Provider-Recommended Strategies to Enhance Foster Youth Support Networks

Background and Purpose: There is consensus that multidimensional social support is a fundamental developmental resource that is often lacking for older foster youth, because the social network contexts that typically facilitate adolescent well-being have been repeatedly disrupted while in foster placement. Yet the field has not fully addressed how to enhance the social support available in these youth networks, especially given real-world constraints within child welfare service systems. The current study identifies recommended practice approaches from the direct service provider perspective to inform the development of such a support network enhancement intervention based on systematic network assessment and theory-guided strategies for increasing social support (Blakeslee, 2015; 2016).

Methods: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted with providers of skill-building and transition planning services for foster youth aged 16-20 in regions across Oregon (N=20). The purpose was to identify the strategies providers use and/or recommend to enhance youth support and network development, as well as known facilitators and barriers to using these strategies in practice. Directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) was used to develop findings that inform the design of a testable intervention that providers can deliver in the current service environment.

Results: Providers strongly affirmed social development and network-based support as critical factors for long-term youth success (“it’s a big, big piece of what I do”). Providers identified a number of support-enhancing strategies they use, including one-on-one relationship skill-building, facilitating opportunities for near-peer exposure, and engaging formal and informal support resources, including previously-disrupted relationships (“we go backwards to go forwards”). Providers identified common barriers to enhancing support networks, such as the lack of foster youth-specific programming (e.g., formal mentoring), the difficulty of engaging some foster parents and caseworkers around social development, and logistical barriers to participation in typical youth activities (e.g., extracurricular fees, limited transportation options). Providers in metropolitan regions specifically recommended individual relationship-building strategies within a relatively service-rich environment, while rural providers had regional difficulties finding formal resources to expand youth support networks. Lastly, providers endorsed a need for innovative approaches to address foundational socioemotional needs—specifically through support network mapping, natural mentoring programs, and/or skilled near-peer coaching—and argued that such programming should be available to youth long before they focus on practical life skills and transition planning. Overall, the recommended strategies fit within a broad theoretical understanding of functional networks as facilitating both bonding social capital (strong ties providing emotional/concrete support) and bridging social capital (temporary ties providing information/access). 

Conclusions and Implications: This identification of strategies that are considered efficacious and feasible by providers falls within the first stage of ongoing social work intervention research (Fraser & Galinsky, 2010) to enhance foster youth support networks. Developing effective programming to assess and address support network deficits among foster youth has the potential to improve service planning in ways that prevent and/or reduce repeated network disruption, to prioritize individual socioemotional development needs as a protective factor, and to ultimately bridge the eventual transition from formal services to informal support networks in ways that impact young adult health and well-being.