University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

College, connections and care: how mobility and social capital affect college preparation for youth in foster care

(USC Thesis Other)

College, connections and care: how mobility and social capital affect college preparation for youth in foster care

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

COLLEGE, CONNECTIONS AND CARE: HOW MOBILITY AND SOCIAL
CAPITAL AFFECT COLLEGE PREPARATION FOR YOUTH IN FOSTER CARE

by

Zoë Blumberg Corwin

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(SOCIOLOGY)

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Zoë Blumberg Corwin

ii

DEDICATION

To family.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When sharing the theme of this dissertation with friends or colleagues, many
responded with, “how depressing!” Yet each time I met with an informant I was
moved, impressed and encouraged. I am indebted to the six youths referred to as
Brian, Tamika, Silvia, Michael, Fernando and Liz for their willingness to participate in
this project, their candor, their wisdom and their commitment to improving college
access for all foster youth.
I am grateful to the University of Southern California Department of
Sociology, the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation and the Spencer
Foundation for supporting this project through fellowship funding and professional
support, and to the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis for providing funding
for my graduate studies.
I am deeply thankful to my professors for informing my graduate education
and dissertation work, my dissertation committee in particular. Ricardo Stanton-
Salazar, from the day I enrolled in his Sociology of Education seminar throughout the
dissertation, inspired and guided the theoretical framework for the study. I am grateful
to Michael Messner for his steady encouragement and for providing an example of
how to balance scholarship with family. How I had the fortune of finding a research
assistantship with William G. Tierney is one of the most opportune events of my
career. Bill‟s mentorship, demanding standards and commitment to educational equity
permeated my graduate experience, and I know will continue to positively affect my
future endeavors.
iv
I have deep appreciation for my colleagues at the University of Southern
California and beyond. In particular I thank Paz Oliverez, Kristan Venegas, Julia
Colyar, Diane Flores, Monica Raad–colleagues while I was at the Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis–for intellectual stimulation, humor and support during
pregnancies. Belinda Lum, James Thing, Jinee Lokaneeta and Stephanie Nawyn
stewarded me through my years of coursework and together we shared many
meaningful “extra-curricular” moments. Without the camaraderie and scholarly
critique from my writing group “Jesse‟s Girls,” working on the dissertation would
have been an extremely lonely process. I am particularly appreciative of Rozana
Carducci‟s feedback on chapters and Melissa Contreras McGavin‟s friendship and
insight. Thank you to Ryan Davis, Carrie Miller and Monica Bomkamp Enia who
provided invaluable practitioner perspectives and comments on chapter drafts.
In my other life, the life outside of graduate school, innumerable friends rallied
support. I am infinitely grateful to the Temple Israel of Hollywood nursery school
community and in particular to Lissette Glasser, Jamie Sands, Glenna Roth for their
support–and to Ilene Rosenzweig for lending her editing expertise and Mia Talbot for
playing with my children in crunch-time moments. Much gratitude goes to Mirna
Nunez for warmly caring for my children while I was researching and writing.
How ironic that while writing about youth without stable family networks, I
have been surrounded by the most supportive family imaginable. Thank you to the
Corwins for providing me with a writing haven and for unconditional support
throughout the whole dissertation process. Thank you to Alan Wyner, for pride in my
v
accomplishments. Thank you to my amazing mother, Louise Blumberg, for
enthusiasm for and confidence in everything I do. Thank you to my father, Jonathan
Blumberg, for fostering my inquisitiveness and passion for justice. Siblings proved to
be the most constant members of the study informants‟ support systems. My brother,
Seth Blumberg, has always been an insightful, inspirational and incorrigible source of
strength to me.
My deepest gratitude goes to my husband, Danny Corwin, who never
complained when piles of research articles grew taller, the bags under my eyes
deepened and I threatened to give up. His gentle, infallible support and phenomenal
way he parents our children have sustained me. And to my children, Teva and Jesse.
You both came into the world as I was working on this degree. Jesse tagged along on
to interviews in utero. Teva learned how to say “proposal” and then “dissertation.”
You provided the best study breaks, best distractions, best reason to complete the
dissertation and best reason to strive to use my research to make this world a better
place. I am profoundly grateful.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ............................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ viii

Abstract ................................................................................................................. ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
Context of Study ....................................................................................... 3
Problem Statement .................................................................................... 16
Conceptual framework………………………………………………….. 17
Research Questions .................................................................................. 18
Significance of Study ............................................................................... 20
Overview of Dissertation .......................................................................... 21
Six Primary Introductions ......................................................................... 21

Chapter 2: Mobility, Social Capital and College Going: A Review of the
Literature ......................................................................................... 31
What is Social Capital? ............................................................................ 32
What Types of Social Capital are Conducive to College Going? ............ 46
Who Participates in Social Networks? ..................................................... 49
Figure 1: Potential Participants in the Social Networks of Students
from Foster Care ....................................................................................... 51
What Resources are Located in Social Networks? ................................... 55
How Do Individuals Access and/or Use Social Capital? ......................... 56
How Does Mobility Affect Social Capital? .............................................. 59
Discussion ................................................................................................. 62

Chapter 3: Research Methods ........................................................................... 64
Overview .................................................................................................. 64
Why Ethnographic Interviews? ................................................................ 65
What Do Other Studies Show? ................................................................. 67
What Are Ethnographic Interviews? ........................................................ 74
Where Does the Researcher Fit In? .......................................................... 75
Why These Data? ..................................................................................... 78
How Were Data Collected? ...................................................................... 82
How Were Data Analyzed? ...................................................................... 86

vii
Chapter 4: Portraying Multiple Mobilities and College Capital ....................... 90
Portraying Multiple Mobilities ................................................................. 91
Portraying College Capital ....................................................................... 118

Chapter 5: Analyzing the Interplay between Multiple Mobilities and College
Capital ............................................................................................. 152
Overview ................................................................................................. 152
Summary of Study ................................................................................... 152
Limitations of the Study .......................................................................... 155
Chapter Overview .................................................................................... 156
Analyzing Multiple Mobilities ................................................................ 157
Analyzing College Capital ...................................................................... 170
Discussion ................................................................................................ 177
Research Findings ................................................................................... 179
Theoretical Implications .......................................................................... 191
Policy and Practical Implications ............................................................ 193
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 198
Epilogue: “Life Takes You a Different Way” ........................................ 199

References ........................................................................................................... 204

Appendices
Appendix A: A Child‟s Journey through the Child Welfare
System ............................................................................. 213
Appendix B: Court Order Granting Permission to Conduct
Research with “Wards of the Court” ............................... 214
Appendix C: Recruitment Flyer ............................................................ 217
Appendix D: Example of Informed Consent Form ............................... 218
Appendix E: Sample Protocols ............................................................. 222
Appendix F: Graphic Depictions of the Strength of Informant‟s
Social Ties ....................................................................... 225
viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Comparison of Educational Attainment for Foster Youth and
Nonfoster Youth .............................................................................. 4

Table 1.2: Demographic Characteristics of LAUSD Students (Fall 2004) ...... 15

Table 1.3: Educational Characteristics of LAUSD Students (Fall 2004) ......... 15

Table 3.1: Overview of Sample ........................................................................ 81

Table 3.2: Categories of Descriptive Questions Common in Ethnographic
Interviews ........................................................................................ 85

Table 4.1: Students; Mobility before Attending College (prior to and
During Foster Care .......................................................................... 92

Table 4.2: Overview of Tamika‟s Mobility (elementary school years) ............ 100

Table 4.3: Overview of Tamika‟s Mobility (middle school years) .................. 100

Table 4.4: Overview of Tamika‟s Mobility (high school years) ...................... 100

Table 4.5: Overview of Students‟ College Capital in High School .................. 121

Table 4.6: Overview of Students‟ College Capital in College ......................... 122

Table 5.1 Approaches to Mobility ................................................................... 160

Table 5.2 Synopsis of Informants‟ Mobility While in College ....................... 167

Table 5.3: Where Informants Resided During Freshman Year School
Vacations ......................................................................................... 169

Table 5.4 Elements of College Capital Conducive to Mediating the
Effects of Mobility .......................................................................... 172

Table 5.5: Degree to which Informants Possessed Elements of College
Related Social Capital (high, moderate and low) ............................ 174

ix
ABSTRACT
Of the over 500,000 youth currently in foster care in the United States, only
10% to 20% enroll in college. Of those, less than 5% graduate. Compared to their
peers, foster youth draw from less stable social networks when seeking support for
college aspirations due to the many times youth in foster care tend to change
residences and schools. Since valuable college-related information, skills and support
tend to be accessed through social relationships, lack of sustained support can be
particularly detrimental to the long-term well-being of youth with experiences in foster
care. This dissertation explores how the transient nature of foster care affects
students‟ abilities to gain and utilize social capital and navigate college-conducive
social networks. Longitudinal data from ethnographic interviews conducted with six
students from foster care as they prepared for and during their first year of college
shed light on how foster youth evaluate the resources they have at their disposal given
institutional and social contexts that potentially hinder college going.
Research findings illustrate the complex ways that students‟ mobilities and
social capital interact and influence educational achievement. The two central goals of
the dissertation are to: (a) further theoretical knowledge of social support networks;
and (b) advance knowledge on college access for an understudied, high-risk student
population.

1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

“I know I don‟t know you guys, but I‟m proud of you, I really am.”
~ Antwone Fisher
Actor/author Antwone Fisher enters the Disney Concert Hall and receives an
enthusiastic standing ovation from the 119 students who have gathered to celebrate
their approaching enrollment in college. The students were selected to attend the
Celebration One ceremony because of the challenges they had overcome in the foster
care or penal systems while preparing for college. Until Fisher‟s entry, most of the
students had been sitting with backs erect, showing little emotion; but Fisher charges
the crowd with a different sort of energy. Unlike the previous speakers, he turns his
back to the audience and faces the students who are seated in a wide semi-circle on the
stage facing out: “If you don‟t have children, it‟s probably better to wait . . . if you‟re
a hip person, meet some squares.” Students lean forward, attentive. “I‟ve been where
you are. Be sure to talk to someone, learn to be honest with yourself and others . . .
the elderly make a good audience.” Fisher pauses and looks over the rows of African
American, Latino/a, White, Asian and multiracial students. Among them sit the
“informants” of this study: Tamika, Liz, Michael, Brian, Fernando and Silvia.
“Crying helps . . . if you think about the past year and can‟t think of a time that you‟ve
cried, you probably have a lot of energy stored up and that can manifest itself in the
wrong way.” In a slow, methodical manner, Fisher fills his 10 minutes of allotted
2
speech time by imparting advice gained from his years living on the streets. “I know I
don‟t know you guys, but I‟m proud of you, I really am.”
In April of 2005, there were over 500,000 foster and probation youth living in
the United States, one-fifth of whom lived in California. Of those, approximately
62,360 resided in Los Angeles County (McCroskey & Watson, 2005). The 119
students attending Celebration One represent the small group of foster youth in Los
Angeles County who are bound for college in the fall of 2005. Most of the
Celebration One students have enrolled in community colleges. Tamika, Liz,
Michael, Brian, Fernando and Silvia are among a small group of Los Angeles county
students from foster care who will begin 4-year universities in the fall.
In conversations during the 12 months following the Celebration One
ceremony, the informants shared how they prepared for college and navigated their
freshman years as a foster and/or emancipated youth. As discussed in chapter 2,
network formation is the process in which individuals build and maintain relationships
with other individuals. The role of mobility is significant to the network formation of
foster youth since many children cycle through the foster care system more than one
time and most experience multiple placements. The informants explained how they
capitalized on relationships where they found college information and support and
how those relationships changed over time. Among many topics, we discussed how
moving between various foster care placements and schools affected their social
relations and educational performance.
3
Drawing from the experiences of the six study informants immediately prior to
and during their first year of college, the dissertation explores how college-conducive
social networks developed for students who experienced residential and school
mobility as a result of their participation in the foster care system. As I elaborate in
chapter 3, the method of ethnographic interviews situates each individual‟s life story
in a socio-historical context. Ethnographic interviews move analysis beyond personal
anecdotes and look at the ways in which social forces and social institutions, such as
the educational and child welfare systems, provide or hinder opportunities. This
introductory chapter serves to: (a) familiarize the reader with the context of the
study and related terminology, (b) outline the problem statement, research questions
and significance of the research, (c) provide an overview of the dissertation and
(d) introduce the reader to the primary study informants.
Context of Study
College enrollment rates of foster youth in Los Angeles reflect national
averages: Of the 50% of foster youth who graduate from high school, approximately
10%-20% enroll in college. Of those, approximately 1%-5% will graduate. In 2003,
for example, there were 300,000 foster youth between 18-25 years old (college going
age) in the United States. Approximately 150,000 graduated from high school and
were eligible for college. Of those students, roughly 30,000 enrolled in college. As
the chart below illustrates, a significant gap exists between educational attainment for
foster youth and their peers. While the gap comparing high school graduation rates is
large (20 percentage points), the discrepancy between college enrollment is even more
4
severe (40-50 percentage points), suggesting that even if foster youth are college
eligible, they face significant barriers to enrolling in college (Wolanin, 2005).
Table 1.1 Comparison of Average Educational Attainment for U.S. Foster Youth and Nonfoster Youth

Youth in foster care Youth not in foster care
Graduate from high school 50% 70%
Enroll in college 10%-20% 60%
Complete college degree 5% 20%

Note. Wolanin (2005)
According to a study analyzing foster youth‟s transitions to adulthood, 70%-
80% of foster youth aspire to attend college (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor &
Nesmith, 2001). But as the above chart shows, at most, 20% actually enroll. High
college aspirations suggest that students from foster care are aware of the personal and
economic benefits of earning a college degree. For many, however, the challenges of
enrolling in college are simply too great. If the same numbers of students who
intended on going to college actually did, college attendance for foster youth would
increase by over 100,000 students each year. In analyzing the experiences of six
students who were successful in fulfilling their college aspirations, this dissertation
aims to address how foster youth potentially develop college-related social capital
despite the challenges they face as foster youth.
College capital, a term explained in further detail in chapter 2, refers to social
connections and tangible resources made available through relationships that assist
students in becoming college ready. Since individual‟s experiences are shaped by
particular racial, gendered, class, residential, familial, educational and social
5
situations, the context of each informant‟s capital-building orientations differed in
many ways. Nevertheless, there are some generalizations that can be made about the
institutional contexts in which the study informants‟ social networks developed and
how those contexts potentially shaped capital-building orientations. Besides the
broader institutional commonalities that derive from being a ward of the court and
attending public schools, on a more local level, all participants attended high school in
the Los Angeles Unified School District and had their cases managed by Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the Los Angeles
County Superior Court.
To provide an overview of institutional settings, I begin by discussing the way
that foster care services have developed since the inception of the child welfare
system. I also mention how the institution of child welfare services has been
racialized over time, thus possibly affecting the informants in the study who are either
Latino/a or African American. The second major contextual component of the
dissertation focuses on educational services currently provided to foster youth. I
briefly underline the major challenges in service provision, as well as the mandated
educational rights and expected practices pertaining to foster youth. Familiarity with
the historical trajectory of child welfare services and educational service provision is
helpful in understanding how social institutions have been oriented towards protecting
the physical and mental well-being of neglected and/or abused children while
overlooking the need to ensure sound educational preparedness. I conclude the section
6
with an overview of what educational and foster care service provision looks like in
Los Angeles.
Foster care service provision. Foster care is defined as, “residence in a
supervised setting outside the biological family as mandated by the social services or
juvenile justice system” (Kools, 1997, p. 263). Placement in foster care occurs after
allegations of abuse or neglect have been screened and verified (Appendix A). If
various interventions intended to keep families intact are unsuccessful, children are
removed from their birth family home and placed into foster care (Needell, Brookart,
& Lee, 2003). An abused child (i.e., physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused)
is one that, “has parents or caretakers who inflict or permit injury or protracted
impairment of physical or emotional health, or allow the risk of such injury;” a
neglected child “has parents or caretakers who fail to supply basic care, supervision, or
guardianship, or who actually abandon him or her” (Webb, 1996, p. 275). Foster care
placements fall into two categories: (a) kinship and (b) nonkinship care. If a child
lives in kinship care, s/he resides in the home of an extended family member (i.e.,
grandparent, sibling, aunt/uncle) and receives monetary support and other services
from the government. Students living in non-kinship care either live in individual
family foster homes or group homes supervised by a legal guardian. Participation in
foster care often leads to mobility. In the United States, children stay in foster care for
an average of 21 months and many experience multiple placements; 35% of foster
youth have been placed in 3 or more residential settings; and only 57% are likely to be
reunified with their families (Barbell & Freundlich, 2001).
7
Current debates about how to best serve abused and/or neglected children fall
broadly into two camps, “child rescue” versus “family support,” and reflect century‟s
old orientations in child protective services (Schene, 1998). The “child rescue”
approach stems from the belief that poverty and parental irresponsibility lead to abuse
and that children are best served by being removed from their families and homes.
The orientation has its roots in the practices of almshouses of the early 19
th
century
where poor children were taken off the streets and placed in private, charitable
institutions. By the late 19
th
century, the need to care for poor children garnered
public interest and lead to the creation and funding of multiple urban orphanages.
Then, due to heightened urbanization and increased poverty in cities, children from
urban areas began to be placed with rural Christian families, the precursor to foster
homes. Also at this time, states started to pass laws against harming children. These
laws would eventually lead to the establishment of the juvenile court system and the
development of Child Protective Services (CPS).
At the same time, efforts were underway to “civilize” various Native American
tribes by removing children from families and placing them in boarding schools.
“Removal” had strong racial discriminatory overtones. In the schools, children were
subjected to strict rules, not allowed to speak their native languages and forced to cut
their hair and wear uniforms. Forced removal had long-lasting ramifications as
schools destroyed intergenerational transmission of family and cultural traditions and
introduced different types of violent behavior–such as spanking–into tribal life
(Horejsi, Craig, & Pablo, p. 1992).
8
The “family support” approach to child protection evolved from the more
progressive political agendas of the early 20
th
century. Interventions grounded in this
approach aim to assist parents in caring for children and suggest that parental stress
and consequent maltreatment of children can be lessened by mitigating negative social
and environmental factors. Stemming from this orientation, the Child Welfare League
of America was established in 1920. A related measure, Title IV-B, was added to the
Social Security Act in 1935 to support families, in particular single mothers, in caring
for their children. Despite the well-intentioned aim of these programs, an over-
burdened system (reports of child abuse and neglect went up by 347% between 1976
and 1993) funneled money away from family services and towards child protective
services. In recent years, due to increased concerns about the negative effects of time
spent away from family, more attention is being directed to keeping families intact.
To do so, solutions are being sought that involve public and private agencies working
in conjunction with informal networks of family, friends and community members
(Scott & Bruner, 1996).
Race plays a major role in social services. Children of color, in particular
African American children, are disproportionately represented in out-of-home
placements. Disproportionality results from either a racial or ethnic group entering the
child welfare system at a higher rate than the larger population or exiting at a
disproportionate rate (Courtney & Skyles, 2003). The causes of the overrepresentation
are debated widely. Some frame the problem as one resulting from disproportionate
need, others blame discrimination within the child welfare system and others argue
9
that societal discrimination affects how children and families develop (Needell et al.,
2003).
Recent studies call into question the first argument, that of high need, for
several reasons. While there are more African American youth in foster care, scholars
point out that disproportionality can vary depending on when it is analyzed. For
example, analyses of allegations of child abuse can differ dramatically from
substantiated claims (Fluke, Yuan, Hedderson & Curtis, 2003). This argument
suggests that racial bias might exist in how child abuse is determined. Accordingly, if
claims of abuse are compared with actual cases and removals, numbers might change.
Other studies have illustrated that holding family size, family structure, parental
employment and parental income constant, African American children are actually at a
lower risk of abuse and neglect than their White counterparts (National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect, 1981). In addition, after a claim of abuse or neglect has
been made, African American families are less likely than Latino/as, Asian and
Whites to receive family interventions (such as counseling) and more likely to have
children removed from homes (Needell et al., 2003). On the other end of the process,
family reunification and adoption rates tend to vary substantially between different
ethnic groups, thus leaving African American youth in the system for longer (Brooks
& James, 2003).
10
Educational Service Provision to Youth in Foster Care
Besides navigating the institutional context of the child welfare system, foster
youth also spend significant time within educational institutions. Until recently,
ensuring quality education for participants in the child welfare system had been a low
priority for child-welfare agencies who focused on ensuring children‟s safety and
finding them residential placements rather than facilitating their educational well
being. As Jackson (1994) points out, there has been a significant disconnect between
foster care and education providers where children‟s safety has been prioritized over
efforts to ensure educational achievement. Most likely as a consequence, children in
foster care test behind their peers, and are more likely to drop out, repeat grades, be in
Special education classes and be suspended or expelled (Paulson, 2005). Yet it
appears that safety and education go hand in hand when one considers the statistics
from a California Department of Education study (2000) pertaining to the whereabouts
of foster youth 12-18 months post emancipation: (a) 37% had not finished high
school, (b) 39% were unemployed, (c) 27% of males and 10% of females had been
incarcerated at least once, and (c) 39% were receiving public assistance. With these
statistics in mind, it is clear that attention needs to be redirected to ensuring that foster
youth receive appropriate guidance and preparation in their K-12 education to ensure
college and/or career readiness. Only in recent years have practitioners and
policymakers started to recognize that the educational well-being of foster youth is
intimately tied to increasing long-term physical and emotional well being.
11
Foster youth interested in pursuing college face additional challenges to those
of their peers. Besides facing personal challenges at the individual level, many federal
and state policies are not in sync with the needs of the foster care population and low
levels of collaboration exist between schools and foster care institutions (California
Department of Education, 2000; Jackson, 1994). For example, foster youth regularly
interact with educational advocates, school personnel, caseworkers and foster parents;
yet it is not always clear who is responsible for sharing what information with students
(Paulson, 2005). Due to privacy laws, teachers and counselors are often unaware
which of their students are in foster care. At the same time, since birth parents often
maintain control over the educational decisions affecting their children (even if the
children no longer reside with them), social workers and caregivers are not in the
optimal position to support the educational well being of their clients/foster children.
This disconnect has serious ramifications for college preparedness as students from
foster care frequently do not receive information about what classes they should take
to become college-ready or the funding options available to them.
Christian (2003) identifies three major systemic obstacles to ensuring that
foster youth receive the best academic preparation possible. The first stems from
consequences of residential and family mobility. When foster youth are moved
between various placements, they are often required to move schools as well. A
change in school can result in loss of credits, delayed academic progress, repetition of
grades and emotional repercussions related to having to readjust to new teachers, peers
and school surroundings. Secondly, since it is often not clear who is responsible for
12
educational decision-making, there is no clear accountability for educational
attainment or achievement. Finally, schools and child welfare agencies often do not
coordinate efforts to serve students. Teachers and guidance counselors are unaware
which students are in foster care and consequently cannot tailor services to meet their
needs; social workers and other agency staff are often unaware of the academic
progress of their clients and agencies are unlikely to share data making school, city or
statewide collaboration challenging. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that
foster youth often attend schools in under-resourced areas. The myriad of problems
facing students at low SES schools compound the challenges faced by foster youth.
Recently, federal, state and local agencies have made a concerted effort to
improve foster care and educational service provision. At the national level, funds
have been set aside in the Chafee grant program to provide financial support to current
and former foster youth attending college. Several states have passed legislation
requiring K-12 schools to better address the educational challenges of foster youth.
Among the improvements are processing foster care students‟ enrollments more
rapidly so that they do not miss more class time than necessary and awarding partial
credits for incomplete classes. In California, for example, the legislature recently
passed AB 490, a bill that requires public schools to employ foster care liaisons to
oversee the educational progress of foster youth and problem-solve when negative
issues arise.
For youth of college-going age, the Independent Living Program (ILP),
overseen by the emancipation division of DCFS, is supposed to share information
13
about college with students. Before a youth emancipates, s/he is required to take an
ILP class where they learn life skills pertinent to independent living such as how to
rent an apartment, balance a checkbook or manage Medical. But as the study
informants shared, college information is generally not a primary focus of these
classes. ILP coordinators are responsible for reimbursing foster youth for college-
related expenses up to $5,000 over a year. Yet not all college-bound foster youth
know about these funds and disbursement of money can entail long delays.
Service Provision in Los Angeles
Foster youth in Los Angeles are predominately served by DCFS and LAUSD,
although many other public agencies and groups provide services to this group ranging
from the Department of Mental Health to the public libraries to the zoological gardens.
Of particular interest to the study are the Education Coordinating Council (ECC, 2006)
and the Forte (pseudonym) and Sentinel (pseudonym) comprehensive support
programs based at two southern California State University campuses. The recently
established ECC has been charged with assessing the educational challenges facing
county foster youth and convening top-level officials in an effort to reform educational
service provision. Forte and Sentinel programs offer students wrap-around support
services at their respective host universities including academic advising, financial aid
guidance, psychological counseling and assistance with housing. Three of the six
informants participated in these programs.
In April of 2005 at the request of the ECC, the Los Angeles Unified School
District, working in conjunction with Los Angeles County DCFS, compiled statistics
14
to create an educational profile of foster youth within the district. The collaboration
between the two agencies led to the first matched data of its kind in Los Angeles.
Although the statistics were heralded as a huge breakthrough, district statisticians
warned that the numbers most likely reflect lower enrollments due to challenges in
tracking foster youth.
Tables 1.2 and 1.3 illustrate that when compared with the general LAUSD
population, the data on LAUSD foster youth illustrate stark demographic and
educational differences between the two populations. A comparison of demographic
data displayed in table 1.2 shows that the percentage of African American youth in
LAUSD who are under the supervision of DCFS is far greater than the percentage of
African American students in the general LAUSD population, thus reflecting the
dilemma of disproportionality by race mentioned above. Other ethnic groups reflect
fairly similar proportions to their percentages in the general LAUSD population, with
the exception of Latino/a students who are significantly underrepresented. It should
be noted however, that the categories of biracial or multiracial were not included in
analysis which most likely influences demographic categorization.
With regard to educational attainment, Table 1.3 illustrates how students from
DCFS were disproportionately classified as needing Special Education and
underrepresented in Gifted and Talented programs. DCFS students were much less
15
Table 1.2. Demographic Characteristics of LAUSD Students (Fall 2004)

Demographic characteristics

LAUSD students
(including DCFS students)
DCFS students within
LAUSD
N = 7,487
African American 11.0% 42.6%

Latino/a 73.7% 48.0%

White 8.8% 7.0%

Asian 3.7% 1.1%

Filipino 2.2% 0.5%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.3% 0.7%

Pacific islander 0.3% 0.2%

English only 37.5% 72.8%

English learners 27.8% 14.4%

Note. Education Coordinating Council (2006)

Table 1.3. Educational Characteristics of LAUSD Students (Fall 2004)

Educational characteristics

LAUSD students
DCFS students
within LAUSD
N = 7,487
Special Education 10.8% 28.5%

Gifted/talented 7.8% 2.2%

High school students who scored
proficient or advanced in English
Language Arts on CA Standards Test

21.4% 9.4%
High school students who scored
proficient or advanced in math on CA
Standards Test

7.9% 2.2%
Suspended* 5.8% 15.9%

Note. Education Coordinating Council (2006)
*These numbers are based on student records from the 2003-2004 school year and reflect a smaller sample than the
other categories.
16
likely to score at the proficient or advanced level on the California Standards exam
and experienced much higher degrees of school suspension.
The demographic and educational depictions of students from foster care in
LAUSD raise many questions about race, educational attainment and achievement
levels. Within the confines of a dissertation, one can only address a narrow aspect of a
given problem. I have opted to work with a limited portion of the DCFS population,
students who are graduating from high school and are enrolled in four-year
universities. In doing so, I learned about how a select group of students invested in
particular relationships, activities and/or behaviors that lead to college enrollment and
how they maintained or built new social capital as they transitioned to college. In the
next section, I outline the problem informing the study, research questions and
importance of the topic.
Problem Statement
More children enter into protective services each year than leave, the majority
due to substantiated abuse or neglect. Others are placed in foster care because of the
lack of services available through the mental health and juvenile justice systems.
Children of color, in particular African American children, are disproportionately
represented in the foster care system, which is particularly problematic since research
indicates that children of color often receive differential treatment in foster care
(Needell et al., 2003). Since youth enter foster care due to physical or emotional
abuse, homelessness and/or neglect, many also experience academic, emotional,
behavioral and dire financial problems related to their experiences. Reasons for
17
entering the system and experiences while in foster care influence the types, quality
and stability of social relationships youth develop. This dissertation explores the role
of mobility in social network formation and subsequent effects on college going.
From a theoretical perspective, these two areas--where the transient and
challenging nature of life in foster care overlaps with college readiness--present an
opportunity to push the boundaries of social capital theory. As I will discuss in
chapter 2, social capital theorists have assumed a degree of stability in the social
networks of youth (Coleman, 1988). The social capital of students, for example, is
frequently conceptualized as deriving from static notions of family, peer, community
and school networks where network participants do not change significantly over time.
Even those who consider the role mobility in social capital, rely on stable notions of
family networks, like in the case of migrant students who change schools and peer
networks but who maintain the same family networks (Ream, 2005b). Consequently,
the situation of foster youth, who are frequently placed into different family, peer and
institutional networks by an institutional agent (i.e., social worker, court advocate, and
judge), leads to a theoretically significant question: How does mobility affect social
network formation and the accumulation of social capital?
Conceptual Framework
The dissertation builds on the notion that social networks have the potential to
provide students interested in attending college with valuable support and information.
Whether explicitly understood by them or not, each participant has experience with
assessing social support networks and can shed light on how they accumulated college
18
capital in high school and managed existing capital and built new capital while
transitioning to college. The study informants were successful navigating school and
foster care living and possessed critical knowledge about how to overcome challenges
and manage “the system.” Therefore they not only have the potential to contribute
insight to theoretical questions, but to practical solutions to problems faced by foster
youth as well.
The theoretical foundation for the study lies in the social capital/ mobility
dynamic. I am interested in building onto this concept by exploring how the multiple
unstable networks traversed by foster youth cause “multiple mobilities.” Data analysis
focuses on understanding how multiple mobilities disrupt the formation of social
capital conducive to college readiness and at the same time, how social capital
potentially mediates the effects of mobility on educational attainment.
Research Questions
Three central themes inform the research questions for this study:
1. The role of mobility on social support network formation and the
accumulation of social capital.
2. Understanding how individuals make meaning of social support given
particular macro-level and institutional contexts.
3. The role of social networks and social capital in facilitating college
going.
19
Accordingly, the three main research questions guiding the study are:
1. How do students who experience high levels of mobility develop,
maintain and exchange social capital?
2. How do institutional and cultural contexts influence network formation
for foster youth?
3. In what ways do the social support networks of college-bound foster
youth factor into educational outcomes?
The first question seeks to understand how students who are forced to move
from residence to residence or school to school, assess the usefulness of social
networks. This question entails understanding how youth evaluate if and when to
enter into a support network, the kinds of networks perceived to be most useful, how
students appraise the potential for developing trusting relationships and the degree to
which students are embedded in a network. Inherent in this question is analysis of the
participants in a network such as family members, peers and institutional agents, and
how relations with each group are constituted differently for foster youth. The second
question examines the role of institutional and societal contexts in hindering or
facilitating how foster youth approach social network formation. The third question
speaks specifically to how college-going identity forms and addresses the influence of
social networks on the development of aspirations and college-oriented behaviors.
20
Significance of Study
The study has both theoretical and practical significance. Social capital theory
is a rapidly expanding field. This study seeks to add to theoretical discussions of
mobility and social capital by testing existing notions about unstable networks on the
most precarious of networks, those of foster youth. In doing so, I raise questions
about unnetworked youth and share analysis of how social capital develops for
transient populations. The information about how social networks develop for foster
youth will enable researchers to better conceptualize the role of mobility in social
network formation.
Clearly, there are significant problems in educational service provision to
foster care students, but little is known about the interpersonal mechanisms that fuel
those shortfalls. Most existing research on foster youth and education is based in
policy or psychology. Few studies apply a sociological framework to understanding
the educational practices of students from foster care. By examining the role of social
networks on foster youth‟s experiences in preparing for, enrolling in, and persisting in
college, I aim to advance an understanding of the challenges faced and strategies
employed by foster youth interested in pursuing higher education. The informants‟
insights on how to build and maintain college-related social capital can ultimately help
guide practitioners and policy makers in addressing the educational needs of foster
youth.
21
Overview of Dissertation
The following chapter reviews the literature on social capital, concentrating on
the concept of mobility in social capital formation. Chapter 3 emphasizes the value of
in depth qualitative data in increasing understandings of how social relations develop
and how foster youth become ready for college. I outline the research methods used
and describe the study sample at length. Chapters 4 and 5 present and analyze data
from the ethnographic interviews. In chapter 4, I share narratives from the informants
with the objective of describing their mobility and college capital. I then discuss how
informants responded to their mobilities and changing social networks in chapter 5.
The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the implications of study findings on
theory, policy, practice and future research. But first, the rest of this chapter is
dedicated to introducing the six primary informants.
Six Primary Introductions
After the Celebration One ceremony, the students file out to the reception area.
All participants had their hair styled before the ceremony and were treated to a new
outfit for the occasion. Most chose traditional suits, a few added their own style and
now boast zoot suits or dresses. Students fill the lobby, some carrying tote bags (the
event is too far to return to their group homes or foster homes so they will stay with
family or friends tonight), others hold certificates proclaiming which scholarships they
had been awarded at the event. Several students connect with siblings, others find
friends from group homes and still others locate their foster parents. Several students
lean against the walls of the reception area, balancing plates of chips and salsa, alone.
22
I too stand alone, watching the crowd, wondering which students will respond to my
request to interview them over the course of the next year.
In July of 2005, two weeks after the graduation event at Disney Hall, I scan the
pages of the Celebration One program. From the rows of formal portrait photographs
organized alphabetically, I quickly locate the students who have volunteered to
participate in this study and wonder what they will be like: two of them were referred
to the study by their Independent Living Coordinators; three had responded to cold
calls I made to a list of Celebration One participants; and one responded to an
announcement recruiting study participants. I know they are all “wards of the court”
attending local universities, but do not know anything elseabout their lives.
By August of 2005, study informants and I had met for the first time–in cafes,
on college campuses and in foster homes. The following descriptions of moments in
our first meeting provide a glimpse into the diversity of the sample.
Brian
The first meeting with Brian was set for 1:00 p.m. Ten minutes after one, he
calls to say he is approaching. He waves as he saunters towards the Starbucks at USC
wearing a Royal blue T-shirt, long shorts that almost reach his ankles, black sports
shoes and a lightweight backpack with cords as shoulder straps. Brian has a slender
frame, is about 5‟ 7” tall and is African American. He has a charming smile despite a
bottom row of severely crooked teeth. When we shake hands I sense a faint scent of
cologne–or maybe soap.
23
Brian slowly eats a turkey sandwich and listens to the parameters of the study.
The only person to respond to a study recruitment flyer, he had stressed on the phone:
“I think it‟s real important for people to know about students in foster care–especially
my case because I applied [to college] so late.” As lunch progresses Brian grows
more confident, answering questions less softly and looking up more frequently. He
talks about his experiences in foster care, his ability to befriend all kinds of people and
his desire to do well in college.
Brian‟s foster home is located in a high-crime South Los Angeles
neighborhood. After lunch, I drive him home and we joke about how I will probably
be the only White, pregnant, SUV-driving woman around. “I don‟t think gang
bangers are gonna look at you,” he reassures me:
They‟re gonna be looking for someone like me . . . . When I get ready to go
[in the morning], I think about where I‟m going and pick a shirt–the color, I
mean. I don‟t want anybody I don‟t know hassling me. Some days I don‟t
wear red, other days no blue. And even purple, some days I don‟t wear
purple. Nah, they‟re not gonna be looking at you.
Liz
When the doorbell rings, Liz peers through the mottled glass front windows
and gingerly opens the door. Construction supplies lean against the front wall and
give the appearance that the house has recently been remodeled. Liz is Mexican
American, about 5‟5” tall and is dressed in a mini skirt, tank top and flip flops. “You
can sit here,” she says and points to a couch in a stark, beige sitting room as she runs
to get her purse. Children are playing in an adjacent room. Liz calls out to let her aunt
(also her foster mother) to let her know she is leaving.
24
During the first few minutes of the meeting, Liz seems aloof; her expansive,
brown eyes tend to focus on distant objects and her voice is gentle and low. She
casually smoothes strands of brown, layered hair away from her face. Within 10
minutes, Liz‟s slim frame has relaxed into the slightest slouch, the cadence of her
speech has accelerated and her eyes make more frequent contact with mine.
Liz shares that she is the only young woman on her roller hockey team, likes to
party yet manages her study time well, aspires to be more involved in helping children
in foster care and wants to start a nonprofit one day. She also takes her relationship
with her siblings very seriously:
I wasn‟t a mother to them, but I‟d be worried a lot and it would just upset me,
because I had to be worried and I had to focus on them and my school work.
You know, it was hard. I would just feel upset because my mom wasn‟t
enforcing her rules, so I had to act in her role, like, „Why aren‟t you going to
school?” And saying, „Why aren‟t you getting dressed? Get ready. „And I
didn‟t like being that person, so . . . you know, because I wasn‟t . . . . I don‟t
like being like a mother type, you know.‟

Even though Liz balances many family and academic responsibilities, she
characterizes herself as “a ditz.” “I was supposed to meet my aunt at a county fair last
weekend and my directions flew out the window [of the car],” she laughs, “I got lost
for like an hour–that‟s how I am.” In contrast to her professed absentmindedness, Liz
apologizes for keeping me waiting in her aunt‟s living room, expresses gratitude for
her lunch and wonders if she talks too much during our first meeting.
Tamika
Tamika‟s foster home is the most eclectic house on her suburban street.
Located around the corner from a country club, most of the homes reflect uniform
25
designs and paint colors; hers reveals remodeling additions, garden art and hosts
multiple cars in the driveway. A tall African American woman, who Tamika calls
“Oma,” ushers me into a dimly lit room with two couches, a huge television tuned to
MTV and a stack of cots used during naptime at Oma‟s daycare. Down the hallway
is a brightly lit sitting room, adorned with individually framed photographs of
children. One of Tamika‟s foster sisters talks on the phone, sharing her fears about
joining the army. She is set to leave the following day and is distraught over not
being allowed to take her cellular phone or music with her. Oma knocks on the
ceiling with a broomstick to let Tamika know she has a guest.
Tamika comes down 5 minutes later wearing a pink outfit, matching purse and
perfume. She is heavy set but not overweight, about 5‟2” tall and is African
American. Her intricately braided hair reflects her passion for cosmetology. We
drive by a series of megastores–Target, Bed, Beth and Beyond, Staples–on our way to
lunch. Tamika speaks just above a whisper as she explains she has been trying to get
a job in one of the local stores but her background check keeps getting delayed.
Of the six study informants, Tamika has been in foster care for the
shortest period of time and is the only participant whose birth mother is still a
presence in her life:
My mom always encouraged me to do good in school because she didn‟t want
to see us growing up like she did–she always wanted us to do better than she
did because my mom didn‟t graduate from high school. She got pregnant with
my brother. So she just kind of dropped out. My dad graduated but we don‟t
really have a relationship with him like we have with my mom–he‟s in jail–
she‟s there for us.

26
Fernando
Fernando emerges from the building where his UC summer bridge English
classes are held talking on his cellular phone. He is Salvadoran-American, about 5‟3”
tall, and is dressed in slacks, a collared shirt, belt and black shoes. He spots me,
waves, gestures that he will be right there, says goodbye to classmates and darts down
the stairs, simultaneously ending his call by telling his friend that someone is waiting
to interview him. We shake hands firmly, he slings his book bag over his shoulder and
we walk to get ice cream.
Participating in the summer bridge program is helping Fernando to find a
balance between studying and socializing. He completes all of his assignments but
prioritizes getting to know other students, often staying up until the early morning
talking about “life.” While he enjoys being around kids from similar backgrounds, he
recognizes that his experiences are slightly different:
All these kids tell me about their experiences and stuff . . . . But they‟re going
through a different stage. Like they‟re going through, “My parents don‟t want
to let go. I‟m the first one out, I mean with their family.” So they deal with
different areas and I‟m like, „I really don‟t care.‟ And they‟re like, „I‟m
homesick.‟ That‟s what they‟re feeling. But I don‟t have a family and so I
don‟t know about being homesick. And so I don‟t want to butt in and tell
them, „Oh you know what–my life story and everything.” But I‟m not like that
. . . . And it‟s very interesting because I don‟t, I can‟t grasp that concept. I‟m
like, I can‟t put my shoes in it.‟

The interview concludes by Fernando sharing his impressions about a meeting
we had both attended with the ECC. Before participating in the summer bridge
program, Fernando had been an intern for one of the field deputies at a County Board
of Supervisor‟s office. He was asked to attend the ECC meetings and provide
27
feedback about his impressions as a foster youth. Fernando says he appreciates the
importance of the ECC‟s efforts to improve services for foster youth, but wonders if
he is the best person to provide input as his grades are much higher than those of most
foster youth. As he hops out of the car after the interview, Fernando spots a friend,
waves and rushes off.
Michael
Michael exits from a two-story house through a driveway full of cars. He is
immaculately dressed in black jeans, a burgundy long-sleeve T-shirt over a black
T-shirt, hip black shoes, a funky, black, thick-strapped leather watch, large senior
class ring with a red stone (paid for with ILP money) and wears light cologne. He has
short, spiky hair held in place with plenty of product. He is Salvadoran American and
I ask him if he prefers to go by “Miguel”–the name on his DCFS paperwork–or
„Michael.‟ He doesn‟t have a strong preference, but suggests, “Michael.”
As we drive off, Michael‟s leg appears to be shaking and he drums his fingers
on his knee. He is the first to start asking questions: “How many other kids are
meeting with you? Who is going to read what you write? What do you want to
know?” Michael explains that he is participating in another study through the
University of Michigan where researchers meet with him every few years to learn
about his progress in school. By the time Michael sits down to eat, he is no longer
shaking.
After lunch, we pull up to Michael‟s foster home and he scrutinizes the
children in his neighbor‟s yard too see if his brothers are playing outside (they have
28
been adopted by the neighbor‟s family). He runs into the house to retrieve his art
portfolio, kept in an impressive black leather folder purchased for him by his social
worker. He carefully unties the portfolio in order to show me his work. Michael
started experimenting with drawing 2 years ago when he was bored in class. He is
proud of his unique style which incorporates graffiti with intricate ink images
constructed out of letters. “This is how people know me,” he says, pulling out a
drawing of a fairy and gnome surrounded by poetry. “I won a prize with this one,” he
says as he holds another image with lyrics drawn around a guitar. Michael recently
won several art competitions and earned money when his drawings sold in
competitions. He understands that his art makes a statement about foster care:
Basically now a lot of people from foster care are coming to me to represent
foster care children, the positive side, I guess. Right now they are having one
of my drawings traveling across the country explaining what they are doing to
help improve the lives of foster children and raise their self-esteem.

I wonder how Michael feels about being approached to be in that position. “I feel
very good,” he says, “like, cuz, like I went into the competition because I wanted to
be noticed and tell people what was wrong [with foster care].”
Silvia
Silvia‟s has been living with her aunt‟s family on a quiet suburban street near
an elementary school. The front yard of the house is framed by low concrete pillars
missing fence posts in between. The shutters from the windows have been removed
and lean against the house. Silvia‟s cousin opens the front door for me and returns to
the computer and her phone conversation. Next to her is a well-worn couch facing a
29
television topped with hundreds of small model cars and a wall covered with
photographs of Silvia‟s cousins.
Silvia comes out of the hallway 5 minutes later with wet hair. She is wearing
jeans, a black, one-shouldered tank top, an oversized, grey, zippered sweatshirt and
flip flops. She is Mexican American, 5‟ 7” tall, has long, brown hair and a gentle
smile. Even though she has been living with her aunt as her foster parent for the past 6
months, she is not familiar with the neighborhood and cannot recommend a local
restaurant for lunch. We drive down the street, turn a corner and locate a Sizzler. Of
the six students, Silvia is the lone participant who is silent for long periods of time
during the initial interview. When she responds, her answers are often monosyllabic.
I grow concerned that she might not be an ideal fit for the study because she is so
quiet.
When we drive back to Silvia‟s house after lunch, I tell her how impressed I am
by how she can judge what is going to be best for her in college. She spoke about
wanting to participate in a program designed to support foster youth, and knows she
should refrain from signing up for tennis during her first quarter in school to make sure
she can focus on her studies. “Yeah,” she replies:
When people get to know me, they think I‟m really strong–because of
everything I‟ve been through. Like my uncle [and former foster father], he
would treat my sister and me like crap–tell me that I was never going to be
anything–just like my parents. And I told him I would. And now I‟m going to
the same college where his son went. [My sister and I] lived with him for nine
years. We were made to clean the house–not his kids. They treated us like
slaves. He used to take our money but not use it on us. He bought a new car.
That‟s something that should change–the way money is allocated to kids in the
system, I think. Then he molested my sister, but we didn‟t say anything because
30
we didn‟t want to be separated. When we finally did, it was 4 years later, we
were told there was nothing that could be done–but he did go to jail for a short
time.

Silvia and I say goodbye and make plans to talk again once she is settled in school. I
drive half a block, pull my car over and furiously write up field notes.
31
CHAPTER 2
MOBILITY, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND COLLEGE GOING:
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
“But if you are going to move again, why get emotionally attached?”
~ Michael
“I‟ve been to like 13, 14 schools and I‟ve had no difficulty whatsoever,” Liz
says then changes her mind, “Well, I guess switching high schools was harder.”
Despite initially struggling to make friends and connect with teachers at her third and
final high school, Liz remained focused on her goal of attending college. She was
deliberate in the way she cultivated relationships with teachers. When she needed a
letter of recommendation for college, she approached her AP statistics teacher. “I
decided I was being too closed up,” Liz explains, “so I decided to talk to her, develop
a relationship with her as my “go to” person.” Tamika, who had experienced a similar
degree of school mobility and enrolled in the same university as Liz, responded quite
differently when asked about adults who helped her prepare for college. “I did it all
on my own,” she replied. Liz and Tamika, along with the other informants in this
study, functioned within social networks. Sometimes they were aware of how their
social relations functioned and other times not. Each informant had a different way of
managing relationships, different levels of consciousness about useful resources
within social networks and experienced different degrees of network stability due to
family, residential and school mobility.
32
Stanton-Salazar (2001) asserts that, “healthy human development and school
success depend on regular opportunities for constructing supportive relations with
various significant others an agents across key institutional arenas (Bandura, 1969,
cited in Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Wynn, Richman, Rubenstein & Littell, 1987, cited in
Stanton-Salazar, 2001, p. 1)” [emphasis my own]. But what happens to students from
foster care who are likely to move several times during their duration in foster care?
How does the transient nature of life in foster care affect the degree to which
individuals develop trusting relations, become embedded in social networks and weigh
the costs and risks of investing in social capital? In this chapter, I discuss theories
useful in explaining the interplay between mobility, social capital and educational
attainment. After defining social capital, I discuss foundational theories of the field,
different types of capital, costs and benefits of social capital and the significance of
context to social capital. I then review scholarship related to the social
capital/mobility dynamic.
What is Social Capital?
Increasingly popular as a tool for analyzing the educational experiences of
marginalized youth, social capital theory forefronts the ways social relationships and
the resources connected to them affect students as they navigate social institutions.
Many social capital theorists agree that social capital is relational, communal and has
exchange-value. Furthermore scholars generally concur that social capital is
comprised of form, norms of obligation and reciprocity and resources (Dika & Singh,
2002; McNeal, 1999). Form pertains to the composition of social networks, referring
33
to the structure of social ties, breadth and strength of networks and character of social
relations. Norms of obligation and reciprocity refer to the degree to which network
participants trust each other, share expectations of reciprocal behavior and act
accordingly. Resources correspond to real and symbolic resources potentially
accessible through network participation.
The two main schools of social capital theory derive from the work of James
Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu. Coleman (1990) states that “social capital inheres in
the structure of relations between actors and among actors” (p. 302). Social capital,
Coleman (1990) differentiates, unlike physical capital (tools, machines and other
physical objects) or human capital (skills and capabilities) is evident when
relationships change in ways that facilitate action. His writings highlight the role of
social capital in regulating social norms and promoting social cohesion.
Bourdieu (1986) shifts attention to the power laden character of social
networks. He defines social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p. 248).
According to Bourdieu (1986), the volume of social capital a person possesses is
determined by the size of his/her network, potential resources embedded within the
network and volume of economic, cultural or symbolic capital affiliated with that
network. Bourdieu‟s perspective illustrates how institutional and cultural structures
can serve to recreate the status quo and thereby deny access to groups who are not
privy to established social orders.
34
Adler and Kwon (2002) organize theories of social capital by grouping
theorists whose work builds on the frameworks of Coleman and Bourdieu into two
groups: (a) those that concentrate on internal or bonding social capital which refers to
how actors connect to each other within a network, and (b) those that focus on external
or bridging social capital that refers to connections beyond the network. As I will
discuss in chapter 5, the distinction between types of capital is useful with regards to
this study because each type of capital yields varying types of support for college
going and has different implications with regards to mobility. I will also address the
implications of different strengths of ties to the accessibility of social support.
Bonding Capital
Bonding capital emphasizes the internal structure of networks or how
individuals or groups within a collectivity are linked to each other and facilitate
cohesiveness and common goals (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Roughly speaking, theorists
who focus analysis on bonding capital build onto Coleman‟s theoretical body of
scholarship.
According to Coleman (1990), social capital is contingent on generalized
reciprocity–or obligations and expectations that govern how people act. The level of
trustworthiness of a social environment determines if social obligations will be repaid
and influences how actors approach obligations. In the case of foster youth, the
context of obligations is determined by family, schools, DCFS and the juvenile justice
system. For example, a student who has experienced repeated betrayal or lack of
nurturing from a caregiver or social worker might be less likely to meet obligations set
35
forward by that person or other actors from the same social institution. Social
structures also affect the development of behavioral norms. Norms facilitate or inhibit
certain behaviors and actions by suggesting that individuals forego self interest for the
communal good. In a group home, for instance, norms might exist that set high
expectations for strong academic achievement. Instead of watching television, a group
home member might feel pressure to study instead. Although the converse might also
be true: low expectations for academic achievement set by a foster family might deter
a foster child‟s desire to prepare for college.
Bridging Capital
Bridging capital refers to connections individuals have to social networks
outside their immediate group and the resources embedded within them. A focus on
external capital is helpful when examining the how social inequities are reproduced.
Bourdieu‟s (1986) analysis is grounded in this area. He discusses how actors
experience differential access to institutional resources depending on their social
position. Since social capital can be converted into economic, cultural or human
capital, Bourdieu‟s theoretical orientation is helpful in explaining how limited access
to resources influences educational and/or social mobility and how social stratification
is reproduced.
Lin (2001) argues that opportunities to construct and maintain social capital
stem from varying structural and positional elements. Resources are differentially
distributed based on the type of structure an individual participates in as well as the
individual‟s position within that structure. On a related note, Bourdieu (1986)
36
suggests that the existence of networks is the result of an “endless effort of
institution.” Even the institution of family, comprised of kinship relations, is a social
formation. With respect to education, Bourdieu argues that families and schools serve
as vehicles for the transmission of cultural capital or cultural goods, which have a
symbolic value in society. Schools conceal and legitimate the uneven distribution of
various forms of capital, requiring linguistic and cultural proficiency from students
that is reflective of the dominant society.
Analysis of bridging capital readily applies to the experiences of youth in
foster care since resources are allocated to them through various institutional
mechanisms. If a college-bound foster youth, for instance, is not awarded an
allowance from his/her caregiver, s/he might not have the funds to pay for SAT
exams. Or if a social worker fails to discuss postsecondary plans with a youth in care,
the youth misses out on informational resources tied to social mobility.
As I will discuss in chapters 4 and 5, informants did not simply develop
bonding or bridging capital. Rather they utilized both types to varying extents
depending on the composition of their networks and desired outcomes. Furthermore,
distinguishing between internal and external capital is somewhat reliant on perspective
(Adler & Kwon, 2002; Tierney, 2006). Do interactions between a foster youth and a
social worker, for example, constitute bonding or bridging capital? One could argue
that because both actors function within the institution of DCFS, they exchange
bonding capital. Or conversely, that a social worker acts as an institutional gatekeeper
to an external network linking a child and his/her family to the institutional resources
37
of child welfare services. In this study, I consider participation in family, peer and/or
caregiver networks as fostering bonding capital and interactions with institutional
gatekeepers (such as individuals or groups affiliated with DCFS, schools or the
judicial system) as facilitating bridging capital. Differentiating between the two types
of social capital is useful when examining the institutional barriers foster youth face
becoming college ready.
Strength of Ties
Besides reflecting bonding or bridging capital (or combinations of both), social
relations can be characterized by strength of ties. Strong ties are generally those
associated with close friends and derive from more closely-knit networks. Within
these close-knit networks, interactions are influenced by regular contact and high
levels of trust and/or expectations of reciprocity. Weak ties are linked to
acquaintances and stem from interactions with individuals in low-density networks
where actors are less likely to be socially involved with one another. Students in
foster care might experience strong ties with siblings who they see often and can
depend on for emotional support and weak ties with an institutional agent, such as a
court advocate, who the youth interacts with two or three times a year.
In his work on the “strength of weak ties” Granovetter (1973/1982) argues that
ties with acquaintances facilitate acquisition of information more effectively than ties
with close friends. He draws a distinction between the types of resources available
through different types of relationships: “Weak ties provide people with access to
information and resources beyond those available in their own social circles; but
38
strong ties have greater motivation to be of assistance and are typically more easily
available” (Granovetter, 1982, p. 113). Drawing from the work of Coser (1975),
Granovetter (1975) suggests that bridging weak ties are perhaps the most effective for
increasing the role sets of intellectual flexibility.
The utility of different types of relations can partly be explained by
understanding varying strengths of relational ties. Adler and Kwon (2002) make an
important distinction between the value of strong and weak ties. They assert that the
utility of a given form of social capital depends on “contextual factors” (p. 32).
Contextual factors relate to task-related (objectives) and symbolic (norms and beliefs)
demands placed on an actor and the availability of related resources. Citing Hansen‟s
(1998) study about how multi-unit firms share knowledge, the authors suggest that
different ties are more effective under specific circumstances. They suggest that weak
ties are better for cost-effectively finding codifiable information and strong ties are
more effective in the cost-effective transfer of complex information and tacit
knowledge. With foster youth, weak ties (such as with a college preparation staff
person who does not interact frequently with the youth) could facilitate the exchange
of valuable information or support services related to college applications or financial
aid. Whereas a relationship with a peer or trustworthy social worker could lead to
more nuanced and supportive exchanges of information, such as multiple
conversations about how to manage finances once in college.
The distinction between strong and weak ties is helpful in examining how
youth with diffusive networks build college capital. Compare a student from foster
39
care who has a densely configured social network comprised of trustworthy peers and
extended family but few ties to institutional agents with a foster youth who has few
strong ties to family but many weak ties with teachers and staff in the child welfare
system. Following Granovetter‟s (1973) logic, the youth with more weak ties has
greater potential for obtaining college information from teachers and social workers.
Whereas the other youth might not learn about college opportunities beyond what
his/her tight-knit groups knows. The latter child, however, is potentially better
situated when a housing emergency arises and s/he needs to find a place to live since
strong ties afford this type of assistance more readily than weak ties. This scenario
will be illustrated in chapters four and five through the study informants‟ experiences.
Granovetter (1982) underlines the fact that weak ties are more likely to be
bridging ties. He does not suggest that all weak ties are beneficial or that strong
bridging ties are ineffective. Rather his discussion highlights how different types of
ties and capital serve different functions. Effective use of capital depends on, “the
ability to construct and function in complex voluntary organizations may depend on a
habit of mind that permits one simultaneously to assess the needs, motives, and actions
of a great variety of different people” (Granovetter, 1982, p. 108). Furthermore, the
process of evaluating social support is ongoing since, “social bonds have to
periodically be renewed and reconfirmed or else they loose efficacy” (Adler & Kwon,
2002, p. 22).
40
The Benefits and Risks of Social Capital
Adler and Kwon (2002) list three main benefits related to social capital. First,
strong social capital enhances information available that individuals and groups can
utilize to make decisions. For example, if a foster sibling shares a website with
information on scholarships, another foster youth learns of the opportunities and can
now apply for the aid. Second, social capital leads to increased influence, control and
power. An affiliation with a gang member, for example, might lead to increased
power or safety in the neighborhood of a new foster care placement. And third, social
capital builds solidarity and lessens the need for formal controls since high solidarity
groups adhere by similar norms. For instance, if all of the children in a group home
study, it is possible that a new member would too.
While social capital literature tends to emphasize the positive role of
sociability, it is likely that, “the same mechanisms appropriable by individuals and
groups as social capital can have other, less desirable consequences” (Portes, 1998,
p. 15). In this regard, not all social capital is beneficial and not all social capital is
conducive to college going. Among negative consequences are: “exclusion of
outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedoms, and
downward leveling norms” (Portes, 1998, p. 15). Furthernore, Adler and Kwon
(2002) explain that investments in social capital require maintenance and sometimes
tradeoffs related to power and solidarity. Again, in the case of foster care children,
each point is potentially applicable. For example, a youth in care might experience
41
alienation within a group home setting when studying if no other students are serious
about schoolwork.
The Context of Social Capital
The context of support networks matters tremendously. Valenzuela (1999)
explains that social “de-capitalization” can easily occur at under-resourced schools
such as those commonly attended by foster youth. Substandard resources, low
expectations, and a lack of a college-going culture play a strong role in whether or not
the necessary networks, resources, and support for college-going exist. Valenzuela
(1999) explains that by dismissing students‟ definitions of education and adopting
assimilationist practices, schools erode the potential for social capital to develop
among students. Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2003) discovered similar contextual
influences on the youth in their study focusing on peer relations. They explain that,
Given the segregated and resource-poor ecologies in which these adolescents
lived and went to school, and the alienation and despair that often emanate
from the collective exposure to such harsh conditions, too many of the
adolescents in our study were left to draw from a „pool of eligibles‟ composed
of other distressed teens. (p. 3)

This situation extends to adults as well as the harsh effects of racism and class
discrimination weaken the ability of others to provide support since they are also
under distress. Several of the study informants alluded to this problem when they
complained that they were surrounded by students in their ILP classes (the most likely
venue for imparting college guidance to a group of foster care students) who were
disinterested in attending college.
42
The effects of institutional context are exacerbated for foster youth whose lives
are governed by an additional social institution besides schools: the Department of
Children and Family Services. A report issued by the California Youth Connection
(2006) highlights foster care students‟ frustrations over the low expectations conveyed
by social workers, child advocates, foster parents and caregivers regarding their
education and college going. Findings from focus groups held in Los Angeles and San
Francisco articulate the need to change attitudes about education, postsecondary
options, emancipation, permanency, mental health and family maintenance. Youth‟s
recommendations to policymakers underline the need to change negative institutional
environments.
With respect to child welfare services, studies on racial disproportionality are
helpful in problematizing the institutional context of foster care. Theories of
disproportionality examine “front end” processes (rates of entry into foster care) and
“back end” processes (exit rates). Critical analyses of both raise questions about the
role of cultural hegemony and racial discrimination in creating racial disproportion-
ality within the institution of child welfare (Needell et al., 2003; Ards, Myers &
Malkis, 2003; Wulczyn, 2003). For example, Needell et al.‟s, (2003) analysis of
statistical data on the foster care placement of Black children in California, revealed
that Black children were more likely to be removed from their caretakers and placed
into foster care after allegations of mistreatment than White or Hispanic children.
While the significance of context is more easily evident at the micro level (i.e.,
an abusive home environment is tangible and identifiable), evidence of institutional or
43
macro-level influences are less tangible. Yet acknowledging how racialized,
gendered, classist and/or homophobic social forces influence social institutions, will
lead to a more robust understanding of the opportunities and barriers faced by foster
youth as they navigate educational and child welfare service institutions.
Social Capital and Micro-level Interactions
Considerations of identity formation and other micro-level processes enhance
understandings of how social capital functions. Bourdieu‟s (1986) concept of habitus
is particularly relevant to understanding how students build social networks, because it
stresses how social interactions are determined by both individual and structural
forces. Habitus refers to the conscious and unconscious beliefs and expectations that
individuals possess. Thoughts predispose actors to do certain things and eventually
develop into practices (Jenkins, 1992). Habitus is important because it influences
social interaction. Because individuals act in ways that they are not fully aware of due
to various cultural and institutional constraints, social interaction becomes
characterized by both freedom and constraint.
McDonough (1997) stresses that college choice is affected by various psycho-
social processes such as perceptions of self-efficacy and aspiration development. She
outlines three factors influencing college choice: (a) access to cultural capital, the
cultural and linguistic knowledge that enable students to successfully negotiate
mainstream educational institutions; (b) habitus, the internalized expectations,
behaviors and values derived from experiences with family, friends and cultural group
members that influence interaction between individuals and social structures; and
44
(c) bounded rationality, the self-imposed limitations individuals place on if and where
they consider attending college. These three concepts help to explain why all students
perceive their educational opportunities differently given the supposedly neutral nature
of the college application process.
Steele‟s (2003) work elaborates on a particular facet of identity that affects
behavior and has significant implications in understanding educational achievement
for racialized minorities. His research describes many instances where students
perform differently on a given task due to a stereotype threat related to their race.
Stereotype threat is “the threat of being viewed through the lens of a negative
stereotype, or the fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm that
stereotype” (p. 111). Steele (2003) underlines the situational nature of stereotypes
which is a “concrete, real-time threat of being judged and treated poorly in settings
where a negative stereotype about one‟s group applies” (p. 112). This is a challenge,
explains Steele that everyone deals with and is exacerbated for groups for whom
stereotypes are more prevalent in society. Problems related to stereotype threat most
likely apply to students from foster care as they face a number of stereotypes related to
abandonment and race.
In an alternative approach focusing on micro-level processes, Jones and
McEwen (2000) outline a theory that looks at “how an individual may simultaneously
develop and embrace multiple minority statuses” (p. 405). The approach pays
attention to interactions or intersections of various dimensions of a person‟s identity,
stressing that one dimension must be understood in relation to other dimensions, not in
45
isolation. For example, a gay, Latino student from foster care does not develop a gay
identity, Latino identity, foster care identity and academic identity separately. Rather
the various dimensions of identity develop simultaneously, sometimes in conflict with
one another. The model of multiple dimensions of identity builds on Deaux‟s (1993)
theory of identity that distinguishes between personal and social identities. Deaux
explains that social identities (roles that a person claims as representative) are
interwoven with personal identities (traits and behaviors that a person uses to describe
her/himself). Jones and McEwen (2000) expand on this and explain that identity is
affected by two parts: core and context. Core identity pertains to personal attributes,
personal characteristics and personal identity and is often referred to as the “inner
identity” or “inner self.” Contextual identity refers to “outside identity” and reflects
family background, sociocultural conditions, career decisions, etc.
Moran (2003) recently applied concepts from this model to analyze the types
of survey measurements used to assess identity development in college students. Her
findings underscore the fact that identity is complex and difficult to assess. She found
that most studies looked at behaviors, emotions, beliefs, knowledge and values as
manifestations of identity and that it was helpful to measure personal and social
components of identity discretely. She does, however, question whether this
conceptualization of identity is as complete as need be.
A unique facet of this model is that it allows for analysis of how one dimension
might be salient at a particular time depending on contextual influences. For example,
college identity might be more salient in a courtroom than on a basketball court. As
46
Jones and McEwen (2003) point out, “the model is a fluid and dynamic one,
representing the ongoing construction of identities and the influence of changing
contexts on the experience of identity development” (p. 408). As I will illustrate in
chapter 4, the multiple mobilities of foster youth call for a theoretical model that
allows for flexibility in application as the contexts of foster youth‟s social
development–and social network formation–often takes place in a state of flux.
What Types of Social Capital Are Conducive to College Going?
An important distinction is necessary between positive social capital and
college capital. Navigating the foster care system is complex. Youth in foster care
benefit from learning how to deal with social workers, foster families, abusive or
neglectful birth families, new teachers and members of the juvenile courts. Depending
on the neighborhood of a placement, foster youth might benefit from knowing how to
negotiate gang affiliations or navigate dangerous streets. While social capital inheres
in relations with individuals or groups who can provide insight into any of the above,
such social capital is not necessarily conducive to college going. In many ways,
positive street capital is intimately tied to college preparation and college capital (i.e.,
if you do not feel protected, focusing on school is potentially challenging). But the
two types of capital are not synonymous–knowing which streets to take when walking
home from school is not useful when filling out a college application. The concept of
college capital emphasizes tailored support for college going. The availability and
accessibility of such capital was a major theme in the ethnographic interviews. For the
purposes of this study, I define college capital as the information, skills and social
47
support necessary to becoming ready for and persisting in postsecondary education.
These components are based on literature pertaining to college access and transitions
to college.
Information
Coleman (1990) asserts that “information potential” inheres in social relations
and that the acquisition of information is costly. When accessed, information serves
as the basis for action. For foster youth interested in college, information about
preparation and choices is potentially available in relations with adults who have
attended college, yet is seldom accessed. Many foster youth, for instance, are not
aware that they are eligible for maximum financial aid awards for college. While
foster youth participate in multiple institutional settings with people who have
attended college, unless they are able to access information, they are not well-served
by connections with individuals who possess college information.
In order to become college ready and successfully enroll in college, students
require specific and appropriate information about college. Students need to be made
aware of course requirements, pertinent deadlines (such as for SAT exams and college
applications) and financial aid options. When the mechanisms in schools do not exist
to supply this information, students are left at a disadvantage. For example, if a student
from foster care attends a school with overburdened college counselors, they might
never be called into the college center to discuss postsecondary plans. McDonough
(2005) has written extensively on the importance of providing students with adequate
guidance. She stresses that it is critical to inform working-class, immigrant and
48
underrepresented minority students of their college options and related requirements
because so many attend under-resourced schools with exorbitant counselor to student
ratios. Unlike their counterparts from high SES families, low SES students are unable
to purchase additional guidance from private college counselors if their needs are not
met at their local schools.
Skills
In the case of 4-year universities, in order to be eligible to apply, students need
to take classes that meet college requirements and earn grades that ensure their
competitiveness in being accepted. Beyond acceptance, ample studies show that doing
well in college is contingent on prior quality academic preparation (Perna, 2005;
Hossler, Braxton and Coopersmith, 1989; Manski & Wise, 1983). Analysis of how
students are faring on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) illustrates
how educational preparation is intimately tied to school conditions. The fact that
students who attend Low Pass Rate high schools
1
are six times more likely to attend
critically overcrowded schools and eleven times more likely to attend schools with
critical shortages of credentialed teachers is telling (Rogers, Holme, & Silver, 2005).
If a foster youth attends a school in a high-poverty area, they are likely to attend one
of these schools and face inadequate preparation for college. Moreover, without
adequate and consistent guidance, foster youth run the risk of not being programmed

1
Low Pass Rate schools contain less than 70% of tenth graders who have passed either the
English Language or Math section of the exam. There are 257 schools in California who fit into this
category, 22.9% of the population.
49
into college preparatory classes. Not taking these classes means that students would
not learn college-related skills and would not be eligible to apply to four-year
universities.
Support
Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper (1999) delineate three stages in college decision
making: predisposition, search and choice. In the predisposition stage, students
articulate their educational aspirations and develop their postsecondary plans. The
search stage involves evaluation of postsecondary options. In the final stage, students
narrow down their college options and apply to schools. During each stage, students
generally rely on family members, peers and teachers for support. Studies that begin
with students‟ educational expectations as a means to understand college enrollment
have found that individual aspirations, when bolstered by a supportive school culture,
play a major role in college enrollment (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000; Hossler et al.,
1999). Social capital theory allows for an analysis of how students approach
supportive individuals and how those individuals facilitate the acquisition of
information and skills necessary for college readiness. Accessing pertinent support
throughout the process of college preparation is particularly important for foster youth
who might receive positive support at one school but then change schools and not be
able to locate support for college going.
Who Participates in Social Networks?
The networks of foster youth can encompass a wide range of actors (shown in
Figure 1). During the course of a year, they interact with far more institutional agents
50
than their peers, ranging from city and county social workers to judges to educational
advocates to foster parents. By participating in the child welfare system, foster youth
roughly double the number of types of people they interact with in comparison to their
peers. Network participants often act in isolated worlds, such as school or court
environ-ments. At other times, a participant might span several social environments
such as a peer group and a home environment, as in the case of a foster sibling. Yet
the quality of those relationships, especially as they relate to college capital, and the
degree to which students are embedded vary tremendously. The quality of college
capital is partially determined by the caliber of resources embedded within social
relationships and the degree to which students are embedded within social networks.
Low-quality embeddedness might explain Tamika‟s perception that she prepared for
college all on her own. Even though Tamika attended a highly ranked high school,
had access to multiple institutional agents (such as those listed in Figure 1), she felt
disconnected and pursued her college goals independently. Like Tamika, Liz also
participated in a social network that included multiple institutional agents and like
Tamika, she experienced low-quality embeddedness due to her frequent relocations.
Yet Liz, on the other hand, consciously chose to forge relationships during her senior
year that she knew would produce college capital. After a concerted effort including
eating lunch in her AP teacher‟s classroom and approaching her with questions, Liz
became successfully embedded in a beneficial institutional relationships.

51

Figure 1. Potential Participants in the Social Networks of Students from Foster Care.

Social networks can be categorized into two groups: informal networks (those
related to family and peers) and formal networks (those related to community and
school) (Ream, 2005b). Educational and sociological research offers a rich array of
studies conducted on the affects of these types of networks on educational attainment.
Findings vary tremendously.
Birth
parent(s)
Sibling
(s)
Foster
siblings
Extended
family

Peer(s)
Teachers
Guidance
counselor
College
counselor
College
prep
advisor
Legal
counsel
Court
advocate
& judge

Therapist
Educa-
tional
advocate
Local
social
worker
County
social
worker

Foster
parent(s)
Foster
student
52
Family
Scholars have found families to be a positive influence on college going,
emphasizing the unique funds of knowledge imparted by kin networks (Rueda et al,
2003; Gándara, 1995). Others have suggested that families who do not support
children in ways valued by schools contribute to negative educational patterns
(Coleman, 1990). Sociological predictors of college enrollment often rely on family
measures–such as parental levels of education, parents‟ aspirations for their children‟s
college going and parental encouragement for college (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005).
Yet Hossler et al. (1999) discovered that while families played an important role in
encouraging college going, students tended to rely on teachers and counselors after the
10
th
grade for college guidance and encouragement.
For foster youth, relationships with family can be complicated. A foster youth
might not see a birth parent but live with an extended family member. Or perhaps a
foster parent or adopted parent fulfills a nurturing parental role. Or a foster youth
might not have any significant relationships with birth family members or supportive
relationships with legal guardians. Therefore understanding the role of family
networks on foster youth is strongly tied to context.
Peers
Very rarely is social capital purely positive or negative. In a chapter
examining role of peer groups in college preparation programs, Tierney and Colyar
(2005) observe that the literature shows that, “Peer groups make a difference. Peers
do not make a difference. Peer groups are harmful cliques to be avoided, destroyed, or
53
overcome. Peer groups are helpful subcultures for identity development and need to
be fostered” (p. 59). In other words, the effects of peer groups on college going vary
tremendously.
Studies of collaborative learning groups in high schools (Hebert & Reis, 1999)
and college (Treisman, 1992) emphasize the positive impact of peer relations.
Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2000) assert that peer relationships can mitigate the
harmful effects of environment stresses on adolescent mental health. Adolescents tend
to depend on their friends for social support and for staying mentally healthy. Positive
peer relations can be critical to adolescents living within resource-poor and
challenging environments. The authors point out that, “Principled peer relationships
may indeed foster the type of social psychological orientation necessary for
resourceful relations with adult institutional agents” (p. 10). Yet others emphasize the
negative potential inherent in peer relations such as peer pressure and abuse resulting
in low self-esteem (Messerchmidt, 2000). Ultimately there is little consensus as to if
peer groups positively or negatively affect college-going behavior (Tierney & Colyar,
2005).
Community
Community networks have been studied by sociologists interested in learning
about how social relations within a given area influence various social phenomena
such as politics (Saito, 1998) or are affected by larger social forces such as racism or
economics (Duneier, 1992/1999; Wilson, 1980). Perhaps most well known in this
category is the work of Putnam (2000) who argues that our society is changing for the
54
worse because fewer people are participating in activities that require social
interaction. Without frequent social interactions, he argues, groups or communities do
not have a chance to build trusting relationships. Without trusting relationships,
teachers, students and related communities struggle to achieve school success.
Community ties represent perhaps the most precarious of networks for foster
youth because if they are relocated into distant residential placements, it is unlikely
that they would retain bonds with community members from a previous area. Unless a
child is moved to a placement close to his/her birth parent‟s home (as was the case
with Brian) or close to a former placement, ties to community organizations or social
groups are difficult to maintain.
Institutional Networks
With respect to institutional networks, ample work has been done in
educational settings where scholars have looked at the role of student/teacher
relationships on educational attainment and student engagement in school (Ferguson,
2001; Lucas, 1995; Moses & Cobb, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999).
Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995) argue that, “Supportive ties with institutional
agents represent a necessary condition for engagement and advancement in the
educational system and, ultimately for success in the occupational structure” (p. 117).
Institutional agents act as gatekeepers to institutional resources. Therefore,
relationships with institutional agents can be prohibitive to growing social capital if
the agent is reluctant to assist an actor or they can be beneficial when an agent
facilitates entrée to resources or support.
55
As the Figure 1 illustrated, students from foster care interact with a wide array
of institutional agents. In most cases, institutional agents are based in school networks
or networks related to DCFS. The degree to which each is willing to help, possesses
or can provide access to high quality resources and frequently interacts with foster
youth determines the effectiveness of the relationships.
What Resources are Located in Social Networks?
Resources are embedded in social capital in both real and symbolic ways
(Tierney, 2006). Tangible resources correspond to information or actual goods. For
example, if a student from foster care does not have a computer but bonds with a
classroom teacher, he/she might be permitted use of the teacher‟s computer during
lunch. Symbolic resources refer to connections to other people, such as the lunchtime
teacher who talks to the student about college or introduces him/her to a friend who
offers the student a summer internship.
Resources have exchange value or convertibility. Social capital theory
examines how actual or potential resources embedded within social networks are
converted into other forms of social capital through social exchanges. Oftentimes,
resources actually lead to the accumulation of further social capital. Related to
resources are funds of knowledge–or knowledge gained from past experiences. While
all funds of knowledge are valid, certain types are more highly regarded in specific
institutional settings. For example, while a working class foster parent might share a
wealth of knowledge and support with his/her foster child (useful funds of knowledge
with regards to motivation), he/she cannot draw on past experiences of university
56
attendance (funds of knowledge privileged by U. S. educational systems). To gauge
the usefulness of various types of resources and funds of knowledge, it is essential to
contextualize both.
How Do Individuals Access and/or Use Social Capital?
Social capital appraisal and assessment states Stanton-Salazar (2004) are:
. . . not merely a matter of individual psychology but are fundamentally
cultural and collectively reinforced (particularly within peer groups); these
appraisals represent an acquired and accumulated knowledge and meaning
system that people of a particular community, group, or subculture use to
interpret their network-related experience and to generate their interactions in
their social network (Spradley, 1979)”,(p. 6).

Ream (2005b) points out that it is not so much if social relations make a
difference but how they make a difference. He suggests that different networks host
varying types of social capital which in turn, have distinct exchange values. A
student‟s ability to access social capital, and then make use of it to his/her advantage
has the potential to lessen the negative consequences of mobility. In a study analyzing
how social and cultural capital affects urban Latino school communities, Monkman,
Ronald and Theramene (2005) explain that “the ties between the teacher and students
(and/or between teachers and parents), however, must be of a type that will generate
interaction that is meaningful and that can elicit the participation of the teacher in
opening up access to other resources” (,p. 10). Knowing where resources are located
is only one step in building college capital. Foster youth must be able to access college
capital for it to be effective. Given the dynamism inherent in foster youth‟s networks,
57
how do foster youth decide when, with whom and why to invest in relationships? The
concepts of embeddedness and trust are helpful in responding to this question.
Embeddedness
Embeddedness considers the degree to which students are embedded in
relationships and the degree to which resources are embedded in social networks. The
concept of embeddedness provides a way to analyze how mobile students develop
meaningful relationships. Stanton-Salazar and Spina‟s (2003) analysis of peer
networks provides an example of the repercussions of low-quality embeddedness.
Their interviews revealed patterns of “a disquieting and obscure form of alienation”
that translated to isolation, social silence, and extreme self reliance. The authors
explain that, “peer relations may appear abundant . . . yet peer interactions do not
necessarily translate into relationships of trust and social support” (p. 31).
Depending on desired outcomes, sometimes embeddedness in a network can
actually slow down the prospects of gaining further social capital or lead to the
accumulation of social capital not necessarily valued by schools thus doing little to
promote educational attainment. For example, Miller (2001) and Vigil (1999) have
illustrated the negative influences of gangs on academic achievement. Embeddedness
in gang networks might increase power and solidarity but could negatively influence
academically oriented behavior. In the case of foster youth, embeddedness in a
school-based network could prove critical in providing a foster youth with college
information and guidance, especially if they do not receive college support from
family networks. If, however, embedded resources are of poor quality, the individual
58
who accesses those resources remains at a disadvantage. As I will illustrate in chapter
4, several informants‟ experiences reflect the negative ramifications of low quality
resources embedded within social networks.
Trust
The concept of trust is intimately connected to how students assess and access
social capital. Tierney (2006) points out that “social capital is the scaffolding that
makes trust possible.” Tierney builds on Coleman‟s discussion of generalized
reciprocity and highlights the role of norms in creating social capital based on trust.
Stanton-Salazar (2004) elaborates on the nuances of trust. He explains that social
structures are comprised of mutually reinforcing schemas (norms that guide social life)
and resources (forms of power and influence) that impact how trust develops. Trust
has the potential to extend to all social relations yet it is fragile and malleable.
Cultural schemas “are mobilized as the basis for the further building of trust and for
the accumulation of experiences of mutual benefit within the realm of school”
(Valenzuela, 1999, p. 27).
When discussing how informants evaluated entering into relationships,
especially with friends, trust (and distrust) emerged as a central issue. Yet as I discuss
in chapter 5, trust was not critical to if or how informants decided to form
relationships with people who could provide access to college resources. For youth in
foster care who have been abused, building trust can be daunting. Furthermore, short-
term relationships resulting from frequent moves seldom facilitate the development of
trust.
59
How Does Mobility Affect Social Capital?
Following Coleman‟s (1988) line of reasoning, students benefit educationally
in part due to strong ties within families because involved parents enforce expectations
about academics, assist their children with school work and provide guidance about
school. Strong communal ties–or ties between families–also benefit students because
families aid each other in enforcing norms about school performance and share
information about schools. Mobility debilitates the strength of communal ties because
with each residential or school move, social ties are severed and families can no longer
rely on each other for support. For foster youth, changing family units further
exacerbates challenges because unless the child remains in close contact to birth
parents, with each educational move, the child severs “within family” ties as well.
While Coleman‟s perspective provides a plausible way to conceptualize the
effects of mobility on educational achievement, Pribesh and Downey (1999) point out
that the association between moving and social capital has not yet been fully
established. Furthermore, studies have conflated social capital and moving, not
clarified distinctions between school and residential mobility and conceptualized
students‟ social relationships through a narrow lens. The authors point out that cross-
sectional analyses of the effects of mobility on educational achievement are limiting as
they run the risk of attributing negative educational performance to the act of moving
while ignoring other factors that might also be associated with frequent moves. A
youth in care, for example, might be more negatively affected by lack of nurturing
relationships with caregivers than by the act of moving itself.
60
To better understand the relationship between mobility and social capital
Pribesh and Downey (1999) designed a longitudinal study aimed at: (a) distinguishing
the effects of residential-only, school-only and combined mobility on social capital;
(b) examining if changes in social capital predicted changes in educational
performance; and (c) seeing if social capital mediated the effects of mobility. They
discovered that all types of mobility negatively correlated with losses of social capital
and lower academic performance. However, the primary reason that movers and
nonmovers performed differently in schools was because both groups differed before
they experienced mobility in the first place. Preexisting differences, such as the
likelihood that the mover lived in a single-parent household and/or came from a low-
SES background, accounted for 90% of differences in test scores. Even though the
association between moving and school performance was selective, the findings
illustrate that moves, regardless of the types of students involved (i.e., holding all
variables constant), led to a loss in social capital which negatively affected school
performance.
Even though their research on residential and educational mobility does not
directly address the role of social capital and educational achievement, Swanson and
Schneider‟s (1999) research highlights several topics pertinent to the study. Like
Pribesh and Downey (1999), the authors treated residential and school mobility as
separate entities and analyzed data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study
(NELS). They assessed the role of timing of mobility and analyzed the duration of the
effects of mobility on educational achievement. They found that the timing of moves
61
mattered. Students who changed schools late in their educational careers (after the
10
th
grade) had significantly lower gains in math achievement compared to
nonmovers, moderate increases in behavioral problems and higher rates of early high
school dropout. If a student changed schools between 8
th
and 10
th
grade, they were
more likely to drop out of high school. However if a student moved before the 10
th

grade and managed to stay in high school through the 10
th
grade, they were more
likely to graduate from high school than nonmovers. Thus the duration of the effects
of mobility presented both opportunities and challenges to students.
Social capital/mobility dynamic
When Liz and Tamika changed schools, each move precipitated changes in
their social networks. They broke ties with teachers and counselors when leaving and
formed new ties with individuals at their new schools. While their mobility
challenged both young women to build supportive networks at their new schools, their
network orientations seemed to mediate the effects of their mobility. The interplay
between moving and social capital is known as the mobility/social capital dynamic.
The mobility/social capital dynamic considers how the composition of networks and
the quality and quantity of embedded social capital potentially mediate the effects of
mobility. Ream (2005b) explains that,
Like the frequent repotting of plants, mobility tends to disrupt social root
systems, limiting the capacity of students and their interlocuters to develop and
maintain social capital by (a) disrupting family cohesion, (b) inhibiting
students‟ efforts to make new friends and adjust socially to a new school
situation, and (c) impinging on the development of reciprocal relations between
students and institutional agents within the broader community. (Jason et al,
1992; Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Ream, 2003” (p. 12).
62

Ream (2005b) explored the ways in which informal networks (i.e., of family
and peers) and formal networks (i.e., in communities and schools) enabled or hindered
academic achievement given varying degrees of mobility. The study analyzed how
social interaction assisted or hindered how resources were converted, a process that in
turn affected educational equity. If groups build social ties differently and if those ties
affect how groups accumulate and transmit social capital, then mobility might be a key
factor in how certain groups (in this case, Latino/as with high mobility) negotiate and
establish relationships (Ream, 2005a/2005b). Findings underscore the interplay
between mobility and the accrual of social capital. Mobility inhibited the
accumulation of social capital. At the same time, social capital predicted higher levels
of academic achievement.
Discussion
The question of mobility is central to understanding the network formation of
foster youth because so many students from foster care are forced into mobile life
patterns. Yet the isolated nature of life in foster care poses challenges to making
generalizations about the experiences of foster youth. Whereas Ream (2000b) was
able to make generalizations about large groups of Latino/a students, it is more
challenging to do so with foster youth due to the tremendous variance in experiences
for individual children. Such variance in mobility, residential patterns, psychological
well-being and family dynamics makes drawing generalizations impossible.
63
In theorizing the experiences of mobile youth, multiple problems arise from
existing theoretical work. Take, for instance, Coleman‟s (1988) emphasis on family as
a critical conduit of social capital. Or Bourdieu‟s (1986) assertion that, “Social capital
derives from a durable network of more of less institutionalized relationships of
mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p. 248). Understanding how mobile foster
youth navigate social capital is limited within theoretical frameworks that privilege
stable notions of family and/or social networks. A more helpful theoretical approach
acknowledges the effects of multiple mobilities and resulting network instabilities.
64
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
Liz: Cuz sometimes it‟s hard for me to read people and how they feel about
me and how important I am to them in their life. So I don‟t like when I show
them that they‟re more important than me. It‟s weird. [slight pause] That
[thought] came out of nowhere. We‟re not even supposed to be talking about
this . . . . I feel like you‟re my counselor. [giggles] I never had a counselor. I
never talked to anybody about these kind of things.

Zoe: This is exactly what we‟re supposed to be talking about.
Liz: Well I‟ve really never talked to anybody. When I was in foster care, there
are people you have to talk to. But they were all weird so there was never
anyone I could talk to. I resented the fact that I had to go. You know, I didn‟t
want to. I wasn‟t holding anything back. I just felt like it was unnecessary.

Overview
“They talk about how their parents don‟t want them to go [to college]–that
they‟re homesick,” says Fernando, “it‟s very interesting, because I can‟t grasp that
concept.” Fernando was one of 120 first generation and/or historically under-
represented incoming freshmen participating in a UC summer transitional program.
During our first meeting, he explained that he was going through very different
emotional experiences than his peers. If Fernando had received a survey evaluating
his experiences in the summer bridge program, he most likely would have offered
positive feedback: He was pleased by the attention he had received during the
summer bridge program, his comfort level on campus had increased, he had learned
where to go for support if he had questions about classes or financial aid and his
writing improved due to the rigorous summer curriculum. Yet in a program designed
65
to assist under-represented students as they transitioned to college, Fernando‟s
particular needs had not been fully met. As a student from foster care, he craved
interacting with other students who had been though similar challenges and who
shared unique problems related to housing and financial aid. Assessing Fernando‟s
experiences in the summer bridge program emphasizes the value of studying
postsecondary access for foster youth using a qualitative lens. While broad survey
data play an invaluable role in describing general trends for foster youth, the nuances
of Fernando‟s experiences are only uncovered through questions tailored to his
experiences. The objective of ethnographic interviews, the primary method of data
collection for this study, is to facilitate the collection of in-depth and contextualized
data leading to more complex understandings of social phenomena.
In this chapter, I situate this dissertation study in relation to other research that
has been conducted on foster youth and education and discuss the value of examining
the educational experiences of foster youth through a qualitative and sociological lens.
Specifically, I suggest ways in which ethnographic interviews facilitate a deeper
understanding of the educational and social support processes of foster youth. In the
second half of the chapter, I outline the research methods specific to the study,
including site and sample selection, data collection, and analysis of data.
Why Ethnographic Interviews?
Ethnographic interviews have the potential to serve an increasingly effective
role in comprehending educational problems. For example, ethnographic interviews
facilitate examining the effects of culture on students‟ lives and incorporating the
66
voices of those being studied (Bateman, 2002/2004, Spradley, 1979). This study
provides a complementary perspective to large scale, quantitative studies of social
capital that compile statistics from a large number of subjects and provide an overview
of general trends. Detailed, longitudinal data collected from a small group of young
adults about their life experiences shed light on micro-level interactions and meaning-
making processes of college-bound foster youth. As defined by Denzin and Lincoln
(1994), “Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive,
naturalistic approach to its subject matter” (p. 2). This definition applies to the study
since I observed students in their school and social environments and engaged in
dialogue about how they negotiated various pressures and made sense of their
opportunities. I employed a multi-method qualitative approach to studying social
support relying most heavily on ethnographic interviews with six informants, but also
incorporated the methods of interview and participant observations with a larger group
of secondary participants. The study methods address the five differences between
qualitative and quantitative research as explained by Denzin and Lincoln (1994) (cited
in Becker, 1993). Through data collection and analysis I: (a) used post-positivist
strategies of using multiple methods to research a social phenomenon–the formation of
social networks; (b) accounted for multiple ways of making meaning–by examining
the diverse perspectives of the study informants; (c) shared the participants‟ points of
view–through presenting detailed verbatim data; (d) emphasized the uniqueness of
particular cases; and (e) obtained rich descriptions–of social capital and support
networks.
67
What Do Other Studies Show?
Strategic research, according to Spradley (1979), begins with an interest in
human problems. Research goals and methods are best implemented when
synchronized with the needs of populations studied. In the case of foster youth and
education, this objective could not be more pressing as “the absence of sound data
about foster care youth prevent advocates, analysts and policy makers from
systematically serving one of this country‟s most ignored populations” (Casey Family
Programs, 2003, p. 4). Within the last decade, in response to a dearth of information
on educational attainment for youth in foster care, researchers, practitioners and
journalists have sought to depict the educational landscape traversed by foster youth.
Studies conducted at national, regional and local levels generally fit into two
categories: (a) studies that draw from statistical, survey and standard interview data to
illustrate broad trends and systemic issues affecting the education of foster youth; and
(b) studies that synthesize the perspectives of foster youth, practitioners and associated
individuals (i.e., foster parents, birth parents, etc.) gained through focus groups and
interviews in order to address how individuals make sense of their educational
opportunities and challenges. This study is informed by both categories of research
and contributes to the emerging body of work on the topic by examining the stories of
undergraduate students from foster care who overcame many of the barriers mentioned
in the studies mentioned below. Data shared in chapters 4 and 5 will reflect many of
the themes discussed in this chapter.

68
Macro-level Perspectives
Perhaps the most comprehensive study about postsecondary education and
foster youth is a recent report published by Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Unlike other studies that mention college as one component in a larger discussion
about youth who “age out” of the system, Wolanin‟s (2005) report focuses specifically
on the topic of postsecondary access for foster youth. Because the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) does not collect or report
information about changes in foster youth‟s educational status (Casey Family
Programs, 2003), the information compiled in the report is acutely helpful in providing
an overview of foster care and postsecondary experiences. The document, intended as
a “primer for policymakers,” synthesizes statistics and findings from reports about
foster youth and education to describe the scope of challenges in fostering college
readiness.
As identified in the report, among the overarching barriers to educational
attainment foster youth face are the psychological legacy of abuse and/or neglect, lack
of competence in basic adult living skills (i.e., balancing a checkbook, finding a job)
and low educational performance in K-12 years. Wolanin (2005) asserts that the most
critical and unique barrier to educational attainment and high school graduation for
foster youth is the “frequent disruptions of their education by changes in school
placement” (p. vi), a finding of direct concern to this project. The study asserts that
changing schools reinforces emotional trauma caused by separation and abandonment,
causes extended delays in programming students into the correct classes due to
69
bureaucratic requirements from schools and the DCFS, and creates confusion about
who has legal responsibility for children thus delaying service provision. Wolanin
(2005) illustrates how these systemic problems affect students at the micro level by
leading to weak academic performance, lack of awareness about college and financial
aid options and low college expectations.
Davis‟ (2006) report on financial aid for college-bound foster youth builds
onto Wolanin‟s (2005) report by focusing on financial challenges related to college.
Davis (2006) utilizes national-level data to describe the income levels and financial
independence of foster youth, financial differences between foster youth and their
peers and how foster youth navigate financial aid for college. He provides policy
recommendations for various audiences including the federal government, universities
and practitioners. Data shared in chapters 4 and 5 echo many of the financial aid
related themes addressed in the Davis (2006) report.
Other reports address various policy issues such as how to reform the Higher
Education Act to better meet the needs of foster youth. For example, a Casey Family
Programs report published in 2003 called for the government to 1) increase the
number of deserving foster youth who have access to college, 2) expand financial aid
to foster youth and 3) encourage TRIO and Gear Up to prioritize service provision for
foster youth.
Mirco-level Perspectives
Studies or reports that highlight individual‟s perspectives add another layer of
complexity to understanding the opportunities available to and challenges faced by
70
foster youth. Generally, micro-level data are collected through interviews and focus
groups or journalistic methods. Studies are conducted at national, state, city,
community and individual levels. Student-centered data illustrate how sweeping
recommendations do not always adequately address the needs of all students. For
example, a 2003 report synthesizing the comments of foster care students convened
for a California Youth Connection
2
conference pointed out that adoption is not always
an optimum solution for foster youth. Contrary to pro-adoption policy
recommendations from DCFS aimed at securing stable placements, youth expressed
concern that adoption might create barriers to maintaining contact with biological
families. At the time of the study, youth pointed out that adoption could actually be
detrimental because if adopted before the age of 16, foster youth could no longer fill
out their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) forms as a “ward of the
court” and were consequently not automatically eligible for maximum financial aid
awards (Sanchez, 2003). Micro-level data highlight different priorities for service
provision. For example, while findings from research analyzing systemic problems
prioritize the need to direct funding to professional training for social workers, foster
youth lamented the lack of money directed to covering their basic needs such as
clothing allowances (Sanchez, 2003).

2
The mission of the California Youth Connection is to “promote the participation of foster
youth in policy development and legislative change in an effort to improve the foster care system and
strive to forge collaborations with the decision makers to improve social work and child welfare policy”
(Pérez, 2000).
71
National level studies that chronicle the pathways of foster youth who “age
out” of foster care are helpful in analyzing postsecondary options for foster youth.
These studies emphasize the challenges foster youth face in transitioning out of the
child welfare system. Researchers from Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago are in the process of conducting a mixed methods study of how
foster youth function as adults (Courtney et al., 2005). Data were collected through
longitudinal interviews with over 600 foster youth when they were 17-or 18-years-old
and again when they were 20 or 21-years-old. The final phase of data collection will
occur when students are 24 or 25. Midstudy findings describe educational and career
trajectories, social support, level of health, sexual behaviors, marriage patterns, child
rearing and delinquency. Data illustrate differences in life outcomes for youth who
were discharged from foster care versus youth who delayed emancipation. Findings
compare data by gender and in comparison to the general non-foster care population of
the same age. The study contributes to what was previously known about educational
trends and foster care by offering a more detailed account off what social support
looks like. Of particular interest to this dissertation, data show that former foster
youth frequently maintain strong ties to family. In particular, foster youth who
attended college or lived with extended family post emancipation maintained stronger
ties with their birth families. The Chapin Hall study synthesizes students‟ micro-level
perspectives to effectively depict a macro-level overview of problems faced and
strategies employed by foster youth.
72
Several reports and newspaper articles have examined foster care in California
thus providing data on the context of care in the state. A report published in 2000
entitled “Educating California‟s Foster Youth” compiled data from focus groups with
various constituents (i.e., foster youth, caregivers, service providers). The report
analyzed state and county-level documents and tracked educational and residential
histories of youth residing in group homes. The report outlines five concerns about
education and the current foster care system and proposes solutions to the problems.
Foremost, the research team criticized the state for providing financial incentives
detrimental to the educational well-being of foster youth. Specifically, for financially
rewarding school districts for placing students in non public schools where they do not
necessarily receive optimum education. The report also critiques the state for poor
oversight of nonpublic schools, lack of accountability for educational outcomes, poor
interagency communication and lack of continuity in education afforded to foster
youth when they change schools (American Institutes for Research, 2000).
In Los Angeles, practitioners from the juvenile justice system and a wide array
of foster care and educational agencies convened to discuss the educational
achievement gap experienced by Los Angeles County foster youth in 2004. The Los
Angeles Education Summit report outlined challenges in service provision and
proposed recommendations for addressing educational problems such as how to best
track the educational progress of foster youth and how to empower caregivers to
provide appropriate educational support. Through this venue, foster youth and their
caregivers were able to express feelings of disenfranchisement from the school system
73
and frustration for oversight in meeting their needs. For example, a young woman
expressed her frustration over the lack of coordination exhibited between schools and
DCFS. She pointed out, “the court ordered a one-day visit with my mom, but it was
on the day I was supposed to enroll, so I missed one month of school” (Los Angeles
Education Summit, 2004, p. 4).
Reports from newspapers and foundations offer targeted depictions of
problems facing foster youth. Journalists have contributed to knowledge about foster
youth and education by reporting on students as they prepared for college. Walters‟
(2005) Los Angeles Times article underlined how financial burdens faced by foster
youth in college act as major barriers to persistence. Newberger (2001) chronicled
foster care students‟ trials en route to college to emphasize the importance of assisting
these students in applying for college and financial aid. Emerson and Lovitt (2003), in
a report for the Lumina Foundation, expressed hopefulness in types of aid available.
Bland‟s (2005) article underlined a different problem by sharing teachers‟ perspectives
on the challenges of educating foster care children who frequently switch schools. The
teachers expressed sadness that “you get so attached and then you lave to let them go.
It‟s hard” (Bland, 2005, p. 2).
Research from micro and macro level perspectives has informed all aspects of
this study. What seems to be missing from studies about education and foster youth,
however, is research that moves away from descriptive analysis and explores how
foster youth approach their education and social network formation. Furthermore,
there is very little data available on foster youth who have successfully enrolled in
74
college. I suggest that ethnographic interviews provide a tool for collecting in-depth
data that shed light on meaning-making processes and respond to the gaps in
information identified above. Through the study‟s research design I aim to meet
these objectives by: (a) analyzing how macro level forces affect micro level actions;
(b) applying a sociological lens (i.e., social capital theory) to understanding
educational attainment for foster youth; and (c) examining how students successfully
navigate social institutions to become college ready.
What Are Ethnographic Interviews?
Ethnographic interviews provide a venue for explaining how a particular event
fits into a larger life course and social context. In ethnographic interviews, researchers
aim to “discover and describe” a particular culture by employing a combination of
interviews, explanations and special questions to learn from the everyday experiences
of their “informants” (Spradley, 1979). The role of an informant is not to test
hypotheses or respond to survey questions. Rather the ethnographer/informant
relationship is characterized by a respect for the informant‟s language, a shared
understanding of research goals and a continually evolving research protocol. In
essence, the informant acts as a teacher to the researcher. Dialogue between
researcher and subject potentially leads to an understanding of how cultural and
societal influences affect how an individual makes sense of a particular event. Once
data collection is complete, the researcher is then charged with analyzing the
informants‟ insight by identifying themes and relationships from the data (Spradley,
1979).
75
Ethnographic methods pose various challenges. Due to the small sample sizes
common in ethnographies, ramifications of researcher participation and in-depth data
collection techniques, critics have questioned whether ethnographers can adequately
represent social realities and have problematized the applicability of ethnographies to
practice (Hammerseley, 1992). The potential shortcomings of ethnographic methods
are relevant to a study of this size as generalizations are not possible with data
deriving from solely six research participants living in a limited geographical region.
Yet there is also a great amount to be gained from longitudinal, in-depth data. Social
support networks are dynamic and complex; understanding how they function is tied
to how individuals make meaning out of their everyday, interpersonal relationships.
Data that address how individuals make meaning of their day-to-day interactions and
how various relationships and processes change over time generally derive from
research methods that are not generalizable to full populations, but are helpful for a
broad audience nonetheless (Hammerseley, 1992).
Where Does the Researcher Fit In?
Reflexivity is a critical and multifaceted component of ethnographic interviews
and corresponds to: (a) the researcher reflecting on his/her positionality in the study,
and (b) data collected in conjunction with the participants. Reflexivity involves both
the researcher and informants questioning the research process. During conversations
in this study, the informants would periodically remind me that a mundane element of
my life was substantially different to their experiences. Take, for example, an
exchange between Brian and me:
76
Zoë: When are kids supposed to learn how to tie their shoes? [asked
somewhat flippantly after Brian had inquired about my children and I
had explained how my daughter had been taking great pride in putting
together crazy, rainbow-themed outfits.] I think when they are five or
six--but whenever she‟s ready–maybe they will even teach her in
school.

Brian: I remember the day I learned.

Zoë: You do? There‟s no way I can remember! [still voiced flippantly]

Brian: I was living with a Latino family and my shoes kept coming
untied. Finally, one day the mother stuck me in a corner and shouted at
me to learn to tie my shoes. I barely understood what she said. I just
sat there trying to wrap the laces around. I remember telling myself
that it couldn‟t be that hard. The family had a nanny, she tried to help
me. They thought I was being bad–but I was just a little kid. I didn‟t
know how to tie my shoes.

As Brian neared the end of the story I realized retrospectively that he
had lowered his voice and his eyes had glazed over slightly when he said, “I
remember the day I learned.” Because I was consumed by my recollection (or
lack thereof) of learning how to tie my shoes, I did not notice the changes in
his posture immediately. I had not been listening as intently as I did when
Brian talked about college life or his relationships.
During my conversations with the six informants I had to exert
vigilance over how I listened to their stories because in many ways, my
background could not be more different from the foster youth with whom I
spent time. I grew up in a stable household with nurturing parents in a White,
middle-class community. From an early age, I was plugged into a variety of
support networks accessed through my synagogue, extracurricular sports and
77
arts and private college counseling services. The majority of my peers went to
college as well as both of my parents. The relationships I formed with people
who provided me with college support and guidance were sustained over long
periods of time and were characterized by high levels of trust.
At the same time, I came to this project, with 7 years of teaching
experience and 5 years of experience conducting research in under-served
communities. Teaching and research gave me insight into the diversity and
complexity of institutional processes and students‟ experiences and enhanced
my ability to reflect on my own positionality during the research process. Yet
while I made every effort to continually reflect on how my personal biases and
background might have influenced my reception and analysis of data, I am
wary that there were times, as illustrated in the above conversation with Brian,
that I might have been oblivious to personal, cultural or socioeconomic
limitations of my own reflexivity.
Due to the fact that I spoke in detail with informants about the purposes of this
project they too reflected on their role in the study. They would ask me what I had
been learning and how I planned on using what they told me. Some students
wondered if their experiences were worthy of sharing with a broader audience and
others asserted why it was critical to share their experiences with practitioners. Liz,
for example, after spending 2 hours sharing her first year experiences commented, “I
think I talked too much.” She was both willing to openly share her personal insight
and cognizant that I was listening with a purpose. Brian, on the other hand, did not
78
second guess his comments and emphasized why he had decided to participate in the
study. After explaining how he decided apply to college during the week that
applications were due he commented, “This is why people need to hear what I have to
say–I should have received help sooner.”
Why These Data?
Site
At the time data were collected for this study, California was home to one fifth
of the country‟s foster youth; of those, just under 25,000 live in Los Angeles county
(Leonard, 2007). Since so few Los Angeles county foster youth attend college
(roughly 10%), there is a tremendous need to learn how to ensure that students view
college as an option. Since 2004, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
juvenile justice and probation departments, several large nonprofit organizations and
two local universities have been engaged in a significant effort to turn attention
towards bettering educational achievement for foster youth. Thus, the Los Angeles
area offers some interesting opportunities to observe institutional responses to the
problem of low educational achievement for foster youth. On the forefront of such
efforts, the Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council was established in
2004 by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to bring together the diverse
(and often isolated) agencies who serve foster youth. Their working committees,
listserv and quarterly general meetings offer a forum for discussing ways that
individuals and groups affiliated with DCFS, county mental health and probation
departments, schools and various service organizations might work together to channel
79
more resources towards educating youth in foster care. In addition, two local
California state universities are on the cutting edge of providing comprehensive
services aimed at bolstering support for undergraduate students from foster care. The
Children‟s Law Center of Los Angeles is also an active advocate in ensuring that
foster youth receive the wide range of services they deserve.
Among the key foster care players in Los Angeles is United Friends of the
Children (UFC), a nonprofit agency that has been providing support to children in
foster care for 28 years. Their scholarship recipients not only receive financial aid but
also sustained support services during their college years. UFC, in conjunction with
the Fulfillment Fund (a Los Angeles based nonprofit that assists disadvantaged
students in graduating from high school and enrolling in college), was also responsible
for running an event called Destination College, designed to provide Los Angeles
county foster youth with information about applying to college and for financial aid.
The event attracted approximately 800 students each year. UFC, L. A. County DCFS,
L. A. County Probation, The Community College Foundation, the Casey Family
Foundation and the Teague Family Foundation hosted a graduation ceremony called
Celebration One, that honors the accomplishments of and provides scholarships to Los
Angeles County foster youth who will attend college, vocational programs or enroll in
the military the following year. Consequently, even though Los Angeles County has
the largest population of foster youth in the nation, the county also presents multiple
opportunities for observing events designed to boost college enrollment for foster
youth.
80
Sample
The primary ethnographic interview informants hailed from different social,
personal and educational backgrounds (Table 3.1). Despite the diversity of the
sample, however, all participants shared some significant similarities. At the onset of
the study, students were still classified as “wards of the court” within the foster care
system. This means that students still received some benefits from the state and were
still living in a foster care placement when they entered college. It also meant that
they all pertained to a sizeable minority of students who were not successfully adopted
during their time in foster care. All of the informants would emancipate by their
sophomore years. This is important because once emancipated, students were no
longer guaranteed a place to live which impacted how they managed resources and
built social capital at college.
As Table 3.1 illustrates, each student resided in multiple foster care
placements, ranging from two placements to seven. All informants had been wards in
the child welfare system for longer than two years, ranging from 2 1/2 years to 10
years. All students changed schools multiple times during their K-12 education. Only
Tamika maintained contact with her birth mother, the others either chose not to see
their parents (most in order to protect themselves from further emotional pain) or
could not due to a parent‟s incarceration or death. All informants graduated from high
school in 2005 and enrolled in four-year universities in the fall of 2005.
81
Table 3.1. Overview of Sample

Name
(pseudonym)

Destination
college

Gender

Race

Number of
years in
child
welfare
system

Number of
placements
(this includes
reunification
placements
with birth
parent)

Number of
K-12
schools
attended
Liz CSU 1 Female Latina 8.0 7 13-14

Fernando UC Male Latino 10.0 4 3

Tamika CSU 1 Female African
American
2.5 2 13
Silvia CSU 2 Female Latina 12.0 3 5

Brian CSU 3 Male African
American

8.0 7 8

Michael CSU 2 Male Latino 10.0 7 11

The differences between students were noteworthy. Two students were
African American and four were Latino/a. Three students were male and three were
female. Several students resided with family members in kinship placements but only
Silvia and Liz lived with family during their final placement prior to attending college.
Five students participated in summer bridge programs, Brian did not. Of those, Liz,
Michael and Silvia participated in yearlong university support programs tailored to the
needs of foster youth. Most important to note, and as chapter 4 will emphasize,
students‟ reasons for entering the system, experiences within the system and
educational aspirations varied tremendously.
82
How Were Data Collected?
Gaining Access
University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the child welfare system
maintain strict standards in reviewing research conducted with youth in foster care.
Foster youth are classified as “vulnerable populations” due to the reasons why
children enter into foster care and because once in foster care, children are subject to
many institutionally-based assessments. In order to embark on the project, the study‟s
Human Subjects paperwork was reviewed by the Full Board of the University of
Southern California‟s IRB, that convenes to discuss research proposals where high
risk might be involved. The IRB requested a letter of approval from DCFS in order to
grant approval for the study. I consequently applied for-and was granted-a court order
by the Los Angeles Supreme Court, Juvenile Division, after they reviewed paperwork
similar to what was submitted to the university IRB. I used the letter I received from
the Court (Appendix B) when interviewing practitioners and when seeking referrals
for the primary sample.
Once the IRB approved the study, I contacted United Friends of the Children
to request their assistance in locating Celebration One graduates who would be
attending 4-year universities in the Los Angeles region. For logistical purposes, I
chose to only contact students attending colleges in or in proximity to Los Angeles.
Furthermore, I sought to work with students who attended selective universities since
practitioners I had spoken with over the previous year stressed that ideally foster youth
83
should attend four-year universities. Beyond the academic caliber of the education
they would receive at a 4-year college that was likely to improve their career options,
most 4-year universities offered housing to students, a crucial benefit to foster youth
who do not have permanent housing after they emancipate.
I telephoned the Celebration One participants who fit the recruitment criteria,
explained the study parameters and asked if they would like to participate. I also
posted a recruitment flyer (Appendix C) at UFC and one at a local high school to
solicit participants. In addition, the emancipation services coordinator of DCFS spoke
with her ILP coordinators about the study and they recommended youth who might
participate. Their suggestions overlapped with the Celebration One roster.
I explained the study parameters at length with each informant over the
telephone prior to our first meeting. When we met, I reiterated how the study would
progress and emphasized the points mentioned in IRB consent forms, such as the
voluntary and confidential nature of the project. Due to the benign nature of the study,
even though the informants were not yet 18 and still “wards of the court,” IRB and the
juvenile Courts approved research participants signing the consent forms as
independents. Consequently they did not need parental consent to participate in the
study, approval that might have been difficult to obtain. Consent forms were required
for secondary participants as well (see Appendix D for one example). I was required
to resubmit paperwork to the Full Board of the IRB annually for reapproval of the
study.
84
Data Collection
Equipped with a microcassette recorder and a pad of paper and pen, I met with
five of the six informants while they were living in their final placements before
leaving for college. The final informant, Fernando, and I first met during his summer
bridge program and after he had already moved onto campus. From August of 2005
until August of 2006, students and I met in coffee shops, restaurants and public spaces
on campus to talk about their lives before college and experiences in college. I
recorded the conversations and transcribed the tapes. During each interview, I also
maintained field notes. On average, we met once every 6 weeks for 2 to 3 hours. In
between our meetings, we emailed and spoke on the telephone.
Ethnographic interviews rely on descriptive questions intended to “elicit a
large sample of utterances in the informant‟s native language” and “encourage an
informant to talk about a particular cultural scene.” (Spradley, 1979, p. 85). Spradley
(1979) outlines five categories of descriptive questions (Table 3.2), some of which
might elicit hour long responses. While I posed questions pertaining to all of the
below categories, most of the inquiries were “grand tour” or mini tour” questions.
While I tailored questions to each of the informant‟s experiences and what they
wanted to discuss, I also included similar questions across interviews. For example, in
the first interview, we discussed student‟s hopes and fears for freshman year and in
January we discussed where informants resided during winter break. In every
interview session we talked about relationships and themes related to social support.
85
Table 3.2.. Categories of Descriptive Questions Common in Ethnographic Interviews

Type of descriptive
question

Objective

Example question

Grand tour To describe a broad topic (i.e. place,
event, experience, relationship or task)
in the informant‟s language.

How is the semester going?
Explain what your social worker does.
Grand tour (task-
related)
To aid the description of a broad topic. Draw a diagram that includes the people
you interact with each month and indicate
with stars who you trust the most.

Mini tour To examine a small unit of experience. What happens in an emancipation hearing?
example To solicit a detailed account of a
particular act or event identified by the
informant.

You mentioned that your friends
“gangbang.” Can you give me an example
of that.
Experience To solicit insight about a particular
setting or retrospective event.
You‟ve moved around a lot, can you tell
me what it was like to change schools when
you were younger?

Native-language To reduce the need for informants to
translate and use terms most common in
their cultural environment.

Tell me about your “homies.”
Native language
(hypothetical-
interaction)
To solicit insight on a situation that has
not been covered in another type of
question but that is in the realm of
cultural experience.
If you were in a car accident and needed to
call someone in the middle of the night,
who would you telephone?

Maintaining contact with informants was challenging. During various times
they did not have sufficient money to pay their cellular phone bills and frequently
changed telephone numbers. Since informants did not have permanent home
telephone numbers, I had to rely on email correspondence to renew contact. Three
students, however, were unresponsive to email due to an overload of “SPAM” in their
e-mail inboxes and my e-mails would be returned by a “systems administrator.”
When this occurred, I sent postcards or letters to the mailing address I had on file to
request that they telephone me. I had to wait for students to contact me before
86
resuming communication. When they did, we maintained contact successfully with
the exception of Tamika. Tamika did not return phone messages left at her former
foster home or on her friend‟s cellular phone. Our final interview was conducted in
December of 2005.
During the course of the study, I observed events and meetings and conducted
supplementary interviews that provided data on the context of foster care in Los
Angeles. Over the course of two years I observed the annual Destination College
daylong workshops on university campuses and Celebration One graduation
ceremonies at Disney Hall (both mentioned above). I also attended smaller college
information workshops offered through the DCFS. The study began at the same time
as the inauguration of the aforementioned ECC. I observed the ECC‟s quarterly
public meetings from their inception and tracked the organization‟s progress through
reports, their listserv and their website. I also observed working groups of the ECC
and a meeting of the emancipation division of DCFS. While observations of events
inevitably lead to informal interviews with participants, I conducted formal interviews
with the directors of the two college-based support programs where students attended,
the educational program officer of UFC and the co-director of the ECC.
How Were Data Analyzed?
In data analysis, data can be deemed meaningful by the informant or by the
researcher for outside purposes. The extent to which informants agree with meanings
determined by the researcher can provide a critical test of credibility of the research
87
(Gough & Schott, 2000). Before sharing the research findings with the informants and
practitioners, I engaged in a lengthy process of coding data.
After conducting interviews I typed up field notes, transcribed interviews and
embarked on coding data. Coding data is a “dynamic, intuitive and creative process of
inductive reasoning, thinking and theorizing” where “codes or categories are tags or
labels for allocating units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information
compiled during a study” (Basit, 2003, pp. 143-144). The first phase of coding
produced emic codes that were “centrally concerned with the discovery of meaning
attributed by respondents” (Gough & Scott, 2000, p. 342). At the emic stage of coding
I was concerned with identifying themes that were emphasized by the primary study
informants. From the list of emic codes I created a more detailed list of etic codes,
concerned with “the interpretation and presentation of data in ways likely to be found
meaningful by audiences outside the immediate research context” (Gough & Scott,
2000, p. 342). I aimed to find a balance between grounding data analysis in the
informant‟s perspectives and communicating results in ways that would be useful to
social capital scholars and foster care practitioners. Coding was facilitated through
Atlas ti, a qualitative analysis software tool that allowed me to view data thematically.
Ensuring and assessing the validity of a study is a multi-step process. Cho and
Trent (2006) outline two different and contemporary approaches to validity in
qualitative research. The first, grounded in the writings of Lincoln and Guba (1985)
and Denzin (1989), they label as transactional where researchers and research
participants actively interact around validity issues. The second approach,
88
transformational validity, challenges the concept of validity. The study draws from
both approaches.
Within the transactional approach, the first step in asserting a valid argument
entails “alertness and coherence of prior knowledge” where the conceptual framework
and research design are “judged against a background of existing theoretical,
substantive, or explicit practical knowledge” (Eisenhart & Howe, 1992, p. 659).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest a series of techniques for this: (a) increasing the
likelihood of obtaining credible findings (prolonged engagement, persistent
observation and triangulation), and (b) member checking, an activity designed to test
findings and interpretations with informants. Conducting interviews over the course
of a year (prolonged engagement) enabled me to: (a) build trust and rapport with the
informants, and (b) be involved with the students long enough to be able to detect
anomalies or distortions of data. Persistent observation entailed identifying
characteristics or elements of the informants‟ experiences that were most relevant to
the problem of educational attainment and focusing on them in detail.
Finally, triangulation was achieved through collecting data from different
sources and through different methods on the same subjects discussed with primary
informants. For example, I discussed the rationale behind and effectiveness of cohort
model support programs for foster youth with primary participants and program staff,
as well as compared observations of services available to student who did not
participate in such programs.
89
Beyond triangulation, I engaged in the process of “member checking” as
discussed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). By sharing findings with the primary research
informants and a group of selected secondary informants, I sought to “not only test for
factual and interpretative accuracy but also to provide evidence of credibility--the
trustworthiness criterion analogous to internal validity in conventional studies”
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 373-374). Four of the six students were asked to review
data driven chapters in order to: (a) judge the overall credibility of study findings,
(b) raise concerns or issues about findings, and (c) identify any factual or
interpretative errors (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
I addressed transformational validity through dialogue with the informant
about the research goals and process throughout data collection. With
transformational validity, member checks are meant to be reflexive (entailing a
constant backward and forward confirmation between researcher and informant),
critical reflexivity (seeking to represent participants being studied) and redefinition of
the status quo (where researchers are pushed to think of topics in new ways) (Cho &
Trent, 2006). Transformational validity approaches seek to build onto transactional
approaches by suggesting that the notion of validity is holistic, polyvocal and non-
judgmental. In doing so, researchers are pushed to differently perceive of and change
the world in which research is conducted. The data presented and analyzed in the
following two chapters aim to address those objectives.
90
CHAPTER 4
PORTRAYING MULTIPLE MOBILITIES
AND COLLEGE CAPITAL
“When I was in a foster home, it wasn‟t like I was used to being moved.
I moved from place to place, different families. But it
wasn‟t like it was all shocking to me.”

~ Brian

What happens when a student is asked to switch schools during the school
year? How does moving affect his or her ability to learn--or to foster positive
relationships with teachers and peers? And what happens when changing schools
occurs in conjunction with changes in residence or neighborhood? How do students
garner resources to ease their transitions? Students who regularly experience mobility,
such as migrant students, homeless students and youth in the child welfare system,
negotiate what I call “multiple mobilities.” I define multiple mobilities as
simultaneous changes in two or more social environments such as schools, families or
peer groups. The multiple mobilities experienced by youth in foster care distinguish
this group of students from all others. Migrant and homeless students often
experience school and residential mobility contemporaneously, but tend to move with
their families. For foster youth, moving often sets into motion not only changes in
school, peer and neighborhood networks, but family and additional institutional
networks (i.e., DCFS) as well.
This chapter is organized to (a) depict what “multiple mobilities” look like and
(b) describe how mobility affects the accumulation and maintenance of college capital.
91
In the first part of the chapter, I share segments of data to provide a general idea of the
six informants‟ mobility histories. Data are not presented uniformly or chrono-
logically. Rather selected data are intended to illustrate the complexity and variance
of the causes, incidence and consequences of mobility. The second part of the chapter
describes the informants‟ college capital. As I noted in chapter 2, I define college
capital as information, skills and support conducive to ensuring college readiness.
Portraying Multiple Mobilities
The six study informants experienced their mobilities differently. As I will
discuss in chapter 5, mobility was set into motion for various reasons. In some cases,
informants were removed from abusive home environments. In other situations,
informants chose to move. The effects of mobility varied–at times improving the
quality of informants‟ schooling and/or day-to-day lives. In other situations, moves
proved challenging. Regardless of the causes or consequences, mobility was a
constant and dynamic part of informants‟ lives. Ultimately the context of mobility
shaped how informants prepared for college.
Table 4.1 offers a synopsis of informants‟ mobilities. As the table shows,
the ages when informants entered into foster care varied dramatically ranging from
1-year-old to 15-years-old. Number of years in the system also varied. In the cases of
Brian, Liz and Michael reunification with birth mothers interrupted and shortened
their tenure in foster care. Informants also varied in the number of schools and
residential placements they experienced. Liz, Michael and Brian experienced high
levels of school and residential mobility. Tamika had low levels of mobility once in
92
foster care but changed schools many times during her life. Fernando and Silvia
experienced the lowest levels of school and residential mobilities. The table illustrates
that number of years in foster care did not correlate with incidence of mobility. Silvia,
for example, lived in foster care for the longest amount of time, but did not experience
the highest incidence of mobility.
Table 4.1: Students‟ Mobility before Attending College (prior to and during foster care)

Name

Age entered
system

Number of years in
system*

Number of
placements

Number of K-12
schools**

Spent time living in
unofficial residence(s)
while in system?
Tamika 15 2.5 2 13 Yes

Liz 9 8.0 7 13-14 No

Brian 1 8.0 7 8 Yes

Fernando 8 10.0 4 3 Yes

Michael 8 10.0 7 11 No

Silvia 6 12.0 3 5 yes

*Note that some students entered and exited the system multiple times. Therefore, “years in the system” does not
directly correspond to the age they entered.
**Includes schools attended prior to entry into foster care.

While the details of how informants moved, with whom they moved and when
they moved differed, all informants had to manage the stress and logistical challenges
of their mobility. Tamika moved more frequently prior to entering the child welfare
system; Liz, Brian and Michael moved from placement to placement within the
system; Silvia resided with extended family members; Fernando and Michael lived
with people they had never met. At some point, all informants sought alternative
93
living situations, staying with friends when they were supposed to be in a particular
foster care placement. Moving was neither always negative nor always positive–
rather dependent on a given context. Michael, Liz, Fernando and Silvia gained a
degree of housing and educational stability when they entered college. For Brian and
Tamika, attending college precipitated further challenges in securing even semi-
permanent housing. The narratives below show how the details of the informants‟
trajectories through foster care and schools varied substantially. In the second half of
the chapter, I discuss how those trajectories affected the accrual of college capital.
Brian: “My mom was like, „Just get rid of him.‟”
Midway through his sophomore year in college, Brian is due to emancipate
from foster care and invites me to attend his emancipation hearing at the Los Angeles
Children‟s Dependency Court in East Los Angeles. The court building is designed to
be less intimidating to children than the large downtown courthouses and is the only
court dedicated to children‟s issues in the country. The doors of the parking garage
elevators are decorated with bright, whimsical murals of children and animals. Inside,
a huge quilt is suspended above the lobby, each square made by children waiting for
their court appointments. In other parts of the building, children‟s artwork–portraits,
posters against child abuse–lines the walls. The building houses various DCFS
offices, a “211” room where parents can go to receive information about county
services and an office for CASA (court appointed special advocates) volunteers who
spend time with children while they are waiting for their hearings. Multiple
courtrooms occupy each of the three upper floors.
94
Two families congregate in the lobby and wait for their adoption hearings.
Seated on a bench, an Italian-American couple and grandmother fuss with their soon-
to-be-adopted daughter‟s outfit and chat in Italian. A few feet away, a gay couple,
surrounded by grandparents and friends, joke with each other. One father holds an
African American adopted daughter and the other father holds a young, blonde son
who will be adopted today. Families and friends are dressed festively and several
people tote cameras. Their enthusiasm contrasts starkly with the appearance of a
teenage girl lugging an over-stuffed backpack and two duffel bags through the lobby.
She tries unsuccessfully to make a call on a pay phone and then heads upstairs. At the
other end of the lobby, a heavyset teenager in a brown sweatshirt, baggy pants and
beanie cap towers over a 2-year-old. He escorts him through the security checkpoint
and out of the building by gently holding his hand.
Brian arrives wearing a polo-style collared shirt with the name of the CSU he
attends embroidered on the front. He is accompanied by the niece of the woman with
whom he has been staying. He is beaming. Today is the day he will emancipate from
a system he has been a part of since he was 3 months old. While in foster care, Brian
lived in seven official placements. When he was 9-years-old he was reunified with his
mother for 3 years. During that time, he would often stay with his grandmother and
neighbors to escape his mother‟s drug-induced abuse and the responsibilities of caring
for his siblings. “I took care of everything. I was so immature, but I still took care of
everything,” Brian remembers. After DCFS deemed it safe, Brian returned to his
95
mother‟s home and lived there for 3 years. He explains how he was removed from his
mother‟s custody the second time:
My social worker came over because my sister had went to school with
bruises. And I guess the teachers reported it because my mom had hit her
because she had a little tantrum. I always used to protect her. My mom didn‟t
hurt me. I‟m 5‟6” and she‟s shorter than me–like 5‟4.” And so I didn‟t mind
her hitting on me, but not my little brothers and stuff. So I guess one day she
got a hold of my sister and she went to school with bruises. The teachers
reported it and the social worker came. At first, basically the subject was my
mom and my sister. And then we got into it. We were sitting and the social
worker started noticing what was going between me and my mom. We got
into a lot of arguments. Not once did I hit her–but she always used to hit me.
It never really bothered me. I mean it bothered me what she was doing. But it
never really hurt me. I was like, “I‟m fine–just don‟t hit them.” So then the
social worker thought it was unsafe for me to stay there. My mom was like,
“just get rid of him.”

I asked Brian what it was like to reenter foster care for a second time. “At first I
didn‟t want to,” he replies:
The only good thing about it–was that where I was going was real close. I
wouldn‟t really have to change schools. I could just stay in the same area.
So that helped out a lot. If I was to move like somewhere far–like I had to
do when I was younger–I probably would have been so upset.

Brian was relieved to be able to remain in close proximity to his siblings so that he
could check on them. Two weeks after he left his mother‟s care, they were also placed
into foster care. “I was more happy about that–than them staying with my mom. I
probably couldn‟t see them, but I knew they were in a better place,” he says. I wonder
how he felt about separating from his siblings. He responds:
It was hard at first. But they‟re happy. Real happy where they‟re at. . .I didn‟t
have to worry about them as much and I could concentrate on myself. I was so
much older then. When I was younger I was always playing around. When I
got older I knew that I had to learn–and find out about myself. So many
96
people told me that I was different from everybody else. Then I started really
seeing it. Especially now–how different I am from people.

In the vast waiting room of children‟s court, families sit together facing various
television monitors or a massive window overlooking a golf course and the
surrounding city. Children play at mini-sized tables around the room. The mood is
somber but not depressing. Periodically a staff person exits one of the five or six
courtrooms and booms the name of the next family to be seen. Lawyers discuss cases
with their clients in earshot of other families waiting. One says: “I think it‟s probable
that your son will be sent to live with someone in your family.” The couple nods
solemnly. People in suits abound. Adults attempt to keep toddlers quiet. Many
children appear to be with their grandparents. One little girl runs across the room,
slips, bangs her head on a chair and has to go to the hospital for stitches. The family
misses their court appointment.
Within the courtrooms, the mobility of children is either set into motion or kept
stable. Some parents will be mandated to enroll in counseling with the objective of
nurturing healthy families, others will learn that their children are going to enter into
state custody. Brian has been to this building many times and reflects on what he has
witnessed:
Like sometimes I swear I would come here or I would go to a foster agency
meeting or something, I would see like little kids running around and they‟re
like so happy or whatever; and then it‟s like, when I see the families that they
leave with, sometimes you can tell they‟re totally not their real parents. I mean,
sometimes I‟m like, “Well, how can somebody give their kid up?” or something
like that. They‟re so happy, but they really don‟t know until they get older, they
won‟t really know. I‟m just like, “Wow!” Sometimes I just know it isn‟t right.

97
He explains that after being in the system a while, a child can sense when they are
going to be moved. In his case, as he grew older, he learned to read situational
cues alerting him that he would be moving again:
Well, for me, it wasn‟t even like, I pack my stuff. It‟s like I‟ll come
home from school and my stuff will be packed and I‟m just like, I
would go most of the time and sit and watch T.V. Like they don‟t need
you crying and all that stuff. So I would go in and I wouldn‟t really ask
in person. I wouldn‟t be thinking and I would sit there and watch TV
and then they‟d tell me. I mean, eventually, when I got older, I started
realizing. But when I was younger it would just be like, come home
from school, do what I usually do. My stuff would be packed, but I
wouldn‟t really ask. I don‟t know. It‟s like, “They‟re probably moving
me . . . ” I remember a couple of times I would be watching T.V. and I
would be hungry and I‟d ask for something to eat. And they‟d be like,
“Oh, you‟re about to leave, you‟re about to leave.” And then I would
think, “but I‟m hungry.” I remember that happening like twice and
then the social worker would come and then I would kind of like . . . . I
would automatically . . . I‟d just take her hand and leave. And some
places I never got to say goodbye. I don‟t know, and sometimes I
actually cried.

The longer he sits in the waiting room, Brian grows more and more distracted.
He rapidly taps his heel up and down and attempts to contact his social worker via
cellular phone. “I told her to call me and she has my number and everything and I
called her office and everything. She told me to come in . . . ” he reassures us. The
last time Brian attended court, his social worker did not show up. He had waited for 3
hours before leaving.
Brian watches the children playing at an adjacent table and remembers how
when he was younger, he would travel in a van chartered by DCFS to attend hearings.
On one occasion, he recalls how the stress of moving around caught up to him:

98
There was one situation, I got into the van and my little sister was by me and I
didn‟t know it was my sister. And the lady in the van was like–because she
read our names and everything and saw we were related–she was like, “Aren‟t
you going to say „hi‟ to your sister?” It was weird. I didn‟t even see her.
Then I just had to hug her, but–I don‟t know, I guess my mind was somewhere
else too. I just got in the van and I sat right next to her and I didn‟t know that.

Today Brian had driven himself to court in a car that keeps breaking down.
Excited but nervous about emancipating, he is also hopeful that the judge hearing his
case will assist him in securing additional funds for housing so that he can continue
attending college without having to work a full-time job. Due to his social worker‟s
failure to facilitate a move into campus dormitories, Brian continued to live in a foster
home when he started college. Even though commuting to campus was difficult,
Brian was content living there until he had an altercation with the foster family and
had to move out. He had gone camping for the weekend and could not telephone his
foster parents. His foster mother had grown worried and both parents berated him
when he returned home. Brian felt compelled to move out. The move propelled him
into residential instability and he stayed on friends‟ couches while attending college.
After 2 hours and multiple cellular phone calls, Brian decides that his social
worker is not going to show up. His demeanor has changed from bright to resigned,
although not defeated. “I think she has a full caseload . . . I know she does,” Brian
says as he files down the stairs on his way out of the building. To get to his car, he
passes the bright murals on the elevator doors.
As I will discuss in chapter 5, the instability caused by not having housing
while attending college can be critically detrimental to undergraduates from foster
99
care. Not living on campus increased Brian‟s residential and network instability and
emphasizes the ongoing nature of his mobility. Like Brian, Tamika was also unable to
move into campus housing. The residential instability she experienced in college
negatively affected her freshman year.
Tamika: “We chose to be in the system.”
“If she would have just stayed with me, she would almost be done with
college–by next year,” Oma, Tamika‟s former foster mother, says when I call
to see if she knows where Tamika is living. “She has a scholarship and
everything. But she made those choices . . . those were her choices.” Oma is
caring for a new set of foster children now. The last time she saw Tamika was
at Tamika‟s sister‟s high school graduation. Tamika was no longer enrolled in
college. When I tell her that Tamika had spoken highly of her support, she is
surprised, “I wish she would have told me.” Oma expresses remorse that
Tamika is no longer in school, “She‟s a smart girl–could have gone a long
way. That‟s not to say she won‟t, but she‟s all the way in L. A. now. That‟s a
set back. She‟s 18-years-old. There‟s only so much I can do.” Tamika told
Oma that she planned on starting up again. Oma hoped this was true.
Before entering foster care, Tamika‟s life was characterized by high
levels of residential and school mobility. Her mother moved Tamika and her
sister back and forth between California and Texas numerous times. Her father
spent time in jail and was not involved in family life. During our first
interview, Tamika chronicles her school changes methodically. She giggles at
100
times when she falters in remembering a school name. Tables 4.2-4.4 illustrate
her residential and scholastic history prior to college.
Table 4.2. Overview of Tamika‟s Mobility (elementary school years)

Grade K 2 3 4 5
Residence Texas Texas Texas Texas California

Caregiver mother mother grand-mother mother
grand-mother

mother
School Maple Alamo City View [?] Woodside

Table 4.3. Overview of Tamika‟s Mobility (middle school years)

Grade 7 7 7 7 8
Residence Texas California California
(sober living)

California Texas
Caregiver Mother Mother Mother Mother Mother

School [?] Long Beach King Park [?]

Table 4.4. Overview of Tamika‟s Mobility (high school years)

Grade 9 9 10 11
Residence Texas California California California

Caregiver mother mother DCFS DCFS (with Oma)

School Forest South Central Suburban

Tamika does not believe that moving around negatively affected her
academic progress. “I was always a pretty good student,” she says when I ask her
if moving made doing well in school difficult. Tamika explains how moves caused
by different foster care placements had different effects on her college preparation.
101
When we got placed [in the system], I was in LA. So I went to [South LA High].
That was–oh Lord. I didn‟t like that school at all,” she remembers. But then
Tamika and her sister moved in with Oma and enrolled in a high school with a
stronger academic program. “That school was good for me, Tamika reflects. “It
was different. As far as the people, I could focus on my work. I was originally
supposed to go somewhere else. So I was lucky.”
During our first interview (as she would do in subsequent interviews),
Tamika stresses that her mother is still an important and constant presence in
her life even though they do not live together. She talks about how moving
away from her mom was difficult but necessary:
We chose to be in the system. We didn‟t, like, get taken from my mom.
Because my mom was on probation–we were living with her in a sober living
program. She was going so good but then she got into a conflict with like, our
godmother, because she had lied on my mom. So my mom ended up violating
her probation. So we were staying in the place by ourselves . . . . So they had
to call the people. They asked if we had any family who we wanted to go and
stay with. But we wanted to stay out here with our mom–we didn‟t want to
leave her out here by herself.

Eventually, foster care provides Tamika and her sister with a more stable living
and school situation. After a bad first placement with “a woman who lied and would
not give [them] money or buy [them] anything,” they end up at Oma and her
husband‟s foster home. At the new placement, as Oma explains, education is a
priority. “When a child comes into our care, we take them down to skid row and show
them what their life could be. Not that they are any better than anyone,” she clarifies.
“I have them do chores, but not too many. I am my own housekeeper. I tell them,
102
“Bring me no C‟s or D‟s, bring me A‟s and B‟s. I know you Dan,” Oma continues, “If
not, activities are taken away. I‟m not a strict person, I‟m a firm person.”
Midway through the first semester of her freshman year, Tamika and I meet on
campus. She is carrying a heavy backpack full of books and her yoga mat. She
complains about how hard it is not having a place to store her belongings since she
does not have on-campus housing. Like Brian, she had applied unsuccessfully to live
in a campus dormitory. Tamika explains that commuting from her foster parent‟s
house is draining:
I get up at 5:20[am] to leave the house at 6:00. On Monday, Wednesday and
Fridays I catch my bus at 6:28, change buses and arrive at school at 7:40. On
Tuesdays and Thursdays it‟s an hour later. Then they changed the route and I
had to change my schedule. At first I was taking the bus with my sister–that
was good–and we would leave together. But now I can‟t with the new times.

On the bus, Tamika reads, sleeps and does homework. But the daily travel time is
exhausting and eventually Tamika moves in with a friend she met during her summer
bridge program. The move is not officially sanctioned by DCFS but provides relief
for Tamika. As with Brian, Tamika would increase her mobility by moving into a
friend‟s apartment.
When we meet in January of her freshman year, Tamika shares how living
closer has improved her college experience:
I got more comfortable here. I learned a lot of things about the campus. I got to
come and stay closer so that I didn‟t have to wake up at 5 o‟clock in the
morning to get here at 8:00. All that stuff, so that got better for me. I got more
rest, and plus, I was closer to a job. And my friend was helping me out a lot
with transportation, so I haven‟t rode the bus in a long time.

103
The perpetual nature of Tamika‟s mobility continues into her college years.
The firm foster home and positive school environment Tamika experienced during her
second foster care placement ensured her college readiness. But her inability to move
onto campus complicates her first year experience. Like Tamika, Michael spent his
high school years in a strict foster home. But unlike Tamika, Michael has the option
of residing on campus. Dormitory life provides Michael with an escape from his stern
foster care situation and he is able to focus on his studies without having to worry
about where he is going to live.
Michael: “I know people are trying to help but it‟s not easy to trust somebody.”
“Most of my stuff is in the dorm right now,” Michael reflects soon after
moving into his campus housing, “but some of my other stuff is at my foster parent‟s–
it‟s just stuff I don‟t need right now. I have everything I need in my dorm.” After
abiding by his foster mother‟s strict rules (among them a 9:00 p.m. curfew and the
requirement that Michael‟s friends had to be fingerprinted and cleared through DCFS
before going out together), Michael is enjoying a higher degree of freedom now in
college. Michael resided in six different foster homes and attended 11 different
schools before settling in his final placement before college for 5 years. His strong
performance in school was both a saving grace and a source of stress:
When I entered [the system], I was kinda like, depressed. I felt bad. I was
like 9-years-old. So when I moved into the foster home, after dealing with the
struggles–my brothers spreading out to different cities–it was kinda weird how
they were expecting me to start a new school and a new year and still manage
to have some good grades after having to deal with that big drama. They
expect so much right away. No kids have time to calm down, they have no
shoulder to cry on. Like when you have strangers coming up to you and they
104
say, “this is where you are going.” And they start doing this, that. You don‟t
know anyone personally except your family. But when your family is in
different cities, you can‟t really call out to people.

Despite the challenges he faced, Michael maintained good grades in high school
and formed relationships with people who would support his college aspirations.
Michael has not seen his mother for 7 years but still periodically sees his
stepfather. Shortly after his birth, the young couple brought Michael to Los Angeles.
They stayed together for four years but then separated due to “drug problems and
abuse [pause], violence.” Michael‟s mother had 4 other children–Michael‟s sister
who is 18 and three younger brothers aged 10, 9 and 8. “I grew up with my three
little brothers and sister. Then having to spread out to different homes was tough,” he
reflects. He describes how confusing it is to be removed from family and placed into
state care:
My little sister was placed in a Chinese home. And that was a struggle.
Imagine, you just get separated from your parents and people who don‟t speak
your language are explaining everything to you and you‟re not understanding
anything. And you‟re 7-years-old. A new home. Another example is my little
brother who was 2 or 3. He didn‟t know what was going on. He just knew he
was separated from my parents. And people were trying to help. But one thing
I know is that, when you see strangers hugging you, it can get a little kid
confused and traumatized. I know people are trying to help but it‟s not easy to
trust somebody.

Of all the informants, Michael stresses the psychological hardships caused by
moving around, especially as they pertain to his siblings. Michael expresses
frustration over having to get to know new social workers. “It makes it a lot tougher
because when each social worker moves in, they have to go over your story and learn
what the situation was like before they took over,” he explains. “They come in to
105
learn about you but you don‟t have time to go through it again. It‟s kind of frustrating,
having to deal with people who want to know about you while you are trying to get
your problems out of the way.”
Before he starts college, I ask Michael if he thinks that emancipating from
foster care would be a “big deal” for him. After thinking about the constraints he had
experienced in his last foster home, he postulates that it mostly likely would:
Yeah, because I‟ve been in the system for so long, I‟ve never made any
decisions for myself. Now it‟s my time. I‟ve never had the freedom. Like a
10-year-old says, “Can I go over to my friend‟s house?” And that‟s it. And the
parents say, “Yeah.” For me to go, I have to ask my foster parents. And if
they say yes, I have to ask my social worker. And if they say yes, I have to ask
my county social worker. And sometimes it ends up in the courts. So by the
time it‟s over, it‟s like . . . it‟s embarrassing too because if parents are driving
me–they need to be fingerprinted. Like why do they need that?

Midway through his freshman year, Michael attends his emancipation hearing.
“It was weird, I dunno–I felt the same afterwards,” Michael says as he sketches a
bird‟s eye drawing of the courtroom where he attended his emancipation hearing in
January of his freshman year. A judge, illustrated by a circle in a square, sits behind a
long rectangular divide representing a table. On the other side of the rectangle,
various circles depict chairs. “And right here is my mom‟s lawyer and my dad‟s
lawyer,” he points to circles on the right, “and my parents weren‟t there–they could
have been. They used to be there . . . but I haven‟t seen them there in [slight pause]
years. So I guess their lawyers have to be there and I kinda felt awkward seeing two
lawyers sitting next to empty chairs.” His finger taps the circles on the notebook page,
“If they would have come, my mom and dad would have sat there with their lawyers.”
106
Michael‟s finger slides to three circles on the left, “And I‟m here with my sister and
social worker. They went to court with me. My sister had to go that day too. For me
it was mandatory - I saw my judge. I dunno, I didn‟t really feel emotional or
anything.”
When his emancipation hearing ended Michael says he, “just walked out
[of the courtroom]” and said, “oh, I‟m not a foster kid anymore . . . but I still feel
like it.” He remembers thinking, “I don‟t know what to call myself. And I didn‟t
want to go and tell my friends, “Oh, I‟m normal.” I guess there‟s not really much
to be so happy about.” “My social worker wanted to celebrate,” he states flatly,
“We went to Subway.”
Even though Michael likes his dormitory, he increases his residential
mobility by leaving campus during holidays and on the weekends. He continues
to visit his former home, despite not really liking his foster parents, in order to
watch over his siblings. Silvia also expresses a high level of concern over her
younger sister. Like Michael she also has the opportunity to live on campus but
returns to her foster home even more frequently than Michael does in order to
spend time with her sister.
Silvia: “There‟s nothing I can really do, you know, like where else can she go?”

Silvia slides into my car and we head to a local Mexican restaurant. “I‟m
kinda sick of the dorm food,” she says softly with a smile. She twirls her dorm keys,
suspended around her neck at the end of thick cord necklace, akin to what one receives
at professional conferences. As we drive away, she eyes her dormitory building,
107
tucked away from the other buildings surrounded by a grove of tall trees. “It‟s scary
staying there on the weekends,” she says.
Since starting college, Silvia has returned to her aunt‟s house almost every
weekend. Her aunt picks her up on Friday afternoon and returns her to campus on
Sunday evening. When Silva was seven, her mother died. Since then, she and her
siblings have lived with family members. At first the sisters were separated and Silvia
felt isolated, “It was kind of hard leaving my little sister because my mom passed
away, so I was pretty much alone. And when I left, I felt like I was leaving her. So it
was just really hard to kind of, you know, go off on my own.” The sisters were soon
reunited and lived for 9 years with the abusive uncle mentioned in chapter 1. Their
older two siblings lived in separate placements. The sisters moved in temporarily with
a single “male-chauvinist” cousin and finally moved to their aunt‟s house.
As we wait for our burritos to arrive, Silvia talks about the logistics of
leaving campus on the weekends. She explains, “Well, one of my friends is a
foster kid and she‟s having problems going home on the weekends too because
her grandma was charging her for rides . . . ” Her voice gets louder as she
continues:
. . . and her grandma was like, “I‟m not going to drive all the way out there to
pick you up.” So [my friend] pretty much just went to her friend‟s house. She
was living there, but now her friend‟s dad is charging her for rides too. She
said to me like, “Well, I‟m staying [on campus] this weekend,” and I was like,
“Well, I‟ll stay with you.” But it gets boring without a car. There‟s like
nothing to do out here.

108
Spanish rock music enhances the ambience of the small Mexican café
sandwiched between a Chinese restaurant and laundromat. Silvia refills her soda.
When she returns to the table, she explains that the reason why she spends weekends
with her aunt is to check up on her younger sister who still lives there. “The thing
about going back is that I get really mad when I go back. And my little sister is being
bad and my cousin is such a bad influence. I‟m like, she has no manners, you know?”
Every time Silvia visits, her sister seems to be less focused on school and swears
more. “And I get really mad, and I‟m like, „What are you doing?‟ And then I feel
guilty for like, even leaving her there,” Silvia says in an exasperated tone. “It‟s only
making me do bad in school. Just knowing that like, you know . . . I‟m leaving her
there,” she pauses, “So I told myself . . . . I need to like, well there‟s nothing I can
really do, you know, like where else can she go?” She looks me in the eye. I have no
answer.
As the year progresses, Silvia starts to have even more misgivings about
spending time at her aunt‟s house because her aunt no longer receives money from
DCFS for her. We discuss her discomfort:
Silvia: It‟s hard I guess because now she doesn‟t get money [from DCFS], so
it seems like if I ask her for something, I have to pay her. And even living
with her, I‟m not even comfortable living there anymore. Well, this weekend,
I‟m planning to stay in the dorms, but it feels weird you know. You feel like
you‟re not wanted and like . . . . Because she makes it seem like . . . you know,
it‟s not even like that, like she tells me I can stay. That‟s just how I feel
because she‟s not being paid, you know.

Zoe: So do you think that this is something you might be projecting onto
this situation, like you have to pay or is she like really making you pay?

109
Silvia: No, she‟s not making me, but that‟s what it feels like, you know. I
mean, after just going on the weekend, you never know what they‟re
saying behind your back.

When winter break approaches, Silvia is eligible to stay in the dormitories
because of her participation in the Forte support program for students from foster care,
but she doesn‟t consider staying in the dormitories as a residential option. “That‟d be
sad,” she sighs. Instead, she goes to stay with a cousin despite the ultimatum issued
by her brother who doesn‟t get along with the cousin. “Spend it with him or with me,”
he had said. Silvia explains why she and her sister decided to stay with the cousin,
“because we‟re like, „You know what? We already have drama and [our brother]
wants us to always be after him, like follow him.‟”
The irony of Silvia‟s situation is that along with Liz, she appeared to have the
highest degree of residential stability: she was granted on-campus housing and could
return to her aunt‟s house when she wanted to–her aunt even picked her up on the
weekends. Yet in Silvia‟s mind, she did not feel secure about either option. As such,
mobility was a constant presence in her life. Liz, on the other hand, integrates quickly
into her college life. She returns to her foster home on occasion but considers herself
independent and residentially anchored on campus.
Liz: “So I think that was a mistake that we went back to our mom, you know.”
Liz chuckles from her apartment‟s 5‟ x 5‟ kitchen, “I still have stuff in the back
of my car.” Even though the room Liz is going to share during her sophomore year in
college is larger than her dormitory room, she can not fit all of her belongings into her
limited closet space. What was stored in her car trunk during her freshman year
110
continues there. “I think I‟m going to have to drop off some stuff at my uncle‟s–even
though I don‟t want to.” Liz brings me a glass of ice water and we sit facing a
fireplace surrounded by a garland of tiny white lights. “I think I‟m going to have my
desk down here–I told my roommate I don‟t mind.”
Participating in the Sentinel Scholars support program for students from foster
care had guaranteed Liz on-campus housing during the duration of her career at
college. But because Liz is caught drinking alcohol in her dorm room, she almost
looses her eligibility to live in the dorms for a second year. Instead, she and her
roommate decide to move into an apartment with friends from her freshman year. She
is not phased by having to move or by her alcohol-related infraction:
Yeah, I was going out. But I‟m very responsible. Like people can‟t get out of
bed. I take like two minutes after the phone rings–I use my phone as an
alarm. It‟s weird, I‟m like a morning and a night person. Not a good
combination sometimes, but it works. I never feel sluggish–only once in a
while.

It has been a year since Liz and I first met. During our first interview, I had
learned that Liz entered into the child welfare system when she was 9-years-old and
remained in the system until leaving for college, with a brief period punctuated by
reunifying with her mother. Her first placement was with a single mother and two
daughters where she, “[didn‟t] remember really bad memories, but [didn‟t] really
remember good ones either, but just remembered [she and her sister] were always
separate from their daughters and treated differently, that kind of thing.” During her
second placement, she was reunited with her two sisters in a home in East Los
Angeles. The foster mother was a grandmother who was “very mentally abusive” to
111
Liz‟s younger sister, so they had to move. After a short time, Liz was then separated
from her sisters and was placed with a devout family in Covina.
During this time, Liz longed to be reunited with her mother. But after
reunifying with her mother, Liz explains how her feelings changed:
Before I would be like, you know, I still love my mom and I want to see her.
But now I can‟t stand being around her, because she‟s been living in South
Central and she‟s developed the characteristics and the lingo . . . I don‟t know,
the ghetto accent. It‟s like a stereotype, but that‟s how she is. And I don‟t
know her like that, so it‟s really sad. She looks so ugly and old and it‟s hard. I
don‟t know what she‟s doing. I‟ve always like known about her drugs, but she
keeps it well-hidden. I don‟t know what kind of drugs she used, I just . . . I
don‟t know.

Liz‟s drive contrasts with her mother‟s reliance on welfare. Liz aspires to
start a nonprofit organization that will assist foster youth in preparing for college.
During her freshman year she holds leadership positions in a business club on
campus and is asked to represent the Southern California region in a visit to the
state governor‟s office to advocate for improved educational services for foster
youth. “My mother has never had a job really, I don‟t think, so it‟s really sad. I
was just thinking about that and I realized that . . . like a week ago . . . I mean,
she‟s never had a job.” Liz shakes her head, “How can you . . . that‟s so weird,
like not even little fast-food jobs or anything, just welfare and . . . you know, oh,
my gosh. When I start thinking about these things . . . . ”
During their reunification, Liz tried to reconcile her mother‟s behavior
with a desire to keep the family together. But her mother‟s drug dependency
forced Liz into increased mobility as she sought refuge in her grandmother‟s
112
house. She explains, “Well, when I was 12, I moved back with my mom for a
year and that was not so good. I just gradually–I kept visiting my grandma. I‟d
stay the weekend because I didn‟t like it [with my mom] and that‟s when I told
my family what was going on with my mom.” Liz remembers how her mother,
“was back into her old habits because [her] dad was around, so bringing all his old
habits back and–it was a bad environment for [her] brothers and sisters.” Even
though she knew she would have to “break the family apart” Liz made the
decision to talk to her family about her mother‟s drug use. She remembers the
conflict she felt, “[my brothers and sisters] didn‟t understand, they just knew that
I was taking them away from our mom. You know, they said I was not betraying
them, but ratting her out. But they were small, so they didn‟t know.”
Returning to live with her mother wrecked opportunities for securing stable
placements for both Liz and her sisters. After being with her mother, she no longer
wanted to return to the overly religious environment of her former foster family
(where she had lived contentedly) despite the family‟s desire to offer her a home:
I felt like a hypocrite there because I was so hating [going to church] when I
was there. You know, if it was under different circumstances, maybe I could
have tried to like it, but I didn‟t. They made me, you know, I was very repelled
because of the whole forcing me to go. I would respect it, but there‟s only so
much I could tolerate in that I‟m not a very religious–that‟s the thing about
religion, is that I haven‟t established if I believe in it or not yet. I don‟t really
know about it. I haven‟t read the bible, I don‟t know . . .

After “tolerating” living there for a while, Liz explains, “I just blew up because I was
telling her how much I didn‟t want to go and stuff and she would still make me feel
guilty. I got very upset and then we had words and then from then on, our relationship
113
just kind of changed.” As a consequence, she was uncomfortable returning to live with
the family.
Liz‟s final placement was with her aunt and uncle. In their home she was able
to focus on her studies and talk to them about her problems. Liz talks about her aunt‟s
influence, “she helped me a lot, you know. I owe a lot to her. She would have talks
with me too during my last year, saying that, “You should do this, you should do that,”
and even though it seems like repetitive, I guess she showed that she‟s always there
for me.” Her uncle at one time told her he loved her more than he had loved his
father. Relocating to their home was a positive move for Liz.
After experiencing the most mobility of all the study informants (7 residential
placements and 13-14 school changes), Liz‟s college situation was perhaps the most
stable–she was guaranteed year-round housing from her college support program and
was welcome to return to her aunt and uncle‟s home at any time. Regardless of these
options, Liz was clear that the responsibility for finding a place to live lay on her
shoulders. Liz acted as the steward of her mobility, dealing with the constant
possibility and reality of moving in a way that best served her needs. Fernando, like
Liz, was independent and savvy about making sure he had a place to live. But in
contrast to Liz, Fernando lacked a foster home to return to during college and was not
guaranteed on-campus housing while school was not in session.
Fernando: “It seems like everybody‟s running away from me.”
“Can you imagine starting in December to find a place to live in the summer?,”
Fernando asks me over lunch. He is dressed in attire suitable for his second summer
114
internship at a County Board of Supervisor‟s office–slacks, a bright blue shirt, tie and
dress shoes. Fernando had met the supervisor at a “Beating the Odds” scholarship
dinner and subsequently held an internship in his office. He has slimmed down and
his face has cleared up considerably since our first meeting a year earlier. Fernando
had called to see if I was going to attend the quarterly ECC (Education Coordinating
Council) meeting, hoping we could meet to catch up. After the meeting ends,
Fernando engages in a serious conversation with a county official and nonprofit
executive before spotting me in the meeting hall. He smiles, rushes over and gives me
a hug.
During his freshman year, Fernando lives on campus in a dormitory suite. He
and his roommates get along well but do not socialize outside of the suite. Fernando is
one of the few undergraduates of color in the dormitory. Fernando is allowed to
remain in the suite while he is enrolled in summer school. But during the few weeks
in summer when he does not have classes, he needs to find a place to stay. Unhappy
with the last foster home he resided in and unwilling to return, Fernando knows that he
has to find an alternative place to reside during the summer.
Fernando‟s tenure in foster care begins when he is 8-years-old. He and his
brother, Ignacio, are placed in a group home. After a short time they are moved to a
“regular foster home” (i.e., where wards live with one family). When their foster
mother “couldn‟t take care of [them] anymore,” the brothers reside with a Mexican-
American family in Los Angeles. After 5 years, DCFS deems it necessary for them to
be placed in another home. “We left because of the discipline, because they did not
115
know how to discipline us,” Fernando explains. “I guess you would say they were
trying their best, but according to foster care policy, it wasn‟t the best treatment. Even
though we were going through the hard times, we were still having the happy times.”
When it is time to enter high school, the brothers are separated. Fernando
ends up in a strict foster home in Los Angeles; his brother is moved to a home in a
neighboring city. After his senior year, Fernando and his foster mother argue and he
is compelled to find an alternative place to live. Fernando fidgets as he relates the
exchange:
Like, my foster parents . . . my foster mom had told me that she didn‟t want
me in the house anymore. And it was already the end of summer and she was
like, “Oh, I can‟t take care of you anymore.” And I kind of felt bad because I
grew up there as a family. I got attached to them. But at the same time, she
was like, “Get out of here, I don‟t want you anymore.” And I told her like,
“Well, why? I thought we were a family?” And she said that, “Well I don‟t
trust you anymore.” And I said, “Well, I don‟t think it‟s that you don‟t trust
me no more, I think it‟s just that you hate me.”

Fernando hypothesizes that his foster mother is jealous of his senior year
accomplishments.
In response to the tension in his foster care placement, Fernando chooses to
move in with his “mentor” and former social worker. After a few months, however,
their relationship becomes strained. Once in college Fernando believes that he is no
longer welcome to stay with her during his vacations. “I kind of got the feeling or
impression that she didn‟t want me there anymore because she told me that she needed
the room available for her cousin,” Fernando contemplates, “And so she gave me this
116
impression that I need to be very independent and so then it hits me, I‟m like, “you
know what? That‟s true.”
As we sit in the air-conditioned cafeteria, Fernando explains how half a year
earlier he had carefully weighed his options about summer housing and rekindled a
relationship with a former foster family in order to secure a place to stay. He
remembered that there was an extra bed in the Mexican-American foster family‟s
house upstairs and figured they might be willing to rent it to him for a few weeks. “So
I e-mailed the kids and talked to them on MySpace,” Fernando smiles, “To reestablish
a connection with the family–that was in December.” Fernando took an active role in
accommodating for his mobility.
During one of our interviews, Fernando characterizes his mobility in different
terms than the other informants–acutely aware of other people‟s mobility. “It seems
like everybody‟s running away from me. It‟s not like they‟re actually doing that, but
that‟s what‟s happening,” he says. First his mother moved to Mexico. Next, his father
moved to Texas and his uncle to Arkansas. He recently learned that the foster family
he lived with during high school planned on relocating to Utah. He shares this
reaction to everyone‟s moves:
There‟s some days when I feel like, “OK, I‟m going to look for them and I‟m
going to write to them, I‟m going to talk to them,” and then there‟s some days
where I‟m like, “What for?” They‟re the ones who are not looking for me,
then why should I do so?. I get down sometimes, I feel like . . . I mean, if they
really don‟t care about me, then why should I even care about them? Then I
don‟t want to do that because I don‟t want to be unhappy, but then I don‟t
know what to do.

117
For Fernando, needing to find a place to live during the summer occupies time
and causes stress. He, like several of the other informants, cannot simply go home to a
permanent location during college holidays or on weekends. Like the other
informants, Fernando has to adjust to changing residences, schools and various
networks while in high school, and continues to have to do so in college. His mobility
is constant and dealing with moving is a labor-intensive and emotionally draining
process.
The narratives on multiple mobilities highlight the socially constructed nature
of mobility. No two individuals experienced mobility in the same ways. Reasons for
moving, reactions to moving and the details of moves differed. Consequently, the
ways in which mobility was internalized and affected behavior varied among
informants. As I will discuss in greater depth in chapter 5, informants did not move in
a set sequence with predictable results. Rather the causes, incidence and effects of
mobility were tied to context. The effects of mobilities were dependent on
informants‟ reactions to leaving a previous residential placement or school
environment, the nature of new residential placements or school enrollment,
participants involved in past and new placements and schools and the emotional states
of the informants. Sometimes moving increased the fragility of an informant‟s
emotional and academic well being. At other times, moving had positive
consequences. In some cases, the effects of mobility were softened by the short
proximity of the move or quality of care provided. For other informants, moving far
away from an unsafe area was beneficial. Institutional policies played a strong role in
118
setting mobilities into motion–as did the behaviors of certain caregivers–yet
informants also fostered mobilities in their choices about where to live and when to
move. Mobility was not seen as a finite activity, rather as a process and perpetual
element in informants‟ lives.
This study was designed to learn about how mobile individuals build and
maintain college-related social capital. The first part of this chapter showcased
informants‟ insights into their mobilities and offer a starting point to analyze the social
capital/mobility dynamic outlined in chapter 2. By examining the challenges created
by moving and informants‟ reactions to their mobilities, data show how mobility poses
potential barriers to the development of social capital. Furthermore, informants‟
perspectives point to the role of institutional structures in setting mobility into motion
and differentially structuring access to resources embedded within institutional
contexts. I will return to these themes in chapter 5. In the second half of this chapter,
data portray informants‟ college capital. As the narratives will illustrate, the ways that
informants approached their mobilities affected how they prepared for college.
Portraying College Capital
Despite the high incidences of residential and/or school mobility experienced
by the study informants, they all were able to fulfill college requirements and enroll in
4-year universities. Granted that informants‟ accomplishments were strongly
influenced by their intelligence and resilience, yet becoming college ready is a
complicated process and often involves social interactions with a variety of
institutional gatekeepers and/or support agents who can assist students in preparing for
119
college through sharing targeted information, skills and/or support(referred to here as
college capital). Students need to be encouraged to pursue college aspirations,
programmed into classes that meet college requirements and educated in ways that
enable them to earn grades that ensure their competitiveness in being accepted at a 4-
year institution. Filling out college applications can be an intense activity for students
hoping to enroll in college the following fall. Students choose to which schools they
will apply, fill out paperwork, write personal statements, and apply for financial aid
and housing. Applications can be confusing, especially for students who do not have
the guidance of a family member who has been to college. Understanding where
students located college support, what types of social capital were most helpful and
how they accessed college resources sheds light on the concept of college capital. As I
elaborate in chapter 5, college capital is characterized by network composition, types
of resources embedded within social relations and network orientations or capacity to
build social capital.
The descriptions of the six study informants‟ college capital below illustrate a
wide range of awareness of college options and strategies for finding the support
needed for college. As in the first half of this chapter, descriptions of informants‟
college capital are not presented in chronological order or uniformly across
informants. Rather, I have highlighted insights shared by informants that illustrate
how their college capital developed in high school and evolved once in college. In
chapter 5, I analyze the descriptions by identifying common elements of college
capital and overarching barriers to forming college capital. I then discuss the
120
interaction between mobility and college capital, exploring the dialectic relationship
between the two.
Before sharing informants‟ perspectives on college capital while preparing for
college and while navigating their freshman years, I offer a synopsis of where they
found college-related social support in high school and during their freshman years in
college. Informants differed in when they developed college aspirations, when they
decided to apply to college and where they found support for college going. As table
4.5 illustrates, when I asked informants who served as their primary source of college
support, four of six said they relied on themselves foremost. When I probed who
helped them fill out applications and decide where to apply, informants reported being
able to seek assistance from varying sources. With the exception of Brian, informants
utilized the services of their college center. Four of the six informants received
college support, albeit limited, through DCFS.
Table 4.6 provides an overview of informants‟ college capital once enrolled in
university. As mentioned before, three of the informants participated in holistic
support programs for foster youth at their universities. Five of the six informants took
summer bridge courses targeted at supporting under-represented student‟s transition to
121
Table 4.5. Overview of Students‟ College Capital in High School

Informant

Early college
aspirations?

When decided
to apply to
college?

Primary college
support

Secondary
college support

Used
services in
college
center?
Received
college
support
from
DCFS or
ILP?
Tamika Yes High school Self Guidance
counselor
Foster mother

Yes No
Liz Yes Elementary
school
Self (CBOP
worksheet)
Teachers
Social worker
College
counselor
Aunt (foster
mother)

Yes No
Brian No November
(week before
applications
were due)

Self Teachers
Social worker
No Yes
Fernando Yes “always” “Mentor”
College
counselor

School
administrators
Yes Yes
Michael No Senior year Social worker Coach Yes Yes

Silvia Yes High school Self

Social worker
College
counselor
Yes Yes

college. With the exception of Silvia, informants did not regularly attend tutoring.
Rather they sought academic assistance when they needed additional help. The chart
illustrates a dichotomy in who informants approached when they faced academic and
personal problems. For academic problems or questions, informants sought assistance
from institutionally based individuals. For personal problems, informants relied
mostly on friends for support.

122
Table 4.6. Overview of Students‟ College Capital in College

Student
Participated in a
program
designed for
foster youth

Participated in
summer bridge
program

Attended
tutoring on
campus
Who students
approached
with academic
problems
Who students
approached with
personal problems
related to college
Tamika No Yes Once in a
while

None Friends
Family
Liz Yes Yes Once in a
while/as
needed*

Program
advisors**
Friends
Brian No Yes Once in a
while
Academic and
financial aid
advisors

Friends
Fernando No Yes As needed Summer bridge
advisors
Therapist
Friends
Michael Yes Yes As needed* Program
advisors**

Self
Silvia Yes Yes Regularly* Program
advisors**
Friends

*Tutoring was mandatory
**“Program advisors” refers to the Forte or Sentinel advisors

While the tables show that informants had access to college support, the chart
does not convey the informants‟ attitudes towards accessing support, the effectiveness
of their help-seeking behaviors or how mobility influenced the way they developed
college capital in high school and maintained college capital once in college. The
narratives shared below respond in part to those questions.
Brian: “They only helped me after I got on track.”

Brian‟s mobility was characterized by frequent residential moves but
moderate number of school changes. However despite the fact that he attended
the same high school for 4 years, Brian‟s efforts to build college capital were
disjointed.
123
Preparing for College In high school, Brian almost misses the deadline
to apply for California State Universities. “It seemed like everybody in school
was applying at an earlier time. But I didn‟t really know when to apply,” Brian
remembers. Then his favorite teacher, his AP English teacher, asks him about
his post-graduation plans. I ask Brian why he liked this teacher more than
others. He replies, “She always depended on me to do things, believed in me
mostly. She always expected me to be great or something.” In response to her
inquiry, Brian recalls, “And finally one day I told her, “I‟m not sure.” And she
helped me get on track about what to do. No one really did that, not even my
social worker. They only helped me after I got on track.” I asked Brian what
“on track” means and he responds, “She helped me out–she referred me to
places here and there. She gave me some insight about how to get in or about
essays.”
Brian is gregarious and his friendships spans different groups of peers
and even different gang affiliations. Many of his friendships serve as his
strongest sources of support when he is in college. We speak about who his
friends are and his ability to straddle different groups:
Zoe: How do you decide who is a good person to hang out with?

Brian: I might subconsciously decide. But if I‟m hanging out with someone,
you learn over a period of time to trust them. But also, like I also separate my
friends from my homies and my family. I finally, like, realized, like last week
a few things happened where I realized that, yeah, they really are different, my
friends and homies. Like most of my friends don‟t like my homies.

Zoe: Wait, explain the difference to me.
124

Brian: Um, my friends, I would say, are those people from high school that we
still keep in touch or that I‟ve known for a long period of time and everything.
And the homies are the people, of course, are the people I know in the street or
that I hang out with. We just like go through, not bad stuff [smiling], we just
go do whatever. And my friends are like, we‟ll go to the movies. There‟s just
. . . the attitudes are different. Like I know my homies or whatever, they‟ll be
willing to fight at all times. Like I already know that. But my friends would
probably be the people talking sense to them.

Brian explains that his “friends” are in the ones who do well in school and most of his
“homies” are in gangs. The two groups do not overlap. Brian and I talk about how
their gang affiliation is not a problem for him:
Brian: People from gangs are smart. To me, they‟re cool. I can get along
with them. And of course I get along with my friends. So like on both sides, I
have no problems with them.

Zoe: The way that gangs work? Do you have to be in one? Or you can just
hang out with them and they keep their eye out for you?

Brian: I know lots of people from gangs. And probably like a large gang
would have my back. I refuse to gang bang. And they already know that. But
they know me and they‟ve known me for so long.

Zoe: And they‟re ok with you refusing to gang bang?

Brian: I‟m like, “I‟m going to school.” And they‟re like, “fo sure.” And then
it‟s always like, there are some people who are like, “just forget him.” But I
really don‟t have any problems. I have lots of friends that are from rival
gangs.

I ask Brian if he thinks it‟s unusual to be able to be friends with so many types
of people. “I know like for me, I know I‟m different from most of my friends. When
it comes down to me. But most of the time I‟m like the main person people are
looking to smooth everything out.”
125
Navigating College “I‟m in my classes,” Brian explains two weeks into his
freshman year, “and what they do for the students who have not paid for their classes–
or whatever and this and that–is they erase their names from the roll or whatever.” He
hangs his head momentarily and continues, “After the professor was done calling roll,
I said, „You didn‟t call my name!‟ He told me, „It‟s probably your financial aid or
something.‟ Brian, along with seven other students whose names were not on the
roster, head directly to the financial aid office to investigate if their financial aid
packages were processed correctly. Brian sighs as he explains the frustration of
figuring out the problem, “I waited for so long in line. My classes are either an hour
or two hours apart–so I mean, I wait for 2 hours and I‟m like, I need to go to my next
class. So I just went to class.” Brian‟s name is not on that class‟ roster either.
Regardless, he stays in class, takes notes and the following day phones the financial
aid office and attempts to use the financial aid website in order to rectify the problem.
He does not get through. He knows that they are supposed to assist him, but is not
persistent in making sure they quickly fix the problem. Several days later he returns to
the office and they handle the situation.
In college, Brian quickly draws similar respect from his classmates to the
respect he garnered from high school friends and “homies.” “I‟ve made too many
friends,” Brian laughs. Students phone him to check their homework and turn to him
in lecture if they have questions. “Some people won‟t even ask the teacher–like the
whole row behind me,” says Brian, “They won‟t understand something and will ask
me for help.” He reflects on why this might be, “I know I‟m not the smartest person
126
in the class. Like there are two tutors to help out and everything. But people still ask
me. I‟m the main one . . . . I guess it must be easier to talk to me because people know
me.”
Brian maintains friendships with peers from his neighborhood during his
freshman year. Most support his college plans, some are slightly less understanding
when he can‟t always spend time with them:
My friends who are in college, they understand exactly what I‟m doing, and the
ones that are just like either working . . . well, the ones that are working they
can kind of get it just because they‟re working and everything. But the ones
that aren‟t, that are just like hanging around the neighborhood or whatever and
doing whatever–it‟s kind of like they know I‟m going to school. But they
don‟t criticize me for it or anything. But sometimes it‟s like they won‟t
involve me in some of the things they might be doing. A lot of times they‟ll
call me and be like, “Oh, what you doing?” “Oh, I‟m just trying to finish up my
essay,” or something and they‟ll be like, “Oh, we‟re going to go here.” I‟m
like, “OK, maybe when I‟m finished or something.” So they‟re like, “Never
mind,” or whatever. But it‟s kind of like that.

Knowing that Brian manages relationships with friends with ease, I ask about
the relationships he has with adults. At the beginning of the semester, he received a
letter directing him to meet with an academic advisor. Since then he meets with the
same advisor when he has questions or concerns about classes. He also regularly
attends tutoring due to extra credit incentives offered by his professor. He reflects,
“When I first went I thought, „Why am I going?‟ Just to get the points, I guess. Then
like as you go over, you keep reviewing things and they get stuck in your head.” After
that he encourages his classmates to join him, especially the ones who keep asking
him questions. “I tell them that if they are insecure about passing the class, they need
to go to tutoring. And the quizzes actually help people. You‟re going to pass the quiz
127
[if you go]. There‟s really incentive to go because you get credit.” His positive
mindset and diligence on homework contribute to him earning good grades his first
semester. In fact he complains that attending his particular CSU is not challenging
enough and too similar to high school. He is considering transferring, perhaps to an
out-of-state school.
Toward the end of his first semester, Brian is still toting his huge backpack to
and from school. He had hoped to have moved into on-campus housing by this time
but was never issued a spot in the dormitories. We talk about why he has not been
able to secure a room:
My social workers make it seem like I was gonna move on campus . . . .this
semester I‟ve really been hoping to move onto campus. I thought this was my
semester. And um, my county social worker and my personal social worker,
they were both like, “we‟ll handle it.” They told me, “We can handle it and
everything.” I told them, “I can do it.” But since they told me that they were
going to handle it, and this and that, I really didn‟t have any worries. But then
it came to the last week. And I‟m like nervous anyway. So I like go down to
the office just to make sure. And [the people in the housing office] were like,
“no, dude.” And I was like so mad. Like for reals.

Zoe: Did you talk to your social worker about it?

Brian: Yeah, one was like, didn‟t really know about it. I guess it was like a
miscommunication between my two social workers.

Zoe: Was it just about payment?

Brian: Um hmm.

Zoe: How frustrating.

Brian: [Chuckles] I was like really upset because I coulda paid for it–but no
one told me. They were supposed to be . . . the one knew about it for a while
but didn‟t give me any word. She was working towards it. But she had to
make a payment and when they do, it takes a while to process the checks. So I
128
guess she was still waiting for that. But I had the money saved–I coulda put
down the deposit.

Unable to garner the necessary resources to guarantee a decent degree of residential
stability in his life, Brian struggles to acclimate fully to college. Brian knows where to
locate college support but does not access support effectively. When he was in high
school, he approached teachers and his social worker for assistance. In college, he
visits academic advisors. Both groups provide him with targeted yet inadequate
assistance. The support he finds is not sufficient to facilitate residential stability. For
Brian, the institutional context of his college preparation created barriers to him
gaining the support he needed. At a micro-level, he confidently manages relationships
with peers, but can not successfully build college capital with institutional agents.
This disconnect is due in part to his own under-developed network orientation but also
because the institutional agents with whom he interacts do not possess high quality
resources to build Brian‟s college capital (i.e., information about college and
relationships with institutional gatekeepers). Tamika, like Brian, manages
relationships with her friends with ease but is unable to garner institutional resources
to ensure residential stability once in college.
Tamika: “I‟ve done everything on my own.”
Recall that Tamika experienced high incidence of residential and school
mobility prior to entering into foster care. She acknowledges that once placed into a
stable home, she was able to focus on her studies. Yet she is only partially effective in
building college capital.
129
Preparing for College Tamika knew she wanted to attend college at an early
age. She tells me, “I‟ve always planned on going to college. I never had a doubt. I‟ve
wanted to make something of myself.” When she lived in Texas, she saw her
“aunties” attend college and “knew that it was a good thing.” Every time she speaks
with her grandparents on the phone, they asked her how she is doing in school. All
along, Tamika‟s mother acts as her biggest motivator. “She didn‟t want to see us
growing up like she did,” Tamika explains, “She always wanted us to do better than
she did because my mom didn‟t graduate from high school. She got pregnant with my
brother. So she just kind of dropped out–she‟s there for us.”
When she is in high school, Tamika relies minimally on her teachers and
counselors for assistance. Her two social workers are slow to respond to her requests
for assistance. “You gotta keep calling him and calling him and calling him,” Tamika
says about her county social worker. I ask Tamika who has been the biggest influence
in her life. She hesitates and then responds:
Tamika: Somebody I went to talk to? [pause] I‟ve done everything on my
own. [long pause] mm nnn [shakes head].

Zoe: Any teachers?

Tamika: [shakes head no] I like, I was always a good student. All my
teachers said I was a pleasure to have in class. But I never really communi-
cated with them. They knew me, I knew them. I talked to them and stuff. It‟s
just that I did not talk to them, like go during break and talk to them like that.
I‟m kinda shy, kinda hard to talk to.

Tamika has dated the same young man since she was in the 9th grade. “He
was supposed to go to college, start this summer–but he got shot–on my sister‟s
130
birthday,” Tamika flinches at the irony. The two met before Tamika entered foster
care, while they were residing with their mothers at the same sober living facility in
South Los Angeles. “His mom had graduated but they were still staying there,” she
explains. On the night he was shot, Tamika‟s boyfriend had been heading to get
something to eat. Even though they had spoken about the dangers of living in his
Compton neighborhood, Tamika was caught by surprise. Because she did not have a
ride to the hospital she had to wait for the following day to visit him. “He says I‟m his
role model,” she smiles. I ask how he has been supportive of her. “In every way,” she
replies, “because, ok, when I first started school I thought about changing my major to
business because I want to open my own [beauty] salon. And I was worried about my
theater major. He told me that it didn‟t matter, he would be happy with whatever
choice I made.”
Navigating College Months later, Tamika and her roommate peek over the
front dashboard of her friend‟s car. When Tamika sees me, she climbs out of the car
and waves her roommate off. “I wasn‟t sure that was you,” she says softly. I
complement her on her intricately braided hair and ask if she has been styling hair for
extra money as she had done earlier on in the semester. “I used to do it more,” she
responds, “but besides my sister and roommate, I took a break.” Since arriving at
college, Tamika‟s social networks have changed significantly. She is no longer dating
her boyfriend and has moved out of Oma‟s home. Nevertheless she still talks to her
sister and birth mother regularly.
131
In college, she continues to shy away from working with administrators or
visiting professor‟s office hours. She does, however, visit the free tutoring center.
While Tamika receives limited instrumental support for college or during her
freshman year, she does receive encouragement from birth and foster family members
and friends.
Tamika describes her new best friend as, “Just like the sweetest and nicest
friend I‟ve ever had. She‟s truthful and never in any trouble or nothing. And I don‟t
have to worry about fighting with her or arguing with her.” Besides the logistical
improvement of living closer to campus, Tamika rarely sees her foster parents
anymore. She enjoys the company of people she has met through college. We talk
about her new friendship and how she decides who might be a trustworthy friend,
“I‟d have to be able to trust them, to be loyal. They need to be honest. I don‟t want
them to be fake, talk about me behind my back, stuff like that.” She provides an
example:
People who keep up with me. I know that they care about me and stuff. The
people that I do talk to, there has been a case where I think they are my friend
but as you get to know them, you see who they really are. And you think, this
person isn‟t as real as I thought they were. There are some people, we can still
be cool but I‟m not around them as much.

Tamika describes the different roles her friends play in her life. One is like a mother.
“She has her head on straight. She looks after everybody, makes sure everybody‟s
doing what they are supposed to. She just stays on all of us–she‟s like everybody‟s
mom.” Another one of her friends she considers to be like her cousin, “We even have
the same last name,” she smiles. Tamika maintains contact with a few friends from
132
high school but attending college creates challenges for seeing them regularly. The
one person she does see frequently is her sister.
Despite her high degree of mobility and entry into foster care, Tamika is able
to maintain close relationships with her family. When she needs emotional support,
she always feels like she can approach her mother or sister. Depending on the timing
of the problem, she also reaches out to friends or her boyfriend. While Tamika
appreciates the support for college going she receives from her close social circle, she
does not access effective institutional support for her college education. Without
reliable assistance from her social worker and college staff, she is not able to secure
on-campus housing, a problem that negatively influences her freshman year. As I
will elaborate in chapter 5, I hypothesize that Tamika‟s college capital is limited
because she has mostly bonding relationships and few bridging relationships with
institutional gatekeepers. Michael, on the other hand, is adept about locating
institutional support for his college plans.
Michael: “When I look around I see that I have a lot of help.”
Despite moving frequently when younger, in Michael‟s last foster care
placement he maintains residential stability throughout high school. Nevertheless he
feels stifled. Michael is able to foster several relationships with institutional
gatekeepers at various institutions (i.e. at his high school, within DCFS) that offer
worthwhile college resources such as application information and access to financial
aid. Michael‟s college capital is targeted and resourceful.
133
Preparing for College Michael believes that DCFS should do a better job of
educating foster youth about the benefits of attending college. Michael relates that,
“most of the foster kids I know think college is not worth it.” “Cuz I‟m finding out
through myself,” he emphasizes, “I‟m learning through other people‟s situations, no
one told me.” He talks about how his experiences in foster care pushed him to
consider college:
Well, I‟ve been thinking about going to college since I was a kid. Cuz ever
since I turned into a foster child and met all those social workers and
switching different homes, I found out what kind of people I don‟t wanna get
involved with, who I don‟t wanna turn out to be like. I saw some of my foster
parents had their 20-year-old sons who were about to go to college. Some
weren‟t doing good, some were successful. So I didn‟t want to end up without
a job.

Yet preparing for college was not easy. There were periods of his life when
Michael lost interest in attending college. But by his junior year, he was serious about
college again, in part due to encouragement from his peers and several key adults in
his life. His high school track coach encouraged him to apply to college and a
photographer he met through an art competition at DCFS talked to him about the
benefits of a postsecondary education. His social worker was his biggest sources of
support. “She has helped me since I have known her–for 5 years,” he says, “She‟s
been the closest person–I actually consider her a foster mom, a full time mom.” She
helped Michael choose a college, fill out the application and apply for a targeted
support program. Once in college, Michael adds, “she even brings me food sometimes
and makes sure I‟m eating my vegetables.”
134
Michael recognizes that the one DCFS venue where he might have received
college support was through his ILP classes. However he did not receive substantial
guidance through ILP because the class participants (i.e., “pool of eligibles”) were not
interested in college. Consequently he is committed to improving the chances that his
fellow foster care participants go to college. “I try and go and help kids with art,” he
says and continues:
When I went to the ILP, most kids have troubles with their foster parents.
Some had abuse. Some don‟t even care about their lives, they‟ve just given up
already. So I try to talk to them. And it doesn‟t really help with those 20
minutes you got in that class. Like when I went to the ILP, out of 30-40
students, only 2 were capable of going to college, or wanted to go. The system
has, I dunno, there‟s a lot of kids that are giving up. Not just because of
parents but because of the system too.

Michael was resigned to the constraints placed on him by his foster family,
partly because he understood the benefits of being raised in a strict household. He
credits the restrictive environment for helping him get to college. “One of the most
important things is to live in a positive home,” he says, “like I live with strict foster
parents. They play with the rules. It sucks, but it‟s good. And my social worker is
kind of strict. I‟m the only one in 8 years who has gone to college.” Michael pauses
for emphasis, “then at my agency–I‟m the first one ever to go to college. It‟s pretty
weird.”
Navigating College When he arrives at college, Michael is placed in a room
with peers from his summer bridge program. “What I notice, with the rooms, is that
they are all with the same ethnicity. It‟s rare to see someone from a different race
together–my room, we are all Hispanic.” I ask why he thinks that is. “I‟m not sure,”
135
he replies, “People don‟t request roommates. It‟s kind of weird. [Mine] is the most
diverse Cal State. My high school was mostly Asians–they‟ve kind of taken over
there.” He refers back to college, “I meet everyone now. I don‟t care who they are. I
don‟t get attached, if we have something in common, we talk.”
When we meet in March Michael jogs up to meet my car. Three minutes late
from his class, he apologizes profusely. I immediately notice that his hair is much
longer than the last time I saw him. “Yeah, my friend and I are having a competition
about who cannot cut it the longest,” he smiles, “I‟m learning a lot about my
hair.”
Michael‟s social networks have changed in subtle ways during his freshman
year. During the first semester he maintained close contact with four of his high
school friends and often spent the weekend at one of their homes. “They understand
me. If I don‟t talk to them for a week . . . I know they are going to be busy, they know
I‟m going to be busy. It‟s ok,” he explains. During his first semester at college,
Michael communicates with them–and a variety of other people–over Myspace. But
after realizing that he is spending an average of 5 hours a day on the website, he
curtails his computer use. “I almost got rid of my account–but then a professor said he
was going to use if for a class,” he says. By his second semester, Michael has added a
group of four new friends to his social circle, “There‟s one specifically who they call
my twin. We like the same stuff. We wear the exact same stuff on different days, we
have the same clothes, the same tastes.” The four met through one of Michael‟s
friends but attend different local colleges. Michael is discerning about who he
136
considers a friend. While many of his colleagues from the Forte support program talk
to him about their problems, he is yet to open up to the group. “I know I could,” he
shares, “I just choose not to.”
During his first semester at college, Michael meets a young woman over the
Internet who he chats with frequently. By the second semester, they are dating.
“Probably the only person I consider a friend at [college] is this girl I‟m talking to,” he
says, “she‟s very independent, really athletic, cross country and track . . . Her dad
raised her, I guess more than her mom. She knows a lot about science, math. She
knows how to fix a car. She does all the guy work around the house.” Because she
lives 2 hours away from campus, the two mostly hang out in Michael‟s dorm room
when they are together. Even though they have known each other for months,
Michael chooses not to tell her that he has emancipated from foster care. Michael
explains:
I haven‟t really had a chance to go to where she lives. I haven‟t met her
friends or family. We only know each other. So I guess . . . yeah. Her family
wants to meet me. I don‟t really . . . she doesn‟t know that I was a foster
child. I don‟t want her to know anything before [college]. Anything that
happened to me before [college]. It‟s like, starting new.

I ask Michael if she ever asks about his family. She does not. I wonder if he thinks
he might change his mind. He replies:
I don‟t think so. At least not yet. Every time I mention family it‟s kind of
hard because, like, when I talk about family I talk about the recent foster home
I came from. But sometimes I talk about other ones. So I guess she wonders
why some of my experiences were good and some were like bad. Cuz the
good ones were in some foster homes and the bad in others. But I put them all
in one category. It‟s kinda hard to figure it all out or how to hide it. It‟s not
really hiding, I just don‟t want to bring it up . . . . It‟s not that I‟m afraid. It‟s
137
just something I don‟t really want her to know. Or don‟t really think she
should know. Or has to know.

I wonder if being emancipated has changed the way that Michael thinks about
his support system. He rattles off a list of people he could approach if he needed
particular things. Among his list of potential supports are: his ILP coordinator, UFC
staff, Forte Scholars staff, his stepfather, his social worker, the photographer he met
through his art competition, his roommates, his girlfriend. “I‟m really not scared,” he
tells me, “when I look around I see that I have a lot of help.”
Michael regularly attends social events sponsored by the Forte program. If he
has questions about housing or financial aid, he feels comfortable approaching the
Forte program staff. Yet he remains guarded about sharing his past personal
experiences with peers or advisors. “Up until now I haven‟t opened up. . . I haven‟t
said anything,” he says. He is comfortable with his reserved nature and feels like
people recognize the value in his outlook:
When I went to the [Forte] retreat I was the only one that didn‟t say anything.
Some people brought that up. It‟s not like they want me to say something. It‟s
just something I choose not to open up about. I just listen to everybody‟s
problems and I guess I tell them what I think they should do. Some students
that never met me kinda questioned, wondering. Like one of them, one was an
upper class student said, “I noticed that you don‟t talk much but when you do,
you have helpful things to say.”

He smiles, pleased that his Forte cohort peers often turn to him for guidance.
Michael‟s college capital is characterized by a combination of support from
peers and institutional support agents. Of all the informants, Michael maintains a solid
balance between bonding and bridging relations. He often chooses not to seek support
138
but knows where to locate quality guidance and resources when needed. His long-
term relationships with friends, his social worker and photographer friend bolster his
psychological well being when he transitions to college. Michael and Silvia both
participate in the Forte program. Unlike Michael, Silvia relies more on the
institutional support of Forte, in part because she lacks the same type of long-term
support outside of school.
Silvia: “It‟s really hard when you really don‟t have anybody that can help you.”

Silvia experienced the lowest incidence of mobility of all the informants
despite her relatively long tenure in care. She was also the only informant who lived
solely with family. Yet Silvia did not rely on extended family for college support
because she was not emotionally close to them and her family was not in the position
to offer college guidance.
Preparing for College When she is in high school, Silvia‟s college guidance
comes from the career center counselor who knew her older brother. “[The counselor]
has been there for a long time,” she tells me during our first interview, “So he would
always tell me, „Oh, you need to do this and that.‟” Silvia recalls people telling her,
“Go to college, go to college,” but not providing her with more specific advice. Her
social worker, who she sees once a month, asks, “What are you going to do?” but does
not assist her in applying. Even her ILP coordinators do not discuss college in any
depth in her mandatory classes.
Silvia decides to apply to her CSU because it offers a comprehensive support
program for foster youth. I ask how she learned about the program. “I just received
139
an application from them” she remembers, “and my brother used to go here until he
dropped out.” Silvia hypothesizes why her brother did not stay in school, “He was
lazy, but I think a lot of that had to do with . . . Well, the way I see it, he was lazy and
plus he didn‟t have anyone to really push him and be like, you know, do good in
school and everything, so he really felt like, „Whatever.‟”
Navigating College Once at college, Silvia finds more robust support from
staff and peers she meets through the Forte support program in which she participates.
She attends events and study sessions and socializes with her cohort. Her social
worker also continues to visit prior to Silvia‟s emancipation. She takes Silvia out for
dinner and discusses problems she and her friends are having. “I can tell she really
cares,” decides Silvia after asking the social worker‟s advice about another foster care
student‟s sister who is pregnant.
When I ask Silvia what the biggest challenge of going to college is, she replies:
I guess it‟s having to be independent. It‟s like you enter a whole new world.
Like you go from [your foster family] getting paid and them buying what you
need, to having to buy everything for yourself. It‟s like a big thing. I think it‟s
just kind of all thrown at you. You know what I mean? Like you have to get
everything that you need, buy yourself clothes now, and then just live on your
own now, like I was like, “Whoa!”

As with all of the other informants, Silvia‟s financial aid award is slow in
being issued and she is anxious about college expenses. Midway into her first
semester, she still has not received the $5,000 she expects to receive through the
government‟s Chafee grant program for students from foster care. Not having the
funds for a computer proves exasperating for Silvia. She requests money for a
140
computer because a large portion of her class work is online. “It‟s really hard because
I have to ask people, „Can I borrow your laptop?‟ You know, I don‟t have money for
that stuff right now,” she explains. For the first few weeks of college, Silvia had been
using her aunt‟s laptop. But she complains that she can no longer rely on using it
because her aunt asked for it to be returned. Silvia wonders if the computer should
have been hers, “When I moved in with her, she bought herself a camera, a laptop, a
video camera, an MP3 and a DVD player and I was like, „was that from the money for
me?‟” Silvia is “pretty mad” about having to give up the computer, “So I‟m pretty
much screwed as far as that goes. I mean, there‟s a library, but it‟s so different than
having it right there.” She accommodates by using computers in the campus library
until 6:00 p.m., computers in the writing lab until 8:00 p.m. and asking friends to use
their computers in the evenings, if needed.
Silvia continues to request financial assistance from her ILP coordinators and
college support program but is unsuccessful in accessing additional funds. “My ILP
coordinators are not really helpful and [the program staff] “can‟t do much about it,”
she laments. I ask her if her basic needs are covered. “I have . . . . I don‟t know . . . . I
wouldn‟t say I need more because I mean, girls always say they need something, you
know,” she replies. “But it‟s like we got money from the government for back-to-
school clothes. But that kind of wasn‟t enough because there were other things I
needed also, like personal things–stuff for the bathroom, I had to get that too.”
Besides the financial and logistical challenges of her first year in college,
Silvia is very happy with the support system she enters into as a result of participating
141
in the Forte Scholars program. “I actually choose [friends from Forte] over my own
friends that I‟ve known since second grade,” Silvia says. I ask why and she talks
about the value of her Forte peers understanding challenges she has faced and being
able to discuss current problems she might be experiencing:
Because them, it‟s like I know they know. Like they understand me, you
know. Even my best friend, I would tell her stuff and she just doesn‟t seem to
understand. I feel like I‟m talking to a wall. And here it‟s like they tell you,
“Oh, yeah, me too,” you know. I don‟t know, they just, I don‟t know.
Because you‟re with a group of students that have been through what you‟ve
been through. So you pretty much struggle through the same things, as far as
like housing and stuff. So the Forte Scholars, you have housing your first
year, which is a good thing. I don‟t know, they just help you stay in college
and focus. And we kind of do talk about that too, about things that we might
go through that might be difficult for us and stuff like that. It‟s like a family
kind of. There‟s only ten of us [in a cohort], so it‟s pretty good.

Silvia turns to Forte staff for assistance with financial aid, housing and
academic problems. “Because it‟s really hard when you really don‟t have anybody
that can really help you,” Silvia explains, “I mean, it‟s like a big deal going from one
to the other and I really don‟t know that much about financial aid and things like that,
so they pretty much help you.” Silvia, more than Michael, seeks assistance from the
program staff.
Even though she continues to move between her campus dormitory and
former foster home, Silvia appreciates the support system she has accessed through
the Forte program. Their support contributes to Silvia‟s confidence in building
college capital on campus. Like Silvia, Liz values the support offered through her
campus-based support program targeting foster youth, the Sentinel Scholars program.
Liz: “There are so many helpful people here–that‟s how I wanted it to be.”
142

With a mobility profile that included 13-14 changes in schools, Liz settles into
college life fairly easily. As she did in high school, Liz manages her social
relationships strategically and lightheartedly.
Preparing for College “I don‟t know what made me have the desire to go to
college,” Liz explains. “I‟ve always had that in mind since I left my mom‟s house,”
she continues, “My aunt says I was self-raised. I am. I have no memory of anyone
talking to me about college. My family would mention it, but not in any detail.”
When Liz is in the 11
th
grade, soon after transferring to a new school, she
receives her first “D”–in an Honors English class. “I was so upset” she shudders:
We had two big fat books to read over summer and I was a new student, so I
didn‟t know about it and I had to do it during the school year and plus all the
other work. They just overwhelmed me, I guess, because I love reading. But I
mean, there was no possible way I could. I‟m like, “How fair is that?” I should
have just read one book. It‟s just common sense. It was so difficult, you know.
But it just, I got so overwhelmed–it was too much.

Without pausing, Liz shrugs, “So I made that up at [community] college.”
Even with the frequent disruptions to her education (recall she attended 13 or
14 K-12 schools), Liz has been able to complete all of her college requirements. I ask
her who told her what classes she needed to take. She replies:
Nobody. I guess I had those worksheet things [a university outreach program]
gave me. I would check up on things, I would just base it on those sheets. You
know how when the teachers give you those kinds of things, like the books,
required books to read, I would check those books out and stuff like that. So I
used a sheet like that for my college stuff. So it was kind of like research for
me. I would just figure it out . . . .

143
Beyond knowing what classes to take, Liz fears that she does not have any
solid relationships at her new high school that would benefit her desire to attend
college. Consequently she seeks refuge in teachers‟ company. She explains how she
grew close to her AP statistics teacher:
I knew I had good relationships, but not really solid relationships with
teachers. So I thought [my AP teacher] was really nice and intelligent. So I
chose her . . . I decided I was being too closed up. I decided to talk to her,
develop a solid relationship with her, as my „go to‟ person.

Liz is acutely aware of the benefits of college-conducive capital. She explains how
her guidance counselor serves as another source of support. “She loved me because I
would let her talk to me and actually help me,” Liz reflects. “A lot of students
wouldn‟t take her seriously–she liked me because I actually turned to her for help.”
She also attempts to find support for her college goals when she goes to court. “I
would ask my attorney whether they had any advice for college” she shares, “but all
they did was give me a website.”
During her senior year, Liz enrolls in ILP classes because she wants to be able
to access ILP funds for reimbursement for high school graduation and college
expenses. She hopes that she will learn about applying to college once there but is
disappointed: “I didn‟t like it. The people were nice, but I thought, “What am I doing
here?” It was a waste of time–I was tested on typing speed.” Liz has trouble
identifying with the other students because they do not see college as important. She
feels stigmatized as a foster care child.
144
Navigating College Soon after moving to campus Liz tells me, “Oh, I‟m doing
good. I love the dorms, everyone is nice. There‟s a lot of places to go for help.” I
want to know who “everyone” is. She replies, “Everyone I run into. People in the gas
station, in the dorms, faculty. I love all my professors. They are very effective
instructors. Most people say it‟s not like that for them. But all mine . . . I like them.”
By her second semester, however, Liz starts to research the online ratings of
professors to make sure she is choosing the best, most fair professors at her school.
Liz makes a habit of visiting the free tutors, not because she needs help but because
she knows this is how she will finish her math homework. She becomes friends with a
young man from her dorm who helps her when she is stuck on math assignments. She
does not visit her professors during their office hours but knows that this is an option
if she needs their help.
Until she joins the Sentinel Program at her CSU, she had not met any other
college-bound students from foster care. Seeing motivated foster youth makes Liz feel
less lonely at college. The Sentinel Scholar students are supposed to check in with
their advisors every week. Liz does not go as often as recommended but knows that
she can call an advisor if she needs anything. She keeps their phone numbers
programmed into her cell phone. She prefers to maintain contact informally and
regularly attends events and meetings at the Sentinel Scholar offices. “There are so
many helpful people here,” she comments, “that‟s how I wanted it to be.” Later in the
year when Liz has problems with her financial aid, she calls FAFSA directly and
solicits help from the Sentinel Scholars staff. She also develops a positive relationship
145
with her boss, a woman that provides her with flexible hours and challenging
assignments as an administrative assistant.
Midway through her second semester Liz meets me in the café in the office
building of her work study job. She insists on working part time to make sure she
always has money in her bank account. She continues to maintain a busy social life.
“I‟m the person who keeps everyone getting along,” Liz explains about her
roommates. “I have very good judgment,” she admits:
I was talking to a friend about that because I‟ve met so many people and
they‟re people I could see myself being friends with for a very long time, so
it‟s kind of . . . it‟s weird, but I guess I trust people. I don‟t just shut everyone
out. I pick and choose. I mean, if I kind of get a bad vibe or I know this person
isn‟t being genuine and doesn‟t benefit me . . . . I‟m not going to bother . . .
The thing is, I‟m not really, I don‟t get attached to friends, so it‟s hard for me
to make a person feel like I need them. When I move, sometimes I lose touch
with people–I only talk to certain people. I guess I hold back in that area.

Moving to college negatively affects Liz‟s relationship with her aunt. Liz‟s
peppy energy dims slightly as we discuss the absence of her family in her college life.
When Liz was applying to college her aunt helped her mail applications and talked to
her about her plans. “I don‟t think she knows how much gratitude I have for her,” Liz
had reflected in an earlier interview, “but it‟s–I‟m not a very emotional person, so it‟s
hard for me to express it.” While her aunt continues to share advice and give her
presents when she returns to her foster home, by the end of her freshman year, her
aunt had still not made the 20 minute trip to visit Liz‟s campus dormitory. “I don‟t
want to cry about it–like, „Why don‟t you visit me‟ or anything. I guess they are not
used to it so they don‟t know how to react. I‟m like, „Don‟t come if you‟re not into it.‟
146
And I don‟t mind.” Liz‟s sister has been wanting to visit but no one brings her to
campus. Liz shares:
My brothers get sad because they haven‟t seen me. It‟s kind of hard because
my family doesn‟t know how big of a deal [going to college] is. And my little
sister is like, “I don‟t know what‟s wrong with them–they should have like
went to you and visited you in the dorms.” But that was my fault because I
told them the wrong date to come and it was really my fault.

Liz and her sister discuss why her aunt and uncle had not visited Liz in college.
They decide that at times, friends can be bigger sources of support than family:
Me and my sister were talking one day. Family . . . friends aren‟t more
important than family, but they‟re just as important. But they‟re a little bit
more important at certain times. Because they give us more support than our
family. Because I guess our family doesn‟t show affection that much. I know
they love me but they are very, they are not effusive with their love. They‟re
just like, “You know I love you, you should know.” That kind of thing. And I
know they do a lot for me. But it‟s hard when it‟s something like this, like you
know, like everyone else‟s family is visiting and they‟re like, “Where‟s your
family?” I‟m like, “I dunno.”

Liz benefits from clarity about where to find support for specific problems.
She cultivates relationships according to her needs. She is particularly adept at
building college capital because of her ability to assess and develop relationships with
institutional gatekeepers. When she lacks support from her family, she seeks support
from others. Her ability to develop college capital is also influenced by her openness
to trusting people. Like Liz, Fernando is savvy about how to cultivate college capital.
Fernando: “I can‟t grasp that concept.”
Despite Fernando‟s residential mobility growing up, he experienced no school
mobility (i.e., he started and completed each school at the traditional times). Perhaps
147
as a consequence, Fernando grew adept at establishing relationships with institutional
gatekeepers who could provide him with college resources.
Preparing for College “No one told me to go,” Fernando explains, “No one
pushed me. But I always knew it was the next step.” In middle school, Fernando
recalls foster parents discouraging his aspirations. But he does not listen. “There
wasn‟t one person who guided me. People have done bits. But it was my initiative. I
knew I wanted to go to college.”
Being senior class president has significant rewards with regards to building
college capital. Fernando has an “open door policy with whoever.” This gives him a
“big advantage . . . entrée to talk to people.” He asks administrators for advice or
favors related to college. Every morning Fernando arrives at school at 6am to spend
time talking to his science teacher about UCLA. He participates in a college
preparation mentoring program that helps him plan for college. But ultimately he is
disappointed in the program as they are unable to help him figure out his housing
options after he graduates from high school. He stresses that programs need to
consider all factors when trying to help students.
Fernando earns a 4.3 GPA, leads his school‟s MESA (Mathematics,
Engineering, Science Achievement) club and performs decently on the SAT (950). As
his senior year progresses, however, he becomes “physically and emotionally sick”
from too much stress. His high level of school involvement plus the pressure of
applying to college is overwhelming. “Some days I was overstressed. I didn‟t know
what to do. Shout? Cry? I didn‟t know who to turn to,” Fernando remembers. He
148
also remembers feeling scared and sometimes getting “violent” with his foster parents.
During this time, he seeks emotional support from his social worker, therapist, select
teachers and God. “I asked myself, „Why was this happening to me?‟” Fernando
recalls. After relaxing over his spring break, he is able to balance his schedule better,
receives his college acceptances (including one from the UC where he would enroll)
and finishes up his senior year feeling much happier.
Navigating College When Fernando participates in his UC‟s Education
Opportunity Program (EOP) he instantly feels comfortable with the staff and students.
But at times he also feels like an outsider because he is “going through different things
than [his] peers in the summer program. He explains, “They say, „my parents don‟t
want me to go‟ or „I‟m homesick,‟ „I don‟t know how I will pay for this.‟ But it‟s very
interesting, because I can‟t grasp that concept.” Later in the year he confesses to
feeling, “jealous of others who missed their family [and] got mad at friends who didn‟t
miss their family.”
Fernando believes the socializing component of summer bridge is paramount
and prioritizes time talking to other students, often to the detriment of not studying.
He builds a strong network of friends through this tactic. They exchange college
capital throughout the year–letting each other know about tutoring, financial aid and
opportunities in the dormitories. Fernando reflects that in high school he made an
effort to surround himself with peers who talked about college and continues to seek
relationships with peers in college who have high aspirations and share similar
experiences. He guesses why this might be:
149
I think it‟s because like . . . I don‟t know, I think I‟m close to them because . .
. I don‟t know, we kind of went through the same struggles. But differently
and we kind of understand each other. Like we start to feel like reality hits us
and we start seeing how the world actually really works, how if you don‟t
have money, you don‟t get the things you want.

A large reason for Fernando‟s affinity towards his EOP peers relates to race. Coming
from an almost entirely Latino school to a predominately white university, Fernando
grows aware of his ethnic background and issues of racial discrimination. He reflects:
American society has like, you know, compared to other countries is the most
demeaning. You know what I mean? Like when I went to class, I‟m probably
one of the darkest colors that they‟ll see ever . . . I‟m not saying everyone
looks the same, but myself and like . . . I‟m different, but I stand out somehow.
I don‟t know, I think that if you are a little bit different, it‟s kind of cool
because the professor can tell who you are and then like you from the rest the
crowd.

Like in high school, Fernando quickly maps out where he can turn on campus
for support. “I‟d go to anyone basically–it depends on the professional level of it,” he
discerns. The staff from the EOP program remain key institutional support agents for
Fernando during his entire freshman year. He also has a solid grasp of opportunities
that are available outside of the university. Fernando receives one of the coveted
United Friends of the Children (UFC) scholarships. Before attending the UFC
orientation, Fernando is extremely concerned about paying for college. The UFC
meeting gives him the opportunity to meet other foster youth who will be going to
college. “You get the feeling that you‟re the only one . . . so it was good getting to
know other kids who were going to college.”
150
Despite his sociable nature, when I pose a hypothetical situation to Fernando
about who would meet him at the hospital in the middle of the night, he is confounded.
He thinks aloud:
I don‟t know. I mean, if God was human, I would ask Him. That‟s the only
person I would go to. I mean, honestly, I‟ve never had a person that I was
close to that much. I mean, I did, but I never felt like . . . . OK, the foster
parents were my parents, but I never . . . I looked to them for advice. When I
was hurt, they would have to be there. I don‟t know, I just . . . I don‟t know, I
wouldn‟t know how to explain it. I think it either would be God or my brother
at this point probably.

A few months later Fernando enthusiastically details how he and his brother
have grown much closer. His brother has been visiting him on the weekends and is
now committed to going to college. Elated about their closer relationship, Fernando is
also concerned that he cannot support his brother adequately. We talk about his
dilemma:
Fernando: Here‟s the thing. I can‟t do it all by myself. I need like a mentor for
him . . . . Where is he going to run? Because he doesn‟t have anywhere else to
go and if he doesn‟t have a stable home where he can run back to, he‟s going
to need . . . he can go on the wrong path, so he needs the guidance . . .

Zoe: It‟s not a burden on you?

Fernando: It‟s not. I don‟t think it is because I don‟t have any responsibilities
right now. When I used to be at home, I had a responsibility to be with the
family and I felt that was a burden, but since he‟s a real . . . my family, my
blood. I don‟t want him to get lost like I did these two past summers where I
did not know where I was going, where . . . you know, and he knows that at
least I‟ll be there, but he has his own decisions, he can do whatever he wants.
I‟m not going to pressure him. I‟m like a mentor, but I‟m like his brother and
we‟re blood.

When they were separated into two different foster care placements, Fernando and his
brother grew apart. The emotional and physical distances were difficult for Fernando.
151
He was particularly concerned about his brother‟s poor performance in school. Seeing
his brother commit to preparing for college and becoming closer to each other greatly
improves Fernando‟s overall emotional well-being. Fernando assures his brother:
“You know what? Now that you‟re here, I‟m never going to leave you. I‟m never
going to leave, we‟re going to stick together no matter what.”
Fernando‟s keen ability to build college capital is affected by his emotional
stability. His ability to evaluate relationships and locate information and guidance
about college is enhanced when he is feeling emotionally stable. While his
relationship with his brother grows in significance during his freshman year,
Fernando‟s college capital is most enhanced through his ability to form relationships
with institutional gatekeepers
In this chapter, I shared selected data from the six informants with the
objective of portraying multiple mobilities and college capital. The portrayals
illustrated diverse mobility histories and a wide range of social support in preparation
for college. The data provide a starting point to examine the composition of social
networks, the import of resources embedded within networks and how mobile youth
effectively access social support. The informants offered valuable insights into many
aspects of mobile existences and preparing for college. In the next chapter I discuss
how data emphasized the socially constructed nature of mobilities and of college
capital and examine the interplay between the two.
152
CHAPTER 5
ANALYZING THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN MULTIPLE
MOBILITIES AND COLLEGE CAPITAL
“People don‟t change–you can move and stuff, the person stays the same.”
~ Brian

Overview
In the middle of his sophomore year, Fernando volunteers to participate in
Destination College, a daylong event designed to provide students from foster care
with college guidance. With his hair slicked back and wearing a bright blue
Destination College T-shirt and jeans, Fernando speaks on a panel comprised of
emancipated foster youth attending university. He stresses to the audience of high
school foster youth from around Los Angeles County the importance of advocating for
themselves. “I talk to my college financial aid counselor,” he explains, “I tell him I
can‟t take out loans because I don‟t have parents to help me pay them back.” Another
young man on the panel tells students, “create your own posse–especially if you are a
first-generation student.” A third panelist tells the group, “live on campus–it‟s a great
way to make friends.” Fernando and his colleagues, albeit unconsciously, stress the
value of building social capital to their younger counterparts.
Summary of Study
This project developed out of a desire to better understand why the college
going behaviors of students in foster care do not match their high college aspirations
(Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor & Nesmith, 2001). The study was designed to
examine how social support facilitated or hindered college going for students whose
153
educational experiences are affected by high levels of mobility and related network
instability. In recent years, scholars have sought to describe the educational patterns
of foster youth. We know that large numbers of foster youth do not attend college and
many experience homelessness and incarceration within 2 years of their emancipation
from the child welfare system (California Department of Education, 2000). Yet little
is known about youth who have been successful in preparing for college. Studies that
have examined this population provide practitioners and scholars with valuable data
on broad trends and statistics. Perspectives shared by informants in this study
contribute to the growing body of research on education and foster care by drawing
attention to the experiences of foster youth as they prepared for college and navigated
their freshman years.
Pertinent to understanding the experiences of foster youth, the topic of
mobility has captured the attention of scholars interested in examining how moving
affects educational achievement and attainment. Recently, scholars have sought to
distinguish the effects of school mobility from residential mobility (Pribesh &
Downey, 1999; Swanson & Schneider, 1999) and discover how mobility and social
capital affect each other (Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Ream, 2005a/2005b). The data in
this dissertation add to findings from mobility studies by providing detailed accounts
of how school and residential mobilities are intertwined. Furthermore, analysis of the
informants‟ social networks and the resources conducive to college readiness
embedded within them highlight the role of the social capital/mobility dynamic in
influencing the informants‟ educational pathways.
154
Over the course of a year, six informants shared their life histories and
opinions about foster care. They assessed the challenges they faced in preparing for
college, the support and information that were helpful to them, which social
relationships hindered their goals and which had supported their aspirations. As their
freshman years unfolded, they shared their insights about the most difficult and most
gratifying aspects of college, changing social networks and how their experiences in
the foster care system influenced their participation in college.
At the onset of the study, all informants were classified as “wards of the court”
and resided in their final foster care placement prior to starting college. By the end of
the study, all students would emancipate from the child welfare system and have to
reassess where they would reside during school holidays, where to store belongings
and how they would cover their unmet financial needs.
Data collection involved conducting ethnographic interviews with the six
informants, traditional interviews with secondary participants and observations of
countywide efforts to improve educational service provision to foster youth. Analysis
of data entailed transcribing interviews, coding transcriptions and fieldnotes using a
qualitative data analysis tool, composing memos and verifying findings with the six
informants and a small group of foster care practitioners. Data collection and analysis
were guided by the following research questions:
1. How do students who experience high levels of mobility develop,
maintain and exchange social capital?
155
2. How does institutional context influence network formation for foster
youth?
3. In what ways do the social support networks of college-bound foster
youth factor into educational outcomes?
Limitations of the Study
The most obvious limitation of the study was the small sample size. With only
six informants, comparing and contrasting experiences was clearly contingent on a
small amount of data. Informants were purposefully selected and as college-goers,
reflected a small minority of foster youth residing in Los Angeles County. The value
of the data lie in their in-depth, longitudinal quality but their shortcoming is that they
are not generalizable.
Interview data were limited in two main ways. For one, many of the
conversations were based on retrospective comments. In some cases, students
described events that had occurred several years prior. Therefore, it remains unclear
how the actual situation differed from the informants‟ recollections of those
experiences. For example, while informants shared how they felt about a particularly
difficult time in their lives, such as separating from a birth parent, their emotional
recollection was different than if the situation had occurred during the interview or
observation. The second limitation in data relates to the effects of larger social forces
on the students. Even though I asked the informants questions about race and gender,
I did not collect sufficient interview or observational data on either topic to merit in-
depth analysis at the micro-level.
156
The role of the researcher often poses challenges in qualitative research. As a
white woman with no experience in the foster care system I inevitably interpreted
events and analyzed informants‟ experiences through a lens informed by my own
background. In writing up informants‟ perspectives, I ran the risk of misportraying
points they shared or overemphasizing themes that did not hold the same importance
in the informants‟ lives. I attempted to account for these shortcomings by using
verbatim data whenever possible and by sharing excerpts from the manuscript with
study informants and foster care practitioners and soliciting their critique on analysis
of data.
Methodologically, maintaining communication with study participants was a
challenge. Despite having several telephone numbers for each informant, there were
times when I could not locate a student via telephone, electronic mail or regular post.
With the exception of Tamika, during the period of data collection, whenever an
informant changed telephone numbers or residences, s/he would eventually locate me
via telephone. Informants‟ mobilities, especially during college years when they were
not able to return to a stable residence coupled with their frequent shortage of funds to
cover the costs of maintaining a cellular telephone, posed challenges to consistent
communication.
Chapter Overview
In the previous chapter, data depicted the variance in mobility experienced by
the informants and described informants‟ college-related social capital. The objective
of this chapter is to discuss data in light of how informants made sense of their
157
mobility and social networks and explore how the dynamic between social capital and
mobility affected their college preparation and first year experiences. Analysis first
emphasizes the socially constructed nature of mobility by examining how informants
referred to and reacted to mobility. I then discuss elements of social capital that
mediated the effects of mobility and fostered college-oriented outcomes. The chapter
concludes by outlining research findings as they pertain to the three central research
questions and with a discussion about the theoretical and practical implications of
study findings.
Analyzing Multiple Mobilities
Rumberger, Larson, Palardy, Ream, & Schleicher‟s (1998) study on the
incidence, causes and consequences of mobility on student achievement found that
U.S. students are highly mobile, with more students making nonpromotional school
changes (i.e., when students change schools for reasons other than graduating) than
engaging in stable patterns of attending one school until they graduate. In fact, the
authors found that over 40% of students who made nonpromotional school changes
switched schools three or more times. These changes were correlated with low
educational achievement. Where does this leave students from foster care?
For foster youth, nonpromotional school changes are likely to occur when a
student is moved from one residential placement to another. Studies show that the
longer children stay in foster care, the lower their likelihood of securing permanent
placements, the higher the chance that they will experience multiple placements and
the greater risk to their emotional well being (Glisson, Bailey & Post, 2000; Fanshel,
158
Finch & Grundy, 1989). In 1998, for example, of children who had been in foster care
for 3 or more years, 21% lived in 3 or 4 placements, 8% in 5 or 6 and 8% in 7 or more
(Barbell & Freundlich, 2001). As illustrated through the study informants, changes in
residential placements often led to changes in schools and the experience of “multiple
mobilities.” When applying for college, if a student is still a “ward of the court,”
chances are that s/he has lived through many placements during her/his tenure in state
care. Recall that with the exception of Tamika who entered into foster care when she
was 15, the informants‟ residential trajectories reflected this trend (see Table 4.1).
How informants responded to moving had implications on the ways they
formed social networks and accessed college resources embedded within those
networks. To understand how social capital might have mediated the effects of
mobility, I first examine how students approached their mobilities. Developing a
more nuanced understanding of mobility is helpful in exploring possible causes of
mobility, understanding how participants in the social networks of mobile individuals
might positively affect college going and discerning the implications of mobility.
Analysis of data shows that students characterized mobility in six ways: (a) as a
consequence of institutional policies or removal from abusive or neglectful situations,
(b) as a choice, (c) as a hardship,) (d) as a strategy, (e) as a constant force in their
lives, and (f) as a process. Below I discuss each characterization. The first four
approaches describe somewhat predictable facets of mobilities (causes and effects).
Because these approaches are contingent on context, the informants consequently
experienced them to different degrees and in different ways. The latter two
159
approaches affected everyone, albeit differently, and are of paramount importance in
understanding the unique experiences of youth in foster care and the interplay between
mobilities and college capital.
Informants‟ approaches to mobility were complex, often involving two or more
categories simultaneously. Brian, for example, experienced mobility as a consequence
of DCFS‟ reunification policies. Moving back to live with his mother was a hardship
as she continued to physically abuse him. This stage in his life also emphasized the
process of mobility as he strategically moved between his mother‟s, grandmother‟s
and various neighbors‟ homes depending on his mother‟s disposition. Since the
reunification was unsuccessful, the phase of his mobility further reflected the
perpetual or constant nature of mobility. Each informant experienced a combination
of the approaches at different times and combinations continually changed depending
on new situations. Table 5.1 below offers a synopsis of the six approaches to
mobility. In what follows, I discuss each category in greater detail.
The data suggest that informants changed foster care placements and schools
for three main reasons: (a) because an institutional agent or institutional policy
mandated they move; (b) because the informants chose to move, or (c) due to a
combination of institutional and individual processes. At times, institutions and
individuals functioned in isolation and at other times acted in a symbiotic relationship.
160
Table 5.1. Approaches to Mobility
Approach Summary Example
As a consequence Mobility is a result of institutional
policy, often enacted in conjunction
with removal from an abusive or
neglectful situation.

Liz and her siblings leave their
foster homes and return to live with
their birth mother under DCFS‟
reunification policies.
As a choice Mobility occurs when informants
request to change residential
placements or when they decide to
move into a living situation not
sanctioned by DCFS.
Silvia chooses to move between her
aunt‟s house, cousin‟s house and
college dormitory instead of staying
in one constant setting.

As a hardship Mobility results in emotional,
educational, financial and/or
logistical challenges.
Michael‟s siblings have to cope
with language barriers and
alienation when they enter into
foster care.

As a strategy Mobility eases a facet of discomfort
or inconvenience related to a foster
care situation.
Tamika leaves her foster home to
stay with a friend in an apartment
close to her college campus.

As a constant Mobility is a persistent concern and
does not terminate with a given
move.
Brian seeks refuge on a friend‟s
couch because he was unable to
secure semi-permanent campus
housing and could not continue
living with his foster family.

As a process Mobility is constantly navigated and
negotiated.
Fernando begins his search for
summer housing in the winter
because he knows he will be forced
to move out of his campus
dormitory in the summer.

Mobility as a Consequence
Informants characterized mobility as a consequence when they did not initiate
the move. Within the child welfare system, social workers follow a lengthy protocol
about removing children from their families or foster homes (Appendix A). Children
are removed by institutional agents (i.e., social workers, judges) from their living
situation (with birth or foster families) and placed in a new residence when abuse or
161
neglect has been established. In these cases, mobility is a consequence of institutional
forces beyond the control of individuals.
Ironically, the child welfare system‟s objective of reunifying families (after
assisting birth parent(s) develop the tools to maintain safe and nurturing families)
exaggerated mobility for Brian, Michael and Liz. Each child was forced to leave a
stable foster care placement with the intention of permanently returning to live with
their birth mothers. Their mothers‟ inabilities to curb drug use complicated the
objectives of reunification and did not facilitate increased stability. Rather, the moves
exposed informants to unsafe living environments and increased their responsibilities
in caring for their siblings. In Michael‟s situation, the reunification phase of his
mobility almost derailed his ability to prepare for college. The informants‟
experiences with reunification emphasize how mobility is not a clear-cut process but
rather develops and changes according to actors and situations.
Mobility as a Choice
In most cases, the institution of child welfare controls when and to where
individuals move (i.e., mobility is a consequence of institutional policies as discussed
above). Yet youth can exert agency by requesting to be removed from an abusive or
neglectful situation. In doing so, they approach mobility as a choice. Tamika
remembered reporting an unkind foster mother and being moved to a new placement
the next day. Silvia said that after reporting her uncle‟s abuse of her sister, they were
placed in a different foster home. Michael and his sister were moved to a new foster
care placement after a foster sibling told Michael that she had been abused by the
162
foster parent. He reported the abuse and they were taken to a new foster home. In
these situations, students voiced their concerns and were moved to safer situations.
At some point prior to college, all the students with the exception of Silvia
underwent what I shall call “informal mobility,” changes in residences not approved
by DCFS and initiated by the informants themselves. In some cases, informal
mobility resulted from informants wanting distance from unsafe or uncomfortable
living situations. Fernando, for instance, grew tired of his foster mother‟s strict house
rules and decided to move in with his former social worker during his senior year in
high school. Liz explained how reunifying with her mother lead to her informally
moving between her mother‟s apartment and grandmother‟s house depending on her
mother‟s sobriety. In other situations, informants moved as a matter of convenience,
such as when Tamika moved closer to campus.
Once in college, all informants instigated some form of mobility. Silvia and
Michael chose to return to their foster homes on weekends and during college breaks
even though they were allowed to live on campus. Liz put herself in a situation where
she had to move into an off-campus apartment. Brian had an altercation with his
foster parents and as a consequence resided on a friend‟s couch for a portion of his
freshman year. Tamika left her stable foster home when she moved in with a friend
from college. Fernando sought an alternative living situation during his summer break
despite the possibility of continuing to stay with his mentor. The informants acted as
stewards of their mobilities in these situations.
163
Whether mobility was caused by an external policy or the need to be removed
from a harmful situation or because an informant chose to move, results of moving
varied. Sometimes the effects of moving were challenging. At other times, moving
improved the quality of an informant‟s emotional well being. Hence, the approaches
to mobility naturally overlap and are tied to context. So while Brian living on his
friend‟s couch was his choice, the move also represented a hardship because he no
longer had a permanent location to stay.
Mobility as a Hardship
In multiple scenarios, the challenges of moving precipitated emotional,
logistical, academic and/or financial hardships. Mobility caused by changing foster
homes at times led to feelings of isolation and caused stress. Michael recalled the
emotional trauma faced by his Spanish-speaking siblings who were placed in a
Chinese-American home and could not understand the language their foster parents
spoke. Brian remembered crying, and at other times feeling numb (especially in the
instance when he did not recognize his sister in the court van) when he was moved.
Fernando was disappointed when he had to leave a foster home to which he had grown
attached. In his next placement he felt alienated. The change in his emotional well-
being illustrates how switching familial and residential contexts can affect psycho-
logical orientations and can create hardships.
In other instances, moving caused logistical problems. Liz had to store some
of her belongings in the back of her car during college. Michael spread his belongings
between his former foster home, friends‟ homes and his college dormitory. Fernando
164
had to take time away from his studies to figure out where he would live during school
holidays. Silvia could no longer depend on the use of a computer after she moved
away from her aunt‟s house.
Changing schools led to academic challenges for some of the informants, such
as when Liz‟s teacher expected her to have completed the summer reading list despite
her transferal into the school immediately before the school year commenced.
Michael complained that changing schools in high school was more difficult than
when he was younger. Informants faced barriers to forming relations with school staff
who could provide them academic guidance. I will return to this topic when
discussing college capital in the next section.
Mobility also caused financial hardships. Brian and Tamika were compelled to
work part-time jobs while attending college in order to pay for part of the rent of their
friends‟ apartment. Michael and Silvia struggled to find additional financial aid to
cover the costs of summer campus housing. Liz sometimes worked long hours at her
data entry job to cover her unmet financial need.
Mobility as a Strategy
Besides explaining ways that mobility proved difficult, informants also
described many instances when moving provided relief from a negative living
situation or facilitated a change to a better educational institution. The ramifications
of mobility were intimately tied to context. Informants also pointed out that the timing
of moving was significant. The effects of mobility had less to do with if mobility was
165
a consequence or a choice, but were rather strongly influenced by from what or whom
informants moved away and to where or with whom informants moved.
While Brian living on his friend‟s couch illustrated the overlap of mobility as a
choice and a hardship, Tamika‟s move to her second foster care placement reflected
mobility as a consequence and a strategy. While Tamika was sad about being moved
far from her mother, she also recognized the value in attending a school in a suburban
neighborhood. The move meant that she now had access to superior instruction,
extracurricular activities and college guidance.
Informants spoke about experiencing relief when they moved to safer
neighborhoods. Tamika explained that the suburbs were safer and more comfortable,
allowing her to focus on her studies. Liz remembered the highly racialized context of
her penultimate high school where she was involved in fist fights. Fernando felt
protected at his high school. Moving to safer neighborhoods and schools focused
informants‟ attention away from negative social situations.
Several of the informants experienced relief after moving to living situations
where they no longer felt like they had the primary responsibility for caring for
siblings. Liz said that the first time she was able to focus on herself was after she was
placed in foster care. Brian recalled how his reservations about entering the system
for a second time eased after settling into a new placement. He had been nervous
about returning to foster care, but found himself “happier” because he no longer had
the pressure of having to care for his brothers and sisters.
166
As I have pointed out, informants portrayed a varied overview of the causes
and effects of mobility, with moves instigated by institutional agents or individual
actors and facilitating negative and positive outcomes. Regardless of causes or
consequences of mobility, all informants were affected by the constant and process-
oriented nature of mobility, the last two approaches listed in table 5.1.
Mobility as a Constant
Provided that students from foster care maintain the grades and motivation to
stay in school, being accepted at a 4-year university offers stability in attending the
same educational institution for 4 to 5 years. Yet attending college does not
necessarily guarantee residential stability for two reasons. First, if an 18-year-old in
foster care or an emancipated foster youth does not attend college, s/he is eligible for a
space in transitional housing (state-sponsored residences designed to help foster youth
transition into independent living). By attending colleges with campus housing,
undergraduates from foster care are expected to make use of the college dormitories
and therefore do not usually seek accommodation in transitional housing. Yet
securing campus housing does not always transpire-as was the case with Tamika and
Brian. Second, if a student from foster care emancipates during college (as is usually
the case), s/he can no longer rely on her/his foster home for accommodation during
school holidays. Foster families might welcome former residents back during breaks
but are not required to and do not receive monetary compensation for housing former
foster children. Fernando, for example, was not welcome to return to his foster home
167
during school holidays while Michael was. The challenges informants faced related to
these problems reflect the perpetual nature of mobility.
Table 5.2 underscores the ongoing character of mobility by displaying
informants‟ housing profiles while in college. Not having a “home base” meant that
informants constantly had to ensure they had a place to reside. The columns illustrate
what housing options informants had during the school term and their school vacations
and the decisions they made about where to live.
Table 5.2. Synopsis of Informants‟ Mobility While in College

Name

Secured on-
campus
housing?

Housing
available during
vacations?
Sufficient
financial aid to
cover housing
during vacations?
Possibility of
returning to foster
home during
vacations?

Returned to high
school foster home
during school
breaks?
Tamika no no no yes No

Liz yes yes yes
(incl. work study)

yes no
Brian no no no yes, then no yes, then no

Fernando yes partial no no no

Michael yes yes no yes yes, then no

Silvia yes yes no yes yes, then no

Seeing where students spent their school holidays offers a glimpse of the
evolving nature of mobility and how the incidence of mobility continues in college.
Furthermore, the table reiterates that mobility is partly caused by institutional factors
(i.e. if housing was awarded by the university or through DCFS) and partially initiated
168
by the agency of informants (i.e., when they chose not to return to foster homes even
though they could).
Mobility as a Process
Closely related to the perpetual character of mobility, informants had to
continually negotiate their mobilites. In other words, with each relocation informants
had to actively manage the logistics of moving, building new social relations and
maintaining old ones. Mobility by definition implies a continually evolving state. Yet
informants did not live in a continual state of residential and school flux. Rather they
experienced static moments punctuated by moves. Sometimes mobility was a surprise
to the informants, as when Brian came home, saw his packed bags and knew he would
be moving. At other times, informants had time to prepare for periods when they
would not have a place to reside, such as Fernando who started to cultivate a place to
stay six months prior to his summer break.
Table 5.3 illustrates where informants resided during their three major
freshman year school vacations and hints at the process involved in navigating
mobility. For each move, informants had to figure out their housing options, decide
where they would stay, store any belongings they could not accommodate with the
move, travel to each location and in some cases pay for their lodging. Most of the
informants resided in different locations during each vacation. Consequently, they
engaged in the process of navigating their mobility throughout their freshman year.
Prior to college, informants had also experienced mobility as a process when they
moved between residences depending on if their living situation was positive or
169
negative. Liz, for instance, had planned her moves depending on her mother‟s quality
of care.
Table 5.3 illustrates the varied trajectories of each student. The work involved
in each trajectory was constant and often labor-intensive. Informants mentally
assessed where they might stay, conversed with friends, former foster parents or
extended families about the possibility of visiting, had to pack up belongings and
Table 5.3. Where Informants Resided During Freshman Year School Vacations
Name Thanksgiving Winter Summer
Tamika Stayed with birth mother Stayed with a friend‟s
family
Resided in best friend‟s
apartment

Liz Visited foster family but
resided on campus
Stayed in the home of a
roommate
Moved into apartment with
roommates

Brian Resided with foster family Resided with foster family Resided on friend‟s couch

Fernando Stayed in “mentor‟s”
apartment
Stayed with friends;
resided on campus during
second half of break
Rented room from former
foster family; resided on
campus for second half of
break

Michael Returned to foster home Stayed with friends Resided on campus

Silvia Returned to former foster
home
Stayed with cousin Resided with cousin; resided
on campus during summer
school

travel to each destination. Plus informants often had to pay for transportation and
accommodation. Once there, informants interacted with the people at each site and
dealt with storing their belongings until they returned to their previous housing or
moved to another place. In each case, preparing for the move, even when the moves
were temporary, emphasized the process of moving. When informants underwent
170
more permanent moves, such as when Brian or Tamika left their foster homes, the
stakes of moving were higher and the process became more complicated.
Multiple mobilities inevitably affected the longevity of informants‟
relationships and how they approached forming social support. But how did
informants‟ mobilities factor into their college readiness? Before discussing the
ramifications of the social capital/mobility dynamic on educational achievement, I turn
to a discussion of college capital. In the following section I outline common elements
of college capital derived from data presented in chapter 4.
Analyzing College Capital
As discussed in chapter 2, social capital can be positive or negative. Social
capital can also be useful in very different situations. Recall how Brian possessed
high levels of “street capital” that allowed him to safely navigate the streets of his
neighborhood and mediate confrontations between various gang members. However
when he was challenged to secure on-campus housing that would have relieved the
pressure of commuting to school, he was unable to activate the college capital to
ensure his needs were met. He did not successfully navigate relationships with people
who could have accessed the resources necessary for him to live on campus. For
youth in foster care, “street capital” can be as essential to physical and emotional well-
being as college capital. But for the purposes of this study, my discussion of social
capital focuses on the ways that social support and resources enhance the likelihood
that a foster youth enroll in college. Accordingly, I use the term “college capital” to
171
denote social capital that specifically assists an individual in preparing for and
persisting in college.
Even though informants were challenged when they had to switch foster homes
or schools, they all managed to meet baseline prerequisites for college: they
maintained above average GPAs, fulfilled their college requirements and learned the
basics about applying to college and for financial aid. Yet the skill in which they
secured college resources varied. What types of social support were most helpful to
ensuring college readiness?
The purpose of the taxonomy in Table 5.4 is to outline elements of social
capital conducive to mediating the effects of mobility on educational attainment. The
informants had many things to say about college capital and the taxonomy offers an
overview of common themes emphasized by informants. Table 5.5 will illustrate that
the informants all experienced each element, but to varying degrees. The elements are
in no way exhaustive. Nor are they meant to suggest that to become college ready, an
individual must possess high degrees of each element. Rather they offer a starting
point for exploring the interplay between college capital and mobility. The elements
provide insight into: (a) network composition or where informants located social
capital (within kinship and peer relationships or bonding relationships, or within
relationships with institutional agents or bridging relationships), (b) resources or what
types of social support were most useful to foster youth aspiring to attend college, and
(c) network orientation or how informants made use of resources and support.

172
Table 5.4. Elements of College Capital Conducive to Mediating the Effects of Mobility

Element of Social capital Definition Example
Network composition

Participation in bonding network Relationships with individuals in
kinship, peer or community
networks.
Tamika maintains continuous
contact with her birth mother and
sister.

Participation in bridging network Relationships across groups
(especially those with institutional
agents).
Fernando interacts with high
school administrators to learn
about college options.

Resources
Quality “real” resources High caliber, tangible resources
pertinent to preparing students for
college enrollment and persistence.
Liz earns a $1,000 scholarship to
supplement her financial aid
package.

Quality “symbolic” resources High caliber, intangible resources
pertinent to supporting students‟
college aspirations and plans.
Silvia seeks support for
psychological problems through
her college support program.

Network Orientation
Consistency in relationships Degree to which interactions with
network participants who offer
support for college aspirations and
plans are consistent.
Michael maintains a long-term
relationship with his social worker
who counsels him about college
and helps him locate “real”
college resources.

Ability to evaluate relationships Capacity to assess if a relationship
is worth investing in.
Brian knows which of his peers
will support his college plans.

Resourcefulness Knowledge about how institutions
function, the implications of
mobility and/or the value of
building social capital; ability to
assess the usefulness of resources,
access those resources and know
when to seek assistance.
Liz understands whom to contact
if she has questions about
financial aid; Fernando knows that
he can renegotiate his financial aid
package and effectively
approaches his college financial
aid counselor to accomplish this
objective.

As discussed in chapter 2, scholars generally distinguish between bonding or
bridging social capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Bonding social capital refers to the
ways actors interact with each other within social networks; bridging social capital
refers to interactions with actors in social networks outside their localized group(s).
173
Bonding and bridging relationships are partially characterized by the strength of ties
experienced within social networks, a product of frequent interactions and levels of
trust within networks. As I will discuss below, informants were best served with
regard to college capital by bridging relationships.
Real and symbolic resources are embedded within social networks (Tierney,
2006). For students from foster care, “real” college resources might refer to
scholarships for college and symbolic resources might refer to connecting foster youth
with a person who could explain to them how their college education would affect
their career plans. The degree to which resources led to effective support for college
going varied among informants because the type of resources embedded within their
social networks significantly affected the caliber of college capital they were able to
access. The distinction is an important one because as Portes (1998) asserts, the
quality and quantity of resources available to network participants is linked to access
to institutional resources. K-12 schools, universities, DCFS and the courts offer
resources and mold the way foster youth interact with institutional agents when
accessing resources.
Beyond knowing that material and symbolic resources existed, informants
varied in how they were able to access those resources. Data highlight the role of
consistency in interactions, consciousness about resource availability and
resourcefulness (or ability to locate high quality college resources) in building
effective college capital.

174
Table 5.5. Degree to Which Informants Possessed Elements of College Related Social Capital (high, moderate
and low)

F L M S B T
Participation in bonding network Mod Mod Mod Mod High High

Participation in bridging network High High High Mod Low Low

Quality “real” resources High High High Mod Low Low

Quality “symbolic” resources High Mod High Low Low High

Consistency in relationships Low Mod High High Mod High

Ability to evaluate relationships High High High Mod Low Low

Resourcefulness High High High Low Low Low

F = Fernando, L = Liz, M = Michael, S = Silvia, B = Brian, T = Tamika

Table 5.5 shows the extent to which the informants exhibited each element.
Together the elements provide a way to compare informants‟ college capital. By
visually representing informants‟ social capital in the above table, the elements that
Fernando, Liz and Michael shared contrast in subtle ways to the elements shared by
Silvia, Brian and Tamika. The former group exhibited higher degrees of bridging
capital, more targeted approaches to building capital and higher quality resources
embedded within their social networks.
Liz, Fernando and Michael had been able to form bridging relationships with
institutional gatekeepers at their high schools and within the child welfare system. In
Liz‟s case, she was savvy about cultivating relationships with teachers and counselors
who could talk to her about college and write letters of recommendation on her behalf.
Michael turned to his track coach and social worker for assistance and encouragement
with college matters. He also cultivated a relationship with a photographer he met
175
through his participation in art competitions through DCFS and approached him for
career advice. Fernando capitalized on his role as senior class president to gain entrée
into forming relationships with different high school administrators who shared advice
about college. With the exception of Michael‟s strong tie with his social worker of 5
years, the majority of these relations were characterized by weak ties or associations
with acquaintances who could provide informants with college information.
Relationships with these institutional agents facilitated support tailored to the
informants‟ situations as students from foster care. They were guided to specialized
programs and assisted with financial aid and housing. Once at college, Fernando, Liz
and Michael were adept at identifying who might serve as sources of information or
support. Relationships with institutional agents continued to be characterized by weak
ties.
The degree to which the three exhibited bonding capital varied. None saw
their birth parents. All three maintained contact with siblings and tried to see them
regularly even though they were not always able to. Michael, in contrast to Liz and
Fernando, did remain in contact with friends from high school even after moving to
college. For Fernando, not being able to return to the neighborhood of his high school
foster home meant that he did not have regular opportunities to interact with friends he
had made prior to college. Liz chose not to return home frequently but had not
developed strong friendships with friends at her final high school anyway. All three
informants valued the new friendships they made during their freshman years.
176
Tamika and Brian had higher levels of bonding capital than bridging capital
and Silvia experienced moderate levels of both. With regard to bonding capital,
Tamika, the informant with the shortest tenure in foster care, maintained a strong tie
with her birth mother, sister and extended family. Brian and Silvia did not have
contact with their birth parents. The strength of Silvia‟s relationships with family
members varied. She maintained a strong tie to her younger sister, less strong ties to
her brother and older sister and weaker ties to her extended family. Brian rarely saw
his grandmother and siblings but maintained strong ties with his high school friends
and was adept at navigating his local support networks. Bonding relationships
provided the informants with emotional support and/or support for college plans when
residential needs arose but did not proffer high-quality information about college or
related issues.
In high school, Silvia, Brian and Tamika developed bridging relationships with
teachers and social workers who assisted them in applying to college. Yet as I will
discuss below, these institutional agents imparted inadequate (and in some cases
misguided) college information and guidance. Tamika and Brian were not notified
about various programs tailored to foster youth or educated about housing and
financial aid options. In Brian‟s case, he received college guidance very late in his
senior year–the week before California State University applications were due. Silvia
was not told about financial aid opportunities available through her ILP. Most of these
relationships were characterized by weak ties, which is perhaps why the informants
did not interact with these institutional agents in ways that ensured their college needs
177
were met. For example, Tamika and Brian‟s social workers did not advocate
effectively on their behalves to find them campus housing and the two were not able to
secure housing stability. Silvia, Tamika and Brian knew where to find basic support
on their college campuses. But similar to in high school, they were not entirely
successful in managing bridging relationships and ultimately did not receive the
support they needed to facilitate smooth academic, housing and financial transitions to
college. They continued to rely more on bonding relationships when they needed
help. These relationships offered informants emotional support but did not facilitate
the acquisition of college capital.
By comparing the network compositions, embedded resources and network
orientations of the informants, certain elements appear more effective for building
college capital. Informants benefited most from: (a) relationships with institutional
gatekeepers (individuals who offered bridging capital); (b) high quality embedded
college-related resources; and (c) the skills to assess and activate capital. These three
themes correspond with the study‟s research questions and are discussed in greater
detail below.
Discussion
As illustrated in chapter 4, when mobility in one social realm is set into
motion, other types of mobility ensue. For example, when a child is moved from one
foster care placement to another, chances are s/he will change schools as well.
Mobility frequently entails moving physical locations and changing social networks
simultaneously. When an individual changes schools, s/he is immediately surrounded
178
by different peers, teachers and counselors. Switching foster homes potentially brings
about changes in caregivers, foster siblings, peers and possibly even social workers
and legal advocates. Each move requires students to evaluate with whom they want to
form relationships and assess where they might go to find assistance. For students
interested in pursuing a postsecondary education, each move factors into securing
college guidance and support. Analysis of data in this chapter emphasized the socially
constructed nature of mobility and college capital and underlined a relationship
between ways in which moving affected individuals‟ abilities to form social capital
and ways in which social capital potentially mediated the negative effects of mobility.
Accordingly, data and analysis reflect the tensions inherent in the social
capital/mobility dynamic (Ream, 2005a/2005b), the theoretical centerpoint of this
dissertation.
The study was designed to explore how mobile individuals build college-
conducive social capital. Research findings respond to the theoretical framework
outlined in chapter two by emphasizing a social capital/mobility dynamic in the way
that informants approached preparing for college while navigating the foster care
system. Furthermore, research findings reflect how the interplay between mobility
and social network formation influenced informants‟ network participants, the types of
relationships they invested in, how they evaluated with whom to foster relationships,
their identity formation and where they located resources helpful to their college
aspirations and plans.

179
Research Findings
In the literature review, I posited a relationship between mobility and social
capital where mobility hindered the development of social capital and at the same time
social capital mediated the effects of mobility. I proposed that this dynamic would be
significant for foster youth as they prepared for college and navigated their freshman
years. Research findings supported those assertions and are presented below as they
correspond to the three central research questions guiding the study.
Research Question 1: How Do Students Who Experience High Levels of Mobility
Develop, Maintain and Exchange Social Capital?

When I started collecting data, I was surprised that the informants did not think
that mobility negatively affected their schooling. Without exception, informants
refuted the notion that mobility negatively affects educational achievement. However,
after learning more about informants‟ trajectories to college and analyzing study data
that illustrated the mixed ramifications of mobility and educational success, I noticed a
disconnect between behavior and informants‟ perceptions about the effects of
mobility. The disjuncture illustrated that the social capital/mobility dynamic appeared
to play a much stronger than the informants consciously acknowledged. The relation-
ships informants emphasized as supportive to college preparation and ways in which
they garnered information and tangible resources to support their college plans
occurred in part because informants had sufficient social capital to mitigate the effects
of moving. So while social capital theories and policy reports almost uniformly assert
180
the detriments of mobility, data point to a more complex picture–one that underscores
detriments and progression among these mobile youth.
Mobilities affected network formation and the accrual of college capital.
Informants experienced the highest degrees of network instability with school agents,
caregivers and peers. Relationships with siblings were among the most constant.
Mobility influenced the longevity of relationships, degree to which informants
developed trusting relationships, abilities to identify and access resources conducive to
college going and the educational progress of informants. At the same time, social
capital mediated the effects of mobilities by equipping informants with information
about college and how to best navigate child welfare services, support for college
aspirations and logistical assistance in applying for and managing financial aid.
Informants who participated in college-based support programs for foster youth
benefited from institutionally structured social networks made up of a cohort of peers
from similar backgrounds and institutional agents.
Taken together, the varying approaches to mobility and diverse elements of
college capital create a dynamic and contextually specific overview of how mobile
youth prepare for college. Data and analysis highlight three characteristics of college-
savvy, mobile foster youth: (a) resourcefulness in accessing college capital despite
mobilities, (b) ability to discern when to invest in relationships, and (c) capacity to
subsume different identities based on varying social situations and the fluctuating
nature of social support.
181
Resourcefulness. Informants stressed self reliance in the ways they dealt with
challenges or mundane aspects of their lives. Yet when it came to navigating the
college preparation process and their freshman year experiences, three of the
informants exhibited more calculated approaches to building college capital. These
students were aware of the need to form relationships with institutional agents who
could provide assistance and they cultivated social support in strategic ways. For Liz,
Michael and Fernando, college capital mediated the effects of their mobility as they
prepared for college and during their first years in college. They understood the
importance of fostering relationships with people who could provide entrée to tangible
or intangible resources. The other three informants utilized social capital to mediate
the effects of their mobility as they moved between different residential placements.
Yet they did not possess high degrees of college capital. As a consequence, even
though they were able to navigate peer and family networks, they were unsuccessful in
accessing helpful college resources when applying to college and during their
freshman years.
Resourcefulness entails consciousness about resources available and ability to
obtain resources (Monkman et al., 2005). Informants knew that because of their status
as foster youth, they were guaranteed certain college resources. Brian reported that he
would have entered the military if he had been living with his mother–instead he knew
that his college tuition would be covered because he was a “ward of the court.” Yet
the extent to which informants understood the availability of resources differed.
Michael, Liz and Fernando had deeper understandings of how their status as foster
182
youth affected their access to resources. They knew they could be reimbursed for
college-related expenses through their ILP coordinators, knew whom to contact if they
had a problem with housing or financial aid and were aware of extra-school resources
available through DCFS. Silvia, Brian and Tamika were not aware about ILP
reimbursement and could not identify the most effective institutional agents to turn to
when they struggled with academic or housing issues.
Beyond knowing what resources were available, informants were savvy about
how to access the resources. Liz, Michael and Fernando were persistent in making
sure their questions were answered and were assertive in expressing when they needed
assistance. Fernando renegotiated his financial aid package with the university after
voicing a reluctance to take out loans. Liz identified where she could find college
resources on her high school campus and cultivated relationships accordingly.
Michael was awarded a computer through his county social worker‟s office. Brian,
Tamika and Liz illustrated resourcefulness outside of college, such as when Brian and
Tamika found places to live without the support of their social workers. Yet they were
not as adept at locating and making use of resources at their colleges and through
DCFS. When Silvia started to struggle in school, she knew she was supposed to visit
a tutor but failed to gain additional support to ensure that she passed her classes.
Tamika and Brian could not garner the necessary assistance from their social workers
to ensure that they received campus housing.
Ability to assess relationships. Adler and Kwon (2002) assert that social
capital can be helpful or detract from positive outcomes. Assessing whether to invest
183
in a relationship or not involves understanding one‟s needs, evaluating the types of
resources embedded within relationships and determining the likelihood that an
individual would act in a supportive way. Again, informants‟ approaches varied. In
some cases informants knew whom to ask for assistance (i.e., social worker) but did
not adequately evaluate the caliber of resources offered by that person. As a
consequence, they were misinformed about college opportunities or not guaranteed
effective assistance related to college.
Trust appeared as a salient factor in evaluating bonding relationships (i.e.,
relationships with peers and family) but not as strong with bridging relationships (i.e.,
relationships with institutional agents). Informants articulated the types of friendships
they appreciated and cited trust as a factor in explaining whom they would befriend.
Fernando and Liz were aware that they struggled to trust others–and that consequently
relationships with friends (and in Liz‟s case, boyfriends) suffered. Tamika articulated
her appreciation for her foster mother‟s trust in her decisions; Fernando was frustrated
that his foster mother did not trust him. However, when informants evaluated the
potential to develop college-related social capital, the premium placed on
trustworthiness changed. Trust–especially in relation to consistency in interactions–
did not appear to act as a major determinant in whether informants would invest in a
relationship or not. Rather informants were interested in the availability of resources
accessible through a relationship and the ease of attaining those resources.
Multiple identities. According to Bourdieu (1986), habitus, or beliefs and
expectations, affect behaviors. McDonough (1997) applies this concept to theories of
184
college access when she suggests that individuals limit their college choices due to
internalized misgivings about their worthiness of attending college. With foster youth,
experiences with abuse and/or neglect coupled with unstable living situations
contribute to how identities develop. The informants grappled with internalized,
negative notions of self worth as a result of their experiences as foster youth. Silvia
and Fernando recalled being told by caregivers that they were not going to make it to
college. When the informants met other foster youth with similar college interests
they experienced relief, camaraderie and boosts in self esteem. Liz and Silvia in
particular emphasized how gratified they were to meet other foster youth interested in
college because they had not met any in their ILP classes. Initially embarrassed by
their designation as foster care students, once they met like-minded students from
foster care, they changed the way they thought of themselves.
Research suggests that educationally successful minority youth develop
multiple identities to cope with different social situations where they face institutional
exclusion or discrimination (Coser, 1975; Jones & McEwen, 2000; Lamont & Lareau,
1988). Multiple identities equip students with the skills to negotiate different roles
given varying social situations. A foster youth, for example, might subsume one
identity in a courtroom, another one in a new foster home and still another way on
neighborhood streets. Each identity influences how a person talks and acts. For
example, Brian varied in the way he spoke with his friends, his “homies,” his foster
family and his professors. With each new social situation, he adapted his identity so
that he could speak, act and think in ways that suited the given social environment.
185
The multiple mobilities experienced by the study informants increased the need to
assume different identities with each move. When Fernando, for instance, switched
foster homes, his psychological orientation changed depending on his new
surroundings. So while informants had to copy with the physical ramifications of
moving (i.e. where to store belongings), moving also affected their identity formation.
Research Question 2. How Does Institutional Context Influence Network Formation
for Foster Youth?

Several scholars cited in chapter 2 write about the potentially detrimental role
social institutions can play in recreating social inequities and deterring marginalized
groups from building social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch,
1995; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000; Valenzuela, 1999). Data showed that
institutions did in fact hinder informants‟ abilities to form social capital, especially as
they instigated mobilities. Yet data also showed how institutionally structured social
support was beneficial to informants.
Institutional barriers. In several instances, institutional policies created
barriers to improving informants‟ residential and scholastic stability such as when
informants had to switch schools when they changed residential placements. The
ECC, for example, has been highlighting and addressing the challenges to foster care
students‟ educational achievement caused by delays in programming students into
appropriate classes and by privacy laws that inhibit timely service provision. For the
study informants, moving residences and schools created challenges for students in
186
developing long-term relationships with institutional agents who might have provided
college assistance.
Housing instability represented a significant institutional barrier to informants.
Securing campus housing greatly enhanced first-year experiences. Not securing
housing led to severe challenges. DCFS and universities either facilitated transitions
into campus housing or caused roadblocks. Institutional policies had significant
implications for micro-level behaviors, often heightening stress levels and occupying
time to deal with the logistics of housing instead of dedicating that time to studying.
Institutional aids. Informants who participated in college-based programs with
wrap-around services for foster youth benefited significantly from their support.
Institutionalized support networks were valuable in assisting informants
psychologically and practically during their freshman years. Informants were aided
significantly by entering into college environments where peer networks were already
established through programs that served students from similar backgrounds. For the
three informants who were accepted into these programs, their participation marked
the first time in their lives they were connected with other youth in foster care
interested in college. The informants stressed how friendships made through these
programs helped bolster their self images because they offered examples of like-
minded peers who betrayed negative stereotypes of foster youth.
Furthermore, informants found solace in being able to share emotional
challenges with peers who had experienced similar problems. In addition, these
programs facilitated easy and frequent interactions with institutional agents who could
187
help them with housing, financial and emotional problems. In these cases, informants
identified program staff as the primary people to which they would turn with an array
of questions. The structure of programs also required continuity in interactions as
informants were required to regularly meet with advisors. Even though the informants
varied in the frequency in which they sought guidance, the stability of support
available was comforting and useful. Of the three informants who did not participate
in these programs, Fernando was successful in garnering institutional support through
relationships he developed during his summer bridge program. Brian and Tamika
were not able to successfully cultivate productive relationships with institutional
agents.

Research Question 3. In What Ways Do the Social Support Networks of College-
bound Foster Youth Factor Into Educational Outcomes?

As discussed in chapter 2, college access literature suggests that students
benefit from various types of support while preparing for college and during their
freshman years ranging from emotional to practical (Hossler et al., 1997). Data
showed that the quality of support mattered more than from whom or how informants
accessed support. Nevertheless, the type of relationship (i.e., bonding versus bridging)
as well as the strength of the relationship was instrumental in promoting effective
college capital.
Types of resources. Informants almost entirely accessed school-related “real”
resources (such as scholarships) through bridging relationships. All informants were
able to obtain financial aid. Yet Liz, Silvia and Michael were also accepted into
188
comprehensive support programs which facilitated the acquisition of higher amounts
of college-based “real” resources. They were afforded year-round housing, additional
funding and assistance with school supplies. Resources pertaining to extra-school
well being such as housing support were obtained through bonding relations with
friends who allowed them to stay in their apartments.
Symbolic resources were tailored to providing: (a) encouragement for
aspirations and plans, (b) advice about college and career choice, and (c) suggestions
about logistical matters such as how to manage finances. Informants with high
bridging capital tended to access symbolic resources pertaining to the second and third
categories. Even though relationships were characterized by weak ties, Fernando, Liz
and Michael learned about how their college education dovetailed with their career
goals through short-term interactions with institutional agents. By the time they
applied to college, they understood the different programs available to them. Brian,
Tamika and Silvia received fewer symbolic resources geared toward college matters.
Tamika, however, received ample symbolic support in the form of encouragement
from her mother. Brian received symbolic support from his friends.
Quality of resources. The caliber of resources had long-lasting effects. For
Fernando, Liz and Michael the resources they accessed were tailored to their
situations, contained correct information and were imparted at the appropriate times
(i.e., periodically throughout their K-12 education, before college and financial aid
application deadlines or with time to prepare for SAT exams). These three informants
were exposed to institutional support agents who either possessed high-quality
189
information about college or were able to direct the youth to appropriate resources.
Furthermore, the three were savvy about evaluating the effectiveness of support agents
and other tangible resources.
In contrast, Silvia, Brian and Tamika received information sporadically and
late with regard to deadlines. In some cases, the individuals who shared college
resources were misinformed and not invested in the effectiveness of the results. In the
most detrimental example, Brian and Tamika believed they were being assisted in
applying for campus housing but were misled. Social workers did not advocate well
for the needs of their clients and did not follow through on recommendations made to
students. Consequently, Brian and Tamika had to juggle the demands of school with
the stress of not having a stable place to live. At the high school level, Tamika was
told about a support program for foster youth by her college counselor the day before
its application deadline. She was late in applying to the program and was not awarded
a spot. Silvia was afforded adequate college guidance but not advice about how to
apply for additional funding for a computer or transportation, two aspects of her first
year that proved challenging.
Delivery of resources. Bridging ties were more helpful than bonding ties in
fostering college readiness. Relationships with qualified institutional agents proved
the most effective in ensuring that informants received the support necessary to
become college ready. Individuals who could assist informants in simultaneously
bridging two institutional contexts (such as K-12 schools and DCFS or DCFS and
190
college) were particularly helpful. Informants were best served by real and symbolic
resources offered by knowledgeable support agents.
Relationships were shaped by a number of factors. Two factors, frequency of
interactions and longevity of contact, contributed to how consistent a relationship was.
Studies on mobility and education suggest that moving creates barriers to forming
consistent relationships with people who can support academic achievement. Yet the
informants illustrated a more complex response to the importance of consistency in
interactions. In some situations, the consistency of interactions did not enhance the
college capital accessed through a relationship. In other situations, consistent
interactions strengthened social support. Consistency affected the strength of ties
characterizing a relationship.
While long-term, high-trust relationships were not critical to promoting college
going, informants benefited from long-term relationships with caregivers, teachers or
social workers who could talk to them about college. They were best served by
individuals who provided them with encouragement and guidance at opportune times.
A one-time interaction or short-term relationship with an institutional agent who could
provide assistance (such as with filling out an application) was an effective way to
ensure that the informant applied for college and financial aid. The fact that college
guidance was often delivered through bridging relationships characterized by weak
ties supports Granovetter‟s (1973) theory of the strength of weak ties.
In summary, college capital was made accessible through bonding and
bridging relations although the effects of each varied. Real and symbolic resources
191
were used for different purposes–in some cases to encourage college aspirations and in
others to help implement college plans. Informants did not necessarily have to
participate in long-term high trust relationships to access college support, although
such relations were ideal as they facilitated in-depth guidance and encouragement over
time. The degree to which informants were conscious of college resources and savvy
in their abilities to cultivate resources enhanced their ability to expand college capital.
In most cases, informants were not aware of how their mobilities and social
networks developed. Rather, the continually evolving nature of their mobility fostered
organic changes in their social networks. Informants adjusted to changes in schools,
residential placements and relationships with individuals in their personal and
institutional networks. Appendix F graphically depicts how the informants‟ social
networks changed during the course of 6 months. In most cases, the network
participants remained constant but the strength of ties changed dramatically.
Obviously the changes represented in Appendix F were mostly caused by moving to
college, but similar graphic displays could be produced for each change in foster care
and school placement experienced by informants.
Theoretical Implications
Theories of social capital and resiliency are multi-faceted and appeal to
scholars and practitioners from a variety of fields. Analysis of the informants‟
experiences raises questions about the applicability of both theoretical bodies to the
topic of transient youth and offers possibilities for future research.

192
Social Capital Theory
Social capital theory is becoming increasingly popular as a theoretical lens for
studying educational inequities. As the field develops, greater precision is needed in
defining terms and understanding the mechanisms behind social support (Adler &
Kwon, 2002; Dika & Singh, 2002). In particular, a focus on the types of capital
conducive to preparing students for college will lead to theoretical precision and
practical utility. Theorizing the interplay between the extreme network instability of
foster youth, mobility and educational achievement presents interesting opportunities
to more robustly address the social capital/mobility dynamic. Furthermore, a greater
focus on the effects of racialized, gendered and economic forces on the institutional
contexts of foster care and mechanisms fueling mobilities is necessary. Particularly
interesting would be applying a racial formation framework, as outlined by Omi and
Winant (1994), to the institutional contexts described in this project to better
understand the educational opportunities and foster care services afforded to children
of color. Applications of the social capital/mobility dynamic can be continued to be
used with migrant populations, but also expanded better understand the experiences of
youth with extreme network instability such as homeless students, students from foster
care and students with experiences in the probation system.
Resiliency
Perhaps the most pressing theoretical implication of the study pertains to the
role of resiliency. One could argue that social capital has nothing to do with the
educational success of the study informants and that their individual resiliency was the
193
key component in determining their educational attainment. Proponents of this line of
reasoning might suggest that informants possessed a set of internal personality
characteristics that equipped them with high levels of self esteem and self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977). Yet as Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2000) argue, resiliency is most
likely associated with characteristics that move beyond individual level traits and
include social network orientations and participation in social networks that enable
individuals to develop “a set of inner resources, social competencies, and cultural
strategies that permit individuals to not only survive, recover, or even thrive after
stressful events, but also to draw from the experiences to enhance subsequent
functioning” (p. 229). Other scholars echo the context-specific and dynamic nature of
resiliency (Johnson & Wiechtl, 2004; Rausch, Lovett & Walker, 2003). Following
this line of thought, the contextual character of resiliency resonates with this study‟s
findings about the context-specific nature of mobility and social network formation.
Research examining the relationship between resiliency and social capital draws
together psychological and sociological literatures and is needed to more fully
comprehend the interplay between resilience and social capital in mediating the effects
of mobilities.
Policy and Practical Implications
Study informants offered many suggestions about how their high schools,
colleges and the institution of DCFS could have better met their needs. Data point to
the need to: (a) provide better information about college to foster youth as they
progress through their elementary, middle and high school education and (b) enhance
194
services to students from foster care with regards to housing, emancipation, financial
aid and comprehensive support.
Information
Informants emphasized the value of being able to access quality information
about preparing for college, applying to college and financial aid. Informants also
stressed the importance of knowing about housing and managing financial aid once at
college. Informants did not emphasize preferences for accessing information through
long-term, high-trust relationships. Rather they highlighted the value of receiving
information and support tailored to their situations at relevant times. Informants
believed that their social workers and high school counselors should be able to guide
them through their preparation for college. Professional training should be offered to
both groups to equip them with the information and skills to better serve foster youth.
Furthermore, privacy laws and constraints against data-sharing should be reconsidered
because they limit practitioners‟ abilities to identify foster youth and tailor services to
their needs.
Housing
One of the most significant causes of stress among informants was where to
reside during college vacations. Ultimately, not securing a room in a campus
dormitory factored strongly into Brian and Tamika‟s decision to discontinue their
college education and seek full-time employment to cover living expenses. Concerns
about housing preoccupied Fernando midway through his freshman year until he was
confident he knew where he was going to live during the summer. In contrast, while
195
Michael, Silvia and Liz expressed anxiety over where they would stay during school
holidays, they were not overwhelmed by their housing concerns because they could
rely on the housing guaranteed to them by their college support programs.
Universities could fairly easily address housing problems by guaranteeing that
students from foster care have access to living quarters and food services during times
when they are not enrolled in classes. Alternatively, financial aid packages could be
reconfigured to include covering the costs of housing needed during school closures.
Delayed Emancipation
Another viable solution to housing problems during college would be to defer
emancipation from foster care. In California, instead of requiring by law that students
emancipate when they turn 18, students would be well-served by knowing they could
return to their former foster home during vacations and rely on foster parents for
emotional support and assistance with unmet financial need. Currently, loopholes
exist in the State of California that allow for the extension of tenure in foster care (i.e.,
if a ward is deemed mentally unprepared for independent living or if a ward has not
yet graduated from high school) but college enrollment does not qualify as one.
Financial Aid
Informants were challenged by finances once in college in three ways. While
all informants knew that the majority of their college education would be covered due
to their status as wards of the court, several informants did not receive adequate
financial aid guidance in high school. Study informants were often the first students
from foster care that high school counselors had worked with to fill out financial aid
196
paperwork. Consequently, informants were subject to inadequate guidance. Brian, in
particular, was unaware of supplemental programs that might have assisted him during
his freshman year. Tamika was told about a program designed for foster youth at the
university she wanted to attend the day prior to the application deadline. Secondly,
once enrolled, students did not understand their financial aid packages. Students
lacked knowledge about how and when financial aid would be disseminated and what
additional aid was available to students (such as work study). In addition, all
informants experienced delays in their financial aid disbursements: ILP reimburse-
ments took inordinate amounts of time and Chafee grant money was promised but not
promptly disbursed. Finally, foster youth were challenged by unmet need. Unlike
their peers, informants were not able to rely on parents for additional funds to cover
summer housing, computers, cellular phones or cars. As a consequence, Liz, Brian
and Tamika worked during college in order to cover additional expenses and Silvia
coped without the use of a personal computer.
Financial concerns can be addressed by better educating students from foster
care about the costs of college, how to manage finances and their financial aid options.
Informants‟ insights pointed to the utility of embedding resources in a variety of social
networks because students accessed college capital through a variety of sources
ranging from long-term, high-trust relationships to one-time interactions with
institutional agents. College information could be included in informational packages
disseminated to foster youth in court. Teachers, counselors, caregivers, social workers
and legal advocates can be trained to answer questions about financial aid for college
197
and to assist students in filling out paperwork or educated to direct foster youth to
people who are well-qualified to provide assistance with college and financial aid
applications.
Comprehensive Support Services
The informants who participated in comprehensive support programs on their
college campuses praised the role program staff and program peers played in raising
their comfort levels during their freshman years. Informants spoke about not feeling
isolated, feeling empowered by meeting other college-oriented youth from foster care
and knowing whom to turn to with questions or concerns. Being a part of an
institutionalized support system facilitated ease in how informants accessed academic,
emotional and financial support. The informants who did not participate in similar
programs expressed feelings of isolation related to their status as foster youth on
campus.
Universities should be encouraged to institute programs tailored to the needs of
foster youth. Individuals from housing, financial aid, academic counseling and mental
health should work collaboratively to design programs that would provide
comprehensive support for students from foster care. Support options should also
exist for undergraduates from foster care who can not or choose not to participate in
comprehensive programs for designed exclusively for foster youth. Existing programs
should be evaluated systematically and encouraged to share challenges and best
practices with other campuses.

198
Conclusion
There is no question that mobility complicates life for youth in foster care. Not
having a stable living space or a stable social circle makes day-to-day activities, let
alone preparing for college, difficult. Yet the informants‟ perspectives offer a more
complex picture of moving and college preparation. Informants were savvy. They
recognized when to seek help, who might provide guidance and access to resources or
support. The informants developed coping mechanisms in response to their mobilities,
many of which involved social network orientations that facilitated smoother
transitions to various institutional settings. Informants adjusted best to new social
situations (such as a new high school or college) when their social support networks
included knowledgeable institutional agents. Informants also relied on informal
networks for emotional support and assistance with housing.
In June of 2006, I returned to the Celebration One graduation ceremony. The
concert hall was equally glamorous as the first time I attended the event. The foster
youth on stage looked equally polished. The evening‟s M.C. was equally enthusiastic.
But this year only four of the roughly 120 students were accepted at 4-year
universities–down from approximately 20 the previous year. In a county housing, one
of the largest populations of foster youth in the nation, where the cost of kenneling a
dog is higher than the payment given to families for caring for a foster child (Rothfeld,
2007), something has to change.
199
EPILOGUE
“Life Takes You a Different Way.”

~ Silvia

As I finish writing this dissertation, I contact the informants during the fall of
their junior years. Three of the six are doing well–three have dropped out of school–
and two out of contact.
Fernando
Fernando is still attending the ECC meetings even though he no longer interns
with the County Supervisor‟s office. On one occasion, he addressed the audience of
200+ practitioners to share his experiences in preparing for college. He spoke
candidly about his troubles and how well he is doing now at university. The audience
was captivated as Fernando stressed how important it is to give foster youth
opportunities to attend college. “Was that ok?” he asked me after the meeting, “I
didn‟t know what they wanted me to say exactly. So I just spoke from my heart.”
In the fall of his junior year Fernando is already thinking about where he will
live next summer. He plans to find a two-bedroom apartment for him and his brother.
“I‟m still like a mentor to him,” he tells me, “but I learn a lot from him too.” His
brother has been staying with him every weekend in the dorms. Fernando has declared
himself a political science major and still plans on attending Harvard Law School.
“That‟s what I‟ve always wanted to do,” he reminds me.

200
Liz
“To graduate, I really have to understand this stuff–it‟s very demanding,” Liz
tells me. She is immersed in her core business classes at school and works a part-time
job at a foundation serving foster youth. She is about to move into her third apartment
since she moved out of the dorms. Because her uncle‟s business was failing, she had
been trying to figure out a way for her younger sister to come and live with her. “No
one [in the DCFS] was cooperating with me. They weren‟t pointing me in the right
direction to speed up the process,” she complains. Liz had located a one-bedroom
apartment for them to share but child welfare services requires that “wards” not share
bedrooms. Liz had volunteered to stay on the couch in the living room. But her social
worker was concerned she would be “envious” of her sister to which Liz retorts:
Are you kidding me? She‟s my sister. They were treating me like a child. I
have all my stuff together, I know what it takes. My sister is a good girl. She
wouldn‟t do drugs or rebel. I mean it could happen, but I don‟t think it would.
They probably thought they were doing their job. But we‟re sisters. I‟m doing
my job. They weren‟t helping me.

Ultimately, trying to navigate social services and find an apartment to share while
going to college proved overwhelming. Liz‟s sister remains with her aunt and uncle
for the time being. Liz is hopeful that they will move in together soon.
Silvia
After attempting to pass remedial math three times, Silvia was not allowed to
return to her college because of the CSU‟s new policy requiring students to pass basic
math in order to stay enrolled. “The crazy thing is that I took the placement test at [a
local community college] and I passed out of the class,” Silvia tells me over the phone.
201
For a few months, she was taking classes at the community college but became
overwhelmed by having to work a full-time job and go to school. „It‟s really stressful
when you have to worry about, “are we going to make rent this month?‟” She
explains, “I even tried to apply for food stamps but they said I didn‟t qualify because I
was making too much [working at Subway Sandwiches].”
I ask Silvia if anyone at the university tried to intervene on her behalf when she
was in danger of failing math. “The university says you need a good reason,” she
says, “like a death–but what could I say? I was just struggling.” Even though both of
her parents were deceased and she emancipated during her sophomore year, she was
unable to have her case reviewed by the university. “I felt a lot of pressure to do well
at college,” Silvia reflects, “but I dunno, sometimes life takes you a different way.”
Michael
Michael has just taken his first art class at his CSU. He is considering finding
a job at a local art store. Over the summer he stayed with his former social worker in
an effort to avoid returning to his former foster home. They participated in several
charity 5K races together, most recently one for the cancer society. Now he is living
in an off-campus apartment where the “rent is killing [him].” For Thanksgiving he has
been invited to a number of friends‟ homes but he thinks he will just spend time alone.
“I just don‟t feel like going,” he tells me, “I‟ve done that for the last few years but I‟m
getting tired of it.”
His hair is short again and he continues to date the young woman he met over
the Internet. He is still deciding about majoring in art or psychology. “I declared
202
psychology but I don‟t think I want to do that. I try and look at my options and think
like 25 years ahead, what it looks like. I dunno, 25 years of psychology doesn‟t look
like something I want to deal with,” he concedes.
Tamika
“I just think she‟s torn between her mom,” Oma tells me when I call.
“Irregardless of what [her mother] does, she‟s still her mom and I can understand that.
I just get so attached to them.” Oma was very sad that Tamika would most likely not
finish college and stresses the challenges faced by foster youth of color. She explains:
I‟m not racist, but especially for African American children–you have to have
education. [My husband and I] tell them the way the world works–like on the
streets. Just because you‟re in the system, doesn‟t mean you can‟t make it. If I
pay my taxes and you‟re not with your mom–if you have to be in the system,
let it work for you. It‟s a free ride. You have the opportunity to get what you
need for free . . . go get it! If your mind is clear, go get it. That‟s our motto. If
you have to be in the system, even if you get teased–realize that you are better
off than some other kids who aren‟t in the system.

Brian
I have not spoken with Brian in over six months. The last time we met he was
working a full-time job at UPS and had “taken a break” from college. He was
debating going to art school, transferring to an out-of-state college or returning to his
CSU. He had just moved into an apartment with three friends and was concerned
about paying rent.
Since our meeting his cellular phone has been disconnected. I can not locate
him through his former foster home or his friend‟s apartment where he stayed during
his freshman year. I am not the only one who has lost track of Brian. UFC – the
203
organization that promised him 4 years of scholarship money - has been unable to
locate him as well.
204
REFERENCES

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
American Institutes for Research. (2000). Educating California's foster youth.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Ards, S. D., Myers, S. L., & Malkis, A. (2003). Racial disproportionality in reported
and substantiated child abuse and neglect: An examination of systematic bias.
Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 375-392.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, (2), 191-215.
Barbell, K., & Freundlich, M. (2001). Foster care today. Washington, DC: Casey
Family Programs.
Basit, T. N. (2003) . Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data
analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143-154.
Bateman, B. E. (2004). Achieving affective and behavioral outcomes in culture
learning: The case for ethnographic interviews. Foreign Language Annals, 37
(2), 240-250.
Bateman, B. E. (2002). Promoting openness toward culture learning: Ethnographic
interviews for students of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 86, (iii),
318-321.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital : A theoretical and empirical analysis, with
special reference to education (3
rd
ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Bland, K. (2005, October 7). Activists want foster kids to stop changing schools.
The Arizona Republic.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood.
Brooks, D. & James, S. (2003). Willingness to adopt black foster children:
Implications for child welfare policy and recruitment of adoptive families.
Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 463-487.
205
Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Understanding the college choice of
disadvantage students. New Directions of Institutional Research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (2000). Foster youth services programs
(Education code section 42923). Report to the governor and legislature.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
California Youth Connection. (2006). Summary of foster youth speak outs. San
Francisco, CA: Author.
Casey Family Programs. (2003). Higher education reform: Incorporating the needs
of foster youth. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.
Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative
Research, 6(3), 319-340.
Christian, S. (2003). Educating children in foster care. Washington, DC: Children's
Policy Initiative: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Christiansen, E. J. (2005). Adolescent victimization: Testing models of resiliency by
gender. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(3), 298-316.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Coser, R. (1975). The complexity of roles as seedbed of individual autonomy. In L.
Coser (Ed.), The idea of social structure: Essays in honor of Robert Merton
(pp. 237-263). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Ruth, G., Keller, T., Havlicek, J. & Bost, N. (2005).
Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes
at Age 19 (working paper). Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at
the University of Chicago.
Courtney, M. E., Pilliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster
youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care.
Child Welfare, 80(6), 685-717.
Courtney, M. E., & Skyles, A. (2003). Racial disproportionality in the child welfare
system. Children and Youth Services, 25(5/6), 355-358.
206
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.
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19(1), 4-12.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Puoblications.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational
literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Duneier, M. (1992). Slim's table: Race, respectability and masculinity. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago.
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Education Coordinating Council. (2006). Data match results between Los Angeles
Unified School District, Los Angeles Department of Children and Family
Services, and Los Angeles County Probation Department. Los Angeles:
Author.
Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M.
LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative
Research in Education (pp. 643-680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Emerson, J. & Lovitt, T. C. (2003). Encouraging news for college-bound foster
youth. Focus newsletter. Rancho Cordova, CA: EdFund.
Fanshel, D., Finch, S. J., & Grundy, J. E. (1989). Modes of exit from foster care and
adjustment at the time of departure of children with unstable life histories.
Child Welfare, 68, 391-402.
Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black
masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y.-Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate
representation of race and ethncity in child maltreatment: Investigation and
victimization. Children and Youth Services, 25(5/6), 359-373.
207
Gándara, P. C. (1995). Over the ivy walls: The educational mobility of low-income
Chicanos. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Glisson, C., Bailey, J. W. & Post, J. A. (2000). Predicting the time children spend in
state custody. Social Service Review, 74 (2), 253-280.
Gough, S., & Scott, W. (2000). Exploring the purposes of qualitative data coding in
educational enquiry: Insights from recent research. Educational Studies, 26,
339-354.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties revisited: A network theory
revisisted. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network
analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hammerseley, M. (1992). What‟s wrong with ethnography? Methodological
explorations. New York: Routledge.
Hansen, M. T. (1998). Combining network centrality and related knowledge:
Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit firms, (working paper).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Hebert, T. P., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an
urban high school. Urban Education, 34(4), 428-457.
Horejsi, C., Craig, B. H. R., & Pablo, J. (1992). Reactions by Native American
parents to child protection agencies: Cultural and community factors. Child
Welfare, LXXI(4), 329-342.
Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college
choice. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook
of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 231-238). New York: Agathon Press.
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social,
economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jackson, S. (1994). Educating children in residential and foster care. Oxford Review
of Education, 20(3), 267-279.
Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Boudieu. New York: Routledge.
208
Johnson, J. L., & Wiechelt, S. A. (2004). Introduction to the special issue on
resilience. Substance abuse and misuse, 39(5), 657-670.
Jones, S. R. & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions
of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41, (4), 405-414.
Kools, S. M. (1997). Adolescent identity development in foster care. Family
Relations, 46, 263-271.
Lamont, M. & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153-168.
Leonard, J. (2007, October 20). Far fewer children in county foster care. Los Angeles
Times, pp. A1, A17.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: Capital captured through social relations. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Los Angeles Education Summit. (2004). Closing the educational achievement gap
for foster and probation youth. Los Angeles, CA: Children‟s Law Center.
Lucas, S. R. (1995). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American
high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Manski, C., & Wise, D. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
McCroskey, J., & Watson, C. (2005). Research on the educational experiences of
dependent and delinquent youth: A review of recent literature and questions
for the Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council. Los Angeles,
CA: Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council.
McDonough, P. M. (2005). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and
organizational commitment in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B.
Corwin & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of
effective outreach (pp. 69-88). Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools
structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
209
McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential
effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social
Forces, 78(1), 117-144.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2000). Nine lives: Adolescent masculinities, the body, and
violence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs and gender. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Monkman, K., Ronald, M., & Théramene, F. D. (2005). Social and cultural capital in
an urban Latino community. Urban Education, 40(1), 4-33.
Moran, C. D. (2003). Conceptualizing identity development: Unmasking the
assumptions within inventories measuring identity development. NASPA
Journal, 40(3), 43-55.
Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical Equations: Civil Rights from
Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
National Council on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1981). Study findings: National
study of the incidence and severity of child abuse and neglect (No. DHHS
Publication No. (OHDS) 81-30325). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Needell, B., Brookhart, M. A., & Lee, S. (2003). Black children and foster care
placement in California. Children and Youth Services, 25(5/6), 393-408.
Newberger, J. (2001). From foster care to college life. Retrieved March 23, 2001,
from http://www.connectforkids.org/node/261/print
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the
1960's to the 1990's (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Paulson, A. (2005, February 22). Fostering education. Christian Science Monitor.
Available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0222/p15s01-legn.html
Pérez, A. G. (2000). Foster youth share their perspectives for change. San
Francisco, CA: California Youth Connection.
Perna, L. W. (2005). The key to college access: Rigorous academic preparation. In
W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college:
Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 113-134). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
210
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Pribesh, S., & Downey, D. B. (1999). Why are residential and school moves
associated with poor school performance? Demography, 36(4), 521-534.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rausch, J. L., Lovett, C. R., & Walker, C. O. (2003). Indicators of resiliency among
urban elementary school students at-risk. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 570-
590.
Ream, R. K. (2005a). Toward understanding how social capital mediates the impact
of mobility on Mexican American achievement. Social Forces, 84(1), 201-
224.
Ream, R. K. (2005b). Uprooting children: Mobility, social capital, and Mexican
American underachievement. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Rogers, J., Holmes, J. J. & Silver, D. (2005). More answers than questions: CAHSEE
results, opportunities to learn, and the class of 2006. Retrieved from:
http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/resources/exitexam/pdfs/IDEA-CAHSEEff.pdf
Rueda, R., Monzó, L. D., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003, September 16). Academic
instrumental knowledge: Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic
intervention approaches. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(14).
Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number14/.
Rumberger, R. W., Larson, K. A., Palardy, G. J., Ream, R. K., & Schleicher, N. C.
(1998). The hazards of changing schools for California Latino adolescents.
Berkeley, CA: Chicano/Latino Policy Project.
Saito, L. (1998). Race and politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, and Whites in a Los
Angeles suburb. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Sanchez, R. M. (2003). Empowerment through collective action: Foster youth share
their personal experiences and perspectives for change. San Francisco, CA:
California Youth Connection.

211
Sandoval, C. M. (2005). Though their eyes: Results of youth and adult caregiver
focus groups on the education of youth in the foster care and probation system.
Los Angeles, CA: Education Coordinating Council.
Schene, P. A. (1998). Past, present, and future roles of child protective services.
Protecting children from abuse and neglect, 8(1), 23-38.
Scott, S., & Bruner, C. (1996). Supporting effective citizen involvement in child
protective services: A guide for state and local officials. Des Moines, IA:
Child and Family Policy Center.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin
support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students.
In M. A. Gibson, P. Gándara & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S.
Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 18-38). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the
reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high
school students. Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116-135.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Spina, S. U. (2000). The network orientations of highly
resilient urban minority youth: A network-analytic account of minority
socialization and its educational implications. Urban Review, 32(3), 227-261.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Spina, S. U. (2003). Informal mentors and role models in
the lives of urban Mexican-origin adolescents. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 34, 231-254.
Steele, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and African-American student achievement. In
T. Perry, C. Steele & A. Hilliard (Eds.), Young gifted & Black: Promoting high
achievement among African-American students (pp.109-130). Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Swanson, C. B., & Schneider, B. (1999). Student on the move: Residential and
educational mobility in America's schools. Sociology of Education, 72, 54-67.
Tierney, W. G. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions
of academic work. New York: Peter Lang.
212
Tierney, W. G., & Auerbach, S. (2005). Toward developing an untapped resource:
The role of families in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin &
J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for College: Nine elements of effective outreach
(pp. 29-48). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Colyar, J. E. (2005). The role of peer groups in college preparation
programs. I n W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing
for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 49-68). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of
minority mathematics students in college. College Mathematics Journal,
25(5), 362-372.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics
of caring. New York: State University of New York Press.
Vigil, J. D. (1999). Streets and schools: How educators can help Chicano
marginalized gang youth. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 270-288.
Walters, A. K. (2005, August 12). Helping foster children feel at home in college:
State and federal lawmakers seek to provide financial aid and other support.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A21.
Webb, N. B. (1996). Social work practice with children. New York: Guilford Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1980). The declining significance of race: Blacks and changing
American institutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wolanin, T. R. (2005). Higher education opportunities for foster Youth: A primer
for policymakers. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
Wulczyn, F. (2003). Closing the gap: Are changing exit patterns reducing the time
African American children spend in foster care relative to Caucasian children?
Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 431-462.
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002). Natural mentors
and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 30(2), 221-243.

213
APPENDIX A

A CHILD’S JOURNEY THROUGH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

214
APPENDIX B

COURT ORDER GRANTING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT
RESEARCH WITH “WARDS OF THE COURT”

215
216

217

APPENDIX C

RECRUITMENT FLYER

FOSTER CARE & COLLEGE ACCESS

                   

 Are you a senior?

 Have you spent a year or more in
the foster care system?

 Are you planning on attending
college next year?
(community college, technical college or four-year university)

 Would you be willing to meet with a
researcher from USC to talk about your
experiences in high school and getting
ready for college?

                   

If so, please contact Ms. Carter in the college center or Zoë Corwin at 213-740-2881
for more information.
218
APPENDIX D

EXAMPLE OF INFORMED CONSENT FORM

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

******************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Foster Care Youth and College Access
Student consent form

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Zoë Blumberg Corwin
and William G. Tierney, from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. The results of this study will contribute to a dissertation project.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you have experience
in the foster care system and are planning to attend college. A total of twelve subjects
will be selected from the seniors at your high school to participate. Your participation
is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to learn more about how students who live in foster care
prepare for and make decisions about going to college.

PROCEDURES

If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

219
 Meet with a researcher two to four times a month to talk about your experiences in
school and at home. Meetings will take place on your high school campus or at a
location of your choice. Meetings will be scheduled at a time you choose and will
not last over an hour. Questions might include: What are your college plans?
Who do you turn to with questions about college or high school graduation?
Meetings will take place from March 2005-June 2005.
 You will also be encouraged to suggests topics for discussion and to share
feedback on the research process and findings.
 Periodically respond to writing prompts about the influential adults and peers in
your life.
 Document key events and people in your life by taking photographs and keeping a
journal.
 Continue to correspond via email, phone or in person with the researcher during
the summer and first semester after high school graduation. These meetings will
occur one to two times a month at a time and location (if applicable) of your
choosing. Meetings will be scheduled between July 2005 through December of
2005.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

The potential risks to participating in this study are minimal. However it is possible
you might be uncomfortable revealing information about your background and
experiences. With this in mind, you will be assured and reminded that you do not
have to answer any/all questions and can terminate your participation in the study at
any time.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

You will potentially benefit from having the opportunity to speak with someone about
your college aspirations and plans. The potential benefits to society are significant.
Little research has been conducted on foster youth and access to college.
Consequently, research findings from this study have the possibility of providing
useful data for practitioners, policy makers and scholars interested in improving
educational services for foster care students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

There is no compensation for your participation in the study.

220
CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.

Individual interviews might be audio-taped and transcribed. You will have the right to
review the transcripts if you request to do so. Only the principal and co-principal
investigators will have access to the tapes, which will be stored in a locked cabinet in
the co-principal investigator‟s office. The tapes will be destroyed no later than three
years after the completion of the study.

The opinions of counselors, teachers, social workers, parents, guardians and other
students will be included in the study in order to provide general and specific
information about college access for foster care students. The information you share
will not be communicated to these people.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos,
or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity
will be protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also
refuse to answer any questions you don‟t want to answer and still remain in the study.
The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Zoë Blumberg Corwin (co-principal investigator) at 213-740-2881 or William G.
Tierney (principal investigator) at 213-740-7218.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
221
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 226, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PARENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.

I understand the procedures described above, have carefully read the information
contained in this form, and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject in a
research study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this
form.

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date
(must be the same as subject‟s)

222
APPENDIX E

SAMPLE PROTOCOLS

Primary informants

Interview #1: College plans and life history (July)
College plans:
1. When did you decide to go to college?
2. What experiences made you think about going?
3. Who, if anyone, encouraged you to go? In what ways did they encourage you?
4. Where are you going? What made you decide to go there?
5. When do you begin?
6. What are you looking forward to?
7. What are your biggest concerns?
8. Where will you live?
9. What kind of financial aid did you receive? How is that going to work?
10. Are you participating in a bridge program? What is/was that like?
11. What do you hope to major in? Any career ideas?
12. What will you need to do to meet your educational and/or career goals?
13. What do you see yourself doing five years from now?

Life history:
1. When and where were you born?
2. Tell me about your birth family. Siblings? Do you still have contact with
them?
3. When did you enter the system? What was that like?
4. How many placements have you lived in? (Best/worst/current)
5. How many social workers have you had? Has anyone related to DCFS or your
foster homes encouraged you to go to college? How so?
6. Tell me about your education. Pre-school? Elementary, junior high?
7. What was your high school like?
8. Was there anyone at your school who was particularly influential/helpful?
Anyone who tried to pull you down?
9. What do you like to do for fun? Tell me about your friends. (Probe: support
for college)
10. Who are the people you regularly have contact with?
11. How will moving to a new school/home affect the relationships you are in?
(family, DCFS, friends)

223
Interview #2 (September)
Topics:
 Early transition to college / making sense of college
 Challenges
 Support
 Adjusting to new housing or same living situation
 Transportation
 Finances
 Work
 New friends
 Old friends, family, guardians
 How has support circle changed?

Interview #3 (November)
Tell me how things are going.
How is your financial aid package working out?
What are your plans for the holidays?

Interview #4 (January)
Recap of first semester, plans for spring semester

 What was the best part of last semester?
 What was your biggest challenge?
 What would you change if you could?
 Any surprises?
 Tell me about your new friends? (Probe: similarities, differences)
 How deeply do you trust them? Why?
 Tell me about any adults that have been helpful? What is it about them that
you trust?
 Have you had any negative experiences with friends or adults? (Describe)
 How have your experiences in foster care influenced the way you made it
through the first year?
 How often do you still interact with your social worker or anyone related to the
system?
 How has your financial aid package worked out?

 When you think back on the school year so far, which relationships have
changed? Which have stayed the same? [List]
 Why?
 What do you think this semester will be like?
 What things are you going to do differently?
 Do you have clearer idea about your major?
224
 What are your plans for summer?

Secondary informants

Practitioners
1. What are the biggest challenges facing foster youth as they prepare for
college?
2. Who is responsible for ensuring that foster youth‟s educational needs are met?
3. How could K-12 schools better meet the needs of foster youth? How could
colleges/universities better meet the needs of foster youth?
4. How could the juvenile justice system and DCFS better meet the educational
needs of foster youth?
5. How does your organization attempt to improve educational achievement for
foster youth? What are your biggest challenges? Biggest successes?

Friends and families
1. What are the biggest challenges facing foster youth as they prepare for
college?
2. How do you think you have helped [name] prepare for college?
3. What advice do you have for other people interested in helping foster youth
prepare for college?
4. What suggestions do you have for schools and social service agencies
providing support to foster youth as they apply to and enroll in college?

*Please note that these are open-ended, qualitative interviews and further questions
will be tailored according to how a conversation develops.

225
APPENDIX F

GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF THE STRENGTH
OF INFORMANTS’ SOCIAL TIES

During high school and freshman years in college, informants interacted with
individuals and groups represented by the circles. The color of circles reflects the
strength of the social bond.

Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie

Tamika
High school Winter break
College
Counselor*
Social worker*
Boyfriend*
Birth mother
Birth sister
Foster parents
Tamika
Social worker
Roommate* Birth mother
Birth sister
Foster parents
Tamika
Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie
226

Liz
High school Winter break

Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie

Extended birth family
Social worker*
College counselor*
Teachers*
sister
Aunt and uncle
(foster family)
Liz
Business club
Colleagues*
Guardian Scholars
Staff*
boyfriend
roommates Extended birth family
Social worker
Professors*
sister
Aunt and uncle
(foster family)
Liz
227

Brian

High school Winter break
siblings
Social worker* Teachers*
friends
Foster parents
Brian
siblings
Social worker*
University
academic and
financial aid
staff
friends
Foster parents
Brian

Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie

228
Teachers and
Counselors*
Friends
“mentor ”*
Social worker*
Brother
Foster family
Fernando
Academic
outreach
Staff*
High school
friends
“mentor ”
Internship staff
Brother
Friends
from EOP*
Fernando

Fernando

High school Winter break
Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie

229
Mentor*
Friends
Coach*
Social worker*
siblings
Foster family
Michael
Support
program
Staff*
College friends
& roommate
Friends
Social worker*
siblings
Foster family
Michael

Michael

High school Winter break

Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie

230

Silvia

High school Winter break

Dark blue = strong tie
Turquoise = moderate-strength tie
Light blue = weak tie
cousin
brother
Teachers
Counselor*
Social worker*
boyfriend
sister
Aunt and uncle
(foster parents)
Silvia
cousin
brother
Support
Program
Staff*
Social worker*
roommate
sister
Aunt and uncle
(foster parents)
Silvia

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Of the over 500,000 youth currently in foster care in the United States, only 10% to 20% enroll in college. Of those, less than 5% graduate. Compared to their peers, foster youth draw from less stable social networks when seeking support for college aspirations due to the many times youth in foster care tend to change residences and schools. Since valuable college-related information, skills and support tend to be accessed through social relationships, lack of sustained support can be particularly detrimental to the long-term well-being of youth with experiences in foster care. This dissertation explores how the transient nature of foster care affects students abilities to gain and utilize social capital and navigate college-conducive social networks. Longitudinal data from ethnographic interviews conducted with six students from foster care as they prepared for and during their first year of college shed light on how foster youth evaluate the resources they have at their disposal given institutional and social contexts that potentially hinder college going.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Resilient voices of success: counter‐narratives of foster youth in graduate school

PDF

FosterEdTech: Exploring how foster care alumni use social media

PDF

Defining the mobilization of social capital for low-SES minority youth participants in the Summer Bridge program by program leaders

PDF

Social network engagement and HIV risk among homeless former foster youth

PDF

First year experiences contributing to foster youth higher education attainment

PDF

A phenomenological study: the lived experience of former foster youth attending a four-year college in Southern California

PDF

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

Toward understanding academic risk and resilience: a social capital perspective

PDF

The intersection of grit and social capital: a mixed methods examination of successful first-generation college students

PDF

Undocumented college students: pursuing academic goals against the odds

PDF

Guardian scholars summer bridge program

PDF

Understanding the barriers to college access for former foster youth at the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Social capital networks of institutional agents and the empowerment of African American youth

PDF

Significant others in the lives of Latino first-generation college students: how social capital aids persistence

PDF

"God has my back": the role of faith-based institutions in preparing African-American students for college success

PDF

Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework

PDF

From Care to College (C2C): improving academic outcomes for youth in foster care – through technology and social emotional learning

PDF

Social capital networks of institutional agents and the empowerment of low-status youth in a federally funded intervention program

PDF

Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study

PDF

Peers as institutional agents: acquiring social capital through peer interactions

Asset Metadata

Creator Corwin, Zoë Blumberg (author)

Core Title College, connections and care: how mobility and social capital affect college preparation for youth in foster care

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

Publication Date 02/26/2010

Defense Date 01/04/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college access,foster care,OAI-PMH Harvest,social capital

Language English

Advisor Messner, Michael A. (committee chair), Tierney, William G. (committee chair), Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (committee member)

Creator Email zcorwin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1029

Unique identifier UC1288729

Identifier etd-Corwin-20080226 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-48333 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1029 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Corwin-20080226.pdf

Dmrecord 48333

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Corwin, Zoë Blumberg

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu