Who Engages and Why? Examining Barriers and Pathways to Campus Program Engagement for College Students with Foster Care and Homelessness Backgrounds

Background/Purpose: College students with foster care or homelessness experiences face significant barriers to postsecondary education, with lower rates of enrollment and degree completion than peers (Day et al., 2011). These disparities are often driven and compounded by limited social support and challenges in meeting basic needs (Skobba et al., 2018). In response, many institutions developed campus support programs (CSPs) that provide tailored academic and financial supports. Although research shows CSP participation is associated with improved persistence (Okpych et al., 2020), some eligible students do not participate, and little is known about factors influencing engagement or the mechanisms through which CSPs influence outcomes. Notably, research has not examined these dynamics from the perspectives of both participants and eligible nonparticipants. This study examines factors influencing students’ awareness of, engagement with, and participation in a CSP, and how participants and nonparticipants differ in their perceived benefits and barriers to involvement.

Methods: This study employed a qualitative design as part of a broader mixed-methods project examining college students with foster care or homelessness backgrounds. A purposive sample of undergraduate students who were eligible for a CSP at a four-year public university was recruited. Forty semi-structured interviews and demographic surveys were conducted with CSP participants (n=20) and eligible nonparticipants (n=20). Interviews explored perceived benefits, barriers, and program engagement processes. Thematic analysis with a multi-stage coding process was used to develop an in-depth understanding of respondents’ experiences. Trustworthiness was promoted though triangulation, audit trails, peer debriefing, and reflexivity. Demographic survey data were used to contextualize responses.

Results: Among participants, findings show they primarily learned about the CSP through recruitment emails or community referrals. Most frequently utilized services included: 1) coaching with CSP staff, 2) mentoring from community volunteers, and 3) basic needs resources (e.g., care closet). Coaching and mentoring were also identified as the most beneficial components, largely due to the social connections and informational support (e.g., advice/guidance) they received. Key reasons for continued engagement included: a strong sense of belonging and meaningful relationships with staff and peers. Continued barriers to engagement included: living off-campus and scheduling . Among nonparticipants, most reported general awareness of the CSP (e.g., mission, services), typically through email communication. Common barriers to participation included: 1) limited knowledge about the program, 2) perceptions of not needing services, 3) social fear or anxiety related to engagement, and 4) scheduling conflicts. To increase engagement, nonparticipants recommended clearer messaging about CSP benefits and expanded outreach (e.g., tabling events, presentations).

Conclusion/Implications: Findings suggest participants derived the greatest value from social connections and a sense of belonging through coaching and mentoring, although some engagement was hindered by off-campus living and scheduling conflicts. While nonparticipants were generally aware of the CSP, limited knowledge of program offerings, perceived lack of need, and social anxiety deterred involvement. Implications include strengthening outreach that clearly communicates social and informational benefits and improving the timing, accessibility, and delivery of CSP activities to better accommodate students’ schedules. Future research on help-seeking and social support processes is warranted to further refine and tailor CSP services.