burgess

Rossvoll

Wallace

Daniel

(2010). It’s just like another home, just another family, so it’s nae different’ children’s voices in kinship care: A research study about the experience of children in kinship care in Scotland. Child and Family Social Work, 15(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00671.x

11.

Cardinali

Bizzi

Migliorini

(2023). Through a relational lens: Reflections about foster care experience in Italian emancipated foster youth. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1191307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191307

12.

Carter

(2011). Analysing the impact of living in a large-group therapeutic community as a young person -views of current and ex-residents. A pilot study. Journal of Social Work Practice, 25(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2010.541231

13.

Christiansen

Ø.

Havnen

K. J. S.

Havik

Anderssen

(2013). Cautious belonging: Relationships in long-term foster-care. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr198

14.

Cohen

(1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

15.

Collings

Neil

Conley

A. W.

(2018). Practices to improve communication between birth parents and permanent families. Advances in Social Work & Welfare Education, 20(2), 144–150. https://journal.anzswwer.org/index.php/advances/article/view/141.

16.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

17.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme UK . (2024). CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/qualitative-studies-checklist/.

18.

Degener

C. J.

Grietens

H. W. E.

van Bergen

D. D.

(2023). Grasping ethnic identity fluctuations of transculturally placed foster youth: A longitudinal study. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 22(3), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221081758

19.

Degener

C. J.

van Bergen

D. D.

Grietens

H. W. E.

(2020). The ethnic identity complexity of transculturally placed foster youth in the Netherlands. Children & Youth Services Review , 113, 104957. 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104957

20.

Department of Education (DfE) . (2024). Children looked after in England including adoptions. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoptions (accessed 21 February 2025).

21.

Dettlaff

A. J.

Washburn

Carr

L. C.

Vogel

A. N.

(2018). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (lgb) youth within in welfare: Prevalence, risk and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.009

22.

Emond

(2014). Longing to belong: Children in residential care and their experiences of peer relationships at school and in the children’s home. Child and Family Social Work, 19(2), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00893.x

23.

Francis

Y. J.

Rowland

Humrich

Taylor

(2021). Are you listening? Echoing the voices of looked after children about their transition to secondary school. Adoption & Fostering, 45(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575921989826

24.

Fylkesnes

Larsen

Havnen

Christiansen

Ø.

Lehmann

(2021). Listening to advice from young people in foster care—from participation to belonging. British Journal of Social Work, 51(6), 1983–2000. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab138

25.

Gayapersad

Ombok

Kamanda

Tarus

Ayuku

Braitstein

(2019). The production and reproduction of kinship in charitable children’s institutions in Uasin Gishu county, Kenya. Child & Youth Care Forum, 48(6), 797–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09506-8

26.

Golden Guzman

(2023). The cultural salience of belongingness: How placement neighborhoods and ecological factors shape adolescent experiences of fitting in during out-of-home care. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=psyh&AN=2023-55659-266&site=ehost-live&custid=s4121186.

27.

Griffin

J. D.

(2004). Growing up in foster care: A qualitative study of the relational worlds of foster youth. The University of Texas at Austin.

28.

Hagerty

B. M.

Lynch-Sauer

Patusky

K. L.

Bouwsema

Collier

(1992). Sense of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of psychiatric nusrsing, 6(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-h

29.

Hedin

(2014). A sense of belonging in a changeable everyday life - a follow-up study of young people in kinship, network, and traditional foster families. Child & Family Social Work, 19(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00887.x

30.

Hedin

(2015). Good relations between foster parents and birth parents: A Swedish study of practices promoting successful cooperation in everyday life. Child Care in Practice, 21(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2015.1005574

31.

(2022). The concept of family: Perspectives of Spanish young people in foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 28(2), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12980

32.

Johnson

R. M.

Strayhorn

T. L.

Parler

(2020). I just want to be a regular kid:’ A qualitative study of sense of belonging among high school youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104832

33.

King

Boyd

L. M.

Pragg

(2018). Parent–adolescent closeness, family belonging, and adolescent well-being across family structures. Journal of Family Issues, 39(7), 2007–2036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17739048

34.

Linares

L. O.

Montalto

Rosbruch

(2006). Discipline practices among biological and foster parents. Child Maltreatment, 11(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505285747

35.

López

L. M.

Martínez-Jothar

ten Brummelaar

M. D. C.

Parra

L. A.

Sobrino

B. S. R.

Mallon

G. P.

(2024). ‘They told me that you can be with whomever you want, be who you are’: Perceptions of LGBTQ+ youth in residential care regarding the social support provided by child welfare professionals. Children and Youth Services Review, 159, 107498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107498

36.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

37.

Mitchell

Dove L. M.

Powers

L. E.

(2018). Exploring the complexity of hair and identity among African American female adolescents in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.043

38.

Montgomery

D. E.

(2018). Life experiences that contributed to the independence and success in the lives of foster care alumni. Antioch University.

39.

Mörgen

Rieker

(2022). Doing foster family with young refugees: Negotiations of belonging and being at home. Children & Society, 36(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12460

40.

Negård

I. L.

Ulvik

O. S.

Oterholm

(2020). You and me and all of us: The significance of belonging in a continual community of children in long-term care in Norway. Children and Youth Services Review, 118(4), 105352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105352

41.

Nurcombe‐Thorne

Nadesan

van Breda

A. D.

(2018). Experiences of ‘I’ and ‘we’ among former looked‐after children in South Africa. Child & Family Social Work, 23(4), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12456

42.

Peters

M. D. J.

Godfrey

McInerney

Munn

Tricco

A. C.

Khalil

(2020). Scoping reviews . Available at: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global (accessed September 2024)

43.

Phinney

J. S.

(1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499

44.

Pithouse

Rees

(2015). Creating stable foster placements. Learning from foster children and the families who care for them. Jessica Kingsley.

45.

Rogers

(2017). Different’ and ‘Devalued’: Managing the stigma of foster-care with the benefit of peer support. British Journal of Social Work, 47(4), 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw063

46.

Sanders

Munford

(2015). Fostering a sense of belonging at school––five orientations to practice that assist vulnerable youth to create a positive student identity. School Psychology International, 37(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315614688

47.

Schoenewald

(2016). A qualitative study to explore ambiguous loss and belonging in foster care. The University of Wisconsin.

48.

Schofield

(2002). The significance of a secure base: A psychosocial model of long-term foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 7(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2002.00254.x

49.

Seymour

S. C.

(2013). “It takes a village to raise a child”: Attachment theory and multiple child care in Alor, Indonesia, and in North India. In Quinn

Mageo

J. M.

(Eds.), Attachment reconsidered: Culture, mind, and society (pp. 115–139). Palgrave Macmillan.

50.

Skoog

Khoo

Nygren

(2015). Disconnection and dislocation: Relationships and belonging in unstable foster and institutional care. British Journal of Social Work, 45(6), 1888–1904. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu033

51.

Snow

(2013). Aspirations and belonging: Touchstones for the journey. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 4(3), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs43201312435

52.

Soyez

Gilligan

Arnau-Sabatès

Johansson

Hojer

Pazlorova

Sjöblom

Stoddart

(2024). Early work experiences, social inclusion and transition to adulthood: The voice of care-experienced young adults. Journal of Social Work, 24(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173231225423

53.

Steenbakkers

van der Steen

Grietens

(2021). On the bright side: Young people’s most positive memories of family foster care. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26(2), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104520978691

54.

Stephenson

M. M.

Källström

(2020). Making sense of places: Belonging among “unaccompanied” young migrants in kinship care in a Swedish suburb. Child and Family Social Work, 25(4), 742–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12750

55.

Stewart

D. L.

(2016). Fragmented lives: A qualitative study of the experiences of Black youth who have aged out of the foster care system. Eastern Michigan University.

56.

Storer

H. L.

Barkan

S. E.

Stenhouse

L. L.

Eichenlaub

Mallillin

Haggerty

K. P.

(2014). In search of connection: The foster youth and caregiver relationship. Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.04.008

57.

Sulimani-Aidan

Kovach

(2024). Out-of-home care experiences and their influence on the journey to adulthood: Insights from care leavers in Israel. Emerging Adulthood, 12(4), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968241245458

58.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O'Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

59.

Wilke

N. G.

Roberts

Forber-Pratt

Njeri

Howard

A. H.

(2023). Recommendations for child welfare care reform in the global south: Perspectives of 542 adults who were separated from parental care during childhood in 12 nations. Children & Society, 37(3), 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12638

60.

Wilson

Milne

E. J.

(2013). Young people creating belonging: Spaces, sounds and sights. Economic & Social Research Council.

61.

Wissö

Johansson

Höjer

(2019). What is a family? Constructions of family and parenting after a custody transfer from birth parents to foster parents. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12475

62.

Wright

A. C.

Collings

(2023). Conceptual meanings of permanency: Photovoice with care-experienced youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 28(1), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2023.2261862

63.

Wulleman

Grietens

Noens

Vliegen

(2023). Fostering a sense of belonging: The role of family terminology and discourse for individuals involved in non-kinship foster care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 18(3), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2023.2219642