Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Understanding the barriers to college access for former foster youth at the Los Angeles Community College District
(USC Thesis Other)
Understanding the barriers to college access for former foster youth at the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 1
UNDERSTANDING THE BARRIERS TO COLLEGE ACCESS FOR FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH AT THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
by
JOHN CHAVES SOUSA
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2013
Copyright 2013 John Chaves Sousa
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 2
Acknowledgements
As I approach the end of my academic doctoral journey at USC, I am extremely humbled
by the fact that so many people in my life supported and encouraged me to never give up the
goal of finishing at USC and becoming Dr. John Chaves Sousa. The relentless, positive
feedback, constructive criticisms, and selfless encouragement were always timely and much
appreciated.
I want to express my most sincere appreciation to my USC Doctoral Committee, for
whom I hold the utmost respect and admiration, with special gratitude to my newest Chairperson,
Dr. Dennis Hocevar. His brief, but exceptional guidance and mentoring brought me back from
the proverbial abyss known by many as “All But Dissertation!” Dr. Hocevar, whether or not he
realizes, revived in me a skill level and talent I did not even realize I possessed.
Of course, this epiphany in my life was not made possible without the incredible
encouragement and support from my first-ever USC EdD Chairperson, Mentor and Advisor - Dr.
Linda Serra-Hagedorn. Most recently, Dr. Hagedorn was kind enough to introduce me to both
Dr. Hocevar and Dr. Reynaldo Baca – both USC veteran Faculty and who eventually agreed to
be part of my new EdD Committee with no more than a week or two of notice; a truly
remarkable gesture of good will and kindness! To Dr. Hocevar, Dr. Baca and Dr. Hagedorn, I
wish to express a heartfelt thank you! I am eternally grateful to you all and feel undeniably
blessed to cross your paths in this life. Also, I am especially appreciative for the many
opportunities and skills which I gained from our many interactions and discussions. The skills
and abilities I learned from you all are priceless and I will treasure the experience for many years
to come.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 3
Finally, all of the experiences and efforts I gained were only possible because of the truly
unconditional love and undeniable support from my soul-mate, my incredible wife, Juana Maria
Sousa. My lovely wife, along with my wonderful children, Vanessa Rene, Miranda Marie, and
youngest, John-Anthony Michael, as well as my two granddaughters, Jasmyn Marie and Elaina
Juliana are the salt-of-my-life for which I am truly blessed! I am eternally and wholeheartedly
grateful for my family, well beyond just simple words and phrases. So, simply stated, I love you
all so very much and thank you profusely for never, ever giving up on your “Papa” and “Avo”!
Obrigado Muito! e ¡Dios le Bendice Siempre!
(Thank you very much and God Bless you always!)
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 4
Table of Contents
List of Tables 8
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction 11
Introduction of the Problem 11
Background of the Problem 14
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Importance of the Study 20
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of the Study 24
Chapter Two: Literature Review 26
Children and Youth in Foster Care 26
Characteristics of Aged-Out Foster Youth 30
Education and Foster Youth 32
Factors that Impact Resilience of Former Foster Youth in College 40
Support Structures Needed in Community Colleges for Former Foster Youth 47
Academic Counseling and Advising 48
Discussion 55
Chapter Three: Methodology 58
Introduction 58
Sample and Population 59
Instrumentation 61
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 5
Data Collection 64
Data Analysis 65
Assumptions 67
Limitations 68
Delimitations 68
Chapter Four: Results 70
Introduction 70
Treatment of Data 70
Participant Demographics 71
Findings 72
Findings Related to Research Question One
Demographic Profiles of Foster, Extended Opportunities and Disability 73
Groups
Gender 73
Age 74
Ethnicity 75
Primary Language 76
Marital Status 77
Findings Related to Research Question Two 78
Obstacles Perceived to Interfere with Educational Goals 78
High School Preparation 79
Study Skills 80
Language (English) 80
Instructor’s Expectations 81
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 6
Financial Factors 81
Employment Obligations 81
Family Obligations 82
Uncertainty about Personal or Career Goals 82
Lack of Motivation 83
Other Personal Problems 83
Class Access Offerings 83
Findings Related to Research Question Three 84
Types and Level of College Support Services Utilized 84
Financial Aid Services 85
General Counseling Services 85
EOPS Counseling Services 86
International Counseling Services 87
DSPS Counseling Services 87
Other Special Counseling Services 88
Instructor-Led Counseling Services 89
Summary 89
Chapter Five: Discussion 91
Summary of Findings 92
Implications for Practice 94
Assumptions and Limitations 95
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research 97
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 7
References 99
Appendix A 108
Appendix B 112
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Overall At-Risk Student Populations Identified from the 2009 LACCD
Student Satisfaction Survey 60
Table 2: Three Groups of At-risk, Student Populations Identified for the
Comparative Study 71
Table 3: Chi-square results – Demographic Profiles of Foster and non-Foster
Student Groups 73
Table 4: Gender by Group Cross Tabulation 74
Table 5: Age by Group Cross Tabulation 75
Table 6: Ethnicity by Group Cross Tabulation 76
Table 7: Primary Languages by Group Cross Tabulation 77
Table 8: Marital Status by Group Cross Tabulation 77
Table 9: One-Way ANOVA Results – Obstacles to Educational Goals between
All Three Groups 78
Table 10: Chi-square results – Types and Levels of College Support Services 84
Table 11: Received Financial Aid Services 85
Table 12: Received Counseling Services from General Counselors 86
Table 13: Received Counseling Services from EOPS Counselors 86
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 9
Table 14: Received Counseling Services from International Services Director
Or International Services Counselor 87
Table 15: Received Counseling from DSPS Counselors 88
Table 16: Received Counseling from Other Special Program Counselors 88
Table 17: Received Counseling-Related Services from Instructor 89
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 10
Abstract
Generally referred to as aged-out youth, approximately 20,000 former foster youth leave
foster care each year, with very few enrolling into the community college system. Many enroll
into a college system without a clear understanding of the system. Unable to maneuver, most
former foster youth will drop out. The current exploratory, comparative study looks at the
similarities and differences between former foster youth, the Extended Opportunity Program and
Services youth and Disabled Student Programs and Services youth within a large community
college district, located in the Southwestern part of the United States. The current study provides
educators with valuable insight as to the unique needs and characteristics of this growing
population within the community college system.
Results of the study show former foster youth do not utilize many of the specialized
counseling support programs targeting at-risk, non-traditional students at the community
colleges; even with access being readily available for them. Rather, results show that former
foster youth receive more sporadic, random-type of counseling and support services.
Additionally, substantial research exists indicating that counseling and support services provided
through targeted populations programs serve as successful interventions at removing educational
barriers for non-traditional, at-risk students. The results and conclusions drawn from the current
study provides a basic outline that a program structure leveraging current categorical programs at
the community colleges is needed to better assist former foster youth. The improved structure of
categorical programs will improve the limited outreach and recruitment efforts of former foster
youth currently in place at the colleges.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction of the Problem
Research conducted under the auspices of the California Post-Secondary Education
Commission (CPEC) in 2008, refers to the college-going rates of high school graduates in the
State and uniformly supports the postulate that one critical and very important pathway to
obtaining social and economic mobility is to continue beyond the High School Diploma (HSD)
and garner a post-secondary educational experience (CPEC Commission Report, 07-04). The
California Education Code (CEC) states that “It is the intent of the Legislature that each resident
of California who has the capacity and motivation to benefit from higher education should have
the opportunity to enroll in an institution of higher education…the Legislature hereby reaffirms
the commitment of the State of California to provide an appropriate place in California public
higher education for every student who is willing and able to benefit from attendance” (CEC,
§66201). Yet even with this unprecedented 1960’s legislation, the college-going rates in the
public higher education system of California are still lower than most other states, when
compared to the national level (CPEC, 2008, p. 4).
According to a report produced by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2004,
the national average four-year college-going rate is 38.3% with only Arizona and Mississippi
having lower college going rates (CPEC, 2008). Although the college-going rates are lower in
California, few would refute the facts that when comparing the socio-economic condition of
individuals with a HSD or equivalent, the discretionary income increases by an average of 47%
when obtaining a 2-year associate or vocational degree level education (CPEC, 2007).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 12
Moreover, the same discretionary income continues to show increases for every degree attained
thereafter; with a baccalaureate degree graduate averaging an income of 108% over those who
only complete a high school level educational experience (CPEC, 2007). Additionally, the CPEC
study lists that individuals continuing beyond the 4-year degree to obtain a post-baccalaureate
education degree average a 189% increase in earnings, over those individuals with only a high
school diploma level experience (CPSEC, 2007).
According to researchers with the Casey Family Programs (2008) the CPSEC study
simply provides research supported evidence that the earning potential demonstrated by attaining
post-secondary credentials and/or degrees after high school are especially powerful mechanisms
that can significantly assist historically marginalized groups achieve the necessary social
mobility, equity and economic successes to bring them out of the cycle of poverty (Lovett and
Emerson, 2008). These research supported facts of improved socio-economic benefit for those
attaining a post-secondary education are especially potent factors, when assessing the commonly
known low achievement and low college degree attainment of those youth coming out of the
foster care systems – commonly referred to in the research as “former foster or aged-out” youth
(Lovett and Emerson, 2008).
Generally, former foster youth (i.e., aged-out youth) are defined as those youth who by
chronological age and circumstances surrounding their abusive and/or neglected environments
while growing up as minors, enter the adult society severely ill-prepared to contribute to the
betterment and improvement of not only their own lives but less to their communities at large
(Lovitt and Emerson, 2008). According to a study conducted by researchers at Casey Family
Programs (2001) at least 20,000 of the greater than one-half a million youth currently in foster
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 13
care reach the age at which they are required by law to “make their transition out of the child
welfare system with the majority of these former foster youth adults entering into the society
whether or not they possess the skills and support necessary to live successfully on their own”
(p. 1) and as such, they are commonly referred to in social services literature as “aged-out”
former foster youth (Casey Family Programs, 2001).
Researchers believe the notion that students from historically disadvantaged
backgrounds face unique, distinctive challenges and issues when completing a postsecondary
education goal (Lovitt and Emerson, 2008). But, to those individuals coming out of foster care,
the obstacles are multifold and multifaceted. Also, the unique and distinctive obstacles and
issues that foster youth face are compounded by the fact that many student services professionals
are not aware of the unique needs, characteristics and extensive issues these particular former
foster youth actually must face once they age-out of the foster care systems (Emerson, 2007).
Limited research exists on the educational related outcomes faced by many of the approximate
20,000 youth that exit court-mandated care, with less than 39% completing a high school or
General Equivalency Diploma on average (Lovitt and Emerson, 2008). The downward trend for
aged out foster youth continues with fewer than 17% of the high school graduates moving on to
complete a 2-year and/or vocational post-secondary educational program and less than three
percent of the high school graduates progressing into the baccalaureate and less than one percent
pursuing graduate level educational programs (Emerson, 2007; Freid, 2008).
By contrast, data listed in the April 2002 revised report by the Manhattan Institute for
Policy Research (MIPR) show the average national graduation rate in 1998 was 71% (Greene,
2002). For the MIPR data broken-down by ethnicities, the national average graduation rate for
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 14
white students was 78%; African-American students 56% and 54% for Latino students (Greene,
2002). Currently, the average college graduation rates for the general population nationally are
12% for community college students, 33% at the four-year public universities and 33% at private
universities (Schneider, 2008). Even with college success rates varying among the general
population, the college success rates among former foster youth are comparatively abysmal
(Emerson, 2007; Fried, 2008; Heath, Colton and Aldgate, 1994; Lovitt and Emerson, 2008).
Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor and Nesmith (2001) suggest that due to the variability
in the scope, level and types of services currently available to former foster youth that much
greater attention be given to helping youth prepare for independent life alone well before leaving
foster care simply due to the unique difficulties many aged out youth face in transitioning into
adulthood (pp. 685-687). Also, other researchers recommend that more attention be given to
instilling the importance that aged out foster youth be provided the services and support that goes
well beyond the current types of post-secondary services available for historically disadvantaged
populations of college youth at most college institutions (Lovitt and Emerson, 2008).
Background of the Problem
Created under the guidelines set forth in the 1999 Foster Care Independence Act (FCIA)
the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (i.e., termed the Chafee Act) changed the manner
in which policymakers at both the Social Services and Education systems levels view what was
termed a “new population of foster youth” or “aged-out youth” (Jaklitsch, 2003, p. 1).
Historically, most past practices regarding this new population were commonly referred to as the
“out-of-sight, out-of-mind” special student populations and were largely ignored by most
colleges and universities (Jaklitsch, 2003, p.1). Presently, the Chafee Act, remains the principle
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 15
federally funded program that supports former foster youth as they transition out of the foster
care system and into the post-secondary education systems (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor
and Nesmith, 2001); with the majority of those few former foster youth pursing their post-
secondary careers at the 2-year community college levels (Fried, 2008).
According to researchers with the Casey Family Programs, nearly 65% of former foster
youth pursing a post-secondary education in California enter the community college with or
without a high school diploma or the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) equivalent (Emerson,
2007). Furthermore, this trend of aged-out foster youth pursuing a post-secondary education
through the California Community College system is expected to increase significantly over the
next decade as implementation of new State legislation (i.e., California Assembly Bill 12)
extends foster care payments to aged-out youth until the age of 21; provided former foster youth
enroll into a post-secondary educational and/or vocational certificate program as one of the five
basic eligibility requirements (see AB12 Fact Sheet at California Fostering Connections to
Success Website, 2011).
Some of the more agreed upon and common adverse circumstances considered prevalent
and delimiting the collegiate success rates of these former foster youth while at the community
colleges are the lack of basic needs, which, in general, impact many other high-risk, non-
traditional and marginalized college student populations. While it may be true that many
marginalized groups lack the basic needs to be successful in college, former foster youth, are
more than likely to have no stable housing environment, inadequate food and nutrition, and are
considered, by far, a unique, high risk group in college persistence and social science research
(Emerson, 2007). Furthermore, former foster youth are at an increased proclivity to physical, as
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 16
well as moderate to severe mental health problems; of which Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is
significant among former foster youth, when compared to other non-traditional, high-risk college
youth (Emerson, 2007). Although these characteristics are not unique to former foster youth,
they present some of the most difficult challenges for youth transitioning out of care for which
current policy in the post-secondary systems is not prepared to deal with effectively leaving the
community college former foster students vulnerable to failure and disillusionment (Emerson,
2007).
Other common variables such as detachment, abandonment, isolation from group
environments, motivation, determination and anxiety which researchers believe significantly
impact the decisions of many at-risk, non-traditional college populations (Emerson, 2007).
However, these variables seem to emerge as greater, even more debilitating factors for former
foster youth while in college (Emerson, 2007). Historically, much of the prior research studies
related to at-risk populations and college persistence factors took place in four-year universities–
rather than at the community college levels (McMillen and Auslander, 2003) thereby forming a
significant dearth of research known on the outcomes of aged-out foster youth in the 2-year
college environments (Bean, 1990; Cabrera, Colbeck, and Terenzini, 2001; Cabrera, Nora and
Castañeda, 1993; Emerson, 2007; Fike and Fike, 2008; Fried, 2008; Goodman and Pascarella,
2006; Lovitt and Emerson, 2008; and Tinto, 2000). Lastly, it is this known dearth of research
into the outcomes of former foster within the 2-year college environments, along with the
seemingly limited understanding as to the unique needs and characteristics of these transitioning
college youth that the current exploratory, comparative study was developed. Specifically with
the focus on the growing number of former foster youth transitioning from the foster care system
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 17
into the California Community College system (Emerson, 2007; Fried, 2008; Lovitt and
Emerson, 2008).
The California Community Colleges system specializes in providing targeted groups of
youth with support services considered “over and above” the general services offered to all
students (Fried, 2008). These extraordinary student services are what distinguish the California
Community Colleges as a leader in providing distinctive student services so that all youth
identified as marginalized by socio- economic, educational and cultural disadvantages are
provided access and needed support (Fried, 2008). The earliest of these programs established in
1969 was the Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOP&S); followed in the early
1980’s with similar Extended Opportunities targeted, such as the Disabled Students Programs
and Services (DSPS) and the Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education (CARE) targeting
single parent students dependent upon County Support programs and who participate in the
EOP&S program at the college (see website for the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office, 2009). But, even with the plethora and availability of these specialized enrollment and
support programs, many youth still fail to enroll or even complete the 2-year college system;
with even fewer former foster youth actually enrolling into any of these specialized student
support programs after leaving high school (Emerson, 2007; Fried, 2008).
Statement of the Problem
While the inception of the Chafee Act of 1999 addressed the needs of youth as they exit
the foster care system, very little research has been conducted about the experiences and
outcomes of aged-out foster youth attending community colleges in the United States; with even
less research efforts conducted within the California Community College System (Fried, 2008).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 18
Furthermore, aged-out foster youth are not acknowledged in most studies that explore student
persistence and college retention of high-risk populations (Bean, 1990; Bettinger and Long,
2005; Cabrera, Nora and Castañeda, 1993; Lovitt and Emerson, 2008; and Tinto, 2000).
Additionally, many institutions of higher education have undertaken intensive efforts to reach
out to historically underrepresented groups (Davis, 2006; Pei, 2009; Wolanin, 2005). But even
with these over and above efforts, researchers continue to attest that former foster youth remain
largely invisible and underserved (Davis, 2006; Pei, 2009; Wolanin, 2005). Even if those very
few aged-out youth choose to pursue a post-secondary education the vast majorities gravitate to
the community colleges with or without their secondary education completed (Emerson, 2007).
In general, research in the field of college persistence and retention traditionally addressed the
most common and generalized “at-risk” populations (e.g., first-generation college, low socio-
economic, cultural and ethnic diversity, as well as limited by physical and learning disabilities).
However, when expanded to include the aged-out foster youth populations, the factors impacting
college success become much more challenging to operationally define and quantify (Lovitt and
Emerson, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The construct of student achievement for former foster youth, as it relates to their
similarity and differences with a demographically similar group of non-foster youth, along with
their overall utilization of student support services and programs at nine of the community
colleges that comprise the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) will be examined
in the current study. The study will be conducted as a comparative analysis utilizing data
compiled from the final year of the LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey administration,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 19
conducted during the fall 2009 term; under the auspices of Dr. George Prather, Chief Researcher
at LACCD who retired in December of 2010. The relationships among former foster youth and a
demographically similar group of non-foster youth on descriptive demographic factors will be
analyzed. The two comparison groups were selected because of their distinctive characteristics
and the criteria that in many ways emulate the same as those found in many former foster youth.
The Extended Opportunity Program and Services (EOPS) is a California Community Colleges
financial aid services program designed to provide specialized support for students from low
income and limited educational preparation, passed into California under the guise of the
national Civil Rights movement of the late 1960’s (see California Senate Bill 164, 1969).
Similarly, the Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS) is a program established to help
students limited by physical, mental or learning limitations who attend a California Community
College (see California Assembly Bill 746, 1987). Both of these programs, for the purposes of
the current study, serve students similar to the former foster youth identified from the 2009
LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey. Also studied are frequencies and use of college support
services at the various community colleges within the LACCD.
The current study explores the following three research questions:
1. Comparing three groups, what are some of the distinctive, demographic
characteristics of former foster youth compared to non-foster EOPS youth and non-foster
DSPS youth?
2. What differences exist between perceived obstacles to education of community
college students who are former foster youth and students who are non-foster EOPS and
non-foster DSPS youth?
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 20
3. Are there differences between the types of community college support services
used by aged-out foster youth, non-foster EOPS youth and non-foster DSPS youth across
the colleges within the district?
Importance of the Study
Regarded by many in the academe and the American populace as a lifelong process,
attaining a college degree – especially a baccalaureate degree - continues to be a fundamental
societal imperative for those individuals who dream of pursuing a lifetime of socioeconomic
accomplishments and who wish to effectively utilize their particular and individual knowledge
and educational skills in the improvement of the current professional marketplace (Hu and St.
John, 2001). To aid the student with attaining such lofty goals, future research studies in college
persistence must be sound and useful in truly aiding those students, in the community college
populations, who would benefit most from a post-secondary educational experience. The current
study is needed to add to the overall community college literature. Additionally, the study will
serve to inform community college and social service leaders on the unique needs and service
methods needed to retain these otherwise, severely at-risk and vulnerable youth while they attend
the community college system.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 21
Definition of Terms
Following is a review of essential terms that provide a common foundation for the current
research study:
“Aged-Out” Foster Youth
Youth currently in foster care who reach the age at which they are required by law to
transition out of the State’s child welfare system or are released by the State’s Juvenile Courts,
while in foster care placement as a minor (Wolanin, 2005).
At-Risk Students
At-Risk Students for the purpose of this study will be defined as non-traditional, minority
students, first-generation college students, students with lower levels of academic achievement in
high school, and students from low-income families (Bailey and Alfonso, 2005)
Board of Governor’s Fee Waiver (BOG-W)
A California Community College program that provides a waiver of specific fees;
designed for students on public assistance, low income and those that can demonstrate financial
need in order to attend the community college (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office, 2009).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 22
Chafee Grant
The Chafee Educational and Training Voucher Program (ETV) provides resources
specifically to meet the education and training needs of youth aging out of foster care attending
post secondary and vocational education programs (California Student Aid Commission, 2008).
Community College Support Services
For the purposes of this exploratory, comparative study, community college support
services are those services operationally defined and identified throughout the 2009 LACCD
Student Support Survey Instrument (G. Prather, personal communication, December 09, 2010),
see Appendix A.
Disabled Students Programs & Services (DSPS)
A California Community College system wide program which provides support services,
specialized instruction, and educational accommodations to students with mobility, learning and
psychological disabilities (Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges, 1997).
Extended Opportunity Program & Services (EOPS)
A California Community College system wide program providing academic and support
counseling, financial aid other support services to student selected under criteria that addresses
limitations in language, social, economic and educational disadvantages (Chancellor’s Office
California Community Colleges, 2008).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 23
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)
The application provided by the Federal Department of Education that all students that
wish to receive federal financial assistance to attend a college or university must complete each
year while attending college (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Involvement Theory
The amount of physical and psychological energy the student devotes to the academic
experience (Astin, 1993). According to Astin (1993) an involved student spends a considerable
amount of time studying and the same student, while on campus, actively participates in
organizations and interacts with faculty members and peers.
Non-Foster Youth Groups
For the purposes of this exploratory, comparative study, non-foster youth groups are
those students identified as participating in either the EOPS or the DSPS programs at the college,
completed the 2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey and are not part of the former foster
youth group.
Obstacles to Education
Obstacles to education for the purposes of this study are defined as those areas listed
within the 2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey, sub-section A, question number five and
are barriers identified as perceived by students to limit or hinder educational progress while at
the college: High School Preparation, Study Skills, Primary Language (English), Instructor’s
Expectations, Financial Factors, Employment Obligations, Family Obligations, Uncertainty
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 24
about Personal Goal or Career Goals, Lack of Motivation, Other Personal Problems and Class
Offerings (G. Prather, personal communication, December 09, 2010).
Resilience Theory
A theoretical framework for understanding the internal and external characteristics that
contributes to the successful psychosocial development of foster youth and for the purposes of
this study defines an aged-out foster youth’s level of achievement in college (Hines, Merdinger
and Wyatt, 2005).
Organization of the Study
Each of the five chapters in this study is devoted to a specific aspect of the study.
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, the major
question to be answered, the three research questions and the significance of the exploratory,
comparative study. Chapter 2 covers a review of the literature on student achievement, defining
the unique needs of the foster youth college population and what it means to be successful as a
former foster youth aspiring to complete a post-secondary educational goal after emancipating
from the foster care system. One of the major focuses in Chapter 2 is defining the characteristics
of the foster youth and delineating the specific needs unique to the population, in comparison to
other at-risk, non-traditional populations attending the community college. Chapter 3 deals with
the methodology, assumptions, limitations and delimitations of the study; as well as introduces
the LACCD 2009 Student Satisfaction Survey, which forms the basis of the secondary data used
for this study (Retrieved from, http://research. laccd.edu/student-characteristics/documents/fall-
2009-student-survey.doc). Chapter 4 reports the results of the three research questions identified
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 25
in the study. It also reinforces the construct validity and reliability of the study using tables and
figures to display statistical data. Finally, Chapter 5 reports the results, conclusions, implications
for practice, statewide policy recommendations, as well as challenges needed to conduct future
research with aged-out foster youth populations attending community colleges.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 26
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviewed the literature that explored the unique needs and characteristics of
the increasing number of former foster youth pursing post-secondary education; particularly
within the community college environments. One of the major focuses in this chapter was to
define the specific characteristics of former foster youth, usually 18 years or older who are
attempting to complete a post-secondary educational experience within colleges which comprise
the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) which is considered the largest public,
community college system in the country . Another focus in this chapter was to define and
compare some of the unique needs of former foster youth and compare these explicit needs to
other at-risk, non-traditional populations attending community college.
This literature review focused upon three major areas. First, the current state of affairs
related to children exiting the foster care system and entering the higher education domain as
independent young adults was discussed. Second, a historical review of the major theories
surrounding resilience as it relates to persistence and retention issues surrounding aging-out
former foster youth in higher education systems was provided. Lastly, the steps being taken by
State and local groups to assist this highly at-risk vulnerable group of young people entering the
higher education environment was reviewed.
Children and Youth in Foster Care
As the history of the United States evolved, so did the child welfare system (O’Neill-
Murray and Gesiriech, 2004). The current child welfare system is constantly changing; based
primarily on the changing beliefs and attitudes of the society (O’Neill-Murray and Gesiriech,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 27
2004). Changing even more frequently is the role government should play in the protection and
care of abused and neglected children (O’Neill, et al). Early twentieth century government
intervention focused almost exclusively on meeting the practical physical needs of children in
foster care, rather than being concerned about the severe and negative impacts that abuse and
neglect places on a foster child’s development (O’Neill-Murray, et al). As awareness and
understanding grew about the long term impact of abuse and neglect on young adults raised in
foster care so did the active role of the federal government in combating the growing epidemic
(O’Neill-Murray, et al). Pew Commission researchers Kasia O’Neill Murray and Sarah
Gesiriech (2004) summarize best the evolution of the child welfare system and the important role
needed at the time by the Federal Government:
The Social Security Act of 1935 authorized the first federal grants for child welfare
services, under what later came to be known as Subpart 1 of Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act. Though relatively small, these first federal grants served as an impetus for
states to establish child welfare agencies and to develop local programs to deliver child
welfare services. Over the next several decades, the definition of child welfare services
was expanded to include a broader range of services. Federal funding for child welfare
services increased and states were required to match federal grants with state funds. (p.1)
Ever since that historic move in the early part of the twentieth century, the government’s role in
child welfare changed immeasurably. Subsequently, greater attention is now being afforded to a
growing number of foster care youth that are at the greatest risk of failing or “falling through the
cracks” of the foster care system (Fried, 2008, p.1).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 28
Concerned that a growing number of long-term foster youth were not well equipped to
live on their own before leaving the foster care system, the Federal Government authorized the
development of the Independent Living Program (ILP) under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (Public Law 99-272) and would now provide funding for states to help older
foster youth, still in foster care, make the transition from foster care to independence (O’Niell-
Murray et al, 2004). Replacing the 1986 Independent Living Program, over growing concern
that too many youth exiting foster care at age 18 (i.e., aging out) were not succeeding as
productive members of their communities, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (Public
Law 106-169) came about (O’Niell, et al). Created under the auspices of Senator John H.
Chafee, the new law replaced the Independent Living Program with the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) and increased funding for states to expand ILP services to
former foster youth up to the age of 21 (O’Niell-Murray et al).
Conversely, despite some modest improvement afforded to states from the federal reform
programs for foster youth aging out of the foster care system, the growing number of foster
youth exiting care still continued to rise exponentially (Fried, 2008). According to researchers,
the number of youth aging out of the system completely ill equipped to live independent of a
support system after emancipating from foster care continues to grow dramatically (O’Niell-
Murray, et al., 2004). According to a legislative brief published in 2004, by the Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care, during a 10-year period (1986-1995) while the CFCIP
and ILP initiatives were in full implementation, the number of children in foster care increased
from 280,000 to nearly 500,000, a 76 percent increase (O’Niell-Murray and Gesiriech, 2004).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 29
The Pew Commission researchers pointed the dramatic increase in former foster youth exiting
foster care ill equipped to succeed to the multiple effects of the economic slowdown, the crack
cocaine epidemic, AIDS, and higher incarceration rates among women offenders.
Ideally, many researchers, policy makers and advocates agree that the foster care system
was created to serve as an essential but temporary resource for abused and neglected children,
not as a long-term living situation (Pew, 2007). Despite this, many children spend years in foster
care and are assigned the goals of “emancipation” or “long-term foster care” that fall under the
heading of “independent living” (Pew, 2007, p. 3). Once the foster youth on long term care
reaches a certain chronological age they are on-track to being emancipated from a system of care
that based upon historical facts on the failure of the foster care transition program (i.e., ILP,
CFCIP) regrettably is not equipped to efficiently and effectively meet the significant
developmental, psychological and most of the time educational needs that the vast majority of
these abused and neglected young adolescents must have to be successful as adults (Pew, 2007).
Furthermore, foster youth, caseworkers, and youth advocates uniformly agree that the
current state and federal foster youth transition programs and services intended to prepare foster
youth for adulthood are severely inadequate (Courtney et al., 2001; Kaplan et al., 2009; Leathers
and Testa, 2006; Scannapieco, Connell-Carrick, and Painter, 2007). Homelessness, incarceration,
welfare dependence, and reliance on services for substance abuse and mental health problems are
serious consequences of the failure to support the future success of adolescents in foster care
(Kaplan et al., 2009; Pew, 2007).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 30
According to the researchers, there does appear to be a dearth in the limited amount of
research surrounding outcomes of former foster youth, however, what was conducted thus far
appears to have increased the awareness among key stakeholders and policy leaders of the fact
that 18-year old, former foster youth are not ready for “independent” and productive adulthood;
with the result that some states are revising their laws and extending services beyond the age of
18 (Pew, 2007). Nonetheless the paradox of growing up in a system intended to be a short-term
safety net has debilitating effects that further complicate the attainment of educational and career
success.
Characteristics of Aged-Out Foster Youth
A study conducted by Hines, Wyatt, and Merdinger (2005) provides a clear
understanding of the development and research on the theory of resilience, by exploring the
factors associated with academic success among former foster youth. The researchers agree that
there is still no clear understanding of what the impact of growing up in an environment of
maltreatment, abuse, with no parent(s) and other debilitating factors may have on the future
development of former foster youth. Additionally, the researchers theorize that on the basis of a
review of the literature regarding the developmental issues surrounding youth growing up and
emancipating from the foster care system, it is theorized that:
…for infants and young children, it appears that major tasks of development during
childhood are in jeopardy, signifying possible compromise of subsequent developmental
periods. Investigators focusing on infants and young children have suggested that
maltreated children exhibit developmental difficulties related to problems in the
functioning of the parent–child relationship and have detected signs of disorganization,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 31
problems in the attachment relationship, and delay in self-development, including the
regulation and integration of emotional, cognitive, motivational, and social behavior
among maltreated toddlers (p.382).
Further complicating these developmental challenges, the researchers indicate further that for
some youth aging out of the foster care system, their “developmental trajectories” are not usually
positive and productive outcomes (Hines, et al., p.381). Although these researchers suggests that
problems faced by these foster youth children become more severe and pronounced with age
(Cicchetti, Toth, and Rogosch, 2000), other studies indicate that maltreated children do actually
seem to recover from their maladjusted development (McGloin and Wisdom, 2001).
A lesser body of peer reviewed and qualitative research exists which suggests that some
maltreated foster youth children do become effective parents, thus achieving one of the major
developmental milestones of adulthood (Hines, et al, 2004). Furthermore, associated with these
positive adulthood developed characteristics deemed prevalent in these few resilient former
foster youth, is the suggestion that these youth, as children, have one or more of the following
characteristics: a caring and nurturing adult/child relationships, higher than average IQ, special
attributes or talents, physical attractiveness, higher than normal social skills, a supportive
significant other, current financial stability, strong spiritual/religious affiliations, positive school
experiences and effective therapeutic support (Cicchetti and Rogosch, 1997; Kaufman and
Zigler, 1989; Quinton, Rutter and Liddle, 1984).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 32
Education and Foster Youth
Historically, the child’s education was not given attention in placement decisions by child
welfare services and juvenile courts (Zetlin, Weinberg, and Luderer, 2004). An unintended
consequence is that most children in foster care experience multiple residential moves with
transitions from school to school thereby disrupting their education (Emerson, 2007; Newberger,
1001; Zetlin, Weinberg, and Kimm, 2004; Zetlin, Weinberg, and Shea, 2006). Research suggests
that on average, foster youth lose four to six months of education with each school move
(Wolanin, 2005). There is evidence that the probability of high school graduation decreases with
the number of placements and increases with greater stability (Wolanin, 2005).
Analyzing the school records of children in foster care, Zetlin, Weinberg, and Luderer
(2004) found that less than 25% of the records of a random sample of students were easily
accessible and there were major obstacles to retrieving essential school information. Even when
the records were found, the information was generally incomplete. The records of the most
vulnerable students, namely those with serious learning and behavior disorders, were the least
accessible and complete. These students were also the most highly mobile, thus highlighting the
relationship between residential and school instability and academic and psychosocial problems
(Zetlin, et al., 2004).
Focus group participants, including former foster youths, emphasized that many of their
academic difficulties were related to frequent residential and school moves (Zetlin et al., 2006).
The lack of continuity in monitoring the students’ school records is further complicated by poor
coordination and collaboration between agencies providing services to foster care children. In
addition to the detrimental effects of school transitions, most foster youth come from low-income
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 33
backgrounds and are placed with families of similar socioeconomic status (Wolanin, 2005). As a
result of inequities in the K-12 educational system, they frequently attend low-performing
schools where students receive a less rigorous and challenging curriculum and are less successful
academically than their more affluent peers. Compared to other students of comparable aptitude,
foster youth are less likely to have opportunities to take college preparatory courses (Shin, 2003).
The inception of high school exit exams presents a daunting challenge for many foster youth as
well (Zetlin, Weinberg, and Shea (2006). Child advocates and other adult focus group
participants expressed concern that fearing they would never pass the exit exams, many foster
care students would simply drop out of school (Zetlin, et al., 2006). Their concerns were
grounded in a realistic appraisal of the students’ academic deficiencies resulting from a deeply
flawed high school exit exam system.
Additionally, challenges facing foster youth, even in compulsory k-12 education systems
are apparent, even though specialized intervention services are introduced (Zetlin, Weinberg, and
Kimm, 2004). These challenges, prevalent as in the case of Los Angeles County’s Office of
Education Foster Youth Services, which demonstrated that the presence of an Education
Specialist (ES): a liaison between the local education authority (LEA) and the child welfare
agency, facilitated collaboration between the two agencies so that students received targeted
interventions that boosted their reading and mathematics achievement (Zetlin, Weinberg, and
Kimm, 2004). At the same time, the school records revealed that the academic performance of
students with similar profiles but no ES to advocate on their behalf steadily declined. According
to Zetlin et al., (2004), this highlights “the vulnerability of this population and the need for active
educational advocacy” by both the school and child welfare systems (p. 427).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 34
Moreover, under intense pressure from multiple stakeholders, colleges are also keenly
aware that their success and the success of their aged-out foster youth students are indelibly
intertwined (Levitz, Noel, and Richter, 1999). Despite the pressure from Legislators and other
vested stakeholders that “marginalized” at-risk students be offered greater access to post-
secondary education, along with high impact services and support, there is a marked gap between
identified best practices in helping students persevere to complete their degree and their actual
application on college campuses (Kuh, 2007). The most effective strategies are tailored to fit the
target population. From this perspective, there is an urgent need for knowledge and
understanding of the needs, preferences, and experiences of former foster youth who defy the
odds by entering college but still require ample support to successfully graduate. Perhaps it is by
their tenacity and determination that some, albeit few former foster youth do finish high school
and do move forward to attempt a better future through post-secondary educational pursuits.
Nonetheless, some aged out youth do continue successfully from secondary to post-secondary
education systems (Fried, 2008); and it is the resiliency and tenacity exhibited by these very few
young adults that shape the future of the ever evolving transitional services for foster youth
(Levitz, Noel, and Richter, 1999).
To varying degrees, the states are taking the much needed steps to address these
deficiencies in the transitional services for many of post-emancipated foster youth by expanding
educational opportunities to former foster youth at the community college levels (Fried, 2008).
California is widely regarded as in the forefront of these efforts (Andom, 2007; Emerson, 2007;
Fried, 2008; NFCAP, 2000; Nancy, 2008; Walters, 2005). The California Community College
Foundation (CCF) is considered a model program, deploying federal resources to advance the
educational attainment of former foster youth as well as establishing links with other sources of
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 35
funding such as Pell Grants (NFCAP, 2000). Even beyond initiatives related directly to
education, the California Connected by 25 Initiative (CC25I) is intended to extend the age of
emancipation from 18 to 25, thereby spanning the age range in which most young adults pursue
higher education (Nancy, 2008). According to youth empowerment advocates, suspending care
for youth in foster care at age 18 exacerbates the disempowerment of foster youth whose
psychosocial development has been marked by traumatic disruptions (Kaplan, Skolnik, and
Turnbull, 2009). Stated succinctly, “Youth in and leaving foster care need to be sustained until
they can indeed function as empowered, interdependent, contributing members of communities”
(Kaplan, et.al., 2009, p. 150).
A pervasive problem is that foster youth who aspire to attend college are frequently
unaware of the available services (Davis, 2006; Walters, 2005; Wolanin, 2005). Some are faced
with the unfortunate situation of having to choose between a family and an education (Pew,
2007). To combat the economic disparity facing many former foster youth aspiring to attend
college, the Federal Government passed the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP) offering Federal money to assist States at helping current and former foster care youth
achieve self-sufficiency by providing funds targeted to help youth that leave the care of a parent
or adoptive parent after the age of 16 and enter the foster care or age out of foster care after
reaching the age of 18 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, 2009).
A significant flaw in the Chafee Act is that adolescents who leave the foster care system
before age 16 by being adopted, placed with a legal guardian, or being reunited with their
families sacrifice education and training benefits (Andom, 2007; Wolanin, 2005). However, for
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 36
those few youth who age out of foster care and aspire to attend a college the benefits do exist, but
the system is exceedingly complex and the maze of bureaucracies poses a formidable obstacle to
obtaining the requisite college information and services (Andom, 2007; Wolanin, 2005). In some
cases, students forego the available financial aid rather than tell their financial officers about
their backgrounds (Newberger, 2001). Once out of the foster care system, they try to detach
themselves from what they view as a stigmatizing identity.
The California Foster Youth Success Initiative (FYSI) was created with the specific
purpose of helping foster youth apply to college (Andom, 2007). The state has a massive foster
care population, with 80,000 children in care roughly 4,000 aging out of the system each year
(Andom, 2007). Research in the areas of college outcomes after foster care cite an
overwhelming majority of adolescents in foster care desire to pursue higher education (Courtney,
Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, and Nesmith, 2001; Davis, 2006; McMillen, Auslander, Elze, White,
and Thompson, 2003; Reilly, 2003). But, in reality, the figures are grim with less than half of all
foster youth in the United States graduating from high school (Andom, 2007; Davis, 2006).
Barely 10% enter college and not even 1% graduate (Andom, et.al, 2007). Estimates drawn from
research projections suggest that if foster youth graduated from high school and enrolled in
higher education at the same rates as their peers, an additional 100,000 young adults between 18
and 25 would be attending institutions of higher learning (Wolanin, 2005).
Conversely, California’s mission in establishing the Foster Youth Success Initiative
(FYSI), developed in 2007, is to link these vulnerable youth to a person or department on each of
the California Community College campuses to combat the fear and anxiety many former foster
youth undergo as they broach the campus communities for help (Andom, 2007). Since inception,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 37
the FYSI, by design, helps foster youth surmount the various obstacles to entering higher
education and successfully persisting to earn a degree (Andom, 2007). As of 2007, the program
placed liaisons at all community colleges throughout California (Andom, 2007). Acting as
advocates, the liaisons help foster youth secure resources such as scholarships, housing, and life
skills programs. Many colleges within the sprawling California college system have programs
tailored to helping students from foster care build and sustain support networks throughout the
duration of their college careers (Emerson, 2007; Newberger, 2001; NFCAP, 2000; Walters,
2005).
Investing in services and supports designed to promote educational advancement is both a
practical and ethical imperative. Hines, Merdinger, and Wyatt (2005) propose that academic
achievement may be a key indicator of resilience in former foster youth making the transition to
young adulthood. Hines et al. (2005) are involved in Pathways to College for Former Foster
Youth, an ambitious, multi-method, multiphase project focused on the experiences and outcomes
of emancipated foster youth in the California State University system (Merdinger, Hines,
Osterling, and Wyatt, 2005). Notably, a sizable proportion of the participants pursuing
baccalaureate or master’s degrees began their college career at a community college. Under the
California Master Plan for Higher Education, the transfer of students from community colleges
to four-year colleges and universities is an important component of the state public higher
education system (Hurley, 2004).
Merdinger et al, (2005) noted that prior to the pilot study for Pathways to College there
had been no previous exploration of former foster youth attending a four-year college or
institution. The pilot, an in-depth qualitative study, revealed a number of internal and external
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 38
resources that promoted that educational success. These characteristics were further elaborated
from the perspective of risk and resilience (Hines et al., 2005). To obtain a broad picture of
former foster youth enrolled in baccalaureate programs, Merdinger et al. (2005) surveyed 216
participants identified through the campus financial aid records by their “yes” response to
question 58 on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form asking if the student
is or was a ward of the court until age 18 or if both the parents are dead and the student has no
adoptive parent or legal guardian; and through official documentation where available. The
survey instrument was created for these 216 self-identified former foster youth for the pilot study
and encompassed the areas of educational history, employment and financial support, health
status, social support, homelessness, substance abuse and criminal activity, foster care history,
skills training, personal adjustment, and life satisfaction (Merdinger et al.).
The participants were predominantly female (77%) and ethnically diverse, reflecting the
multicultural composition of California (Merdinger et al., 2005). Whites comprised the largest
segment (39.5%), followed by individuals identifying as multiethnic (33%), African Americans
(22.8%), and Latinos (22.3%). Roughly 23% had a home language other than English
(Merdinger et al). The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 58 years with a median age of
22 years. Close to two-thirds of the participants were single or never married and 20.5% were
parents (Merdinger et al.). They entered the foster care system when they were about 10 years
old (eight years for African Americans and 12 years for Latinos) and experienced about three
different placements over an average span of seven to eight years. Overall, their foster care
histories are similar to the adolescents surveyed by Courtney et al. (2001).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 39
Integration in a positive manner to the experiences in high school played an important
role in the students’ pursuit of higher education (Merdinger et al., 2005). Slightly more than half
the participants stayed in the same school throughout their high school careers and 22.2% went
to two high schools (Merdinger et al., 2005). Approximately two-thirds were involved in
extracurricular activities and the same proportion took college preparatory courses (Merdinger et
al., 2005). Somewhat more than half were advised about college and received information about
financial aid. In fact, college preparatory courses, financial aid, and advisement related to college
emerged as the three key factors in the decision to pursue higher education (Merdinger et al.,
2005). Notably, slightly more than half the participants had transferred to the university from a
community college. Merdinger et. al. (2005) noted that the participants in the pilot study
expressed a need for better college guidance in the educational and foster care settings.
The survey also disclosed a definite need for better preparation for independent living
(Merdinger et al., 2005). More than one-third of the participants (35%) felt they were poorly
prepared and 40.5% felt no more than somewhat prepared (Merdinger et al., 2005). Financial
difficulties were rampant despite the fact that the overwhelming majority received financial aid
and were employed. Merdinger et al. (2005) attributed a good deal of the students’ success to
strong social support. The vast majority of the participants (87%) had at least one friend or
relative they could turn to for advice or assistance (Merdinger et al., 2005). Close to 60% said
people they knew from foster care were part of their current friendship networks and most
remained in contact with foster, kinship care, or group home parents. Courtney et al. (2001)
observed a similar pattern among those foster youth studied. Family and friends are invariably
cited as powerful sources of support by first generation college students (Barbatis, 2008; Hurley,
2004).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 40
Although most of the students were in good health, roughly 45% had no health insurance
and more than half were sometimes unable to obtain medical care since they left foster care
(Merdinger et al., 2005). Merdinger et al. (2005) pointed out that 35% received some time of
mental health care since leaving foster care suggesting that for former foster youth, mental health
counseling might serve “as a resource on their path to college” (p. 892). Some 27% reported they
committed an illegal act at least once to obtain money, comparable to the figure reported by
Courtney et al. (2001) although a smaller proportion were arrested since leaving foster care
(Merdinger et al., 2005). The participants were largely optimistic about their futures. Half said
they were somewhat happy with their lives and 78% said they were very hopeful about their
future (Merdinger et al., 2005). However, drawing on the interviews from the pilot study as well
as the survey responses, Merdinger et al. (2005) cautioned that many of the students were
grappling with academic, financial, and psychological difficulties thus signifying a need for
ongoing support. The researchers emphasized that, “many of the experiences of these youth—
including stable school attendance, a challenging high school curriculum, and abundance of
social support, and participation in pro-social groups—are characteristic of individuals who
manifest resilience in the face of adversity” (Merdinger et al., 2005, p. 893).
Factors that impact resilience of former foster youth in college
One way resilience factors effect the college success of former foster youth is the
influence on integration into the collegiate environment by former foster youth at a particular
community college (Engstrom and Tinto, 2008; Karp, Hughes and O’Gara, 2008;; Tinto, 1993,
1997 and 2000). Research conducted by Karp and O’Gara (2008) supports the premise
purported by Vincent Tinto’s Social Integration Model that the resilience factor by college
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 41
students on college persistence is applicable to the situation facing many non-traditional
populations of community college students who live off-campus and frequently have work and
family responsibilities that limit social integration; thereby limiting their persistence (Karp, et al.
2008). Furthermore, an analysis of data from the Social Integration Model revealed that both
social and academic integration influenced the persistence of community college students, and
more important, that social and academic integration were not as distinct as is often presumed
(Karp, et al. 2008).
Integration into the community college environment can be viewed as a major factor of
resilience critical to the success of former foster youth while in the college environment (Karp, et
al, 2008). Furthermore, Karp, et al, 2008, believe that “having a sense of belonging on a
campus” (p. 7) can be viewed as a single most important factor which influences the level of
success by the few former foster a college (Karp, et al., 2008). Results from the Karp, et al,
2008, study listed the majority of participants (70%) expressing a sense of belonging (Karp et al.,
2008). While only 13 participants in the study did not appear to be attached to the campus. These
perceptions did influence the students’ reenrollment (Karp et al. 2008). Out of 40 students whose
enrollment status was available to the researchers, close to 90% who felt integrated returned the
second year, compared to just over two-thirds who were not similarly integrated (Karp, et al.,
2008)
Information networks emerged as a major source of integration (Karp et al., 2008). These
were defined as “social ties that facilitate the transfer of institutional knowledge and procedures”
(Karp et al., 2008, p. 8). The members of these networks included peers and faculty whose
interactions reflected the role of transmitting relevant information. Sixty-one percent of the
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 42
participants were classified as belonging to an information network based on criteria that they
had a particular person to whom they could turn to for information, they described obtaining
information from faculty or other students, or they described seeking information in ways that
included campus social networks or information chains. The overwhelming majority of the
integrated students (84%) were involved with information networks (Karp et al, 2008).
Information networks were especially useful for raising students’ awareness of important
resources such as financial aid or tutoring services (Karp et al., 2008). One student reported
finding out about the campus Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) program, which offers
academic, financial, and social support to first generation and low-income students, which
students learned of primarily through word of mouth. A particular advantage of the information
network was that the students felt more at ease using services they learned of from peers. The
overall result was that the students felt more confident navigating the campus (Karp, et al.,
2008).
The informal networks facilitated academic integration by keeping the students informed
about courses, course registration, graduation requirements and other aspects of the academic
environment (Karp et al., 2008). In particular, interactions with professors and other students
helped the students choose high quality courses and their relationships with the professors helped
them persevere in pursuing their educational goals. A relationship with a supportive other is a
key factor in building resilience (Merdinger et al., 2005; Hines et al., 2005). Illustrating this
mechanism, Karp et al. (2008) noted that, “Students who were part of information networks also
felt that, no matter what the college ‘threw’ at them, they had someone to go to for help” (p. 12).
Karp et al. (2008) emphasized that the most beneficial information networks arose in the
academic setting. This in particular belies the assumption that lack of participation in
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 43
extracurricular activities precludes integration for community college students. For many of the
students, the initial foundation of the information network was the Student Success course,
designed to orient students to the college environment, inform them about the campus, and help
them cultivate skills to promote their success. Students who participated in the course reported
gaining these advantages (O’Gara, Karp, and Hughes, 2008). The formation of information
networks was a fringe benefit of the course that fostered further integration (Karp et al., 2008).
The advantage of taking a Student Success course is reinforced by a substantial body of
research documenting the positive impact of first-year seminars on student persistence
(Goodman and Pascarella, 2006). A proliferation of research on first-year seminars have
proliferated the academic journals over the past two decades (Goodman and Pascarella, 2006).
Encompassing more than 40 studies and including a longitudinal investigation of students
participating in first-year seminars between 1973 and 1996 and a detailed analysis of two studies
from a single institution matching seminar participants and non-participants on socio-
demographic and academic factors, the overriding conclusion was that students who participated
in a first-year seminar were more likely to reenroll (Goodman, et al., 2006). According to
Goodman and Pascarella (2006), the positive impact of first-year seminars may lie in the
informal interactions between students and faculty that evolve during the seminars. This provides
additional support for the effectiveness of informal information networks as a vehicle for the
academic and social integration of community college students (Karp et al., 2008). Karp et al.
(2008) also noted that student-centered classroom instruction also contributed to the
development of the information networks. In fact, the researchers invoked Tinto’s (1997, 2000)
work on classroom learning communities. Some professors infused their lessons with inquiry-
oriented techniques that encouraged students to learn more about the college campus (Karp et al.,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 44
2008). Several students who were involved in clubs or other extracurricular activities had no
information networks and were actually less integrated than their peers who became integrated
through academic channels.
Karp et al. (2008) emphasize that the networks holding the power to integrate community
college students evolve through classroom structures. In addition to the implications of this
model for increasing the integration and by extension the persistence of community college
students, the researchers propose that the dynamics may be equally applicable for students in
four-year colleges and universities, including residential institutions. Social networks and
relationships play a powerful role in the educational success of former foster youth in
baccalaureate programs (Hines et al., 2005; Merdinger et al., 2005). Karp et al. (2008) call for
more research into the role of information networks in the academic and social integration of all
students and former foster youth make an excellent population for this line of study.
Fike and Fike (2008) examined the factors associated with first-to-second semester and
first-to-second year retention in a sample of 9,200 first-time students enrolling in an urban Texas
community college over a four-year span. Roughly two-thirds of the students were assigned to
developmental mathematics and 22% took developmental reading (Fike and Fike, 2008). One-
third of the students enrolled in online courses. Most students (60%) received financial aid and
the overwhelming majorities (75%) were first generation college students (Fike and Fike, 2008).
Developmental education, specifically passing the developmental reading course, emerged as the
paramount factor in predicting retention. Fike and Fike (2008) point out that being able to read
and understand college level material is essential for success in any college course. Students who
successfully passed the developmental reading course and those who entered college with the
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 45
requisite reading skills both had high probability of persistence. Interestingly, however, not
taking a developmental mathematics course lowered the probability of persisting (Fike and Fike,
2008). In fact, even students who did not complete the developmental math course were more
likely to persist than those who presumably entered the institution with adequate mathematical
skills.
Another curious finding was that passing a developmental writing course was
significantly linked with first-to-second year retention but had less impact on retention from the
first to second semester (Fike and Fike, 2008). The study did not explore how the courses were
taught, which might have played some role in the dynamics. Successful developmental students
express a preference for student-centered, inquiry-oriented courses that facilitate interactions and
discourse among participants (Barbatis, 2008; Engstrom and Tinto, 2008). Taking online
courses exerted a powerful positive impact on student persistence (Fike and Fike, 2008). The
convenience and flexibility of online courses are probably a factor in their appeal for community
college students dealing with multiple demands on time and energy. This finding supports the
growing investment of community colleges in Internet courses (Fike and Fike, 2008).
Although only a small proportion of first-generation, low income and disability students
(3.9%) were involved with TRIO’s Student Support Services, the analysis demonstrated by the
research showed that the program did have a positive impact on the persistence of those students
targeted for TRIO services (Fike and Fike, 2008). Wolanin (2005) criticizes programs such as
TRIO and GEAR- UP for not putting enough effort into reaching out to foster care youth and
failing to consider their unique issues and needs. However, the positive impact of these federally
sponsored programs for historically disadvantaged and at-risk populations on college persistence
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 46
reinforces the need for more intensive efforts; especially when colleges look to address the
unique needs of former foster youth (Wolanin, 2005).
Financial aid also had a positive impact on persistence (Fike and Fike, 2008). Noting that
studies are inconsistent on the positive or negative effects of financial aid, Fike and Fike (2008)
point out that this is not surprising given the wide range of assistance provided under the
umbrella of financial aid. Financial difficulties are a major reason that students drop out of
college (Levitz et al., 1999). However, the existing research does not adequately explain the role
of finances in students’ decisions to drop out or persist (Fike and Fike, 2008). Money is an
overriding concern for former foster care youth (Hines et al., 2005; Lovitt and Emerson, 2008;
Merdinger et al., 2005). Given this veracity, there are few studies exploring college persistence
in students who entered college after being in foster care (Wolanin, 2005).
Nevertheless, there are several strategies that effectively promote the academic and social
integration of community college students that should be especially beneficial for the former
foster college population. Learning communities are particularly valuable for advancing the
success of students who begin college insufficiently academically prepared (Barbatis, 2008;
Engstrom and Tinto, 2008; Tinto, 2000). Student-centered classrooms, informal information
networks, and Student Success courses also serve as effective channels for promoting students’
integration from foster care into the college community (Karp, Hughes, and O’Gara, 2008;
O’Gara, Karp, and Hughes, 2008). First-year seminars effectively boost persistence in students
across educational settings (Goodman and Pascarella, 2006). As a result of their open
admissions policies, community colleges invest heavily in learning supports, academic advising,
and assessment as strategies for increasing student retention (Habley and McLanahan, 2004).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 47
There is virtually no dispute that most students who enroll in college from foster care have
academic deficiencies that warrant intensive intervention along with needs for financial and
psychosocial support (Andom, 2007; Wolanin, 2005; Merdinger, Hines, Osterling, and Wyatt,
2005). The following section will provide a discussion on the types and scope of support
structures necessary to assist former foster youth in successfully navigating through the post-
secondary environment as they exit the foster care system.
Support Structures Needed in Community Colleges
Generally agreed upon by professionals in the realm of collegiate academic advisement is
that many, if not all, first-year College students will face significant challenges as they learn to
navigate and transition into the college community (Pei, 2009). While some incoming freshmen
may see these challenges as insurmountable, for former foster youth the challenges they face are
even than those of their peers (Pei, 2009). Moreover, former foster youth enter the college
community grossly underprepared simply because they lack the basic independent living skills,
study skills and support network that many first-year students need to help them remain enrolled
and engaged (Emerson, 2006; Emerson, 2007; Foster Care Work Group, 2003; Wolanin, 2005).
Besides being generally less academically prepared than their peers, in part, because
foster youth are usually moved multiple times and from multiple secondary schools (Pei, 2009)
former foster youth lack any semblance of having an adequate support system, which in research
on college persistence and retention is vital and necessary to garner the life skills, encouragement
and significant relationships that will ensure a youth successfully matriculates toward graduation
(Emerson, 2006; Emerson, 2007; Foster Care Work Group, 2003; Wolanin, 2005). Lastly, many
former foster youth simply do not know enough about the significance of obtaining a higher
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 48
education, therefore, their aspirations to attend college are severely limited (Pei, 2009).
According to the research, the concept of actually pursuing, let alone obtaining a college
education seems totally unattainable by many first-year youth that come from the foster care
rolls, in part because having a college education is not something many in foster care can fully
value or comprehend (Pei, 2009). In many ways former foster youth require additional help
compared to their peers, but, unfortunately, they are often reluctant to seek assistance (Wolanin,
2005). Many are afraid to ask questions or seek help, because they wish to avoid the stigma of
being a foster youth or because they assume no one is willing to help. As one former foster youth
stated, more than anything, “college is scary and overwhelming. You go to an environment and
don't know what to do” (Wolanin, 2005, p. 43). Academic counselors or advisers play an integral
role in helping to demystify the college campus (Pei, 2009).
Academic counseling and advising
The Arts and Humanities (A&H) department at Atlantic Cape Community College
(ACCC) created a program designed to improve student retention by individualizing academic
advisement for students pursuing degrees in studio arts (McArthur, 2005). The researcher noted
that for several years prior to the initiative, the retention rates for A&H students fell behind the
rest of the college (i.e., 57% versus 69%) (McArthur, 2005). After the implementation of the
departmental advising program, A&H retention rates surpassed the rest of the campus by 3%
(McArthur, 2005). Compared to the overall campus population, the A&H students held much
more favorable perceptions of academic advising (McArthur, 2005). Students in the general
college population routinely reported they were not aware they had an advisor. Many students
complained they received poor advice and several were highly critical of the advisors’ limited
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 49
knowledge of the transfer process. A common criticism was that the advisors just did not care
about the students. The prevailing opinion was that the faculty advising system was heavily
flawed. In sharp contrast to the negative perceptions of the general campus population, the
overwhelming majority of A&H students were confident in their advisors’ expertise (McArthur,
2005). The A&H students were appreciative of efforts by faculty to reach out to them and stated
they received good advice that advanced their educational goals. Approximately two-thirds of
the A&H students said the time they spent with their advisors was valuable compared to barely
more than one-quarter of general student body (McArthur, 2005). About 67% to 85% of the
A&H students awarded high marks to all facets of academic advising versus 20% to 25% for the
general population students (McArthur, 2005). The strategic efforts translated into a documented
improvement in student retention for the A&H department.
The collaborative and intrusive faculty advising initiative described by Smith (2007) was
specifically targeted to students with academic or adjustment difficulties. The data-driven
initiative was stimulated by concerns about high attrition rates at a Northeastern community
college, especially among non-traditional students. In response, members of the Faculty Affairs
Committee embarked on a project that involved data collection from a variety of sources and a
faculty advisor intervention for at-risk students (Smith, 2007). According to Smith (2007), each
facet independently served as a source of valuable information. Working synergistically, the data
provided a useful guide for faculty and staff on how to best help students make a successful
transition to college and support them in achieving the goal of successful degree completion. The
initial data collection steps identified 49 at-risk students, 71% in their first year of college
(Smith, 2007). Information on these students was given to the faculty advisors who devised a
strategic intrusive advising plan that encompassed: (a) contacting the student early in the
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 50
semester, (b) discussing issues of concern disclosed by the student survey, (c) identifying one or
two services such as tutoring or counseling, (d) maintaining consistent contact throughout the
course of the academic year, and (e) documenting the advising meetings (Smith, 2007).
The majority of identified students met with faculty who helped them secure the
appropriate services (Smith, 2007). However, one obstacle was that some of the students had
competing demands that precluded their meeting with the advisors was the fact that many of
these at-risk youth were employed while attending college; a fact that pervades many, if not all,
of the former foster youth that attend college (Merdinger, et al., 2005; Lovitt and Emerson,
2008). Indeed, many community college students are juggling competing demands that result in
scheduling conflicts. This was a prominent topic in the focus group discussions (Smith, 2007).
Nevertheless, the students had positive perceptions of their college experiences and described
faculty members as being supportive. Overall, the results showed that the advising initiative
could effectively help students persist by connecting them with needed resources on campus.
Smith (2007) proposes that the campus learning center could offer time management workshops
and faculty could address the issue of competing time demands at the onset of the semester. As
with the students in the A&H department (McArthur, 2005), a psychosocial benefit of the
advising initiative was that the students felt faculty care and supported their learning success.
Pei (2009) believes academic advisors are ideally positioned to help former foster youth
become academically and socially integrated into the campus environment. Noting that these
students are often hesitant to seek help, she deems it especially important that advisors assume
the roles of mentors and advocates (Pei, 2009). Providing both academic and psychosocial
support, they can work with the students from the time they enter college, particularly during the
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 51
critical first year. This entails scheduling regular meetings, helping the students develop personal
action, and acquainting them with the various resources on campus including social and
recreational activities (Pei, 2009). Pei (2009) also suggests that advisors working with more than
one foster youth should help them to meet one another or organize a group meeting. The
experiences of the graduates interviewed by Lovitt and Emerson (2008) indicate that this could
be especially valuable in assisting former foster youth in college to integrate socially into the
campus community; thereby increasing the likelihood of persistence and completion of
educational goals at the college (Lovitt, et al., 2008).
Beyond the academic component, the learning community includes intrusive advising,
active and cooperative learning strategies, a cultural component, various outside speakers, and
optional field trips (Wilmer, 2009). The designated mission of the learning community is to
promote academic competencies in reading and writing, promote personal development, foster
understanding of the college environment, and involve students via the use of a cohort model
(Wilmer, 2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) defines a learning
community as a type of “formal program where groups of students take two or more classes
together” (Kuh, 2007, p. 7). Learning communities are regarded as high impact practices with
documented effectiveness in improving students’ study and critical thinking skills and increasing
the number of students who persist to earn their degree. A major advantage is that learning
communities simultaneously promote academic and social integration (Tinto, 1997, 2000). The
sense of community and support tends to extend beyond the classroom milieu (Tinto, 2000).
Students in learning communities surpass other students in active engagement in learning, report
higher quality learning, and ultimately, their enhanced academic and social engagement
translates into higher rates of persistence compared to students with similar characteristics.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 52
The most striking effect of learning communities is the powerful positive impact on the
confidence, motivation, and persistence of students at risk for dropping out (Engstrom and Tinto,
2008). One of the at-risk students described by Engstrom and Tinto (2008) was Donald, a former
foster youth from Los Angeles who began high school at a school where teachers were caring
and inspiring. Upon moving into foster care due to family problems, he attended a “bad, bad
school” where he learned virtually nothing and soon dropped out (Engstrom and Tinto, 2008, p.
46). After earning a GED, he entered Cerritos Community College, determined to graduate. To
Engstrom and Tinto (2008), Donald exemplified the type of high risk student who finds success
through engaging learning communities at the community college. Learning communities create
an environment that stimulates engagement, inquiry, and imagination while providing students
with ample support and encouragement for intellectual development.
Academically underprepared students, English language learners, shy students, and
students who are disengaged from traditional lecture-based classes flourish in the learning
communities (Engstrom and Tinto, 2008). The cohort model fosters close relationships between
students, who form social bonds and provide each other with information about resources on
campus and in the community (Karp et al., 2008). Students report marked gains in self-esteem
and self-confidence, which increase their motivation to succeed. Engstrom and Tinto (2008)
declare that, “Access without support is not opportunity” (p. 50). They emphasize that students’
success is contingent on “institutional investment in structured and carefully aligned activities
directed toward their success.” While acknowledging that learning communities are not the only
vehicle for this aim, they stress that based on their research, learning communities, properly
implemented, represent “particularly powerful tools” for advancing student achievement,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 53
especially students who begin college academically underprepared (Engstrom and Tinto, 2008, p.
50).
According to Wilmer (2009), few studies of persistence and attrition among students in
developmental education invoked the theories of Tinto (2000) or Astin (1993). Even though
research has determined that involvement in learning communities enhances persistence
Engstrom and Tinto (2008), Tinto (2000) and Wilmer (2009) points out that there is virtually no
line of research into the impact of learning communities on developmental English students.
Wilmer (2009) explored the effects of learning communities on the degree of interaction among
developmental English students attending colleges within the VWCC. The site was a pilot
learning community centered on English 07, an integrated reading and writing course team
taught by a specialist in each area (Wilmer, 2009).
As part of the academic advising component, the students are required to meet with one
of the two instructors four times over the semester. The participants for the study were 120
students, 50 members of the learning community and 70 members of a conventional class
(Wilmer, 2009). The five subscales of the Institutional Integration Scale (IIS) were used to
compare the interaction experiences of the two groups of students (Wilmer, 2009). The analysis
showed that the learning community students had significantly higher perceptions of the degree
of peer interactions and faculty interactions. There were no statistically significant differences in
the areas of perceived faculty concern, academic and intellectual development, and institutional
goal commitment although the overall direction favored the learning community model (Wilmer,
2009).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 54
In contrast to studies of community college students that tend to focus on nontraditional
students, the participants had been heavily involved in extracurricular activities, which served as
a source of self-confidence and satisfaction (Barbatis, 2008). In terms of integration, however,
the students’ narratives largely supported the conclusion of Karp et al. (2008) that interactions
with faculty and peers and making use of campus resources override social activities in
promoting persistence among community college students. Each participant mentioned at least
one faculty member who had an important impact and described positive qualities they perceived
in faculty members such as caring, helpfulness, and passionate interest in their discipline, which
in turn, fostered motivation to learn (Karp et al., 2008). In addition, the students credited an array
of campus resources for helping them succeed such as tutors and advisors, math labs, and the
FYE program and Student Life Skills course (Karp et al., 2008). Making friends with a diverse
group of students was also a key factor in integration.
Time management was also a factor in academic integration (Barbatis, 2008). Time
management was a component of the Student Life Skills class and is often included in
developmental education (Boylan and Bonham, 2007). The critical role of peer interactions in
promoting the students’ success is consistent with other research showing that being part of a
campus culture where students have high educational goals has a powerful impact on the
educational plans of community college students (Pascarella et al., 2003). Moreover, Barbatis
(2008) recommends ensuring that underprepared students have access to a range of support
services within and outside of the campus and devising innovative programs derived from the
type of learning experiences found to support academic success and persistence; learning
communities, leadership retreats, field trips, and other types of educational experiences that
simultaneously foster academic and social integration fall under this heading. In addition,
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 55
Barbatis (2008) calls on college personnel to broaden the definition of “learning” to encompass
psychosocial outcomes such as leadership, self-understanding, and citizenship as well as
intellectual development.
Discussion
In an era when helping disadvantaged students pursue higher education is held as an
ethical and practical imperative, shockingly little attention has been paid to the situation of the
young adults who leave the foster care system at age 18 (Wolanin, 2005). The detrimental effects
of the trauma that led to the foster care placements are compounded by educational disruptions
stemming from multiple residential and school moves (Wolanin, 2005; Zetlin et al., 2004, 2006).
The vast majority of foster care youth have high educational aspirations. However, less than half
graduate from high school, barely 10% enter college, and not even 1% graduate (Andom, 2007;
Davis, 2006).
Among those students who enter college, securing needed resources especially financial
assistance and housing accommodations remain a perennial problem (Hines et al., 2005; Lovitt
and Emerson, 2008; Merdinger et al., 2005). The stigma attached to being in foster care inhibits
some students from requesting the available resources (Newberger, 2001). There is general
consensus that the existing services, supports, and programs are inadequate for meeting the
unique needs of former foster youth. Many college faculty and staff members have scant
knowledge of the foster care system and the realities of the lives of students who enter college
from foster care (Pei, 2009).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 56
Studies of young adults who have defied the odds to successfully graduate from college
reveal remarkably similar qualities. All have characteristics linked with resilience. These include
independence, goal focus, self-discipline, determination, optimism, resourcefulness, and
flexibility (Hines et al., 2005; Lovitt and Emerson, 2008; Martin and Jackson, 2002; Merdinger
et al., 2005). A hallmark of resilient youth is the presence of at least one caring, supportive adult.
The presence of others who provide support, encouragements, and in some cases act as mentors
and role models, is predominant theme in the lives of the resilient young adults. Notably, support
from family, friends, and others is a powerful force in the academic success of first generation
college students (Barbatis, 2008).
The narratives of the successful former foster care youth also revealed that they were
academically and socially integrated into the college campus, in accordance with Tinto’s (1993)
model. Of all the strategies adopted by community colleges for promoting the achievement of at-
risk students, learning communities, which simultaneously foster academic and social
integration, have the strongest empirical support (Engstrom and Tinto, 2008; Kuh, 2007; Tinto,
2000). Learning communities are ideally suited for former foster care youth who have strong
needs for support and belonging.
Pei (2008) contends that through mentoring and advocacy, academic advisors can play a
critical role in advancing the academic achievement of students who were in foster care. Student-
centered advising successfully increases the persistence of community college students
(McArthur, 2005). Overall, there is a definite need for advocates on campus who take the
initiative in integrating foster youth into the campus community and ensuring that there are
programs and services that address their unique needs.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 57
The above literature review provided support for the current study that examined
exploring the unique needs and characteristics of the growing number of former foster youth
entering the community college environments. The study analyzed those relationships,
similarities and differences of former foster youth to a demographically matched sample of
traditionally identified “at-risk” youth at a large urban community college district.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 58
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The current research study, utilizing secondary data analysis, examined the most recent
year of the LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey, conducted during the fall 2009 term (G.
Prather, personal communication, December 09, 2010). Data were analyzed to identify the
significant differences between former foster youth and a similarly matched group of non-foster
youth on descriptive demographic characteristics along with frequency and use of college
support services and perceived obstacles across all nine colleges comprising the LACCD.
Specifically, the following three research questions were explored in this study:
1. Comparing three groups, what are some of the distinctive, demographic
characteristics of former foster youth compared to non-foster EOPS youth and non-foster
DSPS youth?
2. What differences exist between perceived obstacles to education of community
college students who are former foster youth and students who are non-foster EOPS and
non-foster DSPS youth?
3. Are there differences between the types of community college support services
used by aged-out foster youth, non-foster EOPS youth and non-foster DSPS youth across
the colleges within the district
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 59
Sample and population
The surveys were administered to students of the LACCD, one of the largest community
college districts in the United States, under the auspices of the Office of Institutional Research
and Chief Researcher Dr. George Prather at LACCD. The surveys were administered to 26,063
students, at 175 selected classes at all nine of the colleges within the LACCD. The classes
surveyed were randomly selected using a random number generator within the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software applied to the given semester inventory of
courses available at all nine colleges.
The foster youth sample consisted of 319 former foster youth (5.2% of the total at-risk
groups identified) and were identified by self-reporting on question number 18 on the 2009
instrument, which asks “Have you previously been (or are you currently) in foster care?” The
current samples reflected the demographic distributions of both full-time and part-time
community college students at LACCD, enrolled in both day and evening courses, from both
former foster youth, and two matched comparison samples (G. Prather, personal communication,
December 09, 2010; S. Singleton, personal communication, August 26, 2011). Moreover, both
comparison groups were matched utilizing characteristics supported by research, as being
representative of generalized, historically non-traditional, at-risk college student populations;
namely youth participating in the Extended Opportunity Program and Services (EOPS) and
Disabled Student Services Program (DSPS) respectively. Additionally, the sample subjects (see
Table 3.1) varied in age, ethnicity, and gender and included students from a myriad of
socioeconomic and disability limiters to adequately generalize the findings from the study to the
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 60
larger statewide community college aged-out foster youth populations at other large urban,
multi-campus districts (S. Singleton, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
Table 3.1
Overall At-Risk Student Populations Identified from the 2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction
Survey
At-risk Groups Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Foster Only 319 5.2 5.2 5.2
EOPS Only 4805 78.3 78.3 83.5
DSPS Only 536 8.7 8.7 92.3
More than One
a
474 7.7 7.7 100
Total 6134 100 100
a
youth who completed the 2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey and appeared in one or more of the three
sample groups and were excluded from the at-risk samples analyzed in the current study
The three at risk groups identified for the current study represent approximately one
quarter (i.e., 23.54%) of the total number of students who participated in the overall 2009
LACCD survey; with the Foster Only group representing about one out of ever ten students (i.e.,
1.23%) who completed the 2009 survey instrument. The current exploratory, comparative study
examined the information collected in the fall 2009 term, with data analyzed on a secondary
level. The final analyses used in the study compared those relationships among former foster
youth and a demographically similar group of non-foster youth on descriptive demographic
characteristics; the obstacles that might impede their progress while in college; along with
frequency and use of college support services. The non-foster youth used for comparison,
against the foster youth sample, were determined to be a demographically similar and matched
group of other at-risk college students at the LACCD (G. Prather, personal communication,
December 09, 2010). At-risk students for the purpose of this study were defined as non-
traditional, minority students, first-generation college students who historically show lower
levels of academic achievement in high school and traditionally come from low-income families
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 61
(Bailey and Alfonso, 2005). Also used for comparison against the foster youth sample were
those youth self-identified in the survey as participating in the programs specializing in services
to youth with documented physical, psychological and/or learning limitations (S. Singleton,
personal communication, August 26, 2011).
Instrumentation
The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) administered the first student
tailored and customized satisfaction survey to its own students in the fall of 1976. Prior to that,
the local City College regularly administered the nationally utilized Cooperative Institutional
Research Project (CIRP) in 1970 and in 1974 the other colleges in the district joined in the
periodic administration of the CIRP to all full-time, freshman students (Prather and Kelly,
2007). The CIRP survey methodology was the accepted practice of collecting student data for
the LACCD until the decision was reached in 1976 to develop a survey instrument that more
adequately identified the unique characteristics of the diverse students enrolled in the community
college district – primarily since the CIRP survey questions were tailored for four- year
university freshman students (Prather and Kelly, 2007). After abandoning the use of the CIRP,
the LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey became the common survey instrument adapted by the
District in 1976 to augment the student information and class enrollment data that was derived
from the normal application and class enrollment processes. Lastly, over the course of nearly
three decades, significant refinements in the questionnaire, sampling procedure and
administration methodology occurred and as a result of several administrations of the instrument,
culminated into the current survey in 2009 – see Appendix A.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 62
This 2009 version of the survey was designed by the LACCD Chief Researcher to
provide the best representation of LACCD students’ goals, levels of college preparation,
transportation issues, employment status and workloads, income levels and extra-curricular
interests (Prather and Kelly, 2007). Historically, the community college environment in the early
part of the LACCD survey administrations did not measure student life or utilization of student
support and services. However, the 1978 administration of the survey began to include and
evaluation of all services to students for the first time and in 1980 the results of the survey
responses were stratified from college to college and began using bar graphs to depict student
responses (Prather and Kelly, 2007). Moreover, the cultural and diversity questions were first
introduced into the survey in the 1980 version, which provided the district information on the
increasing proportion of non-native English speakers enrolled in the colleges throughout the
entire district (Prather and Kelly, 2007).
Repeated every two years since the 1976 district-wide distribution, the LACCD survey
evolved into a multi-page, fifty-two question survey and was used as the instrument for the
secondary data analysis in the current exploratory, comparative study on the outcomes of aged-
out foster youth attending the nine colleges of the LACCD (G. Prather, personal communication,
December 09, 2010). As with all previous survey administration, the 2009 questionnaire was
administered as an in-class survey to a randomly selected group of classes, accomplished with a
random number generator within the SPSS software applied to the given semester inventory of
classes offered at all nine colleges. Sampling frames varied by college, ensuring large enough
samples for the smaller colleges within the district, while limiting sizes and costs at the much
larger colleges. Additionally, by administering the survey to class sized groups, to costs are
minimized and representation is maximized, primarily since non-participation by LACCD
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 63
students on a self-selected basis is largely eliminated (G. Prather, personal communication,
December 09, 2010) with an average survey return rate of 75% of the total surveys distributed
throughout the district each survey cycle since 2000.
The fifty-two question survey contained six sub-sections, identified alphabetically from
the letters “A” to “F” and covering multiple sub-scales within each of the following six
categories: A. Goals and Plans; B. Student Background; C. Financial Resources; D. Counseling
Information and Services; E. College Experiences; and F. Campus Facilities and Services – see
Appendix A . The perceived obstacles to education were extrapolated from the survey, Section
A, “Goals and Plans” and operationally defined from responses given on question number five
on the 2009 survey instrument, which asks “Have any of the following been a problem for you in
reaching your academic goals?” (G. Prather, personal communication, December 09, 2010).
Respondents were asked to mark one response for each of the 11 educational obstacles listed
which ranged from “a. Quality of high school preparation in reading, writing or math” to “k. The
classes I want are not offered frequently enough or at convenient times” (G. Prather, personal
communication, were coded as follows: 1 = “Not a Problem”; 2 = Minor Problem; 3 = Moderate
Problem; 4 = Major Problem” with regards to the perceived educational obstacle.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 64
The seven types of community college support services were operationally defined using
the frequency of those responses given to survey questions in Section C, “Financial Resources”
and Section D, “Counseling Information and Services” (G. Prather, personal communication,
December 09, 2010). The questions ranged from identifying the types of services received such
as those listed on question number 19, “Financial Aid Services” to the type of counseling-related
support services received, question numbers 23, which asks “Have you ever met with a
counselor?” and question number 27 which asks “Have you received counseling from any of the
following?” listing receiving counseling services in EOPS to receiving instructor-led counseling
related services (G. Prather, personal communication, December 09, 2010).
The research, assumptions, data collection methods, findings and conclusions of the
current community college study represented and adhered to high levels of sound and ethical
research methodologies as prescribed by the university and associations and prescribed to by the
researcher and/or team involved in the current project. The USC Institutional Review Board
approved the process and the current study was conducted as Non-Human Research, not subject
to the rules and conditions of the IRB process (UPIRB#IIR00000649).
Data collection
A secondary data analysis approach was used for the purposes of this study, therefore,
only an exploratory, comparative study was conducted using the most recent year of the survey
administration, conducted during the fall 2009 term. Administered to a randomly selected
number of both day and evening classes, and utilizing electronic scanning and scoring methods,
the 2009 survey generated 26,063 respondents from a total of 175 classes, across all nine
colleges. The survey files, from which the secondary analysis for the current study was
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 65
conducted, were produced using and SPSS format with extensive labeling and documentation.
All questionnaires were completed by the students using either a blue/black pen or a number 2-
pencil, with scoring occurring electronically by the research staff at LACCD under the direction
of the Chief Researcher, Dr. George Prather (G. Prather, personal communication, December 09,
2010).
Research administrators at the Los Angeles Community College District collected the
student data and information, which in turn was analyzed to support the three research questions
identified for the current study. The secondary data used in this study were derived from a joint
university project already completed in collaboration between USC and the LACCD, termed the
Los Angeles Community College Urban Research Laboratory (LACCURL) project and funded
by LACCD through the Office of Research (Prather and Kelly, 2007). The secondary data were
accurately recorded and analyzed using professional association approved methods, under strict
supervision and guidance from leading researchers in higher education leadership and policy
development at the LACCD. The subjects were assessed in a quiet, controlled atmosphere
within their respective classrooms at the community college campus they currently attended
within the regions encompassing this large urban community college district.
Data Analysis
The study attempted to emulate and when deemed plausible duplicate the analysis
methodologies conducted under the LACCD survey as described by the researchers at the district
(Prather and Kelly, 2007). The current analysis reviewed, on a secondary basis, the data from
the identified large, urban, multi-campus community college district. The study analysis was
conducted to test, identify and attempt to extrapolate the significant relationships among those
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 66
specific factors that researchers in college persistence consider influential factors which shape
the pattern and rates of retention from community colleges at the national level.
The data analysis compared those relationships such as descriptive characteristics of
former foster college youth against a demographically comparable group of college youth,
educationally related obstacles among the groups, along with the utilization of campus support
services across the nine colleges within the district. The current research study focused on youth
identified as former wards of the State (commonly referred to as aged-out foster youth) and was
identified by a single question on the 2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey. Once identified,
a significant number of 18-25 year old community college students were analyzed with the
expectation that identified and statistically significant relationships could be inferred to the larger
population of former foster youth in other community college and post-secondary educational
systems.
Assessment of the sample data was conducted using results from the LACCD 2009
Student Satisfaction Survey, administered to 26,063 students, throughout the nine colleges of the
district – (see Appendix A for LACCD 2009 Student Satisfaction Survey Instrument).
Additionally, the former foster youth sample was extrapolated from only those students who self-
identified as former foster youth on the larger survey. Likewise, the comparison, non-foster
youth samples were drawn only from those students that exhibited similar demographic
characteristics, so that matching could be made for the secondary analysis. Lastly, based upon
approval by the Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) at the research university, all
the information and data assessed, pertaining to the current study, qualified as Non- Human
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 67
Subjects Research and contained research activities not subject to the requirements of 45 CRF 46
or Continuing Review (Ortiz, 2010) –see Appendix B.
Since all three of the research questions tested contained various types of nominal and
categorical data, the statistical methods selected were appropriate to the type of data analyzed
against the operationally defined dependent variables – i.e., the groups of students identified
within the survey instrument. Both Chi-Squared and One-way Analysis of Variance statistical
methods were utilized in the analyses, dependent upon the type of data collected and based solely
upon the design of the three research questions identified for the current exploratory,
comparative study.
Assumptions
In completing this study, the following assumptions were made to better understand the
paucity of literature describing the former foster youth studied in large urban community college
environments, as well as the dynamics and myriad of variables which were analyzed and tested
using a recommended quantitative, secondary analysis approach of measurement. The following
assumptions were made regarding the current study and regarding those identified former foster
youth attending at any one of the nine community colleges within the LACCD:
1. The measures used in the assessment device, (see Appendix A), were reliable and valid
indicators of the actual constructs to be studied at the nine colleges selected from this
large, community college district.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 68
2. The subjects responded to the best of their ability and were discreetly supervised by
trained survey administrators at LACCD to better aid in the accuracy and completeness
of the data collected from the subjects.
3. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a degree of
applicability and generalizability to all community colleges and districts, both within the
State of California and at the national community levels as well (Prather, et al., 2000).
Limitations
The secondary data used for the current exploratory, comparative study was limited to
subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily while participating in the larger, institutional study
in 2009 at LACCD. The secondary data was limited to analyzing the number of subjects
surveyed who were identified as former foster youth by indicating a ‘yes’ response to question
number 18 on the survey and the comparative at-risk groups identified at EOPS youth and DSPS
youth – see Table 3.1. Validity of this measure and study were limited to the reliability of the
2009 LACCD survey instrument used.
Delimitations
The design of this exploratory, comparative analysis used a deductive quantitative
secondary analytical model placing delimitations on the overall study. The secondary data used
in the assessment was limited to only former foster, EOPS and DSPS youth that enrolled in one
of the identified colleges comprising the LACCD and completed the survey instrument during
the 2009 survey cycle. Lastly, the research assessed only former foster youth at the colleges
which were 18 years and older at the time of the 2009 survey assessment cycle. Both full-time
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 69
and part-time, as well as day and evening aged-out foster youth and non-foster students were
included in the current study.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 70
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
As a result of the known scarcity of quantitative research regarding the educational
outcomes of former foster youth within the community college system an examination of the
results for the current study was conducted. The current exploratory, comparative study is to
provide to the body of limited quantitative research regarding the post-secondary outcomes of
former foster youth in the community college environment. The analyses were structured to
compare the unique needs of former foster youth in community college as is related to a
demographically comparable group of non-foster youth. Also examined were the possible
obstacles which might impede the progress of former foster and non-foster youth while at the
community college. Lastly, an analysis was conducted on the types and frequency of college
support services utilized by former foster and non-foster youth at all nine of the community
colleges for the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD).
Treatment of the Data
The current analysis was conducted using secondary data originally collected from the
2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey. Additionally, the exploratory, comparative study
was officially designated as a non-human subject research project by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for human subject research and approved on February 19,
2010 (UPIRB, # IIR00000649). The original 2009 LACCD student survey generated results from
26,902 respondents and those numerous results could be utilized for many different self-directed
analyses. However, only a selective number of questions from the 56-question, six-part survey
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 71
which pertained to the three research questions were utilized. Additionally, the current study
represents another opportunity for policy leaders gain a better understanding as to the unique
needs and characteristics facing a population of community college students that are largely
unknown and underserved in community colleges. Lastly, a discussion of these results along
with some conclusions and implications for practice will be presented in the subsequent chapter
preceding the analyses of the data collected.
Participant Demographics
As identified in the previous section and in the methodology part of chapter 3, the 2009
LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey was distributed across nine colleges to 26,902 students
from all representative groups of college students within the LACCD with the sample. A basic
spreadsheet was developed to more efficiently examine the data and delineate from the larger
LACCD survey sampling. Moreover, three distinctive “at-risk” groups were identified and
extrapolated from the larger population of LACCD respondents; yielding a ratio of nearly 1:5 or
21% of the total 2009 survey population used in the current analyses (N = 5,660) – (see Table
4.1).
Table 4.1
Three Groups of At-risk, Student Populations Identified for the Comparative Study
All Groups Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Foster Only 319 5.2 5.2 5.2
EOPS Only 4805 78.3 78.3 83.5
DSPS Only 536 8.7 8.7 92.3
Total 5660 100 100
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 72
A total of sample of 6,134 LACCD students were identified and categorized as being in
at least one or more of the three at-risk comparison groups which were operationally defined and
created for this secondary study in previous chapters. Further re-coding reduced the population
sample by another 474 respondents (7.7%) eliminating those in the sample shown as
participating in more than only one of the three comparison sampling groups (N = 5,660).
Discrepant data were eliminated from the final analysis, thus forming the three at-risk
comparison groups with the end result yielding a sampling of 319 students identified only as
former foster youth (5.2%); referred to in the current analyses as the “Foster” group.
Another smaller sub-group used for comparison against the former foster youth group
was the 536 students identified as only participating in the Disabled Students Program and
Services (DSPS) groups (8.7%); referred to in the current analyses as the “Disability” group.
Also used as part of the comparison variables were a much larger sub-group of 4,805 students
identified as only participating in the Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS)
groups (78.3%); referred to in the current analyses as the “Extended Opportunities” group
FINDINGS
Findings Related to Research Question One
The purpose of research question one was to determine if there were significant
differences among the profiles of aged-out foster youth when compared to the profiles of EOPS
(i.e., Extended Opportunities) and DSPS (i.e., Disability) youth across identified demographic
factors such as age, ethnicity, income, gender, marital status and number of dependents. Since
the demographic factors used in the study were considered non-parametric variables, a Chi-
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 73
Square analysis was used to determine the significant differences among the demographic
characteristics of LACCD aged-out foster youth and the two non-foster student groups. The
results of the Chi-Square (X
2
) indicated that there were significant differences among the profiles
of the Foster group when compared to both the Extended Opportunities and Disability groups in
all five demographic variables analyzed (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2
Chi-square results- Demographic Profiles of Foster, Extended Opportunities and Disability
groups
Demographic Variables Pearson X
2
Df Observed probability N
Sex 32.435 2 .001 5660
Age Groups 73.739 4 .001 5504 *
Ethnicity 118.512 10 .001 5376*
Primary Languages 134.297 20 .001 5357*
Marital Status 18.567 4 .001 5660
*Note. Missing cases: Age 156 or 2.8 %; Ethnicity 284 or 5.0 %; Primary Language 303 or 5.4%
The results from the five demographic profiles of the three groups tested are described in
the following paragraphs.
Gender
Table 4.3 shows the gender by group cross-tabulation. The Foster group is nearly two-
thirds female, which is similar to the general population whereby females out number males in
community college enrollment. A similar proportion of females also are noted for the Extended
Opportunities group (i.e., EOPS), but not for the Disability group (DSPS); which had a nearly
even split of males and females in the distribution.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 74
Table 4.3
Gender by Group Cross-tabulation
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
Male
Count
114 1759 263 2136
% within Groups
35.7% 36.6% 49.1% 37.7%
Female
Count
205 3046 273 3524
% within Groups
64.3% 63.4% 50.9% 62.3%
Total
Count
319 4805 536 5660
% within Groups 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Age
Table 4.4 shows the age by group cross-tabulation. Overall, greater than half of the total
populations among the three groups are 18-24 years old. Additionally, the Foster group is nearly
two-thirds between the ages of 18-24 years old. Also, a similar proportion within the Extended
Opportunities group is noted within the same age ranges; along with a slightly less, but similar
proportion in the Disability group between 18-24 years old. The age group of 25-34 years old
within the Foster group is the next significant proportion of ages, but is not found to be
proportionately different between the Extended Opportunities and Disability groups.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 75
Table 4.4
Age by Group Cross-Tabulation
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
18-24 years old
193 2713 260 3166
% within Age Group
61.5% 58.1 50.1% 57.5%
25-34 years old
74 967 88 1129
% within Age Group
23.6% 20.7% 17.0% 20.5%
35-65 years old and over
40 933 162 1135
% within Age Group
12.7% 20.0% 31.2% 20.6%
Total Age by Group*
314* 4671* 519* 5504*
*Note: Missing are respondents reporting to be under 18 years old (n = 74 or 1.3%)
Ethnicity
Table 4.5 illustrates the ethnic diversity of the three tested groups with Hispanics being
the largest representative group among all three populations of students; consisting of nearly
one-half of the total ethnicities representative in the study; consistent with the fact that LACCD
students are predominately identified as being Hispanic. However, among the Foster Group, the
Black ethnicities constitute over one-third of the total Foster population, with Hispanics
comprising greater than one-fourth more of the total Foster populations. Thus, the Foster group
had proportionally more Blacks and fewer Hispanics than the two non-foster groups.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 76
Table 4.5
Ethnicity by Group Cross-Tabulation
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
Asian
31 554 48 633
% within Group
10.4% 12.1% 9.6% 11.8%
Black
107 960 48 633
% within Group
35.9% 21.0% 17.8% 21.5%
Hispanic
84 2212 205 2501
% within Group
28.2% 48.3% 40.9% 46.5%
White
52 511 105 668
% within Group
17.4% 11.2% 21.0% 12.4%
American Indian / Other Non-White
4 113 11 128
% within Group
1.3% 2.5% 2.2% 2.4%
Unknown / Decline to State
20 227 43 290
% within Group
6.7% 5.0% 8.6% 5.4%
Total by Group
298 4577 501 5376
% Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Primary Languages
Table 4.6 shows English as the primary language for all three sample groups, with the
Foster group showing the greatest number of English only, followed closely by those in the
Disability group. Moreover, Spanish was less likely to be the primary language in the Foster
group.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 77
Table 4.6
Primary Languages Spoken by Group Cross-Tabulation
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
English
Count 249 2840 398 3487
% within Groups 83.8% 62.3% 79.8% 65.1%
Spanish
Count 18 893 60 971
% within Groups 6.1% 19.6% 12.0% 18.1%
Non-English or
Non-Spanish
Count 30 828 41 899
% within Groups
10.1% 18.2% 8.2% 16.8%
Total
Count
297 4561 499 5357
% Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Marital Status
Table 4.7 demonstrates that a significant majority of all the students across the groups are
single as it relates to marital status at the time of completing the 2009 LACCD Student
Satisfaction Survey; with approximately eight out of ten students responding that they were
single.
Table 4.7
Marital Status by Group Cross-Tabulation
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
Single
Count 261 3859 441 4571
% within Groups 81.8% 80.5% 82.3% 80.8%
Married or domestic
partner
Count 53 890 80 1023
% within Groups 16.6% 18.5% 14.9% 18.1%
No Answer This Question
Count 5 46 15 66
% within Groups 1.6% 1.0% 2.8% 1.2%
Total
Count 319 4805 536 5660
% Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 78
Findings Related to Research Question Two
The purpose of research question two was to determine if differences exist between
obstacles to education of community college students who are aged-out foster youth and college
students who are non-foster youth. Obstacles identified in the LACCD 2009 Student Satisfaction
Survey as possible limiters to the educational success in different ways among the three groups
were operationally defined in chapter 3 of the current study. These seemingly common and
innocuous obstacles dramatically impact the abilities of former foster youth to succeed at the
community colleges and based upon results found in the study, some of the major limiters found
to be most problematic to former foster youth while in community college are the financial
factors, employment and family obligations, as well as the frequency and availability of classes
offered at the colleges.
The results of the One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicated that there were
significant differences among the profiles of aged-out foster youth, when compared to both
EOPS and DSPS youth (see Table 4.8).
Table 4.8
One-Way ANOVA Results – Obstacles to Educational Goals between All Three Groups
Obstacles Variables Group Mean Standard
Deviation
F - Value Observed
probability
High School Preparation Foster
EOPS
DSPS
1.94
1.97
2.30
1.02
1.02
1.13
23.26 .001
Study Skills Foster
EOPS
DSPS
1.84
1.85
2.23
0.96
0.95
1.08
34.61 .001
Primary Language (English) Foster
EOPS
DSPS
1.38
1.64
1.49
0.85
1.04
0.92
13.96 .001
Instructor’s Expectations Foster
EOPS
DSPS
1.59
1.76
1.83
0.81
0.88
0.90
6.90 .001
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 79
Financial Factors Foster
EOPS
DSPS
2.89
2.79
2.60
1.09
1.08
1.15
8.63 .001
Employment Obligations Foster
EOPS
DSPS
2.25
2.34
2.19
1.15
1.11
1.14
4.60 .010
Family Obligations Foster
EOPS
DSPS
2.19
2.15
2.06
1.13
1.09
1.09
1.90 .150*
Uncertainty about personal or
career goals
Foster
EOPS
DSPS
1.84
1.77
1.94
1.01
0.95
1.03
7.24
.001
Lack of Motivation Foster
EOPS
DSPS
1.46
1.46
1.65
0.79
0.77
0.92
13.42 .001
Other Personal Problems Foster
EOPS
DSPS
2.07
1.85
2.07
1.109
0.99
1.10
14.69 .001
Class Offerings Foster
EOPS
DSPS
2.04
2.19
2.17
1.12
1.14
1.15
2.66 .070
* The mean difference is not significant at the 0.05 level.
The results using a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test for all eleven variables
are described in the following paragraphs.
High School Preparation Obstacles
Results of a one-way ANOVA suggests that the obstacles of high school preparation in
reading, writing and mathematics faced by the Foster groups (M = 1.94, SD = 1.02) are not
statistically different than those high school preparation obstacles faced by the Extended
Opportunities group (M = 1.97, SD = 1.02). However, the results show that a statistically
significant difference when comparing the Foster group and Disability group (M = 2.30, SD =
1.13); suggesting that the high school preparation in reading, writing and mathematics is less of a
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 80
problem in the Foster group when compared to the Disability group F (2, 5374) = 23.26, p =
.001.
Study Skills Obstacles
In the area of study skills as an obstacle to reaching their educational goals, results of an
ANOVA show that this educational obstacle among the Foster group (M = 1.84, SD = 0.96), and
the Disability groups (M = 2.23, SD = 1.08) do appear to show statistically significant
differences on how these obstacles impact reaching their educational goals at the community
colleges, F(2, 5302) = 34.61, p = .001; specifically, study skills are more of an obstacle for the
Disability group. Whereas, the obstacles of study skills for the Extended Opportunities groups
(M = 1.85, SD = 0.955), do not appear to have significant differences when compared to the
Foster group.
Language (English) Obstacles
Results of an ANOVA suggests that the Foster groups (M = 1.38, SD = 0.85) experience
more problems with language barriers in English, than do the Extended Opportunities groups
(M = 1.64, SD = 1.04), F(2, 5378) = 13.96, p = .001; with the obstacle of English being more of
an obstacle for the Foster group. But, the English language obstacle appears less of a problem in
the Foster group and is not statistically significant when compared to the Disability groups
(M = 1.49, SD = 0.92).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 81
Instructor Expectations Obstacles
Based upon results of the ANOVA, it appears that the differences in the expectations of
instructors by students in the Foster groups (M = 1.59, SD = 0.81) are obstacles that impact the
Foster group greater, with differences that are statistically significant, when compared to both the
Extended Opportunities groups (M = 1.76, SD = 0.88), and Disability groups (M = 1.83, SD =
0.90), F(2, 5286) = 6.90, p = 001. Therefore, based on the analysis, the expectations of an
instructor appear to be seen by the Foster group as a bigger problem while at the community
college when compared to the Extended Opportunities and Disability groups.
Financial Obstacles
A statistically significant difference exists between the perceived financial obstacles
faced by the Foster groups (M = 2.89, SD = 1.09) when compared to the Extended Opportunities
groups (M = 2.79, SD = 1.08) and the Disability groups (M = 2.60, SD = 1.15). Additionally, the
Foster group appears to view financial obstacles as a much bigger problem for them when
attending community college when compared to the Disability group, F (2, 5339) = 8.63, p =
.001.
Employment Obligations Obstacles
The results of a one-way ANOVA show a statistically significant difference that the
employment obligations as obstacles in the attainment of the educational goals seem greater for
the Foster groups (M = 2.25, SD = 1.15), when compared to both the Extended Opportunities
groups (M = 2.34, SD = 1.11) and the Disability groups (M = 2.19, SD = 1.14); but these
differences are not statistically significant from each other F (2, 5330) = 4.60, p = .010.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 82
Therefore, the obligation of employment as having an impact on the obtainment of an
educational goal appears to be viewed similarly for all three groups.
Family Obligations Obstacles
Results of a one-way ANOVA demonstrate no statistically significant differences that the
Foster groups (M = 2.19, SD = 1.13) engage in statistically greater family obligations than do the
Extended Opportunities groups (M=2.15, SD = 1.09) or the Disability groups (M = 2.06, SD =
1.09). Also, these differences are not statistically significant from each other, F (2, 5296) = 1.90,
p = .150. Therefore, former foster youth do not appear more engrossed by their family
obligations than do the other two groups.
Personal/Career Goals Obstacles
Uncertainty about personal/career goals slightly appears to significantly impact the Foster
groups (M = 1.84, SD = 1.01), when compared to both the Extended Opportunities (M = 1.77, SD
= 0.95), and Disability groups. Overall, from the results, it appears that aged out foster youth
experience greater uncertainty about personal and/or career goals when compared to the two
groups. However, these differences are not statistically significant from each other F (2, 5275) =
7.24, p = .001), with very slight differences between all three groups.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 83
Motivation Obstacles
Obstacles related to motivation do appear to impact the Foster groups (M = 1.46, SD =
0.79) differently when compared to those same obstacles faced by the Disability groups (M =
1.65, SD = 0.92), but not the Extended Opportunities groups (M = 1.46, SD = 0.77); F (2, 5285)
= 13.42, p = .001.
Other Personal Obstacles
Results of an ANOVA indicate that the differences other personal obstacles faced by the
Foster groups (M = 2.07, SD = 1.10) appear to be significantly different, then these same other
personal obstacles faced by the Extended Opportunities groups (M = 1.85, SD = 0.99), F (2,
5292) = 14.69, p = .001. But the differences are not statistically significant, when comparing the
Foster groups to the Disability groups (M =2.07, SD = 1.10). Furthermore, the degree of these
differences between the Foster groups against the other two groups is unclear.
Class Access Obstacles
A difference in how students see access to the needed classes as an educational obstacle
does appear to be statistically significant among the Foster group (M = 2.04, SD = 1.12) when
compared to the Extended Opportunities (M = 2.19, SD = 1.14), but not the Disability groups (M
= 2.17, SD = 1.15), F (2, 5316) = 2.66, p = .070; albeit a borderline significance, but a difference
nonetheless. Therefore, based on the analysis, the Foster groups appear to experience the notion
of having limited access to classes as greater obstacles to their educational success, then the
Extended Opportunities and Disability groups.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 84
Findings Related to Research Question Three
The purpose of research question three was to determine if there were significant
differences between the amounts and types of community college support services utilized by
aged-out foster youth and non-foster youth across the nine colleges within the LACCD. The
results of the Chi-Square (X
2
) indicated that there were significant differences among the mounts
and types of community college support services utilized by aged-out foster youth when
compared to both EOP&S and DSPS youth in all seven variables analyzed (see Table 4.9).
Table 4.9
Chi-square results – Types and Levels of College Support Services
College Support Services Variables Pearson X
2
df Observed
probability
N
Financial Aid Services 167.857 14 .001 5660
General Counseling Services 405.870 4 .001 5658*
EOPS Counseling Services 5660.00 2 .001 5660
International Counseling Services 57.543 2 .001 5660
DSPS Counseling Services 5660.00 2 .001 5660
Other Special Counseling Services 56.452 2 .001 5660
Instructor-led Counseling Services 55.072 2 .001 5660
*Note. Missing cases: General Counseling Services, 2 or 0.0%
The results from the five types and levels of college support services profiles among the
three groups tested are described in the following paragraphs.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 85
Financial Aid Services
Table 4.10 shows financial aid services by group cross-tabulations. Overall, half of the
students in all three groups avail themselves of the benefits of financial aid services at the
colleges they attended. However, Extended Opportunities students show the greatest proportion
of students utilizing financial aid support services, with Foster and Disability student about equal
in their use of financial aid services. Additionally, nearly one-third of the Foster students shows
the greatest degree of recognizing their eligibility for financial aid services, but does not receive
the benefits.
Table 4.10
Received Financial Aid Services (FAS)
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
Eligible, to receive Financial Aid Services 123 2836 200 3159
% within Groups 50.8% 67.8% 49.0% 65.3%
Eligible, not receiving Financial Aid Services 74 736 103 913
% within Groups 30.6% 17.6% 25.2% 18.9%
Not Eligible to Receive Financial Aid Services 39 555 91 685
% within Groups 16.1% 13.3% 22.3% 14.2%
Total
242 4184 408 4834
% within Groups 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
General Counseling Services
Table 4.11 reveals the extent to which all three groups utilized the general counseling
services at the colleges they attended during the year of the survey. The Foster group
participated in utilizing general counseling services 3:1 over the other two at-risk populations in
the study. However, nearly two-thirds of the Foster group did not avail themselves of using any
general counseling services perceived, in general, by many community college students as not
necessarily student-centered or receptive to the needs of at-risk, vulnerable populations.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 86
Table 4.11
Received Counseling Services from General Counselors
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
No or No Response 198 4501 469 5168
% within Groups 62.5% 93.7% 87.5% 91.3%
Yes 119 304 67 490
% within Groups 37.5% 6.3% 12.5% 8.7%
Total
317 4805 536 5658
% within Final Groups
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
EOPS Counseling Services
Table 4.12 shows that the Extended Opportunities groups overwhelmingly sought out and
received counseling services from an EOPS Counselor-specific staff member; as required by
State mandate (COCCC, 2008). Conversely, neither the Foster nor Disability students utilized
any of the EOPS counseling related services which are consistent, since EOPS services are
program-specific and restricted to students who apply and are accepted into the program.
Table 4.12
Received Counseling Services from EOPS Counselors
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
No or No Response 319 0 536 855
% within Groups 100% 0.0% 100.0% 15.1%
Yes 0 4805 0 4805
% within Groups 0.0% 100% 0.0% 84.9%
Total
319 4805 536 5660
% within Final Groups
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 87
International Counseling Services
The results in Table 4.13 show that nearly all of the Extended Opportunities and
Disability students did not utilize the counseling services available through the International
Services unit. Interestingly, nearly 1 out of 10 within the Foster group utilized, at some capacity,
those services made available through the International Services unit at the colleges. This
proportion of former foster availing themselves of this type of counseling services implies that
there exists a larger number of former foster youth in the community colleges that can be
identified as international students, than previously considered in the research surrounding
former foster youth who attend community colleges.
Table 4.13
Received Counseling Services from International Services Director or Counselor
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
No or No Response 293 4715 529 5537
% within Groups 91.8% 98.1% 98.7% 97.8%
Yes 26 90 7 123
% within Groups 8.2% 1.9% 1.3% 2.2%
Total
319 4805 536 5660
% within Final Groups
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DSPS Counseling Services
The results found in Table 4.14 emulate those of the prior group (i.e., Extended
Opportunities) whereby, State Mandates preclude all non -disability identified students from
availing those counseling related services made available. The results seem that support that
notion, with no Foster or Extended Opportunities students utilizing DSPS Counseling services; a
factor expected with this and similar type of governmental mandated and population-specific
student support programs.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 88
Table 4.14
Received Counseling Services from DSPS Counselors
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
No or No Response 319 4805 0 5124
% within Groups 100% 100% 0.0% 90.5%
Yes 0 0 536 536
% within Groups 0.0% 0.0% 100% 9.5%
Total
319 4805 536 5660
% within Final Groups
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Other Special Programs Counseling Services
The results in Table 4.15 show that of the three groups studied, the Foster groups used
counseling services from other special programs, excluding EOPS and DSPS, by nearly a 3:1
ratio; with the names and types of programs unknown based upon the design of question number
five on the 2009 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey question.
Table 4.15
Received Counseling Services from Other Special Program Counselors
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
No or No Response 272 4571 508 5351
% within Groups 85.3% 95.1% 94.8% 94.5%
Yes 47 234 28 309
% within Groups 14.7% 4.9% 5.2% 5.5%
Total
319 4805 536 5660
% within Final Groups
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 89
Instructor-Led Counseling Services
The results listed in Tables 4.16 emulate those found in the preceding table, whereby the
Foster group utilized counseling-related services directly from an instructor by nearly a 3:1 ratio
over the other two groups.
Table 4.16
Received Counseling-Related Services from Instructor
FOSTER EOPS DSPS TOTAL
No or No Response 263 4481 507 5251
% within Groups 82.4% 93.3% 94.6% 92.8%
Yes 7 56 324 29 409
% within Groups 17.6% 6.7% 5.4% 7.2%
Total
319 4805 536 5660
% within Final Groups
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Summary
This chapter summarized the findings and results for the three research questions derived
for the study, providing to the body of limited quantitative research regarding the post-secondary
outcomes of former foster youth in the community college environment. The analyses were
structured to garner a better understanding as to the unique needs of former foster youth within
community college system. Overall, the results presented in Chapter 4 supports the notion that
former foster youth need concrete plans along with specialized support services for either
completing or continuing their educational goals once they exit from the foster care system; a
premise inferred throughout the study and what formulates the basic premise for the current
exploratory, descriptive study. Chapter 5 discusses these results and addresses implications for
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 90
further research in the area of post-secondary education special services for former foster youth
populations while in the community college system.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 91
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Recent increases in the level and type of research conducted regarding the outcomes of
former foster youth who emancipate from foster care and enter post-secondary education
nationally sparked California Legislatures to pass the 2010 California Fostering Connections
Success Act (Assembly Bill 12, Beall, 2010). However, even with this increase in national
interest on former foster youth in college, still very little is being researched on the retention and
persistence outcomes of these very few and still considered, limited number of former foster
youth who actually choose to pursue post-secondary education after emancipation from the foster
care systems. Hence, the overall purpose of this study was to garner a better understanding of
the quintessential, specialized services and support systems that are necessary and vital to better
assist a unique and vulnerable population of community college students in California who
remain largely unknown and underserved by the community colleges (Emerson, 2007; Fried,
2008; Heath, Colton and Aldgate, 1994; Lovitt and Emerson 2008). Moreover, the study was
designed to quantitatively demonstrate to higher education policy leaders the imminent need to
re-define the scope and direction by which current special population support programs are
currently being delivered to former foster youth, and to provide recommendations for changes to
better service this growing, exceptionally vulnerable at-risk population within the community
college environments (Emerson, 2007; Fried, 2008; Heath, Colton and Aldgate, 1994; Lovitt and
Emerson 2008). Combined, the findings listed in the current study will add to the literature in
the area post-secondary educational outcomes for former foster that each year exit the foster care
system by the thousands and are increasing in their attempts to purse a post-secondary education
within the 2-year college systems (Emerson, 2007; Fried, 2008; Heath, Colton and Aldgate,
1994; Lovitt and Emerson 2008) – namely the California Community Colleges.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 92
Summary of Findings
The findings of the three research questions analyzed within the current exploratory,
comparative study demonstrate what is commonly known in the literature that former foster
youth who pursue post-secondary education after high school experience many of the same
barriers in college that other non-traditional, at-risk populations of students face (Emerson, 2007;
Fried, 2008; Heath, Colton and Aldgate, 1994; Lovitt and Emerson 2008). Even though former
foster youth may experience the same barriers and limitations while at college, their needs are
distinctly unique and substantively higher by degree. Results of research question number one
show the disproportionate demographic characteristics of former foster youth across gender and
ethnicity variables. As expected in the general population of college students, former foster
youth within the study are more likely female and more likely younger, when compared to the
other two operationally defined, at-risk groups assessed in the current comparative study.
Moreover, the demographics show that the foster youth are more likely Black, and less likely
Hispanic, comparative to the other two at-risk populations within the study. Substantial
literature in the Social sciences support the same findings; whereby Blacks represent the largest,
ethnic demographic of youth who emancipate each year from foster care (Casey Family
Programs, 2008). Conversely, literature in higher education supports the notion that the Hispanic
is the largest representative ethnic group and females out number males in community colleges.
The current findings support a commonly held trend in collegiate admissions for many of the
identified, non-traditional first-time college students (California Post-Secondary Education
Commission Reports, 2007 and 2008).
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 93
Results found for research question number two illustrates the differences between the
three groups on perceived barriers on four of the eleven independent variables tested.
Operationally defined as educational obstacles for the purposes of the current comparative study,
these four independent variables were found to be statistically significant between the groups
when compared to the former foster youth. Those former foster youth studied, in general,
viewed the educational barriers of employment, finances, family and availability of classes as
perceived obstacles that influenced or interfered, in some way, with their educational progress
while attending the community college. However, based upon the limitations to the validity
under the current comparative study design, the degrees of these differences between groups are
unknown without additional studies.
Finally, the analysis of research question number three indicated the types of counseling-
related services foster youth utilize when compared to the other two at-risk populations. The
results show that former foster youth are not utilizing many of the State mandated, specialized
counseling support programs targeting at-risk, non-traditional students readily available to them
while at the community colleges (i.e., EOPS or DSPS). Moreover, access to qualify for these
specialized counseling related services are available, by default, to all youth coming out of the
foster care system; provided they apply and maintain the qualification standards required to
remain eligible for receiving specialized, supportive services from program such as EOPS and
DSPS (Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges – 1997 and 2008).
Conversely, results from the current exploratory, comparative study demonstrate that
former foster youth are more likely to engage in the more sporadic, random-type of counseling
support services readily accessible to all students at the community colleges (i.e., general
counseling, instructor-based and other student counseling-related services). Substantial research
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 94
in the area of community college retention and persistence exists which supports the notion that
counseling services provided by programs such as EOPS and DSPS in community colleges are
significant interventions at removing educational barriers for many non-traditional, at-risk
students (COCCC, 1997 and COCCC, 2008). The results and conclusions drawn from the three
research questions tested support the intent of the current study and provides a basic outline for a
minimum program structure which could leverage many of categorical programs already in place
at all California Community Colleges. The improved structure of categorical programs would
likely improve the current limited outreach and recruitment efforts of former foster youth which
continue to exit foster care and enroll into the system of community colleges in California in
larger numbers every year (Casey Family Programs, 2008; Colton and Aldgate, 1994; Davis,
2006; Driscoll, 2007; Emerson, 2007; Fried, 2008; Jaklitsch, 2003; Leathers and Testa, 2006;
Lovitt and Emerson 2008).
Implications for Practice
Since implementation of the Social Security Act of 1935 and again with the Foster Care
Independence Act in 1999, California Community Colleges have sought to develop unique
interventions, specialized support and admission access services, as well as financial aid
entitlement programs to better explain why former foster youth leave college before attaining
graduation. In the same way, even with targeted outreach and recruitment changes to State
Legislation which extends the length of time a former foster youth can remain eligible to receive
Court mandated entitlements, the California Chafee Grant Programs and a plethora of many well
intentioned private foundation initiatives, the dilemma that few former foster youth still today do
not avail themselves of these time-tested, “over and above” available services readily available at
the community colleges. Conversely, other researchers recommend that if foster youth college
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 95
retention and persistence is to improve then more attention must be given to instilling the
importance that aged out foster youth be provided the services and support that goes well beyond
the current types of post-secondary services available for historically disadvantaged populations
of college youth at most college institutions . Whatever the rationale, it is a pervasive problem
for the invariably growing number of foster youth who aspire to attend college, but is apparently
unaware of these many available former foster youth specific services. The current exploratory,
comparative study was developed to contribute, even if on a small scale, to the known dearth of
knowledge on what should be done to better equip the thousands of former foster youth exiting
the foster care system and see the community college environments as the next phase in their
ever challenging growth and development after emancipation from the foster care system.
Finally, it is hoped that the current study may serve as a tool to illuminate the need to re-define
the nearly 50 year old mandates currently in place, targeting special populations and to include
definitions that specifically target former foster youth. This type of paradigm shifting change in
the special populations student services model, will better utilize and leverage the many
evidence, research based and highly successful special population support programs already in
place in both the federal levels (e.g., TRiO™ Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support
Services) and within the California 2-year and 4-year post secondary education systems (e.g.,
EOPS, DSPS, Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), Guardian Scholars and Renaissance
Scholars programs).
Assumptions and Limitations
The current exploratory, comparative study was conducted using secondary data analyses
and was restricted to a large urban community college district in Southern California and may
not be descriptive of other populations. Results were intended to provide enhanced
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 96
understanding and insight into the unique needs and characteristics of former foster youth
enrolled in the community colleges involved in the study and should not be expected to
generalize to other post-secondary environments that provide specialized services to former
foster youth. Many of the demographic variables were self-reported by the student and as such
may not be completely accurate. Lastly, since the study was conducted as a secondary analysis,
self-selection bias could be a limitation of the study.
Also inherent within the current exploratory, comparative study are the limitations to the
both the internal and external validity of this type of quasi-experimental design (Hocevar, 2012).
The design utilized secondary data extrapolated from a previously administered survey and
therefore many of the differences found among the three groups, using this type of quasi-
experimental design does not lend itself to justifiable causal inferences. Even if many of the
differences between the former foster students and the comparison groups were found to be
statistically significant, these differences, in many cases, may also be explained by other
“uncontrolled factors” not measured within the current survey instrument. Hence, the internal
validity of the current study is limited by the differences found between the means of the groups,
without ever taking into account the other extraneous variables that can invariably influence the
overall results of the study.
Additionally, the extent to which those statistically significant differences found can
effectively be generalized to the larger former foster youth populations is also very limited in
other settings due to the very nature of the current study design. Moreover, the many variables
measured were operationally determined and pre-defined specifically for the comparative study.
Therefore, the results found to be significant cannot be generalized beyond the groups, the large
community college district, and the use of secondary data extrapolated from a pre-established
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 97
survey instrument. Other instruments measuring similar variables, such as a qualitative-type
measure (e.g., Interviews, Case Studies, Ethnography) likely yields significantly different
findings and results (Hocevar, 2012).
Many researchers in the area of higher education (Titus, 2007) are “plagued by the
problem of non-random assignment problems or selection bias” (p. 478). Moreover, true
randomized trials in higher education research “may not be feasible in most social sciences
because of logistical, ethical, political, and economic reasons” (p. 488). Any discussion of the
findings of this exploratory, comparative study should be interpreted with the assumptions and
limitations to both internal, as well as external validity implications as described.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research
Based upon reflections on the findings extrapolated from the current exploratory,
comparative study, it appears clearer that greater emphasis is needed to research the outcomes of
former foster youth that aspire to attend community college after exiting the foster care system.
The following five selected recommendations for future research on higher education outcomes
for former foster youth include the following: (1) Conduct a pre-post study to asses the impact
and effectiveness of recent State of California legislation that now requires former foster youth to
pursue post-secondary education training in order to receive entitlement funding and support
services until the age of 25. (2) A study comparing and contrasting the efficacy of existing foster
youth initiatives and programs already in place within the California Community College
system. (3) Create a replication to the current comparative study, on an annual basis, to
determine whether significant changes occur in the outcomes of former foster youth enrolled
within the California Community Colleges. (4) Conduct in-depth interview studies of current
and former foster youth at both the high school and community college levels in order to gauge
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 98
their perceptions and level of understanding of current post-emancipation programs and services
available in the community college system. (5) Lastly, a recommendation that the 2009 survey
data be combined with the recently completed 2012 LACCD Student Satisfaction Survey to
determine if there are any trends or changes to the outcomes of former foster youth attending
college within the LACCD.
The current comparative exploratory study, albeit provides only a small first-step to
better understanding the unique needs and distinctive characteristics of a growing number of
what many in the field of social and education research agree are some of the most vulnerable at-
risk groups slowly and steadily increasing in populations within the collegiate environment; with
the trend expected to only increase significantly over the next decade. Effectively serving this
ever growing and exceptionally needy special populations will require more than government
mandated student services, the movement must include a better understanding amongst the
leaderships of not only social services and educational systems, but of civic, foundational (public
and private) as well as the many philanthropic groups who already promote services to
improving the outcomes of the vulnerable groups in our society. Even though the visions,
objectives and missions of these numerous entities are diverse, the fundamental beliefs and tenets
are similar to those purported throughout the current comparative study. In general, the goals are
to inspire, motivate and educate former foster youth; helping them to discover the true potential
and abilities within and to help encourage young people to make a positive impact on their
communities and reach out to all people in need worldwide.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 99
References
Andom, M. (2007, November 9). California community colleges help foster dreams. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 40.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Barbatis, P. (2008). Perceptions of underprepared community college students regarding their
educational achievement: Preliminary analysis of a pilot study. Paper accepted for
presentation at SIG: Mentorship and Mentoring Practices 2008 Conference of the
American Educational Research Association.
Bean, J.P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler and J.P. Bean
(Eds.), The strategic management of college enrollments, 147-169. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bettinger, E.P. and Long, B.T. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student
participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129, 17-26.
Boylan, H.R. and Bonham, B.S. (2007). 30 years of developmental education: A retrospective.
Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 2-4.
Cabrera, A., Colbeck, C., and Terenzini, P. (2001). Developing performance indicators for
assessing classroom teaching practices and student learning. Research in Higher
Education, 42, 327-352.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 100
Cabrera, A., Nora, A., and Castañeda, M. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations
modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64, 123-140.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2007). College-Going Rates: A
Performance Measure in California’s Higher Education Accountability Framework.
(Commission Report 07-04). Retrieved from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/
2007reports/07-04.pdf.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2008). Beyond the Looking Glass: Assessing
Performance in California Postsecondary Education. (Commission Report 08-03).
Retrieved from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/ 2008reports/08-03.pdf.
Casey Family Programs. (2008). Supporting Success: Improving Higher Education Outcomes
for Students from Foster Care. A framework for program enhancement, version 2.0.
Retrieved from http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/SupportingSuccess.pdf.
Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges Student Services Division. (1997, January).
Implementing Guidelines for Title 5 Regulations Disabled Student Programs and
Services. Retrieved from http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/
DSPS.aspx.
Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges Student Services Division. (2008, March).
EOPS (Extended Opportunity Programs and Services) Implementing Guidelines.
Retrieved from http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/EOPS/Policies.aspx.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 101
Courtney, M.E., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., and Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions
to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80, 685-717.
Davis, R.J. (2006). College access, financial aid, and college success for undergraduates from
foster care. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.nasfaa.org/Subhomes/ResearchHome/
NASFAAFosterCare%20Report.Pdf .
Driscoll, A.K. (2007, August). Beyond access: How the first semester matters for community
college students’ aspirations and persistence. Pace Policy Brief 07-2. Retrieved from
http://pace.berkeley.edu/reports/PB.07-2.pdf.
Emerson, J. (2007, Winter). From foster care to college: Supporting independent students.
Leadership Exchange, pp. 6-11. Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipproviders.org/
Documents/FosterSpread.pdf.
Engstrom, C. and Tinto, V. (2008, January/February). Access without support is not opportunity.
Change, 46-50.
Fike, D.S. and Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community
college. Community College Review, 36, 68-88.
Fried, T. (2008). Community Colleges step up to support foster care students. Community
College Journal, February/March, 39. Retrieved from http://tracyfried.com/news.php.
Goodman, K. and Pascarella, E. (2006, Summer). First-year seminars increase persistence and
retention: A summary of the evidence from How college affects students. AAC&U, 26-28.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 102
Habley, W.R. and McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? Two-year public
colleges. ACT. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/path/postsec/droptables/pdf/
TwoYearPublic.pdf.
Hines, A.M., Merdinger, J., and Wyatt, P. (2005). Former foster youth attending college:
Resilience and the transition to young adulthood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
75, 381-394. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.3.381.
Hocevar, D. (2012, June 5). Re: Chapter 3 Threats to Validity (aka, limitations) [Electronic
mailing list message]. Retrieved from C:\Users\John\AppData\Local\Microsoft\
Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.MSO\WordWebPagePreview\
8CAE20DF.mht,
Hu, S. and St. John, E.P. (2001). Student persistence in public higher education system:
Understanding racial and ethnic differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3),
265-286.
Hurley, P. A. (2004). A study of student perceptions of the effectiveness of transfer services
offered at two California community colleges. (Doctoral dissertation). University of
California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database.
(Publication No. AAT 3133013)
Jaklitsch, B. (2003). The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program: Aftercare
Services. Tulsa, OK: National Resource Center for Youth Services.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 103
John Burton Foundation: Fostering Connections.Org. (2010). Assembly Bill No. 12, California
Fostering Connections to Success Act. Retrieved from http://cafosteringconnections.org/
legislation.html.
Kaplan, S.J., Skolnik, L., and Turnbull, A. (2009). Enhancing the empowerment of youth in
foster care: Supportive services. Child Welfare, 88, 133-161.
Karp, M.M., Hughes, K.L., and O’Gara, L. (2008). An exploration of Tinto’s integration
framework for community college students. (CCRC Working Paper No. 12). New York:
Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Kuh, G.D. (2007, Winter). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness.
AAC&U, pp. 4-8. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/uploads/PRWI07_Kuh.pdf.
Leathers, S.J. and Testa, M.F. (2006). Foster youth emancipating from care: Caseworkers’
reports on needs and services. Child Welfare, 85, 463-498.
Levitz, R.S., Noel, L., and Richter, B.J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success. New
Directions in Higher Education, 108, 31-49.
Lovitt, T. and Emerson, J. (2008, April). Foster youth who have succeeded in higher education:
Common themes. Information Brief. National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org.
Martin, P.Y. and Jackson, S. (2002). Educational success for children in public care: Advice
from a group of high achievers. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 121-130.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 104
McArthur, R.C. (2005). Faculty-based advising: An important factor in community college
retention. Community College Review, 32(4), 1-19.
McMillen, C., Auslander, W., Elze, D., White, T., and Thompson, R. (2003). Educational
experiences and aspirations of older youth in foster care. Child Welfare, 82, 475-495.
Merdinger, J.M., Hines, A.M., Osterling, K.L., and Wyatt, P. (2005). Pathways to college for
former foster youth: Understanding factors that contribute to educational success. Child
Welfare, 84, 667-896.
Nancy, M. (2008, January 10). Helping Foster Youth Access College. Diverse: Issues in Higher
Education, 12-13.
National Foster Care Awareness Project (NFCAP). (2000). Promising practices: School to
career and postsecondary education for foster youth. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/ school%
20career%20postsecondary%202.pdf.
Newberger, J. (2001, March 23). From foster care to college life. Connect for Kids. Retrieved
from http://www.connectforkids.org/node/261.
O’Gara, L., Karp, M.M., and Hughes, K.L. (2008). Student success courses in the community
college: An exploratory study of student perspectives. (CCRC Working Paper No. 11).
New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research
Center.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 105
Osterling, K.L. and Hines, A.M. (2006). Mentoring adolescent foster youth: Promoting resilience
during developmental transitions. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 242-253.
Pei, K.E. (2009, September 3). Former foster youth: Academic advisors as a support system. The
Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal. Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/
dus/mentor/090930kp.htm.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2007). Time for reform: Aging out and on their own. Philadelphia, PA:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/ uploadedFiles/ wwwpewtrustsorg/
Reports/Foster_care_reform/Kids_are_Waiting_TimeforReform0307.pdf.
Prather, G. and Kelly, D (2007). The 2007 LACCD Student Survey-Seeking to Understand
Student Engagement and Success. Retrieved fromhttp://research.laccd.edu/student-
characteristics/documents/spring-2007-student-survey-base-report.doc.
Reilly, T. (2003). Transition from care: Status and outcomes of youth who age out of foster care.
Child Welfare, 82, 727-746.
Scannapieco, M., Connell-Carrick, K., and Painter, K. (2007). In their own words: Challenges
facing youth aging out of foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24,
423-435.
Shin, S.H. (2003). Building evidence to promote educational competence of youth in foster care.
Child Welfare, 82, 615-632.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 106
Smith, J.S. (2007). Using data to inform decisions: Intrusive faculty advising at a community
college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31, 813-831.
doi:10.1080/10668920701375918.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2
nd
ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997, January/February). Universities as learning organizations. About Campus, 2-4.
Tinto, V. (2000, March/April). What have we learned about the impact of learning communities
on students? Assessment Update, 1-2, 12.
Titus, M. (2007). Detecting selection bias using propensity score matching and estimating
treatment effects: An application to the private returns to a Master’s Degree. Research
in Higher Education, 48(4), 487-521.
Walters, A.K. (2005, August 12). Helping foster children feel at home in college. Chronicle of
Higher Education, A21.
Wilmer, E. (2009, Spring). The influence of learning communities on the interaction levels of
developmental English students. Inquiry, 55-67.
Wolanin, T.R. (2005). Higher education opportunities for foster youth: A primer for
policymakers. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/OpportunitiesFosterYouth.pdf.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 107
Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., and Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education outcomes for children in
foster care: Intervention by an education liaison. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 9, 421-429.
Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., and Luderer, J.W. (2004). Problems and solutions to improving
education services for children in foster care: Intervention by an education liaison.
Preventing School Failure, 48(2), 31-36.
Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., and Shea, N.M. (2006). Seeing the whole picture: Views from diverse
participants on educating foster youths. Children & Schools, 28, 165-173.
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 108
Appendix A
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 109
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 110
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 111
COLLEGE ACCESS: FOCUS ON FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 112
Appendix B
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FWA 00007099
Determination of NOT Human Subjects Research
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:37:45 2010
To: John Sousa
From: Argelis Ortiz
Project Understanding the Barriers to College Access for Former Foster Youth at
Title: LACCD ( IIR00000649 )
The Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) designee reviewed the information you submitted pertaining
to your study and concluded that the project does not qualify as Human Subjects Research.
It is noted the project involves the use of coded data/specimens and the following criteria have been met:
1. The private information or specimens were not collected specifically for the currently proposed research
project through an interaction or intervention with living individuals; and
2. The investigator cannot readily ascertain the identity of the individual(s) to whom the coded private
information or specimens.
The research activities as described are not subject to the requirements of 45 CFR 46 or continuing review.
This review and opinion is based on the information provided and is not valid if the proposed project is not exactly
as described, or if information has been withheld. If your project design changes in ways that may affect this
determination, please contact the IRB for guidance.
Sincerely,
Argelis Ortiz
OPRS Student Mentor
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Generally referred to as aged-out youth, approximately 20,000 former foster youth leave foster care each year, with very few enrolling into the community college system. Many enroll into a college system without a clear understanding of the system. Unable to maneuver, most former foster youth will drop out. The current exploratory, comparative study looks at the similarities and differences between former foster youth, the Extended Opportunity Program and Services youth and Disabled Student Programs and Services youth within a large community college district, located in the Southwestern part of the United States. The current study provides educators with valuable insight as to the unique needs and characteristics of this growing population within the community college system. ❧ Results of the study show former foster youth do not utilize many of the specialized counseling support programs targeting at-risk, non-traditional students at the community colleges
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A phenomenological study: the lived experience of former foster youth attending a four-year college in Southern California
PDF
Supporting foster youth: the social and emotional support needed to successfully transition to adulthood
PDF
Persistence among low income community college students
PDF
AB 540 community college students in Southern California: making connections and realizing dreams
PDF
The impact of Upward bound on first generation college students in the freshman year of college
PDF
Beating the odds: applying the positive deviance framework to address the academic underachievement of foster youth
PDF
College readiness in California high schools: access, opportunities, guidance, and barriers
PDF
Impact of mentoring on former pre-college program participants: gaining while giving back
PDF
Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers
PDF
Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers
PDF
The impact of the Norton High School early college program on the academic performance of students at Norton High School
PDF
Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college
PDF
Input-adjusted transfer scores as an accountability model for California community colleges
PDF
Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
PDF
Resilient voices of success: counter‐narratives of foster youth in graduate school
PDF
Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students
PDF
An evaluation of the contribution of athletic counselors to the academic success of student-athletes at the California community colleges
PDF
Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success
PDF
Finding academic success during political times of uncertainty for undocumented students in California state community colleges
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
Asset Metadata
Creator
Sousa, John Chaves
(author)
Core Title
Understanding the barriers to college access for former foster youth at the Los Angeles Community College District
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/05/2013
Defense Date
05/07/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
college access,community college,emancipated foster youth,foster youth,foster youth and college,high risk college students,non-traditional college students,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee member
), Serra-Hagedorn, Linda (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sousaconsulting2011@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-315951
Unique identifier
UC11292849
Identifier
etd-SousaJohnC-1958.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-315951 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SousaJohnC-1958.pdf
Dmrecord
315951
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Sousa, John Chaves
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
college access
community college
emancipated foster youth
foster youth
foster youth and college
high risk college students
non-traditional college students