Networks in Motion: Tracking Support Systems, and Post Secondary Vocational Education Trajectories Among System-Involved Youth

Background and Purpose: While Post Secondary Vocational Education (PSVE) is often promoted for long-term economic stability, young adults with previous involvement in state systems, may face unique barriers in accessing and continuing their programs. Educational discontinuities - marked by multiple starts and stops -- are common for this population. Social supports, especially diverse or long-term enduring supports have been found to mitigate these disruptions. Building on the initial findings of our study, this follow-up phase dives deeper into how social support networks evolve over time and how system-involved young adults continue, shift, or rebuild relationships to sustain their PSVE goals. We ask: (1) How do youth navigate their educational trajectories? (2) What types of support tend to persist over time, and from whom? (3) What new supports emerge, and how do they function when others are discontinued?

Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 16 young adults enrolled in vocationally-oriented program at a community college who had prior system involvement. Participants were interviewed approximately three months after initial interview using semi-structured guides. Follow-up interviews explored changes in their educational trajectory and support systems. Data was analyzed first using thematic coding to map network members (e.g., institutional adults, peers, family, etc.) and their functions (e.g. emotional, academic guidance, informational and resource supports) over time. This was followed by narrative analysis to understand students’ experiences of trajectories, particularly changes in supports, coping mechanisms, and recommendations for improvements.

Results: Most participants remained in their PSVE programs at follow-up, despite shifts in their support networks. Findings revealed three patterns: continued, discontinued, and new supports. Continued or enduring relationships with institutional adults within different settings (e.g., professors at community colleges or caseworkers within systems) often provided critical stability. Discontinued supports usually stemmed from institutional policy changes such as financial aid, inaccessibility to support programs, or strained personal relationships; thereby causing anxiety, instability, and in some cases potential academic delays. In some cases even the threat of losing support risked delays in progress, highlighting the fragility of these networks for system-involved youth. While some participants relied on existing networks (such as peers), others actively sought new connections or campus-based support programs to fill the gap in support. These alternative supports often emerged as crucial replacements when other supports failed.

Conclusions and Implications: Support systems for these youth are not static, but instead shift in response to relational, institutional, and policy-level factors, even over short periods. These changes underscore the need for multi-layered or decoupled supports to prevent disruption of a educational/career path. Developing mentorship, better financial aid, campus-based support programs among other strategies can offer both academic and emotional support to the population. For instance, participants identified the need for stronger transition supports, especially during aging-out periods. They also recommended institutions create more accessible, considerate, and supportive environments, instead of merely ensuring policy compliance. Therefore, our study highlights the importance of designing supports that evolve with young people, building resilience not just within individuals but within the systems that surround them.