Elements of a College Support Program That Matter: A Case Study

Abstract

Purpose:

This study focuses on a campus support program that serves former child welfare and homeless youth. This study aims to identify the program elements that help students transition into and succeed in college.

Method:

This study uses a mixed-method approach. Quantitative data included administrative and survey data of 50 students. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine the effects of early engagement on students’ grade point averages (GPAs). Qualitative data were collected from interviews with 17 students. Thematic content analysis was used to identify themes from the qualitative data.

Results:

Quantitative data showed positive effects of early engagement on students’ GPAs. Qualitative data showed that students perceived that the campus support program helped them transition into and success in college.

Conclusions:

Future programs should emphasize providing academic and financial services and engaging students as soon as or even before they enroll into college.

Keywords

campus support programs former child welfare youth homeless youth college transition college success

Former child welfare youth and homeless youth face large obstacles in successfully completing degrees of higher education. Individuals within this population are significantly less likely to obtain college degrees as compared with their peers in the general population (Center for Promise, 2014; Pecora, 2012; The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2007). This low educational attainment contributes to many negative outcomes later in life such as persistent homelessness, substance use, mental illness, and criminal justice involvement (Courtney et al., 2007; Geiger & Beltran, 2017).

Of over 20,000 young adults exiting the American foster care system on an annual basis (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017), only about 20% are enrolled in higher education (Berliner & Lezin, 2010). These emerging adults struggle to complete their academic programs, as only 2–11% of them graduate with a 4-year degree (Merdinger, Hines, Osterling, & Wyatt, 2005; Nixon & Jones, 2007; Pecora, 2012). Researchers have attributed their poor academic achievement to traumatic events that have plagued their lives at an individual, family, and community level (Bruce, Naccarato, Hopson, & Morrelli, 2010; Greeson, 2013; Pecora, 2012; Salazar, 2012). Research demonstrates that, compared to their counterparts from stable home environments, foster care students are less likely to attend and complete college (Brandford & English, 2004; Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Courtney et al., 2007; Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Raap, 2010; Pecora, 2012).

Similarly, of the 2.5 million children identified as homeless in the United States in 2013 (The National Center on Family Homelessness at American Institutes for Research, 2014), only about 21,000 of them were enrolled in higher education (United States Government Accountability Office, 2016). Homelessness significantly increases the risk of discontinuing education. In 2017, the Wisconsin HOPE Lab conducted a national survey among 43,000 students at 66 institutions in 20 states and the District of Columbia, including over 20,000 students at 35 four-year colleges and universities, as well as students at community colleges (Goldrick-Rab, Richardson, Schneider, Hernandez, & Cady, 2018). Their report showed that around 10% of college students were homeless within the last year. According to the Center for Promise (2014), young people aged 18–25 who experience homelessness at some point in their lives are 87% more likely to discontinue school in comparison to their peers without homeless experience.

Recognizing the disadvantages and obstacles faced by college students with previous involvement in child welfare and/or homeless experience, federal and state legislation has been passed to provide them with financial support. At the institution level, universities and colleges across the country have developed programs to support these students. This study focuses on a campus support program that serves both former child welfare youth and homeless youth. Using a mixed-method approach, this study identifies the program elements that help students transition into and succeed in college. In the introduction, we reviewed the legislative and program support for college students with previous involvement in child welfare and/or homelessness, as well as student support services (SSS) in general.

Legislation on Financial Support

Because of the existing disparities in educational achievement among former child welfare and homeless students, federal and state legislation has been passed to provide them with financial support. Federal legislations have provided funding to support former child welfare youth in their transition into adulthood over the past 32 years (Okpych, 2012). The initial legislation focused on funding placement, and the later initiatives expanded to fund postsecondary educational support. Most recently, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Fostering Connections; Public Law 110-351) was passed in 2008 and became effective in October of 2010. Fostering Connections gave states the option to extend foster care to age 19, 20, or 21. So far, 46 states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa extended foster care beyond age 21 (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017). Eligible services are reimbursed through Title IV-E funding. Specific to postsecondary education, in 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315) amended an earlier version of the law to allow foster youth to participate in the federal TRIO programs and to file independent status on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

This study was conducted in the state of Florida, where foster care was extended beyond age 18. Florida offers two options to youth staying in care beyond age 18 (Florida Department of Children and Families, 2018). The first option is called “Extended Foster Care,” which serves foster youth who are finishing school or gaining work skills and experience, and funds them to stay at a foster parent’s house, group home, apartment, or dorm until age 21 (or 22 with documented disability). The second option is called “Postsecondary Educational Services and Support,” which serves foster youth who are full-time students in college or vocational school and provides them a US$1,256 monthly stipend until age 23. In addition, the State provides foster youth an exemption from paying tuition and fees if they attend any school district providing workforce education programs, any institution within the Florida College System, or any state university (Florida Statue 1009.25 (1) (c)). The tuition and fee exemption also applies to those who are in the custody of a relative or nonrelative at age 18 or have been adopted from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) after May 5, 1997 (Florida Statue 1009.25 (1) (d)). The tuition and fee exemption is valid until the student reaches age 28.

Regarding homeless youth, so far, federal legislation is limited to supporting their financial aid applications (Crutchfield, Chambers, & Duffield, 2016). In September 2007, Congress enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA; Public Law 110-84) to improve access for unaccompanied homeless youth. CCRAA expanded the definition of “independent student” to include youth who are (a) unaccompanied and homeless or (b) unaccompanied, self-supporting, and at risk of homelessness. Once verified as unaccompanied and homeless, a youth can report himself or herself as an independent student in the FAFSA and can apply for financial aid without providing financial information from their parents or guardians. In Florida, according to Florida Statue 1009.25 (1) (f), homeless students are also exempted from paying tuition and fees at any institution within the Florida College System or any state university.

Campus Support Programs and Related Research

Although legislation changes allocate funding to support higher education among former child welfare and homeless youth, many child welfare and homeless youth are not aware of the availability of financial support (Dworsky & Perez, 2009; Salazar, Jones, Emerson, & Mucha, 2016). Moreover, to succeed in college, these allocated funds are typically not sufficient, and former child welfare and homeless youth need additional support to address their unique barriers to successful graduation (Merdinger et al., 2005; Salazar, 2012; Salazar et al., 2016). Studies found that concerns such as having a stable place to live and a profound sense of being alone make this college transition a particularly difficult and vulnerable time that can affect academic success among individuals in this population (Dworsky & Perez, 2010; Kinarsky, 2017; Salazar et al., 2016). Furthermore, many former foster youth in college were reluctant to share their foster youth identity (Kinarsky, 2017) or report these transitional challenges because they believed that they should face these challenges on their own (Dworsky & Perez, 2010).

To address their unique challenges, universities across the country have developed campus support programs to serve former child welfare and homeless youth in college (Geiger, Piel, Day, & Schelbe, 2018). These programs aim to increase college retention and graduation rates among students by providing them with services tailored to their unique needs. Some examples of campus support programs include Arizona State University’s Bridging Success Program (Arizona State University Bridging Success, 2018; Geiger, Hanrahan, Cheung, & Lietz, 2016), the New Yorkers for Children Guardian Scholar Program (New Yorkers for Children Guardian Scholar Program, 2018), the Seita Scholars Program at Western Michigan University (Seita Scholars Program, 2015, 2018), the California College Pathways (Dworsky & Perez, 2009), Project MYSELF in New Jersey (Project MYSELF, 2018), the CARE Unconquered Scholars Program at Florida State University (Unconquered Scholars Program, 2018), CARE program at Kennesaw State University (CARE Program, 2018), and Fostering Panther Pride at Florida International University (Fostering Panther Pride, 2018).

In the last two decades, research on these campus programs has appeared in the literature. In a recent review, Randolph and Thompson (2017) reviewed studies on this topic to summarize student views on their program experiences and the effectiveness of campus support programs for increasing college success. Screening 12,447 studies from both published (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles) and unpublished (e.g., dissertations, agency reports) sources, the authors found seven studies that examined student views on their experiences and/or outcomes when participating in campus support programs. The authors (Huang, Fernandez, Rhoden, & Joseph, 2018) reported that overall, student participants in these programs reported positive experiences with the campus-based programs. However, among the seven studies, only two of them (Seita Scholars Program, 2015; Watt, Norton, & Jones, 2013) reported outcomes on students’ success measured by grade point average (GPA) and college retention. Existing research focused on only former child welfare youth. So far, no research has examined campus support programs targeting homeless students.

SSS in General

Although campus support services for former child welfare youth and homeless students have existed for only two decades, SSS for college students in general have been in place for a long time. Numerous studies examined the effectiveness of SSS and reported small but positive outcomes. Chaney (2010) conducted a national evaluation of SSS and reported a small but positive and statistically significant effect on three outcomes: GPAs, credits earned, and retention. Moreover, the author identified a few effective services components: home-based programs, blended programs (i.e., SSS blended with other services), peer tutoring, labs, workshops, and services for students with disabilities. Bettinger, Boatman, and Long (2013) reviewed studies on support programs for college students in general; reported that advising, tutoring, and mentoring increased college retention; and improved GPAs more than remedial courses. However, their approaches in advising, tutoring, and mentoring were variable, and therefore, it is difficult to determine what aspects of these strategies are most effective.

Still the variety of approaches to advising makes it necessary to test the effectiveness of approaches when being used in particular populations. In order to understand what aspects of advising programs are necessary in order to be effective with former child welfare and homeless students, this study examines the specific elements of an existing campus support program and their impacts on students’ outcomes.

Current Study

This study aims to contribute to the knowledge base regarding the impacts of campus support program on academic success among former child welfare and homeless youth. Specifically, we aim to identify the program elements that help students transition into and succeed in college. We used mixed-method approaches to collect data from students in a campus support program. Using quantitative data, we examined the impacts of timing of program engagement on students’ GPA. Using qualitative data, we examined the students’ perceptions of the program’s impacts on their transition into college and success in college. This study addresses five research questions:
Research Question 1: Is the length of gap time between college enrollment and program engagement associated with a lower GPA prior to program engagement?

Research Question 2: Is the length of time in the campus support program associated with a higher GPA after program engagement?

Research Question 3: When do former child welfare and homeless youth become engaged in the campus support program?

Research Question 4: How does the campus support program help students transition into college?

Research Question 5: How does the campus support program help students succeed in college?

Method

Design

We examined the effects of a campus support program through a mixed-method design with qualitative and quantitative methods used equally and in parallel (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). We used quantitative methods to address Research Questions 1 and 2 and qualitative methods to address Research Questions 3–5.

Study Site

This study focused on a campus support program at Florida International University in the Miami metropolitan area of Florida. The university has a student population of nearly 54,000, including 61% Hispanic, 15% White non-Hispanic, 13% Black, 4% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 7% other minority groups. Most students in the university are from the local community; over half of the undergraduates are first-generation college students, and many of them are nontraditional students working at one job or more to support themselves while going to school. In the 2013 fall semester, the university established its campus support program, which serves students from three types of backgrounds: former foster youth, adoptees from the Florida State DCF, and homeless students. The program is housed under the Office of Student Access and Success. The program identifies eligible students through tuition waiver records in their administrative data. Former foster youth and adoptees from DCF receive DCF tuition waivers, while homeless students receive homeless tuition waivers. In the first semester of the program (2013), the program identified over 40 former child welfare and homeless youth, over a third of which were on academic probation with GPAs of less than 2.0. Since then, the number of eligible students has grown. As shown in Table 1, in spring 2016, the program identified 141 eligible students: 56 former foster youth, 45 adoptees from DCF, and 40 homeless students. Our earlier publication (2018) examined the perceptions of program staff and mentors on the elements and impacts of the program.

Table 1.
Bivariate Analysis to Compare the Students in Study Sample and the Other 91 Students.

Demographic Variables 141 Eligible Students 50 Students in the Sample 91 Students Not in the Sample

N (%) N (%) N (%)

Female 97 (69) 33 (66) 64 (70)

African American 62 (44) 23 (46) 39 (43)

Hispanic 53 (38) 19 (38) 34 (37)

Major in STEM 23 (16) 6 (12) 17 (19)

Former foster youth 45 (32) 17 (34) 28 (31)

Adoptees from DCF 55 (39) 16 (32) 39 (43)

Homeless students 41 (29) 17 (34) 24 (26)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Age at entering the university 21.95 (5.99) 21.33 (5.43) 22.29 (6.28)

High school GPA 2.48 (1.62) 2.78 (1.39) 2.33 (1.71)

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; DCF = Department of Children and Families; GPA = grade point average.

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

The study was funded by a competitive research grant from the university and was approved by the university institutional research board.

Quantitative Methods

Data

This study used quantitative data from two sources: university administrative data and survey data. The university provided us with administrative data for all of the 141 students eligible for the campus support program in spring 2016. The university administrative data contained information on student demographics, major, and high school and college GPAs. Survey data were collected by us. The survey was adapted from a previously published survey on campus support programs (Dworsky & Perez, 2009). Survey questions asked about respondents’ educational histories and current performance, their experiences with the campus support program, past and current mental health diagnoses, and experiences with child welfare and homelessness. The copy of our survey is available from the first author upon request. During data collection, we invited participants to complete the survey in an office on campus at a time convenient for them. The survey was administered to each participant separately by one of the authors. The two sets of quantitative data (administrative data and survey data) were linked using student identification numbers.

Study sample

After initially attempting to recruit participants through e-mail, which achieved a low response rate of 1%, we ultimately used telephone calls to recruit participants. On average, each student received four calls from us. As a result, 56 students completed the survey, which resulted in a response rate of 40%. Each participant received an incentive of US$20.

Of the 56 students who completed the survey, one could not be matched with the university administrative data, and five others did not participate in the campus support program. The remaining 50 students comprise the study sample. We examined whether the 50 students in the study sample are representative of all of 141 students eligible for the campus support program. We compared the 50 students in the study sample with the remaining 91 students on their characteristics including: age at the time of entering the university, gender, ethnicity, high school GPA, college major (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [STEM] or not), and experiences with child welfare and homelessness. As shown in Table 1, the two groups of students did not have statistically significant differences on any characteristics, suggesting study sample is representative of all eligible students.

Data preparation and analysis

We used quantitative data to answer Research Questions 1 and 2. To answer Research Question 1, whether the length of gap time between college enrollment and program engagement is associated with a lower GPA prior to program engagement, we created the independent variable measuring how soon after entering the university a student enrolled into the campus support program. Specifically, we counted the number of semesters between a student’s enrollment into the university and his or her enrollment in the campus support program. This variable is labeled “time to program engagement.” For the dependent variable measuring cumulative GPA, we extracted each student’s cumulative GPA from the semester before they enrolled in the campus support program using university administrative data. It is important to note that 25 of the 50 students did not a cumulative GPA before participating in the campus support program since they enrolled in the campus support program during their first semester. Therefore, only half of the students had data reflecting their cumulative GPA before their participation.

To answer Research Question 2, whether the length of time in the program was associated with cumulative GPA, we used as an independent variable the number of semesters between the student’s enrollment into the campus support program and their participation in the survey. For the dependent variable, we used their cumulative GPA at the end of the 2016 spring semester when the study was conducted.

For the analysis, we first used bivariate analysis to examine the relationship between each independent variable and dependent variable. The independent variables include age at the time of entering the university; gender; race; high school GPA; college major (STEM vs. non-STEM); background of being former foster youth, adoptees from DCF, or homeless students; time to program engagement; and the length of time in the campus support program. Specific statistics used in bivariate analysis were chosen based on the type of variables: t-test statistics were used when the independent variables were binary (e.g., gender); analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistics were used when the independent variables were categorical with at least three categories (e.g., ethnicity); and correlation statistics were used when the independent variables were numerical (e.g., age at the time of entering the university). The purpose of the bivariate analyses was to identify variables to include in the subsequent multivariate analysis. Linear regression was used for multivariate analysis since the dependent variables of cumulative GPAs were numerical. All of bivariate analyses and linear regression were conducted on IBM SPSS Statistical Software (IBM Corp., 2011). Lastly, we conducted post hoc analysis to compute achieved power for rejecting the null hypothesis of regression coefficient of each of “time to program engagement” and “the length of time in the program” since we were concerned that our small sample size can limit the achieved power. The power was computed based on effect size, α error probability, sample size, and number of the predictors. Effect size was calculated using variance explained by the variable of interest and residual variance. We conducted post hoc analyses on G*Power 3.1.9.2 (Buchner, Erdfelder, Faul, & Lang, 2018).

Qualitative Methods

Participants

Survey participants were recruited to participate in the in-depth interviews. At the end of each survey, we asked the participant if he or she would be willing to meet with the first author for an individual interview. In total, 17 students participated in the interviews.

Procedures

We used structured guidelines for the interviews with the former child welfare and homeless youth. The guidelines covered four areas: the interviewee’s perceptions of support and barriers to succeeding in college, their experiences of transitioning into college, their understanding and utilization of services provided by the campus support program, and their experiences with child welfare and homelessness. For example, a question on support to succeed in college asked, “which environmental characteristics/resources have increased your chances of succeeding in college?” A question on their college transition asked, “how would you describe you transition into college?” A question on their understanding of the program asked, “could you describe your experiences with participating in the campus support program?” A question on their foster care experiences asked, “how did your foster care experiences impact your education prior to college?” The copy of our guidelines is available from the first author upon request.

In the interviews, we closely followed the guidelines. Each interview was approximately 1 hr in duration. All interviews were tape-recorded. All participants gave their consents to be recorded. Interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

We used thematic content analysis to analyze the data in six phases (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In Phase 1, the first author read all transcriptions repeatedly to build familiarity with the depth and breadth of the content. In Phase 2, the first author developed a detailed codebook, which was organized along the four areas of the interview guidelines. The other three authors used the codebook to code the transcriptions. Each transcription was coded by two authors independently. The interrater reliability was 94%. Disagreements between two coders occurred only occasionally. Most disagreements pertained to whether to add new codes or apply existing codes. To resolve disagreements, all four authors met to review the related transcription and decide collectively. In Phase 3, the second author collated codes into potential themes under each of the four areas of the interview guidelines. In Phase 4, the first author reviewed themes to check both whether the collated extracts cohered into the identified theme and whether the themes captured the meanings evident in all the transcriptions. This was followed by further development of the themes by the first and the second authors. In Phase 5, the second author refined the themes by examining relationships between themes and relationships between themes and research questions, and generated a final thematic map composed of three themes. The first author reviewed and approved the final themes. In Phase 6, the second author wrote up the results from the qualitative data analysis. The three other authors reviewed the write-up and offered comments and edits. All coding and analyses were conducted using NVivo 11 (QSR International, 2015).

Results

Quantitative Findings

Length of gap time between college enrollment and program engagement and cumulative GPA before participating in the campus support program

As mentioned earlier, only 25 students had a cumulative GPA before participating in the campus support program. In Table 2, the left side shows results from the bivariate analyses on the relationship between independent variables and student’s cumulative GPA before participating in the campus support program. As is shown, time to program engagement was negatively associated with a students’ cumulative GPA before their participation, reaching a level of statistical significance (R² = −.58, p ≤ .01). That is, for every semester a student delayed participating in the campus support program, the student’s cumulative GPA decreased 0.58. The result indicates that the longer a student waited to engage in the program, the lower the student’s cumulative GPA was.

Table 2.
Bivariate Analysis to Explore the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Each of Cumulative GPA Before and After Participating in the Campus Support Program.

Demographic Variables Cumulative GPA Before Participating in the Campus Support Program (N = 25) Cumulative GPA After Participating in the Campus Support Program (N = 50)

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Gender

Female 17 2.85 .70 33 2.79 0.62

Male 8 2.50 .67 17 2.65 0.97

Ethnicity

African American 10 2.71 .73 23 2.90 0.61

Hispanic 10 2.83 .79 19 2.53 0.92

Others 5 2.64 .52 8 2.79 0.61

College major

STEM 4 3.17 .61 6 2.46 1.23

Other majors 21 2.66 .69 44 2.78 0.67

Background

Former foster youth 5 2.80 .82 17 2.58 1.00

Adoptees from DCF 10 2.85 .54 16 2.79 0.58

Homeless students 10 2.61 .81 17 2.86 0.58

Correlation Coefficients (R²) Correlation Coefficients (R²)

Age when entered the university −.33 .07

High school GPA .33 .10

Time to program engagement −.58** −.14

Number of semesters in the campus support program .28*

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; DCF = Department of Children and Families; GPA = grade point average.

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

In the linear regression model, we regressed the cumulative GPA before participating in the campus support program on time to program engagement, college major, and high school GPA. Even though neither college major nor high school GPA was found statistically significant in the bivariate analyses, they were included in the linear regression since previous literature reported that college major (Chen & Ho, 2012) and high school GPA (Geiser & Santelices, 2007) are significant predictors of college GPA. As shown in Table 3, the results from linear regression showed that after controlling for college major and high school GPA, time to program engagement is still negatively associated with cumulative GPA before participation, reaching a level of statistical significance (β = −.49, p ≤ .01).

Table 3.
Regression on Cumulative GPA Before Participating in the Campus Support Program.

Demographic Variables Standardized Coefficients t Significance

Constant 5.67 .00

Time to program engagement** −.49 −2.70 .01

College major in STEM (reference: other majors) .21 1.20 .24

High school GPA .17 0.92 .37

Note. N = 25. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; GPA = grade point average.

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

In the post hoc analysis of achieved power, we first calculated the effect size using variance explained by the predictor “time to program engagement” (R² = .21) and residual variance (R² = .61). The result of effect size equals 0.34. Given that data from 25 students were used to answer Research Question 1, effect size equals 0.34, the number of predictors equals 3, and the power of rejecting the null hypothesis is 0.80, which is desirable.

Length of time in the program and cumulative GPA after participating in the campus support program

In Table 2, the right side shows results from the bivariate analyses on the relationship between independent variables and a student’s cumulative GPA after participating in the campus support program. The number of semesters a student had participated in the program was positively associated with their cumulative GPA after their participation, reaching a level of statistical significance (R² = .28, p ≤ .01). That is, for every semester a student remained engaged in the campus support program, the student’s cumulative GPA increased 0.28.

In the linear regression model, we regressed the cumulative GPA after participating in the campus support program on the number of semesters a student has participated in the program, college major, and high school GPA. As shown in Table 4, the results from linear regression showed that after controlling for college major and high school GPA, the number of semesters a student participated in the program was still positively associated with the cumulative GPA after their participation, reaching a level of statistical significance (β = .29, p ≤ .05).

Table 4.
Regression on Cumulative GPA After Participating in the Campus Support Program.

Demographic Variables Standardized Coefficients t Significance

Constant 8.23 .00

Number of semesters in the campus support program* .29 2.03 .05

Major in STEM −.17 −1.18 .25

Cumulative GPA before participating in the program .05 0.33 .74

Note. N = 50. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; GPA = grade point average.

p ≤ .05. p ≤ .01. p ≤ .001.

In the post hoc analysis of achieved power, we first calculated the effect size using variance explained by the predictor regarding the length of time in the program (R² = .08) and residual variance (R² = .89). The result of effect size equals 0.09. Given that data from 50 students were used to answer Research Question 2, effect size equals 0.09, the number of predictors equals 3, and the power of rejecting the null hypothesis is 0.55, which is below the desirable level.

Qualitative Findings

Our thematic content analysis identified three themes from the qualitative data. First, the timing of engagement in the campus support program is highly variable among students. Second, students who engaged in the campus support program early perceived that their early engagement helped them transition into college. Third, students reported that they benefited from academic services such as advising and mentoring, and financial support from the program.

Timing of engagement in the campus support program

The qualitative data revealed that the timing of engagement in the campus support program is highly variable among students. Some students engaged in the program as soon as they enrolled into the university, while others did not engage in the program until after an event triggered them to seek support. Qualitative data showed that students’ case managers, who are aware of the campus support program, can facilitate early engagement. One participant shared how her case manager played an instrumental role in introducing her to the campus support program and the success coach (i.e., the principal staff member of the program). Early engagement played a vital role in her transition into college and helped her acquire access to needed academic and emotional support.
Interviewee: Um, well the first time that I met [the success coach], I hadn’t been accepted [to the university] yet. My case manager decided, “You know, while we are in the area today, because we were looking at your apartment, why don’t we stop by and we just ask about how the process is going along, to make sure that they actually do have everything? You know, just to double check.” And [the case manager] was very helpful- like she moved the entire process along so [the university staff] were able to tell me the same day whether I was accepted or not and [the success coach and I] just got along since then…[the success coach] has given me advice sometimes like—when I didn’t get quite the score I wanted on my first Math test, she said, “Well, you could go to the tutoring in the Library and ask them to go over the test with you.” And most of it is just like when I’m stressed out, I feel like I’m welcome in her office and whatever we end up talking about it. Just gives me that chance to breathe.
In comparison, students who did not engage in the program until after facing a triggering event or crisis usually reported receiving less support in their transition into college. Many of them struggled with financial and interpersonal difficulties such as toxic relationships with their family. When students did not receive support to address these difficulties, they were less focused on academics, which jeopardized their academic performance. One transfer student shared her difficult experiences in her first semester after transferring into the university. Although she was placed in kinship care with her aunt, she was kicked out by her aunt that semester. She had to take multiple part-time jobs to pay for rent and other bills. Her grades dropped significantly, and she considered dropping out of college. Her academic advisor linked her with the campus support program, where she was able to get needed support.
Interviewee: I had a meeting with [the success coach] and two other ladies and they were really like helpful. They gave me a list on what to do—to go to the academic success center, try to get a plan. They sent me to Housing too, so that I could at least make sure I had somewhere to stay. They gave me phone numbers to call some guy who can give me a loan or whatever to pay the $250 and whatever so that my transcripts could be here.…They gave me some classes to take that were more important than the ones I had already signed up for. They just gave me a sense of hope, like a sense of they care. Because for a long time, I didn’t feel like anybody cared.
In summary, students who engage in the campus support program earlier have the advantage of receiving support earlier, which they perceive can help them cope with stress and prevent crisis.

Engaging in the campus support program and transition to college

Several students reported that their transition to college was generally smooth. Qualitative findings suggest that students who became engaged in the campus support program early received support in their transition into college. They acknowledged that the campus support program educated them about time management skills and campus resources. They also gained a sense of community from socializing with staff and students in the program, which helped them navigate and assimilate to the university culture.
Interviewee: Very good. The first semester, I had some distractions. I did good but I knew I could have done better. With better time management techniques, I have done better over this semester…The [campus support program] workshops on budgeting and time management helped me manage my time in a better way. Those really helped…By letting me know the different resources that are available. I know some people might feel alone and lost in college. With [the campus support program] sending you e-mails about workshops and everything, it is like a support system is in place for them.
One participant who was not linked to the campus support program in the first semester reported that, although he was doing well academically at the start of college, he struggled with social adjustment.
Interviewee: Very tough. I had no guidance. I didn’t know [the mentor from the campus support program] at that time. Academically, I was good but socially not so. I was always in a hurry similar to a New York style—going from point A to point B without the need to know point C.
One student pointed out that the process of transition starts from the time they apply for college. Former child welfare and homeless youth need support from outside of the family to help them prepare for tests, write essays, apply for financial aid, and overcome other obstacles prior to even enrolling college. Without support, they need to have high levels of determination and self-efficacy to complete the applications.
Interviewee: It was horrible, because like I said, I was doing everything for myself. I was the only person who pushed me before going into college. I didn’t know I had to take the SAT and ACT and studying for that I studied by myself. I coached myself and like my cousin tried to help a little bit but she seems more of an aggressor, so she doesn’t teach well so I literally had to teach myself and do it all by myself. Like my college applications, I did them by myself, my essays, I did them by myself. Like no one helped me to do it. Like I got the application fee waivers from my school but I had to find out all that stuff by myself like nobody helped me like, I did it for myself.
In summary, students perceived that the campus support program helps with their transition to college through educating them about time management skills and campus resources and providing them a sense of community. However, some students also expressed their needs for support as early as college application.

Engagement in the campus support program and academic success

When prompted about the resources that aided in college success, the majority of students reported receiving academic and financial services from the campus support program. Academic services such as advising and mentoring helped them navigate their academic life and requirements. Financial services such as scholarships and housing vouchers helped them focus on academic work. Regarding academic services, students reported that they benefited from being advised by both the success coach and their mentor.
Interviewee:…the [success coach] and [mentor] were really on top of me about everything because, in one of the previous questions you asked if I had gone into academic probation and I know that was like one of the biggest things for me, because I know that I did really bad one semester and my GPA dropped drastically and they put me on academic probation. And I knew it was because—not because I couldn’t do the work but because I was slacking and I wasn’t managing my time correctly. They showed me. I think it was [the mentor]. He was like, you need to do this, this, this and this. He showed me his agenda and his calendar, everything to put into Google calendar to be on top of it with reminders and stuff. So that’s honestly what has helped me keep on track the most. And to make sure that I schedule. Like if I have a week to do this then, ok, I need to do it today so I don’t have to worry about it later so I can get this done. Instead of having to worry about that one thing that I need to do.
Another student reported receiving a housing scholarship, which covers 60–75% of her housing costs, and commented that “the financial aspect of the program and things of that nature are very helpful.” Another student shared her experiences of benefiting from the program’s holistic services, which were delivered by the success coach and her mentor.
Interviewee: [the success coach and mentor] make my college experience better because they really care. They are really on top of me. Like—“You need to do this this semester. Make sure you are studying. We haven’t seen you. What are you doing? Are you OK financially? Do you need food? Are you OK with where you are living?” They are always on top of me to make sure that I am doing well. And that I am not falling off track. Or if there is something happening, they want to be there to support me so I could get through it so I don’t just fall off or forget about what my main goal is. It is just a really good support system. They are always on top of me and then they get upset if something wrong happens or if I am not in contact. It’s like having a bunch of parents there. So it’s cool.
In summary, students perceived that the campus support program helps with their academic success through offering them academic and financial services. They perceived positively advising and holistic services from both the success coach and their mentor.

Discussion and Applications for Practice

This study found positive effects of early engagement in a campus support program on former child welfare and homeless students’ cumulative GPA in college. First, time to program engagement is associated with lower cumulative GPA before a student’s participation in the program. Second, staying in the program longer is associated with higher cumulative GPA after participation in the program. The qualitative findings showed that students perceived that the campus support program help them transition into college and success in college.

The finding positive effects of early engagement in the campus support program is consistent with the previous research on the effects of early engagement in other social services programs (Smith, Duffee, Steinke, Huang, & Larkin, 2008; Wagner & Clayton, 1999). Using data from a longitudinal study of 130 youth in residential treatment centers, Smith, Duffee, Steinke, Huang, and Larkin (2008) reported that the youth’ early engagement in treatment is associated with better outcomes on predischarge self-efficacy, family trust, and school attachment. The authors used path analysis to test the hypothesis that the association between early engagement and outcomes is explained by treatment interventions. Their results offered partial support for the hypothesis. That is, early engagement exposes youth to more interventions and to new roles and responsibilities, which in turn leads to higher predischarge self-efficacy. Similarly, Wagner and Clayton (1999) studied a Parent as Teachers home visitation program and reported that higher engagement was positively associated with children’s vocabulary scores at age 3.

The findings from our qualitative data analysis showed that early engagement exposes students to preventive services. Student interviewees mentioned attending workshops on time management and other topics, learning about campus resources, and building relationships with the success coach and mentors. These preventive services prepare students to manage the workload in college, which in turn prevents them from experiencing crisis or dropping out of college. The student interviewees also described the factors affecting the timing of their engagement. One student’s case manager introduced her to the campus support program even before she was officially admitted to the university. However, some students were not aware of the program until after they faced a triggering event or crisis. By that time, their grades had already been impacted negatively.

Our findings have practice implications for engaging former child welfare and homeless youth in campus support programs. First, it is important to engage students as soon as they are admitted to the university. Campus support programs can work with the admission offices in the University to target new students who are eligible for the program. The programs should approach these students through both e-mails and phone calls. Based on our experiences of recruiting participants for this study, phone calls are more effective than e-mails among the population of interest. Only two students in our sample were recruited from e-mails. Second, the campus support program can collaborate with case management agencies and housing service providers to facilitate early engagement. Child welfare case managers work with individual foster youth and are expected to keep track of their clients’ educational progress. Therefore, collaborating with them will help in identifying foster youth who are applying for and starting college. Similarly, collaborating with housing service providers will help in identifying homeless youth who need support services in college. Third, campus support programs can collaborate with local high school counselors to facilitate both college application and early engagement. In general, foster youth and homeless youth receive less help from family in completing their college application than youth from the general population (Kirk & Day, 2011). Therefore, high school counselors’ guidance is crucial in their application. Campus support programs should work with high school counselors to help them understand the service provided by campus support programs. Such knowledge will prepare high school counselors to assist their students with making informed decisions on college applications. Moreover, high school counselors can also connect their students with the campus support program as soon as the students are admitted to the university, which can facilitate early engagement.

The findings from our qualitative data analysis also showed that students benefited from academic and financial services provided by the campus support program. Our findings are consistent with findings from a recent review on college support programs for students in general (Bettinger, Boatman, & Long, 2013). Firstly, advising and mentoring help students with their academic performance. When student interviewees shared their experiences, they emphasized that both the success coach and their mentors consistently asked them about their academic performance and their financial and housing stability. They are aware that the success coach and their mentors hold them accountable for their academic performance while also provided a sense of stability in their lives. The sense of accountability is particularly important for these students since many of them receive limited supervision and support from their family. Secondly, financial support helps students focus on academics. Many former child welfare and homeless youth struggle with financial difficulties since their family (if they have any) provides them with limited financial support. They benefit greatly from tuition waivers funded by the state. However, they still need to pay for books, housing, food, and other expenses. Even though the amount is limited, former child welfare youth in Florida have a US$1,256 monthly stipend until age 23. In comparison, homeless youth do not have stable financial support to cover other costs. Many of them hold jobs, which can create challenges in work–study balance. Therefore, providing them financial support to meet necessities can reduce the needs to take on the part-time jobs.

Our findings have also practice implications for service design of campus support programs. Firstly, it is important to provide academic services to students in campus support programs. Success coach and mentors can use a team approach to collaboratively work with students and to provide consistent and supportive guidance. Moreover, they can provide joint supervision to check whether the students follow through with mutually established goals or actions. As compared with academic advisors for general students, success coaches and mentors have lower caseloads, which in turn allows them to meet with the students more frequently and provides closer supervision. It is also important for campus support programs to keep open communication with academic advisors, who can refer eligible students to the program. Secondly, campus support programs need to obtain financial resources to support the students. Various forms of financial resources can be sought in the university and the community. For example, in the university, housing vouchers can allow students to stay in the student dormitory for free or at lower costs, which facilitates easier access to campus resources. In the community, philanthropic funding can help to fund competitive scholarships, which can fund students’ educational and living costs. Some philanthropies hold strong interests in supporting educational success of former child welfare and homeless youth. Therefore, administrators of campus support programs should continue engaging possible funding sources, including philanthropic organizations as well as universities, and state and federal governments. Researchers can also support this effort through conducting evaluation research on campus support programs. Research findings can inform program staff and potential sponsors of areas in need of improvement or in which to invest.

This study has three limitations: First, our small sample size limited the statistical power of our analyses. The power for rejecting the null hypothesis of regression coefficient of the length of time in the program (Research Question 2) is below the desirable level of 0.80. Our small sample size is related to our recruitment strategies. We recruited participants primarily on our own. Future research should seek support from the campus support programs to recruit participants, which might help with increasing sample sizes. Second, this study does not have longitudinal data based on equal lengths of observation of all students in the campus support program. This study was a 1-year project using one cohort of students who were eligible for the campus support program in the academic year 2015–2016. We had access to only these students’ data from their first semester in the university until the end of the 2016 spring semester. Therefore, students who have attended the university for longer time have more data available in this study and therefore might have greater influence on the results. Future research should collect longitudinal data of each student from their first to last semester in college. The longitudinal data allow for testing the causal relationship between their engagement in a campus support program and their academic performance and success. Third, this is a case study of a campus support program in one university, which limits the generalizability of our findings. As mentioned above, the campus support program in this study is in a large public university serving many first-generation and nontraditional students in a metropolitan area of Florida.

In conclusion, college students with previous involvement in the child welfare system or experience with homelessness face significant obstacles to succeeding in college. Many universities have developed campus support programs to support these students. This case study focuses on a campus support program that serves both former child welfare and homeless youth. The study found positive effects of early engagement in the campus support program. Students reported that the campus support program helped them transition into college by helping them develop time management skills and informing them of campus resources, and offering them a sense of community. Students also reported benefiting from its academic and financial services, and institutions interested in developing similar programs should emphasize providing such services. Moreover, program staff should engage students in the program as soon as or even before they enroll into college to increase chances of academic success.

Demographic Variables	141 Eligible Students	50 Students in the Sample	91 Students Not in the Sample
Female	97 (69)	33 (66)	64 (70)
African American	62 (44)	23 (46)	39 (43)
Hispanic	53 (38)	19 (38)	34 (37)
Major in STEM	23 (16)	6 (12)	17 (19)
Former foster youth	45 (32)	17 (34)	28 (31)
Adoptees from DCF	55 (39)	16 (32)	39 (43)
Homeless students	41 (29)	17 (34)	24 (26)
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Age at entering the university	21.95 (5.99)	21.33 (5.43)	22.29 (6.28)
High school GPA	2.48 (1.62)	2.78 (1.39)	2.33 (1.71)

Demographic Variables	Cumulative GPA Before Participating in the Campus Support Program (N = 25)	Cumulative GPA After Participating in the Campus Support Program (N = 50)
Gender
Female	17	2.85	.70	33	2.79	0.62
Male	8	2.50	.67	17	2.65	0.97
Ethnicity
African American	10	2.71	.73	23	2.90	0.61
Hispanic	10	2.83	.79	19	2.53	0.92
Others	5	2.64	.52	8	2.79	0.61
College major
STEM	4	3.17	.61	6	2.46	1.23
Other majors	21	2.66	.69	44	2.78	0.67
Background
Former foster youth	5	2.80	.82	17	2.58	1.00
Adoptees from DCF	10	2.85	.54	16	2.79	0.58
Homeless students	10	2.61	.81	17	2.86	0.58
	Correlation Coefficients (R²)	Correlation Coefficients (R²)
Age when entered the university	−.33	.07
High school GPA	.33	.10
Time to program engagement	−.58**	−.14
Number of semesters in the campus support program		.28*

Demographic Variables	Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
Constant		5.67	.00
Time to program engagement**	−.49	−2.70	.01
College major in STEM (reference: other majors)	.21	1.20	.24
High school GPA	.17	0.92	.37

Demographic Variables	Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
Constant		8.23	.00
Number of semesters in the campus support program*	.29	2.03	.05
Major in STEM	−.17	−1.18	.25
Cumulative GPA before participating in the program	.05	0.33	.74

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Florida International University (the 2015 Fostering Panther Pride Research Award).

References

Arizona State University Bridging Success. (2018). Arizona State University Bridging Success. Retrieved from https://students.asu.edu/foster-youth/bridging-success

Berliner

Lezin

(2010). Grappling with the gaps: Towards a research agenda to meet the educational needs of children and youth in foster care. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Bettinger

E. P.

Boatman

Long

B. T.

(2013). Student supports: Developmental education and other academic programs. The Future of Children, 23, 93–115.

Brandford

English

(2004). Foster youth transition to independence study. Seattle: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Bruce

Naccarato

Hopson

Morrelli

(2010). Providing a sound educational framework for foster youth: A proposed research agenda. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 4, 219–240.

Buchner

Erdfelder

Faul

Lang

. (2018). G*Power (Version 3.1.9.2) [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.gpower.hhu.de/

CARE Program. (2018). CARE Program. Retrieved from http://care.kennesaw.edu/

Center for Promise. (2014). Don’t call them dropouts: Understanding the experiences of young people who leave high school before graduation. Retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/report/dont-call-them-dropouts

10.

Chaney

B. W

. (2010). National evaluation of student support services: Examination of student outcomes after six years. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/student-support/final-report.pdf

11.

Chen

. (2012). STEM in postsecondary education: Entrance, attrition, and coursetaking among 2003-04 beginning postsecondary students. Web Tables. NCES 2013-152. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013152.pdf

12.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Extension of foster care beyond age 18. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

13.

College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-84, 121 Stat. 807 (2007).

14.

Courtney

M. E.

Dworsky

Cusick

G. R.

Havlicek

Perez

Keller

(2007). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

15.

Courtney

M. E.

Dworsky

Lee

J. S.

Raap

(2010). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at ages 23 & 24. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Chapin Hall.

16.

Courtney

M. E.

Piliavin

Grogan-Kaylor

Nesmith

(2001). Foster youth in transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80, 685–717.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

Gutmann

M. L.

Hanson

W. E.

(2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Crutchfield

R. M.

Chambers

R. M.

Duffield

(2016). Jumping through the hoops to get financial aid for college students who are homeless: Policy analysis of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 97, 191–199.

19.

Dworsky

Perez

(2009). Helping former foster youth graduate from college: Campus support programs in California and Washington State. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

20.

Dworsky

Perez

(2010). Helping former foster youth graduate from college through campus support programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 255–263.

21.

Florida Department of Children and Families. (2018) My Future, My Choice Flowchart. Retrieved from http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/indliving/MyFutureMyChoice/docs/fliers/Flowchart3.pdf

22.

Florida Statue. (1009.25(1)(c).(d).(f)). Fee exemptions. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=1000-1099/1009/Sections/1009.25.html

23.

Fostering Panther Pride. (2018). Fostering panther pride. Retrieved from http://sas.fiu.edu/fpp/

24.

Geiger

J. M.

Beltran

S. J.

(2017). Readiness, access, preparation, and support for foster care alumni in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 11, 487–515.

25.

Geiger

J. M.

Hanrahan

J. E.

Cheung

J. R.

Lietz

C. A.

(2016). Developing an on-campus recruitment and retention program for foster care alumni. Children & Youth Services Review, 61, 271–280.

26.

Geiger

Piel

Day

Schelbe

(2018). A descriptive analysis of programs serving foster care alumni in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 287–294.

27.

Geiser

Santelices

M. V.

(2007). Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Retrieved from https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/validity-high-school-grades-predicting-student-success-beyond-freshman-yearhigh-school

28.

Goldrick-Rab

Richardson

Schneider

Hernandez

Cady

. (2018). Still hungry and homeless in College. Wisconsin HOPE Lab. Retrieved from http://wihopelab.com/publications/Wisconsin-HOPE-Lab-Still-Hungry-and-Homeless.pdf

29.

Greeson

J. K. P.

(2013). Foster youth and the transition to adulthood: The theoretical and conceptual basis for natural mentoring. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 40–51.

30.

Huang

Fernandez

Rhoden

M. A.

Joseph

(2018). Serving former foster youth and homeless students in college. Journal of Social Service Research, 44, 209–222.

31.

IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 [computer software]. New York: IBM Corp.

32.

Kinarsky

A. R.

(2017). Fostering success: Understanding the experience of foster youth undergraduates. Children & Youth Services Review, 81, 220–228.

33.

Kirk

Day

(2011). Increasing college access for youth aging out of foster care: Evaluation of a summer camp program for foster youth transitioning from high school to college. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1173–1180.

34.

Merdinger

J. M.

Hines

A. M.

Osterling

K. L.

Wyatt

(2005). Pathways to college for former foster youth: Understanding factors that contribute to educational success. Child Welfare, 84, 867–896.

35.

New Yorkers for Children Guardian Scholar Program. (2018). Guardian Scholar Program. Retrieved from https://www.newyorkersforchildren.org/article/guardian-scholars-program/

36.

Nixon

Jones

M. G

. (2007). The Chafee Education Training and Voucher (ETV) Program: Six states experiences. Casey Family Programs. Retrieved from http://www.fostercareandeducation.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=1241&Command=Core_Download&method=inline&PortalId=0&TabId=124

37.

Okpych

(2012). Policy framework supporting youth aging-out of foster care through college: Review and recommendations. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1390–1396.

38.

Pecora

P. J.

(2012). Maximizing educational achievement of youth in foster care and alumni: Factors associated with success. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1121–1129.

39.

Project MYSELF. (2018). Project MYSELF. Retrieved from https://socialwork.rutgers.edu/centers/institute-families/office-child-welfare-initiatives/transitions-youth/projects/project-myself

40.

QSR International. (2015). NVivo for Windows, Version 10 [Computer software]. Massachusetts: QSR International.

41.

Randolph

K. A.

Thompson

(2017). A systematic review of interventions to improve post-secondary educational outcomes among foster care alumni. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 602–611.

42.

Salazar

A. M.

(2012). Supporting college success in foster care alumni: salient factors related to postsecondary retention. Child Welfare, 91, 139–167.

43.

Salazar

A. M.

Jones

K. R.

Emerson

J. C.

Mucha

(2016). Postsecondary strengths, challenges, and supports experienced by foster care alumni college graduates. Journal of College Student Development, 57, 263–279.

44.

Seita Scholars Program. (2015). Seita Scholars Program: Center for fostering success annual report 2014–2015. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University. Retrieved from https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u356/2015/Annual%20Report%202014-15%20Website%20View_0.pdf

45.

Seita Scholars Program. (2018). Seita Scholars Program. Retrieved from https://wmich.edu/fosteringsuccess/seita

46.

Smith

B. D.

Duffee

D. E.

Steinke

C. M.

Huang

Larkin

(2008). Outcomes in residential treatment for youth: The role of early engagement. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1425–1436.

47.

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, Pub. L. No. 110-351, 122 Stat. 3,958 (2008).

48.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3,078-3,508 (2008).

49.

The Independent Living Initiatives of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat (1985).

50.

The National Center on Family Homelessness at American Institutes for Research. (2014). America’s youngest outcasts: A report card on child homelessness. Retrieved from https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Americas-Youngest-Outcasts-Child-Homelessness-Nov2014.pdf

51.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2007). Time for reform: Aging out and on their own. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2007/05/01/time-for-reform-aging-out-and-on-their-own

52.

Unconquered Scholars Program. (2018). Unconquered Scholars Program. Retrieved from https://care.fsu.edu/USP

53.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2016). Actions Needed to Improve Access to Federal Financial Assistance for Homeless and Foster Youth. Retrieved from https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/d16343.pdf

54.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) report—Preliminary FY 2016 Estimates as of October 20, 2017 (No. 24). Administration for children and families, administration on children, youth and families, children’s bureau. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport24.pdf

55.

Wagner

M. M.

Clayton

S. L.

(1999). The parents as teachers program: Results from two demonstrations. The Future of Children, 9, 91–115.

56.

Watt

T. T.

Norton

C. L.

Jones

(2013). Designing a campus support program for foster care alumni: Preliminary evidence for a strengths framework. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1408–1417.

Demographic Variables	141 Eligible Students	50 Students in the Sample	91 Students Not in the Sample
Demographic Variables	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Female	97 (69)	33 (66)	64 (70)
African American	62 (44)	23 (46)	39 (43)
Hispanic	53 (38)	19 (38)	34 (37)
Major in STEM	23 (16)	6 (12)	17 (19)
Former foster youth	45 (32)	17 (34)	28 (31)
Adoptees from DCF	55 (39)	16 (32)	39 (43)
Homeless students	41 (29)	17 (34)	24 (26)
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Age at entering the university	21.95 (5.99)	21.33 (5.43)	22.29 (6.28)
High school GPA	2.48 (1.62)	2.78 (1.39)	2.33 (1.71)

Demographic Variables	Cumulative GPA Before Participating in the Campus Support Program (N = 25)			Cumulative GPA After Participating in the Campus Support Program (N = 50)
Demographic Variables	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD
Gender
Female	17	2.85	.70	33	2.79	0.62
Male	8	2.50	.67	17	2.65	0.97
Ethnicity
African American	10	2.71	.73	23	2.90	0.61
Hispanic	10	2.83	.79	19	2.53	0.92
Others	5	2.64	.52	8	2.79	0.61
College major
STEM	4	3.17	.61	6	2.46	1.23
Other majors	21	2.66	.69	44	2.78	0.67
Background
Former foster youth	5	2.80	.82	17	2.58	1.00
Adoptees from DCF	10	2.85	.54	16	2.79	0.58
Homeless students	10	2.61	.81	17	2.86	0.58
	Correlation Coefficients (R²)			Correlation Coefficients (R²)
Age when entered the university	−.33			.07
High school GPA	.33			.10
Time to program engagement	−.58**			−.14
Number of semesters in the campus support program				.28*