Personal Journeys of Transition Beyond the Care System in England: Voices of Care-Experienced Young People from the I-CAN Programme

Abstract

Care-experienced young people often face considerable challenges due to a personal history of trauma and disruption and have a higher risk of homelessness, mental ill health, and involvement with the criminal justice system. A stubborn trend of achieving fewer qualifications than non-care-experienced peers persists, with greater likelihood of becoming NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training). Accessible and sustainable pre-employment programmes should be a priority for national initiatives designed to generate improved outcomes for vulnerable youth. The I-CAN (Initiating and Supporting Care Leavers into Apprenticeships in Nursing) programme offers young people in England (aged 18–30) a person-focussed pathway to training and employment. However, robust research is needed to evidence the effectiveness of this type of small-scale and short-term funded programme. The current paper reports qualitative findings from a pilot study exploring the perceptions and experiences of (N = 27) young people who attended the 8-week I-CAN programme delivered at a Higher Education Institution. Data were collected from four focus groups and thematically analysed. The findings captured young people’s personal trajectories and exposed underpinning processes as well as unique, shared, and intersectional factors that can either facilitate or impede progression to education, employment and training. Crucially, care-experienced young people are not a homogenous group and capturing their authentic, diverse voices in evaluation research is essential for not only assessing if a programme works but for whom, and why. Furthermore, findings can help to inform meaningful strategies and socially valid interventions to support care-experienced young people navigate the transition ‘cliff edge’.

1. Introduction

Nearly 12 million children live in England; just over 400,000 (3 percent) are residents in the social care system at any one time (Ofsted, 2022a). In 2023, more than 13,000 young people aged-out of the care system on their 18th birthday (Department for Education, 2024) and into imposed independent living. One of the key recommendations from an independent review of children’s social care, informed by the views of young people with lived experience, was to provide more practical and socio-emotional support for youth as they became legal adults (Barnardo’s, 2021). The concept of transition is envisaged as a multiple and multi-dimensional process (Jindal-Snape, 2023). However, international evidence has shown that for care-experienced young people, “transition to adulthood was more accelerated, compressed, and linear” (Stein, 2019, p. 400). Compared to their peers, who may alternate between the safety net of their birth families and independence (often into their late 20s), care-experienced young people encounter major concurrent responsibilities associated with adulthood as soon as they turn 18, sometimes even younger. These include finding and securing affordable accommodation, gaining regular employment, managing personal finances, and all the associated demands of living independently. Professionals working with care-experienced young people, and those with lived experience, have described the transition to adulthood as a milestone akin to falling off a cliff edge (Barnardo’s, 2024; Hughes, 2024).

Over 20 years ago, Propp et al. (2003) directly challenged the notion that self-sufficiency should be the end goal for care-experienced youth on entering young adulthood. Rather, a state of ‘interdependence’ that fosters social connectedness and availing of support, as and when the young person requires it, should be encouraged. Despite the legitimacy of this proposal, a body of evidence collected over the intervening years indicates that current practice in supporting care-experienced young people’s transition to adulthood remains predominantly age-related, rather than needs-driven and person-centred (Hughes, 2024). Moreover, this population continues to face multiple educational disadvantages across all levels of learning. The aim of the current research was to evaluate a novel programme, Initiating and Supporting Care Leavers into Apprenticeships in Nursing (I-CAN), which is a targeted intervention designed to support care-experienced young people progress into education, employment or training. Given appropriate and ongoing support, post-mandatory education can be transformational for young people, leading to professional jobs or apprenticeships, financial security and improved life chances (MacAlister, 2022). Nonetheless, official statistics used to monitor marginalised youth outcomes provide only a partial view of young people’s lives, relying on objective measures and ‘expert’ assessments of effectiveness and success. To date, there has been limited research on the perceptions of care-experienced young people regarding the myriad factors that can facilitate or hinder targeted interventions, which this study intended to address. Gaining such insight will help to ensure that youth programmes are meaningfully designed for optimal outcomes, recognising the heterogeneity and intersectionality of young people’s lives.

1.1. Adversity, Poor Outcomes, and Care-Experience: Stubborn Trends and Antecedents of Change

Entering the care system can be a highly traumatic event, worsening the impact of prior negative experiences that led to a child or young person being placed there initially. The most commonly cited reason for state intervention was the risk of abuse or neglect (Office for National Statistics, 2022). Children in care (or with previous care-experience) are more likely than their peers to be the subject of a case review–a mandatory process conducted when an abused or neglected child dies or is seriously harmed (NSPCC, 2024). Unsurprisingly, individuals with lived experience of the care system typically demonstrate poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared to the general population (Young & Lilley, 2023). A recent systematic review (Cummings & Shelton, 2024) concluded that care-experienced children and young people (CYP) show much higher rates of mental health difficulties and developing a mental disorder than those living with their birth families. According to the charity Coram Voice (2019), one in four care-experienced young people reported having low life satisfaction (compared to 3 percent in the general population). In other research, isolation and loneliness were factors often associated with the experience of transition to adulthood–one in five young people (aged 16–25) admitted to feeling lonely “always” or “most of the time” (compared to one in ten among those without care experience) (Baker, 2019).

In a study by Gough (2017), 60 young adults who had been in either close support or secure care settings during their care history, voiced their experiences of early trauma and poor mental wellbeing which, they insisted, had been overlooked in childhood. Respondents commonly felt that being taken into care had further damaged their fragile mental wellbeing and advocated for more proactive mental and emotional health support for CYP who experience abuse, neglect and separation. Sadly, the insecurity and upheaval commonly associated with birth families is often mirrored in the care system with chronic placement instability and multiple and abrupt changes in primary-care givers. In one case, a young person reported being placed in over 20 different settings during their childhood (Burghart, 2015). In related research by the National Youth Advocacy Service (2019), CYP articulated their experience of ‘care’ as a passive encounter–something that was done to them rather than actively constructed with them. These early negative experiences can generate perceived abuses of trust and inhibit the development of essential trusted relationships with significant adults, and create a stubborn wariness of engaging with professionals, both concurrently and in the future (Home for Good, 2021).

At the school level, existing adversities are compounded by multiple educational disadvantages including frequent school changes and poor attendance (Townsend et al., 2020). For care-experienced pupils this is disruptive academically, pastorally and socially. CYP may repeatedly find themselves in new learning environments and school communities to which they lack a sense of belonging (Young & Lilley, 2023). Of further concern is the complexity of individual pupil needs. Many care-experienced CYP have a diagnosed special educational need or disability (SEND)–56 percent compared to 16 percent of all pupils with SEND in schools in England (Department for Education, 2025). Moreover, in a seminal study, Meltzer et al. (2003) found that care-experienced CYP showed distinct SEND tendencies that related to their unique experiences of trauma. Notably, social, emotional and mental health difficulties (SEMH) was the most common primary diagnosis (in 40 percent of cases). More recently, a Department for Education report (2020) revealed that almost 40% of CYP in the care system showed elevated emotional and behavioural health scores that were considered a cause for concern. Clearly, if CYP’s mental health needs are unmet, the risk of a range of immediate and longer-term negative outcomes increases. These include placement disruption and poor school attainment (Bazalgette et al., 2015), fewer post-16 options for education, employment and training (EET), and reduced life chances (Sacker, 2021) which may prevail long after an individual leaves the care system.

International evidence supports the universality of poor educational outcomes among care-experienced individuals (Bakketeig et al., 2020; Brännström et al., 2020; Collins et al., 2023). However, putting a spotlight on the gap between the academic progress of care-experienced CYP and their peers fails to consider how SEND (predominantly SEMH difficulties) and CYP’s pre-care experiences impact on their learning outcomes (Schooling, 2017). This narrow focus can generate the widely held misconception that being care-experienced is inherently damaging and exacerbate the stigma already felt by many individuals. Evidence suggests that care-experienced pupils perceived being treated differently by their teachers compared to other children (Who Cares? Scotland & Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, 2025; Mannay et al., 2017). Over 20 years ago, a study involving 38 high-achieving young people who had spent at least one year in the care system (Martin & Jackson, 2002), found one third believed that negative stereotypes and low expectations among professionals and care providers represented major obstacles for them to personally overcome. Ultimately, academic support and encouragement from significant adults were seen as pivotal to their educational success. Poignantly, one third of young people expressed the wish for a ‘guardian angel’ to be by their side to support and encourage them during their university years. Worryingly, researchers, including those with lived experience of the care system have highlighted a stubborn prevalence of stigmatising narratives and negative stereotypes (Sprecher, 2024; Townsend et al., 2020). In other research, strong, positive, trusted and safe relationships were flagged as universally essential to the wellbeing and resilience of care-experienced young people (Eldridge et al., 2020). Similarly, Gilligan (2019) found that CYP who had a supportive relationship with an adult role model and long-term mentor were significantly more likely to be resilient in the face of future adversities.

Longitudinal labour market research has revealed a worrying trend whereby care-experienced young people have been systematically “filtered” into low level pathways (Harrison et al., 2023). Thus exposing persistent disadvantage and systemic failings in the provision of inclusive education in England. Official figures for 2023 showed that just 550 care-experienced individuals under 19 (0.2. percent of the total intake) enrolled on an undergraduate course (Young & Lilley, 2023). Care-experienced young people are less likely to have adult support when applying for jobs, college or university, and are prone to encounter multiple barriers. These include lack of transportation to education open days and having no-one to accompany them, persistent financial difficulties, and stigma associated with a history of care (Sanders, 2021). Cumulatively, such factors contribute to an over-representation of this population in part-time, low-paid and low-skilled employment (Furey & Harris-Evans, 2021). Furthermore, for the minority who surmount the university application process, the risk of drop-out is higher than for the general student population. Ellis and Johnston (2024) revealed that 51 percent of care-experienced undergraduates considered leaving university due to persistent financial worries, personal and family circumstances, health and socio-emotional issues, and workload stress. Other evidence has shown that care-experienced students are 10 percent less likely to progress from year one to year two, and equally less likely to graduate with a good honours degree (Stevenson et al., 2020).

Poor educational or wellbeing outcomes are not pre-determined and care-experienced individuals are not a homogeneous group. Nonetheless, as the evidence indicates, some subgroups of CYP have a greater likelihood of experiencing disadvantage than others; while intersectional characteristics such as ethnicity (Sacker et al., 2024), having a disability (Baker & Briheim-Crookall, 2024), and additional learning or mental health needs (Kelly et al., 2016), elevate this risk factor. According to recommendations from the MacAlister (2022) review of children’s social care, being ‘care-experienced’ should constitute a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. However, as MacAlister cautioned, legal protection alone does not guarantee improved outcomes. Care-experienced young people may encounter myriad practical and psychosocial barriers that prevent them from effectively accessing services for educational and career progression, or appropriate support for their wellbeing needs. Feelings of stigma and bias from professionals and services were among the negative impressions and experiences reported by young people, and which deterred them from accessing healthcare and other support services (Who Cares? Scotland, 2021). Health workers require proper awareness of the influence of care experience on health factors, and it is increasingly recognised that professional practice should be trauma informed (Braden et al., 2017; Sanders, 2020). Likewise, the same principle applies to professionals working in the education sector who should have a comprehensive understanding of how care experience can affect a student’s learning and behaviour. Notably, young people themselves have flagged the need for all adults working with care-experienced CYP to receive mandatory mental health training, with a dedicated focus on the negative effects of trauma (NSPCC, 2019). Aligned with this proposal, resilience theory (Zimmerman, 2013) supports a major shift from a deficit model that attempts to address an individual’s problems, towards an affirmative developmental lens. Grounded in positive psychology principles (Seligman et al., 2009), this approach switches practitioners’ attention to building individual strengths and nurturing resilience which enables a person to better cope with adversity and to think ahead and plan their lives (Gilligan, 2019).

Transition is an ongoing and multi-faceted process (Jindal-Snape, 2023) requiring significant and continual personalised support for young people. Conversely, becoming independent remains the dominant mantra for care-experienced young people. Inappropriately so, according to Hiles et al. (2014), given the typically interdependent nature of most young adults’ lives. In their study, young people and care professionals recounted variable levels of support to achieve the prescribed goal of independence but concurred that help was often inadequate and consequently many young people felt set-up to fail. Crucially, support was perceived as a relational process built on trust; however, “… past experiences (of loss, poor support or violations of trust)… meant that young people struggled to ask for support, even when it was most needed…” (Hiles et al., 2013, p. 30). In line with a trauma-informed approach, the authors insisted that professionals working with care-experienced young people needed to demonstrate a genuine understanding and concern for an individual’s unique position, so that they might be sufficiently trusted for any offer of support to be accepted.

Hiles et al.’s (2014) research highlighted young people’s efforts to navigate transition amid the instability of their lives and limited proactive support from key adults or services. A decade on, there is limited research specifically focused on the preparation and planning for young people’s transition from the care system. Nonetheless, one study (Ofsted, 2022b) found that many care leavers felt ‘alone’ or ‘isolated’ and lacked the required skills to live independently. Furthermore, young people reported not being consulted enough about plans for their future which often failed to meet their personal aspirations. A UK study tracking the outcomes of vulnerable young people (Department for Education, 2025) discovered that eight years post-statutory education, care-experienced young people were the subgroup least likely to be employed or to have participated in further or higher education, and most likely to be claiming state benefits. Soberingly, this population is also more likely to be found in a prison cell than a lecture theatre (Young & Lilley, 2023) and are over-represented in other socially excluded groups including the homeless population (Become, 2024) and sex-workers (Coy, 2008, 2017).

Despite these disturbing reports, The Health Foundation (2017) insists that access to quality education provides vulnerable individuals with social connections; learning, problem-solving and other skills; employment opportunities; and an improved sense of feeling valued and empowered. Clearly, schools, colleges and universities need to provide tailored support to address the holistic needs of care-experienced students, including appropriate intervention at key transition points at different levels of education. However, evidence suggests that care-experienced young people typically lack knowledge about available progression routes and application processes, and often display low self-confidence in relation to EET (Foulkes et al., 2023). These barriers are often compounded by the absence of a familial support network to provide practical help and encouragement. One survey (UCAS, 2022) found that 60 percent of care-experienced students reported receiving no help relevant to their circumstances when considering application choices. Tellingly, the number one priority for them in choosing a university was the level of support available (Stand Alone & Unite Foundation, 2015). In 2022, UCAS recommended that all higher educational institutions (HEIs) reviewed their current practices and developed strategies that were student-centred and student-led, acknowledging the intersectionality of care experience with other unique characteristics. Furthermore, ensuring that all those involved in designing, delivering and evaluating programmes, respect, assess and respond to the uniqueness of each care-experienced young person and their individual circumstances (Hlungwani & van Breda, 2022). The Initiating and Supporting Care Leavers into Apprenticeships in Nursing (I-CAN) programme, delivered in an HEI setting, is underpinned by such an approach.

The current paper presents qualitative findings from the I-CAN pilot study. The aim of the research was to investigate the perceptions and experiences of I-CAN programme recipients, privileging the knowledge of the primary stakeholders and key beneficiaries at the heart of the intervention. Specifically, to capture authentic voices and identify the actual and not the assumed needs of participants. Furthermore, to investigate the underlying process issues which facilitate or hinder optimal outcomes for individuals who share lived experience of the care system in England.

1.2. Overview of the I-CAN Programme

The I-CAN programme aims to provide care-experienced young adults (aged 18–30) with the knowledge and skills to progress into a nursing associate apprenticeship or an alternative EET pathway. The programme was delivered at a university campus across eight consecutive sessions, one per week (3 h duration plus lunch [an additional hour was added for Cohort 2]), and learning is broken down into ‘bitesize chunks’ (see

Table 1. Summary of the 8-week I-CAN programme.

Week	Topic	Overview and learning objectives
1	Welcome to the programme Introduction to health and social care careers Life as a student on a healthcare programme	To introduce the I-CAN programme; develop an awareness of the opportunities within health and social care; and gain insight into the life of a student
2	Introduction to the Wellbeing Team Wellbeing and learning	To introduce the Wellbeing Team and their service offer; develop an understanding of wellbeing and resilience and how wellbeing is linked to learning
3	The role of the healthcare student and person-centred care	To gain insight into the day-to-day life of a healthcare student, and to describe person-centred care and the importance of person-centred care
4	Infection control Delivering person centred care	To define infection and understand the importance of infection control, and to describe how healthcare workers deliver person-centred care
5	Basic life support (BLS) Self-care and personal wellbeing	To understand the basic principles of BLS and practice the skills required in BLS; understand the importance of self-care and personal wellbeing; and introduce reflective practice
6	Working in healthcare–exploring healthcare roles Building your skills for work	To describe different health and social care roles and careers; build skills needed to gain employment in healthcare; and describe the responsibilities of working in healthcare
7	Communication skills for healthcare careers	To describe communication skills needed within healthcare; consider examples of good and bad communication; and interview preparation
8	Bringing it all together and scaffolding next steps	To celebrate completing the programme; review individual personal goals and progression plans; and signpost the next steps

). The preferred group size was approximately 15 learners to enable the maximum level of personalised support and direct contact with the I-CAN delivery team. The first group of care-experienced young adults (N = 11) completed the programme in August 2024. Due to recruitment and timing constraints, the initial plan to run three groups was adjusted and the next round of recruits were combined into one group, with 22 participants completing the programme in February 2025.

Weekly taught sessions (theory and practical) took place in the same location (designed for small classes) on the university campus to offer a regular and familiar learning space. The majority of the teaching was delivered by one lecturer from the school of nursing for consistency (the same delivery agent ran the sessions jointly with a colleague for Cohort 2 due to increased numbers), and additional contributions came from guest healthcare/wellbeing practitioners. Participants understanding and engagement with the programme were formatively assessed on a rolling basis. If extra support was identified or requested (e.g., printed copies or additional 1-1 time), this was catered to on an individual basis. Enrichment activities included a site visit to a healthcare provider and careers talks from external practitioners. Ongoing support was available on request from the university wellbeing team. The I-CAN project manager and the project assistant provided one-to-one mentoring throughout the programme and each young person received individual support and attention.

The I-CAN programme is underpinned by a strengths-based approach, aligned with affirmative models (Gilligan, 2019; Zimmerman, 2013) and a positive psychology framework (Seligman et al., 2009). Delivery agents were trained in and implemented a trauma-informed pedagogy, acknowledging the importance of personal narratives (Hlungwani & van Breda, 2022) in an individual’s holistic learning experience. In addition to developing academic and practical skills, teaching and learning were focused on building confidence and fostering resilience to equip young people with progression-ready skills while simultaneously supporting their personal wellbeing during the programme.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

The study was qualitative and a focus group (FG) method was used for data collection. This design was selected in line with the research aims and the extant literature highlighting the need to prioritise the voices of care-experienced young people which international systematic review evidence has found lacking (McCafferty & Mercado Garcia, 2024).

I think it is so important for professionals to take time to listen to those with lived experiences. Everyone experiences things differently and things affect people in different ways. A better understanding of the young person you are working with builds trust, making it easier to work with someone (–young person with care experience).

(Barnardo’s, 2021)

Fundamental to individual agency and human wellbeing is one’s capability for ‘voice’ (Göbbels-Koch & Gupta, 2025). A focus group method offers a permissive, non-threatening research space and encourages in-depth discussion, generating rich insights into the perceptions, motivations and experiences of participants (Krueger & Casey, 2014). Each focus group was anticipated to be led primarily by participants and to centre on the issues most meaningful to them; their voices were prioritised throughout the research process. This methodological approach aligns broadly with a realist philosophy, deemed appropriate for evaluating pilot programmes (HM Treasury, 2025), with its focus on what works, for whom and why, and incorporates an action research stance (Dusty, 2024) by privileging the experiences shared by participants to better inform academic and public understanding and guide future practice.

2.2. Materials

Focus group moderators require skill and tenacity to ensure that all participants feel included and to foster meaningful exchange (Adler et al., 2019). To maintain the group discussion focused on the research topic, a question schedule was developed for guidance. This was flexible enough to pursue unanticipated, pertinent issues that arose during the discussion (Krueger & Casey, 2014). Questions were organised in key areas: expectations and motivations for joining the programme (For example, Why did you decide to join this programme?); barriers to participation (For example, Are there any barriers that young people with care experience face in regard to joining programmes like I-CAN?); perceptions and experience of the programme (For example, How would you describe the I-CAN programme to a friend or another young person?); the difference the project made (For example, Can you explain if you, personally, have gained any skills/opportunities/benefits since you completed the programme?); and recommendations for change (For example, If we conducted a programme like this again, what, if anything, should we change?).

2.3. Participants

Participants comprised N = 27 care-experienced young people who had completed the I-CAN programme (aged 18–30 years old; M = 22 years). A purposive sampling method had been used to recruit participants to the programme. All young people from Cohort 1 participated in FG1. Four young people from Cohort 2 were absent on the day FG2, FG3 and FG4 were facilitated, and two chose not to participate. In total, there were 8 males, 18 females, and one participant responded, “prefer not to say”.

2.4. Procedure

Full ethical approval was granted by the University of Roehampton ethics committee. The study was conducted in compliance with the guidance set out by the British Psychological Society (BPS Ethics Committee, 2021). Written consent for focus group data collection was requested from all I-CAN programme participants. Young people were informed that, if they declined, this would not preclude them from taking part in the programme. Data were gathered at the end of the 8-week programme for both cohorts. Each focus group took place in a quiet room located in the same building where participants had attended their weekly I-CAN sessions to ensure a familiar setting. 11 young people from C1 attended FG1. Cohort 2 were divided between three subsequent focus groups with five (FG2), six (FG3) and five (FG4) young people attending, respectively. The room was set-up with chairs in a circular arrangement to allow the moderator (Author 1) to sit among participants, creating a non-authoritarian research encounter and mitigating perceived power differentials (Scott-Barrett et al., 2023). All four focus groups were moderated by Author 1 who facilitated the discussion in a non-directive and unbiased way, seeking to promote natural conversation within the group. After welcoming the participants, the purpose of the focus was restated and ground rules were agreed in line with the study protocol. An ice-breaker activity was introduced prior to data collection to put participants at ease and establish the space as one in which sharing and listening were valued (Scott-Barrett et al., 2023).

The moderator regularly employed member checking to ensure that the respondents’ authentic views were accurately interpreted and recorded, thus preserving the contextual integrity of the data (Candela, 2019). Each focus group lasted approximately one hour and was audio recorded. Data were transcribed verbatim by Author 1 and formatted for thematic analysis.

2.5. Data Analysis

A hybrid thematic analysis (TA) (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) comprised a deductive component guided by the extant literature, primarily facilitators and barriers to care-experienced young people’s successful transition and progression in EET. In tandem, the inductive element gave emphasis to participants’ voices through open coding, ensuring that the issues most meaningful to young people were accentuated. A well-established analytical framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was adopted which involved a six-stage process (see

Table 2. The six-stage analytical process (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Stage	Process
1. Familiarisation	Transcripts were read multiple times and the audio recordings were reviewed in order for the researcher to become highly familiar with the content, initial notes were made
2. Generation of initial codes	Preliminary codes were inserted alongside excerpt examples and comprised both “in vivo” and descriptive codes
3. Search for candidate themes	Initial codes were actively combined or collapsed and organised into potential superordinate themes and subthemes
4. Review of candidate themes	A recursive review of all the potential themes in relation to the coded extracts and across the complete dataset was undertaken and cross-validated by Author 2, to ensure that participants’ voices were well represented and consistency was established; thus indicating that thematic saturation had been reached (Krueger & Casey, 2014)
5. Final labelling of themes	The essence of each theme was captured clearly and concisely during the final labelling process, with some minor adjustments made to the names
6. Producing the report	An analytic narrative and selected data extracts were combined for a coherent, logical, and traceable account of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

). It is broadly acknowledged that internal consistency of the data coding is strengthened if the researcher who undertakes the analysis also participates in all the focus groups (Adler et al., 2019). This was applied in the current study. To ensure optimal sensitivity to participants’ authentic accounts (Maher et al., 2018), a manual analysis of the data was undertaken.

3. Results

Analysis of the integrated focus group data yielded five superordinate themes and fourteen subthemes (see Figure 1). Pseudonyms have been used to maintain participants’ anonymity.

3.1. Theme 1: The I-CAN Learner

The first superordinate theme encapsulates the distinctive profile of the care-experienced young adults on the programme. ‘Expectations’ is one of three subthemes identified. Participants had begun the I-CAN programme with specific ideas of what they had hoped to achieve. For some, it was to take first steps towards working in the health sector, in line with the programme’s core focus: “My hopes were [gaining] entry routes and networking with healthcare professionals”(Star, C2, FG3). Others were looking for broader guidance and the wider benefits of attending I-CAN, such as exposure to a variety of potential future pathways, were recognised: “I didn’t have a set path, so I thought this would be a good way to explore [different options] without committing too much” (Jamie, C2, FG2).

Young people’s expectations were often linked to employability-oriented goals: “I joined to gain more experience and to find a job” (Ahmed, C2, FG4). Many young people saw the I-CAN programme as a valuable opportunity to access professional pathways, network and build relationships. This perception of the programme as a conduit to career progression and the corresponding importance placed on attending is closely linked to the second subtheme, ‘Commitment’. For example, one of the participants, Jasmine, expressed their determination to capitalise on the opportunity the I-CAN programme presented, with longer-term career prospects in mind: “I put something in place [childcare arrangements] so I could basically not miss out on the new [experience] ‘cos I knew it would be a good opportunity to definitely put my foot in [the healthcare sector]” (C1, FG1). Participants in Cohort 1 universally reported regularly attending classes because “we want to be here”. For Charlotte, commitment to the programme aligned with a personal sense of seeing things through, despite the obstacles:

There were certain days and I just kind of felt like I don’t want to let myself down, I need to see it through today. And so, if I start something, I always try and finish it. So, I just kind of felt, you know, I was getting here late on some days, and I just thought, nope, I don’t care what time I get here, I’m still coming because I’ve told myself I’m coming.

(C1, FG1)

Conversely, a minority of young people in Cohort 2 admitted less personal motivation for joining the programme: “I didn’t really have any expectations. It was my social worker [who suggested applying], and I was like, I might as well just see what it is. I didn’t really know anything about it before I came” (Rory, C2, FG4). Similarly, Rami’s account intimated a lack of personal agency in the decision-making around joining the programme which was something that they had felt compelled to comply with: “My key workers told me about this, and said that there’s an opportunity for you to meet new people, to learn some new skills. So that was their expectation, that was not my expectation” (C2, FG4).

The final subtheme, ‘Uniquely non-traditional’, captures some of the shared legacy of being a care-experienced learner and a non-traditional student, juxtaposed with individual and intersectional factors. This highlights the heterogeneity of participants. For example, for many young people, the notion of being a student and university life were not something that they had associated with their own prospects, while low expectations regarding post-compulsory educational options were voiced: “I was planning to finish school and then work” (Alison, C1, FG1). However, individual circumstances had prompted some participants to re-evaluate their learning potential and progression pathways. For example, in the case of Alison, this was attributed to the support and encouragement she received from a sibling. Alternatively, the reassurance of a secure pathway (and associated financial security) at the end of the programme was particularly important for Sarah. Reducing the risk of an uncertain future enabled Sarah to embrace further learning as a viable option: “When I started, I was really scared but when I found out that I was able [to progress to a healthcare course], I was really pleased, I’m so happy!” (Sarah, C1, FG1).

Young people’s personal narratives highlighted the multi-faceted transition experience of participants with common, intersectional, and individual factors all contributing to their uniquely non-traditional learner profile. In terms of adjusting back to an education setting, Star reflected on some of the challenges associated with the disrupted and unstable life history shared by many care-experienced young people:

I think it’s the background of care leavers; some may struggle with consistency or just being in a routine. Sometimes structure can be a bit challenging for some who may not have it. Let’s say if an individual is not exercising discipline, or they’re not routinely attending a job, or they don’t have exposure to it, I think even if they’re made aware of possibilities, it is kind of hard for them to even envision themselves being in a higher situation. Part of it’s to do with exposure, and another part is to do with just having a bit of a routine where you’re also able to see different things in life, like a different vision to usual.

(C2, FG2)

3.2. Theme 2: Barriers to Successful Transitions

This theme incorporates some of the significant obstacles that care-experienced young people encounter with transition to educational programmes such as I-CAN, often compounded by the absence of a familial safety net. The first subtheme, ‘Practical’ barriers, includes shared and individual challenges related to young people’s access and continuation on the programme. For example, a minority of participants had young children and arranging childcare to attend I-CAN sessions presented both a financial burden and a stressor. This illustrates the inter-relationship between practical and psychological factors impacting on young people’s transition experience. A major issue for many participants related to financial pressures and how to juggle existing work commitments with the demands of the programme: I worried about balancing the [I-CAN] work and then doing my job” (Jasmine, C1, FG1). This was an ongoing challenge for several I-CAN learners who were concurrently in part-time employment and held sole responsibility for their financial independence: “One of them [barriers] is around timing and [work] commitments” (Jack, C2, FG3).

Another practical barrier raised by a minority of young people was that not all participants were native English speakers:

I can say the language might be the biggest barrier because English isn’t my first language. When I came here, I was worried about, like, if I say something wrong, or if I don’t understand, what could I do? Like, how can I respond to questions? And then my confidence with that, maybe a lack of confidence.

(Diddy, C2, FG2)

Diddy’s reference to low learner confidence connects the practical challenge of comprehension for non-native speakers (i.e., with teaching sessions and materials in English) to another psychological obstacle; specifically, learners’ self-efficacy, which has inevitable repercussions on an individual’s engagement, performance and outcomes. Low confidence and lack of self-efficacy was not limited to the non-native English speakers on the programme: “I was a bit doubtful [of my ability], a bit lacking in confidence [in a learning space]” (Sissy, C1, FG1). Unaddressed, this type of negative self-assessment has the potential to deter young people’s recruitment to, and continuation on, learning programmes.

The subtheme, ‘Psychological’ barriers, is connected to the non-traditional student profile of care-experienced learners on the I-CAN programme. In particular, this related to young people’s perceptions of the physical learning space and student life and their own sense of belonging within this type of environment. Several participants expressed feeling like an outsider, while Jamie admitted to a self-imposed reluctance to connect with the wider student community:

It was mostly being in a uni. setting, because I hadn’t gotten past my GCSEs, so I felt quite distant from education and I didn’t know what it would be like being in an actual university. I just thought there’d be students everywhere, and I didn’t want to talk to them. So I think it’s like that overwhelming experience of thinking, isn’t it going to feel very academic.

(Jamie, C2, FG2)

Young people reported being unprepared for the transition back to education. Sunshine reflected on feeling apprehensive about the social environment, as well as the available support for her learning needs, which had led to some anxiety:

I was nervous about coming back [to education], because I would say I’m older than most people are here, and I was just really anxious about meeting new people and what that would be like. And I have ADHD too, and I wanted to know how that would work with this course and how the people here could support [me].

(Sunshine, C2, FG4)

Likewise, Rory (C2, FG4) expressed wariness about the social aspect of joining the programme and also voiced concerns around getting appropriate support based on previous experiences in education: “I mean, it’s a group full of care leavers. We’ve all got quite difficult pasts so there is going to be quite strong personalities and that can cause clashes. Also, when I was in school, I really struggled to focus because I’ve got quite bad ADHD, so I was worried that it was going to be a big struggle for me” (Rory, C2, FG4).

3.3. Theme 3: Facilitators (‘Core Ingredients’) for Successful Transitions

The next theme comprises the ‘core ingredients’ or facilitators associated with the I-CAN programme that contributed to participants’ positive transition experience to, through and beyond to their next pathway. Four inter-related subthemes were identified. ‘Learning environment’ refers to both the physical space and the social milieu. Notably, Cohort 1 participants unanimously described a relaxed and comfortable location and atmosphere. The small-sized group (11 young people) and high staff-student ratio helped to engender a sense of belonging to the new learning community: “I liked that we had those [discussions and reflections] at the end of each class because it makes me feel like, OK, everyone is learning together” (Richard, C1, FG1). Learning sessions were considered relevant and engaging which motivated learners to regularly attend and complete the programme: “It was very enjoyable, if there was anything [I didn’t like], I would probably not come back every single week” (Jasmine, C1, FG1). For the majority of Cohort 2, the learning environment was also very positively perceived: “It was like a nice separate space where we could go, and it didn’t feel too overwhelming” (Jamie, C2, FG2). Moreover, on reflection, attending a university campus, which had felt daunting for some participants, was in reality a completely unthreatening micro-community: “It just feels like I’m in some American movie or sitcom… If you live here, you know, it’s got launderettes, and it’s very much like a little mini community, in a good way” (Rory, C2, FG4).

Similarly, the group composition of Cohort 2 had engendered a comforting sense of unity, being among others with shared lived experience and pursuing a common goal: “It felt very reassuring to know there are more people with a similar experience, and we’re all trying to still achieve some type of career together” (Charlie, C2, FG2). Conversely, for others, the larger group composition (22 young people) was perceived negatively, and was thought to have hindered group cohesion and peer bonding: “If there’s not many people, I feel more comfortable to share my opinions, my ideas, but otherwise, I feel worried about are they gonna, like, judge me” (Robert, C2, FG2). Group size was also thought to be detrimental to the individual support available from I-CAN staff, contributing to wider tensions between individuals in the cohort:

I think having a large group wasn’t efficient because when it comes to one-to-one support, some people need a bit more than others, and I think that in a large group, it is quite hard to cater to individuals who do need a bit more support. I’d also say generally, there was a bit of clash of personalities.

(Star, C2, FG3)

I-CAN staff, ‘Delivery Agents’, emerged as key to participants’ experience of the programme, while the primacy of the teacher-learner relationship was repeatedly highlighted: “Thank you, [name of lead delivery agent (DA)] just for coming with your fatherly energy that we had every Wednesday” (Charlotte, C1, FG1) and “It was like a bit more like family, very friendly” (Diddy, C2, FG2). Some of the core personal skills associated with fostering these positive relationships included staff sensitivity to learners’ unique needs and embedding a personalised approach to every young person: “[name of DA] has been able to access what we think’s working, what’s not? It’s always, ‘What would you like to do?’ ‘What is helping you?’ ‘What can work best for you?’”(Charlotte, C1, FG1). The dedication and joined-up approach demonstrated by the I-CAN team created a caring and supportive culture that contributed to participants’ sense of feeling valued and included: “The whole team–just how everyone is in sync with each other–I think overall, if it didn’t work like that, I think it would show, and I feel everyone’s together” (Sissy, C1, FG1) and “The support that they have given us was so helpful. I remember asking for support to update my CV and they offered to do things like that and prepare us well to apply for jobs and things like that” (Stacey C2, FG2). However, a minority of young people in Cohort 2 felt that one-to-one support and their overall learning experience had been negatively affected by the size of their group: “If there’s a smaller group to focus on, I believe that they [DAs] can teach better. They can talk to every person, and there might be enough time to get everyone’s opinions, so it benefits the teaching and the learning” (Robert, C2, FG2).

‘Pedagogy’, incorporates the person-centred approach to delivering the I-CAN programme adopted by DAs. Teaching was non-didactic and an interactive, discursive, and reflective learning environment was actively encouraged:

So you can come into this place thinking that I want to be this thing, when, actually, when you learn about it and they’re offering you and showing you these things, you’re thinking, ‘Oh, maybe I want to change to this’.

(Jack, C2, FG3)

A broadly constructivist pedagogy helped to foster young people’s confidence, agency and independence: “Nothing was ever forced upon us. If you wanted to do this course, you had the option to do it, and if you didn’t, then we could just leave” (Charlotte, C1, FG1). Crucially, “It’s a programme that reassures care leavers that they can achieve their goal regardless of their background and [they] will be supported” (Jamie, C2, FG1).

The final ‘core ingredient’, ‘Content’, refers to the different elements of the taught programme including theory, practical skills, and experiential learning which combined to offer a relevant, engaging and valuable experience. Some participants had not anticipated the diverse curriculum which was positively received: “I didn’t expect as much practical work, and that was a good thing” (Callum, C1, FG1). However, for others, an even greater proportion of practical/experiential activities was desirable:

There could have been more simulation activities or something similar. I did enjoy the group work, but to be out of the classroom more would have been ideal. This is for everyone as well. We haven’t been in an academic setting for a long time, so it can be quite hard to concentrate, just being sat for a few hours looking at a screen, whereas, if you’re active, even just little things like practicing how to wash your hands properly, that could stimulate the mind more and keep the attention of everyone more focused.

(Jamie, C2, FG2)

The opportunity to visit potential employment settings was regarded as extremely beneficial: “Going to see the hospital and getting that first-hand experience [was my favorite part]” (Sky, C1, FG1). For some participants, these enrichment opportunities helped to affirm their career ideas: “I think that [hospital visit] helps give a real insight, and I know a lot of people fed back on how that helped shape their next steps” (Jamie, C2, FG2). For Alison:

I would say it gave me like the sense for what I wanted to do, talking to staff and just seeing, if this is the job I want to do. And when they [staff] described the job, yeah, I really liked that. It basically gave me, you know, like a sense of that’s what I’m going to be. So, not just the opportunity to see the place, but to speak to the people there when they’re actually doing the job as well.

(C1, FG1)

Listening to practitioners in the classroom talk about the day-to-day realities of their work was also highly valued: “I really liked the guest speakers, yeah, that helped really broaden our understanding beyond just like careers in nursing, so I think that was a key strength” (Robert, C2, FG2).

3.4. Theme 4: The I-CAN Graduate

This theme encapsulates the learning and personal development experiences of participants. The subtheme, ‘Knowledge and skills development’ is linked to the programme’s learning outcomes. For Rory (C2, FG4):

It’s done what it says on the tin. I mean, it’s opened doors for education or apprenticeships. So yeah, I feel more like open to the next step, like I didn’t really see myself ever considering further education, and now I’m applying [for HE] and this has helped me to build up, like a basic understanding, and hopefully get in, so we’ll see.

In addition, the acquisition of ‘softer’ skills was widely reported including organising, communication, and teamwork skills. For example, “I can [now] kind of plan around [things] and have structure [in my life]” (Charlotte, C1, FG1). According to Robert (C2, FG2):

Time management is very important, it’s basic, but having to consistently come in at this time, I haven’t had something [before] like this, a consistent commitment. So I think that’s really helped me more than it sounds like it, but now I’m far more punctual. So, yeah, it’s had a quite good ripple effect.

The relevance and application of these newly developed key skills to the workplace was reflected on:

Teamwork skills [I’ve gained] as well. You know, when you sit down and you all have to give your ideas [in the group work activities], because in a healthcare setting, you’re not just going to be by yourself doing your work, you’re going to share and discuss your ideas.

(Caroline, C2, FG3)

The wider social value of gaining key practical skills was also acknowledged, as Ramin noted:

We did the hospital stuff and that’s not gonna disappear anytime soon. Yeah, so learning how to give a bed wash is a good skill to have, I think, because it might not just be working in healthcare. You could say, look after someone in your family who is elderly and they need a bed wash, and they feel more comfortable with you doing it. So it’s useful to have.

(C2, FG4)

‘Personal development’ encompasses young people’s psychosocial growth and subjective wellbeing. As Charlotte (C1, FG1) reflected: “I think that in the timeframe we’ve done a lot and we’ve learned a lot. We’ve been able to identify a lot of things, even within ourselves.” Another participant admitted, “I wasn’t actually going to stay for the whole 8 weeks” (Sky, C1, FG1). Nonetheless, Sky overcame any doubts or difficulties, showing personal resilience by completing the programme. While Ahmed, (C2, FG4) commented on becoming more empathic and their ability to better self-regulate in social encounters:

A thing that I was worried about was, is it [the I-CAN programme] for everyone. And then I realised, yeah, it’s for everyone, even for those who don’t want to be in this [healthcare] field. Because it gives you more opportunities to meet new people and learn like respect and when to listen, and when to speak, and that’s a good thing.

The final subtheme, ‘Goal fulfilment’, relates to participants’ sense of individual success, facilitating positive next steps which several participants reported. For example, for Jasmine (C1, FG1): “Finding what opportunity is the best thing for me was what I was going to investigate, you know, and so now I feel like my goal was achieved.” For Charlie (C2, FG2), completing the I-CAN programme was illuminating, opening up previously unconsidered pathways: “I’ve gained an understanding of different roles I never thought I’d be interested in, [and never thought] that I would actually go and try to study at uni!”

Nonetheless, other participants conveyed mixed feelings:

The programme was helpful, but I still don’t have clarity. I have more understanding, but it didn’t get to, like, step off knowing what’s next specifically, and I’m not really sure, like, what happens. I just know this is the last week of the programme, and it’s like, okay, you’ve completed it, and I’ll go on and figure it out.

(Robert, C2, FG2)

For Star:

I think it’s a platform for us experiencing higher education which is not something I would have necessarily got into. It does have its strengths, it has its weaknesses, but I think it’s good to have that exposure.

(C2, FG3)

3.5. Theme 5: I-CAN Development: Learner Legacy

The final theme encapsulates the legacy of I-CAN ‘graduates’. The subtheme, ‘Messages to the next cohort’, offers advice for future recruits to the programme. Pertinently, participants from Cohort 1 were universally positive and encouraged other care-experienced young people to set aside any reservations and embrace the opportunities that the programme offers: “Just give it a try and see if you like it” (Sky, C1, FG1); “Take advantage of every opportunity they give you, there’s really no risk in joining. The more you come, the more you learn and the more you want to come back” (Charlotte, C1, FG1). Several participants from Cohort 2 concurred, highlighting the programme’s benefits and endorsing it for peers: “It’s a very good opportunity to understand the healthcare system, the kind of issues and situations we’re gonna face” (Robert, C2, FG2). For Jack, the embedded financial support gave the I-CAN programme its unique appeal: “I would recommend it because they [participants] also get paid while studying and there’s nowhere else where they get paid” (C2, FG3). Sunshine’s advice was pragmatic, while intimating some need for new recruits to be discerning: “My advice would be to enjoy the course and be resilient with it, it’s only eight weeks, it’s not a long time at all. Take what you can, what resonates, and leave the rest” (C2, FG4).

The final subtheme, ‘Adaptation and evolution’, incorporates participants’ suggestions for how to improve the I-CAN programme. Recommendations related to several aspects including recruitment strategies, programme structure and delivery, and improving the curriculum balance. Young people expressed a preference to extend the duration, potentially up to three months: “Although, it still works with less time” (Charlotte, C1, FG1). Alternatively, Rory (C2, FG4) thought a more concentrated schedule would be a welcome modification:

I would have preferred if the course was a bit longer. I feel like we didn’t really cover that much because it was so quick, only four hours once a week. I would prefer if it was maybe twice a week instead of once a week. And around eight weeks, but twice a week. We would cover a lot more that way, because it feels like there’s a big gap between [sessions].

Jamie (C2, FG3) also felt that the programme schedule could be made more convenient: “I’d also change it to longer days. When it takes, like an hour and a half or two or people to travel for four hours [of delivery] when it could have been full days.”

Unsurprisingly, limiting group size was suggested by some young people from Cohort 2:

I would have personally limited it [the group size] to maybe like 15, just because I think there’s something nice about being able to know everyone in the group and have a chance to get to know everyone. So I see it [the programme] still as a good thing, but I think for those interpersonal connections and group work, it would have been better smaller, and it did feel a bit overwhelming.

(Jason, C2, FG2)

The negative knock-on effect for some participants’ was expressed by Bailey (C2, FG3) in terms of reduced staff capacity to provide individual support, as well as reliance on unfamiliar technology to substitute in-person contact:

There needs to be more one to one. Staff could have been a bit more like, ‘If you would like to get more insight into this, maybe stay behind’, and then looking more in depth [with them]. Instead of, like, saying, ‘I will put this on the Padlett [virtual learning platform]’, because I don’t quite know how to use the Padlett.

Further repercussions were felt in terms of the group dynamic and negative behaviour patterns which had emerged, impacting on some participants’ overall learning experience: “[Group work] often ended up being just one or two people doing the work. I feel like it would have been better if we were in a smaller group to encourage more people to actually do the work” (Aryan, C2, FG4). Other undesirable effects were expressed such as a reduced sense of belonging and lack of mutual respect among some group members:

I think for the tutors and for the people who attend, it’s important when you go into something like this, you know that there are rules, expectations you must follow, or there are consequences. Even though we’re all adults, I think it’s very important that those things are still enforced, because if not it leads people to become too relaxed. I think for the tutors and for the people on the course, just to be mindful because everyone is going through something and people should be kind and respectful towards each other. Everyone is their own individual person with their own opinions, their own lives–just be mindful of that. And if people have different ideas, that’s fine, it’s not the end of the world and we’re not always going to agree but be civil.

(Sunshine, C2, FG3)

Minor changes to the balance of teaching modalities were also proposed. A popular suggestion was to dedicate more learning time to the practical and experiential components: “I feel like we’ve done more academic than actual practical [work]. So, if they could try more practical, like simulation activities or going outside [visits], that would improve the programme” (Jason, C2, FG2) and “To see other work environments, like different things we’ll be dealing with [in the real world], like at the hospital” (Jasmine, C1, FG1).

A final recommendation concerned greater clarity at the outset around the aims of the programme and the scope of potential progression routes available on completion:

I feel like the course is a bit misleading, because when I applied, I got told that it’s an opportunity to get a job and build your career. But now I’m being told that I have to study more, but the reason that I’m here is because I got told [by my PA] you don’t have no GCSEs, this is gonna get you a job. That’s how I got told it. It’s misleading, and for someone like us, care leavers, you know, some people, they don’t understand and they’re thinking, at the end of this, I’m going to get a job, but no, you still got to work for it. So I feel like they need to explain it a bit more.

(Caroline, C2, FG3)

Alongside this, greater general awareness and promotion of the I-CAN programme was needed: “I found this opportunity in a newsletter for an organisation that’s not very well known itself, and when I spoke to other care leavers, they had never heard about [I-CAN]” (Jamie, C2, FG2). Creating greater visibility and wider reach were advised: “I think all the personal advisors should have information and access to any type of course like this, and then they should let their young care leaver know” (Aryan, C2, FG3). As, “Ultimately, the programme is really good and I think it is something they should continue and I think they should reach out to more people, make everyone aware of it” (Sunshine, C2, FG4).

4. Discussion

A personal history of care experience has been identified as a key differentiating variable in education and labour market outcomes (Harrison et al., 2023). In the UK and internationally, care-experienced young people are substantially more likely to become NEET than their peers in the general population; while targeted information, advice and guidance remains significantly lacking (Foulkes et al., 2023). Additionally, transition to young adulthood and independent living is associated with multiple diminished life chances including greater risk of homelessness, mental ill health, and involvement with the criminal justice system. Clearly, effective interventions are needed to provide targeted post-18 support and facilitate successful transition to EET pathways for this vulnerable population. Nonetheless, any intervention should be well-designed to address the specific needs of care-experienced young people, recognising intersectionality and the uniqueness of individual learners. The aim of the current pilot study was to investigate the perceptions and experiences of recipients of the I-CAN programme to gain valuable insights according to its main beneficiaries. Study findings are discussed around the key themes that emerged to stay rooted in the authentic voices of participants, while the academic literature is drawn upon for relevant broader context and application.

4.1. Understanding the Unique Needs of a Heterogeneous Community of Care-Experienced Learners

Findings from the current study highlighted the heterogeneity of care-experienced young people and their unique needs which should be considered in the design and delivery of tailored programmes for marginalised youth. Several of the recruits had joined the I-CAN programme with specific ideas of what they had hoped to gain and expectations were often linked to employability-oriented goals (i.e., entry opportunities, networking and IAG). At the age of 18, care-experienced young people abruptly enter adulthood and acquire the incumbent responsibilities of independent living. By comparison, peers in the general population have the affordance of alternating between the safety net of their birth families and independence, with the average age of leaving the family home currently in the mid-twenties and rising (Office for National Statistics, 2024). Given the pressure on care-experienced young people to be self-sufficient, it is unsurprising that a major incentive for joining any programme is the reassurance of a guaranteed next step and financial security, as participants in the current study demonstrated. Moreover, related research by Foulkes et al. (2023) found that although many young people with care experience lacked definitive future career plans, they clearly expressed a wide variety of aspirations and hopes for their future. The authors concluded that barriers to EET were not primarily motivational, but rather linked to capability, opportunity and support. These factors were outside of young people’s control and required systemic solutions. In the UK, bursaries and grants are available to support continuing education and independent living; however, these measures have been criticised as inadequate compensation for young people who have no familial safety net (Fortune & Smith, 2021). Conversely, the I-CAN model was designed to be financially viable, offering a stipend, providing free lunch and refreshments and covering related expenses such as travel costs.

Several participants in the current study expressed anxiety around returning to a learning environment and had not imagined themselves in education beyond formal schooling. International evidence supports the universality of poor educational outcomes in this population (Bakketeig et al., 2020; Brännström et al., 2020; Collins et al., 2023). In England, in 2019, only 12 percent of care-experienced pupils achieved Grade 5 or above in their GCSEs compared to 43 percent of the general population (Ellis & Johnston, 2024). Pertinently, in qualitative studies with care-experienced young people, many reported being treated differently by their teachers (Who Cares? Scotland & Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, 2025; Mannay et al., 2017). Research by Foulkes et al. (2023) found that key professionals had insinuated to young people that they should have narrow expectations for their future because of their care experience history. While other authors, some with personal experience of the care system, have highlighted the prevalence of stigmatising narratives and negative stereotypes (Sprecher, 2024; Townsend et al., 2020). Stubborn misconceptions can exacerbate self-perceived stigma (Munford, 2022) and affect learners’ self-efficacy and sense of belonging to an education community (Young & Lilley, 2023).

Furthermore, some participants revealed concerns around having their additional needs met due to prior experiences of struggling to manage. A higher prevalence of SEND tendencies have been documented among this population (Department for Education, 2025). In particular, social, emotional, and mental health difficulties related to unique experiences of trauma (Meltzer et al., 2003; Department for Education, 2020). As Gough (2017) highlighted, early distress and poor mental wellbeing among care-experienced individuals is often overlooked in childhood. Research on the inter-relationship between lived experience of the care system and adversity has found mental health difficulties, stemming from childhood trauma and instability to be the root cause of other negative outcomes, including educational inequality, unemployment and social exclusion (Feather et al., 2023). A body of research has highlighted the need for professionals working with care-experienced young people to be trauma informed (Braden et al., 2017; NSPCC, 2019; Sanders, 2020).

Young people’s narratives in the current study exposed common challenges associated with a shared history of early trauma, stigma and an unstable childhood and adolescence. However, these personal accounts also revealed the saliency of individual factors including specific additional needs and the compounding influence of intersectionality on the multi-faceted transition experience of care-experienced young people. Clearly, a myriad of factors comprises care-experienced individuals uniquely non-traditional learner identity, and interventions targeted at this population require a person-centred, strengths-based approach focused on both learning outcomes and young people’s wellbeing.

4.2. Breaking Down Barriers and Facilitating Successful Transitions: Supporting NEET to EET

Participants identified several potential barriers that care-experienced young people face in joining programmes such as I-CAN. Clearly, financial concerns are not unique to care-experienced young people in relation to EET choices. Nonetheless, current findings and the extant literature indicate that they are particularly pertinent for this population. Security around progression routes was an important concern for young people with lived experienced of an accelerated transition to adulthood and the associated financial responsibilities of independent living (Atkinson & Hyde, 2019; Bakketeig et al., 2020; Stein, 2019). Some participants had child caring needs which presented added financial worry. While several others were juggling part-time employment with study demands. According to Foulkes et al. (2023), societal systems and structures are designed around the notion of a parental/familial safety net which care-experienced individuals typically lack. Moreover, as well as the impact on recruitment, there is a higher risk of drop out among this population compared to non-care-experienced peers (Ellis & Johnston, 2024).

The language barrier raised by non-native English speakers highlighted the importance of ensuring inclusive classroom practices which not only address accessibility (e.g., through adapted learning materials/bespoke support) but create equitable learning experiences for all participants. Pertinently, this practical impediment was also linked to learner confidence and self-efficacy, which are important factors for all learners, not just non-native English speakers. For care-experienced young people, previous negative experiences in education and persistent stigma can significantly hinder confidence, self-efficacy and learner readiness. Moreover, low self-efficacy and perceived lack of ‘fit’ to a learning community can be exacerbated without the type of security and encouragement a familial safety net provides (Fortune & Smith, 2021; Foulkes et al., 2023).

Self-efficacy refers to one’s self-perception of being capable to perform a task or learn something in a specific situation (Waddington, 2023). A learner’s perceptions of these affordances can help or hinder successful learning by influencing subsequent actions. Several participants in the current study reported lacking confidence and feeling anxious about returning to an education environment. Moreover, many had not envisaged themselves in a university setting and had not been exposed to a counter narrative that challenged their internalised sense of unbelonging. Crucially, a core component of successful intervention models involves demystifying the notion of what a university is and who it is for (Young & Lilley, 2023). Negative stereotypes and low expectations among professionals and care providers were identified as major obstacles for care-experienced high-achievers to overcome in Martin and Jackson’s (2002) study and sadly, appear to remain a reality for some young people currently navigating EET pathways.

A wide body of research supports the relationship between a young person’s sense of belonging to a learning community and positive outcomes, including academic success, good behaviour and attendance (Allen et al., 2021; Korpershoek et al., 2020), and healthy wellbeing (Brown et al., 2025; Cohman et al., 2024). However, due to placement breakdowns and disrupted education, a secure sense of belonging may not be familiar to many young people with a history of care (De La Fosse et al., 2023). Education transitions are known periods of elevated stress; however, approaches that prioritise relationship-building and encourage a sense of belonging (such as the I-CAN programme) enable learners to find relief from a structured routine and familiarity (MacDonald et al., 2025). Findings from the current study suggest, for the majority of participants, a social connection was felt, which some participants described as akin to familial support. Nonetheless, a minority of participants felt a lack of cohesion and bonding within their group. Clearly, care-experienced young people’s identities are structured by their unique histories, influencing their sense of otherness (Kenny, 2023).

Akin to ‘belongingness’, the concept of ‘mattering’ is associated with improvements in a learner’s self-efficacy and wellbeing. Flett (2022) described mattering as comprising three key characteristics: attention, being noticed by others; importance, the feeling of being a concern of others; and dependence or reliance, having trust in others. These components were manifest within the ‘core ingredients’ or facilitators contributing to the I-CAN programme’s perceived success. Participants’ positive experiences of the programme related to the learning environment, pedagogical practices, inter-personal relationships, and meaningful content. As noted, care-experienced individuals may have a common history of education disruption and lack a sense of belonging to previous learning communities (Young & Lilley, 2023). Therefore, providing both a comfortable physical space and a nurturing culture are fundamental. Negative prior experiences can inhibit the development of positive relationships with trusted adults (Home for Good, 2021) and wariness of engaging with professionals (McCrory & Viding, 2015).

Current findings revealed the primacy of the teacher-learner relationship as well as perceived extended support from the wider I-CAN team. This aligns with the broader literature highlighting the centrality of positive, trusted and safe relationships for the wellbeing and resilience of care-experienced young people (Eldridge et al., 2020). An understanding of trauma in personal histories, and the significant value of nurturing positive, professional, helpful relationships (Mantovani et al., 2020) were embedded in the design and delivery of the I-CAN programme. Feather et al. (2023) insisted that the potential influence of professionals including education staff, employers, and training facilitators is negligible when a young person feels insecure; thus, the relevance of understanding individual biographical narratives is imperative. Aligned with this personalised approach, EET provision should include a one-to-one component (as I-CAN does), ensuring that every young person feels prioritised (Foulkes et al., 2023).

Furthermore, a non-didactic, interactive and constructivist pedagogy helped to foster young people’s confidence and agency. Pertinently, youth empowerment has also been recognised as a central feature of effective interventions centred on EET (Nesmith & Christophersen, 2014). The I-CAN programme ethos shifts away from a deficit model focussed on young people’s problems towards an affirmative framework that builds on individual strengths. Such an approach tackles psychological barriers such as low self-efficacy and can help to boost subjective wellbeing, which has been identified as lower among care-experienced individuals compared to the general population (Coram Voice, 2019; Sanders, 2020). Current findings tentatively supported individual gains in relation to personal development and wellbeing. For example, young people expressed improved confidence, self-regulation, and personal resilience–key factors that support programme continuation and completion.

4.3. Embedding Action Research in Programme, Design, Development and Evaluation

The importance of including young people’s voices when designing or evaluating programmes or services targeted at them is increasingly recognised. This includes those from marginalised groups (Mannay et al., 2019; Pinkney & Walker, 2020), helping to ensure that vulnerable beneficiaries’ needs are adequately and meaningfully considered. Current study findings suggested that the I-CAN programme had met the majority of young people’s expectations and provided participants with skills to proceed to the next step (EET) personally appropriate for them. Overall, the curriculum was popular with participants. However, some young people suggested a greater proportion of practical and experiential learning components in future iterations. Another recommendation was to implement a more suitable delivery schedule to accommodate young people’s work and other commitments. Beyond academic learning, the acquisition of softer skills was widely reported by participants such as organising, communication and team work skills which are pivotal to health worker roles, but also relevant across multiple professions and different sectors.

Nonetheless, some dissent was voiced among a minority of participants from Cohort 2. Specifically, in terms of the larger group composition which had contributed to reduced capacity for one-to-one engagement with staff, low level disruption, and perceived poor group cohesion. A key aspect of a positive learning experience was identified as a high staff-student ratio. Thus, ensuring that each learner received focused attention and support for their unique needs (Foulkes et al., 2023). Embedding a one-to-one component in EET provision, so that every young person feels prioritised, has practical implications for the maximum size of groups and raises capacity issues concerning desirable staff to student ratios. Nonetheless, current findings suggest that student numbers in Cohort 1 were appropriate to elicit universal benefits, whereas in Cohort 2 numbers exceeded this threshold, thus indicating that the maximum size of future groups should be limited. In addition, setting clear, agreed ground rules at the outset as part of induction can reduce the risk of negative behaviours (e.g., poor time keeping and low-level disruptions) and reinforces group cohesion. Embedding a system of onboarding as a broader approach to induction enables rolling check-ins and opportunities for mutual feedback which helps to instil clarity and confidence among learners and delivery agents and mitigates against confusion, stress and disengagement from the group. Aligned to these processes is the creation of a student charter which consolidates mutual expectations and helps to improve the quality of the student experience for all learners (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011), encouraging group harmony and a sense of belongingness and mattering within the learning community (Flett, 2022).

A minority of participants felt that they had been misinformed by their key worker/s about the I-CAN programme, and/or compelled by them to join. This starkly underlines the need for clear and consistent communication between all stakeholders including third party agencies with a remit for referrals. Unquestionably, all young people must be able to make an informed decision about their participation in the programme. Wider evidence suggests that prolonged lack of agency and subjugation to the decision-making of others can generate perceived abuse of trust which, in turn, creates wariness of engaging with professionals. The need for young people to exercise control over their own lives, including educational/career choices, is broadly acknowledged in the literature (Ott & O’Higgins, 2019; Mannay et al., 2019). While encouragement from key adults can promote positive actions, professionals must build relationships with young people based on trust, understanding, and mutual respect (Arnau-Sabates & Gilligan, 2020). Autonomy and control in decision-making is paramount for care-experienced young people, typically for whom significant aspects of their lives have been dictated by others (National Youth Advocacy Service, 2019). Applying a better understanding of this to future I-CAN recruitment and induction strategies is warranted.

Finally, participants agreed that information about the programme needed to be much more widely distributed. They suggested recruiting specific charities directly involved with care-experienced young people, as well as more extensive engagement with local authorities. Alongside this, participants acknowledged that personal recommendations from peers with care experience would be a valuable approach, extending reach to those individuals who do not typically engage with professional services (and may be in greatest need of EET support). Admittedly, this was a subgroup that was underrepresented among the extant cohorts. Future recruitment strategies would benefit from more informal, peer-to-peer approaches involving self-nominated I-CAN programme ‘champions’. Peer-to-peer communication is increasingly recognised as an effective method for conveying health (and other) promotional messages among youth populations (Malikhao, 2020).

5. Conclusions

5.1. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

A key strength was the design and methodology which prioritised the voices of I-CAN programme recipients who are uniquely positioned to inform and shape its development. Member checking (Candela, 2019) was utilised to ensure that the perceptions and experiences recorded reflected the authentic voices of participants, while thematic categories were cross-validated by the second author for rigor. Gaining insight into the perspectives and preferences of those directly impacted by an intervention is crucial for understanding what makes a successful programme (Kesherim, 2023). Such insights can determine the extent to which an intervention is considered meaningful, acceptable, and relevant (i.e., socially valid), as well as identifying factors that might enhance participation and intended outcomes (Leif et al., 2024). Empowering care-experienced young people to inform and shape the design and delivery of programmes helps to ensure that educators meet the actual, and not the assumed needs, of students and that funding is directed to the most effective and meaningful interventions (Bayfield, 2023).

Nonetheless, current study limitations and the benefits of other research approaches are acknowledged. Participant recruitment was largely restricted to care-experienced young people who continued to engage with services which meant harder to reach and potentially more vulnerable individuals were not represented, and this could have biased the findings. In contrast, quantitative designs offer objective data collection techniques that can be applied to large sample populations and create more generalisable conclusions which can be further tested. However, given the limited numbers of young people who had completed the I-CAN programme and the exploratory nature of the inquiry, this was not deemed appropriate. Furthermore, it was not the intention of this pilot study to provide generalisable findings, but rather to tentatively establish the potential value of a new intervention (Hallingberg et al., 2018). That said, future evaluation studies with larger sample sizes should implement mixed-method designs that draw on the strengths of qualitative and quantitative approaches, while mitigating the main limitations of a single methodology. Thus, enabling both intervention effectiveness and process issues to be robustly investigated. Certainly, complementary approaches would enable care-experienced young people to have a stronger voice, facilitating different avenues of investigation that offer both breadth and depth to enrich our existing understanding.

5.2. Significance of the Findings and Future Directions

This study has highlighted the multiple and complex challenges that care-experienced young people encounter including being left to support themselves independently on ageing out of the care system at age 18. This often necessitates having to limit time spent in post-formal education or drop out completely in the absence of a familial safety net. Troublingly, the majority of interventions designed to support young people’s transition out of the care system have an inconclusive impact on their long-term needs, while systemic barriers perennially set them up to fail (Alderson et al., 2023). There is certainly a strong case to support MacAlister’s (2022) recommendation for ‘care-experienced’ to be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Evidently, transition to adulthood for care-experienced young people could be better supported through targeted interventions for EET. To date there has been limited research on the perceptions of care-experienced young people in terms of the key barriers and facilitators of targeted interventions designed to support their progression, which this study addressed. Findings support the social validity—overall satisfaction with the goals, procedures, and outcomes (Luiselli, 2021)—of the I-CAN programme, which offers an accessible pathway for care-experienced young adults to re-connect with learning and training by providing a financial safety net and implementing a strengths-based and trauma-informed pedagogy. Crucially, this encompasses nurturing participants’ psychosocial strengths alongside imparting academic knowledge and practical skills, so young people can envisage themselves as a ‘good fit’ across the whole spectrum of potential EET pathways, including university. Insights gained from this research will help to ensure that youth programmes are meaningfully designed for optimal outcomes, recognising the heterogeneity and intersectionality of young people’s lives. Children’s care histories are complex and unique and future work must place personal narratives at the heart of supporting those with lived experience of the care system through their educational and employment trajectories and across the life course. This includes genuine co-production with care-experienced young people in the design, development and evaluation of interventions targeted at them such as the I-CAN programme.