佐治亚大学两个针对有寄养经验学生的校园支持计划的混合方法评估

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1007/s10560-023-00941-0
Ciara M. Collins, Amy M. Salazar, Angela Hoffman-Cooper, Royel M. Johnson, Linda Schmidt, Lori Tiller, Sarah Young
{"title":"佐治亚大学两个针对有寄养经验学生的校园支持计划的混合方法评估","authors":"Ciara M. Collins, Amy M. Salazar, Angela Hoffman-Cooper, Royel M. Johnson, Linda Schmidt, Lori Tiller, Sarah Young","doi":"10.1007/s10560-023-00941-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A large and growing number of colleges and universities have invested in the development of campus support programs (CSPs) that specifically aim to support students with experience in foster care (SEFC). However, the evidence base for CSPs remains quite limited. The current study seeks to contribute to the literature with a mixed methods evaluation of two CSPs in Georgia, one at a 2-year technical college and one at a 4-year university. Qualitative data were collected by the study team via student and staff interviews. Quantitative data were provided by CSP program staff and included program implementation and administrative outcome data (i.e., grade-point average, course credit completion) for SEFC who participated in the CSP. Outcome data were also provided for comparison student groups: (a) all undergraduate students, (b) all first-generation undergraduate students, and (c) all undergraduate students who checked “Ward of the court” on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Analyses revealed that the two CSPs in this study offer important supports to SEFC, but many barriers stand in the way of services reaching their full potential. Most of the university students interviewed shared positive experiences of the CSP, but many suggested improvements were offered as well. Administrative data showed the promise of CSPs, with SEFC performing similar to or better than some of their peers academically; however, the study design and data limitations prevent this study from making efficacy claims. Policy and practice recommendations are provided, as well as how researchers can work alongside CSPs to conduct program evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51512,"journal":{"name":"Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mixed Methods Evaluation of Two Georgia College Campus Support Programs for Students with Experience in Foster Care\",\"authors\":\"Ciara M. Collins, Amy M. Salazar, Angela Hoffman-Cooper, Royel M. Johnson, Linda Schmidt, Lori Tiller, Sarah Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10560-023-00941-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A large and growing number of colleges and universities have invested in the development of campus support programs (CSPs) that specifically aim to support students with experience in foster care (SEFC). However, the evidence base for CSPs remains quite limited. The current study seeks to contribute to the literature with a mixed methods evaluation of two CSPs in Georgia, one at a 2-year technical college and one at a 4-year university. Qualitative data were collected by the study team via student and staff interviews. Quantitative data were provided by CSP program staff and included program implementation and administrative outcome data (i.e., grade-point average, course credit completion) for SEFC who participated in the CSP. Outcome data were also provided for comparison student groups: (a) all undergraduate students, (b) all first-generation undergraduate students, and (c) all undergraduate students who checked “Ward of the court” on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Analyses revealed that the two CSPs in this study offer important supports to SEFC, but many barriers stand in the way of services reaching their full potential. Most of the university students interviewed shared positive experiences of the CSP, but many suggested improvements were offered as well. Administrative data showed the promise of CSPs, with SEFC performing similar to or better than some of their peers academically; however, the study design and data limitations prevent this study from making efficacy claims. Policy and practice recommendations are provided, as well as how researchers can work alongside CSPs to conduct program evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-023-00941-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-023-00941-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的学院和大学投资开发了校园支持计划,专门旨在支持有寄养经验的学生。然而,CSP的证据基础仍然相当有限。目前的研究试图通过对佐治亚州两所CSP的混合方法评估来为文献做出贡献,一所在两年制技术学院,另一所在四年制大学。定性数据由研究小组通过学生和工作人员访谈收集。定量数据由CSP项目工作人员提供,包括参与CSP的SEFC的项目实施和管理结果数据(即平均绩点、课程学分完成情况)。还为比较学生组提供了结果数据:(a)所有本科生,(b)所有第一代本科生,以及(c)在联邦学生资助免费申请中勾选“法院病房”的所有本科生。分析表明,本研究中的两个CSP为SEFC提供了重要支持,但许多障碍阻碍了服务充分发挥其潜力。大多数接受采访的大学生都分享了CSP的积极经验,但许多人也提出了改进建议。行政数据显示了CSP的前景,SEFC在学术上的表现与一些同龄人相似或更好;然而,研究的设计和数据的局限性阻碍了本研究提出疗效声明。提供了政策和实践建议,以及研究人员如何与CSP合作进行项目评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mixed Methods Evaluation of Two Georgia College Campus Support Programs for Students with Experience in Foster Care

A large and growing number of colleges and universities have invested in the development of campus support programs (CSPs) that specifically aim to support students with experience in foster care (SEFC). However, the evidence base for CSPs remains quite limited. The current study seeks to contribute to the literature with a mixed methods evaluation of two CSPs in Georgia, one at a 2-year technical college and one at a 4-year university. Qualitative data were collected by the study team via student and staff interviews. Quantitative data were provided by CSP program staff and included program implementation and administrative outcome data (i.e., grade-point average, course credit completion) for SEFC who participated in the CSP. Outcome data were also provided for comparison student groups: (a) all undergraduate students, (b) all first-generation undergraduate students, and (c) all undergraduate students who checked “Ward of the court” on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Analyses revealed that the two CSPs in this study offer important supports to SEFC, but many barriers stand in the way of services reaching their full potential. Most of the university students interviewed shared positive experiences of the CSP, but many suggested improvements were offered as well. Administrative data showed the promise of CSPs, with SEFC performing similar to or better than some of their peers academically; however, the study design and data limitations prevent this study from making efficacy claims. Policy and practice recommendations are provided, as well as how researchers can work alongside CSPs to conduct program evaluations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
89
期刊介绍: The Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal (CASW) features original articles that focus on social work practice with children, adolescents, and their families. Topics include issues affecting a variety of specific populations in special settings.  CASW welcomes a range of scholarly contributions focused on children and adolescents, including theoretical papers, narrative case studies, historical analyses, traditional reviews of the literature, descriptive studies, single-system research designs, correlational investigations, methodological works, pre-experimental, quasi-experimental and experimental evaluations, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Manuscripts involving qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods are welcome to be submitted, as are papers grounded in one or more theoretical orientations, or those that are not based on any formal theory. CASW values different disciplines and interdisciplinary work that informs social work practice and policy. Authors from public health, nursing, psychology, sociology, and other disciplines are encouraged to submit manuscripts. All manuscripts should include specific implications for social work policy and practice with children and adolescents. Appropriate fields of practice include interpersonal practice, small groups, families, organizations, communities, policy practice, nationally-oriented work, and international studies.  Authors considering publication in CASW should review the following editorial: Schelbe, L., & Thyer, B. A. (2019). Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal Editorial Policy: Guidelines for Authors. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 36, 75-80.
期刊最新文献
The Emotional and Behavioral Impact of Social Connections and Observant Adults in the Neighborhood, School, and Family on Youth “We Do the Best We Can with What We Have”: Reflections from Residential Care Stakeholders on the Impacts of COVID-19 Characteristics and Views of Young Unaccompanied Migrants Transitioning to Independent Living in the Catalan (Spain) Protection System Implementing and Evaluating Manualized Interventions in U.S. Organizations Serving Youth with Foster Care Experience: Lessons Learned from the Field Exploring Retrospective Place Attachment Toward Foster Homes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1