Exploring Social Support Networks Among Young Adults Formerly Served by Public Systems

Purpose: Social support is critical to a successful transition to adult roles. Few studies have examined social networks and types of social support (concrete, emotional, informational, and support related to mental health) received by transitioning youth with mental disorders and even fewer have done so among those that have left public-sector service (e.g., foster care, juvenile justice). This study examines the size and composition of social support networks among these vulnerable young adults, the types of support they receive from network members, and whether social support networks differ by demographic, clinical and service use characteristics.

Methods: Fifty young adults (Mean Age=22) were surveyed face-to-face with a semi-structured interview protocol. Inclusion criteria included a childhood history of a mood disorder diagnosis, Medicaid mental health service use, and use of one additional public system. The study incorporated two social network assessment methods, one that captured level of closeness (Antonucci, 1986) and another to examine network size, composition and types of support (Tracy & Whittaker, 1990). An additional category of support was added, to determine whether network members talk with young adults, specifically, about their mental health difficulties. Mann-Whitney U tests were utilized to examine differences in social support networks.

Results: The sample was 65% female, 63% youth of color. Mean network size was 9 (SD=5.3), with a range of 0 to 22 network members. Network members were mostly family (38%), friends (24%), and professionals (14%). Family (46%), friends (17%), and professionals (13%) made up the majority of participant's inner circle, defined as “…people to whom you feel so close that it is hard to imagine life without them.” Family were the primary providers of concrete, emotional, and informational support; however, these same family members often were indicated as “hardly ever” talking with young adults about their mental health difficulties. For this type of support, participants primarily talked to professionals. Mann-Whitney U tests reveal that social networks varied by demographic and service use factors. History of foster care involvement was related to more formal network members (z=-2.03, p<.05). White participants reported a higher percentage of their network “hardly ever” provides concrete (z=-1.96, p<.05) and informational (z=-2.01, p<.05) support, when compared to non-whites. Males reported a higher percentage of their network “almost always” provided them with concrete support (z=-1.91, p=.05). Finally, those that discontinued service use in adulthood reported a smaller percentage of their network members talk to them about their moods, when compared to service users (z=-3.17, p<.01).

Conclusions and Implications: While family members make up the largest proportion of social network members in the lives of these young adults, findings suggest they are the least likely to talk with them about their mental health concerns. Results suggest a need for practice approaches to help young adults and their families learn ways to talk more about mental health. Also, since professionals appear to be the greatest source of support for talking about mood and emotional difficulties, it may be increasingly important to increase access to such services.