Systems theory as a framework for examining a college campus-based support program for the former foster youth

Abstract

Increased attention to former foster youth pursuing post-secondary education has resulted in the creation of college campus based support programs to address their need. However, limited empirical evidence and theoretical knowledge exist about these programs. This study seeks to describe the application of systems theory as a framework for examining a college campus based support program for former foster youth. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 program stakeholders including students, mentors, collaborative members, and independent living program staff. Using qualitative data analysis software, holistic coding techniques were employed to analyze interview transcripts. Then applying principles of extended case method using systems theory, data were analyzed. Findings suggest systems theory serves as a framework for understanding the functioning of a college campus based support program. The theory's concepts help delineate program components and roles of stakeholders; outline boundaries between and interactions among stakeholders; and identify program strengths and weakness. Systems theory plays an important role in identifying intervention components and providing a structure through which to identify and understand program elements as a part of the planning process. This study highlights the utility of systems theory as a framework for program planning and evaluation.

Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators

“…The in-depth descriptions were written to give clear examples of how these approaches have been applied in practice. A range of public health topics were represented in the sample, including social work [ 43 – 45 ], school health [ 41 , 46 – 50 ], workplace health [ 51 , 52 ], sexual health [ 48 , 53 , 54 ], health equity policy [ 55 , 56 ], urban planning [ 57 , 58 ], substance use [ 53 , 56 , 59 – 61 ], child development [ 62 ], public–private partnerships [ 63 ], community empowerment and transformation [ 42 , 64 ], and violence prevention [ 65 ]. The studies were conducted in 13 countries, which included 9 high-income and 4 middle-income settings: Australia [ 51 , 52 , 57 , 65 ], Brazil [ 55 ], Chile [ 62 ], El Salvador [ 54 ], Finland [ 56 ], India [ 62 ], Israel [ 43 , 44 ], the Netherlands [ 46 , 47 , 58 ], New Zealand [ 50 ], South Africa [ 48 , 62 ], Sweden [ 59 ], the United Kingdom [ 42 , 49 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , …”

“…The process evaluations in this literature base varied in terms of the stage of evaluation planning and conduct in which they drew on complex systems thinking concepts and frameworks. Although the reporting was not always clear, 14 evaluation teams used some facets of systems thinking and complexity science when planning and designing their evaluations [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]49,[51][52][53]57,58,[60][61][62]64,65], which ranged from asking systems-oriented research questions to informing the sampling strategy (e.g., a conscious effort to sample different elements or from different levels within the system) and data collection tools (i.e., interview topic guides). Other evaluators used complex systems concepts, theories, or frameworks solely to structure their analyses [48,50,[54][55][56]59,63].…”

“…The evaluations identified also drew on a wide range of qualitative methodologies. Ten studies applied a case study design [41][42][43][44][45][50][51][52]56,[60][61][62]64]. The nature and boundary of a case varied from evaluation to evaluation.…”

“…Evaluators utilized a number of different methods for data collection, and 13 applied a mixed methods approach, which included using multiple qualitative data collection methods [41][42][43][44][45][48][49][50][55][56][57][58]62,64]. Seven studies employed a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods [46,47,[51][52][53][59][60][61]63,65], although all of these studies had substantive qualitative findings.…”

“…Although system maps are not a necessary element of systems thinking, they can be helpful for making sense of and depicting system boundaries, as articulated by both those acting within the system ("first-order" boundary judgments) and those studying it ("second-order" boundary judgments) [66]. Few evaluations (n = 3) in the sample [42,45,64] had explicit discussions of boundaries and the ways in which, or indeed if, boundary judgments were made. By contrast, 11 studies produced some form of system diagram [41,[46][47][48][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]60,63], implying that boundary judgments were likely at least implicitly considered by evaluators.…”