**1. Introduction**

During the past century, economic and social changes have brought about a global delay in young people's process of emancipation, making their entry into adult roles more gradual and non-linear [1]. Arnett [2] described the late teens and early twenties as a developmental period of emerging adulthood, characterized by changes and explorations in education, work, and love, and restricted to cultures of highly industrialized societies that postpone the acquisition of responsibilities until the late twenties. Nevertheless, he recognized that the increasing globalization of the world economy opened the possibility that emerging adulthood could become a normative period for young people worldwide, allowing the prolongation of exploration and freedom even in developing countries [2]. Indeed, within the last century, economic, social and cultural globalization has transformed the experiences and conceptions of transition to adulthood also among young people from non-Western cultures [3]. Mitchell [4] referred to the period during the twenties and into the thirties as the boomerang age, an anteroom of full adulthood in which people alternated periods of leaving and returning to the family home. In Europe, it has been estimated that around 50% of young people aged 18 to 34 live with their parents and 29.5 has been calculated to be the average age at which Spanish youth "fly the nest" (EUROSTAT, 2019). This emancipation process is even more challenging for young people who have lived under child care intervention until the majority of age, a time when guardianship concludes and they are suddenly forced to embark on a path towards independence. Transition to adulthood has been traditionally defined as the assumption of new roles and

**Citation:** Gullo, F.; García-Alba, L.; Bravo, A.; del Valle, J.F. Crossing Countries and Crossing Ages: The Difficult Transition to Adulthood of Unaccompanied Migrant Care Leavers. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2021**, *18*, 6935. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136935

Academic Editors: Lillian Mwanri, Hailay Gesesew, Nelsensius Klau Fauk and William Mude

Received: 13 May 2021 Accepted: 23 June 2021 Published: 28 June 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

tasks related to the acquisition of autonomy and social integration, that culminates in the achievement of education, training, work, mature relationships, financial and housing independence [5]. Care leavers find themselves having to face this process many years earlier than their non-care experienced peers in Spain. The accelerated and compressed transition to adult life, with fewer resources and support, exposes them to high risk of social exclusion [6] and poorer outcomes, in terms of limited education, unemployment or worse working conditions, housing instability, poverty, mental health issues, substance abuse, problems with the law, early parenting, limited social support, and dependence on social assistance [5,7–10]. In fact, care leavers have been identified as one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society [11]. This situation can be even worse for specific subpopulations of this group, such as unaccompanied young migrants who arrived in a foreign country as minors, without the protection of a family member or an adult responsible for them (Council of Europe, 1977). In Spain, the term used to refer to this group is "unaccompanied foreign minors" instead of "unaccompanied asylum-seeking children", since they have not needed to seek asylum to be protected. Their guardianship is assumed by the regional authority, which, in accordance with national law, has the same obligation to protect them as if they were native minor. Consequently, we will use the term "unaccompanied young migrants" (UYM) to refer to this group of care leavers.

The arrival of these young people has increased progressively in the last two decades in many countries and Spain has typically been one of the main gateways to Europe for them. Those who arrive do not usually flee from countries in conflict where their security is in danger, but rather from countries with a worse socioeconomic situation, mostly Morocco [12]. They arrive with an economic migratory objective, wanting to get a job and achieve a better life [12], also influenced by the European myth, and the consequent belief of being able to achieve their dreams quickly and successfully [13]. The magnitude of this phenomenon cannot be precisely quantified, due to the different methods and criteria used to collect data, inconsistencies in the data provided by different sources, and the fact that some young migrants have yet to enter into childcare, but have remained on the streets or have been recruited by criminal and mafia networks [14,15]. In Spain, the migratory phenomenon has grown since the late 1990s, directly impacting the child services and putting enormous pressure on existing resources [12]. Residential care has been the most frequently used intervention (99% in 2019) for UYM in our country [16]. According to the latest data, in 2019 there were 11.380 UYMs referred to residential child care, which represent 49% of young people in this out-of-home measure, with a 19% increase compared to 2018 [16]. Moreover, addressing their special needs has been challenging for child care services, as they are typically adolescents close to majority age, requiring swift preparation for transition to adulthood, if they are to be socially and occupationally integrated [17]. Such transitions have been especially complicated for unaccompanied migrant care leavers who have found themselves in a foreign country whose language and customs they do not know [17]. They enter this process with even scarcer resources than other care leavers, in terms of home, job, training, money, support [18], often with no protection and in an irregular situation overnight [19], carrying out the care-leaving process in a transnational space [20] in which both "there and here" have relevance [21]. Their particular condition entails increased vulnerability, inasmuch as they suffered four elements of vulnerability: they were in care, adolescents, unaccompanied, and migrants and they found themselves in an ambiguous legal situation, since their stay in the country depends on different laws. They should enjoy the rights recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1991), the Spanish constitution, and the national laws for the protection of minors, but as migrants, they are also subject to immigration law, which implies constant instability and uncertainty. Until legal age, their condition as being underaged prevails. However, when they reach the majority age, they can lose the protection of the authorities and be considered adult migrants, with all the incumbent consequences if they have not managed to legalize their immigrant status before then [13]. In this case, the transition into adulthood is accompanied by the transition into illegality [22]. To aggravate the situation

further, local authorities answer very differently to the needs of this vulnerable group, affecting their preparation for independent life [23] and future integration into the host society [24], and the scarcity of leaving care support services complicates their possibilities of accessing such services, leaving them alone in this process [25].

In the last several decades, there has been growing interest in international research dedicated to care leavers, but the transition into adulthood of a subgroup as unique as UYM has remained largely unexplored, particularly at a national level. Some studies have focused on specific aspects of UYMs' adaptation to their new life situation, such as their mental health or well-being [13], educational level [26] or employability [27], but there has been a paucity of holistic approaches. Furthermore, studies regarding UYMs in child care have increased [28], but studies that examine their transition to adulthood are rare [23].

Therefore, the first purpose of this paper was to study the characteristics of UYM care leavers with respect to several aspects having to do with their pre-care and in-care experiences. The second purpose was to explore their after-care situations and needs in relevant areas of social integration, such as education and training, jobs, accommodations, income, health, and support networks. Finally, in every analysis carried out, the differences between UYMs and the rest of care leavers were taken into account, with the hypothesis that outcomes would be worse for the former in many of the areas assessed. Findings will provide evidence about the specific characteristics of UYMs compared to their careexperienced peers without a migration background, highlighting their different profiles, strengths and weaknesses.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Sample*

Participants were care leavers from different Spanish regions (Catalonia, Basque Country, Cantabria, Madrid, Castile-Leon, Castile-La Mancha, and Galicia) who remained connected to aftercare services for transition into adulthood. The sample was composed of 141 males aged 18–25 (*M* = 19.17, *SD* = 1.45) and divided into two groups: 68 unaccompanied young migrant (UYM) and a comparison group (CG) consisting of other care leavers from Spanish families or with a family history of immigration (*n* = 73). Most of the UYMs were 18 (54%) or 19 (29%) years old, with only 16% aged 20 years or older, while in the CG, they were better distributed among the different ages (30%, 32%, and 38%, respectively). Nevertheless, the UYMs average age (18.97, *SD* = 1.61) was not significantly different from that of the CG (19.36, *SD* = 1.26; [*t* (139) = 1.59, *p* = 0.115]). The reason for having only male participants was due to the lack of female UYMs in care. According to the latest data, they represent a mere 6.8% of UYMs in our child care services [14], making it difficult to find female UYM participants.

The UYMs were mostly from North Africa (72%) (notably Morocco and a few from Algeria), Sub-Saharan Africa (25%) (from countries like Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, and Nigeria), and 3% from Asia. In contrast, the young people from immigrant families in the CG group were mostly from Latin America (57%) or Africa (38%, especially Sub-Saharan), and 5% from Eastern Europe.

#### *2.2. Instruments*

Data collection was performed using a qualitative, semi-structured interview created specifically for this research to gather relevant information about the participants' profile and their current and past situations. In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, such as age and country of origin, the following areas were explored: (a) previous experiences in child care, including time spent in care, placement changes, and victimization; (b) health and risk behaviors, such as health problems, intellectual disability, mental health treatment, substance use, suicidal behavior, delinquency, and unexpected pregnancy by a partner; (c) current education, work, economic, and accommodation status; (d) social support network, especially from family, friends, partners, and reference adults, and (e) aftercare services received in different areas.

#### *2.3. Procedure*

In order to have a global vision of the services available in the national territory, data were collected in different regions which have been chosen for having transition services that work with a considerable number of young people and that are among the best developed and with the longest experience in the country. Prior authorization for the study was obtained from the child care authorities in each region. Then, the respective aftercare support agencies were informed about the study objectives and methods. A convenience sampling method was used to select participants; the teams that work with care leavers in each Autonomous Community contacted the participants to propose that they participate in this research. After having explained what their participation would consist of, the objectives of the study, voluntary nature, and confidentiality of the interview, participants signed an informed consent document to formally agree to participate and to be interviewed. The team of researchers with expertise in interviewing professionals, children, and young people, traveled to the different regions to conduct a face-to-face interview lasting between 40 and 60 min wherever it was most convenient for care leavers. The interviews were audio-recorded with the express consent of the participants.

The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical criteria of the Helsinki Declaration and the national legislation regarding personal data protection and was approved by the Research Ethical Committee of the University of Oviedo.

#### *2.4. Data Analysis*

Descriptive statistics for sociodemographic characteristics and bivariate analyses for differences between the UYM and CG were carried out using Chi-square for categorical variables and Student's *t*-test for continuous variables. Cramer's V and Cohen's d were used to calculate effect size and the level of significance was established as *p* ≤ 0.05. The Statistical Package for Social Science IBM SPSS Statistics [29] was used to analyze data.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Victimization and Child Care Background*

According to the interview, the UYM group had significantly lower percentages in all types of maltreatment, with physical neglect the most common (28%), while emotional neglect and abuse, and physical abuse were the most common types for the CG. Significant differences were also detected for suffering multiple forms of maltreatment (UYM: 16.7%; CG: 74.2%) (Table 1).

**Table 1.** Victimization and Child Care Background. Differences between groups.


*Note*. CG = Comparison Group; UYM = Unaccompanied Young Migrants; χ <sup>2</sup> = Chi-Square values; *p* = exact *p* values. <sup>a</sup> More than one category is possible.

As for their experiences in child care, the reason for admission was different for each group. In the case of the UYMs, admission was due exclusively to the fact that they were unaccompanied minors, while the causes were more diverse for young people in the CG, most of whom entered care due to neglect and/or abuse (81%), abandonment (8%), lack of parental control (8%), and filio-parental violence (3%). Significant differences were also revealed with respect to the time spent in out-of-home placement. UYMs entered child care at an older age (*M* = 15.90, *SD* = 1.65) than the CG (*M* = 10.17, *SD* = 5.29) [*t* (85.68) = −8.74., *p* ≤ 0.001]. In particular, 79% of UYMs entered at the ages of 16 or 17, while most of the CG (43%) were between zero and ten years and 38% were between 11 and 15 years of age. Another significant difference has to do with the duration of stay. Almost all the UYMs (91%) left child care within three years, after an average stay of 2 years (*M* = 2.10, *SD* = 1.65), whereas the CG had significantly longer stays (*M* = 7.83, *SD* = 5.29) [*t* (85.68) = 8.74., *p* ≤ 0.001].

## *3.2. Health and Risk Behaviors*

Differences were significant in terms of participants' current physical health status, as only one UYM had a serious health problem versus 22% of CG (Table 2). Chronic, physical illnesses, such as asthma, were the most common. Similarly, there were significant intergroup differences concerning intellectual disability as it was only present in the CG (8%). Very few UYMs had received any mental health treatment in the past (6%) and even fewer continued to receive it (4%). The CG were significantly more referred to treatment, both in the past (74%) and at the time of interview (33%). Suicide attempts emerged as an extremely serious problem and was reported by 7.7% in the CG and by 1.5% of the UYMs (statistically non-significant due to the relatively low frequencies), as well as suicidal ideation, that reached significant intergroup differences, with UYMs exhibiting a lower incidence (UYM: 3%; CG: 17%). Significant differences were likewise detected with respect to other risk behaviors: UYM reported less substance use (9%), with cannabis the most common, and they had fewer problems with the law (8%) than the CG (66%) for delinquent activity consisting of robberies or fights. Finally, the prevalence of unplanned pregnancy by a partner was fairly similar in both groups, without significant differences.


**Table 2.** Health and Risk Behavior. Differences between groups.

*Note*. CG = Comparison Group; UYM = Unaccompanied Young Migrants; χ <sup>2</sup> = Chi-Square values; *p* = exact *p* values.

#### *3.3. Situation of Young People in Their Transition to Adulthood*

The current educational and occupational situation was similar across groups (Table 3), with continuing studies and training being the most frequent (UYM: 62%; CG: 45%). Approximately 16% of both groups were only working, and some were combining both studies and work (UYM: 9%; CG: 25%). Despite failing to reach statistical significance, it seems that UYM have more problems combining both activities. Finally, some 13% in both groups were neither studying nor working.


**Table 3.** Situation of Care Leavers. Differences between groups.

*Note*. CG = Comparison Group; UYM = Unaccompanied Young Migrants; χ <sup>2</sup> = Chi-Square values; *p* = exact *p* values.

> If we break the numbers down by type of studies or training, most UYMs attended some basic vocational training (65%), focused on gaining rapid employment either in the technical (mechanic, gardening, etc.) or hospitality field (restaurants, bars, etc.) and few had any form of intermediate vocational training or were finishing high school (25%). In contrast, the young people in the CG had more intermediate and advanced vocational training in several areas and 14% of them were studying at the university, which did not happen with any of the UYMs. Moreover, most of the CG (82.4%) wanted to continue studying, a percentage that was almost halved among UYMs (54%), with significant differences between groups (χ <sup>2</sup> = 9.377, *p* = 0.002). However, more than one third (38.2%) thought that they would have serious obstacles to continue studies, given that they needed to work and earn money.

On the other hand, among those who stopped studying, basic vocational training was the most commonly achieved level among UYMs (47%; CG: 15%), while intermediate vocational training was the most common among young people in the CG (35%; UYM: 12%) and many of the young people in both groups had only obligatory or secondary studies (CG: 50%; UYM: 41%), with no significant differences between them. Furthermore, most of both groups, especially the CG (86%; UYM: 75%) wanted to resume their studies in the future, although the differences were not statistically significant. In any case, more than half of both groups thought it would be difficult, given their need to work and earn money.

With respect to work, significant differences were detected (χ <sup>2</sup> = 4.104, *p* = 0.043) in the sense that employment rates were higher for the CG (41%) versus UYM (25%), regardless of whether they were only working or combining work and study. Employment in both groups was predominantly in the technical and hospitality fields, often with part-time (67%) or temporary contracts (64%), with a salary that did not reach EUR 500 for 40% of the participants, revealing no significant intergroup differences in these aspects. However, significant differences did emerge with respect to the jobs they aspired to attain in the future (χ <sup>2</sup> = 17.414, *p* = 0.002). Both were oriented especially toward jobs in hospitality (UYM: 39%; CG: 32%) albeit there were also more UYMs who were pursuing technical employment (UYM: 28%; CG: 14%) or who stated that they had no preference (UYM: 23%; CG: 14%). Meanwhile, young people in the CG were more focused on jobs in health and socio-psychological fields (CG: 22%; UYM: 5%) or other categories (CG: 19%; UYM: 6%) such as security or computing.

Differences were also significant with respect to both the type and amount of income. UYMs more frequently received pocket money from their residential facility (60%; CG: 14%), while youth in the CG received aftercare financial assistance to a greater extent (47%; UYM: 12%). This was reflected in their income level in that the UYMs had less income each month. Consequently, significant differences were likewise detected in their ability to save money, with UYMs having less savings.

With respect to housing, the difference failed to reach statistical significance: both groups largely lived in apartments offered by aftercare agencies for care leavers, more so in the case of UYMs (56%; CG: 38%) or in extended care. Moreover, young people in the CG more often started living on their own in a rented apartment (26%; UYM 13%).

Regardless of these differences, most young people enjoyed stable placement after leaving care, as reflected by no changes (66%) or between one and two (23%) placement changes, while 11% had three or more changes, without significant differences between the two groups.

#### *3.4. Social Support Network*

Significant differences were found in many aspects related to the participants' social support networks (Table 4). Concerning family, nearly all the UYMs had contact with their parents (95%) versus 69% of the CG, similar to their responses when asked about their siblings. Furthermore, most of the participants rated their relationship with their family as being positive, especially the UYMs. Nevertheless, little more than half considered their family to be a source of support, with no significant differences between groups. Regarding other sources of support, many care leavers (85%) mentioned friends, but a significantly larger proportion of youth in the CG stated that they could count on this kind of support. As for having an adult of reference to rely on in cases of need, the differences between groups were significant. UYMs primarily referred to social educators (aftercare or child care staff) as a reference figure (83%), while young people in the CG mentioned educators (45%), but also other figures, such as relatives (22%), acquaintances (21%), and in last place, their parents (12%). UYMs never mentioned their parents in this regard.


**Table 4.** Support Network. Differences between groups.

*Note*. CG = Comparison Group; UYM = Unaccompanied Young Migrants; χ <sup>2</sup> = Chi-Square values; *p* = exact *p* values.
