Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Theories used to explain care-leavers’ journey out of care: A scoping review

  • Adrian D. van Breda ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    avanbreda@uj.ac.za

    Affiliation Department of Social Work & Community Development, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    ⨯
  • Sasambal Reuben

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Social Work & Community Development, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    ⨯

Abstract

This study was motivated by Mike Stein’s 2006 critique of care-leaving research as reflecting a ‘poverty of theory’. A scoping review of care-leaving journal articles was conducted for the nine-year period from 2015 to 2023. 252 articles met the inclusion criteria, including that theory must be explicitly mentioned. 133 theories were used across these publications, with resilience theory being used in 24% of articles, life course in 10%, emerging adulthood and attachment in 8% each, social capital in 6% and ecological theory in 4%. Over half of the publications were driven by theory (from conceptualisation, through research design, to interpretation of findings), while a fifth were informed in parts by theory and a quarter alluded only briefly to theory. Three quarters of the articles utilised theory to formulate practice recommendations for care-leaving services. Only two theories could be identified that were constructed to explain care-leaving. Although most theories considered the care-leaver within their social environment, there was little use of structural, systemic, critical and rights-oriented theories. The study concludes that Stein’s original concern has been somewhat addressed over the past several years. Other studies find that around a quarter to half of care-leaving publications use theory. This study confirms that, of those studies that make at least some use of theory, most weave theory firmly into the study and mobilise that theory to make recommendations for practice. Nevertheless, research should become yet more theory-driven, contextual, systemic, rights-oriented and critical theories should be used more frequently, and more needs to be done to build theory for care-leaving.

Citation: van Breda AD, Reuben S (2025) Theories used to explain care-leavers’ journey out of care: A scoping review. PLoS One 20(6): e0325776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325776

Editor: Daryl Higgins,, Australian Catholic University, AUSTRALIA

Received: November 22, 2024; Accepted: May 20, 2025; Published: June 13, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 van Breda, Reuben. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. As this is a scoping review of other research, the paper contains methodology and reporting based on the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis’. The paper includes database and search strategies and findings, which support replication of the article. There is no ethical or legal restrictions relating to this paper and the submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of the study.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Children and adolescents, whose families are unable to provide them with adequate care, come to the attention of child welfare services and, in some cases, are placed in alternative care [1,2], also known as out-of-home care [3] or foster care [4]. Alternative care may range from a short-term emergency placement to a permanent placement and may include foster care (with a relative or non-related foster carer), residential or group home care (including children’s homes that may be small family-like homes or larger institutional settings) or adoption. The principle preference is for children to remain in their family of origin (with their parents or other family members) or another family (non-related foster care), rather than in residential placements [1].

While in principle, placements out of the family should be as brief as possible [1], in practice, alternative care placements often continue for two or more years, often until the young person reaches the legal age at which they must leave care (usually at age 18), though care can often be extended by a few additional years [5,6]. At this stage, the young person typically must transition out of the child protection or child welfare system towards independent living. This transition is known as ‘leaving care’ or ‘care-leaving’, and the young people leaving care as ‘care-leavers’ [7].

There has been a rapidly growing interest in care-leaving and care-leaver outcomes over the past several years [8]. This is most prominent in North America, Australia and Europe, but also now in many countries in Africa and Asia [8–13].

The interest in care-leaving results from several factors, particularly the body of research that shows the comparatively negative outcomes of care-leavers compared with other young people transitioning out of families [14–17]. While some have argued that it is alternative care itself that produces these outcomes [18], others argue that the children who come into the alternative care system are already at higher levels of vulnerability than children who do not [19,20].

Notwithstanding the growing body of literature on the transition out of care and post-care outcomes or markers, Stein, in his seminal 2006 paper [21], lamented the poverty of theory underpinning this research, which had tended to be empirical and descriptive. He writes, “Although there is a growing body of international empirical work on young people aging out of care, very few of these studies have been informed by theoretical approaches” [21]. His paper proposes three theories that could be useful in informing care-leaving research – attachment, focal and resilience theories – within an overall framework of social exclusion.

Many authors have heeded Stein’s call; much of the current care-leaving literature appears to have a stronger theoretical base and some work is being done to develop theories of care-leaving. For example, the first part of the edited book by Mann-Feder and Goyette [8] is termed ‘theoretical perspectives’, and covers developmental [22], network [23], resilience [24] and human rights [25] theories. A recent edited volume [10] foregrounds theories and/or theoretical constructs like stability and instability, the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicide, social capital and resilience.

However, while there appears to be a growth in theory-informed and theory-building research, there has not been a review of these theories, to determine what theories are being used and how they are used to explain the care-leaving transition. Such a review would be helpful in mapping out the range of theories that inform the journey out of care. This could, in turn, strengthen the development of theory-informed interventions for care-leavers.

The aim of this paper, therefore, is to report the findings of a scoping literature review of recent care-leaving literature to answer the following question: What theories are used or being generated to explain the transition out of care towards young adulthood?

The following sub-questions are asked:

  1. What are the most frequently used theories to explain care-leaving?
  2. To what extent does theory inform care-leaving research?
  3. To what extent do theories inform practice recommendations?
  4. What bespoke care-leaving theories have been constructed?

The following section sets out the methodology used in conducting this review. The reporting of the review was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement and checklist [26] (S1 Checklist). We did not register a scoping review protocol for this study. Thereafter, the findings of each of the research questions are set out. The findings are finally discussed, conclusions drawn about the state of theory in care-leaving research and recommendations made for the way forward.

Methodology

Munn, Peters [27] state that a scoping review is differentiated from a regular literature review in that it “includes exhaustive search for information”, aims to be “transparent and reproducible” and includes “multiple reviewers” to improve reliability. Scoping reviews act as a way for gaps in the current literature to be recognised, allowing further research to be conducted. The authors conducted a scoping literature review of studies that used one or more theories to explain care-leavers’ journey out of care. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first scoping literature review of the theories that are used to explain care-leavers’ journey out of care.

Search strategy

A scoping review search typically includes a selection of information sources inclusive of electronic databases. For the purposes of this study, a selection of electronic databases was searched. Searches were conducted in February 2024. An initial meeting was held with an independent expert, who was well versed in the field of literature searches and who guided and advised on the manner to proceed with the initial search. Thereafter a comprehensive search of literature was undertaken within the following databases: EBSCOhost, Project Muse, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Sociology, Sage, Science Direct, Scopus, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis and Wiley Online.

The following search terms were used for all databases

“Leaving care” AND theor*

An initial search using a wider range of terms could not be accommodated by several of the databases and was thus abandoned in favour of these simpler terms. In addition, an initial search of the full texts of the publications in the databases generated tens of thousands of hits, with very few relevant ones; thus, the search terms were restricted to title, keywords and abstract.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were the following:

  1. 1). All studies had to have a publication date (including an early view or online date) within the nine-year period of 2015–2023;
  2. 2). Publications had to be written in English, for practical reasons and to avoid the cost of translation, but were not limited to any location, country or region;
  3. 3). We excluded books, book chapters, book reviews, conference proceedings, editorials, policy guidelines and grey literature;
  4. 4). Journal articles had to focus on young people preparing to leave care, young people in the process of leaving care or people who had left care (whether recently or long ago); and
  5. 5). The articles had to include (at least in passing) theory used or developed to explain care-leavers’ transition out of care.

The year 2015 was selected as the start date for the search because the authors opted to use Van Breda’s South African grounded theory study [28] as a point of reference for this study. We regard his paper as a first attempt in South Africa to develop a care-leaving theory, and thus pegged it as our starting point for the review. To ensure trustworthiness of the data, the EBSCOhost database was used as a pilot study, and we thereafter carried out the same search on the other databases. According to Shamseer, Moher [29], piloting is seen as strategic in the selection process “to minimize errors”, thereby allowing for further trustworthiness in the overall study.

Screening steps

The authors worked co-operatively throughout the search process, examining and reviewing each other’s work. This was important to ensure trustworthiness of the study.

  1. 1). We conducted the pilot search of EBSCOhost together and deliberated over the search terms to ensure they balanced inclusivity and manageability.
  2. 2). We then conducted the searches of all the remaining databases together, exporting all data to .ris or .enw files. These were imported into EndNote, which we used as our data management platform.
  3. 3). The first author used EndNote’s “Find Duplicates” function to identity and delete duplicate articles. This author also manually scanned all the remaining articles to identify and delete duplicates.
  4. 4). The remaining articles were divided in half, with each author screening their half of the articles for the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This review was based primarily on the title and abstract, and where necessary, the full text was downloaded to finalise the decision. When there was uncertainty about excluding an article, we consulted with each other. We then screened all of each other’s work in full to ensure consensus. A list of reasons for excluding articles was kept.
  5. 5). The first author downloaded and attached the full texts of each article into the database of screened publications. These were again divided in half, with each author reading and screening half the manuscripts. This led, in some cases, to additional articles being dropped due to not meeting the theory criterion (for example, articles that mentioned using grounded theory methods but that didn’t develop a theory of leaving care). The authors consulted each other on all such exclusions.
  6. 6). The first author ‘cleaned up’ the EndNote database, ensuring correct formatting of titles, sequencing of author first and last names, ensuring DOI numbers, etc.
  7. 7). The final collection of papers included in the scoping review totalled 252 records.

The PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process is displayed in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325776.g001

Data analysis

The authors exported the references from EndNote into a Word table format and again divided the final collection of publications between them. Each article was scrutinised to identity the theory or theories that were used in the article. When an article mentioned more than one theory, the entry of that article was duplicated, so that each theory per article could be analysed. We then analysed how the theory was used to explain the care-leaving process and whether there were any practical applications emerging from the theory (not from the findings per se), writing our notes into the data extraction table (see S1 Table).

Through this process of analysing the data we began to recognise that some publications made extensive use of theory while others only passing use. The authors' conversations in relation to the articles led to the development of a typology of the role or place of theory in the publications. An iterative process of formulating the typology and then testing it against articles led us to a three-fold typology, viz. theory-driven studies, theory-informed studies and theory-alluded studies, which will be discussed in the findings.

In our analysis, we worked both to quantify the theories used and how they are used, and to qualitatively illustrate the use of theory in explaining care-leaving processes.

Findings

A total of 252 articles met the screening criteria and comprise the dataset for this study. Some articles appear more than once in the dataset, because multiple theories in one article created multiple rows in the table, which we refer to as theory-article pairs. For example, the 2022 article by Achdut et al. [30] refers to both human capital and life course theory, constituting two theory-article pairs. In total, the review comprises 342 theory-article pairs. The distribution of articles and theory-article pairs per year is depicted in Fig 2. The graph shows no trend in either the number of theory-informed care-leaving publications per year over the nine-year period – articles range from 14 to 42 – nor the number of theory-article pairs – which ranged from 17 to 56. The average theories per article per year range from 1.21 to 1.56 across the nine years.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Theory-Informed Care-leaving Publications per Year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325776.g002

Theories used

All articles in this review used at least one theory, as this was core to the sampling criteria. On average, each article used 1.36 theories. In total, 133 theories were identified. Ninety-four (70.7%) of these theories were used in only one article and a further 17 (12.8%) theories were used in only two articles – these will be listed, but not discussed. The remaining 22 (16.5%) theories were each used in three to 64 articles and form the focus of analysis. S1 Table contains details of all articles and theories.

The 94 theories that were used only once are: Adultification [31], Anchors for deliberation [32], Anti-Black Racism [31], Arrested adulthood [33], Behaviour Determinants Intervention [34], Care [35], Citizenship [36], Communities of Practice (CoP) [37] , Conservation of resources [38], Constellations of participation [39], Continuum [40], Convoy model [41], Critical social theory of youth empowerment [42], Cultural capital [43], Cultural connectedness [44], Cumulative advantages and disadvantages [45], Decoloniality [46], Delayed adulthood [33], Dialectical critical realism [47], Drama therapy [48], Dramaturgical approach [49], Dyadic responses to trauma theory [50], Early maladaptive schemas [51], Emotional intelligence [52], Emotional-management model [53], Epistemic injustice [54], Existential well-being [55], Experience [56], Explanatory modelling [57], Family practices approach [45], Family systems [58], Family theory [59], Feminism [60], Feminist pathways [61], Future perspectives [62], General strains [63], Habitus [64], Home [65], Hope [66], Human Capability Approach [67], Human capital [30], Human development [68], Identity capital [69], Individualisation [70], Institutional ethnography [71], Institutionalised vulnerability [72], Kinning [73], Learned helplessness [74], Lifespan theory of control [75], Marxism [76], Mentoring [77], Minority stress [78], Multilevel model of college access [79], Narrative-based model of identity [80], Neoliberalism [81], Network [82], Nordic welfare model [83], Objectification [84], Occupational justice [85], Open systems [86], Person-centred [87], Person-in-Environment (PIE) [88], Personal construct [89], Planning norms [32], Positioning [90], Reciprocity [91], Relational autonomy [92], Resistance [35], Resources [93], Sanctuary Model [94], Self as social construction [95], Self-efficacy [96], Sense of community [97], Shared deliberations [32], Social citizenship [98], Social constructionism [99], Social control [100], Social identity [101], Social justice [102], Social model of disability [103], Social reproduction [104], Social sustainability [105], Stigma [106], Street-level bureaucracy [107], Symbolic interactionism [108], Teaching-family [109], Theory of change [110], Threatened identity [106], Transition [111], Transnational [112], Trauma [113], Trust, risk and uncertainty [114], Turning points [115], and Youth mentoring [78].

The 17 theories that were used only twice are: Ambiguous loss [116,117], Belonging [118,119], Critical disability [71,120], Empowerment [85,121], Ethic of care [122,123], Family [124,125], Hierarchy of needs [126,127], Homeostasis [128,129], Institutional logics [120,130], Motivation [131,132], Narrative therapy [48,133], Precarity [134,135], Psychosocial [136,137], Social exclusion [103,138], Social learning [93,139], Social network [140,141], and Ubuntu [116,142].

Table 1 lists the 22 theories that were used in three or more articles in descending order of frequency. Percentages in the frequency column refer to the percentage of the 252 articles in which each theory is used. Together, these 22 theories account for 63% of all the theory-article pairs (214 out of 342). The remaining columns (Driven, Informed and Alluded) will be discussed later in the article.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Prominent theories for care-leaving.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325776.t001

It should be noted that theories are sometimes difficult to label or frame, because some theories and theoretical constructs overlap and others form components of larger theories. For example, life course theory features frequently, but comprises several sub-themes, such as linked lives. Some articles [216] centred on linked lives and not the other components of life course, while other articles focus on life course, giving limited attention to linked lives [45]. In such cases, we endeavoured to indicate this by coding the theory at multiple levels, e.g., “Life course – linked lives” in the case of Brady & Gilligan [216], and simply “Life course” in the case of Adeboye et al. [45].

Resilience theory [279,280] is the most prominent theory used to explain care-leaving. It appears in a quarter of the articles. While resilience theory used to be highly individualistic and could be used to infer that care-leavers were entirely responsible for their own care-leaving journey, a socioecological approach to resilience is increasingly used [237, 250, 281], attending to personal, relational and systemic or structural resilience enablers. Resilience theory has the advantage of helping to identify the kinds of resilience processes that facilitate a smoother transition out of care.

Life course theory [282] is the second most prevalent theory in care-leaving research, appearing in a tenth of articles. It helps to explain how one’s journey through life is influenced by personal and environmental factors, and thus connects with cognate concepts like agency, linked lives and social capital. It was seldom used in the past – only eight articles in the five years from 2015 to 2019 – but has become prominent this decade – 15 articles in the three years from 2020 to 2023 [204, 217].

Emerging adulthood [283] is the third most prevalent theory (8%). It refers to a stage of human development corresponding roughly to ages 18–29, which is the age range in which most care-leaving takes place and is thus the age range of most care-leaving research. Although emerging adulthood theory has several core concepts (as does life course theory), much of the care-leaving research that uses emerging adulthood uses the term primarily to refer to an age range [74, 172, 183].

Attachment theory [284] is a fourth theory shaping the theorisation of care-leaving (8%). This is understandable given that being placed in care frequently results from ruptures in children’s primary attachment relationships and the removal from the family and placement into care, while the later aging out of care are additional disruptions of attachment. Notions of relational permanence, belonging and placement stability are informed by attachment theory, and are considered key to the well-being of care-leavers [285]. Attachment theory is thus important for care-leaving research [151,153,156].

Social capital, with its concepts of bonding, bridging and linking [286], is the fifth most prominent theory used in recent care-leaving publications (6%). Social capital intersects with resilience and life course theories, making it a rich connector for theorisation. All three categories of social capital are shown to be helpful for care-leavers in different ways and thus an important construct for this population [256, 266, 267].

The last theory to be presented here was found in 10 articles (4%): ecological or social ecological theory [287]. This theory aligns with the person-in-environment principle that is core to social work’s identity [288,289]. It links to resilience and life course theories, and also to attachment and social capital, because of its focus on the social environment. It thus informs several care-leaving studies [170,171,290].

It is not possible in this article to review all 133 theories that appear in care-leaving publications over the past nine years. It is apparent, though, that there is a wide spectrum of theories that could be helpful for theorising young people’s experiences of transitioning out of care into young adulthood, and that some of those that are not in the six we have briefly discussed here may be pregnant with possibilities, as seen in life course theory that has rapidly risen into prominence in the past few years. Other theories that are marginal in care-leaving research, such as possible selves, ethic of care, liminality, institutional logics and anti-Black racism, could be found by researchers to be valuable to shed fresh light on the leaving care journey.

Theory-informed care-leaving publications

This study did not aim to determine what percentage of care-leaving publications incorporated theory. Instead, it aimed to understand how theory was used in those papers that did include theory. Nevertheless, in the process of gathering data, several topic-focused scoping reviews provided information on the percentage of papers that included a theoretical framework. Gahagan et al.’s [291] scoping review of publications on post-secondary education among care-leavers found that only 13 out of 58 studies (22%) published between 1997 and 2022 stated an explicit theoretical framework. Eight of these used social-ecology, three life course, and one each intersectionality, feminist and phenomenological.

Another scoping review, conducted by Stubbs, Baidawi [292], focused on care-leavers’ experience of informal support. Fifty-eight papers, published from 2013 to 2020, were included in the review, thus a more recent sample of publications than Gahagan et al.’s study above. The authors reported that 57% of the studies included theoretical explanations, and that resilience theory was the most prevalent theory (one quarter of publications). Thereafter, 14% used social capital theory, 12% emerging adult theory, and 9% attachment theory, comparable to the results of this study (see Table 1) even though their study had a narrower focus on informal support for care-leavers than our focus on care-leavers per se.

Hodgson, Cordier [293] developed a matrix guide for analysing qualitative care-leaving data. As part of their study, they mapped theories that inform care-leaving research into a graphic (Fig 3). Larger circles imply more studies using those theories. The authors note the emphasis on individual or personal theories, rather than macro, structural and sociological theories, and point to right-based theories as emergent.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Theories of Leaving Care.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325776.g003

Use of theories to explain care-leaving

Through the review of the use of theories of the selected articles, we identified three main ways in which theories were used or the place of theory in the studies. We termed these as theory-driven, theory-informed and theory-alluded studies. All three of these categories did use theory, but in different ways. Over half of the papers were theory driven (53%), a fifth were theory informed (21%) and a quarter were theory alluded (26%).

First, theory-driven studies were those in which theory was introduced prior to the methodology section, thereby shaping the study design. Many of these studies constructed the research question in theoretical terms, e.g., to apply a theory to the data or to test a theory’s relevance in practice. In most of these cases, the theory was woven throughout the study, from introduction to conclusion.

We found that over half (n = 197, 58%) of theory-article pairs were theory driven.

For example, Barratt, Appleton [143] build on a previous related study [146] to explore the relevance of Archer’s concept of internal conversations within her broader theory of agency. Archer’s theory is introduced and explicated in the opening pages of the study. The study aim is framed within the theory, viz. “Our aim in this small-scale research project was to use the internal conversations model to explore how care leavers come to understand, interpret and then act (or not act) in relation to their current context and past experiences” [143]. The research methodology explicitly focuses on these internal conversations. For example, the first interview with care-leavers was an “in-depth, semi-structured, interview which focused on their internal conversations” and the interview scheduled “was informed by Archer (2003, 161-162)” [143].

The eight themes that emerged from Barratt et al.’s [143] study are similarly framed within Archer’s theory, for example, “The fourth theme, internal conversations as unhelpful or ineffectual, highlights that for some care leavers internal conversations could be experienced as unhelpful or even harmful”, and “The last three themes all relate to the overarching complexity of social relationships for this group and how this was expressed and worked through in internal conversation”. The discussion reflects on the findings and draw on Archer’s theory and other studies on internal conversations. For example, “we found that the internal conversations and meaning-making of the participants are powerfully shaped by their experiences of trauma and disappointment, which may inhibit their sense of themselves as active agents in the world” [143].

The theory drivenness of this study is crudely evident in the fact that the term ‘internal conversation’ appears 61 times in the article. A comparable example is the study of Bennwik and Oterholm [36] on policy values related to support for care-leavers with disabilities. A key theory informing this study is citizenship, even though the term does not appear in the title and only once near the end of the abstract. However, the term is used 33 times in the article, appearing on every page except the first page.

Bennwik and Oterholm [36] introduce the term ‘citizenship’ on the second page in a section titled ‘central theoretical perspectives’. On the following page they theorise the construct, stating, “Citizenship as a concept has changed and developed over time, but fundamentally it deals with questions of membership in society based upon certain rights and obligations.” They refer to Nussbaum in asserting that “all human beings are citizens, independently of their contributions to society”.

The study was conducted through a document analysis, which included a search for the term ‘citizenship’. They extended the notion of citizenship to inclusive citizenship, that de-emphasised the contribution a citizen makes to society. For care-leavers with disability, this meant decentring the notion of ‘independent adulthood’ and centring on the notion of ‘inclusive citizenship’.

Second, theory-informed studies were those in which theory was either introduced early in the paper, but not pulled through into the methodology, findings and discussion, or introduced mainly in the discussion section, as a way of retrospectively illuminating and explaining the research findings. The study may have been driven primarily by empirical concerns and not framed within a theory. But once the data was in hand, the researchers identified one or more theories to help make sense of and theoretically contextualise the study findings.

We found that a fifth (n = 67, 20%) of articles were theory informed.

Some theory-informed studies introduce theoretical concepts in the opening pages of the article, but do not pull them through to the methodology, findings and conclusions. For example, Goyette, Blanchet [150] examined the “role of placement instability on employment and educational outcomes among adolescents leaving care”. On the second page, in a literature review, they write an intensive paragraph on attachment theory, which they argue helps to explain “the negative outcomes associated with placement instability” [150], citing Bowlby and numerous other authors. After page 2, attachment is never mentioned again until the reference list. Although attachment theory apparently informed the conceptualisation of the study, in relation to placement instability, it did not drive the study in the way described in the previous two theory-driven studies.

Other theory-informed studies brought theory in towards the end to interpret findings. For example, Mupaku, Van Breda [189] studied the experience of care-leavers with disabilities transitioning out of residential care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is not theoretically framed up front. But in the discussion of the findings, social-ecological resilience is introduced to explain how COVID-19 led to an atrophy of social-ecological resources – family, friends, work, education – which lowered the resilience of care-leavers and made them more vulnerable to deterioration in behaviour and mental health.

These authors also draw on focal theory, which is used to explain how the transition out of care during ordinary times entails a pile-up of transitions that overwhelm the capacity of many care-leavers. For care-leavers with disabilities who are transitioning out of care during COVID-19, the pile-up increased substantially, overloading care-leavers with too many transitions at one time.

Finally, in the recommendations, the authors recommend that in line with focal theory, transitional tasks should be spread over a longer period, and in line with social ecological resilience theory, care-leavers and their families need to be buffered with networks of social services.

Third, theory-alluded studies were those which mentioned theories or theoretical constructs in passing, but did not link these clearly to the study or its findings. These studies were largely designed to address empirical questions. They did not frame the study or the findings in theoretical terms, but merely alluded to theory in passing.

We found that a quarter (n = 78, 23%) of articles were theory alluded.

An article on patterns of criminal behaviour among care-leavers in South Africa [63] refers to two theories in the literature review: general strains theory and social capital (or bonding capital) theory. Each theoretical construct is explained and applied to criminal activity in a sentence or two. The methodology, however, is not informed by these theories, and they are not used in the discussion or recommendations to explain the findings or make recommendations for policy or practice. These theories are alluded to, but not utilised. Both could possibly have contributed to a richer analysis and interpretation of the data.

An article by Dutta [165] explored the preparation of girls for leaving residential care in India. In the discussion section, the author refers briefly to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, identifying three of the levels (micro, meso and macro). In a figure, six factors that affect preparation for leaving care are plotted into these levels. Other than using the levels as headings, there is no further discussion of the findings according to social ecological theory. Thus, this theory is alluded to in this article, but not explicated or applied in any depth.

Practical application of theories

Most studies on leaving care produce recommendations or implications for practice. Among the 342 theory-article pairs in this review, 81 (24%) did not make recommendations informed by theory. Some may have made recommendations based on the study findings but did not link these recommendations to theory. On the other hand, three quarters of the theory-article pairs (76%) did make recommendations that were, to at least some degree, informed by theory.

For example, Dumont, Lanctôt [218] published a possible selves theory-driven article on the hopes and fears of girls transitioning out of care in Canada. In their implications for practice, they recommended that social workers and other care workers should facilitate young people to reflect on their hoped-for possible selves, and to develop these into viable future selves. On the other hand, the girls needed support in avoiding their feared possible selves. They recommended also that they explore the actual pathways to achieving these selves. And they encouraged workers to find role models who aligned with each girl’s possible selves, to help strengthen and actualise these possible selves into actual selves.

Berejena Mhongera [60] utilised sustainable livelihoods theory in her study of adolescent girls transitioning from care in Zimbabwe. To build livelihoods in the face of the gender-specific challenges girls face leaving care, she recommends including girls in participative decision making at both personal and strategic levels to develop competencies required in adulthood. She recommended fostering connections between societal systems to facilitate their participation in these systems and to develop self-efficacy and the capacity to advocate. Access to a range of assets should be facilitated, cognisant of the various ways girls are excluded from assets in a patriarchal context, so that they can draw on these assets after leaving care.

Hollingworth and Jackson [187] reanalysed data from two previous studies in the UK and Europe utilising focal theory, to determine if focal theory “would have helped predict their educational progression or otherwise” [187]. They found that, indeed, care-leavers were often overwhelmed with the pileup of challenges in rapid succession. The authors recommend that care-leavers be given more latitude in planning their own pathways out of care, rather than being disengaged on their 18th birthday. This would allow care-leavers to separate and sequence the numerous tasks and challenges they must navigate in leaving care. The authors argue that practitioners need to understand focal theory and its implications for transitional planning, which they suggest could be done in half a day. Such training would make practitioners more mindful of the pileup of challenges and more confident to find ways and take time to space these challenges out. Finally, they indicate that care-leavers themselves would also benefit from an understanding of focal theory, so that they could identify periods of pileup and negotiate more spacing for themselves.

Finally, we draw on six studies that use self-determination theory – four as theory-driven [96,258–260] and two as theory-informed studies [116,261]. We are integrating the findings to illustrate how multiple studies, drawing on a common theory, can be synergised to generate integrated practice recommendations. These studies argue that self-determination is a relational construct, rather than a personal one, and that both the capacity or opportunity to self-determine and processes of self-determination occur in socio-cultural contexts. Females raised in ultraorthodox religious communities, for example, may not be permitted to exercise self-determination, thus they need to learn to recognise and express their needs in partnership with a supportive other. They also need to be given life experiences that build optimism for greater self-determination. Thus, self-determination – whether and how it is exercised – must be considered within each person’s cultural contexts. All care-leavers need time to rest, reflect and think to enable the capacity for self-determination. There is a need for opportunities to build trusting and emotionally safe relationships with significant others, so that self-determination of their futures can be negotiated in relational contexts. To this end, working towards interdependence, rather than independence as the goal for leaving care is necessary. Interdependence emphasises the mutual supportive interconnections between people that enable them to flourish [193]. Mentoring is a potentially valuable practice for supporting self-determination, by building diverse voices into a care-leaver’s network of relationships. In combination, these interventions will foster relatedness, competence and autonomy, contributing to effective self-determination.

Theories developed specifically for care-leaving

Only two studies could be found that appeared to construct a theory of or for care-leaving. Several studies were sampled because the term ‘grounded theory’ was used, but excluded from the review because there was no evidence of a ‘theory’ being formulated. There are various types of theories [294], the most relevant of which for this paper was explanatory theories, i.e., theories that helped to explain the care-leaving journey. Five studies that used grounded theory methods were included in the review, but did not produce what we could recognise as ‘a theory of care-leaving’ [65,183,202,205,233].

A grounded theory study that did appear to meet the requirements of an explanatory theory was Van Breda’s model of the ‘journey towards independent living’ [28,196,197], which comprises four interconnected psychosocial processes: striving for authentic belonging, networking people for goal attainment, contextual responsiveness and building hopeful and tenacious self-confidence. These four processes are constrained or held by contextual boundaries and environmental interface [28]. After the original study, conducted only with male care-leavers, the study was replicated with female participants. The original findings were confirmed [197] and two additional processes specific to female care-leavers were identified, viz. embracing motherhood and taking on responsibilities [196]. Ongoing research on this theory is currently underway, but publications fell outside the timeframe of this study [295].

Another study used Bayesian explanatory network models for building a theory or explanatory model regarding “disruptive behaviour among Finnish care leavers who have been receiving aftercare services for around two years” [57]. A model can be considered ‘explanatory’ if it presents “the causal connection of the variables and interventions to the outcome variable” [57]. Disruptive behaviour in this study includes regular substance use, threats of violence, problems managing finances, and social interaction patterns [57]. Completing “secondary or vocational education and primary placement at a foster family”, as well as the “use of employment office services … were significantly associated with less disruptive behaviour” [57].

Limitations

Arguably, the biggest limitation of this review was the search term (“Leaving care” AND theor*). Not all research on leaving care uses the term ‘leaving care’ or ‘care leaving’ – terms like ‘aging out of care’ or ‘care-experienced people’ are used by many scholars. This may have resulted in relevant publications being omitted from the search. We initially developed a comprehensive collection of search terms, but found that most databases could not handle the multiple options or that the search resulted in a massively overinclusive collection of mostly irrelevant information.

Furthermore, the words theory, theorise, theoretical, etc. were not necessarily stated in the article. Publications may have referred to the resilience perspective or strengths approach, for example, and would be missed because of the absence of the word ‘theor*’.

Our decision to exclude grey literature, in a context where numerous technical reports on care-leaving are emerging across countries, may have excluded some important theories.

Notwithstanding these limitations and the likelihood that some relevant publications were missed, a large collection of literature was sourced over a nine-year period, which we believe fairly reflects the spread of theories used in care-leaving studies.

All the articles included in this review mentioned theory. We do not know how many articles on care-leaving did not mention theory, and thus are unable to say what percentage of care-leaving studies incorporated a theoretical lens of some sort. For that, an exhaustive review of all care-leaving studies would be required, which was beyond the scope of our study.

A further gap in this review is the non-inclusion of the discipline of the authors. It could have been illuminating to see whether there are differences in theories used by social workers, psychologists, sociologists and others to explain care-leaving.

Discussion and recommendations

In 2006, Stein raised concerns about the limited use of theory to inform care-leaving research. This clarion call resounded and was taken up by many scholars working in the field of care-leaving. Of the three theories Stein recommended as having potential to explicate the care-leaving process, resilience is the front runner, with attachment also being well utilised. Focal theory lags considerably, though studies using it provide helpful insights into the pile-up of challenges that care-leavers face and have useful implications for practice. By contrast, life course theory, which Stein mentions in passing in the second last paragraph of his paper, is currently the second most frequently used theoretical framework for explaining care-leaving.

The emphasis on theory-informed research does not mean that empirical descriptive research is not useful. It provides useful data on patterns that shape research, practice, policy and resource allocation. However, research that is grounded in theory has the potential to illuminate the experience of leaving care and the design of interventions to facilitate care-leaving. While this study does not address the question of whether theory use is increasing, two other scoping reviews provide evidence suggestive of an increase in theory-informed care-leaving research over time.

What this study distinctively shows is the diversity in the way theories are utilised in care-leaving research. Over half of the studies that mentioned theory used theory extensively to inform and drive the research questions, study design and interpretation of data, including recommendations for policy and practice. This is encouraging, as such research not only uses theory rigorously, but may also contribute to building and developing those theories.

However, a fifth of studies were theory informed, meaning some use of theory was made, at the front or back of the study, but not pulled all the way through from conceptualisation to recommendations. And a quarter of studies mentioned theories only in passing, which we termed theory-alluded studies. There were studies that were driven primarily by one theory, and that also utilised other theories in an informed or utilised fashion. The studies reviewed utilised, on average 1.4 theories each, suggesting that while some studies focused in on one theory, others may have used two or more theories to weave together a multifaceted theoretical construction of leaving care.

It appears that many, if not most, of the theories used in three or more studies construct care-leaving as a person-in-environment interaction. Some theories, that may be thought of as individual, such as resilience, attachment, agency and focal, are utilised in contextualised ways, foregrounding the interactions between care-leavers and their social environment. At very least, they are located in interpersonal relationships, but frequently they are extended further into interactions with the systems and structures of society.

Other theories, however, have a distinctively contextual and environmental focus, such as social ecological theory, developmental social welfare and sustainable livelihoods, though with the exception of ecological theory these are seldom used. Some other theories lean towards critical theory, such as intersectionality. But others, such as anti-black racism, critical disability, ethic of care, feminism, Marxism, minority stress, precarity and social justice, have been used only once or twice over the past nine years. It will be good to see structural, systemic, critical and rights-oriented theories enjoying greater use in the years to come.

Encouragingly, three quarters of the studies in this review used theory to inform practice recommendations. The extent to which theory informed these recommendations varies from a token nod to theory to a rigorous application of theory into care-leaving practice, but given Stein’s [21] concern about “the poverty of theory”, even some use of theory to inform practice, and not only data, is encouraging.

What remains sparse are theories specifically developed for care-leaving. Only one viable theory, tested across more than one study, has emerged and it has not gained traction among other scholars. It is, arguably, not necessary to construct new theories if existing theories can be customised or applied to care-leaving. Nevertheless, theory development may prove helpful, not only for care-leavers, but for all young people transitioning from childhood into adulthood.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we wish to celebrate the care-leaving scholarly community’s attention to Stein’s seminal call almost 20 years ago. It does appear that care-leaving research is making greater use of theory and when they do, theory is used to drive the research, rather than merely to inform it or to briefly allude to it. This is leading to richer and more experience-near explanatory narratives about the journey of leaving care, which should inform and strengthen care-leaving practice.

We suggest the following areas of future growth: (1) an increase in theory-driven research and a decrease in theory-alluded research, so that theory is used purposefully and rigorously to make sense of the care-leaving experience; (2) an increase in the use of contextual, systemic, rights-oriented and critical theories, particularly given the increasingly fractured society that many care-leavers transition into; and (3) an increase in theory building for care-leaving.

Acknowledgments

Honouring the contribution of care-experienced people: We stand with those who are care-experienced. We acknowledge and respect their stories. We thank them for sharing their expertise and wisdom and their extraordinary contributions to research, policy and practice. Learning from their lived experience and working together towards improving care systems for future generations is a privilege.

We acknowledge the immense contribution of Mike Stein to care-leaving research generally and to the theorisation of care-leaving particularly. He can rightfully be considered the parent of the research field of care-leaving, and is much appreciated.

References

  1. 1. United Nations. Guidelines for the alternative care of children. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations General Assembly; 2010.
    • 2. RSA. Children’s Amendment Act, No 17 of 2022. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printers; 2022.
      • 3. Mendes P, Johnson G, Moslehuddin B. Young people leaving state out-of-home care. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Scholarly Publishing; 2011.
        • 4. Collins ME. Macro perspectives on youths aging out of foster care. Washington DC: National Association of Social Workers. 2015.
          • 5. van Breda AD, Munro ER, Gilligan R, Anghel R, Harder A, Incarnato M, et al. Extended care: Global dialogue on policy, practice and research. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;119:105596.
          • 6. Strahl B, van Breda AD, Mann-Feder V, Schröer W. A multinational comparison of care-leaving policy and legislation. J int comp soc policy. 2020;37(1):34–49.
          • 7. Dixon J, Stein M. Leaving care: Throughcare and aftercare in Scotland. London: Jessica Kingsley. 2005.
            • 8. Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research, and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2019.
              • 9. Stein M, Munro ER. Young people’s transitions from care to adulthood: International research and practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 2008.
                • 10. Keller S, Oterholm I, Paulsen V, Van Breda AD. Living on the edge: Innovative research on leaving care and transitions to adulthood. Policy Press. 2024.
                  • 11. Mendes P, Snow P. Young people transitioning from care: International research, policy and practice. London: Palgrave. 2016.
                    • 12. van Breda AD, Frimpong-Manso K. Leaving Care in Africa. Emerging Adulthood. 2020;8(1):3–5.
                    • 13. Stein M. Young people’s transitions from care to adulthood in European and Postcommunist Eastern European and Central Asian societies. Australian Social Work. 2013;67(1):24–38.
                    • 14. Dickens L. One‐year outcomes of youth exiting a residential care facility in South Africa. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(4):558–65. ]
                    • 15. Kääriälä A, Hiilamo H. Children in out-of-home care as young adults: A systematic review of outcomes in the Nordic countries. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:107–14.
                    • 16. Okpych N, Courtney M. Longitudinal analyses of educational outcomes for youth transitioning out of care in the US: trends and influential factors. Oxford Review of Education. 2019;45(4):461–80.
                    • 17. Marion É, Paulsen V. The transition to adulthood from care: A review of current research. In: Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M, editors. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 107–30.
                      • 18. Ainsworth F, Hansen P. Family foster care: can it survive the evidence?. Children Australia. 2014;39(2):87–92.
                      • 19. McSherry D. Remembering what the big friendly giants said: to understand outcomes, you first need to understand context. Children Australia. 2018;43(2):91–4.
                      • 20. Rutter M. Children in substitute care: Some conceptual considerations and research implications. Children and Youth Services Review. 2000;22(9–10):685–703.
                      • 21. Stein M. Young people aging out of care: the poverty of theory. Children and Youth Services Review. 2006;28(4):422–34.
                      • 22. Mann-Feder VR. How can I be a real adult? Developmental theory as a framework for practice, policy, and research on care leaving. In: Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M, editors. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2019. p. 9–30.
                        • 23. Goyette M. Social networks and social support in the transition to adulthood: A reflection on social integration processes. In: Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M, editors. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2019. p. 31–50.
                          • 24. Gilligan R. Resilience, transitions, and youth leaving care. In: Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M, editors. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2019. p. 51–68.
                            • 25. Munro E. Reflections on upholding the rights of youth leaving out-of-home care. In: Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M, editors. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2019. p. 69–86.
                              • 26. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89. pmid:33781348
                              • 27. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. pmid:30453902
                              • 28. Van Breda AD. Journey towards independent living: a grounded theory investigation of leaving the care of Girls & Boys Town, South Africa. Journal of Youth Studies. 2014;18(3):322–37.
                              • 29. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. pmid:25555855
                              • 30. Achdut N, Benbenishty R, Zeira A. Labor force attachment among care leavers in Israel: A longitudinal cross-sequential between-groups design. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;133:105860. pmid:36063579
                              • 31. Edwards T, Chowdhury R, Laylor A, Parada H, King B. Pushed, dropped, or fleeing from care: the narratives and adultification of black youth who have aged out of ontario’s child welfare system. Child & Youth Services. 2023;45(3):371–401.
                              • 32. Appleton P. Anchors for deliberation and shared deliberation: Understanding planning in young adults transitioning from out-of-home care. Qualitative Social Work. 2019;19(5–6):1130–46.
                              • 33. Doucet M, Pratt H, Dzhenganin M, Read J. Nothing About Us Without Us: Using Participatory Action Research (PAR) and arts-based methods as empowerment and social justice tools in doing research with youth “aging out” of care. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;130(Pt 3):105358. pmid:34657749
                              • 34. Alderson H, Brown R, Copello A, Kaner E, Tober G, Lingam R, et al. The key therapeutic factors needed to deliver behavioural change interventions to decrease risky substance use (drug and alcohol) for looked after children and care leavers: a qualitative exploration with young people, carers and front line workers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):38. pmid:30791874
                              • 35. Neal D. Academic resilience and caring adults: The experiences of former foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:242–8.
                              • 36. Bennwik I-HB, Oterholm I. Policy values related to support for care leavers with disabilities. European Journal of Social Work. 2020;24(5):884–95.
                              • 37. Turner L, Percy-Smith B. Care Leavers and Children’s Services: Exploring the Utility of Communities of Practice in Theorising Transition. The British Journal of Social Work. 2019;50(6):1758–74.
                              • 38. Sulimani‐Aidan Y, Achdut N, Zeira A, Benbenishty R. Psychological distress among care leavers during the transition to adulthood: Risk and protective factors throughout their life course. Child & Family Social Work. 2021;27(2):324–39.
                              • 39. Ehlke C, Schröer W. Fluid transitions – “weak” constellations of participation in the process of leaving care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;151:107036.
                              • 40. Golding F, Lewis A, McKemmish S, Rolan G, Thorpe K. Rights in records: a Charter of Lifelong Rights in Childhood Recordkeeping in Out-of-Home Care for Australian and Indigenous Australian children and care leavers. The International Journal of Human Rights. 2021;25(9):1625–57.
                              • 41. Adley N, Jupp Kina V. Getting behind the closed door of care leavers: understanding the role of emotional support for young people leaving care. Child & Family Social Work. 2014;22(1):97–105.
                              • 42. Wilson DB. Youth in transition and foster care alumni as empowered consumers. Journal of Family Social Work. 2019;23(5):411–30.
                              • 43. Tobolowsky BF, Scannapieco M, Aguiniga DM, Madden EE. Former foster youth experiences with higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;104:104362.
                              • 44. Mendes P, Saunders B, Baidawi S. Indigenous Young People Transitioning from Out-of-Home Care (OOHC) in Victoria, Australia: The Perspectives of Workers in Indigenous-Specific and Non-Indigenous Non-Government Services. iipj. 2016;7(3).
                              • 45. Adeboye TK, Guerreiro M das D, Höjer I. Unveiling the experiences of young people in foster care: Perspectives from Portugal and Nigeria. International Social Work. 2017;62(1):433–46.
                              • 46. van Breda AD, Pinkerton J. Raising African Voices in the Global Dialogue on Care-Leaving and Emerging Adulthood. Emerging Adulthood. 2019;8(1):6–15.
                              • 47. Houston S. Dialectical critical realism, transformative change and social work. Critical and Radical Social Work. 2023;11(1):27–41.
                              • 48. Nsonwu MB, Dennison S, Long J. Foster care chronicles: use of the arts for teens aging out of the foster care system. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health. 2015;10(1):18–33.
                              • 49. Carey C. Coping with Stigma: Experiences and Responses of Former Youth in Care. QSR. 2023;19(3):26–51.
                              • 50. Refaeli T, Zeira A, Benbenishty R. Ten years later: Satisfaction with intimate relationships and parenthood of young people aging out of residential care. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;129:105635. pmid:35490570
                              • 51. Couvrette A, Lanctôt N. Between parental efficacy and parental distress: how early maladaptive schemas contribute to the motherhood experience of young mothers who have aged out of care. Adoption & Fostering. 2016;41(2):170–87.
                              • 52. Kennedy TD, Flach Y, Detullio D, Millen DH, Englebert N, Edmonds WA. Exploring Emotional Intelligence and IQ as Predictors of Success of Foster Care Alumni. J Child Fam Stud. 2019;28(12):3286–95.
                              • 53. Østergaard J. Misfitting Feelings: Young Care Leavers’ Emotional Work During the Transition to Adulthood. Child Care in Practice. 2023;29(3):278–96.
                              • 54. Bromark K, Knutsson O, Spånberger Weitz Y. Co-designing a dynamic tool to enhance participation for young people: A participatory design project with young service users and social workers. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;147:106856.
                              • 55. Törrönen M, Munn-Giddings C, Vornanen R. Existential Well-being among Young People Leaving Care: Self-feeling, Self-realisation, and Belonging. Ethics and Social Welfare. 2022;17(3):295–311.
                              • 56. Goldfarb KE. ‘Self-Responsibility’ and the Politics of Chance: Theorizing the Experience of Japanese Child Welfare. Japanese Studies. 2016;36(2):173–89.
                              • 57. Karki S, Ryynänen O-P, Salokekkilä P, Häggman-Laitila A. Bayesian analysis of the factors explaining the disruptive behaviour of care leavers: A retrospective document analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;155:107174.
                              • 58. Sulimani‐Aidan Y. Left behind: How to encourage biological parents’ involvement in their children’s group homes. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(2):180–7.
                              • 59. Berger L, Cancian M, Noyes J. Permanency and the Educational and Economic Attainment of Former Foster Children in Early Adulthood. Am Sociol Rev. 2018;83(4):716–43. pmid:32523160
                              • 60. Berejena Mhongera P. Preparing for successful transitions beyond institutional care in Zimbabwe: adolescent girls’ perspectives and programme needs. Child Care in Practice. 2016;23(4):372–88.
                              • 61. Staines J, Fitzpatrick C, Shaw J, Hunter K. ‘We Need to Tackle Their Well Being First’: Understanding and Supporting Care-Experienced Girls in the Youth Justice System. Youth Justice. 2023;24(2):185–203.
                              • 62. Van Audenhove S, Vander Laenen F. Future expectations of young people leaving youth care in Flanders: the role of personal and social capital in coping with expected challenges. Child & Family Social Work. 2015;22(1):256–65.
                              • 63. van Breda AD. Patterns of criminal activity among residential care-leavers in South Africa. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;109:104706.
                              • 64. Kenny K. The educational experiences of children in care across five decades: A new perspective on the education of looked after children in the UK. Adoption & Fostering. 2023;47(1):22–39.
                              • 65. Klodnick VV, Samuels GM. Building home on a fault line: Aging out of child welfare with a serious mental health diagnosis. Child & Family Social Work. 2020;25(3):704–13.
                              • 66. Sulimani-Aidan Y, Melkman E, Hellman CM. Nurturing the hope of youth in care: The contribution of mentoring. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2019;89(2):134–43. pmid:29461072
                              • 67. Modi K, Kasana S, Azam A, Madhavan L. Education, poverty and social exclusion: assessment of youth leaving care. SN Soc Sci. 2021;1(4).
                              • 68. Miller JJ, Chih M-Y, Washington E. Conceptualizing a Mobile App for Foster Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: A Mixed-Method Approach. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 2016;34(2):145–70.
                              • 69. Artamonova A, Guerreiro M das D, Höjer I. Time and context shaping the transition from out-of-home care to adulthood in Portugal. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;115:105105.
                              • 70. Rambajue R, O’Connor C. Intersectional individualization: toward a theoretical framework for youth transitioning out of the child welfare system. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2021;16(2):156–76.
                              • 71. Bennwik I-HB, Oterholm I, Kelly B. ‘My disability was my own responsibility’: An institutional ethnography of the transitional experiences of disabled young people leaving care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;146:106813.
                              • 72. Disney T, Walker C. Young people leaving care and institutionalised vulnerability in the Russian Federation. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;155:107225.
                              • 73. Jensen SG. The Rebuilding of Fragmented Memories, Broken Families and Rootless Selves among Danish Care Leavers. Journal of Family History. 2020;46(1):77–91.
                              • 74. Gomez RJ, Ryan TN, Norton CL, Jones C, Galán-Cisneros P. Perceptions of Learned Helplessness Among Emerging Adults Aging Out of Foster Care. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2015;32(6):507–16.
                              • 75. Lemus D, Farruggia SP, Germo G, Chang ES. The plans, goals, and concerns of pre-emancipated youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;78:48–55.
                              • 76. Anghel R. From ‘the New Man’ to care‐leaver activists—Communist and contemporary discourses shaping 50 years of leaving care in Romania. Child & Family Social Work. 2021;26(2):258–69.
                              • 77. Sulimani‐Aidan Y, Melkman E, Greeson JKP. The contribution of mentoring to the life skills of youth leaving care in Israel. Child & Family Social Work. 2019;25(2):345–54.
                              • 78. Paul JC. Exploring support for LGBTQ youth transitioning from foster care to emerging adulthood. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;119:105481.
                              • 79. Gross JP, Geiger JM, Uhls E, King G. The Relationship Between Financial Aid and Postsecondary Completion Among Youth Formerly in Foster Care. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2022;40(2):207–19.
                              • 80. Wilson JZ, Golding F. Latent scrutiny: personal archives as perpetual mementos of the official gaze. Arch Sci. 2015;16(1):93–109.
                              • 81. Cleaver K. Acknowledging the struggle: Policy changes for state care leaving provisions. ANZSWJ. 2016;28(2):22–31.
                              • 82. Elise Barboza G, Valentine R. A network analysis of post-traumatic stress among youth aging out of the foster care system. Children and Youth Services Review. 2022;140:106589.
                              • 83. Storø J. Leaving care in Norway in a historic and current perspective: As a function of the Nordic welfare model. Child & Family Social Work. 2021;26(2):240–7.
                              • 84. Gabriel T. The child – Object or subject of child care?. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;150:107022.
                              • 85. Paul-Ward A, Lambdin-Pattavina CA. New Roles for Occupational Therapy to Promote Independence Among Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70(3):7003360010p1-5. pmid:27089300
                              • 86. Kearney KS, Naifeh Z, Hammer T, Cain A. “Family” Ties for Foster Alumni in College: An Open Systems Consideration. The Review of Higher Education. 2019;42(2):793–824.
                              • 87. Nurcombe‐Thorne A, Nadesan V, van Breda AD. Experiences of “I” and “we” among former looked‐after children in South Africa. Child & Family Social Work. 2018;23(4):640–8.
                              • 88. Stevenson BJ. Developing a Career Counseling Intervention Program for Foster Youth. Journal of Employment Couns. 2017;54(2):75–86.
                              • 89. Rice J, Mullineux J, Killick C. Female Care Leavers’ Experience of the Staff-Child Relationship While Living in an Intensive Support Children’s Home in Northern Ireland. Child Care in Practice. 2020;28(1):4–19.
                              • 90. Sims‐Schouten W, Hayden C. Mental health and wellbeing of care leavers: Making sense of their perspectives. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;22(4):1480–7.
                              • 91. Törrönen M, Munn-Giddings C, Gavriel C, Morris D. Emotional participation of young adults starting their independent living. Nordic Social Work Research. 2018;8(sup1):65–78.
                              • 92. Driscoll J. Strangers and estrangement: young people’s renegotiations of birth and foster family relationships as they transition out of care and the implications for the state as parent. Children’s Geographies. 2018;17(5):539–51.
                              • 93. Mertz M, Andersen SH. The Hidden Cost of Foster-Care: New Evidence on the Inter-Generational Transmission of Foster-Care Experiences. The British Journal of Social Work. 2016;47(5):1377–93.
                              • 94. Raithel J, Yates M, Dworsky A, Schretzman M, Welshimer W. Partnering to Leverage Multiple Data Sources: Preliminary Findings from a Supportive Housing Impact Study. Child Welfare. 2015;94(1):73–85. pmid:29443474
                              • 95. Nuytiens A, Luyten I, Christiaens J, Dumortier E. Voicing young and older adult care-leavers in Belgium: How the experience of being in care shapes narratives of the self. LLCS. 2018;9(1).
                              • 96. Olsson TM, Blakeslee J, Bergström M, Skoog T. Exploring fit for the cultural adaptation of a self-determination model for youth transitioning from out-of-home care: A comparison of a sample of Swedish youth with two samples of American youth in out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;119:105484.
                              • 97. Forenza B, Lardier DT. Sense of community through supportive housing among foster care alumni. Child Welfare. 2017;95(2):91–115.
                              • 98. Butler K, Benoit C. Citizenship Practices Among Youth Who Have Experienced Government Care. The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 2015;40(1):25.
                              • 99. Swan M, Holt S, Kirwan G. ‘Who do I turn to if something really bad happens?’ Key working and relationship-based practice in residential child care. Journal of Social Work Practice. 2018;32(4):447–61.
                              • 100. Park K, Courtney ME. Mitigating Risks of Incarceration Among Transition-Age Foster Youth: Considering Domains of Social Bonds. Child Adolesc Social Work J. 2022;:1–14. pmid:36267163
                              • 101. Dadirai Gwenzi G, Ringson J. “Why would they call me an orphan when I have parents”: Care leavers’ experiences of labelling and stereotyping whilst living in residential care facilities in Zimbabwe. New Ideas in Psychology. 2023;68:100968.
                              • 102. Bond S. Care-leaving in South Africa: an international and social justice perspective. J int comp soc policy. 2018;34(1):76–90.
                              • 103. Lee JS, Gimm G, Mohindroo M, Lever L. Assessing Homelessness and Incarceration Among Youth Aging Out of Foster Care, by Type of Disability. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2022;40(6):743–59.
                              • 104. Sundly A, Keating M, Effiong A, Saif AO. Neuroscientific evidence and care leaving: a multidisciplinary critical commentary. IJCYFS. 2023;14(1):30–46.
                              • 105. Dadirai Gwenzi G. Provision of transitional housing: a socially sustainable solution for care leavers in zimbabwe. Practice. 2022;35(2):103–20.
                              • 106. Neagu M, Sebba J. Who do they think they are: Making sense of self in residential care, foster care, and adoption. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;105:104449.
                              • 107. Collins ME, Augsberger A. Impacts of policy changes on Care-Leaving Workers in a time of coronavirus: Comparative analysis of discretion and constraints. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2020;23(1):51–62.
                              • 108. Macleod G, Dallas‐Childs R, Brough C, Toye M. 'She just got me’: supporting care experienced young people negotiating relationships and identities at school. Research in Spec Educ Needs. 2021;21(S1):25–35.
                              • 109. Thompson RW, Duppong Hurley K, Trout AL, Huefner JC, Daly DL. Closing the research to practice gap in therapeutic residential care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2017;25(1):46–56.
                              • 110. Leathers SJ, Holtschneider C, Ludington M, Ross EV, Barnett JL. Mentoring, employment assistance, and enhanced staff outreach for older youth in care: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;153:107095.
                              • 111. Storø J. Which transition concept is useful for describing the process of young people leaving state care? A reflection on research and language. European Journal of Social Work. 2016;20(5):770–81.
                              • 112. Söderqvist Å, Bülow PH, Sjöblom Y. “In Sweden work is more important than the culture, actually!” The care leaving process for unaccompanied youths from the perspective of social workers. Transnational Social Review. 2015; 5(3):241–57.
                              • 113. Fusco RA, Kulkarni SJ. “Bedtime is when bad stuff happens”: Sleep problems in foster care alumni. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;95:42–8.
                              • 114. Mølholt A, Bengtsson TT, Frederiksen M. Navigating educational success: Modes of expectation among care‐experienced young people. British Educational Res J. 2023;50(2):513–28.
                              • 115. Butterworth S, Mendes P, Flynn C. Young people leaving out-of-home care in Victoria, Australia: An exploration of factors influencing positive transitions. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory. 2020;3(2):1–23.
                              • 116. Goemans M, van Breda AD, Kessi S. Experiences of Young People Preparing to Transition Out of Cluster Foster Care in South Africa. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2020;38(2):227–37.
                              • 117. Gwenzi GD. Care leavers’ notions of the ‘ideal’ family in Zimbabwe. Journal of Family Studies. 2022;29(3):1428–46.
                              • 118. Bengtsson TT, Mølholt A-K. Creation of belonging and non-belonging in the temporal narratives of young people transitioning out of care in Denmark. Nordic Social Work Research. 2018;8(sup1):54–64.
                              • 119. Smith GP, Darab S, Hartman Y. Exploring a sense of belonging for some Forgotten Australians as they age. Community, Work & Family. 2020;25(2):137–51.
                              • 120. Bennwik IB, Oterholm I, Kelly B. ‘Disability is not a word we use’: Social workers’ professional judgements about support for disabled young people leaving care. Child & Family Social Work. 2022;28(2):443–53.
                              • 121. Batista T, Johnson A, Friedmann LB. The Effects of Youth Empowerment Programs on the Psychological Empowerment of Young People Aging Out of Foster Care. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. 2018;9(4):531–49.
                              • 122. Benaton T, Bowers‐Brown T, Dodsley T, Manning‐Jones A, Murden J, Nunn A. Reconciling care and justice in contesting social harm through performance and arts practice with looked after children and care leavers. Children & Society. 2020;34(5):337–53.
                              • 123. Uptin J, Hartung C. Living in a crowd: young people’s counter-narratives of care in a Thai orphanage. Children’s Geographies. 2022;21(2):257–70.
                              • 124. Boddy J. Troubling Meanings of “Family” for Young People Who Have Been in Care: From Policy to Lived Experience. Journal of Family Issues. 2018;40(16):2239–63.
                              • 125. Gwenzi GD. Constructing the Meaning of “Family” in the Context of Out-of-Home Care: An Exploratory Study on Residential Care Leavers in Harare, Zimbabwe. Emerging Adulthood. 2018;8(1):54–63.
                              • 126. Steenbakkers A, Ellingsen IT, van der Steen S, Grietens H. Psychosocial Needs of Children in Foster Care and the Impact of Sexual Abuse. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27(4):1324–35. pmid:29576728
                              • 127. Steenbakkers A, Ellingsen IT, van der Steen S, Grietens H. Do Foster Parents and Care Workers Recognize the Needs of Youth in Family Foster Care with a History of Sexual Abuse?. J Child Sex Abus. 2018;27(7):811–31. pmid:30247995
                              • 128. Gullo F, García-Alba L, Bravo A, del Valle JF. The psychosocial adjustment of care leavers in their transition to adult independent living (El ajuste psicosocial de jóvenes extutelados en su transición a la vida adulta independiente). International Journal of Social Psychology: Revista de Psicología Social. 2023;38(1):35–65.
                              • 129. Refaeli T, Benbenishty R, Zeira A. Predictors of life satisfaction among care leavers: A mixed-method longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;99:146–55.
                              • 130. Oterholm I, Paulsen V. Young people and social workers’ experience of differences between child welfare services and social services. Nordic Social Work Research. 2018;8(sup1):19–29.
                              • 131. Mendis K, Gardner F, Lehmann J. The Education of Children in Out-of-home Care. Australian Social Work. 2014;68(4):483–96.
                              • 132. Mendis K, Lehmann J, Gardner F. Promoting Academic Success of Children in Care. The British Journal of Social Work. 2017;48(1):106–23.
                              • 133. Stead H. Rite of passage for care leavers. Journal of Family Therapy. 2021;43(3):445–57.
                              • 134. Glynn N. Understanding care leavers as youth in society: A theoretical framework for studying the transition out of care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;121:105829.
                              • 135. Glynn N, Mayock P. Housing after care: understanding security and stability in the transition out of care through the lenses of liminality, recognition and precarity. Journal of Youth Studies. 2021;26(1):80–97.
                              • 136. Huegler N, Ruch G. Risk, Vulnerability and Complexity: Transitional Safeguarding as a Reframing of Binary Perspectives. Practice. 2021;34(1):25–39.
                              • 137. Natalier K, Johnson G. No Home Away from Home: A Qualitative Study of Care Leavers’ Perceptions and Experiences of ‘Home’. Housing Studies. 2014;30(1):123–38.
                              • 138. Lee JS, Ballew KM. Independent living services, adjudication status, and the social exclusion of foster youth aging out of care in the United States. Journal of Youth Studies. 2018;21(7):940–57.
                              • 139. Kind N, Seker S, d’Huart D, Bürgin D, Jenkel N, Boonmann C, et al. High-risk substance use and psychosocial functioning in young adult care leavers: Findings from a 10-year follow-up study. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;155:107290.
                              • 140. Blakeslee JE. Measuring the support networks of transition-age foster youth: Preliminary validation of a social network assessment for research and practice. Children and Youth Services Review. 2015;52:123–34.
                              • 141. Marion É, Paulsen V, Goyette M. Relationships Matter: Understanding the Role and Impact of Social Networks at the Edge of Transition to Adulthood from Care. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2017;34(6):573–82.
                              • 142. Moodley R, Raniga T, Sewpaul V. Youth Transitioning Out of Residential Care in South Africa: Toward Ubuntu and Interdependent Living. Emerging Adulthood. 2018;8(1):45–53.
                              • 143. Barratt C, Appleton P, Pearson M. Exploring internal conversations to understand the experience of young adults transitioning out of care. Journal of Youth Studies. 2019;23(7):869–85.
                              • 144. Göbel S, Hadjar A, Karl U, Jäger JA. Agency and the school-to-work transition of care leavers: A retrospective study of Luxembourgish young people. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;122:105636.
                              • 145. Gundersen T. Embedded in relations—Interactions as a source of agency and life opportunities for care‐experienced young adults. Children & Society. 2021;35(5):680–93.
                              • 146. Hung I, Appleton P. To plan or not to plan: The internal conversations of young people leaving care. Qualitative Social Work. 2015;15(1):35–54.
                              • 147. Van Breda AD. The roles of agency and structure in facilitating the successful transition out of care and into independent living. SAJSWSD. 2016;28(1):36–52.
                              • 148. Bogdanova E. Russian SOS Children’s Villages and Deinstitutionalisation Reform: Balancing between Institutional and Family Care. JSPS. 2017;15(3):395–406.
                              • 149. Ferguson L. “Could an Increased Focus on Identity Development in the Provision of Children’s Services Help Shape Positive Outcomes for Care Leavers?” A Literature Review. Child Care in Practice. 2016;24(1):76–91.
                              • 150. Goyette M, Blanchet A, Esposito T, Delaye A. The role of placement instability on employment and educational outcomes among adolescents leaving care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;131:106264.
                              • 151. Heyman JC, White-Ryan L, Kelly P, Farmer GL, Leaman TL, Davis HJ. Voices about foster care: The value of trust. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;113:104991.
                              • 152. Hyde A, Fullerton D, Lohan M, Dunne L, Macdonald G. Young people’s views on the impact of care experiences on their ability to form positive intimate relationships. Adoption & Fostering. 2017;41(3):242–53.
                              • 153. Kelly P, Heyman J, Zhai F, Salazar A. Social and Emotional Supports During College Years: Associations with Post-college Outcomes Among Alumni of Foster Care. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2021;40(5):607–21.
                              • 154. Malvaso C, Delfabbro P, Hackett L, Mills H. Service approaches to young people with complex needs leaving out-of-home care. Child Care in Practice. 2016;22(2):128–47.
                              • 155. Mayall H, O’Neill T, Worsley A, Devereux R, Ward S, Lynch D. The Experiences of Care Leavers (Post-care Adults) in Social Work Education. Social Work Education. 2014;34(2):151–64.
                              • 156. Pasli F, Aslantürk H. Examining the family belonging of adults with institutional care experience in childhood. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development. 2023;34(3):215–31.
                              • 157. Richardson V, Boylan J, Brammer A. Contact, welfare and children in care: revisiting the significance of birth family relationships after finding significant harm. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2017;39(1):67–82.
                              • 158. Sulimani-Aidan Y. Assets and pathways in achieving future goals of residential care alumni. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;89:71–6.
                              • 159. Valset K. Investigating the link between school performance, aftercare and educational outcome among youth ageing out of foster care: a Norwegian nationwide longitudinal cohort study. Nordic Social Work Research. 2018;8(sup1):79–93.
                              • 160. Ward S, Devereux R, Mayall H, O’Neill T, Worsley A. Care leavers on social work courses: a study of identity management. Child & Family Social Work. 2015;22(1):339–48.
                              • 161. Sulimani-Aidan Y. Present, protective, and promotive: Mentors’ roles in the lives of young adults in residential care. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2018;88(1):69–77. pmid:27977286
                              • 162. Sulimani-Aidan Y, Paldi Y. Youth perspectives on parents’ involvement in residential care in Israel. Journal of Social Work. 2018;20(1):64–82.
                              • 163. van Breda AD, Dickens L. The contribution of resilience to one-year independent living outcomes of care-leavers in South Africa. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;83:264–73.
                              • 164. Dutta S. Experiences of Young Indian Girls Transiting out of Residential Care Homes. Asian Soc Wrk & Pol Rev. 2016;11(1):16–29.
                              • 165. Dutta S. Preparation for social reintegration among young girls in residential care in India. IJCYFS. 2018;9(2):151.
                              • 166. Fernandez E, Delfabbro P, Ramia I, Kovacs S. Children returning from care: The challenging circumstances of parents in poverty. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;97:100–11.
                              • 167. Harder AT, Mann-Feder V, Oterholm I, Refaeli T. Supporting transitions to adulthood for youth leaving care: Consensus based principles. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;116:105260.
                              • 168. Harwick RM, Unruh D, Lindstrom L. Transition to adulthood for youth with disabilities who experienced foster care: An ecological approach. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;99:104310. pmid:31838228
                              • 169. January S-AA, Trout AL, Huscroft-D’Angelo J, Duppong Hurley KL, Thompson RW. Perspectives on Factors Impacting Youth’s Reentry into Residential Care: An Exploratory Study. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27(8):2584–95.
                              • 170. Modi K, Prasad A, Mishra J. Assisting youth leaving care: Understanding Udayan Care’s aftercare programme through the prism of ecological systems theory. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care. 2018;17(1):1–24.
                              • 171. Pinkerton J. Exploring history in the social ecology of care leaving: Northern Ireland as illustration. Child & Family Social Work. 2021;26(2):270–9.
                              • 172. Bond S. Care Leavers’ and Their Care Workers’ Views of Preparation and Aftercare Services in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Emerging Adulthood. 2018;8(1):26–34.
                              • 173. Bond S, van Breda A. Interaction between possible selves and the resilience of care-leavers in South Africa. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;94:88–95.
                              • 174. Dickens L, Marx P. NEET as an Outcome for Care Leavers in South Africa: The Case of Girls and Boys Town. Emerging Adulthood. 2018;8(1):64–72.
                              • 175. Dziro C, Mtetwa E, Mukamuri B, Chikwaiwa BK. Challenges faced by western-modelled residential care institutions in preparing the residents for meaningful re-integration into society: A case study of a Harare-based children’s home. Journal of Social Development in Africa. 2013;28(2):113–30.
                              • 176. Gypen L, Stas L, West D, Van Holen F, Vanderfaeillie J. Longitudinal outcomes of employment, income and housing for Flemish care leavers. Developmental Child Welfare. 2023;5(1):36–58.
                              • 177. Pryce JM, Jones SL, Wildman A, Thomas A, Okrzesik K, Kaufka-Walts K. Aging Out of Care in Ethiopia. Emerging Adulthood. 2015;4(2):119–30.
                              • 178. Sulimani-Aidan Y. Future Expectations as a Source of Resilience among Young People Leaving Care. The British Journal of Social Work. 2016;47(4):1111–27.
                              • 179. Sulimani-Aidan Y. To dream the impossible dream: Care leavers’ challenges and barriers in pursuing their future expectations and goals. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;81:332–9.
                              • 180. Sulimani-Aidan Y. Social networks during the transition to adulthood from the perspective of Israeli care leavers and their social workers. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;115:105075.
                              • 181. Sulimani-Aidan Y, Melkman E. Risk and resilience in the transition to adulthood from the point of view of care leavers and caseworkers. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;88:135–40.
                              • 182. Takele AM, Kotecho MG. Female Care-Leavers’ Experiences of Aftercare in Ethiopia. Emerging Adulthood. 2019;8(1):73–81.
                              • 183. Tyrell FA, Yates TM. Emancipated foster youth’s experiences and perceptions of the transition to adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies. 2018;21(8):1011–28.
                              • 184. Zeira A, Refaeli T, Achdut N, Benbenishty R. Economic self‐sufficiency and the employment outcomes of care leavers: A 10‐year follow up. Child & Family Social Work. 2022;28(3):635–45.
                              • 185. Sulimani‐Aidan Y. Qualitative exploration of supporting figures in the lives of emerging adults who left care compared with their noncare‐leaving peers. Child & Family Social Work. 2018;24(2):247–55.
                              • 186. Sulimani-Aidan Y. Challenges in the transition to adulthood of young-adult Arabs who graduated from residential facilities in Israel. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;113:104967.
                              • 187. Hollingworth K, Jackson S. Falling off the ladder: Using focal theory to understand and improve the educational experiences of young people in transition from public care. J Adolesc. 2016;52:146–53. pmid:27567518
                              • 188. Munro ER, Simkiss D. Transitions from care to adulthood: messages to inform practice. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2020;30(5):175–9.
                              • 189. Mupaku WM, van Breda AD, Kelly B. Transitioning to adulthood from residential childcare during COVID-19: Experiences of young people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder in South Africa. Br J Learn Disabil. 2021;49(3):341–51. pmid:34548837
                              • 190. Atwool N. Transition from care: Are we continuing to set care leavers up to fail in New Zealand?. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;113:104995.
                              • 191. Colbridge AK, Hassett A, Sisley E. “Who am I?” How Female Care Leavers Construct and Make Sense of Their Identity. Sage Open. 2017;7(1).
                              • 192. Munford R, Sanders J. Negotiating and Constructing Identity: Social Work with Young People Who Experience Adversity. Br J Soc Work. 2014;45(5):1564–80.
                              • 193. Storø J. To manage on one’s own after leaving care? A discussion of the concepts independence versus interdependence. Nordic Social Work Research. 2018;8(sup1):104–15.
                              • 194. Bhargava R, Chandrashekhar R, Kansal S, Modi K. Young Adults Transitioning from Institutional Care to Independent Living: The Role of Aftercare Support and Services. Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond. 2018;5(2):168–87.
                              • 195. McCormick M, Anthony J, Townsend ET. Fostering Safer Spaces: Retaining and Empowering SGM Students with a Lived History of Foster Care. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2022;40(2):255–70.
                              • 196. Hlungwani J, van Breda AD. Female care leavers’ journey to young adulthood from residential care in South Africa: Gender‐specific psychosocial processes of resilience. Child & Family Social Work. 2020;25(4):915–23.
                              • 197. van Breda AD, Hlungwani J. Journey towards independent living: resilience processes of women leaving residential care in South Africa. Journal of Youth Studies. 2018;22(5):604–22.
                              • 198. Bengtsson M, Sjöblom Y, Öberg P. Young care leavers’ expectations of their future: A question of time horizon. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(2):188–95.
                              • 199. Boman M. Relationships with family members and transition from out-of-home care: Unfinished business. Children and Youth Services Review. 2022;143:106662.
                              • 200. Brady E, Gilligan R. The life course perspective: An integrative research paradigm for examining the educational experiences of adult care leavers?. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;87:69–77.
                              • 201. Dumollard M, Gauthier-Davies C, Goyette M, Blanchet A. The Transition to Adulthood of Dual-System Youth in Quebec: A Focus on High School Graduation and Housing Situation. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2023;42(2):179–96.
                              • 202. Gabriel T, Keller S, Bombach C. Vulnerability and Well-Being Decades After Leaving Care. Front Psychol. 2021;12:577450. pmid:33584465
                              • 203. Brady E, Gilligan R. The Role of Agency in Shaping the Educational Journeys of Care‐experienced Adults: Insights from a Life Course Study of Education and Care. Children & Society. 2019;34(2):121–35.
                              • 204. Höjer I, Oterholm I. Foster carers’ views of the transition from foster care to adulthood for young people with mental health problems from a life-course perspective. Nordic Social Work Research. 2023;:1–14.
                              • 205. Keller S, Gabriel T, Bombach C. Narratives on leaving care in Switzerland: Biographies and discourses in the 20th century. Child & Family Social Work. 2021;26(2):248–57.
                              • 206. Mendes P. Towards the social inclusion of young people transitioning from out-of-home care: An examination of the Home Stretch campaign. Social Alternatives. 2018;37(1):59–62.
                              • 207. Mølholt A-K. ‘Sometimes I feel 60, sometimes I feel 13’: perceptions of age among vulnerable young people in Denmark. Journal of Youth Studies. 2019;24(1):62–76.
                              • 208. Power L, Raphael D. Care leavers: A British affair. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(3):346–53.
                              • 209. Pryce J, Napolitano L, Samuels GM. Transition to Adulthood of Former Foster Youth. Emerging Adulthood. 2017;5(5):311–21.
                              • 210. Refaeli T, Mangold K, Zeira A, Köngeter S. Continuity and Discontinuity in the Transition from Care to Adulthood. Br J Soc Work. 2016;:bcw016.
                              • 211. Reimer D, Schäfer D. The use of biographical narratives to explain favourable and unfavourable outcomes for children in foster care. Adoption & Fostering. 2015;39(1):5–20.
                              • 212. Spallek M, Haynes M. Post-school transitions for children in out-of-home care: evidence from the Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset. Journal of Youth Studies. 2020;24(7):901–24.
                              • 213. Bengtsson M, Sjöblom Y, Öberg P. Transitional patterns when leaving care – Care leavers’ agency in a longitudinal perspective. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;118:105486.
                              • 214. Solem M, Helgeland IM, Brannen J, Phoenix A. Transitions to Adulthood of ‘At Risk’ Young Men: New Analysis from Two Norwegian Qualitative Longitudinal Studies. Children & Society. 2020;34(3):220–33.
                              • 215. Achdut N, Benbenishty R, Zeira A. Labor market position among care leavers and their matched peers: A longitudinal comparative study. Child Abuse Negl. 2023;145:106406. pmid:37639770
                              • 216. Brady E, Gilligan R. Supporting care‐experienced adults’ educational journeys: “Linked lives” over the life course. Child & Family Social Work. 2019;25(2):221–9.
                              • 217. Gilligan R, Brady E. What helps adult care leavers return to education? exploring the relevance of learner identity and the life course perspective. Journal of Youth Studies. 2022;26(10):1373–86.
                              • 218. Dumont A, Lanctôt N, Paquette G. “I had a shitty past; I want a great future.”: Hopes and fears of vulnerable adolescent girls aging out of care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2022;134:106374.
                              • 219. Lanctôt N, Turcotte M. The ‘good mother’ struggles: Obstacles to the attainment of motherhood ideals among adult women formerly placed in residential care. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(1):80–7.
                              • 220. Paulsen V, Thomas N. The transition to adulthood from care as a struggle for recognition. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(2):163–70.
                              • 221. Abdullah A, Cudjoe E, Emery CR, Frederico M. Moving towards independent living in Ghana: Narratives from young adults about their kinship care experience. J Adolesc. 2020;79:148–56. pmid:31978834
                              • 222. Bengtsson M, Sjöblom Y, Öberg P. ‘Well, it’s up to me now’ – young care leavers’ strategies for handling adversities when leaving out-of-home care in Sweden. Nordic Social Work Research. 2018;8(sup1):8–18.
                              • 223. Berridge D. Driving outcomes: learning to drive, resilience and young people living in residential care. Child & Family Social Work. 2014;22(1):77–85.
                              • 224. Bodiroa A. Challenges, agency and ecology in the transition of youth from institutional care to independent living in Johannesburg. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Johannesburg. 2021.
                                • 225. Crous G, Montserrat C, Gallart-Mir J, Matás M. ‘In the end you’re no longer the kid from the children’s home, you‘re just yourself’: Resilience in care leavers over 25. European Journal of Social Work. 2021;24(5):896–909.
                                • 226. Dima G, Bucuta MD. The process of transition from public care to independent living: A resilience-based approach. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala. 2015;50:53–65.
                                • 227. Frimpong-Manso K. Building and utilising resilience: The challenges and coping mechanisms of care leavers in Ghana. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;87:52–9.
                                • 228. Frimpong-Manso K. Stories of Care Leaving: The Experiences of a Group of Resilient Young Adults on Their Journey to Interdependent Living in Ghana. Emerging Adulthood. 2018;8(1):16–25.
                                • 229. Furey R, Harris‐Evans J. Work and resilience: Care leavers’ experiences of navigating towards employment and independence. Child & Family Social Work. 2021;26(3):404–14.
                                • 230. Greeson JKP, Gyourko JR, Jaffee SR, Wasch S. The experiences of older youth in and aged out of foster care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Material and financial well-being by foster care status, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and race. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2022;92(3):334–48. pmid:35201799
                                • 231. Häggman-Laitila A, Salokekkilä P, Satka M, Toivonen K, Kekolahti P, Ryynänen O-P. The coping of young Finnish adults after out-of-home care and aftercare services: A document-based analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;102:150–7.
                                • 232. Hamilton DJ, Taylor BJ, Killick C, Bickerstaff D. Suicidal Ideation and Behaviour among Young People Leaving Care: Case-file Survey. Child Care in Practice. 2015;21(2):160–76.
                                • 233. Hlungwani J, van Breda AD. Affording managed opportunities for independence to build looked-after young people’s resilience: perceptions and experiences of care workers. JCS. 2022;17(2):137–51.
                                • 234. Burgund Isakov A, Hrnčić J. Preparedness for emancipation of youth leaving alternative care in Serbia. IJCYFS. 2018;9(1):83.
                                • 235. Melkman E, Refaeli T, Bibi B, Benbenishty R. Readiness for Independent Living Among Youth on the Verge of Leaving Juvenile Correctional Facilities. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2016;60(10):1209–25. pmid:25784673
                                • 236. Mendes P, Standfield R, Saunders B, McCurdy S, Walsh J, Turnbull L. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) young people leaving out-of-home care in Australia: A national scoping study. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;121:105848.
                                • 237. Moore J, Flynn M, Morgan M. Social Ecological Resilience and Mental Wellbeing of Irish Emigrant Survivors of Clerical Institutional Childhood Abuse. Child Abuse Review. 2019;28(1):52–68.
                                • 238. Moore J, Thornton C, Hughes M. On the Road to Resilience: The Help‐Seeking Experiences of Irish Emigrant Survivors of Institutional Abuse. Child Abuse Review. 2015;26(5):375–87.
                                • 239. Nho CR, Park EH, McCarthy ML. Case studies of successful transition from out-of-home placement to young adulthood in Korea. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:315–24.
                                • 240. Pinkney S, Walker G. ‘It was me, but it was them that helped me’: Exploring the issues for care experienced young people within higher education. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;108:104576.
                                • 241. Rácz A. Alternative care of children without family in Hungary. Revista de Asistenta Sociala. 2018;17(3):23–32.
                                • 242. Radey M, Boel-Studt S, Collins CJ. “Taking it day by day”: Maternity group homes in the lives of mothers aging out of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;155:107293.
                                • 243. Refaeli T. Narratives of care leavers: What promotes resilience in transitions to independent lives?. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:1–9.
                                • 244. S. Samarah EM, Schelbe L, Jackson LA. A photovoice study of college students who have experienced foster care, relative care, and/or homelessness. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;151:107042.
                                • 245. Sekibo B. Experiences of Young People Early in the Transition From Residential Care in Lagos State, Nigeria. Emerging Adulthood. 2019;8(1):92–100.
                                • 246. Simpson D, Murphy SF. ‘So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past’: legacy, care leavers and university study. Journal of Youth Studies. 2020;25(2):259–74.
                                • 247. Stein M. Supporting young people from care to adulthood: International practice. Child & Family Social Work. 2019;24(3):400–5.
                                • 248. Stephens T, Aparicio EM. “It’s just broken branches”: Child welfare-affected mothers’ dual experiences of insecurity and striving for resilience in the aftermath of complex trauma and familial substance abuse. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;73:248–56.
                                • 249. Sulimani‐Aidan Y. ‘She was like a mother and a father to me’: searching for the ideal mentor for youth in care. Child & Family Social Work. 2016;22(2):862–70.
                                • 250. Sulimani-Aidan Y. Promoting resilience among adolescents in care from their social workers’ perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;94:43–8.
                                • 251. Syme A, Hill M. Professionals’ perceptions of the rocky routes to successful outcomes for young people in a children’s residential school. Child & Family Social Work. 2015;22(1):185–94.
                                • 252. Tahkola E-M, Metsäpelto R-L, Ruohotie-Lyhty M, Poikkeus A-M. Coping strategies in life stories of young adults with foster care backgrounds. European Journal of Social Work. 2021;24(5):910–21.
                                • 253. Turner R, Vira EG, Bergström M, Olsson TM. Cultural Adaptation of Interventions and the a Priori Assessment of Intervention Fit: Exploring Measurement Invariance for American and Swedish Youth Leaving Care. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work. 2022;20(3):306–22.
                                • 254. van Breda AD. The Youth Ecological-Resilience Scale. Research on Social Work Practice. 2016;27(2):248–57.
                                • 255. Van Breda AD. The first two years out of residential care in South Africa: A critical period for care-leaving services. Child Welfare. 2018;95(6):63–82.
                                • 256. Webb L, Cox N, Cumbers H, Martikke S, Gedzielewski E, Duale M. Personal resilience and identity capital among young people leaving care: enhancing identity formation and life chances through involvement in volunteering and social action. Journal of Youth Studies. 2016;20(7):889–903.
                                • 257. Wilke NG, Roberts M, Mitchell T, Howard AH. Spirituality as a protective factor: A multinational study of 267 adults separated from parental care as children. Social Work and Christianity. 2023;50(2):191–212.
                                • 258. Bramsen I, Kuiper C, Willemse K, Cardol M. My Path Towards Living on My Own: Voices of Youth Leaving Dutch Secure Residential Care. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2018;36(4):365–80.
                                • 259. Hyde R, Atkinson C. Care leavers’ priorities and the corporate parent role: A self-determination theory perspective. bpsecp. 2019;36(1):40–57.
                                • 260. Itzhaki-Braun Y, Sulimani-Aidan Y. Determination of life satisfaction among young women care leavers from the Ultraorthodox Jewish community. Children and Youth Services Review. 2022;136:106428.
                                • 261. Lietz CA, Cheung JR. Meeting the Mental Health Needs of College Students with a Background in Foster Care. Child Adolesc Social Work J. 2023;40(2):193–206. pmid:36530754
                                • 262. Berejena Mhongera P, Lombard A. Who Is There For Me? Evaluating the Social Support Received by Adolescent Girls Transitioning From Institutional Care in Zimbabwe. Practice. 2016;29(1):19–35.
                                • 263. Cox N, Martikke S, Cumbers H, Webb L. Reinventing selves and connections through community volunteering: how care leavers and their supporters create a space for agency and self-work. Voluntary Sector Review. 2023;14(2):293–313.
                                • 264. Gilligan R, Arnau‐Sabatés L. The role of carers in supporting the progress of care leavers in the world of work. Child & Family Social Work. 2016;22(2):792–800.
                                • 265. Gimeno-Monterde C, Gómez-Quintero JD, C. Aguerri J. Unaccompanied young people and transition to adulthood: Challenges for child care services. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;121:105858.
                                • 266. Martikke S, Cumbers H, Cox N, Webb L, Gedzielewski E, Duale M. Building Bridges into the Community: Social Capital in a Volunteering Project for Care Leavers. Children & Society. 2018;33(2):111–25.
                                • 267. Mullan P. Care leaver’s outcomes in Ireland: the role of social capital. JCS. 2022;17(2):97–110.
                                • 268. Radey M, Schelbe L, McWey LM, Holtrop K. Me, myself and I: perceptions of social capital for mothers ageing out of the child welfare system. Child & Family Social Work. 2016;22(2):981–91.
                                • 269. Shotton LH. From care to caring. Using Bourdieu to explore care experienced students journeys into and through nurse education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 2021;26(4):442–60.
                                • 270. Tobolowsky BF, Madden EE, Scannapieco M. Living on the Edge: The Postsecondary Journeys of Foster Care Alumni. College Student Affairs Journal. 2017;35(1):86–100.
                                • 271. Tyrell FA, Yates TM. A Growth Curve Analysis of Housing Quality among Transition-Aged Foster Youth. Child Youth Care Forum. 2016;46(1):91–117.
                                • 272. Curry SR, Abrams LS. Housing and Social Support for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care: State of the Research Literature and Directions for Future Inquiry. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2014;32(2):143–53.
                                • 273. Melkman EP. Childhood adversity, social support networks and well-being among youth aging out of care: An exploratory study of mediation. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;72:85–97. pmid:28780420
                                • 274. Melkman EP, Benbenishty R. Social support networks of care leavers: Mediating between childhood adversity and adult functioning. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;86:176–87.
                                • 275. Keshri AK. Understanding orphaned young people’s experience of leaving care in India: A qualitative study. Developmental Child Welfare. 2023;5(2):79–92.
                                • 276. Radey M, Schelbe L, McWey LM, Holtrop K, Canto AI. “It’s really overwhelming”: Parent and service provider perspectives of parents aging out of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016;67:1–10.
                                • 277. Mhongera PB, Lombard A. Poverty to more poverty: An evaluation of transition services provided to adolescent girls from two institutions in Zimbabwe. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016;64:145–54.
                                • 278. Mhongera PB, Lombard A. Promoting successful transitions beyond institutional care: a programme-based service delivery model linked to a case management system. Social Work. 2018;54(1).
                                • 279. Ungar M, Theron L. Resilience and mental health: how multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(5):441–8. pmid:31806473
                                • 280. Masten AS. Emergence and evolution of developmental resilience science over half a century. Dev Psychopathol. 2024;36(5):2542–50. pmid:38456302
                                • 281. Pinkerton J, Van Breda AD. Policy as social ecological resilience scaffolding for leaving care: A case study of South Africa. In: Mann-Feder VR, Goyette M, editors. Leaving care and the transition to adulthood: International contributions to theory, research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2019. p. 87–104.
                                  • 282. Elder GH, Bailey SL. The timing of military service in men’s lives. In: Aldous A, Klein DM, editors. New York City, NY: Guilford. 1988. p. 157–74.
                                    • 283. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 2024.
                                      • 284. Bowlby J. A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. London: Routledge. 1988.
                                        • 285. McSherry D, Fargas Malet M. The Extent of Stability and Relational Permanence Achieved for Young Children in Care in Northern Ireland. Children Australia. 2018;43(2):124–34.
                                        • 286. Field J. Social capital. 3rd ed. Routledge. 2016.
                                          • 287. Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1979.
                                            • 288. Richmond ME. What is social case work? An introductory description. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 1922.
                                              • 289. Greene RR. Human behavior theory, person-in-environment, and social work method. In: Greene RR, editor. Human behavior theory and social work practice. Routledge. 2017. p. 1–26.
                                                • 290. Bodiroa A, Ross E. Challenges, Agency and Ecology in the Transition of Youth from State Residential Care to Independent Living in Johannesburg, South Africa. Child & Youth Services. 2022;44(3):328–54.
                                                • 291. Gahagan J, Slipp N, Chowdhury R, Kirby D, Smith S, McWilliam S, et al. Reducing barriers to post-secondary education among former youth in care: A scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2023;5:100303.
                                                • 292. Stubbs A, Baidawi S, Mendes P. Young people transitioning from out-of-home care: their experience of informal support. A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023;144:106735.
                                                • 293. Hodgson D, Cordier R, Parsons L, Walter B, Chikwava F, Watts L, et al. Developing and using matrix methods for analysis of large longitudinal qualitative datasets in out-of-home-care research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2022;27(2):235–48.
                                                • 294. Payne M. Modern social work theory. 5th ed: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2021.
                                                  • 295. Reuben S, van Breda AD. Care-leavers’ efforts to build resilience through relationships of belonging. Social Work. 2024;60(2).