Helping former foster youth graduate from college through campus support programs

Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h

Helping former foster youth graduate from college through campus support programs Amy Dworsky a,⁎, Alfred Pérez b a b

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, United States University of Chicago, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 30 June 2009 Received in revised form 14 September 2009 Accepted 14 September 2009 Available online 22 September 2009

a b s t r a c t This exploratory study examines the implementation of campus support programs designed to provide financial, academic, and other types of supports to students who had aged out of foster care. Data were collected from program administrators and student participants in California and Washington State. Telephone interviews were conducted with 10 campus support program administrators that covered a variety of domains. Student participants from 8 of the 10 programs completed a web-based survey that asked about their perceptions of and experiences with the program. Recommendations for moving forward with a methodologically sound impact evaluation of campus support programs are discussed. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The economic benefits of a college education are well documented. Young adults with at least a bachelor's degree earn significantly more than those with less education, and the gap in median income between college graduates and high school graduates has increased over time. In 2005, 25 to 34 year olds who had at least a bachelor's degree earned, on average, 61% more than those with only a high school diploma or GED (Planty et al., 2007). Although more difficult to quantify, research suggests that graduating from college can also have non-monetary benefits (Baum & Ma, 2007). Graduating from college is no less important for young people making the transition out of foster care. Unfortunately, the limited data we have indicate that the percentage of foster youth who graduate from college is very low, with estimates ranging from as low as 1 to as high as 11% depending on the age at which educational attainment is measured (Emerson, 2006; Pecora et al., 2003; Wolanin, 2005). By comparison, approximately 30% of 25 to 29 year olds in the general population have at least a bachelor's degree (Snyder, Dillow & Hoffman, 2008). The lower rate of college graduation among young adults who “aged out” of foster care reflects a combination of factors. The first is a lower rate of college attendance. Courtney et al. (2007) found that just 30% of the 591 21 year olds in their sample of former foster youth had completed at least 1 year of college compared with 53% of 21 year olds in a nationally representative sample. Lower rates of high school completion explain at least part of this difference (Burley & Halpern, 2001). Based on a review of several studies, ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Dworsky), [email protected] (A. Pérez). 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.09.004

Wolanin (2005) estimated that approximately 50% of foster youth complete high school by age 18 compared with 70% of their non-foster peers. More recently, Courtney et al. (2007) reported that 77% of the 21 year old former foster youth in their sample had a high school diploma or GED compared with 89% of a nationally representative sample of 21 year olds. However, even among high school graduates, foster youth are less likely to attend college than other young adults (Brandford & English, 2004). According to Wolanin (2005), approximately 20% of foster youth who graduate from high school attend college compared with 60% of high school graduates in the general population. Likewise, Courtney et al. (2007) found that 39% of the former foster youth in their sample who had a high school diploma or a GED had completed at least 1year of college by age 21 compared with 59% of the 21 year olds who had a high school diploma or a GED in a nationally representative sample. Another contributing factor is that former foster youth who do pursue post-secondary education are less likely to persist toward the completion of a degree (Wolanin, 2005). Davis (2006) found that only 26% of the foster care alumni in a 1995 college entry cohort had earned a degree by 2001 compared with 56% of their non-foster peers in the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Survey (Berkner, He, & Cataldi, 2002). The problem is not that foster youth lack college aspirations. On the contrary, research suggests that the majority of them do aspire to go to college (Courtney, Terao & Bost, 2004; McMillen, Auslander, Elze, White, & Thompson, 2003). However, a review of the literature reveals at least six barriers that may make it difficult for them to achieve their post-secondary educational goals. First, the child welfare system has traditionally done a poor job of encouraging foster youth to pursue post-secondary education (Merdinger, Hines, Osterling, & Wyatt, 2005). Many are not given opportunities to explore their options or information about applying

256

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

to school (Davis, 2006). This could reflect low expectations on the part of case workers, foster parents or other service providers who assume that foster youth will not achieve much academically (Wolanin, 2005). It could also indicate that case workers, foster parents and other service providers are not trained to help foster youth with the college application process. Second, foster youth who have a high school diploma may not be prepared for college level work (Emerson, 2006) because placement instability led to frequent school changes and disrupted their education (Courtney et al., 2004; Pecora et al., 2005) or because they had not been tracked into college preparatory courses (Wolanin, 2005). Third, unlike many of their peers, most foster youth cannot depend on parents or other family members to help them pay for college (Wolanin, 2005). Nor can they count on their families for emotional support (Emerson, 2006). Coupled with the academic demands of college and their lack of independent living skills (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Merdinger et al., 2005; Wolanin, 2005), this can leave former foster youth feeling overwhelmed. Fourth, under federal law, all wards or dependents of the court are considered “financially independent,” which means that their parent or guardian's income does not affect their eligibility for financial aid (Emerson, 2006). However, they are often unaware of the financial aid for which they are eligible (Davis, 2006). Fifth, foster youth are much more likely to exhibit mental and behavioral health problems than their non-foster peers (McMillen et al., 2005; Shin, 2006), and this disparity seems to persist into early adulthood (Pecora et al., 2005). These problems may interfere with the ability of former foster youth to succeed in college, particularly if, as frequently occurs, the treatment they were receiving is discontinued after they leave care (Courtney et al., 2005; McMillen & Raghavan, 2009). Finally, student services personnel at most post-secondary institutions are not familiar with or prepared to address the unique needs of young people transitioning out of foster care (Emerson, 2006). Even programs that target low-income and first-generation-in-college students were not designed with the challenges faced by former foster youth in mind. To address some of these barriers and to promote post-secondary education and training among foster youth, Congress established the Education and Training Voucher (ETV) Program in 2001 as an amendment to the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act. Current and former foster youth are eligible for up to $5000 of assistance each year to cover tuition, room and board or other education-related costs. Foster youth making satisfactory progress toward the completion of their program can continue to receive an ETV until they are 23 years old if they first received it by age 21 (Kessler, 2004). Foster youth may also be eligible for financial assistance from statespecific programs. Many states, including Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have tuition waiver programs that allow foster youth to attend public institutions at no charge or at a significantly reduced rate. Other states, including Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin target foster youth for scholarships or grants (Eilertson, 2002; Spigel, 2004). Eligibility requirements and the amount of assistance available vary widely across states. Not much is known about the impact of the ETV or state-specific programs on the pursuit of post-secondary education or training. Although they may make college a more economically viable option, most of these programs do not provide young people making the transition from foster care to college with assistance to address their non-financial needs. One notable exception is the growing number of campus support programs that provide an array of financial, academic, social/emotional

and logistical (e.g., housing) supports to help former foster youth stay in school and graduate. Concentrated in California and Washington State, these programs are typically supported, at least in part, by private philanthropy. Implicit in recent calls for the replication of campus support programs on a much broader scale and with government funding (California Foster Youth Education Summit, 2007a,b) is the assumption that campus support programs lead to higher college retention and graduation rates. However, more than a decade after the first program began in 1998, not much is known about their impact on educational outcomes. Pontecorvo, El-Askari, and Putnam (2006) examined five “college success” programs by reviewing written reports and by interviewing program staff, program participants and community stakeholders. According to their report, program participants experienced higher rates of college retention and graduation than either of two comparison groups: former foster youth who did not participate or “disadvantaged” students who had not been in foster care. However, they did not present data to support this claim. In fact, they cited a lack of program data on which to base an evaluation as a major problem. The researchers also failed to control for differences between program participants and the comparison group members that might account for the differences in outcomes they observed. Schultz and Mueller (2008) studied seven scholarship programs that provide services and financial support to former foster youth. They used a web-based survey to collect program-level data (i.e., eligibility criteria, number of recipients, support services provided, expenses covered by scholarships, support services provided, amount and type of contact between recipients and staff, program expenditures, and evaluation activities) as well as individual-level data for the five most recent cohorts of scholarship recipients (N = 1445). Two thirds of the recipients were female, a majority were either White (37%) or African American (33%), and their median age was 19 years old. Almost three quarters of the recipients were attending public institutions and nearly two thirds were attending four-year schools. Although the researchers had also wanted to examine how recipient characteristics and program components were related to academic performance or other program outcomes, the program managers they surveyed were unable to provide much of the requested data related to GPA, credits earned or degree completion. Price (2008) conducted interviews with the directors of several campus support programs as part of an effort to develop a management information system (MIS) that could be used to track not only the academic outcomes of former foster youth but also the services and supports that they receive. Those interviews revealed that most program directors had developed a customized database to track the receipt of academic and social services by students in their program, and were interested in how those data could be used to improve the services and supports that they provide. However, program directors had not used the data they collect to evaluate their programs. Nor was the creation of a centralized database that could be used for evaluation and policy-making perceived as a priority. Finally, Cooper, Mery and Rassen (2008) examined how the California's community colleges are addressing the needs of emancipated foster youth. Researchers interviewed faculty and staff from 12 community colleges and conducted site visits at two, analyzed survey data collected from community college Foster Youth Liaisons, and surveyed former foster youth enrolled at 36 schools. Although this was not a study of campus support programs per se, two of their findings are worth noting. First, community colleges had limited resources to engage in outreach activities that target foster youth or to address the specific needs of students who had been in foster care . And second, none of the community colleges involved in the study was systematically tracking students' academic progress. A more comprehensive and methodologically sound impact evaluation is clearly needed if a compelling case is to be made that campus support programs lead to better educational outcomes, and

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

hence represent a good investment of public funds. However, before such an evaluation can proceed, it is necessary to take a step backward and ask some basic questions about these programs and the program participants. Some of these questions pertain to program implementation (e.g., What services and supports are being provided? How many former foster youth are receiving those services and supports? What are the major challenges that programs have encountered?). Other questions are concerned with the feasibility of conducting an evaluation (e.g., Is there an explicit program model? What are the program's goals? What data are being collected or can be obtained from other sources?). It was with these two sets of questions in mind that this exploratory study was designed.

257

complete it. Eight of the 10 program administrators distributed this information to their current participants. Ninety-eight students completed the survey, and each received a $25 incentive payment. The survey focused on program participants' experiences with and perceptions of the program. The questions were primarily closeended, but some provided an opportunity for program participants to answer using their own words. Among other things, program participants were asked about their reasons for applying, the types of supports they had received, the importance of those supports to their academic success, their recommendations for improving the program and ways in which the program may have helped them cope with the transition from foster care to college. Where relevant, we provide direct quotes from the program participants.

2. Methodology 3. Results of interviews with program directors We conducted telephone interviews with administrators from each of the 10 campus support programs in California and Washington State that were fully implemented as of the 2006–2007 academic year. No incentives were provided to the interviewees (Table 1). However, all of their programs had been funded, at least in part, by the W.S. Johnson or Stuart Foundation—the two philanthropic foundations that funded this research. Each interview took approximately 45 to 60 minutes to complete and covered several domains including: program goals and target population, characteristics of program participants, referral sources and recruitment, eligibility and the application process, the provision of services and supports, funding, staff qualifications, stakeholder partnerships and program monitoring. The interviews were recorded (with the interviewee's permission) and transcribed. The transcripts were read by the principal investigator and her research assistant with two goals in mind. The first was to develop a typology of programs that could be used to categorize the programs into a small number of groups. The second was to identify common themes that emerged as administrators described their programs and the challenges they faced. To elicit a different perspective, we also designed a web-based survey for program participants. We sent an email to the program administrators we had interviewed containing the survey's URL along with a message explaining the purpose of the survey and how to

Table 1 Programs and their institutional affiliations. Institutional affiliation Northern California California State University, East Bay San Francisco State University San José State University University of California, Santa Cruz Southern California California State Polytechnic University, Pomona California State University, Fullerton Orange Coast Community College University of California, Irvine Washington State College Success Foundation Seattle University

Name of program

Established

Renaissance Scholars

2006–07

Guardian Scholars 2005–06 Connect, Motivate & Educate Society 2005–06 Smith Renaissance Societya 2003–04

Renaissance Scholars

2002–03

Guardian Scholars

1998–99

Guardian Scholars

2001–02

Guardian Scholars

2002–03

Governor's Scholarship Fostering Scholarsb

2002–03 2006–07

a The Smith Renaissance Society was formed in 2008 when the Renaissance Scholars Program, which engaged in outreach to foster youth in high schools and community colleges, and the Page and Eloise Smith Scholastic Society, which provided supportive services to former wards of the court, merged. b Fostering Scholars recently expanded to serve foster youth from counties other than King (Seattle).

Although all of the programs aim to increase opportunities for foster youth to pursue higher education and provide foster youth with the supports they need to succeed in school and graduate, they are quite diverse. Thus, rather than develop a typology similar to the one developed by Pontecorvo et al. (2006), we identified five key dimensions which seemed to capture most of this variation. Nine of the ten programs were campus-based and affiliated with a single school. The one exception was the Governor's Scholarship, which is administered by the College Success Foundation and provides financial and other assistance to former foster youth at 56 public and private institutions throughout Washington State. Most of these programs are “competitive” in that students must submit an application and be selected to participate. Because students have already been admitted to the college or university, academic ability is less of a consideration than personal characteristics. This is why applicants are usually interviewed by selection committee members and why some programs require applicants to write about their background and the barriers they have had to overcome, to talk about why they want the scholarship and what they plan to study, or to list the five accomplishments of which they are the most proud as part of their personal statement. By contrast, the three “non-competitive” programs (i.e., SJSU's CME Society, California State East Bay, and UC Irvine's Guardian Scholars program) are open to all students who are former foster youth. Moving forward, under an agreement negotiated as part of the California College Pathways Project, all newly-funded programs will be non-competitive although eligibility for certain relatively scarce resources, such as housing or small scholarships, can be limited as long as the criteria used to determine which students received are fair and can be justified. Campus support programs typically provide a “last dollar” scholarship which covers any remaining expenses after all other sources of financial aid (i.e., federal, state, private, and college/university) have been exhausted, thereby obviating the need for student loans. Former foster youth are generally eligible for up to 5 years of scholarship assistance (or until age 24 in the case of UC Irvine and Orange Coast Community College students whose scholarships are funded by the Orangewood Children's Foundation). One exception, SJSU's CME Society, does not provide a scholarship, but helps members identify other sources of financial aid for which they can apply. Another exception, UC Irvine's Guardian Scholars program, is somewhat of a hybrid in that only former foster youth from Orange County are eligible for the scholarship which is administered by the Orangewood Children's Foundation. Some programs require students to maintain a GPA above some minimum (typically a 2.0) and/or take a full course load (generally 12 credits). More broadly, students must be making academic progress toward their degree. Students who are no longer eligible for a scholarship may still receive services. Some programs require students to sign an agreement that outlines what they are expected to do (e.g., make academic progress, meet with

258

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

staff, attend events). Although program directors “try to meet students where they are” and “help them in any way they can,” they also hold students accountable for their actions. Although most of these campus support programs engage in at least some direct service provision, a few, including the Orange Coast Community College Guardian Scholars program and SJSU's CME Society, are more akin to referral agencies that direct students to on-campus, or in some cases community-based, resources. Campus support programs generally function as independent entities. One exception is UC Irvine's Guardian Scholars Program, which was folded into the larger Student Academic Advance Services (SAAS) program for first-generation or low-income college students and for college students with disabilities. This arrangement makes sense administratively, because former foster youth are almost always eligible for SAAS, and it allows former foster youth to “blend in” with other students. The risk is that the unique needs of former foster youth may not be addressed. Another exception, San Francisco State's Guardian Scholars Program, is a joint effort involving both the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) and the School of Social Work. This too makes sense from an administrative standpoint in that former foster youth are typically eligible for EOP. Moreover, the School of Social Work provides case management services, thereby reducing the likelihood that the unique needs of former foster youth will be ignored. Although the five dimensions listed in Table 2 capture most of the cross-program variation, programs also differ in other ways as well. For example, programs vary with respect to the amount of interaction that participants have with one another. At one extreme are the College Success Foundation's Governor's Scholars who are scattered throughout Washington State and rarely come together. At the other extreme are the San Francisco State Guardian Scholars who live together year-round in a residential theme community. There is a lot of variation between these two extremes. To help sustain a sense of community, some programs mandate attendance at certain events (or a minimum number of events). Others pair older students (i.e., mentors) with younger students (i.e., mentees) to help them navigate the transition from foster care to college. Programs also vary with respect to the role that private donors play. Some programs limit donor involvement to making financial contributions. Others match students with donors who serve as mentors.

Table 2 Variation across campus support programs along selected dimensions.

Cal State East Bay San Francisco State San José State UC Santa Cruz Cal Poly Pomona Cal State Fullerton Orange Coast UC Irvine College Success Foundation Seattle University

Provides scholarships or only nonfinancial supports

Affiliated with a particular campus or operated statewide

Serves all eligible students or uses a selection process

Campusbased Campusbased Campusbased Campusbased Campusbased Campusbased Campusbased Campusbased State-wide

NonScholarship competitive Competitive Scholarship

CampusBased

Competitive Scholarship

NonNo competitive scholarship Competitive Scholarship Competitive Scholarship Competitive Scholarship Competitive Scholarship NonHybrid competitive Competitive Scholarship

Independent Some entity direct service provision or only referrals Direct services Direct services Referrals only Direct services Direct services Direct services Referrals only Direct services Direct services

Yes

Direct services

Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

However, at least one program director expressed concern about donors who become involved for the “wrong reasons” such as wanting to probe deeply into a student's family background or placement history. Several of the administrators we interviewed had worked with foster youth in other settings, with other at-risk youth (e.g., homeless youth), or for similar programs (e.g., EOP, campus support programs at other schools). A few are foster care alumni who can relate to the challenges that their students face. Most of these administrators were supported by a very small staff—generally one or two people. However, staff turnover tends to be low, so students have an opportunity to develop lasting relationships with adults who are genuinely concerned about them and their success in school. This may be a new experience for students whose case workers changed frequently while they were in foster care. The amount of contact students have with program staff depends on several factors. Students who are doing well academically may touch base a couple of times each month whereas those who are experiencing academic or other problems tend to interact with program staff much more frequently. A number of programs have official policies regarding how often students must meet with staff, and several directors told us that staff will initiate contact with students who fail to “check in.” In fact, one program director has been known to use course schedules to “hunt” students down. Although increasing retention is a major goal of campus support programs, students do drop out for a variety of academic, financial or personal/family reasons. In some cases, program directors continue to work with these students because they can be re-admitted if they were in good academic standing when they left. 4. Challenges facing campus support programs One of the most striking things to emerge from our interviews was the wide array of challenges programs faced in their efforts to help former foster youth stay in school and graduate. To begin with, program directors expressed concern about foster youth not having access to information about post-secondary educational options, college admissions requirements, financial aid availability, or campus support programs. They also lamented that foster youth are often not encouraged to pursue postsecondary education despite its importance to labor market success. This lack of encouragement might explain, at least in part, why far too many foster youth are not academically prepared for college-level work. One director went so far as to say that even community college may be beyond the reach of some. Most of the directors estimated that 50 to nearly 100% of the young people in their programs are required to take remedial level courses (which don't count toward college credit). Remedial course-taking was especially high at the one community college-based program, probably because California's community colleges have an open admissions policy (i.e., students are not required to have a high school diploma or GED). The only exceptions were the two University of California based programs. Their schools do not offer remedial courses because the admissions process is supposed to screen out students who are not academically prepared. Not only are relatively few foster youth academically prepared for college, but identifying eligible students can be difficult. For years, the only systematic way for campus support programs to identify eligible students was through a question on the FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) which asks “Are you (or were you until age 18) a ward/dependent of the court?” Unfortunately, the FAFSA data sometimes arrived after all of the program slots were filled. The question can also be confusing, particularly for young people who had been in foster care for years but left before their 18th birthday or who are placed with kin and may not think of themselves as wards of the court (Pecora et al., 2005). An item that asks students to “indicate if you have been in foster care (e.g., foster home, group home or placed with a relative by the court)” was recently added to the admissions application for California's public colleges and universities. Although this item

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

addresses some of the FAFSA question's shortcomings, the new item does not distinguish between students who had ever been in foster care—including those who returned home to their families or were adopted—and those who “aged out.” Moreover, some young people who would be eligible for these program do not identify themselves (and do not want to be identified) as former foster youth. Because it can be difficult to identify eligible students, campus support programs devote a considerable amount of time and other resources towards recruitment and outreach activities. They send representatives to college fairs or other events attended by high school students, organize campus visits, tours and information sessions, meet with individual students and give potential applicants a chance to talk with current program participants. Some of these efforts have paid off and a number of programs are on target to meet their recruitment goals or have more applicants than slots to fill. Efforts to increase awareness of campus support programs have included conference presentations to professionals who work with foster youth, outreach to school counselors and designated foster youth liaisons at community colleges, mass mailings to foster youth and their caregivers, and working closely with independent living services providers, public child welfare agencies and community organizations. Other efforts, such as providing information to residential advisors or talking with faculty and staff, have been more internally focused. Meeting some of the program participants' non-academic needs can also be challenging. Most campus support programs provide yearround housing. This is critical for former foster youth because many have nowhere to go when school is not in session. Addressing students' housing needs was especially challenging for the community college-based program because, like most community colleges, it does not provide on-campus housing. Finding affordable housing near the campus can be difficult, and transportation becomes an issue if students have to commute from far away. Another common need is for mental health services. Because mental health problems or personal crises can adversely affect academic progress, campus support programs often make referrals to student counseling services. Recognizing that former foster youth may have a greater need for these services than the typical undergraduate, several campus support programs have arranged for annual caps on the number of sessions for which students are eligible to be doubled or lifted altogether. In some cases, students must be referred to community-based clinics because the mental health services they need are not available on campus, and at least one program uses some of its foundation funding to pay for these services. Students may also fail to “follow through” when a referral is made due to their distrust of mental health professionals. Finally, programs must also deal with the issue of long-term financial sustainability. Thus far, much of the funding for campus support programs has come from private foundations or individual and corporate donors. The colleges and universities with which they are affiliated have generally provided in-kind support, such as office space, or have covered some or all personnel costs. Directors expressed concern about ongoing funding once their start-up grants expire. In some cases, funding from other college or university departments is replacing foundation support, which is why it is important for programs to have the backing of the college or university administration. One way programs are dealing with some of these challenges is by working collaboratively through both formal organizations and informal partnerships. Collaboration among campus support programs, particularly within the same region, is common. Many of the California programs belong to formal organizations (e.g., Southern California Higher Education Foster Youth Consortium; Northern California University Foster Youth Consortium; Southern California Council of Colleges), which some program directors described as “support groups” for sharing ideas about best practice. Program directors in California also work with the Foster Youth Success Initiative to facilitate the transfer of foster youth from community colleges to four-year schools. However, collaboration can also involve informal partnerships, as when estab-

259

lished programs assist in the development of new programs or programs share information about potential recruits. In addition to these external collaborations, program directors work closely with other departments and divisions at their own schools. 5. Data collection and utilization Because one of the aims of our study was to assess the feasibility of doing an impact evaluation, we were particularly interested in how programs were monitoring student progress. What we found is that programs track student progress in a number of different ways. Some maintain a customized database that includes information about GPA, course grades, courses taken, academic major, and/or credits earned, although they were frequently described as “in development.” Most of the other programs are able to pull individual-level student data directly from a campus-wide system, but a couple must submit requests for the specific data that they need. By contrast, only two programs have a system for tracking the provision of services and supports. Both collect those data in narrative form, which might explain why they have rarely been used. Programs use the data they collect for a variety of purposes. Not surprisingly, the most common is to measure student progress. Of Table 3 Characteristics of program participants who completed survey (N = 98). Frequency

Percentage

Gender Males Females

21 77

21.4 78.6

Race/ethnicity African American Latino/Hispanic Native American/American Indian Caucasian/White Asian or Pacific Islander Biracial/Multiracial Other Missing

31 22 1 22 6 11 3 2

31.6 22.4 1.0 22.4 6.1 11.2 3.1 2.0

Age 18 or 19 20 or 21 22 and older

46 29 23

46.9 29.6 23.4

Campus support program California State University, East Bay San Francisco State University San José State University California State Polytechnic University, Pomona California State University, Fullerton Orange Coast Community College College Success Foundation Seattle University

11 13 13 18 15 6 17 5

11.2 13.3 13.3 18.4 15.3 6.1 17.3 5.1

Year in school First year undergraduate Second year undergraduate Third year undergraduate Fourth year undergraduate Fifth year undergraduate Graduate studenta Missing

36 22 21 12 4 1 2

36.7 22.4 21.4 12.2 4.1 1.0 2.0

Any disability Yes No Missing

10 84 4

10.2 85.7 4.1

Required to take remedial courses Yes No Missing

51 44 3

52.0 44.9 3.1

a Cal State Fullerton recently expanded its program to include former foster youth pursuing a master's degree.

260

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

particular concern is whether students are meeting academic requirements and are on track to graduate within 5 years. Data are also used for end-of-year reporting, which often means that programs only track what their funders want to know. Interestingly, only two of the program directors we interviewed specifically mentioned research or evaluation as a reason for data collection. 6. Results of web-based survey of program participants The 98 respondents who completed the web-based survey were predominately female but racially and ethnically diverse. Nearly one third self-identified as African American. Another 45% self-identified as Latino or White. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 26 years old, but 20 years old was both the mean and median age. More than one third were college freshman, and most of the others were in their sophomore or junior years. Ten percent identified themselves as having learning or other disabilities. Just over half were required to take remedial courses, which don't count toward college credit, before they could begin college level work (Table 3). These 98 young people do not comprise a random sample of campus support program participants in California and Washington State. However, based on the demographic data that program directors shared, our sample of program participants looks similar to the larger population, at least in terms of gender and race/ethnicity. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that the experiences and perceptions of our respondents necessarily reflect those of program participants more generally. Just over half of our respondents learned about their campus support program from a source connected with the child welfare system (i.e., their social worker, case worker or independent living services provider). Just over 40% were contacted by someone from the program, and nearly one third learned about the program from a current or former participant. Interestingly, high schools were not a major source of information (Table 4). Respondents cited several reasons for wanting to participate in the program. Many were in need of the financial aid the program would provide. Due to my family situation I couldn't pay for my schooling…And I knew that this program would help me a lot. [W]ithout this it would be very hard for me to go to school. Others thought the program would help them achieve their educational goals. I became a [program participant] because it will assist and guide me throughout my years in college…It also allowed me to have a equal opportunity to achieve my goals just as any other student who is pursuing a college degree. Respondents also desired to be with students from backgrounds similar to their own.

N

Help choosing Courses Tutoring Access to dedicated computer lab Study skills training Assistance related to a disabilitya Priority enrollment Summer Bridge Help choosing a major Entry level exam preparation Graduate school advising Graduate school exam preparation a

96 96 96 96 10 94 94 96 96 96 96

Received support

Important or very important (if support was provided)

#

%

#

% of recipients

60 58 56 53 5 46 45 35 28 27 13

62.5 60.4 58.3 55.2 50.0 48.9 47.9 36.5 29.2 28.1 13.5

56 35 42 29 5 46 38 32 15 19 10

93.3 60.3 75.0 54.7 100.0 47.0 38.8 91.4 53.5 70.3 76.9

Of the 10 respondents who reported a learning or other disability.

I felt that being surrounded by people of the same background would help to motivate me in a way that I would feel I was not the only one. I knew that they would understand my background and help direct me and guide me in the best possible way. We asked respondents a series of questions about services and supports they had received because of their participation in the campus support program. Although the questions emphasized that we were only interested in service and supports they had received as program participants, and not those available to all students, it is possible that this distinction was not always made. With that caveat in mind, we looked at the academic and other services and supports that respondents received. With respect to services and supports to address their academic needs, respondents were most likely to have received help choosing courses. This was followed by tutoring, access to a dedicated computer lab, and study skills training. Just under half had taken advantage of priority enrollment, which means that they were able to register for courses before other students through an agreement between the program and the Registrar's Office. Nearly as many had participated in Summer Bridge, a rigorous academic “boot camp” that familiarizes new students with the campus and what will be expected of them prior to the start of their freshman year. Their level of Summer Bridge participation is somewhat lower than expected given that most of the program directors had told us that participation in Summer Bridge was mandatory (Table 5). Not all of these academic services and supports were perceived as equally important to succeeding in school. Help choosing courses and help choosing a major were perceived as important or very important by nearly all recipients. Recipients of disability-related assistance were even more likely to perceive that assistance as important or very important. Perceptions of Summer Bridge were much less positive. Only 39% of Summer Bridge participants perceived it as important or very important. Respondents also received a number of non-academic services and supports as a result of their program participation (Table 6). Three Table 6 Receipt and perceived importance of other services and supports.

Table 4 How participants learned about program (N = 98).

Contacted by someone from the program Independent living services provider Social worker/caseworker Current or former program participant From college/university admissions material Private agency High school teacher, guidance counselor or principal Contacted by someone from financial aid office Contacted by someone from the admissions office

Table 5 Receipt and perceived importance of academic services and supports.

Frequency

Percentage

42 39 33 29 27 26 17 10 4

42.9 39.8 33.7 29.6 27.6 26.5 17.3 10.2 4.1

Note. Respondents could report learning about the program from more than one source.

N

Financial aid Housing assistance Leadership development opportunities Mentoring

96 95 95 94

Received support

Important or very important (if support was provided)

#

%

#

% of recipients

74 65 61 55

75.5 66.3 64.2 58.5

72 63 47 50

98.6 96.9 47.9 51.0

Note. N, number of participants who responded to the question. #, number of affirmative responses.

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263 Table 7 What financial aid provided by the program paid for (N = 73).a

Books Tuition Room and board School supplies Emergency needs Laptop/computer a

Frequency

Percentage

56 54 53 53 42 20

76.7 74.0 72.6 72.6 57.5 27.4

One recipient of financial aid did not complete the follow-up questions.

quarters had received financial aid from their campus support programs. It makes sense that this is less than 100% because not all programs include a scholarship component. Most recipients of this financial aid used it to pay for books, tuition, school supplies or room and board. A majority used it to address “emergency needs.” Not all of the program participants used the financial aid they received directly from the program to pay for tuition because most programs provide “last dollar” scholarships that cover costs remaining after financial aid from other sources has been exhausted (Table 7). Nearly all of the financial aid recipients perceived it as important or very important, as was clearly illustrated by the following comment. The [campus support program] helped…by giving me support for school and by giving me financial aid. I am very thankful because if it wasn't for them I would not be going to school. Approximately two thirds of our respondents reported that they had received housing assistance. Most of these recipients had received on-campus housing, and two thirds had received housing assistance when school was not in session (Table 8). Almost all of the housing assistance recipients perceived it as important or very important. This is not surprising given the concerns about housing that many expressed. I think that for me feeling secure about where I'm going to live is always in the back of my head… I don't know if I'll have a roof over my head. And that is very scary to think about. Two other services and supports that these programs often provide are mentoring opportunities for leadership development. Nearly two thirds reported that they had been given opportunities for leadership development and well over half reported that they had been assigned a mentor. Recipients of these services and supports were less likely to perceive them as important or very important than recipients of financial aid or housing assistance (Table 7). Respondents also seemed to derive a sense of family from their participation in the program. The students get to build a family within the [campus support program]. We get to support each other and the [campus support program] staff and sponsors are our parents in school so they look after us like a family does for their children. In fact, respondents were more likely to report that the program provided them with a sense of family (86%) than they were to report

Table 8 Type of housing assistance received (N = 65).

On-campus Holidays and spring break housing Summer housing Off-campus

261

that they had received housing assistance (66%) or financial aid (76%). More than three quarters of those who perceived this sense of family regarded it as important or very important. Program directors had told us that making referrals is an important part of what their programs do. This was confirmed by respondents' self-reports. Sixty percent had been referred to student counseling services, 49% had been referred to student health services, and 39% had been referred to community agencies. Despite the wide array of services and supports that these programs provide, as well as the many referrals that they make, nearly one third of our respondents (31%) identified at least one unmet need for services or supports. Help with housing and living expenses were among the most frequently cited unmet needs. Others mentioned graduate school advising or career counseling. I would have the director meet with all seniors to make sure they have a plan after graduation and if they need any help applying to grad schools. I would want there to be a service where individually scholars are sat down and evaluated as to what career path they are headed down. Just over 40% of our respondents reported having in-person contact with program staff at least once a week and a similar percentage reported having in-person contact several times each academic term. The distribution was much the same when we asked about contact with program staff by email or telephone. Respondents seemed to benefit from the contact that they had with program staff. Nearly 90% rated program staff as either helpful or very helpful. They were particularly appreciative of the advice that they received. [They] gave me ideas of how to balance my personal life and school [so] it does not affect my performance in school. [They] just give me different alternatives to deal with situations…. We asked respondents to describe the most significant challenge they had faced as they made the transition from foster care to college. Some of these challenges were not unlike those that young people who had never been in foster care experience when they go away to school. Just knowing how to adjust to the difference; the work load was different and the college environment was totally different from my high school environment. Other challenges, such as balancing the demands of work and school while struggling to support oneself, would be familiar to many low-income students who had never been in foster care. Managing going to school full time as well as working as much as possible to be able to support myself and pay for my bills. Nevertheless, some of the challenges they reported probably reflected their unique experience as former foster youth. One such challenge was having a place to live. Making sure I had a place to live especially during the times when there was no school. I was afraid I wouldn't have a place to stay and I wouldn't be able to do as good in college as I did in high school.

Frequency

Percentage

58 43 43 17

89.2 66.2 66.2 26.2

Another was a profound sense of being alone, which these three comments illustrate. There is an incredible feeling of aloneness during this transition.

262

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

Not knowing what to do and knowing that I was going to be alone. Not having anybody to help or someplace to be in the transition. Feeling alone. Seventy one percent of our respondents reported that their campus support programs had helped them cope with or overcome this challenge. In some cases, the program did this by providing concrete assistance, such as housing or financial aid. In other cases, it something much less tangible, like emotional support. They provided a…nurturing environment on campus, I felt emotionally safe and felt that someone cared, The emotional support was very important, and having talks with the program directors oncampus really helped. Interestingly, several of the respondents whose campus support program had not helped them cope with or overcome their most significant challenge note that they had not informed program staff about their situation. Well they didn't really know about it but if I had told them I needed help moving in maybe they could have had some people help me. Sometimes this stemmed from a belief that these were problems they should deal with on their own. I'm not too sure that they could have done anything about it. Personal problems have to be dealt with on one's own. We also asked respondents to describe what it was about the program that they liked the most. For some, what mattered most was always having someone there to help or to turn to for support. Knowing that at anytime if I have a problem there is someone who is concerned and will be there to help me. For others it was feeling understood. Having adults and other students who understand what you're going through and feel like. It was also having someone who believed in them. A group of people who…believe that you can be somebody even though all your life somebody may have told you that you couldn't. Although 83% of our respondents reported that there was nothing they would do to improve the program, 17% would change it in some way. One common recommendation was for the program to provide more financial aid or to provide it for a longer period of time. Perhaps being able to offer more funding for students, because while my scholarship is enough for tuition it doesn't help much with living expenses. That you could use the scholarship for as long as it takes to get my major. Some students only need to go to school for two years others need to go for six. So after four years I still need help paying for college. Another was to provide more opportunities for program participants to “get together.” I would love more reunions with students of the program, since they are my support and community. Respondents also had ideas for changing how the program was run, including more “one on one support from the staff” and “more student involvement with big decisions.”

Finally, although we did not directly ask our respondents how satisfied they were with their campus support program, 88% reported that they were likely or very likely to recommend the program to other foster youth. This suggests a high level of satisfaction with the program. 7. Discussion We began our study with two overarching questions. First, how are campus support programs being implemented? And second, would it be feasible to evaluate their impact on the educational outcomes of former foster youth? With respect to the first question, we found that campus support programs are quite diverse. For example, most programs are affiliated with a particular campus but at least one operates statewide. Likewise, some programs are open to all former foster youth whereas others are more selective about who can participate. Programs also vary with respect to whether they provide a scholarship or only non-financial supports and whether they actually provide services or primarily make referrals. Despite this diversity, campus support programs face a number of the same challenges when it comes to helping former foster youth graduate from college. Some of these challenges involve the identification and recruitment of eligible students, the ability of students to handle collegelevel work, the extraordinary service and support needs of this population and the issue of long-term financial sustainability. We also learned a number of lessons from program participants. First, former foster youth participated in these programs for a variety of reasons, including the prospect of financial aid, a belief that program would help them achieve their educational goals, and a desire to be other young people like themselves. Second, participants appeared to be quite satisfied with the program, most would recommend it to other foster youth and relatively few thought there were things about the program that needed to be changed. That said, despite receiving a wide range of both academic and non-academic services and supports, nearly one third of the former foster youth who took the survey reported an unmet need, such as additional help with living expenses. Third, although former foster youth clearly appreciated the concrete services and supports that they received, it was the less tangible benefits that they seemed to value most, things like having someone to turn to or someone who believed in them and feeling understood or part of a family. Finally, some of the challenges participants reported were not unlike those that many young people—and especially young people from low income families—face when they go away to school. Others, however, particularly, their concerns about having a stable place to live and their profound sense of being alone, were probably related to being a former ward of the state. It was also quite telling that although the campus support programs were generally able to help participants cope with or overcome whatever challenge they had faced, several participants had not informed the program about their situation because they believed it was a problem they should deal with on their own. Another interesting finding was what appeared in some cases to be a disconnect between students' perceived needs and the services or supports that the programs provide. One example is Summer Bridge. A majority of the former foster youth who participated in Summer Bridge did not perceive it as important to their academic success although a number of program directors told us that participation is mandatory. Similarly, although the program directors spoke at great length about the financial, housing and academic supports their programs provide, former foster youth emphasized the value of the less tangible supports like the sense of family they derived from being in the program. With respect to the second question, our results were more equivocal and consistent with what previous studies have found. Although a number of programs were in the process of developing a customized database, and others could pull what they needed from a campus-wide system, a few did not have direct access to student-level

A. Dworsky, A. Pérez / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 255–263

data. Even more troubling, perhaps, was the fact that only two of the programs have any way to track the services and supports that participants receive. This would make it difficult, if not impossible, to examine the relationship educational outcomes and the receipt of specific types of services or supports. 8. Moving forward It is time to move forward with a methodologically sound impact evaluation of campus support programs. In addition to examining whether these programs are leading to higher college retention and graduation rates, an impact evaluation would also look at the ways in which the relationship between program participation and educational outcomes varies depending on the characteristics of the former foster youth, the types of services and supports that students receive, and the institutional setting (e.g., urban vs. suburban vs. rural campuses; small colleges vs. large universities; two-year vs. four-year school). This is critical for several reasons. First, program directors would have data they could use to implement program changes that are evidence-based. Second, it would suggest how programs might best be tailored to meet specific needs. And third, it is critical to distinguish between program components that are essential and those that are not because some programs at four-year schools, and most programs at two-year schools may not be able to provide the full range of financial, academic, and emotional supports that a “model” program might provide. Evaluating the impact of campus support programs presents a number of challenges. First, it must be possible not only to identify former foster youth at colleges and universities with campus support programs, but also to distinguish between former foster youth who participate in those programs and those who do not. The latter would serve as a comparison group against which the outcomes of the program participants can be assessed. Second, because former foster youth who choose to participate in campus support programs do not comprise a random sample of all college students who are former foster youth, any systematic differences between participants and non-participants could explain observed differences in retention or graduation rates. Third, because campus support programs are both multi-faceted and continuing to evolve, disentangling the effects of individual components would be difficult to do—and is impossible if the services and supports that students receive are not being tracked. Finally, campus support programs must significantly increase their capacity to track not only academic progress (e.g., GPA, credits earned), but as importantly, the provision of services and supports. Ideally, similar measures would be adopted by different campus support programs so that the impact of those different programs can be compared. One option currently under consideration would be to evaluate the growing number of campus support programs in California by leveraging the resources of the California Partnership for Achieving Student Success (Cal-PASS), an initiative that links student-level educational records across K-12 schools, community colleges and four-year colleges and universities in a centralized database. Colleges and universities with campus support programs could customize the data they submit, using optional fields to identify former foster youth as well as program participants and to include information about the services and supports that students receive. References Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Education pays: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, DC: The College Board. Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

263

Brandford, C., & English, D. (2004). Foster youth transition to independence study. Seattle, WA: Office of Children's Administration Research, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. Burley, M., & Halpern, M. (2001). Educational attainment of foster youth: Achievement and graduation outcomes for children in state care. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. California Foster Youth Education Task Force. (2007). 2007 California foster youth education summit: Recommendations to improve foster youth education success in California. California Foster Youth Education Task Force. (2007). Policy brief: Completion of postsecondary education and training programs. Cooper, D., Mery, P., & Rassen, E. (2008). Serving former foster youth in California community colleges: Successes, challenges, and recommendations. Berkeley, CA: Center for Student Success Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges. Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth in transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80 (6), 685–717. Courtney, M. E., Terao, S., & Bost, N. (2004). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Ruth, G., Keller, T., Havlicek, J., & Bost, N. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Cusick, G., Havlicek, J., Pérez, A., & Keller, T. (2007). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Davis, R. J. (2006). College access, financial aid, and college success for undergraduates from foster care. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Financial Aid Directors. Eilertson, C. (2002). Independent living for foster youth. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures. Emerson, J. (2006). Strategies for working with college students from foster care. E-source for College Transitions. National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 3(4), 3–4. Kessler, M. (2004). Educating youth in care: The first year of education and training vouchers. Tulsa, OK: The University of Oklahoma, National Resource Center for Youth Services. McMillen, J. C., & Raghavan (2009). Pediatric to adult mental health service use of young people leaving the foster care system. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 7–13. McMillen, J. C., Auslander, W., Elze, D., White, T., & Thompson, R. (2003). Educational experiences and aspirations of older youth in foster care. Child Welfare, 82, 475–495. McMillen, J. C., Zima, B., Scott, L., Auslander, W., Munson, M., Ollie, M., & Spitznagel, E. (2005). The prevalence of psychiatric disorders among older youths in the foster care system. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 88–95. Merdinger, J., Hines, A., Osterling, K., & Wyatt, P. (2005). Pathways to college for former foster youth: Understanding the factors that contribute to educational success. Child Welfare, 84(6), 867–896. Pecora, P., Williams, J., Kessler, R., Downs, A., O'Brien, K., Hiripi, E., & Morello, S. (2003). Assessing the effects of foster care: Early results from the Casey National Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P., Kessler, R., Williams, J., O'Brien, K., Downs, A., English, D., White, C., Hiripi, E., Wiggins, T., & Holmes, K. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the northwest foster care alumni study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Planty, M., Provasnik, S., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., Hampden-Thompson, G., Dinkes, R., & Choy, S. (2007). The condition of education: 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Pontecorvo, D., El-Askari, G., & Putnam, K. (2006). College access/college success cluster review: A review of 10 college access and college success programs by the Stuart Foundation. San Francisco, CA: Putnam Community Investment Consulting. Price, D. (2008). Campus support initiative management information system review and recommendation. Indianapolis, IN: DVP Praxis Ltd. Schultz, J., & Mueller, D. (2008). Building a data sharing network of scholarship programs for alumni of foster care pilot phase process and findings. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research. Shin, S. (2006). Need for and actual use of mental health service by adolescents in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 1071–1083. Snyder, T., Dillow, S., & Hoffman, C. (2008). Digest of education statistics 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Spigel, P. (2004). Support for foster children's post-secondary education. Hartford, CT: State of Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Reports. Wolanin, T. R. (2005). Higher education opportunities for foster youth: A primer for policymakers. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.