Navigating Independence: Solution-Focused Coaching with Young People Leaving Care

Abstract

This qualitative study explores how 12 care-experienced young people aged 18 to 21 perceive Solution-Focused Coaching during their transition from residential care. Thematic analysis of the findings indicates that participants valued the strengths-based approach and reported improvements in goal setting, self-efficacy, and resilience. However, personal gains were consistently constrained by structural barriers, including housing insecurity, financial instability, and limited employment opportunities. The results emphasized that, while coaching is therapeutically valuable, it alone cannot address systemic inequalities. This underscores the urgent need for integrated intervention models that combine strengths-based coaching with comprehensive structural support.

Introduction

Young people leaving residential care in the United Kingdom face a markedly compressed transition to adulthood. While most young people benefit from a gradual, family-supported path to independence, care leavers typically navigate this shift alone at age 18 (Stein & Munro, 2018). Outcomes remain consistently poor: only 41% are in education, employment, or training at age 19, compared with 91% of their peers, and 26% experience homelessness within 2 years of leaving care (Department for Education, 2022).

Progressive legislation, including the Children Act 1989, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, and the Children and Social Work Act 2017, has extended corporate parenting responsibilities to age 25 (HM Government, 2017). However, the Care Review (2022) identified significant implementation gaps, describing a postcode lottery in which outcomes depend heavily on local authority provision, a phenomenon Munro and Gilligan (2013) term “institutional fragmentation.”

Strengths-based interventions in residential care settings remain under-researched. Solution-Focused Coaching, a nonclinical adaptation of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, emphasizes individual strengths, future possibilities, and goal achievement through collaborative dialogue (Grant, 2013; O’Connell et al., 2012). Despite its promise, empirical evidence on Solution-Focused Coaching for care-experienced populations is limited (Thompson & Bale, 2023).

This study addresses that gap by examining how care-experienced young people aged 18 to 21 in residential care perceive and experience Solution-Focused Coaching during their transition to independent living.

The literature review is organized around three interconnected areas: (1) structural and systemic contexts of care and of leaving care; (2) key outcome domains—mental health, housing, and employment; and (3) Solution-Focused Coaching as a therapeutic, strengths-based intervention. Sections on methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusions follow.

Literature Review

Structural and Systemic Contexts of Care and Leaving Care

Care leaver outcomes cannot be understood without examining the macro-level systems that shape them. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological systems theory, Bourdieu's (1986) concept of capital, and Foucault's (1982) analysis of institutional power, this section argues that poor outcomes are structurally produced rather than individually determined.

The Children Act 1989 introduced “corporate parenting,” assigning local authorities the responsibility for children's welfare (Department of Health, 1989). Subsequent legislation extended support to age 21 (Children [Leaving Care] Act, 2000) and then to 25, introducing Personal Advisers (Children and Social Work Act, 2017). The Children and Social Care Act 2023 reaffirmed commitments to placement stability and corporate parenting standards. Despite this legislative progression, implementation remains inconsistent. Sebba et al. (2015) documented employment rates ranging from 30% to 65% across local authorities; the National Audit Office (2023) confirmed that many still fail to meet minimum standards.

Placement instability compounds these failures. The House of Commons Education Committee (2021) found that 40% of care-experienced young people had experienced three or more placements, a pattern linked to “relational poverty,” defined as the absence of stable, trusting relationships. Dixon et al. (2019) reported an average of 4.2 placement changes before age 18. Goffman's (1961) concept of the “total institution” and Smith and Freyd's (2014) concept of institutional betrayal illuminate how systemic inconsistency causes lasting psychological harm.

Post-2010 austerity intensified these challenges. Budget cuts of up to 70% in some local authorities severely constrained children's services (Webb & Bywaters, 2018), reflecting what Featherstone et al. (2018) describe as a “crisis of social reproduction.” Bywaters et al. (2016) argue that outcomes for care-experienced young people are inseparable from broader inequalities of poverty, racism, and social exclusion—underscoring that systemic reform, not individual intervention alone, is required.

Key Outcome Domains: Mental Health, Housing, and Employment

Empirical evidence across three domains reveals the scale and systemic nature of the disadvantages faced by care leavers, while challenging deficit-based framings that place responsibility on individuals rather than on structures.

Mental Health

Mental health outcomes for care leavers are substantially worse than those of the general population. Ford et al. (2007) found that 59% of older care leavers reported a current mental illness, and over 70% had previously received treatment. Rates of suicidal ideation (65%) and attempts (39%) are alarmingly high (Kessler et al., 2008). Gypen et al.'s (2017) longitudinal research confirms that these difficulties persist across the life course.

Housing

Despite comprising a small proportion of the population, care leavers account for 25% of the homeless adult population (Centrepoint, 2020). Fowler et al. (2009) document strong intersections between homelessness, mental illness, and substance use among this group, with these issues compounded by gaps in systemic service provision. Housing First models (Tsemberis, 2010) offer a structural alternative by prioritizing unconditional access to housing as a precondition for wellbeing.

Employment

Employment prospects remain poor: 40% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment, or training (NEET), compared with 13% of their peers (Catch22, 2022; Department for Education, 2023). Sebba et al. (2015) reported that care leavers are more than 10 times as likely to be NEET as noncare peers. Harrison (2020) found that over two-thirds of employed care leavers work in unstable, low-paid, or part-time roles.

Critical Perspectives

Dominant deficit models attribute these outcomes to individual failings, obscuring structural causes and the unacknowledged resilience of care-experienced young people (Brady & Gilligan, 2019). Valencia (2010) and Gorski (2011) show that this framing perpetuates inequality by ignoring sociopolitical determinants. The Care Review (2022) described care-experienced disadvantage as “the civil rights issue of our time,” calling for protected characteristic status. Courtney et al. (2011) found that extending care beyond 18 significantly improves outcomes across all domains, underscoring the importance of sustained, integrated support.

Independence and What It Means for Those Leaving Care

The concept of independence for care leavers is complex and multidimensional, carrying profoundly different meanings from those of normative transitions to adulthood. For most young people, independence is a gradual, family-supported process, typically completed over many years and with ongoing emotional and financial scaffolding from parents and relatives (Arnett, 2004). For those leaving care, however, independence is often imposed abruptly at 18, a “cliff edge” transition that has been widely critiqued in policy and research literature (Stein & Munro, 2018; Wade & Dixon, 2006).

Arnett's (2004) theory of “emerging adulthood” characterizes the period from approximately 18 to 25 as an exploratory developmental phase, during which young people are expected to explore their identities, pursue education, experiment with relationships, and gradually assume adult responsibilities. This extended developmental period is not available to most care leavers, who are compelled to achieve economic and residential independence at a pace that their peers from stable family backgrounds are not expected to match (Cameron et al., 2018).

The meanings care leavers ascribe to independence are shaped by their experiences within the care system. Several studies note that for many care-experienced young people, independence is both desired and feared (Pryce et al., 2017). Having experienced institutional dependency in residential care, where professionals frequently make decisions about daily life, relationships, and environments, many young people lack not only the practical skills for independent living but also a secure psychological foundation from which to exercise agency (Parton & O’Byrne, 2000).

Research by Wade and Dixon (2006) found that many care leavers viewed independence as synonymous with isolation rather than with freedom and opportunity. The absence of “going home” as a safety net, the informal fallback available to most young adults when independent living becomes too difficult, leaves care leavers without meaningful recourse to family support when they fail. This structural absence intensifies the psychological stakes of the transition and underscores the importance of professional and community-based support systems.

Independence is also deeply racialised and gendered for care-experienced young people. Black and minority ethnic care leavers face compounded structural disadvantages, including discrimination in housing and employment markets and under-representation in the services designed to support them (Bywaters et al., 2016). Young women leaving care are disproportionately represented among those experiencing early parenthood, domestic abuse, and housing crises, intersecting vulnerabilities that complicate individualized notions of independence (Quilgars et al., 2011).

These considerations are directly relevant to the application of strengths-based interventions, such as Solution-Focused Coaching, to this population. To be genuinely effective, such approaches must account for the structural conditions that constrain independence and recognize that empowerment without opportunity is insufficient. The following section examines Solution-Focused Coaching in detail, considering its theoretical foundations and its relevance to coaching young people and those leaving care.

Solution-Focused Coaching as a Strengths-Based Intervention

Solution-Focused Coaching is a nonclinical adaptation of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, grounded in social constructivist theory (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; de Shazer, 1985). It holds that meaning is co-constructed through dialogue and that exploring the origins of problems is unnecessary for their resolution (de Shazer, 1985; Korman et al., 2021). The approach employs structured techniques such as miracle questions, scaling questions, exception finding, and resource identification, within frameworks such as OSKAR and the solution-focused GROW model (Grant & Greene, 2001; Jackson & McKergow, 2007).

The theoretical distinctiveness of Solution-Focused Coaching lies in its deliberate refusal to engage in deficit-focused inquiry. Rather than diagnosing problems or seeking explanations rooted in the past, it builds on the client's existing strengths, resources, and prior successes (O’Connell et al., 2012). This orientation makes it particularly compatible with populations whose interactions with professional services have often been pathologizing, as is commonly the case among care-experienced young people (Thompson & Bale, 2023).

Coaching With Young People

Coaching with young people as a distinct field of practice has developed substantially over the past two decades. Early applications of coaching in educational settings focused primarily on academic performance and goal attainment (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). Recent work has broadened the scope to include emotional wellbeing, self-regulation, career development, and social capital, particularly for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds (Thompson & Bale, 2023).

Thompson and Bale's (2023) systematic review of positive psychology coaching for young people found consistent evidence of improvements in self-efficacy, hope, and wellbeing across a range of settings, including schools, youth services, and residential care. However, the authors note significant methodological limitations in the existing evidence base, including small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, and a predominance of studies conducted in controlled rather than naturalistic settings. They call for more ecologically valid research that attends to the role of context, including the influence of structural disadvantage on coaching outcomes.

Rogers’ (1957) person-centered conditions of empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard are foundational to many youth coaching approaches, providing a relational framework that supports trust-building with young people who have experienced relational disruption. De Haan et al. (2013) found that the quality of the coaching relationship was the single most important predictor of coaching effectiveness across diverse client populations. This finding is particularly significant for care-experienced young people, whose prior professional relationships have often been characterized by surveillance, assessment, and transience.

Coaching and Mentoring With Those Leaving Care

Despite the growing evidence base for coaching young people more broadly, the specific application of coaching or mentoring to those leaving care remains underexplored. Most intervention research in this population has focused on mentoring rather than coaching, reflecting mentoring's longer history as a formalized support mechanism within care systems (Munro et al., 2012).

Mentoring for care leavers has been shown to improve social connectedness, self-esteem, and engagement with education and employment (Cameron et al., 2018). However, mentoring and coaching serve different functions: mentoring typically involves the transfer of experience and guidance from a more experienced individual, whereas coaching focuses on facilitating the coachee's problem-solving and goal achievement (Bachkirova & Kauffman, 2009). For care-experienced young people who have frequently received directive professional guidance, the nondirective, empowering stance of coaching offers a qualitatively different relational experience.

The broader context of care leaver support has increasingly incorporated trauma-informed care (Harris & Fallot, 2001), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), and strengths-based approaches (Saleebey, 2013). Solution-Focused Coaching aligns with these frameworks by prioritizing self-determination, empowerment, and relational trust rather than pathologizing past experiences. Cepukiene and Pakrosnis (2011) observed notable improvements in emotional and behavioral difficulties among young people in residential care following Solution-Focused Coaching; Bond et al. (2013) reported increased wellbeing and reduced mental health symptoms. Meta-analyses of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy support its effectiveness in improving psychosocial outcomes (Kim, 2008).

Solution-Focused Coaching derives its theoretical coherence from alignment with resilience frameworks (Fraser et al., 1999; Saleebey, 2013), post-traumatic growth models (De Jong & Berg, 2013), and co-production principles (Beresford, 2016). It reframes care-experienced young people as resourceful agents rather than passive recipients of support (Gutierrez et al., 1998; Lee, 2001). However, significant limitations persist. The evidence base is methodologically weak, particularly in post-18 and residential care settings (Macdonald, 2001; Proudfoot et al., 2009). Care-experienced voices are largely absent from Solution-Focused Coaching research, reflecting their broader exclusion from co-production efforts (Brady & Gilligan, 2018). Long-term outcome data are lacking, and context-specific studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and ethical application of Solution-Focused Coaching for this population (Cameron et al., 2018; Munro et al., 2012).

Summary of Literature

This literature review advances three interconnected arguments in support of the conceptual framework. First, poor care leaver outcomes are structurally produced by intersecting inequalities rather than by individual failings (Bywaters et al., 2016; Care Review, 2022). Second, disadvantages in mental health, housing, and employment are mutually reinforcing, requiring holistic, structurally aware responses rather than deficit-focused interventions (Centrepoint, 2020; Gypen et al., 2017). Third, Solution-Focused Coaching is a theoretically coherent and promising strengths-based intervention, but its evidence base, particularly for care-experienced young people in post-18 residential settings, remains underdeveloped and largely excludes their voices (Brady & Gilligan, 2018; Thompson & Bale, 2023).

Together, these sections underpin the socioecological framework, which integrates structural critique with strengths-based, relational, and participatory principles. The methodology positions care-experienced young people as active epistemic contributors, placing their lived experience at the center of the evaluation of the impact and relevance of Solution-Focused Coaching. The study thus links systemic critique to practical intervention, contributing to emerging evidence on what ethical, effective support beyond individual-focused models might entail.

Methodology

Research Design

This qualitative study employed thematic analysis to explore the lived experiences of care-experienced young people receiving Solution-Focused Coaching. Thematic analysis was selected for its flexibility and effectiveness in identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) in qualitative data, making it particularly well-suited to understanding the experiences and perspectives of care-experienced young people during this important transition. The approach allows for rich, detailed, and complex accounts of the data while remaining accessible and adaptable (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This study adopted an inductive approach, allowing themes to emerge naturally from the data rather than being shaped by a predefined theoretical framework.

Participants and Setting

Twelve care-experienced young people aged 18 to 21 took part in the study. All lived in residential care homes in London and completed three Solution-Focused Coaching sessions over 3 months as part of their transition support. Participants were deliberately selected to ensure diversity across gender, ethnicity, length of time in care, and planned postcare destinations. On average, they experienced 4.1 placement changes before turning 18, underscoring the instability common in residential care (Dixon et al., 2019). All faced urgent moves to independent living within 6 months, offering a key opportunity to explore how Solution-Focused Coaching supports them during this challenging period.

Before participating in Solution-Focused Coaching, all 12 young people had received a range of professional support interventions as part of their care experience. These included statutory social work support, involvement with Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services for several participants, participation in life skills programs provided by their residential providers, and engagement with personal advisers under the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Several participants had also received counseling or therapeutic input, typically short-term and focused on processing past trauma. In the interviews, participants consistently distinguished Solution-Focused Coaching from these prior experiences, describing previous interventions as primarily focused on assessing risk, managing behavior, or addressing historical difficulties, rather than on building on their strengths or supporting them in planning for the future.

Data Collection

Semistructured interviews lasting 45 to 90 min were conducted individually with each participant. The interview schedule explored participants’ experiences of Solution-Focused Coaching, perceptions of its impact on wellbeing and transition readiness, and views on its limitations and the contextual factors that influence its effectiveness. Open-ended questions enabled detailed narratives and provided flexibility to explore emergent themes (Smith et al., 2009).

Interviews were audio-recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. The researcher kept a reflexive journal throughout data collection and analysis, documenting assumptions, reactions, and interpretative decisions (Finlay, 2002). This reflexivity was essential given the researcher's dual role as practitioner and researcher, which required explicit recognition of potential biases that could lead to a positive evaluation of strength-based approaches.

Data Analysis

The analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase thematic analysis. Data was analyzed inductively, with themes identified across the entire dataset. The process involved multiple readings, detailed line-by-line coding, the development of emergent themes, and iterative clustering of these themes into overarching categories. The analysis shifted between an inductive focus on participants’ meaning-making and a theoretical engagement with the existing literature on coaching, care systems, and transition outcomes.

Ethical Considerations

The institutional ethics committee granted ethical approval. Given participants’ vulnerability, careful attention was paid to informed consent, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw. Independent advocates were available to support participants throughout the study. All identifying details have been removed or altered to ensure anonymity.

Trustworthiness

Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability guided the quality assurance process. Credibility was established through prolonged engagement, member checking of transcripts and preliminary findings, and peer debriefing. Detailed descriptions of the context and participants enhanced transferability. Dependability was addressed by audit trails that documented analytical decisions. Confirmability was demonstrated through reflexive journaling and retention of raw data (Shenton, 2004).

Findings

Three main themes emerged from the analysis, highlighting the complexity of participants’ experiences of Solution-Focused Coaching during their transition from care. These themes emphasize both the perceived advantages of strength-based coaching and the persistent limitations imposed by structural barriers.

Theme 1: Valuing Strength-Based Approaches

All 12 participants described Solution-Focused Coaching as fundamentally different from previous interventions, emphasizing its focus on their capabilities rather than on deficits. This marked a clear departure from their usual experiences within care systems, where deficit-focused assessments and problem-saturated narratives had been the norm throughout their care journeys. Participants described encounters with social workers, clinicians, and other professionals that centered on what was wrong, the risks they posed, or the difficulties that needed to be managed, rather than on their aspirations and capacities.

Participants particularly appreciated the future-oriented nature of Solution-Focused Coaching conversations. Rather than dwelling on past traumas or current difficulties, coaching sessions helped them articulate their aspirations and explore ways forward. One participant explained:

“It was not about what is wrong with me or what happened before. It was about where I want to go and what I can do to get there.”

This forward-looking approach resonated strongly with young people preparing for independence, offering a narrative framework that emphasized agency rather than victimhood. Another participant highlighted the contrast between coaching and earlier therapeutic support.

“Before coaching, I had counselling, and it helped in some ways, but it always felt like we were going backwards and digging stuff up. Coaching was different. It felt like we were going somewhere.”

This distinction between processing the past and building toward the future was a recurring theme in participants’ accounts. It appeared central to the value they derived from Solution-Focused Coaching. The collaborative relationship established through Solution-Focused Coaching was consistently described as transformative. Participants reported feeling heard and respected as experts in their own lives, in stark contrast to their usual professional relationships, which were characterized by assessment, judgment, and prescription. Several participants noted that their coach asked questions rather than providing answers, enabling them to develop their own solutions. One young person described this experience as follows:

“He never told me what to do. He just kept asking questions, and I found myself coming up with the answers. That had never happened before with any professional.”

This authentic collaborative experience appeared to challenge long-standing patterns of disempowerment in institutional care.

Theme 2: Developing Personal Capabilities

Participants reported noticeable improvements in several personal abilities after Solution-Focused Coaching. Most notably, they described enhanced goal-setting skills, moving from vague aspirations to concrete, achievable objectives. The coaching process helped them break down overwhelming transitions into manageable steps, providing structure and confidence. One participant described the goal-setting process during coaching as:

“Like turning the light on. I could suddenly see what I actually needed to do, rather than just worrying about everything at once.”

Increased self-efficacy was recognized as a key benefit. By recognizing past successes and strengths, participants gained greater confidence in their ability to face challenges. One young person reflected:

“I realised I would already have overcome so much. If I could handle all that, I could handle moving out and getting a job.”

This shift from seeing themselves as passive recipients of support to active agents in their lives marked a significant psychological change. Enhanced resilience was also evident, particularly in participants’ ability to reframe setbacks as temporary hurdles rather than as permanent failures. The solution-focused approach helped them develop more adaptive attribution styles, recognizing external limitations while maintaining confidence in their capacity to respond constructively. Several participants reported improved emotional regulation and problem-solving strategies, directly attributable to coaching conversations. One participant noted:

“When things went wrong, I did not just give up the way I used to. I thought about what I had learned and tried to find another way. That felt new for me.”

Theme 3: Encountering Structural Barriers

Although participants reported significant personal benefits from Solution-Focused Coaching, they all described how structural barriers consistently limited their ability to apply coaching insights or achieve their goals. This theme underscores the core tension between individual empowerment and systemic constraints that characterized their transition experiences.

Housing emerged as the most pressing structural barrier. Participants described a lack of affordable housing, long waiting lists for social housing, and discrimination by private landlords due to their care status. Several had developed detailed housing plans during coaching but found them impossible to implement because of insufficient support from local authorities or market realities. One participant stated:

“The coaching helped me work out exactly what I needed to do. However, when I went to the council, they just said there was nothing available. All that planning felt pointless.”

Another person described being refused by several private landlords after disclosing their care background, adding:

“I did everything right. I saved, I had a plan, I asked for help. However, none of that mattered once they found out where I had come from.”

Employment barriers remained equally significant. Despite increased confidence and clearer career goals after coaching, participants continued to face obstacles, including limited work experience opportunities, employer discrimination, and the demands of independent living. Several described feeling caught between the need to work for financial survival and inadequate support. One young person put it plainly:

“How am I supposed to focus on getting a job when I do not know where I am going to be sleeping next month?”

Financial insecurity dominated participants’ accounts. Insufficient leaving-care grants, delays in benefits, and limited access to emergency funds could disrupt even well-planned initiatives. Ongoing financial stress eroded the confidence and resilience built through coaching. As one young person explained:

“I was feeling really positive about my future after coaching. However, when I moved out, and the benefits did not materialise, I could not afford food. All that positivity disappeared pretty quickly.”

Participants also identified systemic gaps in ongoing relational support after they transition from care. While Solution-Focused Coaching provided valuable short-term intervention, they emphasized that sustainable independence requires consistent, long-term relationships with adults who can offer practical and emotional support. The absence of such support networks, which one participant called “a proper safety net,” meant that personal abilities developed through coaching were often insufficient when facing the realities of independent living.

Discussion

This study reveals a core paradox in supporting care-experienced young people's transition to independence: while Solution-Focused Coaching effectively strengthens personal skills such as self-efficacy, goal setting, and resilience, these gains are often constrained by structural barriers beyond their control. These findings challenge simplistic views of the sufficiency of therapeutic approaches for groups facing systemic disadvantages and highlight the importance of strength-based strategies when properly contextualized.

The positive reception of Solution-Focused Coaching among participants aligns with existing literature demonstrating the effectiveness of solution-focused approaches across diverse populations (Grant et al., 2010; O’Connell et al., 2012). Participants valued the shift from deficit-focused narratives to strength-based dialogue, which they found affirming and empowering. The future-oriented nature of Solution-Focused Coaching resonated particularly with young people facing imminent transitions, offering both hope and practical frameworks for pursuing goals. These findings support the integration of coaching approaches into care settings, particularly given the frequent exposure of care-experienced young people to pathologising professional discourses.

However, the apparent limitations of individual-focused interventions in contexts of structural disadvantage warrant critical attention. Participants’ accounts illustrate the tension Garrett (2016) describes between personal resilience and structural determinism: while coaching enhanced participants’ psychological resources, it could not create the material conditions necessary for these resources to yield sustainable outcomes. Housing instability, employment discrimination, and financial precarity reflect systemic failures rather than individual shortcomings, yet their impact significantly shapes the extent to which therapeutic gains can be sustained.

This individual-structural paradox has significant implications for coaching theory and practice. The prevailing coaching paradigm emphasizes individual agency, personal responsibility, and internal change processes (Bachkirova & Kauffman, 2009). While these aspects are valuable, applying them to vulnerable populations risks unintentionally reinforcing neoliberal narratives that attribute disadvantage to individuals rather than to systems (Bottrell, 2009). When care-experienced young people develop greater self-efficacy through coaching but then encounter insurmountable structural barriers, the psychological impact can be more damaging than if they had not engaged with the intervention at all.

The findings, therefore, highlight the need for integrated intervention models that strategically combine therapeutic approaches, such as Solution-Focused Coaching, with comprehensive structural support. Such models would recognize coaching as one element within a broader ecology of support, addressing both the internal resources young people bring to transition and the external opportunities and constraints they face. This integrated approach aligns with ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) by addressing multiple levels of intervention simultaneously.

Practical integration could involve: (1) coaches working closely with housing, employment, and financial support services to ensure practical pathways to goals set during coaching; (2) structural advocates addressing systemic barriers while coaches focus on personal resources; (3) ongoing coaching relationships that extend beyond initial transition periods to support continuous adaptation; and (4) policy advocacy grounded in coaching practitioners’ direct understanding of structural barriers.

The study also highlights the importance of reflexivity for coaching practitioners working with vulnerable groups. Coaches should maintain critical awareness of the advantages and limitations of their interventions, avoiding the trap of promising empowerment that structural conditions cannot support. This involves practitioners developing what might be called “structural competence,” an understanding of how systemic forces influence individual opportunities, and the humility to recognize when individual-focused interventions alone are inadequate.

Implications for Practice

For coaching practitioners, these findings suggest several adaptations in practice when working with care-experienced young people or other vulnerable populations. Practitioners should explicitly acknowledge structural realities in coaching conversations, validating clients’ experiences of systemic barriers rather than implying that all obstacles are individually solvable. They should also develop partnerships with services that address structural needs, facilitate warm handovers, and support collaborative planning.

Extending coaching relationships beyond typical timeframes to provide ongoing support through implementation challenges and incorporating advocacy skills development to help clients navigate systems whilst working to change those systems are both important practice adaptations. Maintaining realistic goal setting that accounts for structural constraints without diminishing aspirations is equally essential.

For policymakers and service commissioners, the research emphasizes that therapeutic interventions alone are insufficient. Sustainable support for care leavers requires comprehensive investment in appropriate housing tailored to their needs, including supported accommodation; employment support initiatives that address discrimination and provide meaningful work experience; financial safety nets adequate to meet basic needs during the transition; and ongoing relational support that continues well beyond age 18.

Limitations and Future Research

This study's limitations include its small sample size, its geographical focus on London, and its emphasis on young people who engaged with Solution-Focused Coaching. Future research should examine long-term outcomes to determine whether coaching benefits are sustained or fade over time; compare the effectiveness of Solution-Focused Coaching across different structural contexts; explore how integrated service delivery models are implemented in practice; and conduct quantitative studies to assess specific outcomes, including housing stability, employment, and wellbeing.

Moreover, research should investigate coaching for other vulnerable groups facing structural barriers, examining whether similar individual-structural conflicts arise and which adaptations prove most effective. Exploring practitioners’ views on managing these conflicts would also yield valuable insights into professional development.

Conclusion

This research demonstrates that Solution-Focused Coaching provides valuable therapeutic support for care-experienced young people as they navigate the challenging transition to independence. Participants appreciated the strength-based approach, reported improved skills, and valued the collaborative relationship fostered by coaching. However, these individual benefits were consistently constrained by structural barriers, including housing instability, employment discrimination, and financial insecurity.

The findings highlight a significant tension in coaching practice with vulnerable populations: while individual empowerment is essential, it is insufficient on its own to address systemic disadvantages. The “individual-structural paradox” identified in this research challenges coaches and policymakers to reassess the effectiveness of interventions, shifting the focus from individual outcomes alone to the creation of structural opportunities.

The key implication is the need for integrated service delivery models that strategically combine therapeutic interventions, such as Solution-Focused Coaching, with comprehensive structural support for housing, employment, education, and ongoing relationships. Only through such integration can we effectively support care-experienced young people's transitions while respecting their agency and the real constraints they face.

Ultimately, this research encourages a shift from either/or thinking about individual empowerment and structural reform to a both/and approach that recognizes the interconnection between personal ability and systemic opportunity.

For coaching to meaningfully support social justice and inclusion, it must be integrated into, rather than replace, comprehensive support systems that address the structural causes of disadvantage. Care-experienced young people deserve both excellent coaching and the material conditions required to achieve their goals. Achieving this standard requires ongoing commitment from practitioners, policymakers, and society to invest in both individual empowerment and systemic reform.