Students Who Experienced Foster Care are on Campus: Are Colleges Ready?

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Volume 37 Issue 2

11-2021

Students Who Experienced Foster Care are on Campus: Are Students Who Experienced Foster Care are on Campus: Are

Colleges Ready? Colleges Ready?

Sarah E. Jones

University of West Georgia

, [email protected]

Matthew D. Varga

University of West Georgia

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gcpa

Part of the Higher Education Administration Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Jones, S. E., & Varga, M. D. (2021). Students who experienced foster care are on campus: Are colleges

ready?.

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs, 37

(2), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.20429/

gcpa.2021.370202

This research and scholarship in student affairs is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at

Georgia Southern Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs by an

authorized administrator of Georgia Southern Commons. For more information, please contact

[email protected].

Scholarly Articles (Research, Conceptual & Literature Reviews)

Jones, S.E. & Varga, M.D. (2021). Students who experienced foster care are

on campus: Are colleges ready? Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs,

37(2), 3-19.

ISSN: 2330-7269

Students Who Experienced Foster Care are on

Campus: Are Colleges Ready?

Sarah E. Jones

(University of West Georgia)

Matthew D. Varga (University of West Georgia)

Though most youth in the foster care system aspire to attend college, few have the opportunity to

do so. For myriad reasons, including lack of historical representation on college campuses, sub-

par Pk-12 education, and postsecondary barriers to admissions, enrollment, and financial aid,

most college students who experienced foster care depart college without earning a degree. As

the barriers to college for this population of students emerges, postsecondary institutions are pre-

paring their campuses for students with unique needs. This qualitative study explores how student

affairs professionals in one university system support college students previously in foster care.

Professionals and teams of professionals working at six different institutions across the university

system participated in interviews that emphasized the ways campuses used resources to meet

students’ hierarchy of needs. Based on the results of this research, student affairs professionals

support students’ foundational physiological and safety needs in myriad ways. In doing so, student

affair professionals add to the motivation necessary for students to move towards belonging, es-

teem, and actualization.

Keywords:

foster care, basic needs, postsecondary, qualitative research, Maslow

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Whether they recognize students as alumni

of foster care or not, student affairs profes-

sionals (SAP) and other college personnel

have probably worked, are currently working,

and will continue to work with college stu-

dents who experienced foster care (CSEFC).

Foster care is an overarching term used to

describe the temporary, out-of-home place-

ment of youth who are removed from their

home by court order, typically due to abuse

or neglect (Children’s Bureau, 2021). The

foster care system (FCS) includes a web of

public and private organizations (i.e., social

services, Chafee Foundation), professionals

(i.e., caseworkers, attorneys, counselors,

transition specialists), and volunteers (i.e.,

court-appointed special advocates, relative

placements) who act in the family and

youth’s best interest. While the 670,000

youth that transition in and out of the FCS an-

nually (Children’s Bureau, 2021) have

unique experiences, there are similarities

within this population. For example, most

youth who experienced foster care aspire to

attend college (Kirk et al., 2013). Though

there is much more room to increase the ed-

ucational attainment for this population of

students across the Pk-16 (prekindergarten-

college) continuum, more students who ex-

perienced foster care have access to college

than ever before. While access has in-

creased, this population of students is un-

seen on college campuses (Sydor, 2013).

CSEFC do not identify themselves for multi-

ple reasons, including but not limited to their

desire to destigmatize themselves as “foster

kids” (Bederian-Gardner et.al., 2018), their

hope to remain autonomous and independ-

ent in higher education (Berzin et.al., 2014),

and the limited benefits to remaining in the

foster care system (FCS) upon college ma-

triculation. However, as this population of

students has benefited from increased ac-

cess to higher education, colleges and uni-

versities must ready themselves to meet

their unique needs. In creating environments

and policies that enhance the college experi-

ence for alumni of foster care, SAP and

higher education administrators will also en-

hance the college experiences for other pop-

ulations of students who have traditionally

been more at risk for early departure (Day et

al., 2013; Kinarsky, 2017; Salazar et al.,

2016). This qualitative research study sought

to answer the following question: What are

colleges and universities in one university

system doing to support the matriculation, re-

tention, progression, and graduation of col-

lege students who experienced foster care?

Literature Review

The instability associated with the foster care

system (FCS) coupled with the abuse and

neglect youth endured impacts their cogni-

tive and social development (Pears et al.,

2018). Consequently, students who are in or

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

have experienced foster care enter educa-

tional settings with unique needs. More often

than not, these students are in schools,

classrooms, and with educators who are un-

derqualified to meet their unique develop-

mental needs.

Students in Foster Care in College

Educational inequity for college students

who experienced foster care (CSEFC) be-

gins long before college matriculation. In

fact, many students in the FCS do not have

the same degree of academic preparation

compared to their peers (Piel, 2018). Specif-

ically, as a group, students in the FCS are

less likely to attend prekindergarten, are dis-

proportionately placed in special education

settings, and are suspended and expelled

from school more often than their peers, not

in the foster care system (Chambers &

Palmer 2010; Unrau et al., 2012). As a result

of these and other barriers to Pk-12 educa-

tion, including multiple homes and school

transitions (Morton, 2015; Noonan et al.,

2010), about 50% of students who experi-

ence foster care earn a high school diploma

(Chambers & Palmer 2010). Despite their

grossly inequitable experiences in Pk-12

public schools, most students who experi-

ence foster care aspire to attend college (Ok-

pych & Courtney, 2014). Increased access to

college for everyone and specific federal and

state policies for CSEFC create more oppor-

tunities for college matriculation for this pop-

ulation of students than previously (Okpych

et al., 2020).

Access without support is not an op-

portunity (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008), and too

often, those college students who experi-

enced foster care matriculate to campuses

that do not have the infrastructure or person-

nel to meet this group’s unique challenges

(Batsche et al., 2014; Day et al., 2013;

Kinarsky, 2017). Unlike other students who

might ease into campus life/engagement

with their peers, CSEFC are more likely to

rely on their independence. Therefore, they

may need support building interpersonal re-

lationships that will allow them to truly en-

gage in campus life (Kinarsky, 2017; Rios &

Rocco, 2014). As youth in foster care en-

dured personal trauma, navigated the court

and social services system, and experienced

inequitable educational settings, many built

the emotional resilience necessary to suc-

ceed as college students (Jones & Dean,

2020). Further, students who experienced

foster care are more likely to advocate for

themselves, feel comfortable living inde-

pendently, and have high levels of self-effi-

cacy (Batsche et al., 2014; Day et al., 2013).

Jones and Dean (2020) report that CSEFC

are less likely to prioritize alcohol and drug

consumption and more likely to make inter-

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

personal connections with established per-

sonnel, including campus employers, faculty,

and academic advisors.

Institutional Support

Since many students who have experienced

foster care have limited support from their

families and/or the social service system,

they benefit from various institutional sup-

ports from professionals in multiple func-

tional areas (Johnson, 2019). College stu-

dents, especially those who experienced fos-

ter care, benefit from policies, practices, and

professionals that support traditional forms of

student development and engagement (i.e.,

intramural sports, academic major club, and

identity specific programming), as well as

those that seek to meet students’ basic

needs and beyond (i.e., flexible housing

schedules, on-campus food pantries, and

personal wellness) (Gillum et al., 2018). Spe-

cifically, CSEFC benefit from additional

funds to purchase books, lab supplies, or

laptops. They also benefit from counseling

and other health services that provide oppor-

tunities to explore the impact of trauma while

learning ways to care for themselves differ-

ently (Bederian-Gardner et.al., 2018). Institu-

tions can provide students with the opportu-

nities, programs, and knowledge of re-

sources they need to thrive in higher educa-

tion settings (Piel, 2018).

Belonging

While students who experienced foster care

matriculate to college with increased levels

of independence, most lack the interpersonal

skills necessary to engage in multiple, mean-

ingful ways with their peers (Bederian-Gard-

ner et.al, 2018). Since CSEFC experienced

fewer opportunities to belong (Piel, 2018),

they have limited abilities to create peer rela-

tionships in college. The limited peer rela-

tionships impact their sense of belonging and

often leaves CSEFC feeling like an outsider

on campus (Jones & Dean, 2020). The social

isolation that occurs has multiple impacts on

students’ college experiences (Strayhorn,

2018). Ultimately, the students' lack of be-

longingness can leave them struggling to ad-

just, progress, achieve goals, and persist to

graduation (Strayhorn, 2018).

To increase a sense of belonging for

CSEFC, some colleges and universities

have created specific programs. These pro-

grams provide information regarding finan-

cial aid and academic support, but they also

build a community of scholars and peers that

leads to students’ sense of belonging on

campus (Kinarsky, 2017). Students inter-

viewed found identity-based student organi-

zations beneficial to their increased sense of

confidence and belonging on their college

campuses (Means & Pyne, 2017).

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Framework: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is a five-

tier theory of human motivation where the

foundation for actualization is basic needs.

Often depicted as a hierarchical pyramid, the

base must be satisfied for individuals to

move to the next level. Maslow’s (1943) hier-

archy includes the following five levels: phys-

iological, which includes air, food, shelter;

safety, which includes physical and mental

health, employment, personal security; be-

longingness and love, which include inti-

macy, connection, friendship; esteem, which

includes respect, freedom, status, accom-

plishment; and self-actualization, which is

the desire to meet grand potential. Though

college matriculation and graduation are

goals that connect to students’ esteem and

self-actualization, many CSEFC matriculate

to postsecondary education without secure

access to physiological needs. Before this

group of students can meet their academic

potential and experience the freedom and

accomplishment of departing college with a

degree, they are motivated at first to meet

their needs for housing, food, employment,

and health.

Methods

This qualitative research study sought to an-

swer the following question: What are col-

leges and universities in one university sys-

tem doing to support the matriculation, reten-

tion, progression, and graduation of college

students who experienced foster care? The

researchers used qualitative research meth-

ods to explore the practices student affairs

professionals implemented to support this

population. In some cases, the researchers

followed up interviews with campus tours of

resources such as food pantries, clothing

closets, and community gardens.

Participant Selection and Recruitment

One university system in the southeast re-

gion of the United States has created an or-

ganization whose mission is to increase col-

lege access and success (measured by re-

tention) for youth who have experienced fos-

ter care or homelessness. The organization

supports this population of students by build-

ing a network of support across the system,

including over 50, two, and four-year institu-

tions. The goals of the organization are two-

fold: provide every postsecondary institution

with an on-campus liaison for students who

experienced foster care or homelessness;

build relationships among campus liaisons to

increase sustainable practices that work. A

list of campus liaisons is located on the or-

ganization’s website. I used this list to con-

tact campus liaisons (approximately 100 in-

dividuals working in higher education). 12 in-

dividuals responded; I scheduled interviews

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

with eight and met with liaisons from six insti-

tutions. Liaisons represented two and four-

year colleges/universities and multiple func-

tional areas within student affairs. See Table

1 below for more information regarding par-

ticipants’ institutions.

Table 1. Institutional type and professional position of interviewees

Institutional Type

Approximate

Student

Enrollment

Position of Liaison(s) Interviewed

Associate and Bachelor Degree

Granting Public College

3,000

Disability Service Provider Counselor and Psychol-

ogy Instructor; Director of Student Development

Associate and Bachelor Degree

Granting Public College

5,500

Manager Adult Learning Counselor

Regional Comprehensive

7,000

Dean of Students

Regional Comprehensive

8,000

Director Academic Advising

Regional Comprehensive

22,000

Dean of Students

Research and Institute of

Technology

27,000

Coordinator of Basic Needs Task Force

Coordinator Parent and Family Programs

Data Collection and Analysis

I conducted the semi-structured interviews

on-site in five of six cases and conducted one

interview on the phone. I followed up on-site

interviews with campus tours, during which

we visited food and clothing pantries, resi-

dence halls, counseling centers, classroom

spaces, and a community garden. I took

notes during and after the interviews, then re-

viewed the notes before reading the tran-

scripts. While reading the member-checked

transcripts initially, I used in vivo coding tech-

niques to create multiple codes that empha-

sized the words of the interviewees (Saldana

& Omasta, 2016). After completing this pro-

cess for each of the interviews, I gathered the

codes and looked for themes.

While reviewing data derived from

the coding process, it became clear that

many of the practitioners interviewed spoke

about college students’ hierarchy of needs.

At this point in the coding process, another

researcher and I analyzed the transcripts

again, coding with Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy

of needs as a frame. We analyzed the tran-

scripts independently and coded them with

the following: physiological for data that in-

cluded resources that met students’ need for

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

food, shelter, and clothing; safety for data

that included resources regarding personal

security, employment, and health; belong-

ingness for data that included resources to

build friendships, and a sense of connection;

esteem for data that included resources for

freedom, recognition, status, and respect;

and self-actualization for data that repre-

sents students’ desire to achieve their poten-

tial. Upon completion of individual coding, we

compared codes and generated a list of in-

terviewee quotations that captured the es-

sence of the code.

Results

In reviewing the transcripts, it was evident

that personnel worked diligently to increase

students’ access to physiological and safety

needs. Doing so helped to create a sense of

belonging on campus for this group of stu-

dents. Further, the efforts to increase stu-

dents’ foundational, basic needs increased

their motivation to move towards self-actual-

ization. While institutions innovated solutions

differently, the results of this study indicate

that students, no matter where they attended

college, had similar needs.

Physiological Needs

A noticeable similarity between programs

was the emphasis each placed on students'

basic needs. Each program emphasized

food, clothing, and housing. Each of the pro-

grams found creative ways to meet the stu-

dents’ basic needs, but the common themes

were discretion, support, and campus com-

munity connection. Access to food was the

most common basic need and programs

found ways to minimize campus waste, in-

crease visibility while being discrete, and in-

corporate the campus community into sup-

porting pantries.

Food. Most of the programs have an estab-

lished food pantry or a food mapping pro-

gram. The premise behind both activities

was to give students access to food:

I have not been a very big proponent

of pizza party type of programs, but

then I realized as I researched food

insecurity a little bit that there can be

a map out there for activities and

events for students each week that

have where students can go on and

see what’s happening and they can

see if there is going to be food at an

event.

The interviewees all agree that students who

can have their basic needs met while utilizing

food waste on campus was critical. One said,

“The food pantry, it’s stocked two ways—

there’s fresh food that goes in twice a week.

There is a student group…and they recover

leftover food from the dining halls, and they

package it in individual meals.”

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

The location of food pantries was an-

other critical attribute. Most food pantries

were in discrete locations, whether in a resi-

dence hall, church, or campus. One inter-

viewee acknowledged that a local church

“has a phenomenal food pantry” that stu-

dents could utilize in the community. Another

interviewee explained there were student or-

ganizations that adopt mini pantries across

campus. He said, “We have one over in fi-

nancial aid, one over in the student engage-

ment center, and there’s probably like 6 or 7

of these mini pantries that basically invite

people to take some and leave some.” Fi-

nally, many institutions had a 21st-century

method of food-sharing. Meal plan sharing

allows institutions to set up a system that will

enable students to “donate” their unused

meals to students in need. One dean of stu-

dents described the process. He said, “We

have an electronic system where you can go

and donate your unused meal swipes. And a

student can request those through an email.

They can get up to 3 free swipes per semes-

ter.” An additional need commonly met by in-

stitutions for students in need was housing.

Housing. Unlike food, housing was a bit

more complicated to provide to students.

More often than not, housing was available

for extreme emergencies, alternative spring

breaks, or rent on a short-term basis. It usu-

ally involved multiple campus constituencies

such as HUD or campus housing. As a result,

the complexities around providing this basic

need were greater than providing food to stu-

dents who may be hungry. In extreme emer-

gencies such as abrupt homelessness or do-

mestic violence, some of the programs of-

fered additional support to students:

The emergency housing…is usually

somebody where a situation changes

where they just need to be housed

pretty quickly, so um, there is a room

in the residence hall that’s kind of

kept open. So if someone comes in,

we can usually place them there that

day if necessary, and they can stay

there for up to two weeks. And during

that two weeks, we try to work out a

longer-term solution, and if that

longer-term solution includes or

means living on campus, there is

some grant money that they can stay

in the residence hall for free.

Another example includes domestic vio-

lence. In one instance, campus and commu-

nity worked together to meet a student’s

housing needs:

For example, right now, we had a

young woman who suffered domestic

violence, so we were able to find

housing for her for a semester. But

once I was unable to help anymore,

there’s a group on campus called

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Voice. They work and have a partner-

ship for domestic violence, and they

were able to help her through.

Both instances of providing campus housing

involved multiple parties and limited the

amount of help offered to the students re-

gardless of the situation. Campus and com-

munity coordination to provide for students

was a constant theme. One interviewee indi-

cated, “The other big agency that I work with

is HUD, and they said that they have 10

vouchers ready for any student who is home-

less,” and another stated:

The people that have the dorms, you

know we are renting those, and we

have a new dorm, and about anything

that is close to mid-semester or after

3 or 4 weeks before the end of

school, I’ll say they won’t charge me

to put students in campus housing.

Unlike other physiological needs that can be

purchased or donated, housing is not easily

acquired by institutions and requires collabo-

ration with outside organizations.

Clothing. Most of the clothing banks re-

volved around professional clothing for inter-

views, as one administrator highlighted. Most

clothing comes from donations or through

collaboration with local agencies such as

Goodwill:

Goodwill will swap out the clothes.

They can go to the Salvation Army

and pick out like three shirts and

three pairs of pants, and you can get

it for free if they want to check off the

boxes that they need. But I wanna

say Goodwill they were swapping out

clothes from our clothing closet.

The size of the closets varied from being

“minimal” to having over 800 suits for stu-

dents. With the basic needs met, institutions

can also provide some moderate support for

the next level of needs.

Safety

According to Maslow (1943), safety refers to

various types of security, and in this instance,

the most common theme for safety was fi-

nancial security. This included financial aid,

supplies such as books, fee payments, and

short-term financial loans. Interviewees de-

scribed the ways students’ finances ebbed

and flowed throughout the semester. While

many students utilized loans to meet their tu-

ition and basic needs of housing, food, and

clothing, unforeseen and necessary costs

associated with a college education (i.e.,

textbooks, lab supplies, organization fees)

increased financial insecurity for this group of

students. As a result of student experiences,

institutions created programs with the under-

lying philosophy of “we don’t want a financial

reason to be the reason [a student] leave[s].”

Schools established emergency funds in

such a way that were separate from state

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

funds. This allowed institutions greater flexi-

bility to provide for students in whichever way

they may need. Some institutions utilized

grants for critical yet small needs “…for med-

ication or something like that. And we would

just do a grant up to maybe $200 or $300.”

Some institutions recoup the funds while oth-

ers utilize them as grants:

Depending on the situation and if the

student, if there’s any ability to re-

coup those funds and we think, cause

sometimes people just need to buy a

little more time until something

comes in. So that’s part of the as-

sessment. So we will often disburse a

little larger amounts in that case and

know that it’s going to be paid back.

Regardless of whether the money is a grant

or loan, institutions have found ways to help

meet students’ financial security need.

Belongingness

The third level of need is a sense of belong-

ing. Since students benefit from a sense of

belonging, this level of need is significant for

CSEFC. Most professional liaisons earned

those positions because of the ways they es-

tablished trust and built relationships with

students. One program worked to establish

personal connections with the community

while meeting needs:

There are [students who experienced

homeless or foster care] moving in by

themselves with one car or no car. Or

things of that sort, so I felt that it

would be nice to start an initiative and

collaboration with our parent volun-

teers and ambassadors that live here

in the local metro area to volunteer

time to actually help get things out of

the car and move them in. And help

bring about some excitement, some

joy about being a first-year student

here.

This example provided a clear interest in es-

tablishing a personal relationship with the

students and connecting them to the institu-

tion and parent board. To help with the initial

sense of belonging, many other institutions

created move-in kits that included “the es-

sentials, the toilet paper, paper towel, maybe

some bed linen, some pencils, a pack of pa-

pers, notebook papers.”

It is problematic to assume that stu-

dents will benefit from support, especially in-

itially. However, sometimes administrators

are notified of a student who was in foster

care. In those instances, professionals have

opportunities to build relationships. One

dean of students said, “I learn about a stu-

dent that is coming…[and] offer them the

support [and] resources. [The initial meeting]

would basically be about just knowing about

me and what I do in general on campus.”

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

In this example, the priority for estab-

lishing a connection and relationship is para-

mount for a professional to ensure the stu-

dent knows of the resources on campus and

has a relationship with someone they can

trust. Other examples of belongingness in-

cluded setting up a network of information for

students from foster care who may need

help. SAP takes a personal approach to

make sure that CSEFC received the support

they needed. One professional described the

way she introduced students to her col-

leagues. She would say:

Hey, I’m meeting with this student,

and I am sending them over to you

because there are some questions

and needs, and this isn’t something I

can or should answer. Then the stu-

dent knows who they are going to,

and then that person has an under-

standing of foster care…and I think

some universities have done a better

job of setting up that kind of a net-

work.

The central theme of belongingness is estab-

lishing a long-lasting relationship that per-

sists more than a one-time transactional ex-

change. One administrator stated it well by

saying, “The point of contact and the network

on campuses—students would be involved

with them for over four years.”

Esteem

Through the interviews, it became evident

that these programs' primary goals to sup-

port CSEFC were to provide basic needs,

safety, and a sense of belonging. The in-

tended outcome went far beyond a means to

an end with retention, progression, and grad-

uation, but rather to bolster these students’

self-esteem. These programs hoped to pro-

mote and develop students to be able to ad-

vocate for themselves. One administrator

proclaimed the need for “courageous conver-

sations” that allowed students to speak about

their personal experiences. Programs like

courageous conversations seek to empower

students further and allow them to see the

ways they “have more resiliency than the av-

erage student.”

It is through these means that these

programs seek to not only support students

academically but physically, emotionally, and

financially.

Discussion and Recommendations

In reviewing the literature and results of this

study, one key conclusion, or omission, is the

difficulty of distributing resources to students

who do not identify themselves. Each of

these institutions expressed a word-of-mouth

campaign to connect students with the re-

sources and programs the institution had es-

tablished. Each of the institutions provided

programs and resources that address

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs. Most of

the programs and resources are committed

to the first two levels: basic needs and safety.

Addressing physiology and safety needs is

not surprising, considering the students in

greatest need may have struggled to have

these needs met consistently throughout

their lives (Kinarsky, 2017). Additionally, un-

like their traditional second or third-genera-

tion student counterparts, CSEFC likely do

not have the familial support to provide re-

sources such as housing, finances, or even

food in times of need. These students' needs

were broadly the same but distinctly differ-

ent. Each institution found ways to help stu-

dents with food, shelter, and money. Another

common thread was the relationships estab-

lished between the program administrators

and students. These relationships are en-

couraging and vital for professionals and stu-

dents alike. Professionals can learn about

the unique needs of students while support-

ing their emotional growth, and students can

receive the support and resources they need

to be successful. While CSEFC who matric-

ulate to college may lack the interpersonal

skills necessary to establish relationships

with peers (Bederian-Gardner et.al, 2018),

they can establish relationships with program

administrators for support.

As previously mentioned, each of

these programs provided the basic needs for

students but struggled with finding or gaining

access to the students. Some administrators

realized that students needing food, housing,

or money refused services as they wanted to

remain independent or discreet. Discretion

was a priority within the programs. Institu-

tions must find ways to provide resources to

students who wish to remain de-identified.

While some postsecondary institutions and

systems are looking for ways to identify this

population of students, either through ques-

tions on admission applications or on the

FAFSA, SAP can promote equitable distribu-

tion of resources by making students aware

of what the campus offers. Marketing cam-

paigns that ask students to donate meal

swipes, for example, can also direct students

to ways they can request additional dining

swipes and information regarding campus

and community food pantries. Further, when

students request access to institutional sup-

port, SAP can look for ways to meet those

needs without asking for unessential per-

sonal information.

There are multiple ways postsecond-

ary institutions can build this population’s

sense of belonging on campus. Students

who wish to create community with peers

who have had similar experiences, for exam-

ple, would benefit by participating in learning

communities or counseling groups specifi-

cally designed to meet the needs of CSEFC.

Programs designed specifically to support

CSEFC are increasingly common on college

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

campuses. These resource-rich programs

not only help students navigate college but

also advocate for pedagogical practices that

support all students, especially those with a

history of trauma.

This research brought student need

to the forefront; however, there are limita-

tions to consider. For example, the scope of

the study is limited to six institutions in one

university system. While there was diversity

in institutional type, and I collected interview

data until the point of saturation, the limited

number of participants and location should

be noted. A second limitation includes the

use of self-reported data. The semi-struc-

tured interviews created space for adminis-

trators to speak openly about the resources

available at their institutions and the anecdo-

tal impact of said resources. While adminis-

trators on these campuses were able to dis-

cuss the programs they had implemented, it

was not accompanied with qualitative data to

show the effectiveness of institutional sup-

port. There are multiple ways to gather addi-

tional information about this population of

students, and some of the results of this re-

search indicate an area for future research.

For example, many programs collaborated

with community partners, and these relation-

ships can be beneficial to everyone involved,

especially CSEFC. Further research regard-

ing systemic collaboration between students

in foster care, K-12 schools, postsecondary

schools, and social services will benefit

stakeholders within these systems, including

SAP.

Conclusion

CSEFC are a resilient and independent

group that have more access to college than

before. As their presence on campuses in-

creases, so too must the resources neces-

sary to keep them enrolled. While it can be

difficult to identify students who were in fos-

ter care, it is possible and necessary to cre-

ate thoughtful programs and policies with this

group’s needs forefront. Framing students’

motivational needs via Maslow (1943) cre-

ates an opportunity to envision the steps

necessary for success in college and life.

CSEFC have a unique set of needs, that

when not addressed, create barriers to col-

lege progression and graduation. As col-

leges begin to meet this group’s basic physi-

ological and safety needs, they create ave-

nues for college persistence for a group of

students who aspires to attend college and

benefit significantly from earning a degree.

Their sense of hope and optimism in the

postsecondary education system creates an

additional reason to give them the best we

can offer.

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

REFERENCES

Batsche, C., Hart, S., Ort, R., Armstrong, M., Strozier, A., & Hummer, V. (2014). Postsecondary

transitions of youth emancipated from foster care. Child & Family Social Work,19(2), 174-

184. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00891.x

Bederian-Gardner, D., Hobbs, S. D., Ogle, C. M., Goodman, G. S., Cordón, I. M., Bakanosky, S.,

& Chong, J. Y. (2018). Instability in the lives of foster and nonfoster youth: Mental health

impediments and attachment insecurities. Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 159-

167. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.10.019

Berzin, S. C., Singer, E., & Hokanson, K. (2014). Emerging versus emancipating: The transition to

adulthood for youth in foster care. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(5), 616–

638.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414528977

Chambers, C., & Palmer, E. (2010). Educational stability for children in foster care. Touro Law.

Review, 26, 1103-1130. doi:10.1111/j.10990860.1992.tb00389.x

Children’s Bureau (2021). Child maltreatment 2019. Retrieved from:

htt

ps://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/child-maltreatment-2019

Day, A., Dworsky, A., & Feng, W. (2013). An analysis of foster care placement history and post-

secondary graduation rates. Research in Higher Education Journal, 19, 1-17. Retrieved

from http://link.springer.com/journal/11162

Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change: The

Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 46-50. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vchn20/current

Gillum, N. L., Durrant, L., Mendez-Grant, M., Wells, P., & Jaber, A.-M. (2018). College students’

beliefs about a campus support program for college students who experience foster care.

College Student Affairs Journal, 36(1), 32–49. doi:10.1353/csj.2018.0002

Johnson, R. M. (2019). The state of research on undergraduate youth formerly in foster care: A

systematic review of the literature. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.

doi:org/10.1037/dhe0000150

Jones, S. E., & Dean, L. A. (2020). Lost and Found in Transition: Alumni of Foster Care

Transitioning to College. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(5), 44- 55.

doi:10.33423/jhetp.v20i5.3035

Kinarsky, A. R. (2017). Fostering success: Understanding the experience of foster youth

undergraduates. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 220-81228.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.016

Kirk, C. M., Lewis, R. K., Nilsen, C., & Colvin, D. Q. (2013). Foster care and college: The

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

educational aspirations and expectations of youth in the foster care system. Youth &

Society, 45(3), 307-323. doi:10.1177/0044118x11417734

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Means, D. R., & Pyne, K. B. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and

belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College

Student Development, 58(6), 907–924. doi:10.1353/csd.2017.0071

Morton, B. M. (2015). Barriers to academic achievement for foster youth: The story behind the

statistics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 476.

doi:10.1080/02568543.2015.1073817

Noonan, K., Matone, M., Zlotnik, S., Hernandez-Mekonnen, R., Watts, C., Rubin, D., & Mollen, C.

(2012). Cross-system barriers to educational success for children in foster care: The front

line perspective. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 403-408.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.11.006

Okpych, N. J., & Courtney, M. E. (2014). Does education pay for youth formerly in foster care?

Comparison of employment outcomes with a national sample. Children and Youth Services

Review, 43, 18-28. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.04.013

Okpych, N. J., Park, S. E., Sayed, S., & Courtney, M. E. (2020). The roles of campus-support

programs (CSPs) and education and training vouchers (ETVs) on college persistence for

youth with foster care histories. Children and Youth Services Review, 111.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104891

Pears, K. C., Kim, H. K., & Brown, K. L. (2018). Factors affecting the educational trajectories and

outcomes of youth in foster care. Handbook of foster youth, 208-222.

Piel, M. H. (2018). Challenges in the transition to higher education for foster care youth. New

Directions for Community Colleges, 2018(181), 21–28.

doi:10.1002/cc.20288

Rios, S. J., & Rocco, T. S. (2014). From foster care to college: Barriers and supports on the road

to postsecondary education. Emerging Adulthood, 2(3), 227-237.

doi:10.1177/2167696814526715

Salazar, A. M., Jones, K. R., Emerson, J. C., & Mucha, L. (2016). Postsecondary strengths,

challenges, and supports experienced by foster care alumni college graduates. Journal of

College Student Development, 57(3), 263-279. doi:10.1353/csd.2016.0029

Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M (2016). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage Publications.

Strayhorn, T.L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all

students. Routledge.

Sydor, A. (2013). Conducting research into hidden or hard-to-reach populations. Nurse

Researcher, 20(3), 33-37. doi: 10.7748/nr2013.01.20.3.33.c9495

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Unrau, Y. A., Font, S. A., & Rawls, G. (2012). Readiness for college engagement among

students who have aged out of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 76-

83. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.002

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES & CONTACT INFORMATION

Sarah Jones is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Col-

lege Student Affairs at the University of West Georgia. Dr. Jones

earned her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in Counseling and

Student Personnel Services, M.Ed. in College Student Affairs from the

University of West Georgia, and Reading Education from Winthrop

University, and a B.S. in Elementary Education from Louisiana State

University. Dr. Jones has over 20 years of public school experience

across the PK-20 educational continuum (prekindergarten through

graduate school) including 10 years as a classroom teacher and 10

years in higher education/ student affairs. Dr. Jones’s research inter-

ests include the educational experience of students in foster care. She

approaches this research from an asset perspective, noting the ways

students’ strengths and navigational capital influence their progres-

sion despite institutional and systemic barriers.

Email: [email protected]

Dr. Matt Varga is Associate Professor of Counselor Education and

College Student Affairs and Department Chair in the Department of

Counseling, Higher Education, and Speech Language Pathology at

the University of West Georgia. He holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education

Administration and a M.S. in College Student Personnel from the Uni-

versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, and a B.A. in Philosophy from Chris-

topher Newport University. Dr. Varga’s central research focus has em-

phasized exploring prescription drug abuse among graduate students.

Other areas of focus include LGBTQ issues, campus climate percep-

tions, transition programs, and experiences and competencies of entry

level professionals. As a former student affairs professional working in

the Department of University Housing at The University of Tennessee,

Knoxville, Dr. Varga developed a passion for the success of not only

higher education administration, but for students also. His commitment

to the field drives his desire to invest in new professionals and educate graduate students to

become competent and well-rounded college student affairs professionals.

Email: [email protected]