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

越来越多的学院和大学投资开发校园支持计划 (CSP)，专门旨在支持有寄养经验的学生 (SEFC)。然而，CSP 的证据基础仍然相当有限。目前的研究旨在通过对佐治亚州两个 CSP（一个是两年制技术学院，另一个是四年制大学）进行混合方法评估来为文献做出贡献。研究小组通过学生和教职员工的访谈收集了定性数据。定量数据由 CSP 项目工作人员提供，包括参与 CSP 的 SEFC 的项目实施和管理结果数据（即平均绩点、课程学分完成情况）。还提供了比较学生组的结果数据：(a) 所有本科生，(b) 所有第一代本科生，以及 (c) 在联邦学生援助免费申请中勾选“法庭监护”的所有本科生。分析表明，本研究中的两个 CSP 为 SEFC 提供了重要支持，但许多障碍阻碍了服务充分发挥潜力。大多数接受采访的大学生都分享了 CSP 的积极经历，但许多人也提出了改进建议。行政数据显示了 CSP 的前景，SEFC 在学术上的表现与一些同行相似或更好；然而，研究设计和数据限制使该研究无法做出疗效声明。提供了政策和实践建议，以及研究人员如何与 CSP 合作进行项目评估。