Education,School,Work - Care Experienced Young People and Supportive Infrastructures

Abstract

This article focuses on support structures for care experienced young people (CEYP) in the context of education. It follows the question of what suitable support services for CEYP on their (educational) pathway might look like. Therefore, it first takes a closer look at the educational situation of CEYP by a narrative literature review to identify factors that promote or hinder their educational pathway. Further, ways to set up such support structures, taken from Germany, are presented. In conclusion, it is pointed out that there is a need for local, structurally anchored, cross-jurisdictional services to support CEYP on their (educational) pathway. Based on this, potential for additional research work and ideas for further developing supportive infrastructures for CEYP are suggested as a conclusion of this article.

Keywords

Leaving care education transition to work support structures one-stop government

Introduction

Education is a right, not a privilege (United Nations, 1948, p. 26). Nevertheless, not all people are given the same educational opportunities. It is repeatedly shown that access to education depends on various factors. Biographical aspects, such as family situation and migration, are particularly significant in this regard. Several international studies show that care experienced young people (CEYP) are one of the disadvantaged groups in this context (e.g. Cameron et al., 2012; O’Higgins et al., 2015). Research suggests that their low level of educational attainment is closely linked to a high risk of social exclusion as adults (Jackson & Cameron, 2011). It is reported that they achieve poorer educational outcomes compared to people who have grown up in their own families (e.g., Mann-Feder & Goyette, 2019). But it is also shown that some CEYP reach good educational outcomes (Gilligan, 2007), particularly in comparison to children from similar backgrounds (children in need who live at home) who are not care experienced (Sebba et al., 2015; Sinclair et al., 2019). The findings of a multinational comparison of care-leaving policies and legislations suggest that education is one of the main challenges for care experienced people in 31 of 36 countries (Strahl et al., 2020). Additionally, various studies report a connection between well-being and education. They bring up that the well-being of CEYP can improve significantly when they have positive educational experiences. A survey of care experienced students in further education in Scotland found that many respondents felt successful and optimistic about the future, attributing this to the value of higher education to young people’s educational pathways (Howard & MacQuarrie, 2022). Educational success is associated with better long-term outcomes with regard to the leaving care process, so increasing educational attainment is an important strategy for a successful transition to adulthood (Forsman et al., 2016). Following this, it needs to have suitable support services for CEYP on their (educational) pathway. But what might suitable support services look like? Pursuing this question, this article first takes a closer look at the educational situation of CEYP by a narrative literature review to identify factors that promote or hinder their educational pathway. It is pointed out that there is a need for local, structurally anchored, cross-jurisdictional services to support CEYP on their (educational) pathway. Further to this, experiences from Germany are used to show how efforts are being made to deal with this. At last, potential for additional research work and ideas for further developing supportive local infrastructures for CEYP will be suggested as a conclusion of this article.

Narrative Review of International Literature: The Educational Situation of Young Care Experienced People

In order to explore the question of suitable support services for CEYP on their (educational) pathway, a narrative review of research literature was used to identify key points for the design of such services.

Educational Barriers

Various studies bring up educational disadvantages on the educational pathways of CEYP. They found similar educational challenges and barriers across countries (e.g., Courtney et al., 2011; Jackson & Cameron, 2012; O’Higgins et al., 2017; Refaeli & Strahl, 2014; Zeira et al., 2023). In their single (= sample from a single university) large longitudinal study about CEYP at universities in the UK in 2005, Jackson et al. (2005), for example, figured out factors of educational disadvantage. They call them ‘risk factors’:

low expectations of teachers and social workers

poor communication between social services and education services

multiple placements and changes of school

school exclusions and abstinence

bullying

lack of educational encouragement from social workers

lack of information and guidance

difficulty in finding accommodation, especially during the vacations

finances after care

inability to cover the cost of education (e.g., semester fees)

dependence on earning money

absence of social support and

personal, social, and emotional difficulties resulting from previous life experiences

Other studies come to similar results. The Midwest Study, a longitudinal study from the US following a sample of CEYP for several years, pointed out that 40% of the respondents leave school early due to a lack of financial resources (Dworsky & Courtney, 2010). Around 80% of the participants in the study said that they needed further education to realise their educational aspirations. About 20% state that they pursue employment to earn money (Courtney et al., 2011). The risk of frequent changes of school (often due to placement changes) is also reported here. More than a third of the respondents stated that they had experienced more than five changes of school (Courtney et al., 2004). A longitudinal study of CEYP in Israel also emphasises a lack of educational encouragement from social workers (Zeira et al., 2023). A cross-European study added the importance of informal learning opportunities (leisure activities, volunteering, etc.) to provide qualifications, income and work experience as a further educational barrier (Jackson & Cameron, 2011).

The report ‘What Makes Life Good? Care Leavers Views on their Wellbeing’, which presents the analysis of the views and experiences of over 1.800 CEYP in England, emphasises these findings (Briheim-Crookall et al., 2020). Some results should be highlighted here. Many of the young people reported having small support networks, 6% had no one providing emotional support and approximately 1 out of 10 young people had support only from their leaving care worker. Similar results also arise from a survey of care experienced students in further education in Scotland (Howard & MacQuarrie, 2022). The highlighted barriers are: stigma, bullying, poor mental and physical health and the lack of specialised support services for additional support needs (Howard & MacQuarrie, 2022).

Educational Opportunities

It is shown that there are CEYP with higher educational qualifications (e.g., Refaeli & Strahl, 2014), but it is also pointed out that their academic success is associated with major challenges. A study from the UK, for example, reported a proportion of 7% of CEYP progressing to higher education, which is tiny compared to 43% of non-CEYP entrants (Driscoll, 2011). A longitudinal study of CEYP in Israel pointed out that CEYP are disadvantaged in terms of access to higher education (Zeira et al., 2023). This is an issue that brings up the need to look at factors for educational pathways of CEYP to be successful. For example, the survey of care experienced students in further education in Scotland highlighted as opportunities of the educational pathway of young people, including stability of education and placement, social and financial support and professionals’ understanding of their needs (Howard & MacQuarrie, 2022). As a result of an international systematic review, O’Higgins et al. (2017) highlighted the central role of supportive professionals on their educational pathways of young people. The involvement of care staff in education is associated with a higher level of education (O’Higgins et al., 2017).

Summarising the education barriers and opportunities presented above emphasises, in particular, the importance of supportive professionals, stability (placement, school, authority) as well as psychosocial and financial support on the educational pathway of CEYP.

Structural Support Needs

Additionally, various studies have concluded that there is a need for structural support to improve the educational opportunities of CEYP. For example, structures that support the young people in reaching the entry requirements (e.g., relevant school-leaving certificate) (O’Higgins et al., 2017), structures that support young people to raise their educational aspiration to higher education, and structures to support young people in the higher education system in general (Askew et al., 2016; Jackson & Cameron, 2011). The demands are aimed at both the child and youth welfare system and the higher education system. Another study from the UK on the situation of care experienced students shows that more than half of them consider dropping out of higher education, even though they have had to overcome considerable difficulties to get into higher education. A lack of support structures is also reported here (Ellis & Johnston, 2024).

The report ‘What Makes Life Good?’ shows that young people highlight the importance of supportive networks. From the perspective of CEYP, the state emerges as a ‘corporate parent’ and is seen as the responsible source of support. A comparison between the different local authorities in the UK shows that local structures have an impact on the pathways of young people (Briheim-Crookall et al., 2020).

Holistic Approach

Research focusing on the transition from school to work highlights how important it is to view CEYP in the context of their entire life situation (Hirschfeld & Lenz, 2022; Smith & Dowse, 2019; Zeller et al., 2009). Hirschi and Baumeler (2020) also recommend viewing transitions not only in the context of school and work but also as embedded in biographical contexts in which a multitude of transition issues intertwine, which is also important for the development of support services.

In short, it can be said at this point that there is a strong need for support structures that address the life of CEYP in a holistic approach.

Dealing with various requirements often takes place in different legal areas. In Germany, for example, child and youth welfare (SGB VIII), Employment Agency (SGB III), basic income support (SGB II) and the rehabilitation and participation of people with disabilities (SGB IX) are governed by different laws and therefore also by different legal logics and responsibilities. The most complex life situations of CEYP are therefore covered by different areas of law, which are represented by various institutions, which is why a holistic approach requires cooperation between the various institutions.

The literature reviewed points to the necessity for support structures for CEYP on their educational pathway and highlights the relevance of the research question. Furthermore, the review identifies key factors for the design of such support structures. Professionals are highlighted as an important source of support. Stability is described as an important support factor, particularly in relation to authorities. Furthermore, a holistic view of the life circumstances of CEYP is emphasised as a necessary foundation for support services.

Hereinafter, the article presents two efforts from Germany as possible support structures for CEYP on their educational pathway.

Experiences from Germany in Supporting Young Care Experienced People on Their Way into the World of Work

First: approaches from an exploratory pilot project on job orientation for CEYP. As part of a German research project (2021–2023), which focused on improving infrastructure to support CEYP in their educational pathways, a job orientation week for young care experienced people was designed. The author of this article was part of the team that carried out the project and reports on the project experiences. A pilot run was launched in August 2023. It was a 7-day event (six nights) involving 19 CEYP, 5 supervisors and 18 other people with expertise from various fields; representatives from the leisure sector such as sport, creativity, animals, music, but also representatives from the transition sector such as student advice, job centre, scholarship advice, representatives from an organisation, which is specialised on volunteer services abroad for CEYP, chamber of crafts and CEYP peer advisors. The participants were between 15 and 21 years old, they came from all over Germany, they attended different types of schools and lived in different forms of care, some were still in care, some had already left care, some had diagnoses (e.g., ADHD, depression, multiple personality disorder, borderline, post-traumatic stress disorder). Thus, the group was characterised by a high degree of diversity. The programme of the week was offering a wide range of opportunities to deal with their current and future (educational) situation to the young people. For example, there was the opportunity to lay out their own (educational) path by using creative materials, take a look around different professions using VR glasses (from cemetery gardener to police officer to commercial clerk), try yourself out on a ‘parkour of strengths’ or get an impression of different (educational) pathways by talking to older care experienced people. There was also the opportunity to take part in individual financial coaching. After the young people had spent the week exploring their strengths, skills, wishes and goals, there was a session at the end of the week in which the participants systematically worked out their personal future prospects. Based on this, the week ended with a session named ‘consultation salon’. This was an event in which the young people received advice on the future prospects they had developed over the week from representatives of various institutions (job centre, Youth Employment Agency, student counselling, scholarship funding, CEYP peer advisors, and an organisation, which is specialised in volunteer services abroad for CEYP, chamber of crafts) directly on site. All of the involved parties were already aware of the situation faced by care experienced people or were made aware of it in advance. The event ‘consultation salon’ was reviewed afterwards with both the young people and the advisory representatives. The opportunity to access and connect to the knowledge of various institutions, thereby enabling an intensive advice process, was highlighted by all participants as a significant benefit of the event. The advisory representatives also highlighted the visibility of heterogeneity within the group of CEYP as a learning point for themselves and, in this context, emphasised the importance of a diverse range of counselling services in the event provided in order to meet the various counselling needs. In addition, the week spent together and the shared identification as CEYP were cited as factors for the success of the special atmosphere in the counselling setting. In this context, the advisory representatives also described a special role played by the core team of the event, which was seen as providing stability, safety and guidance throughout the ‘consultation salon’. The nationwide composition of the participants—both in terms of the young people and the counsellors—was mentioned as a challenge for the counsellors. As a result, some of the counselling sessions could not take place with reference to the local conditions at the young people’s place of residence, and in most cases, this prevented the counselling relationship from continuing. It can be concluded that a localised approach to the programme would improve the quality and sustainability of the format. Furthermore, in terms of a classical understanding of science, it would have been necessary to collect data as part of the pilot project. Considering the special characteristics of the format, the research team made a conscious decision against collecting data as part of the pilot project.

The presented, exploratory pilot project once again demonstrates that professionals are a key source of support on the (educational) pathway of CEYP. Furthermore, it highlighted the need for a holistic approach given the complexity of CEYP’s life situations, and thus the necessity for (cross-jurisdictional) cooperation between the various agencies involved. However, the format has reached its limits in certain respects. For example, the temporary concept did not include any sustainable support options from the professionals of the week, which must be viewed critically in light of the shown importance of stability for CEYP. To further explore the potential of the presented format, it would be interesting to pilot it again within a locally embedded context.

Second: the development of a nationwide concept that offers the potential for an infrastructural solution to a one-stop government will be presented as opposed to the shown one-off pilot service. In many regions across Germany, the Employment Agency, the job centre, the Youth Welfare Office and often other social services have joined to form cross-jurisdictional cooperation alliances, mostly under the name ‘Youth Employment Agency’ (orig. Jugendberufsagentur), with the idea of offering their services to young people jointly and in a coordinated way in order to support young people as best as possible in their transition from school to work and to ensure that young people do not get lost in the complexity of different people and jurisdictions to deal with (Service centre for Youth Employment Agencies at BIBB, 2022, p. 6). In their joint effort, the actors involved must coordinate their different social law bases and thus their different perspectives on the situation of young people. According to the different laws under which the cooperating organisations operate, Youth Welfare Office focuses on supporting young people develop into ‘responsible, self-determined and socially competent individuals’ (Book VIII of the German Social Code), in contrast to the Employment Agency (Book III of the German Social Code) and the job centre (Book II of the German Social Code), where gainful training and employment are prioritised in various aspect (Enggruber & Neises, 2025). Youth Employment Agencies do not represent a new authority, and there are no changes to the legally defined jurisdictions. The organisations and jurisdiction that take part are working together, sometimes under one roof, in terms of a one-stop government approach. As of now, the collaboration is based on the voluntary commitment of the cooperating organisations (Service centre for Youth Employment Agencies at BIBB, 2022, p. 6). However, there are attempts to reform the German social code to force the most significant organisations to be part of a local Youth Employment Agency.

The first of these working alliances was established back in 2007. As of 2024, there are now 367 Youth Employment Agencies nationwide, spread across 362 of 400 municipalities. However, there are currently no established standards for these Youth Employment Agencies. Existing Youth Employment Agencies vary in terms of structure and level of development. The establishment of a Youth Employment Agency falls under regional responsibility, and the cooperating organisations develop their collaboration individually based on local conditions, possibilities and needs. The Youth Employment Agencies differ, for example, in terms of areas of responsibility, cooperating organisations/represented legal jurisdictions, (joint) accessibility, joint contact points, and specific target groups (Service centre for Youth Employment Agencies at BIBB, 2022, p. 4). In 2019, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs established the Youth Employment Agency Service Centre to support the establishment and further development of Youth Employment Agencies in Germany. The centre conducted a survey to create a quantitative overview on Youth Employment Agencies in Germany. Until now, there is currently no comprehensive qualitative data on Youth Employment Agencies from which, for example, factors for successful work in Youth Employment Agencies can be derived (Service centre for Youth Employment Agencies at BIBB, 2022, p. 26). The factors identified in this article regarding support services on the (educational) pathway of CEYP could be taken up and implemented by Youth Employment Agencies.

Conclusion

In Germany, nationwide cross-jurisdictional alliances are an attempt to support young people in their transition from school to work. As pointed out, there are no standardised guidelines for these Agencies yet.

Standards are needed to ensure a certain level of quality and quantity of support for young people everywhere. Even so, not all Youth Employment Agencies are equally familiar with the specific situation of CEYP. Alliances such as Youth Employment Agencies can play a key role as multi-perspective, cross-jurisdictional alliances. Kochskämper and Thomas (2023) have highlighted the potential of Youth Employment Agencies for supporting CEYP and identified the necessary developments for this purpose. One possibility they suggest is the structurally established cooperation between Youth Employment Agencies and the local organisations providing youth care to enable early, targeted support for (future) CEYP, so that suitable support structures for the period after the end of care, also with regard to the transition from school to work, could be ensured in advance (cf. Kochskämper & Thomas, 2023).

Furthermore, the example of the consultation salon also demonstrated how encouraging an alliance between various authorities can be in terms of supporting CEYP. However, it is clear that one-off, temporarily limited offers cannot be a solution to the lack of support for CEYP on their (educational) pathway. Both concepts presented, the Youth Employment Agency and consultation salon, can certainly be developed further and perhaps even combined. For example, a Youth Employment Agency could take over and develop its own localised consultation salon as a regular regional service. To ensure stability, the young people could be supported by familiar professionals from their care settings. Furthermore, by adapting the programme to the local context, the young people would get to know the relevant contact persons, who would remain responsible for them and available to them afterwards.

In order to further develop infrastructure-based support options for CEYP, it would be interesting to look at further approaches from other countries. One example of this is ‘the national leaving care benchmarking forum’—a forum of local authority leaving care teams in England, UK, working together to improve outcomes for young people leaving the care system (www.leavingcare.org). The focus here is on networking among professionals as a key supporting factor on the pathway of CEYP, and focusing not only on educational and employment aspects, but also has a more holistic approach.

In addition, there is research that takes a different focus on the formation of cross-jurisdictional alliances as a support structure for CEYP. Prendergast et al. (2024) explored the international literature between 2000 and 2022, with the question of care-leavers’ engagement with multi-agency support services. They concentrate on factors for (not) using the services by CEYP. These research findings should be taken into account when designing effective support across multiple agencies.

This article ends with the conclusion that the living situation of CEYP must be viewed as a combination of various factors, which requires both holistic support services and structurally anchored services—available equally to all young (care experienced) people nationwide. Cross-jurisdictional alliances such as the German Youth Employment Agency, as described above, offer approaches to implement these demands. More (qualitative) research is needed to further improve existing alliances to address the concerns of young people and provide them with the best possible support as they make their way towards an independent life.

Footnotes

Availability of Data and Materials

This article presents insights from the StudyCare project. These are based on the experiences and personal notes of the author, who was part of the project team. None of this data is publicly available.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

The participants have verbally agreed to the continued use of the insights gained during the week spent together, on condition that their identities remain anonymous.

Declaration of Conflict of Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The content presented from the StudyCare project does not constitute a formal study. It reports on experiences from a pilot programme for CEYP. No classic ethical review was obtained for this event. In the run-up to the event, the team responsible negotiated a code of conduct for interacting with participants and with each other within the team. This was discussed and finalised together with other colleagues from the institution responsible for the project. The code also serves as an ethical basis for working with the young people in this context.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Insights from the StudyCare project have been incorporated into this article. The project was funded by the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture (Germany) and the University of Hildesheim (Germany).

ORCID iD

Dorothee Kochskämper

References

Askew

, Rodgers

, & West

(2016). Who cares for care leavers? New Directions for Higher Education , 175, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20198

BIBB. (2022). Jugendberufsagenturen bundesweit. Ergebnisse aus der Erhebung zu rechtskreisübergreifenden Kooperationsbündnissen am Übergang Schule-Beruf . Service Centre for Youth Employment Agencies at The Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training. www.servicestelle-jba.de/wws/sjba_erhebung_jugendberufsagenturen_bundesweit_barrierefrei.pdf

Briheim-Crookall

, Michelmore

, Baker

, Oni

, Taylor

, & Selwyn

(2020). What makes life good? Care leavers’ views on their well-being . Coram Voice & the Rees Centre, University of Oxford.

Cameron

, Jackson

, Hauari

, & Hollingworth

(2012). Continuing educational participation among children in care in five countries: Some issues of social class. Journal of Education Policy , 27(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.644811

Courtney

, Dworsky

, Brown

, Cary

, Love

, & Vorhies

(2011). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 26 . Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Courtney

, Terao

, & Bost

(2004). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Conditions of youth preparing to leave state care (Executive summary) . Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Driscoll

(2011). Making Up Lost Ground: Challenges in supporting the educational attainment of looked after children beyond Key Stage 4. Adoption and Fostering , 35(2), 18–33.

Dworsky

, & Courtney

M. E.

(2010). Does extending foster care beyond age 18 promote postsecondary educational attainment? Emerging findings from the Midwest study . Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Ellis

, & Johnston

(2024). Resilience, higher education and widening participation: Generating change for care experienced students. Higher Education , 87, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00985-8

10.

Enggruber

, & Neises

(2025). Jugendberufsagenturen als Lotsen für junge Menschen imÜbergang Schule–Beruf. nfb-Newsletter, (2). Nationales Forum Beratung in Bildung, Beruf und Beschäftigung. https://www.forum-beratung.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Jugendberufsagenturen-als-Lotsen-fuer-junge-Menschen-im-Uebergang-Schule-Beruf.pdf

11.

Forsman

, Brännström

, Vinnerljung

, & Hjern

(2016). Does poor school performance cause later psychosocial problems among children in foster care? Evidence from national longitudinal registry data. Child Abuse & Neglect , 57, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.06.006

12.

Gilligan

(2007). Adversity, resilience and the educational progress of young people in public care. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties , 12(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632750701315631

13.

Hirschfeld

, & Lenz

(2022). Young people’s use and construction of institutional support in transitions from school to work. In Stauber

, Walther

, & Settersten

R. A.

(Eds.), Doing transitions in the life course (Life Course Research and Social Policies, Vol. 16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13512-5_4

14.

Hirschi

, & Baumeler

(2020). Berufswahltheorien—Entwicklung und Stand der Diskussion. In Brüggemann

& Rahn

(Hrsg.), Berufsorientierung. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch (2. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage) (pp. 31–42). Waxmann Verlag.

15.

Howard

, & MacQuarrie

(2022). Perspectives of care experienced young people regarding their academic experiences in further education. Frontiers in Education , 7, 821783. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.821783

16.

Jackson

, Ajayi

, & Quigley

(2005). Going to university from care . Institute of Education. University of London.

17.

Jackson

, & Cameron

(2011). Final Report of the YiPPEE Project WP12: young people from a public care background: Pathways to further and higher education in five European countries . http://tcru.ioe.ac.uk/yippee/

18.

Jackson

, & Cameron

(2012). Leaving care: Looking ahead and aiming higher. Children and Youth Services Review , 34(6), 1107–1114.

19.

Kochskämper

, & Thomas

(2023). Übergänge aus der stationären Jugendhilfe. Wie Jugendberufsagenturen Care Leaver*innen unterstützen können . https://www.servicestelle-YouthEmploymentAgency.de/wws/9.php#/wws/uebergaenge-stationaere-jugendhilfe.php

20.

Mann-Feder

V. R.

, & Goyette

(2019). Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research, and practice . Oxford University Press.

21.

O’Higgins

, Sebba

, & Gardner

(2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review , 79, 198–220.

22.

O’Higgins

, Sebba

, & Luke

(2015). What is the relationship between being in care and the educational outcomes of children? An international systematic review . Rees Centre, University of Oxford. https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/basw_33005-5_0.pdf

23.

Prendergast

, Davies

, Seddon

, Hartfiel

, & Edwards

R. T.

(2024). Barriers and enablers to care-leavers engagement with multi-agency support: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review , 159, 107501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107501

24.

Refaeli

, & Strahl

(2014). Turning point processes to higher education among care leavers. Social Work & Society , 12(1), 8.

25.

Sebba

, Berridge

, Luke

, Fletcher

, Bell

, Strand

, Thomas

, Sinclair

, & O’Higgins

(2015). The educational progress of looked after children in England: Linking care and educational data . Rees Centre, University of Oxford. https://www.education.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Linking-Care-and-Educational-Data-Overview-Report-Nov-2015.pdf

26.

Sinclair

, Luke

, & Berridge

(2019). Children in care or in need: Educational progress at home and in care. Oxford Review of Education , 45(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2019.1600488

27.

Smith

, & Dowse

(2019). Times during transition for young people with complex support needs: Entangled critical moments, static liminal periods and contingent meaning making times. Journal of Youth Studies , 22(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1575346

28.

Strahl

, van Breda

A. D. P.

, Mann-Feder

, & Schröer

(2020). A multinational comparison of care-leaving policy and legislation. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , 36, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2020.26

29.

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (217 [III] A) . https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

30.

Zeira

, Achdut

, & Benbenishty

(2023). Predicting educational attainments and enrollment to higher education: A longitudinal study of care leavers in Israel. Research in Higher Education , 64(8), 1165–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-023-09742-x

31.

Zeller

, Köngeter

, & Schröer

(2009). Traps in transition: A biographical approach to forms of collaboration between youth welfare services and employment promotion agencies. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies , 4(2), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450120902923205