University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings

(USC Thesis Other)

Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Student Support Professionals: Drivers of Community Cultural Wealth Aligned Practices
Through Support Programs for First-Generation College Students of Color Amidst
Institutional Shortcomings
Saida Gracia Perez
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Saida Gracia Perez 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Saida Gracia Perez certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Sheila Banuelos
Alma Zaragoza-Petty
Briana Hinga, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study uses community cultural wealth (CCW) and its underlying roots in critical race theory
(CRT) to understand how academic support professionals perceive first-generation college
students of color (FGCSOC). This study aimed to understand how the goals of academic support
programs for FGCSOC aligned with the CCW model. This study learned from the experiences
and perspectives of 10 staff and administrators working at academic support programs through
semi-structured interviews about awareness of CCW types of capital, CCW-aligned support
strategies, and alignment of goals and views of support programs and the institutions housing
them. Findings from this study indicate that participants were aware of CCW forms of capital
that FGCSOC bring with them to the higher education space, that there are common CCW-based
support strategies, and that there is a misalignment between support program goals and views
and those of the institutions where programs reside. Overarching findings suggest that staff and
administrators had backgrounds similar to the students they support and had practices that go
beyond the program’s goals, supported by experience rather than formal program-specific
training. This study proposes that some CCW-aligned practices can be extended at an
institutional level through formal training, increasing awareness of FGCSOC in institutional
agents, and increasing resource access through established structures.

v
Dedication
Dedico este trabajo a mi familia. Mamá, Papá, y Pedro, con todo mi amor como reconocimiento
y agadecimiento de todo el esfuerzo que hemos puesto todos como familia para poder llegar
aquí. Hoy soy quien soy en gran parte gracias a ustedes. Mi educación, valores, aspiraciones,
ganas de trabajar, y vision de justicia en la vida se han forjado en los últimos casi 42 años gracias
a sus esfuerzos, consejos, y el impacto de sus experiencias de vida en la mia. Mamá y Papá,
quiero agradecer todo el esfuerzo que han hecho toda la vida para proveer y darnos las mejor
calidad de vida possible y por el regalo mas grande que me dieron, educación. A Pedro, por ser
el mejor hermano, amigo, y complice que mis papás me regalaron. Quisiera dedicar mi trabajo
también a mis abuelos y bisabuelas que la vida me permition conocer. Cada una y uno de ellos
tomaron alguna decisión en la vida de la cual yo soy consecuencia. A mi nana Victoria, gracias
por enseñarme lo que es la nobleza y amor infinito, y por ser un ejemplo de fortaleza en mi vida.
To Stuart Shiraishi, thank you for the joy you bring to my life. Thank you for your support and
celebrating every step I have taken since the day we met.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee, Dr. Hinga, Dr. Bañuelos, and
Dr. Zaragoza-Petty; thank you for your time, knowledge sharing, and kindness during this
process. It has been an honor to have an all-women dissertation committee. I’m deeply thankful
for your valuable feedback and efforts to strengthen my work. To my reading group, Lauren,
Jeny, Mayu, and Connie, and the OCL Latine group. No words can express the honor of sharing
this journey with you. Thank you for sharing all workloads, conversations, words of
encouragement, and joy in the middle of everything. Thank you for the group projects, the
laughs, and the growing together through this process. I hope that this time of our lives brings a
lifelong friendship.
I also want to acknowledge the women who have supported my education journey and
have been role models in some way, starting with Dr. Nouna Bakhiet, who always saw me,
supported me, mentored me, and believed in me. To Dr. Sandra Daley, thank you for all the time,
advice, and mentoring, for pushing me out of my comfort zone early in my career, and for
allowing me to share all my career and education turns through the years. To all the peers I met
in the SWC MESA program, too many to mention, for inspiring me and for your friendship after
all these years. And to the women I have met throughout my professional career who have
contributed in some way to my journey, again, there are too many to mention.
Last, I would like to acknowledge my younger self for the optimism, drive, and naivety
that somehow brought me to this moment. I want to acknowledge that younger girl from Tijuana
who believed she could change the world and assumed the best of everyone. I would like to
acknowledge her dedication, hard work, and persistence. I want to thank her for not giving up on
embarking on and embracing a long education journey.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ..............................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ..................................................................7
Importance of the Study ......................................................................................................7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................9
Definition of Terms...........................................................................................................10
Organization of the Study..................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature.........................................................................................12
Theoretical Framework......................................................................................................13
Historical Development of FGCSOC in Higher Education...............................................16
Literature on FGCSOC and Deficit Thinking ...................................................................21
FGCSOC Cultural Wealth.................................................................................................27
Community Cultural Wealth .............................................................................................28
Current Models of Academic Support...............................................................................34
Promising Practices ...........................................................................................................38
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................43
Summary............................................................................................................................46
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................48

viii
Research Questions............................................................................................................48
Overview of Design...........................................................................................................48
Research Setting ................................................................................................................49
The Researcher ..................................................................................................................50
Data Sources......................................................................................................................52
Trustworthiness and Credibility ........................................................................................57
Ethics.................................................................................................................................59
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................61
Participants ........................................................................................................................62
Painting the Context: Program Descriptions.....................................................................75
Addressing Research Questions ........................................................................................79
Summary..........................................................................................................................103
Chapter Five: Discussion.............................................................................................................104
Discussion of Findings ....................................................................................................104
Recommendations for Practice........................................................................................109
Limitations and Delimitations.........................................................................................115
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................116
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................117
References ...................................................................................................................................119
Appendix A: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................134
Part 1: Background ..........................................................................................................134
Part 2: Programmatic Experiences ..................................................................................134
Part 3: Experiences With Students and Reflections ........................................................136
Conclusion to the Interview.............................................................................................137

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Study Participants 61

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 46

xi
List of Abbreviations
CCW Community cultural wealth
CGCS Continuing-generation college student
FG First-generation
FGCS First-generation college student
FGCSOC First-generation college student of color
HBU Historically Black university
HIS Hispanic serving institution
HWI Historically White institution
PWI Predominantly White institution
SOC Student of color

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
First-generation college students (FGCS) are the pioneers in their families as they embark
on the higher education journey. Being an FGCS means neither student’s parent has a college
education (Pascarella, 2004; Saenz et al., 2007; Toutkoushian et al., 2018; Toutkoushian et al.,
2021). Most first-generation students may also identify as students of color (SOC; Redford &
Hoyer, 2017; RTI International, 2019). SOCs are those students who do not identify as White.
However, the literature review in this dissertation focuses mainly on African Americans, Latines,
Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. First-generation college students of color (FGCSOC)
are both new in the higher education environment and carry the identity of their communities of
color into the education space.
FGCSOC represents a generational change in society. They follow a path that their
family has not traveled before and transfer skills and values from their families into their higher
education journey. FGCSOC’s knowledge, skills, and values are encompassed by Yosso’s (2005)
community cultural wealth (CCW) model. The CCW model (Yosso, 2005) proposes that
communities of color have knowledge and skills categorized into different types of capital that
allow them to persist and navigate through college. Socioeconomical historical events coupled
with academic research play a role in informing higher education systems. FGCSOC persists in
accessing and completing college, yet much of the available research tells a story of this student
population that fails to recognize their history and knowledge of communities of color
(Solórzano & Bernal, 2001; Yosso, 2002). As such, this dissertation addresses how academic
support programs perceive FGCSOC and how that perception is aligned with support strategies.

2
Context and Background of the Problem
The presence of FGCSOC in higher education on its own is a manifestation of the
strength, skills, and values they carried with them through their education journey to college.
Through the CCW model, Yosso (2005) recognized that aspirational, familial, social,
navigational, resistant, and linguistic capitals are knowledge and skills students from
communities of color bring to the education space. Higher education promises access to more
opportunities and better life quality for all, and some research indicates that the benefits of
attending college are greater for FGCS than for continuing-generation college students (CGCS)
(Denton et al., 2020; Pascarella, 2004). FGCSOC, in pursuing better opportunities, has and uses
a set of knowledge and skills that might not be recognized as such in the higher education space.
FGCS are more likely to be SOC and have other intersecting identities that position them
to face more barriers than other college students (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Redford & Hoyer, 2017;
Tate et al., 2015). Researchers indicate that FGCS do not have the generational knowledge from
their parents to guide them through their college experience, let alone provide them access to
opportunities, such as internships and connections (Housel, 2019; Kohler Giancola, 2008). The
lack of generational knowledge regarding higher education makes support systems such as
mentors, peers, counselors, and academic support programs critical in providing guidance and
inside knowledge that students would otherwise get from their parents (Dennis et al., 2005;
Jenkins et al., 2013).
To understand the current situation of FGCSOC in higher education, it is necessary to
look back in time. The positioning of FGCSOC in the United States has been influenced by
multiple historical events, starting when White settlers set a step in this land in 1492 (Spring,
2016). Settler colonialism is at the foundation of education institutions in the United States (Tuck

3
& Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013). The attempts to eliminate Native Americans through cultural
genocide, cultural replacement and occupation of Native lands, and the use of enslaved people to
work the land set the stage for the dehumanization of some groups and empowerment of others
that has persisted through time (Matos, 2015; Spring, 2016). Some tools of settler colonialism
included gatekeeping to knowledge and access to knowledge. Learning to read was illegal during
the time of slavery, and Black people organized their schooling before and after emancipation
(Anderson, 1988; Ladson-Billings, 2006). It did not take long for White settlers to notice Black
schools, take over them, and then cut resources from them, starting the era of segregation that
affected other non-white racial/ethnic groups as well (Alexander, 2012; Dumas & Ross, 2016;
Gonzalez, 1996). One of the justifications for the segregation of communities of color in
education was the use of deficit narratives, and when these narratives were proved wrong,
students were channeled to non-college tracks (Gonzalez, 1996; Guzman, 2021). Mobilization of
communities of color and sociopolitical circumstances of the time led to the desegregation of
education (Denton, 2022; Gonzalez, 1996; Martinez, 2014). Segregation and marginalization of
students of color have continued after the legal desegregation of education through poor
planning, oppressive policies, budget constraints, and continuation of deficit narratives (Bell,
2005; Bordelon, 2022; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Yosso et al., 2004) Any initiative or policy to
compensate for the damage done to communities of color in this country has faced rejection.
Such is the case of affirmative action, which has been called to discriminate against White
students and brings up a meritocracy discourse as an opposing argument (Matos, 2015;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Yosso et al., 2004). Altogether, communities of color in the United
Stated face an education debt built on the atrocities of U.S. history, policy, and reactions to

4
policies rooted in the settler futurity ideology (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Tuck & GaztambideFernandez, 2013).
Despite clear historical events that have oppressed communities and delayed generational
entry to higher education, research continues to focus on the measures of performance and
success for students without looking at the circumstances around them (Brown, 2020).
According to the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International (2019), in 2015, 56% of all
undergraduate students in the United States had a parent without a college education. FGCS, as
described by research, are more likely to be SOC, low-income, older, and non-native English
speakers, among other characteristics considered to be a disadvantage (Engle & Tinto, 2008).
About 30% of undergraduate students are first-generation and SOC (Schuyler et al., 2021). Being
an FGCSOC means having this intersectionality, which makes students not only more likely to
have lower engagement, performance, and graduation rates but also more likely to encounter
barriers and covert and overt forms of racism (Chen et al., 2019; Covarrubias et al., 2022; Ma &
Shea, 2021; Means & Pyne, 2017).
Research has pointed out that FGCS lacks generational knowledge. This lack of
generational knowledge in the form of social and cultural capital is used as an explanation for the
lower performance, lower integration, educational choices, and attrition rates (Housel, 2019;
Kohler Giancola, 2008; Ma & Shea, 2021; Pascarella, 2004). Other research has transitioned into
recognizing that deficit-oriented research does not account for access to resources in education
and career outcomes (Brown et al., 2020). Anti-deficit research points out how FGCS and SOC
make the best out of their resources by making decisions that align with their financial situations
or make the best out of their resources (Demetriou, 2017). Going a step further from anti-deficit
perspectives, Tara Yosso (2005) provided CCW as an alternative model that challenges the

5
conventional idea of capital. The CCW model includes a different set of knowledge and skills
possessed by communities of color, including aspirational capital, familial capital, social capital,
navigational capital, resistant capital, and linguistic capital (Yosso, 2005). Despite facing barriers
and oppression, FGCS values and uses its cultural wealth to navigate, persist, and persevere in
higher education (Espino, 2014; Gist et al., 2018).
CCW started showing up in the research looking at FGCS and SOC around 2012
(Denton, 2012), and it has highlighted how students utilized their CCW forms of capital to
navigate higher education. Aspirational capital is manifested in FGCS and SOC through their
motivation to go and persist through college for themselves, their families, and their
communities (Boettcher et al., 2022; Matos, 2015; Yosso, 2005). Familial capital shows up in the
importance of family in communities of color as a source of motivation and as a source of skills
and pride (Boettcher et al., 2022; Matos, 2015; Rios-Ellis et al., 2015; Yosso, 2005). Social
capital in FGCS and SOC shows up in their social networks, and the strengths of the bonds
created with their peers and communities are often used as a source of support (Kouyoumdjian et
al., 2017; Rios-Ellis et al., 2015; Yosso 2005). FGCS and SOC use navigational capital to
navigate transitions and barriers in higher education spaces that are not designed for them
(Covarrubias et al., 2022; Yosso, 2005). Linguistic capital is related to forms of communication,
including languages and storytelling (Denton, 2015; Yosso, 2005). Resistant capital in
communities of color is the ability to persist and keep their values, knowledge, and ways of
living despite not aligning with the mainstream (Espino, 2014; Revelo & Baber, 2018; Yosso,
2005).
The presence of FGCSOC in the higher education system is, therefore, a manifestation of
their CCW forms of capital. Academic support programs play a significant role in the education

6
of FGCSOC by providing spaces and resources to fill knowledge gaps. Academic support
programs for FGCSOC have taken the form of transitional programs from high school to college
and support through college (Schelbe et al., 2019; Schuyler et al., 2021). Some initiatives for
support have been sponsored by federal initiatives such as TRiO programs that predominantly
serve low-income and FGCS through mentoring, counseling, career services, financial services,
and academic support (U.S. Department of Education, 2011; U.S. Department of Education,
2023b). Comprehensive programs covering multiple areas and following students through time
have increased students’ sense of belonging (Means & Pyne, 2017). While academic programs
have been successful in some areas, there are still areas of improvement, such as access, campus
climate, and culturally relevant curriculums or pedagogy (Allen-McCombs,2022; Hodge et al.,
2020; Love, 2019).
In the same way, research has started to transition from deficit to asset-based
perspectives, the CCW model (Yosso, 2005) provides an opportunity in educational settings to
look at FGCSOC through an asset lens. The recognition that FGCSOC bring their valuable forms
of capital into the higher education space is important, and scholars like Espino (2014) call for
the need to reframe the forms of support and deficit perspectives of FGCSOC to stop losing
students at every step of the educational journey. Multiple studies have looked at how
components of support programs align with CCW; some examples include counterspaces,
organizations targeted for specific ethnic/racial groups, cohort-style programs with high levels of
faculty adequately trained to provide support to FGCS, and peer mentoring (Luedke, 2019;
Means & Pyne, 2017; Rios-Ellis, 2015; Robert & Lucas, 2022). Demetriou et al. (2017) also
recognized that students found support through informal channels where they put their CCW
forms of capital into practice, and learning from those findings could guide academic program

7
support approaches. There are examples that have shown that asset-based forms of support are
possible and that phasing out deficit perspectives in support is necessary to increase retention and
graduation rates among FGCSOC (Kezar et al., 2022).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
Academic support programs provide guidance, knowledge, support, and networks for
FGCSOC in an environment where they are pioneers. The purpose of this study was to
understand how academic support programs perceive FGCSOC, and how this perception aligns
with the approaches and values used to support FGCSOC.
To understand the approaches through which programs provide support to FGCSOC, this
study asked the how were the goals of academic programs aligned with the CCW model through
three questions:
1. How much awareness and knowledge do academic programs have about CCW types
of capital?
2. What specific strategies are used to support FGCSOC through the CCW lens or assetbased strategies?
3. Are the institutions housing the programs supporting FGCSOC aligned with the
program’s intentions/views/goals?
Importance of the Study
First-generation college students comprise a significant proportion of the student
population in the United States. FGCSOC represents about 30% of all college students in the
United States (Schuyler et al., 2021). Research has shown already that FGCSOCs face more
barriers and have lower retention and graduation rates, more barriers, and challenges than their
counterparts (Pascarella, 2004; Pew Research Center, 2021). Support programs exist because

8
there is the recognition of a need and recognition for the potential that FGCSOC represents for
the country’s workforce and economy and the metrics of higher education institutions (Ishitani,
2016; Schelbe et al., 2019). For FGCSOC, higher education promises to improve their quality of
life through a better job and income (Sáenz et al., 2007).
While deficit-oriented research presumes that FGCS and SOC lack what is needed to
succeed in college (Pascarella et al., 2004), other research shows that FGCS and SOC show up to
college with their aspirational and navigational capital, among other forms of capital
(Covarrubias et al., 2022; Rios-Ellis et al., 2015; Yosso, 2005). FGCSOC also uses its CCW
forms of capital to find support from formal and informal channels (Demetriou, 2017). Mackey
et al. (2018) explain that college students, particularly FGCS, benefit significantly from
academic and peer support, which are helpful in transitions and increase their sense of belonging.
FGCS rely on family, peers, and formal sources of support to find the type of support and
information they need (Gist Mackey et al., 2018). When students look for support, they seek
relief from the unknown. When support systems fail to recognize the strengths and needs of
students, they can become obstacles for FGCSOC trying to reach their academic goals (Espino,
2014). Luedke (2017) found that when higher education staff and administrators acknowledge
the capital that SOC brought with them, it opens a door for a supporting relationship, which did
not happen with staff that devalued the students’ capital. Luedke (2017) also found that SOC
creates counterspaces with the people who value their capital when the spaces do not exist. As
Ladson-Billings (2006) writes, “Each effort we make toward improving education is
counterbalanced by the ongoing and mounting debt that we have accumulated” (p. 9). As such, it
is critical that we continue to examine the support these programs provide and the lens through
which they see their students as an area worth exploring. Understanding how FGCSOC are seen

9
might lead, as Luedke (2017) suggests, to spaces where students are seen completely and to
provide tools for staff and administrators from different backgrounds who have yet to learn about
the forms of capital that students bring with them. Research has provided evidence that when
support programs are informed by asset-based research, it is possible to operationalize assetbased support (Chin Goosvy, 2021; Luedke, 2019; McGowan & Pérez, 2020; Means & Pyne,
2017; Rios-Ellis, 2015). There is a range of strategies and perspectives that socio-historical
events and academic research have shaped the understanding that educational practices are
important to create equity-minded practices to support students (Wood & Harris, 2020).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This dissertation explores the problem of how socio-historical events and academic
research have shaped perceptions of FGCSOC and how this perception informs educational
practices, creating additional barriers to access to equitable support and opportunities. This
problem is important to address because FGCSOC utilizes higher education support systems as a
resource to navigate through college. Recognizing the skills and values of FGCSOC is essential
to provide adequate support to help them move forward. To examine this problem, this study
used Yosso’s (2005) CCW model and its underlying roots in CRT from Yosso and Solórzano’s
(2001) perspective. CCW is a theory derived from critical race theory that focuses on
recognizing the knowledge and skills of communities of color. CCW is an alternative approach
to traditional ideas of capital, where people of color have valuable forms of capital, including
aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistant capital. The underlying theory,
CRT, is a multidisciplinary framework to examine multiple aspects of our society by examining
the role of race and the extensive spread of systemic racial oppression (Solórzano & Yosso,
2001). This theoretical framework is appropriate because FGCSOC are students whose neither

10
parent has a college education and who do not identify as White and, therefore, are more likely
to have experiences related to their race (Means & Pyne, 2017; Pascarella, 2004; Posselt, 2012;
Saenz et al., 2007). CCW and its underlying roots in CRT will be used as a lens to look at
strategies used by academic programs to support FGCSOC and how it looks when FGCSOC
cultural wealth is used to leverage their educational journey. While CRT is appropriate to look at
how deeply ingrained racism is embedded in the roots of education, CCW is appropriate to look
at what strategies foster FGSC cultural wealth to thrive in higher education.
As such, this dissertation looked at academic programs supporting FGCSOC in public 4-
year colleges in California. Data was collected with IRB approval and through voluntary
participation using a semi-structured interview protocol with academic programs’ staff and
administrators working in a role supporting FGCSOC. Interviews were analyzed using thematic
analysis guided by the study’s theoretical framework, first with concept-driven coding and then
emergent coding.
Definition of Terms
• Community cultural wealth is defined by Yosso (2005) is an array of knowledge,
skills, abilities and contacts possessed by communities of color to survive and resist
macro and microforms of oppression (p. 77).
• Continuing generation students are students whose parents attended college (Kohler
Giancola et al., 20089).
• Critical race theory is the work of feminists and legal scholars of color Derrick Bell,
Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and Mari Matsuda, who looked at
discrimination practices in structures and relationships of subordination. It originated
in the critical legal studies field calling for the acknowledgment of race as a critical

11
component in interpreting the law (Bell, 1989,1995; Crenshaw et al., 1996; Delgado,
1995; Matsuda, 1991).
• First-generation college students (FGCS) are students whose parents did not attend
college (Pascarella, 2004; Saenz et al., 2007; Toutkoushian et al., 2018; Toutkoushian
et al. 2021).
• First-generation college students of color (FGCSOC) are students whose parents did
not attend college and are also students of color (Keengwe et al., 2016; Pascarella,
2004; Saenz et al., 2007; Toutkoushian et al., 2018; Toutkoushian et al. 2021).
• Students of color (SOC) students who are Black, Hispanic/Latine, Asian, Pacific
Islander, and Native American (Keengwe et al., 2016)
Organization of the Study
This dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter one provides an
overview of CCW and its underlying roots in CRT as a theoretical framework used as a lens to
look at academic support programs providing support to FGCSOC, as well as the context and
significance of the study. Chapter One also provides a summary of the methodology used for the
study. Chapter Two highlights the relevant literature and the conceptual framework for the study,
which includes the historical development of FGCS of color in higher education, literature on
FGCSOC and deficit thinking, current models of academic support, FGCSOC cultural wealth,
and promising practices, as well as the conceptual framework. Chapter Three details the research
methodology. Chapter Four presents the findings from this qualitative study. Chapter Five
provides proposed recommendations after the analysis of the results.

12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter will explore the research available on FGCSOC, how they are positioned in
higher education, and what academic support looks like for this population during their
undergraduate journey. This dissertation focuses on FGCSOC, but some background studies
focus on FGCS or SOC alone; FGCS and SOC are used throughout this chapter to indicate those
differences according to the literature referenced. Continuing with clarifications on terminology,
Latine will be used as a gender-neutral term, except when specific research is focused on Latinas
or Latinos alone. A last clarification about terminology use follows the example of Denton et al.
(2020) in emphasizing that antideficit terminology is preferred. When the terms “minoritized,”
“historically marginalized,” and “historically underrepresented” are used, these terms are used
with the intent of emphasizing the systemic role in placing students under those definitions.
The problem of practice explored here is the creation of barriers to equitable support and
opportunities from deficit perspectives of FGCSOC ingrained in academic research and higher
educational practices. This problem of practice was explored through an anti-deficit perspective
by using Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth (CCW) model as a theoretical framework
with the support of its underlying roots in critical race theory (CRT). This literature review will
focus on FGCSOC because they represent the majority of FGCS (Redford & Hoyer, 2017; RTI
International, 2019). This literature review will cover major historical events and policies that
have impacted the current positioning of FGCSOC in higher education. This journey will be
continued by examining how research on FGCS and SOC has contributed to the deficit view of
FGCSOC. The next section will cover the CCW that FGCS and SOC bring to education settings,
followed by current strategies and major program types that support this population. Lastly, this

13
chapter will cover support programs centered on CCW and academic support from asset-based
research on FGCS and SOC.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework used to look into deficit perspectives of FGCSOC in higher
educational practices and the impact it has on equitable access to support and opportunities used
here is Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth (CCW). CCW has underlying roots in critical
race theory (CRT) from Yosso and Solórzano’s (2001) perspective. CCW is a concept derived
from the use of CRT to look at the value of the knowledge and skills of communities of color
(Yosso, 2005). The use of this model as a theory was purposely chosen as an acknowledgment of
women of color in academia.
To understand CCW, it is necessary to first understand its origins in CRT. CRT’s first
appearance was in 1989 in the law field and originated as a response to critical legal studies’
failure to acknowledge race as a critical component in the interpretation of the law (Martinez,
2014). CRT is the work of feminists and legal scholars of color including Derrick Bell, Kimberlé
Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and Mari Matsuda who looked at discrimination practices in
structures and relationships of subordination (Bell, 1989,1995; Crenshaw et al., 1996; Delgado,
1995; Matsuda, 1991). Matsuda (1991) explained there are hidden norms within fields of work
and society where the voices of dominant groups are centered, and subordination of the
marginalized is normalized. In the words of Mari Matsuda (1991), critical race theory was first
defined as
the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to develop a
jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and the work toward

14
the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of
subordination. (p. 1331)
Racism was defined by Manning (1992) as a “system of ignorance, exploitation and
power used to oppress African Americans, Latinos, Asian, Pacific Americans, American Indians,
and other people on the basis of ethnicity, culture, mannerism, and color” (p. 5). CRT was first
heavily connected to the civil rights movement, and its fight for the rights of African American
in a White-centered society (Yosso, 2002). The CRT work extended and branched out to look at
other racialized groups’ experiences and how stereotypes and oppressions have been present for
them (Yosso, 2002). These other CRT frameworks such as AsianCrit, Fem Crit, LatCrit,
TribalCrit, and even WhiteCrit (Brayboy, 2001, 2005; Chang, 1993; Delgado, 1997; Love, 2019)
have brought to light White-centered hidden norms in the U.S. society (Yosso, 2002). These
diverse CRT frameworks also surface the intersectionality of oppression. Intersectionality was a
concept described by Crenshaw (1989) to explain that having two or more oppressed identities
creates a point of intersection where the oppression is multiplied.
CRT work extended to the field of education, where it allowed looking into the role
racism plays in teaching, within the curriculum, and in educational research (Solórzano, 1997).
CRT, and CRT in education according to Solórzano and Yosso (2001) and Yosso (2002), are
guided through five tenets: racism is central to every social structure, there is a need to challenge
the dominant ideology, a commitment to social justice, centering the narratives from lived
experiences, and uses a transdisciplinary perspective to understand oppression in education. CRT
and its tenets provide a lens to look into our communities of color (Yosso, 2005). Delgado
Bernal (1998, 2002), Ladson-Billings (2000), and Yosso (2005) have questioned what

15
knowledge and narratives are seen as valuable in U.S. society and argue that racist dominant
ideologies have been seen as valuable and used to shape the U.S. society and education.
Tara Yosso (2005) explained that the United States values knowledge and practices and
creates hierarchies based on Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital. Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu
& Passeron, 1977) defined three types of capital: economic, social, and cultural. Bourdieu
attempted to explain that the middle and upper classes had these types of capital and that they are
passed through families, which explained that the poor and people of color lacked these forms of
capital and therefore could not move upward (Yosso, 2005). The Bordieuan definition of cultural
capital included the possession of objects that provide a view of economic capital, but also the
possession of titles and degrees that are obtained through institutions (Bourdieu & Passeron,
1977; Denton, 2020). Therefore, in Bourdieu’s view, the only other way to acquire capital was
through schooling (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Yosso, 2005). Following this Bordieuan idea of
what has value in society, academic institutions have seen students of color and of historically
marginalized backgrounds as lacking cultural capital (Yosso, 2005). Yosso (2005) uses the CRT
lens to challenge the idea that only White middle and upper-class groups have knowledge and
assets of value by presenting the concept of CCW. CCW highlights six forms of capital that
students of color bring from their community into their academic environments that have been
underestimated (Yosso, 2005). The six forms of valuable capital described by Yosso (2005)
include: aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistant capital. However,
Denton (2020) stated that “education is situated as the gatekeeper of cultural capital and, power
because classrooms perpetuate what counts as valuable knowledge, behaviors, and skills in
society” (p. 558).

16
FGCS is a term used to refer to students whose parents did not have a college education
(Pascarella, 2004; Renee Posselt, 2012; Saenz et al., 2007). In contrast, continuing generation
college students (CGCS) is a term used for students that have at least one parent who completed
their college education (Sirin, 2005). FGCS are more likely to drop out of college, face more
economic challenges, and once graduated, have lower incomes than CGCS (Fry, 2021;
Pascarella, 2004). FGCS are also more likely to be students of color from low-income
backgrounds (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Redford & Hoyer, 2017; Tate et al., 2015). Some scholars
have concluded that FGCS lack generational knowledge and access to family networks that
CGCS have and must rely on their self-driven aspirations and good academic performance to
access opportunities (Housel, 2019; Kohler Giancola, 2008; Renee Posselt, 2012). However,
when FGCS participate in academic programs, they gain cultural and social capital defined by
the dominant culture (Espino, 2014; Renee Posselt, 2012). CCW and CRT are appropriate lenses
to look at what strategies academic programs use to support FGCS and how it looks when
FGCS’s cultural wealth is centered as a framework to support their educational journey. While
CRT is appropriate to look at how deeply ingrained racism is embedded in the roots of
education, CCW is appropriate to look at what strategies foster FGSC cultural wealth to thrive in
higher education.
Historical Development of FGCSOC in Higher Education
The difference in performance between students of color and White students has been
referred to as the achievement gap (National Governor’s Association, 2005, as cited in LadsonBillings, 2006). Ladson-Billings (2006) claims that rather than a gap, we are facing an education
debt built by historical economic and political decisions. In this section, some key historical
components of education in the United States will be covered. This review will by no means be

17
comprehensive, but it intends to provide a background for FGCSOC. This review will mostly
cover the historical events directly linked to African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Native
Americans in the United States as key influences on the current positioning of FGCSOC in
higher education.
Settler colonialism according to Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez (2013) is “the specific
formation of colonialism in which the colonizer comes to stay, making himself the sovereign,
and the arbiter of citizenship, civility, and knowing” (p. 73). Colonialism in the United States
started in 1492 upon the arrival of European White settlers to what is now American territory and
found lands populated with natives that they deemed uncivilized (Spring, 2016). Settler
colonialism in the United States has three components, European White settlers, Native
Americans who must be eliminated to take over the land, and enslaved people to work the land
(Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013). European colonizers believed that Anglo-Saxon
protestant Christians were superior to natives and any other culture and used this belief to justify
educational methods as tools for colonization (Spring, 2016). With the support of missionaries,
some of the tools used by colonizers were cultural genocide, deculturalization, and denial of
education, meaning they attempted to eliminate culture, replace it with the colonizer’s culture
and then deny access to education to these groups to maintain power (Matos, 2015; Spring,
2016). Colonizers with the intention of accumulating property, stole land and resources from
natives and then attempted to destroy Native Americans’ ways of passing knowledge based on
community storytelling and tribe rituals (Spring, 2016). Native Americans resisted the
colonizers’ ideology, and it was only through violent acts that they imposed the idea that only
hard work and behaviors aligned with Christianity could lead them to a worthy life (LadsonBillings, 2006; Spring, 2016). In the United States children were removed from Native American

18
families and placed in boarding schools where their language and cultures were erased and
replaced to ensure that their cultural survival skills were suppressed and ensure the settler
futurity (Love, 2019; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013). Later, in time, Native Americas
graduating from boarding schools were not welcomed into colleges that were predominantly
White (Matos, 2015).
The idea of superiority and the desire to erase culture was also imposed on other cultures.
Enslaved Black people were removed from their own lands and were forcefully brought to the
Americas, dehumanized, and treated as the property of White settlers to work native stolen land
(Dumas & Ross, 2016; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013). Enslaved Black people were
forbidden from learning environments, and teaching enslaved children to read and write was
considered a crime between 1800 and 1835 (Anderson, 1988; Ladson-Billings, 2006). After
emancipation in 1863, Black people were eager to send their kids to school but wanted schooling
that was not under the control of their previous enslavers, so they organized self-sustained
educational collectives run and taught by Black people; some of these schooling efforts pre-dated
emancipation (Anderson, 1988). In 1864 a board of education took over the organization of
Black schools, followed by White teachers being sent to Black rural schools as an act of
benevolence that later resulted in school closures due to supposed financial reasons (Anderson,
1988). Black schooling survived and grew due to self-organizing efforts to create private schools
and Sabbath religious schools that were not run by the government (Anderson, 1988). According
to Anderson (1988) Black people “viewed literacy and formal education as means to liberation
and freedom” (p. 17).
The abolition of slavery in the United States led to reactions in the form of increased
legal segregation that lasted for about 100 years, the era known as Jim Crow (Alexander, 2012;

19
Dumas & Ross, 2016). The legality of segregation was made clear by the 1896 Plessy vs.
Ferguson decision, which set a precedent for the segregation of Black people in public spaces,
including schools (Landman, 2004). Chicanos or people of Mexican descent also experienced
segregation that lasted until the 1970s (Gonzalez, 1996). A mass migration took place between
1900 and 1930 as a response to labor demand in the United States, the demands only increased
with World War II and Mexican communities started to appear in areas with agricultural labor
(Gonzalez, 1996; Molina, 2013). Communities were purposefully designated for Mexicans to
stay segregated, and schools in Mexican communities appeared as a socialization tool to position
kids of Mexican descent into their hierarchy in the capitalist U.S. society (Gonzalez, 1996;
Guzman, 2021). According to Gonzalez (1996), the argument for the segregation of Mexican
children was that “due to a cultural or a biological deficit, or both, Mexican children were
deemed incapable of learning at the same pace and level as the average English-speaking child”
(p. 46). When Mexicans surpassed expectations and reached higher levels of education, they
were channeled into vocational courses. Mexicans mobilized as early as 1919 in California to
protest school segregation, but cases have been recorded earlier in other states (Gonzalez, 1996;
Guzman, 2021). People of Mexican descent were invisible, they worked side by side with other
immigrants of Asian descent, but their racial classification was often unclear to Whites, and
before Mexicans became more present in the United States, they were not paid attention to and
were often classified as Whites (Gonzalez, 1996; Molina, 2013). Mexicans, however, were
resourceful in continuing to mobilize and fight desegregation. In 1931, Mexican children were
not allowed in their local schools in Lemon Grove, California; parents, and the community filed
a case in Roberto Alvarez vs. the board of trustees of the Lemon Grove school district, which
became the first successful ruling in the United States passed in favor of disaggregation

20
(Bordelon, 2022; Ladson Billings, 2006). The Lemon Grove incident became an important
precedent for the most well-known desegregation ruling in the United States (Bordelon, 2022;
Gonzalez, 1996).
During the civil rights movement between 1954 and 1968, major policies with an impact
on education passed. Brown v. Board of Education was passed by the U.S. Supreme Court in
1954, making school racial segregation unconstitutional (Yosso et al., 2004). This ruling did not
provide an implementation plan, and desegregation started taking place, but integration and
equality in education did not (Bell, 2005; Yosso et al., 2004). Some scholars have argued that the
Brown decision was influenced by foreign policy and the desire of the Truman administration to
fix the image of the United States (Martinez, 2014). This decision led to Black school closures
and further damage to Black students instead of providing a remedial solution (Yosso et al.,
2004). Bell (2005) argued that if the goal was to create equality, there would have been a plan
that included having good facilities, teacher training, representation in the school boards, and
access to any school. Despite the Brown decision, a few decades later, schools have become
segregated again and underfunded as the school districts have become dependent on the income
of the neighborhood residents (Bordelon, 2022; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Scholars like Bell and
DuBois predicted that the failure of the Brown decision was due to wanting to integrate and not
to bring equality to education (Yosso et al., 2004).
Another important policy impacting FGCSOC was affirmative action, which was in place
to attempt to compensate for the history of race-based discrimination endured by communities of
color in the United States (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). This policy has been opposed under the
argument that admissions to higher education accounting for race discriminate against Whites
(Yosso et al., 2004). Affirmative action has become a source of burden and discounting of SOC

21
merit to be at higher education institutions when facing the White-centered narrative that the
only reason they were admitted to college is that a quota needed to be met (Matos, 2015).
Colonialism has persisted in education (Spring, 2016). While education has been centered
on White middle and upper-class students, research repeatedly has tried to prove that students of
color are inferior (Valencia, 1997). Also, while some groups have been studied extensively
through a deficit lens, other groups have been neglected. For example, some numbers illustrate
that Native American women attend college at a higher rate than Native American men. Still,
researchers have failed to pay enough attention to this group in education (Waterman, 2013).
Yosso (2002) looked at the curriculum through the CRT lens. Yosso (2002) defined curriculum
as everything that goes into presenting knowledge to students, including the educational system,
processes, and narratives, either from formal or informal channels. CRT exposes how the
standard curriculum in the United States supports white privilege, silences the stories of SOC,
and erases important elements of who SOC is (Solórzano & Bernal, 2001; Yosso, 2002).
Literature on FGCSOC and Deficit Thinking
Research on FGCSOC has predominantly been approached from a deficit perspective.
Deficit-oriented research is the default mode of research, and it is the natural approach in higher
education institutions that were made for the White centered dominant group (Denton, 2020). A
narrative constructed about FGCSOC starts with what has been reported through statistical
reports and research (Fry, 2021). While the statistics are factual, the story behind them is often
not told; this has constructed a definition of FGCSOC from a deficit perspective (Brown, 2020).
The struggle is real, but the reasons why they struggle have been placed on the student and the
student’s family alone, while their struggles depend on systemic and institutional barriers (Sáenz
et al., 2007). Instead of focusing on the underlying systemic barriers that FGCS face during their

22
college education, research has focused on how students lack educational choices and
performance. Pascarella et al. (2004) argued that this section covers those areas of research;
however, those areas are not independent and are discussed in relation to one another.
FGCS has been defined in multiple ways. Toutkoushian et al. (2018) and Toutkoushian et
al. (2021) point out there are definitions ranging from whether one or neither parent went to
college, whether going to college meant enrolling or earning a degree, and whether college
meant a 2-year institution or a 4-year institution. An analysis of a national longitudinal study
found that those students with no-college-educated parents had larger deficits in enrollment
compared to students with parents with some college exposure or one college-educated parent
(Toutkoushian et al., 2018). Since it is challenging to know what working definition of FGCS
was used by every study, this literature review is inclusive of all the definitions, but aware that
parental education in every ethnic/racial group has been associated with increased challenges in
getting to college and completing college (Astin & Oseguera, 2005).
FGCS make up a significant percentage of the student population in the United States. In
2015, 56% of undergraduate students in the United States had a parent without a college degree
(RTI International, 2019). When looking at adults between the ages of 22 to 59, 70% of those
with a parent with a college degree completed college, while only 26% of those without a parent
with a college degree completed college (Fry, 2021). This association of student college
completion when having a parent completing college versus not having a parent completing
college is consistent for Black and Hispanic adults (Fry, 2021). The presence of FGCS is
notorious not only in 4-year institutions but also in two-year institutions. The National Center for
Education Statistics (2014) reported that students whose parents completed high school or less
make up 41.9% of the students at 4-year institutions and up to 47.7% of two-year institutions.

23
FGCS are reported to be around 30% of the undergraduates in the United States (Caltaldi et al.,
2018; Havlik, 2020).
FGCS has multiple intersectionalities that marginalize them, which has been the focus of
research on this population. Engle and Tinto (2008) listed eight identities that are more likely to
be part of FGCS than their CGCS peers, including being older, female, having a disability,
coming from a minoritized background, being a non-native English speaker, being born outside
of the United States, to have children and be single parents, to have a high school equivalency
diploma and to be financially independent of their parents. Being an FGCS and being a student
of color (SOC) are frequent intersecting identities (Havlik et al., 2020; Ma & Shea, 2021; SantaRamirez et al., 2022). According to Schuyler et al. (2021), about 30% of college students are
both first-generation and students of color. A higher percentage of Hispanic and Black undergrad
students were FGCS, while a higher percentage of White students were CGCS (Redford &
Hoyer, 2017). Between 2015 and 2016, FGCS were between 60% and 67% of the
undergraduates at Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), Tribal colleges, historically Black
universities (HBCUs), and 49% of White serving institutions (RTI International, 2019). African
American and Latine students have been found to take longer to graduate than White students
(Chen et al., 2019). Being FGCS and being a SOC increases their oppression; at predominantly
White institutions (PWI), students with these intersectionalities are more likely to encounter
racism in explicit and hidden ways coupled with the expectation of assimilating to a culture of
whiteness (Means & Pyne, 2017; Quaye et al., 2015).
Another challenge that the research has presented is that FGCS have more difficult
transitions and lower levels of integration into their college life and low connectedness and less
sense of belonging to campus life (Covarrubias et al., 2022; Ma & Shea, 2021; Means & Pyne,

24
2017). Ma and Shea (2021) looked at factors that linked perceived barriers and career outcomes
for FGCS and concluded that the perception of barriers was strongly correlated to career
outcomes and that FGCS having low campus connectedness resulted in negative attitudes
towards career outcomes. Ma and Shea (2021) added that Latine FGCS reported higher levels of
perceived barriers compared to White and other minorities. While it is important to consider the
student’s perception, it is important to acknowledge the actual presence of barriers. An example
of this is the association between coming from a low-income family and being part of the
workforce while being a student and struggling to feel connectedness and belonging because
they cannot spend too much time on campus apart from attending classes (Means & Pyne,
2017). FGCS tend to spend more time working than CGCS (Pascarella et al., 2004). FGCS often
come from low-income families (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Havlik et al., 2020; Ishitani, 2016). In
2015, the median parental income for dependent FGCS was $41,000, while it was $90,000 for
CGCS parents (RTI International, 2019). Some studies have found a correlation between lowincome status and a lower likelihood of graduating by the age of 24 compared to students coming
from higher-income families (Thayer, 2000). Knowing that students take a longer time to
graduate, seen from the CCW lens, would provide an additional layer to this information to
understand if taking a job to support their studies or families or to develop additional skills is a
demonstration of aspirational, navigational, or familial capital.
In addition to lower integration and taking longer to graduate, research points out that
FGCS are more likely to drop out of college and take longer to graduate (Engle & Tinto, 2008;
(Sáenz et al., 2007). Increased access to college has not yet translated into increased retention,
college completion, and education attainment (Cahalan et al., 2018; Rivera et al., 2022).
Demetriou et al. (2017) pointed out a gap in research looking at retention of FGCS. Low

25
integration and low graduation rates are often attributed to FGCS’s lack of social and cultural
capital to navigate higher education (Housel, 2019; Kohler Giancola, 2008; Renee Posselt &
Black, 2012). Revelo and Baber (2018), on the other hand, listed “individualistic culture, lack of
faculty encouragement support, and hostile environment” (p. 252) when looking at the attrition
of Latines in engineering. Yet research has failed to look at the specific actions that make FGCS
graduates (Demetriou, 2017). While FGCS lack generational knowledge of hidden norms
centered on whiteness and access to family networks that CGCS have, FGCS, therefore, must
rely on their self-driven aspiration and good academic performance to access opportunities
(Housel, 2019; Kohler Giancola, 2008; Renee Posselt & Black, 2012). Renee Posselt and Black
argued that when students participate in activities like academic research as part of their
education, they gain Bordieuan’s social capital and cultural capital, including networks and
knowledge of research culture and skills that make them more likely to continue to graduate
degrees. This evidence highlights that while research often focuses on the deficit of FG students,
their career actions are comparable when they have access to the same resources (Brown et al.,
2020). Renee Posselt and Black’s (2012) interpretation of students participating in academic
activities, particularly in the McNair post-baccalaureate achievement program, fell short in
looking at what forms of CCW capital students participating in this program already had. The
CCW lens would have provided stories of FGSC using their navigational capital to find this
opportunity and their social and aspirational capital to create a network and persist in their
educational journey.
Some of the deficit-oriented research that emphasizes the lack of social and cultural
capital points out that their first-generation status makes them less likely to choose schools
institutions with high selectivity and even describes FGCS as “handicapped in terms of the types

26
of institutions they attend and the kinds of experience they have during college” (Pascarella et
al., 2004, p. 275). Pascarella et al. conclude that FGCS lacks generational cultural capital to
choose to attend better academic institutions and participate in college extracurricular activities.
Ma and Shea (2021) attributed FGCS’s high dropout rates to their low sense of belonging, lack
of engagement, and poor social networks. It is often the case that students attend institutions
where ethnic/racial groups are underrepresented on campus as compared to the ethnic/racial
makeup of the community where these institutions are located (Boettcher et al., 2022). If we look
at this research from an anti-deficit approach, we could say that FGCS were more likely to attend
a college closer to home than CGCS, with 82.9% of FGCS attending a home-state college
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). The decision of what school to attend could be
seen through the CCW lens, which looks at students’ school choices based on financial and
family standpoints and decisions to attend school with social networks familiar to them. There is,
however, an attempt from researchers to look at FGCS from a different approach. Demetriou
(2017) looked at FGCS that were successful at graduating in time and found that students used
their campus activities, jobs, and small campus organizations and communities as sources of
mentors, support, and opportunities. Students also engaged with faculty and explored new fields
to find areas of interest. Students engaged with academic and peer mentors, not necessarily from
a formal source. This last example signals that there is more than one way of looking at research
to define a population. While there is a difference between FGCS and CGCS, some studies have
shown that second-generation students of color have comparable experiences to FGCS
(Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). CCW provides a powerful lens to look at FGCSOC that has been
underutilized. While studies have painted a picture of students based on numerical comparisons,

27
CCW types of capital are not meant to be measured; instead, they use counter-storytelling
(Boettcher et al., 2022; Yosso, 2005).
All of this is important because the research shapes a profile of FGCSOC and adds to the
historical positioning of people of color in this country. History and research provide an image of
FGCSOC behind White CGCS, one of a student who cannot reach the same goals and metrics by
which we measure success, and one in which FGCSOC does not have the tools to change that
picture. All this shapes the perceptions and expectations of higher education administrators,
faculty, and staff, who are there to ensure the success of their student population (Jussim et al.,
1996). Deficit views lead to lower expectations and lower performance results in different
education settings (de Boer et al., 2010; Herzing, 2002). Through Yosso’s (2005) CCW lens, the
research available could be reframed and support systems modified to elevate the strengths and
assets of FGCSOC.
FGCSOC Cultural Wealth
Despite facing barriers and oppression, FGCS of color value and use their cultural wealth
to navigate, persist, and persevere through higher education (Covarrubias et al., 2022; Espino,
2014; Gist et al., 2018). The previous sections covered some of the major historical components
that have influenced the positioning of FGCSOC by U.S. society, academic research, and
educational institutions. Throughout this section, the anti-deficit picture of FGCSOC will be
presented. This picture is seen through Yosso’s (2005) CCW lens, which provides a view of the
types of capital that are invisible to the White-centered education system.
In contrast to the traditional White middle class defined sets of knowledge and skills
accepted traditionally as cultural capital (Rios-Ellis, 2015; Yosso, 2005), Yosso defines culture
as “behaviors and values that are learned, shared, and exhibited by a group of people” (p. 76),

28
and proposes that CCW as an anti-deficit view of Communities of Color cultural capital. Despite
most research on FGCSOC focusing on quantitative demographic comparisons and FGCS
deficits, other researchers, in line with Yosso’s CCW, have shown that there is a different story
to be told from the voices and experiences of students; this has been presented under different
names including anti-deficit, strength-based, or asset-based (Brown et al., 2020; Denton et al.,
2020).
Community Cultural Wealth
Yosso also defines community cultural wealth as “an array of knowledge, skills, abilities,
and contacts possessed by communities of color to survive and resist macro and microforms of
oppression” (p. 77). Yosso (2005) proposes six types of cultural capital that SOCs bring with
them into educational settings: aspirational capital, familial capital, social capital, navigational
capital, resistant capital, and linguistic capital. In recent years, more researchers have focused on
the strengths and the undermined forms of capital that FGCS use to get through higher education
(Brown, 2020; Covarrubias et al., 2022). In a systemic review of CCW in non-dominant students
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), there were no findings of studies
using CCW until 2012 (Denton, 2020). Research that utilized the CCW approach provides a
window to look at the wealth of multiple groups of color. Additionally, CCW has been used to
examine some ethnic/racial groups neglected by the traditional literature (Boettcher et al., 2022;
Waterman & Lindley, 2013). Some of the research providing evidence of CCW focuses only on
specific ethnic/racial groups or an educational level other than college. While not every single
study covers the intersectionality of their ethnic/racial backgrounds, generational status, and
college education alone, nonetheless, these are important pieces of research that provide

29
evidence that the CCW provides a channel for telling the story of FCCSOC. Next, multiple types
of capital found in FGCS and SOC will be described from studies that used the CCW lens.
Aspirational Capital
Aspirational capital, defined as “the ability to maintain hopes and dreams for the future,
even in the face of real and perceived barriers” (Yosso, 2005, p. 77), can be manifested through
the inspiration and motivational support families and chosen families provide towards student
growth in their education (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017; Matos, 2015). Espino (2014) also
describes aspirational capital going “beyond present circumstances” (p. 554). Aspirational capital
is central to FGCS and SOC, and it is seen in their motivation to get to college and through their
college education, including in reaching out for support from support programs (Boettcher et al.,
2022). A study by Kouyoumdjian et al. (2017) that defined aspirational capital as the selfdetermination to do what is needed to succeed in college identified aspirational capital in all their
Latine FGCS participants.
Aspirational research is manifested in different ways, such as going to college to help
their families send other younger family members to school, for women to be a source of pride
for their families, and to get to a higher socioeconomic status for themselves and their families
(Matos, 2015). Additionally, Latinas attending college used their aspirational capital not only to
give back to their families but also to give more than they ever got because they realized that
their families have worked so hard that they deserve a break (Matos, 2015). In this way,
aspirational capital is highly connected to familial capital.
Familial Capital
Familial capital is defined as “those cultural knowledges nurtured among familia (kin)
that carry a sense of community history, memory and cultural intuition” (Yosso, 2005, p. 79).

30
Familial capital is present in multiple groups of color (Matos, 2015; Waterman & Lindley,
2013). Waterman and Lindley describe the central role it has for Native American analysis of
two different studies that looked at Native American women in higher education finding that
women were motivated to complete their education because they had seen the strength of their
grandmothers, mothers, and sisters, and they wanted to be that aspiration for their kids. The
bonds of Native Americans in these studies extended to their communities and their culture.
Their motivation went full circle, Native Americans used their familiar capital attending
institutions influenced by colonization that have failed to acknowledge them (Waterman &
Lindley, 2013). Rios-Ellis et al. (2015) describe familial capital or familismo as a “core
characteristic among Latinos.” Large families and extended family networks create the skills for
Latines to learn to relate to others and form a community (Rios-Ellis et al., 2015). In a different
example, Latinas going to college away from home used their familial capital to replicate the
family link within the campus communities and organizations (Matos, 2015). Other Latinas and
Latinos who lived at home while attending college did not need to replicate the family
environment. Still, some found motherly figures in program coordinators or program services,
meaning there was someone who knew what was going on with them at a personal level and was
an encouragement source in their lives (Matos, 2015). Another study looking at African
American and Latine students highlighted carrying their family pride and getting an education
for themselves and their families; their familial capital was a source of encouragement and
support (Boettcher et al., 2022). Another role familial capital plays in education is in making
FGCSOC role models in their families, and often, FGCSOC proudly embrace the pioneering role
(Espino, 2014; Boettcher et al., 2022). Therefore, this type of capital is relevant for FGCSOC
education and those that come after in their communities.

31
Social Capital
Social capital is closely related to familial capital, and it is defined by Yosso (2005) as
“networks of people and community resources” (p. 79). Rios-Ellis et al. (2015) describe
comunitarismo, personalismo, respeto, and simpatia as core values of Latines ways to relate to
others and creating and maintaining social capital with their communities where strong
personable bonds are created, the elderly are respected, and harmony is a dominant force that
allows to deal with difficult situations. FGCSOC’s social capital is observed within the campus
and in outside networks (Boettcher, 2022; Matos, 2015). FGCSOC have described sources of
institutional support as part of their networks (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). An example of
FGCSOC using their social capital outside campus was Black students’ networks with religious
communities, which were their source of strength and wellness (Brown et al., 2020). SOC and
their families are aware of their social networks, and they know how to use them to navigate
barriers, find resources, and see the bright side through difficult situations (Boettcher et al., 2022;
Matos, 2015; Rios-Ellis et al., 2015).
Navigational Capital
Navigational capital is defined by Yosso (2005) as “the skills of maneuvering through
social institutions” (p. 80). Some examples of this type of capital include figuring out how to
register for classes or receive financial and housing services even in hostile environments (RiosEllis et al., 2015; Yosso, 2005). Covarrubias et al. (2022) explain that navigational capital is key
in navigating the barriers of higher education in the United States that have been built by Whitedominant norms. Navigational capital is the focus of many studies looking at higher education,
including transitions into college and from 2-year institutions to 4-year institutions and graduate
school (Denton et al., 2020). Ramirez (2011) found through a study that despite not knowing

32
how to apply to graduate schools, students used unconventional strategies, which sometimes led
them into graduate school; those unconventional attempts are navigational capital displayed
when facing the unknown. Covarrubias et al. (2022) conducted a study in a Hispanic-serving
institution (HSI) where students reported White-centered practices that made resources less
accessible to FGCS of color. Through this study, students could provide recommendations based
on their navigational capital experiences. Some of the student’s recommendations called out
hidden curriculum and assumptions made by administrators that FGCSOC and low-income
students would know how to access and/or non-explicit resources. This study described how
students used their navigational capital and voices to identify and point out the system’s pitfalls
and how it fails to serve the population.
Linguistic Capital
Linguistic capital, as described by Yosso (2005), is about “the linguistic and social skills
attained through communication experiences in more than one language and/or style” (p. 78). A
systematic review of non-dominant students found that this type of capital was the least prevalent
in the literature, and other studies recognized not probing for this theme in their research (Denton
et al., 2015; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). Linguistic capital is represented by diversity, the
knowledge of other languages, and the tradition of communicating through storytelling.
Interestingly, Denton et al. (2015) found that among the literature, communication in the deaf
community and learning the scientific language were forms of linguistic capital. Linguistic
capital centers the knowledge of communities of color through sharing lived experiences in their
very own ways (Solórzano et al., 2001). The stories shared in communities of color hold cultural
richness and the strength that provides bases for resisting adversities.

33
Resistant Capital
Resistant capital is observed in the persistence of FGCSOC. Resistant capital is defined
by Yosso (2005) as “those knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that
challenges inequality” (p. 80). Resistant capital is central to communities of color. It has been
demonstrated through extensive resistance to racism from multiple ethnic and racial groups and
passed from parents to children to self-preserve and challenge the system (Yosso, 2005).
Through a systematic review, Denton et al. (2020) found that most studies of students from nondominant backgrounds in STEM found resistant capital in their subject pool.
Resistant capital can be observed at the individual level or through organizations. Espino
(2014) shows an example of resistance at the personal level. In a study looking at the persistence
of Mexican Americans, including FGCSs in doctoral programs, Espino (2014) gathered that
when students were not supported in ways that enabled their educational growth, they acquired a
“prove them wrong” (p. 560) attitude. Students described school administrators, faculty, and
even advisors as barriers in their career paths, but some persisted and later became faculty and
mentors to other FGCS. Espino (2014) points out that this display of resistant capital has been
observed in other studies. An example of resistant capital observed through organized efforts is a
study by Revelo and Baber (2018), who looked at Latine students who were members of the
Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE). Revelo and Baber (2018) found that
students showed resistance in three ways: by taking the role model idea of being a role model
themselves, by giving back to their communities, and by membership in their organization.
Revelo and Baber (2018) emphasized that students intentionally moved from conformist
resistance to a transformative form of resistance, meaning they resisted not only by learning to
play the system’s rules but also by going beyond that and being motivated to attempt to change

34
the system. And through the most hostile environments, FGCSOC used resistant capital to face
oppression, racism, and stereotypes (Allen-McCombs, 2022).
Current Models of Academic Support
Despite good intentions of supporting FGCS, some programs look at students as lacking
cultural capital and use strategies to provide students with the cultural capital of the dominant
academic ideology (Renee Posselt & Black, 2012). FGCSs are about 30% of the undergraduates
in the United States (Cataldi et al., 2018; Havlik, 2020). Academic institutions and the U.S.
Department of Education have considered the potential of this significant proportion of the
college population on the U.S. workforce and economy; programs and incentives have been
created for institutions to enroll in FGCS to improve metrics of access, affordability, and
performance (Ishitani, 2016; Schelbe et al., 2019). This need to improve metrics comes from the
educational debt described by Ladson-Billings (2016) and from the lack of institutional
accountability in recognizing institutional racism and its outcomes (2012). Systems of support
for FGCSOC have been classified as transitional programs, meaning programs that ease students
into the college experience, and supportive programs, including support services continuing
through their college experience (Schelbe et al., 2019; Schuyler et al., 2021). Overlapping those
two categories, mental health support is also recognized by the literature (Schuyler et al., 2021).
However, multiple models of support cover single needs to all-in-one programs (Love et al.,
2021).
The first and one of the major federal college initiatives in favor of student support
services to increase access and retention of FGCS is the TRiO program; this program got its
name from three programs but has expanded to more ever since (U.S. Department of Education
2011). The three original programs were Upward Bound, originating from the Economic

35
Opportunity Act of 1964, Talent Search from the Higher Education Act of 1965, and Special
Services for Disadvantaged Students from the Higher Education Amendments in 1968 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011). TRiO programs are housed under the Office of Postsecondary
Education and under higher education programs, which are dedicated to institutional and student
services (U.S. Department of Education, 2023a). Currently, TRiO programs include eight
programs according to the U.S. Department of Education (2023b), including Educational
Opportunity Centers, Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement, Student Support
Services, Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math Science, Veterans Upward
Bound, and Training Program for Federal TRiO Programs Staff which focuses on prepared
program staff (U.S. Department of Education, 2023b). All these programs, except for the staff
training program, include in their eligibility criteria to be low-income and potential firstgeneration students, and their goals were to increase access, to have older students and veterans
return to school, to support students with disabilities, to increase retention and graduation rates,
to increase student presence in math and science, and in some cases to extend their education to
graduate school through research experience (Hodge et al., 2020; Quinn et al., 2019; U.S.
Department of Education, 2023b). The TRIO programs use a combination of services, including
tutoring, mentoring, counseling, career services, financial literacy, work-study programs, cultural
events, English proficiency, and some academic assistance with reading, writing, math, and
science training, information, and assistance for completing school and financial aid application
and information on college re-entry (U.S. Department of Education, 2023b). For these programs
to be available to students, academic institutions need to apply, and eligible students might apply
once these programs are available at their schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2023b).

36
TRIO programs have components and multiple nuanced goals for specific groups within
the low-income, first-generation student population and have been described as an empowering
variable in a study designed to evaluate programs (Quinn et al., 2019; U.S. Department of
Education, 2023b). Other programs have focused on providing services from multiple angles.
Means and Pyne (2017) explored a comprehensive pre-college access program for low-income
FGCS students through the 1st year of college. A private agency supported this type of program,
and it provided support to students starting in college to prepare them for college and provide
information on admissions. The program supported college planning for students and their
families and supported the development of academic and social aspects (Means & Pyne, 2017).
Through this study, Means and Pyne found that perceptions of belonging start before college
enrollment, and readiness programs starting in high school and continuing through college are
beneficial. The comprehensive program studied by Means and Pyne included mentoring,
tutoring, college planning, exposure to a college campus through residential programs, admission
support, developing academic and social strengths, and future goal planning. The study found
that the support they received increased students’ sense of belonging, but they also found that the
sense of belonging started developing before enrolling in college. Other studies have looked at
long-duration multi-component programs. The Metro College Success Program is in the
California State University system. It is organized in groups called Academies, a cohort-style
group through lower division students’ education. It includes several common classes, student
services like academic advising and tutoring, and interaction with faculty with pedagogy and
social justice curriculum training (Love et al., 2021). Love et al. identified other multicomponent programs, such as Guided Pathways (GP) and Accelerated Study in Associate
Programs (ASAP), both used broadly in the community college system. GP differs in having a

37
strict field-directed curriculum. ASAP focuses on removing barriers over 3 years and providing
extensive financial support, including tuition coverage (Center for Community College Student
Engagement, 2020; Scrivener et al., 2015).
Some scholars point out that besides having comprehensive services described in the
previous support programs, it is necessary to pay attention to other issues like access, campus
climate, and the skills and background of those providing the program support (AllenMcCombs,2022; Hodge et al., 2020; Love 2019). Despite programs being available at
universities, information on how to access them is not always available. Hodge et al. (2020)
found in a study that access information regarding support for first-generation students was not
readily accessible on their home websites or other frequently visited websites such as financial
aid sites, making services hard to reach. Additionally, support programs like the TRiO programs
might not mean that students will access them because they might not be aware of their
generational status or how to find these programs outside their institution websites (Hodge et al.,
2020). Once students are part of programs, other factors might influence the student experience.
Allen-McCombs (2022) studied FGCS through a recruitment and retention program in a PWI.
They found that despite the program being intended to support them and provide them with
opportunities, the campus environment was still hostile and had messages contradicting those of
the program. Some students did not fit in with alumni networks after graduation. One last thing
to consider is who the providers of support are. Bettina Love (2019) argues that the image of
students of color as lacking and problematic continues to be propagated through teacher
education programs that fail to include diverse and culturally relevant curriculums. While Love
(2019) refers to teachers’ lack of understanding of the richness and unique experiences of
students of color, this can be applied to other settings where people work with students of color,

38
where the standard idea of success is White-centered. Love et al. (2021) additionally bring up
that there is a missed opportunity to provide students with access to support. The one place
where they will go is their classroom, but the majority of faculty are field experts and not
properly trained in pedagogy and curriculum development. Some programs, like the TRiO
programs, include staff training, and some, like the Metro programs, include faculty development
(Love et al., 2021; U.S. Department of Education, 2023b). Yet, one of the problems with
academic programs is that their goals and strategies are centered on eliminating the deficits of
the students they serve and have yet to understand the student’s cultural capital and how that can
be used to see where the students are situated in their context and how their cultural capital can
be better utilized (Rios-Ellis et al., 2015). A lack of understanding and acknowledgment of
FGCSOC strengths and assets from institutions and programs’ administrators, staff, and faculty
can result in additional barriers to the student’s academic and career paths (Espino, 2014).
Promising Practices
This section will describe some strength-based approaches and strategies that were
provided as recommendations from research looking at support mechanisms for FGCS of color.
Continuing with looking at research and programs that made explicit and intentional use of CCW
as their strategy for support. This section attempts to show that different support models are
possible and can better fit the needs of FGCSOC. Some traditional forms of support rooted in
deficit perspectives have had limited contributions to FGCSOC’s success. FGCSOC will
continue to leak students out of the educational system at all levels unless support systems and
perceptions of FGCSOC are reframed (Espino, 2014). In a study by Brown et al. (2020), a
student participant said, “First-generation students are not a problem to be fixed,” and

39
emphasized the need to switch from a deficit to a strength-based approach in support systems
like counseling.
The assets and strengths of FGCSOC can be propagated and multiplied when FGCSOC
are in spaces where they can be themselves, where they can see closely FGCSOC’s success
stories, and learn about the tools other students like them used to navigate successfully through
college (Brown et al., 2020; Robert & Lucas, 2022; Yosso et al., 2009). Luedke (2019) found
that Latine students at PWIs found mental, academic, and career forms of support in culturally
based organizations. The culturally based organizations included a specific field student
organization, fraternities and sorority organizations, and leadership organizations targeted at a
specific ethnic/racial group, and they provided opportunities for students to openly ask questions
and access cultural capital that was not available to them outside of the organization in their
academic institution (Luedke, 2019). Luedke (2019) mentioned that some culturally based
organizations provided counterspaces to FGCS and students of color. Another example is a study
that looked at a Title V center; this center provided a counterspace for students to get academic
and non-academic support and a space where they could be themselves (Luedke, 2019; Roberts
& Lucas, 2022). Title V funds universities to support Latine populations (Roberts & Lucas,
2022). The use of this funding has been used in multiple ways by different institutions. Some of
the models of support seen include professional development, counseling, tutoring, major
specific support from faculty and staff, transferring support, and physical spaces to be available
for students, including a multi-service resource center or just a place to be (Berkeley Connect,
2020; Roberts & Lucas, 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Counterspaces create an
opportunity for supporting FGCSOC to have the inclination to create a community for social
support; these communities sometimes develop within systems of academic support and have

40
allowed students to face academic rigors (Yosso et al., 2009). Counterspaces, therefore, provide
an opportunity to use familial and social capital as a way of supporting FGCSOC.
Some of the ways in which academic programs could provide support to FGCSOC
through CCW can be drawn from strength-based research results and recommendations. Means
and Pyne (2017) provided a list of recommendations geared towards low-income FGCSOC that
included cohort-based academic and social support, professional development for faculty to
improve their cultural competence, improve relationships with students, increase faculty’s
knowledge on building student’s self-efficacy, and integrate equity and social justice in the
students’ affairs curriculum for the development of better services, programs, and services.
Means and Pyne (2017) found that FGCSOC participating in comprehensive support programs
had more sense of belonging when resources were available to them, including scholarships,
identity-based student organizations, community building in their residence, support services,
supportive faculty, and high-impact education practices.
Some scholars have described specific forms of support centered on CCW, including peer
support and mentorship relationships that can recognize students’ assets (Chin Goosby, 2021;
Rios-Ellis, 2015). Rios-Ellis describes a CCW-based initiative at a Hispanic serving institution
using the popular Promotores approach used traditionally in public health to establish an
educational peer mentor support system among Latine students. Faculty of color that can act as
mentors and role models are often underrepresented; having ethnic/race concordant peer mentors
is a way of providing the unmet need for mentors with the same cultural understandings and
knowledge of how to utilize their cultural capital to navigate through barriers in their education
(Rios-Ellis, 2015). Chin Goosby (2021) proposed the need to look at mentoring styles that
support the specific needs of students. Chin Goosby looks at mentoring of undocumented

41
immigrant students and finds most mentoring relationships were formed through an academic
institution, but not through a formal channel, and that most mentors were people of color, were
first-generation in some way, or had a shared identity with the student. Demetriou et al. (2017)
also found that FGCS found mentors through activities like jobs, volunteering, and organization
involvement. Despite being a different student population than the focus of this work, Chin
Goosby (2021) found that it is possible to have mentoring that comes from an asset-based
perspective. Mentors could recognize all six forms CCW forms of capital and use them as a tool
to support the students; mentors played a big role in decoding the academic environment into
something they knew by using their cultural capital (Chin Goosby, 2021). Besides
encouragement, affirmations, and academic and professional support, Chin Goosby found that
mentors who recognize the strengths and went above and beyond in providing support to remove
the barriers that were preventing students from reaching their goals and aspirations; this often
involved engaging families, connecting them to ways to access resources, such as a computer
loan or connect them to a paid internship. Demetriou et al. (2017) provided recommendations for
integrating activities into support programs that can provide mentoring opportunities to
participate in the natural dynamics, such as part-time jobs on campus that provide a balanced
commitment to employees and an opportunity for learning new skills and creating networks for
future opportunities.
CCW has also been used in support programs that are common in supporting the
transition to college. McGowan and Pérez (2020) looked at a summer bridge program for firstgeneration African American males going to historically White institutions (HWIs). They found
that the program provided social capital, but students also intended to provide CCW forms of
capital to students. During the summer bridge program, students created bonds with other

42
students who had similar backgrounds; this allowed students to navigate through a
predominantly White campus once school started; besides social, navigational, and aspirational
capital, students gained self-efficacy through this support program (McGowan & Pérez, 2020).
Switching from a remedial or deficit approach to an asset-based approach to support
FGCSOC and other historically marginalized students has been proven necessary to improve
retention and graduation rates (Kezar et al., 2022). The assets and strengths of FGCSOC can be
propagated and multiplied when FGCSOC have support systems that provide what they need,
like learning from other FGCSOC success stories and affirmations of their shared strengths and
skills useful to navigate higher education (Brown et al., 2020; Kezar et al., 2022). Kezar et al.
call the smaller initiatives to support students from an asset-based approach innovation hubs and
found through a study of innovation hubs at multiple universities that it is possible to transfer this
support model to the overall campus to overcome the isolation of the small hubs. Despite all the
programs that provide support to FGCSOC, there are still students outside of those programs that
use their aspirational, navigational, and social capital by looking for support from faculty,
financial, and student services (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). Spreading asset-based or support
systems based in CCW to overall campuses would be ideal for reaching all the students who
have already used their CCW forms of capital to navigate higher education but are necessarily
part of programs. Knotek et al. (2019) provide an implementation framework to prepare
community directors at residence halls to improve their support of FGCS, SOC, and other
vulnerable students at PWIs through a CCW approach. This framework was informed by
research and by students’ voices to meet the student needs at the places where students are to
remove access barriers (Knowtek et al., 2019). All the approaches covered in this section show
that it is possible to provide support based on CCW by looking at the integral components of the

43
student environment and the institutional barriers and preparing those in close contact with
FGCSOC to improve their educational experiences and success.
Conceptual Framework
FGCSOCs get to college with their intersecting identities and a set of assets, knowledge,
and cultural values ingrained in them that are invisible in many higher education spaces. The
goal of the students is to get through higher education and acquire more knowledge and skills
that will allow them to learn and grow in the fields of their choice. While they are going through
college, many FGCSOCs do not meet the expectations of these institutions. The institutions have
been built on colonialism, oppression, and racism and built for a dominant group’s set of skills
and ways of living that have been accessible only to them.
The theoretical framework for this study is Tara Yosso’s community cultural wealth
(CCW) and its underlying roots in critical race theory (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). Yosso’s
(2005) CCW challenges Bourdieu’s conception of capital, which only values the social and
cultural capital of White middle- and upper-class groups. CCW describes six forms of capital
that students of color bring from their community into their academic environments. The six
forms of valuable capital described by Yosso (2005) include aspirational, navigational, social,
linguistic, familial, and resistant capital.
There are two major areas that have contributed to positioning FGCSOC: first, the history
of oppression and policies that disguised under the image of progress have continued to
propagate oppression and inequalities for communities of color in the United States; second, a
long tradition of academic research focused on comparing FGCSOC to White CGCS that are not
in a leveled playing field, creating a deficit perspective of this population. These two major areas
inform higher education. Higher education has also been built to serve a White middle/upper

44
class and young population, not to fit the needs of FGCSOC. When FGCSOC, despite systemic
barriers, get to college, they often face new spaces, and that is where they struggle to fit in. This
conceptual framework is organized below in two areas that will guide the study: support systems
based on deficit perspectives of FGCSOC and CCW-guided approaches.
Deficit Approach
Academic support systems, including administrators, counselors, faculty, residential staff,
and academic staff, are often informed by the same major areas that have positioned FGCSOC in
a deficit place. Academic research on FGCSOC has called for remediation of the deficits
perceived compared to the White CGCS. Academic support has been provided by government
and private initiatives to try to fix the problem. The support systems have been designed to
remediate, not to support. A deficit perspective includes lower expectations that influence
students through the message they receive. This, in turn, continues to leave FGCSOC with
insufficient support, which propagates the deficit cycle. Deficit approaches are trying to change
the student instead of changing the systemic barriers that place the student in that deficit position.
Community Cultural Wealth-Based Approach
Switching the lens through which higher education looks at FGCSOC, it is possible to
recognize the deficit in the systems serving them. CCW allows us to recognize the forms of
capital that FGCSOC brings with them, and some scholars who have produced research in the
last 10 years have used this lens to find in what ways students used different types of capital to
get to college and to get through college. This research has found that students use navigational
capital to navigate educational institutions that are not designed to fit their needs, that they use
aspirational capital to get to college and persist to college for themselves, their families, and their
communities. Familial capital has been found to be a main source of support, motivation, and a

45
model replicated in how they relate to others. Social capital is found in how people relate to
others and use campus and outside networks to overcome difficult situations. Linguistic capital
has been found in knowing other languages and learning new academic languages related to
specific fields. Finally, resistant capital has been observed not only in persisting but in
challenging the system and initiating change to tell a different story of who they are. CCW has
made its way from research into practice, and academic support programs have used the
knowledge of different types of capital to support FGCS and SOC in a way that recognizes their
assets and strengths. CCW-guided support systems have shown that these strategies make
students feel seen and supported and provide an example of how it is possible to use different
approaches that serve the student and their needs.
This study looks to understand the perceptions of academic support systems
administrators and staff to understand from what perspective they provide support to FGCSOC.
Academic support programs are part of the higher education system and might be informed by
the history and research that built the educational institution. Figure 1 shows a visual
representation of the conceptual framework described here, and of all the components of higher
education affecting how FGCSOC are perceived. This study also looks to understand the
strategies used for support and if program staff and administrators can recognize CCW forms of
capital in the students they serve. And last, in what way, if any, are academic support systems
utilizing CCW-based approaches to support FGCSOC success through their education?

46
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Summary
This chapter presented the theoretical framework to be used as a lens through this study
and a literature review covering the important historical components that have been critical in
setting the stage for FGCSOC in the higher education system. The chapter continued by
describing the trends in the literature regarding FGCSO and how deficit-centered research has
shaped the image of this student population. The CCW model and its forms of capital are then
explored through literature, providing examples of every type of capital represented within
higher education. This literature review continues by looking at current forms of support and the
history behind some major support programs for FGCSOC, followed by promising practices.
These promising practices are strategies based on strength, assets, and equity-minded practices to

47
support FGCSOC. This chapter ends with describing the conceptual framework used for this
study based on the theoretical framework and literature reviewed.

48
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study aimed to look at academic support systems for FGCSOC and learn from what
perspective they are providing support. This study was informed from the perspective of support
program staff and administrators to understand their perceptions of FGCSOC. This study also
examined how traditional higher education and CCW from communities of color inform, affect,
and shape best practices for supporting FGCSOC. The previous chapter described how historical
events and academic research on FGCSOC have shaped a deficit perspective of this population.
This study uses the CCW theory (Yosso, 2005) and its underlying roots in critical race theory to
look at systems of support through qualitative methodologies. This chapter covers the research
questions asked by this study, the study design, participant descriptions, the researcher
positionality, data collection procedures, and analysis.
Research Questions
The study asked how the goals of academic programs were aligned with the CCW model
through three questions:
1. How much awareness and knowledge do academic programs have about CCW types
of capital?
2. What specific strategies are used to support FGCSOC through the CCW lens or assetbased strategies?
3. Are the institutions housing the programs supporting FGCSOC aligned with the
program’s intentions/views/goals?
Overview of Design
This study used a qualitative methodology consisting of semi-structured interviews with
administrators and staff from programs supporting FGCSOC (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

49
Purposeful sampling with maximum variation was used to recruit study participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were voluntary and, with informed consent, took place over Zoom.
Ten interviews were conducted as saturation was reached. Interviews were recorded with the
participant’s permission and transcribed; all identifiable information was removed. Pseudonyms
were assigned for participants, category names were used for support programs, and institutions
mentioned were removed. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, starting with
concept-driven coding, and continuing with emergent coding.
Research Setting
This study sought from administrators and staff working for academic programs
supporting FGCSOC at academic institutions. Interviews took place remotely over Zoom. The
researcher recruited participants from 4-year public California colleges with publicly available
contact information. The researcher contacted potential participants over email and provided an
eligibility survey. Qualifying participants received the study information sheet by email before
the interview. The researcher connected to the videoconference software Zoom from a quiet and
private space at her residence. Participants were asked to join the Zoom meeting from a quiet,
private space where they could speak comfortably. The researcher used her USC Zoom account
to connect to participants online. The researcher reviewed the study information sheet with
participants of the study’s purpose and asked for verbal consent to record the meeting for data
review purposes. The Otter.ai software was used as an interview transcription tool. The
researcher asked for consent to contact them again by email for clarifications and member
checks. The researcher emailed participants for member checks while preparing the study results.

50
The Researcher
Positionality is “how one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of
gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language and other social factors” (Villaverde,
2008, p. 10). Positionality is also “an important tool for reflecting on and dislocating privilege,
particularly when working on equity research” (Secules, 2021, p. 19). Next, I provide my
positionality based on the previous definitions. I am a woman of color in academia. I lived in
Mexico for half my life before moving to this county; this gave me a strong foundation of who I
was as a person, of my culture, and a strong education foundation. The access I had to education
in Mexico was privileged; very early I had a solid foundation and awareness of the importance of
networks and opportunities. My life changed dramatically after starting college. I left behind my
social networks and the social structure I knew very well, and I started college in the United
States not knowing how to speak English. I am a first-generation college graduate and a nonnative English speaker who attended community college before transferring to a 4-year college.
Despite unfamiliarity with the U.S. college education institutional structures, I had high
aspirations. I constantly looked for opportunities around me, leading me to academic programs
and mentors who were my role models and door-openers through my college education. I have
worked in multiple academic institutions, and through the years, I have learned that not every
academic opportunity was visible to me, and still, these days, not every opportunity is open to
FGCS or SOC.
Growing up outside the United States protected me from having an awareness of the
historical racial oppression in this country. I knew, however, about classism and colorism, and I
experienced both growing up in Mexico. I was situated on the oppressed and on the privileged
side, depending on the context of the specific situation, and that is an experience I continue to

51
have. I spent my college years with naiveness about how my identity impacted my education.
My family taught me hard work, so I used every single opportunity that came in front of me to
grow and learn what I was supposed to do to succeed. As time has gone by, I have gained
awareness of things I couldn’t see before: hidden information, barriers, and racial
microaggressions that were present from the beginning. I have noticed throughout my career the
lack of presence of FGCS, SOC, and other minoritized students in the organizations where I have
worked. I have heard multiple times deficit narratives as explanations for why they are not given
access to those spaces. I am not sure if my support circles saw me as lacking or as having
potential. I do know who the mentors were who made me aware of my strengths and were there
to lift me up, and they have played a critical role in my life.
I do not play a direct role in my professional environment in supporting students, but I do
have a personal commitment to uplifting those around me that have been underestimated due to
perceptions constructed of them in the U.S. society. I also have a deep and sincere interest in
highlighting the strengths of FGCSOC and other minoritized groups and improving crucial
support systems to empower them through their education and future careers. I am aware that my
experiences are not the same as those of other FGCSOC, and the support systems might not be
the same I experienced through my education. My life and educational experiences have a deep
influence on the lens I have chosen to use through this study, and I intend as a researcher to listen
to the stories others have to tell from their own construction of what it means to provide support
to FGCSOC. Through the writing of this positionality statement a few times over the past 2
years, I realized that despite being a FGCSOC, earlier in my college years, I held some beliefs
aligned with the dominant ideology and the idea of meritocracy. Through the years after college,
I have slowly realized that success for FGCSOC and other minoritized students depends on much

52
more than effort and that when key players see our stories and skills, we can go further in our
careers. This acknowledgment of how my awareness has changed informs my role as a
researcher, knowing that I had to carefully observe my own path to understand my bias. As
someone on the receiving end of support of FGCSOC, I have kept in mind that the purpose of
this study is to hear the stories of staff and administrators supporting FGCSOC and understand
how their paths have created their understandings of the world and the role they play. Through
this study, I have practiced continuous reflection and taken note of any experiences that
resonated with my experiences and personal acknowledgment of bias. I acknowledged that all of
us have biases and that it takes a particular experience or learning to see those biases to center
the participant’s understanding of FGCSOC and the support they provide.
Data Sources
This study’s data sources were semi-structured interviews with administrators and staff
working for academic programs supporting FGCSOC. Academic support programs for this study
are any programs housed within 4-year institutions looking to support FGCSOC at 4-year public
colleges in California. The data collection methodology and participants are described in the
following subsections.
Interviews
The methodology to collect data in this study was semi-structured interviews consisting
of open-ended questions guided through the interview protocol in Appendix A. This study’s
qualitative methodology consisted of semi-structured interviews, meaning questions drafted
beforehand. Still, it is flexibly worded and aided by probing questions to understand better topics
aimed at answering the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This methodology was
appropriate because it provided room to look deeper into the participants’ perspectives,

53
supporting understanding of how they aligned with Yosso’s (2005) CCW model. The semistructured interview allowed the researcher to cover all the research questions and give some
room to explore the topics and themes emerging through the interview.
Participants
This study learned from administrators and staff working for academic programs
supporting FGCSOC. The study participants’ recruitment criteria included working for academic
programs supporting FGCSOC in a 4-year public college in California and at least 1 year
working at their current program. Academic support programs for the purpose of this study were
programs housed within public 4-year colleges in California providing any kind of support to
FGCSOC, including academic, financial, career counseling/advising, mentoring, leadership,
programs providing cultural community and or field-specific support, or any other type of
support towards their educational advancement. Programs considered included transitional
programs aiming to prepare students for college if the program is housed within a college
institution. To be inclusive, academic support programs included programs that explicitly
provide support to FGCSOC, FGCS, or SOC. This selection criterion is because being firstgeneration and being a student of color is a common intersection (Havlik et al., 2020; Ma &
Shea, 2021; Santa-Ramirez et al., 2022). The study was delimited geographically to program
staff and administrators in California because the population diversity varies greatly throughout
the country. Recruiting participants from all over the United States might give too much
variation and lead to inconclusive results. California has the second highest diversity index in the
United States, with 69.7%, right after the state of Hawaii with 76%. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).
California also has the highest number of colleges in the country, with 150 colleges, including 2
and 4-year institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021).

54
Participants were recruited through purposeful sampling with maximum variation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maximum variation in this study means including a variety of
programs, including small and large programs financed by public or private funding, transitional,
or through college. Recruitment took place in two ways: through social media professional
networks and by contacting staff and administrators working at academic support programs with
publicly available contacts. Recruitment through social media took place by posting an invitation
to participate on LinkedIn. The second recruitment strategy consisted of reaching out by email to
academic program contacts that have publicly available information. A list of all potential
participants from all 4-year public colleges all over California was compiled; over one hundred
participants were reached out. A short qualifying survey was included in the invitation email, as
well as the study information sheet. The number of participants was capped at ten when
saturation was reached; that is when the interviews were no longer providing “new information
or insights” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 199).
Instrumentation
The interview protocol is included in Appendix A, and it consists of 20 major questions
with subprompts. The interview protocol has three sections. The first section is related to their
professional background and positionality in relation to their role in the program. The questions
in the background section aimed to ease into the interview and get to know the study participant,
their career background, the programs they are part of, and the role they play in it. The second
section was about programmatic experiences; this section addressed the overarching research
question: “Is the goal of the academic program aligned with the CCW model?”. The questions in
this section aimed to learn about the goals of the program, how they are carried out, and how
staff are prepared to provide support. This section also addressed the three research questions by

55
exploring the staff’s perception of what is valuable in academia and capturing their knowledge of
CCW forms of capital. In this section, one question addresses knowledge of CCW types of
capital and strategies of support by following some language used in the dissertation work of
Rockafellow (2021), introducing the question by explaining that some programs are focused on
developing existing strengths/skills in students that they possess when entering college while
other programs are focused more on teaching students’ new strengths/skills. This question
attempts to understand support approaches from a practical point of view and opens an
opportunity to explore a spectrum of support strategies exploration.
After the first two interviews, two questions were added to the interview protocol. These
questions asked if the institutions housing their programs had shared the same goals as the
academic support programs represented by participants and whether or how the perception of
FGCSOC expressed by participants was shared in their broader campus community. These
questions were added to address the third research question. The last section of the interview was
about experiences with students and reflections. This last section includes questions about what
kind of resources their programs offer, how students can access and interact with the resources,
and any trends in the students observed by program staff. The last few questions are related to
how support can be improved from the perspective of staff and administrators and how that is
informed by students’ feedback, either by directly voicing their needs or organizing in particular
ways to cover them. The last question aimed to close the interview, address any missing
information, and provide space for the participant to add any additional information they wish to
share.

56
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection method for this study was interviews with subjects that meet the
eligibility criteria. University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval was obtained before starting the study. Participants were reached through email to
provide the study details through a study information sheet before the interview. Data was
collected using semi-structured interviews over Zoom, with the option of video or audio
meetings. Interviews lasted between 40 to 60 minutes. Meetings were recorded and transcribed
using Otter.ai for data review; the researcher took notes during the interview. The platform for
data collection, Zoom, allowed me to reach out to participants in different geographical
locations. Through the interview, open-ended questions were asked about their experiences
supporting FGCSOC and their perceptions of the support they provide and the students they
support. Any identifiable information was omitted from the transcripts and a pseudonym was
assigned for every participant and the programs or institutions where they work. At the end of
the interview, participants were asked for verbal consent to contact them by email to ask any
clarifying questions about the interview to ensure their responses were understood correctly.
Data Analysis
This study used thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews of staff and
administrators supporting FGCSOC. The interviews were analyzed to understand the perspective
programs have of the student population they support and the types of support they provide
through academic support programs. This data analysis aimed to understand how their perception
of FGCSOC aligned with their support practices and strategies. Thematic analysis is usually
guided by the theoretical framework used in a study (Esposito & Evans-Winters, 2021). This
study used CCW (Yosso, 2005) and its underlying roots in CRT (Yosso & Solórzano, 2001) as a

57
theoretical framework to provide an understanding of the social construction of FGCSOC, on
how events affecting communities of color have delayed generations from attending to college,
and how a deficit picture has been constructed of them. CCW/CRT was used as an analysis
framework to guide the thematic analysis, which began with concept-driven coding using
concepts found in the literature review. Concept-driven coding uses a priori coding, a list of
codes or themes built before the data collection (Gibbs, 2018). Emergent coding was the next
layer of analysis once the data was collected. Emergent coding, also known as themes, is a set of
recurring concepts that emerge repeatedly through the collected data (Gibb, 2018). The a priori
codes used in the analysis were the asset-based support approach, deficit-based support
approach, asset-based perspective, deficit-based perspective, and CCW forms of capital.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
This study was of a qualitative nature, and it looked to understand, through the
perspective of program staff and administrators, the approaches used to support FGCSOC.
Trustworthiness, according to Stahl and King (2020), is about the reader’s interpretation of the
research as something that they can trust or have confidence that it was carried out with rigor.
Lincoln and Guba (1984) list four criteria for a trustworthy study: credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability. The study’s credibility can be understood as how congruent
the results are, and it is often equated to internal validity (Stahl & King, 2020). Credibility or
validity, as explained by Maxwell (2013), “is never something that can be proved or taken for
granted. Validity is also relative: It has to be assessed in relation to the purposes and
circumstances of the research, rather than being a context-independent property of methods or
conclusions” (p. 121). What was asked through the interviews is the views and opinions of the
participants on understanding the social construction of FGCSOC from the staff and

58
administrators’ position, knowledge, skills, and understanding of what is valuable. The
credibility of this study is supported by a literature review that covers the understanding of this
history, academic research on the population, and current ways of supporting FGCSOC. The
interview protocol was designed to understand the perspective of key players in the observed
problem, their interpretation of the student, and the support provided.
This study used member checks or respondent validation, according to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016); this strategy allowed the researcher to go back and check for understanding of
what the respondent said, to make sure their perspective is captured, and to allow the researcher
to check their own bias. Participants were sent a bio sketch of themselves drafted by the
researcher and a random fragment of text where they were quoted. Participants were asked if the
bio sketch and text sent to them reflected who they were and if their perspectives were portrayed
accurately. Any changes requested by participants were acknowledged and integrated in the
results section. The second strategy used was the researcher’s position or reflexivity; this
involved looking deeply into the researcher’s relationship with the study, their views, bias, and
assumptions, and constantly checking for them to avoid interference with the data collection and
analysis of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While the transferability of qualitative results is
debatable, the results of this study might lead to a better understanding of support perspectives,
which might be transferred to other contexts (Stahl & King, 2020). Dependability can contribute
to trustworthiness through peer review of data interpretation and to continue to self-check and
reflexive auditing (Stahl & King, 2020). Audit trails are a map or a description of the
researchers’ decision-making rationale through the study methodology (Nowell et al., 2017).
Audit trails were used to maximize the confirmability of the study. Altogether, the researcher
listened carefully to participants, checked for understanding, reflected continuously on personal

59
bias, worked with the dissertation chair to understand the data, and created audit trails to
maximize the study’s trustworthiness.
Ethics
This study was conducted intentionally to minimize potential damage or risk for the
participants (Glensne, 2011). Before conducting the study, IRB approval from USC was
obtained. The selection of participants did not raise any issue of power (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The researcher was involved personally or professionally with any academic support
programs or their support staff and administrators. Interviews were conducted voluntarily, and
they were carried out after providing a study information sheet and participants’ verbal consent,
including the knowledge that the interview could be stopped at any time at their discretion.
Participants were informed of the purpose of the study before the interview in writing and
verbally at the beginning of the interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). All participants were
treated respectfully and honestly regarding how the data would be used. Leading questions and
collecting any harmful information were avoided, and the potential benefits of the study were
discussed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Maintaining the participant’s identity completely
anonymous when using interviews is challenging (Esposito & Evans-Winters 2021). The
researcher protected the identity of participants and the identity of the programs and institutions
where they work by providing pseudonyms and removing any other potentially identifiable
information. Participants might not benefit directly from this study, but its results might help
them, and their programs raise awareness of support perspectives that programs might be leaning
on.
Another ethical issue to consider in direct relationship to the focus of this study is the
harm caused by the lack of perspectives on research. This study aimed to understand the

60
alignment of support programs for FGCSOC with Yosso’s (2005) CCW model; this study was
intentional about having an anti-deficit approach. Esposito and Evans-Winters (2021) point out
that “research, however well-meaning it may have attempted to be, has contributed to an ongoing
deficit narrative about communities of color” (p. 40). While this study attempted to bring
awareness of this exact issue, it runs into the situation of unintentionally putting support systems
at the center of a deficit narrative. This study did not intend to see the support systems from a
deficit perspective but rather understand how historical and political events have informed
support systems attempting to bring equity to communities of color. Another important issue is
that this study’s participants came from different ethnic/racial groups. The theoretical framework
used in this study, CCW, has its roots in CRT. Thomas (2009) points out that methodologies
aligned with CRT tend to challenge the dominant ideology and bring light to realities that have
been hidden. This study is aligned with the ethical responsibility to bring to light issues
contributing to silencing the stories and the value of students of color.

61
Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to understand how academic support programs perceive FGCSOC and
how this perception aligns with approaches and values used to support FGCSOC. This chapter
describes the results of semi-structured interviews with staff and administrators working at
programs supporting FGSOC. To understand the approaches through which programs provide
support to FGCSOC, this study asked the how were the goals of academic programs aligned with
the CCW model through three questions:
1. How much awareness and knowledge do academic programs have about CCW types
of capital?
2. What specific strategies are used to support FGCSOC through the CCW lens or assetbased strategies?
3. Are the institutions housing the programs supporting FGCSOC aligned with the
program’s intentions/views/goals?
In this study, 10 participants were interviewed. Participants are part of nine different 4-
year public colleges throughout California, and they represent programs that can be grouped into
three different categories: grant-based support programs supporting current college students,
grant-based support programs of a transitional nature at a college supporting prospective college
students, and institutionalized support programs. This chapter starts with a description of each
participant, followed by a description of the types of programs covered during the interviews to
provide additional context to the participants’ work. Then, the research questions will be
discussed, and the themes that emerged during the data analysis will be presented. Participant
voices have been centered, and direct quotes presented in this chapter were edited for clarity
while keeping the ideas and content true to what was expressed by participants. The following

62
sections provide a brief overview of the participants of this study, including personal,
educational, and career backgrounds as they pertain to the context of this study.
Participants
There were 10 participants in this study. Most participants in this study were Latine; one
participant described herself as mixed race and one as White. Some participants talked about
some of their identities or components of their identities, from their ethnic background,
generational status, immigration identity, gender identity, socioeconomic status, and political
ideology. Participants talked about their experience navigating college and their professional
journey to their current position in a support program for FGSOC. Table 1 presents a summary
of the participants in the study, their years of experience, their college generational status, and
the type of program they work for. Next, a brief description of the study participants is presented.

63
Table 1
Study Participants (N = 10)
Participant
pseudonym
Gender Years of
experience
Generational Type of program
1-Lupe Female 7 First-generation Grant-based support program
for FGCO
2-Gracia Female 28 First-generation Support programs for students
with English as a second
language
3-Sergio Male 3 First-generation Grant-based support program
for FGCO
4-Luisa Female 3 First-generation Institutionalized program
5-Victoria Female 5 First-generation Transitional program
6-Ana Female 13 Second-generation Institutionalized support
program
7-Pedro Male 3 First-generation Institutionalized support
program
8-Nouna Female 17 First-generation Grant-based support program
9-Julia Female 13 Second-generation Grant-based transitional
program for pre-college
students
10-Jorge Male 22 First-generation Grant-based support program
Lupe
Lupe is a first-generation woman with an undergraduate degree in Chicano Latino
Studies and a master’s in education degree in the field of education. She has an academic
advising and coaching professional background, working in a local community college and an
office coordinator in another educational setting. Lupe had an older sibling who attended college

64
before her and inspired her to follow that path and eased her path by showing their parents the
level of commitment required by a college education. Lupe navigated through college in a
dedicated but quiet way, in her own words:
I was a college student who went to classes, sat in the back, was super quiet, did all the
work, was there all the time, and got A, but then silently walked out right and went home.
I did my thing, and then, you know, just come to school, do what you got to do, and go
home, and that was it.
Lupe describes missing opportunities to join support programs or to qualify for financial
aid because of shyness. When she gathered the courage to ask for support, she would be given
insufficient support or sent to another office. Her experience in college is reflected in the way
she provides support. She understands that, “Especially if you’re a first-generation student and
this is a whole new world to you” and that the students she supports sometimes do not know
what their blind spots are, and she tries to anticipate their needs or the questions they are not
asking.
Gracia
Gracia is a first-generation college graduate with a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in
English and additional education as an educational therapist. Gracia has close to 30 years of
experience teaching. She is now a program coordinator that supports students whose first
language is not English, a reading and writing specialist, and an academic skills coach. Gracia
was not part of any support program when she went to college because she was unaware of their
existence. She found someone in her education journey who became a mentor through school
and later in life. Her mentor was a source of support and encouragement; she describes, “And she
really, really, like made me believe in myself and let me know that I could do this (pursue an

65
English degree).” Her relationship with her mentor was so important that she describes modeling
the support she received in her job supporting other students: “She modeled everything, and now,
it’s second nature to me to help students the way she helped me. It comes naturally like I am
her.” She embraces being a point of contact and a source of resources for her students now and
wishes that she was part of a support program when she was in college.
Sergio
Sergio is a first-generation graduate from a Latine immigrant family consisting of his
mother and grandmother; his family believed in education as a path to a better future. Sergio has
a bachelor’s degree in mass communication, a master’s degree in education focused on
multicultural counseling, and a doctoral degree in educational leadership. Sergio is currently the
director of a grant-based support program and advises on initiatives related to equity at the
university he attended as an undergraduate. He started working as a counselor at this institution
before becoming a director. His previous professional experiences include non-profit
organizations and his local school district. He feels honored to do his work and mentions, “I’m
just trying to now use this opportunity to help change the life of all the students we serve as
well.”
Sergio was part of a support program transitioning into college and then part of a grantbased support program through college. He describes that his journey through college was full of
challenges. Still, his family was a source of motivation, and having access to support played a
role in his college journey and in the way he approaches support for his current students:
And so yeah, coming to college wasn’t just class, right? And it’s what I know; it’s what
we talk about here within our team; like a lot of the time, the challenge with school is in
school with everything going on outside of the school, right? It’s everything going on

66
inside a student’s life and just their mentality, their physical and emotional well-being.
And so, for me, that was very true.
Sergio emphasized that having access to support went beyond his academics. He had
someone to talk to about health, mental health, and personal issues he was dealing with as a
college student. This experience allows him to recognize that support is more than meeting
school needs.
Luisa
Luisa is a first-generation college graduate; she describes herself as a daughter of
immigrants and as a queer Latina. Luisa grew up in a single-parent household, and it was always
instilled in her that education was valuable. She describes not knowing exactly where she was
going but knowing she would finish college. There is one thing she knows:
I will say, though, because I was first-gen, I’ve always had this innate drive to be a leader
and experience new for lack of a better experience, to experience things, to have new
experiences. And so, I wanted to do anything and everything I could get involved with.
Luisa has a master’s degree in Sociology. While she took some time off after college, she
recognized the influence of peer role models: “I joined a sorority at my university. And when I
saw other women and other Latinas who were pursuing higher education or pursuing master’s
and law school and PhDs, I realized, like, oh, if they could do it, I could do it too.”
During her professional journey, she has been part of advocacy and community
organizing, worked at a university cultural center, and interned in residential life. Luisa explored
through this journey in what capacity she wanted to support students. She described exploring
identity-focused work but thought it was very intensive work as she describes it as a “labor or
love.” After exploring different areas of work, she describes, “It almost feels full circle to kind of

67
come back and be closer to my community and support just other folks who are first generation
and confer a variety of different identities and backgrounds.” Now, she is the director of a
student resource center supporting first-generation students. She describes her goal as a director:
My goal as director is also to deconstruct what we mean by academic success because
that looks very different, and you can’t just focus on the academic piece without focusing
on the personal—I mean, the whole self, right? Holistically, your mental health, how
you’re doing socially, and even your familial ties.
Luisa was not part of any support programs as a student but found support through peers
during an internship and from her social involvement in a sorority. Her education and
professional experience reflect how she views support in her current role.
Victoria
Victoria is a first-generation college graduate. She shares that her parents achieved
elementary and junior high education, but they always instilled in her that getting an education
was her only job. Victoria has an undergraduate degree in Human Services and a master’s degree
in educational leadership. She describes her experience navigating college as overwhelming with
hurdles and not knowing how to ask for help. She shares some of the realizations she had
through her experience:
Being able to advocate for myself and ask for help was something I had to learn. I would
say it is still challenging, and it was challenging during grad school. But that was one of
the biggest things I had to learn in my 1st year. Then, I also learned how to connect to the
community who has goals similar to mine.
She emphasizes the importance of surrounding herself with people like her who had
figured out the pathway before her. Victoria was not accepted into the grant-based support

68
program in her college, but she explains how she navigated the environment and built a support
system differently:
I tried my best, but I just did it through working on campus, networking, and building
mentorships with faculty or directors of pre-college programs who helped other students.
I kind of fell underneath their wing and had that support system through my on-campus
jobs.
Victoria is now a project director for a grant-based transitional support program. Most of
her professional experience is focused on pre-college programs and non-profit organizations.
Now, as the director of the program, she reflects on her own experience where she works closely
with students:
I think that what keeps me so connected to the work that I do is being able to see firsthand
that our work means something, and I get to see the students and kind of the light bulb that
clicks on.
Victoria appreciates the opportunity to work closely with the students she supports and
emphasizes the importance of having a leadership role in the program she works for. She
believes the one-on-one interaction with students has a meaningful impact and motivates her to
continue her work.
Ana
Ana is a first-generation from one side of her family and a third-generation college
graduate from the other. Ana describes herself as a woman of mixed race from a religious family.
Although her family supported her education aspirations, they held low expectations due to
traditional gender roles. This led her to navigate college on her own. She attended college in a
town on the East Coast that she describes as rural and very White, where she was very brown

69
compared to her classmates. Ana has a bachelor’s degree in fine arts and gender studies and a
master’s degree in education in curriculum and instruction.
Ana has been working with first-generation students for 26 years. She started her journey
as a student tutor working in a support center after a faculty member recommended her to be a
writing tutor; she describes experiencing a cultural clash:
A huge cultural clash that happens for everyone who gets to be in the role of educating
their peers, which is you’re working with someone who has blockages for whatever
reason, or many reasons, with something that you love and something that you’ve spent
an enormous amount of time dealing. But in the middle of having that cultural clash was
also the first time I experienced, maybe on a more conscious level anyway, academic
under-preparedness, you know, where I went to school is not a selective university.
Her experience through college working as support for her peers brought, heightened her
awareness that people have different levels of access to education and, therefore, different
outcomes; in her own words, “I knew that and the intersection of that with privilege and
positionality, you know, the Oh! it’s all just a very interesting mix in which you can actually
enact change.”
Ana continued this work by working in grant-based support programs in California as a
tutorial coordinator, teaching, working in a grant-based support program, and gaining much
experience through the years. She works in an institutionalized support center as a tutoring and
academic coach coordinator. In her role, she has integrated her personal and professional
experience in understanding a student in a new environment and understanding support strategies
to serve students better.

70
Pedro
Pedro is a first-generation college graduate and the son of Mexican immigrants. He
attended his local community college and transferred to a 4-year college where he works. He
graduated with bachelor’s degrees in environmental studies and Sociology and a minor in
Applied Psychology. Pedro describes his college journey as having ups and downs. He
participated in academic support programs in high school and saw some of his peers going from
high school directly to 4-year colleges. Ultimately, he was happy with his decision to attend a
community college, save money, and get to know his options better. Once Pedro transferred to
his university, he had to adjust to the faster-paced environment but felt lucky to land in a house
with other Latine students. Additional challenges had to do with familial guilt from being far
from family and figuring out how to support himself financially.
Pedro transferred to his university in the fall of 2019, and after only two quarters, his
college experience was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Pedro started working in the
institutionalized support center when he was still a student but said he never received support
there because of the pandemic. “So, I didn’t really get to explore a lot of campus resources. And
since everything was online, so I actually did not realize until I started working here.” He started
as a peer mentor, became a lead peer mentor, and now has a staff position as a program assistant.
His role has become more administrative after becoming a staff member, but he still interacts
with students in different capacities. Pedro highlights the community-building aspect that the
program he works brings and describes that despite not getting support directly from the
program, he feels in community with his coworkers and understands how that translates to the
student community.

71
Nouna
Nouna is a first-generation college graduate. She grew up in a low-income household.
The financial struggles played a significant role in her experience navigating college, not only
finding how to pay for college and support herself financially but also fitting in with a new circle
of friends who did not have the same struggles. Nouna shares, “They had cars and didn’t have to
work, and I had to learn, and I didn’t have a car, and I didn’t even have the clothes that I felt like
really helped me fit in.” During her education journey, she rediscovered her interests and
switched from studying STEM to arts and humanities; this realization brought some ease to her
journey. A change of major and deciding to go to a community college and find a new path
following her sister’s steps:
I went home and then, and my sister was attending another university, and I had visited,
and I thought it’s a smaller university. It’s a smaller town, and everything is cheaper. Let
me go there. And so, I moved here, and I went to a community college for two years, and
I did all my GEs. Then, I transferred to a university because they had a really good
linguistics program. And I did well at that university, but it took that whole work through
to actually get there.
Nouna was part of grant-based support programs at all the institutions she attended. She
mentioned that her college experience and her participation in these support programs influenced
the work she does and shared some of her first-hand experiences:
Having those study sessions with tutors, kind of gave me an understanding of what kind
of commitment it takes to be a college student. And then also when I went was when I
was in a grant-based support program, the academic advisor planned out my whole

72
journey through my whole AA and my transfer pathway. And just having somebody
helped me have that kind of foresight.
Nouna has a bachelor’s degree in Language studies and a teaching credential. She is
currently pursuing her master’s degree in education. Her professional background includes
teaching in elementary, middle, and high schools. She found that she liked working with college
students the most. She was an academic advisor for nearly 20 years before becoming the director
of a grant-based support program and overseeing other grant-based support programs in her
institution.
Julia
Julia is a second-generation college graduate, a White woman who grew up in a
predominantly Latine community. She describes being one of the only White individuals in her
schools in her hometown and having a cultural shock when she went to college in a
predominately White community and institution. She attended a university that her parents and
later her siblings attended; she says, “So it’s been a family affair.” While she had the support of
her family, she describes navigating college independently. She built her community from her
after-school part-time jobs, including food services and being a campus orientation leader. Sara
studied abroad and helped promote the study abroad program when she was back. Among other
college experiences, she had a campus advising internship assisting students to get out of
probation.
Julia’s education focused on multicultural issues, communication, and multicultural
psychology; she got involved early during her education in the transitional support program she
now works for, which mainly supports Latine students in communities close to the university.
Sara describes her journey in this program:

73
I’ve done pretty much every job under the grant at this point. And it’s always something
that kind of, I think about a lot that I am a White individual working with this population.
I want to make sure that I’m always educated, and I like educating myself primarily, but I
also want to make sure I’m aware of all the needs and issues facing our community,
especially the students that are in our program.
Julia describes how her work motivated her to get a master’s degree in counseling and
student affairs. She is now the program director, and despite the hard work her position requires,
she feels fortunate to work with this population. She shares that she has big hopes for her
students and feels reassured when she interacts with them.
Jorge
Jorge is a first-generation Latino college graduate and the son of immigrant parents. He
was a community college student before transferring to a 4-year institution. He describes his
college experience as having struggles due to being a commuter student, “Driving, getting out of
the car and going to class, getting right back in the car and going home and never really spent
much time on campus didn’t really form really good relationships and really wasn’t accessing
resources.” Jorge went back to a community college and transferred to a different 4-year
institution; there, he could live in the university area. His university was predominantly White
when he attended college, so he gravitated towards those who looked like him. He found a
community by getting involved with a Latino fraternity: “I got involved in a student organization
and a fraternity, as I mentioned, NAC Latino fraternity, and that was really my, my saving grace
because I had, you know, a sense of belonging, sense of connection.” Jorge was not part of a
support program but had access to support through his fraternity. He mentioned the fraternity had

74
an advisor who was also part of a campus grant-based support program, and she was a source of
support for him as his peers as well as a source of inspiration:
So even some of us were not necessarily grant-based support program students, but
through her, we had all the access to the grant-based support program resources in terms
of her as a counselor, but also the tutoring services, you know, everything that the most
grant-based support program students had, we were able to benefit from that. So that was
hugely beneficial to my experience, and they’re really like I said it. It became a career
that I wanted in the future, and I ended up getting it, you know, many, many years after,
but it was a goal of mine to be in a Grant-based support program. It’s been really a great
experience ever since.
Jorge has a bachelor’s degree in Kinesiology, a teaching credential, and a master’s degree
in post-secondary educational leadership. Jorge’s professional journey includes a student affairs
position right after college, being a coordinator for fraternities and sororities, and teaching
middle school, where he realized he preferred working in a higher education setting. While
pursuing his master’s degree, he was able to assist in a grant-based support program; this
experience sparked his interest in becoming a student counselor. Jorge was a counselor for 6
years and has been an associate director for a grant-based support program for 3 years. He
shares, “I see myself in them because they experienced a lot of things that I experienced this
too”, showing a great connection to his student community and understanding of their
experience.
The brief biography of the study participants here provides key personal, educational, and
professional backgrounds relevant to the study context that provide an understanding of their
perspectives on providing support to FGCSOC. The participant’s background and the programs

75
they work for is provided to support the understanding of the results presented in this chapter.
This is important because the participants’ stories and experiences influence their perspectives on
the questions asked in this study. Next, additional context setting will be provided through an
overview of the type of programs participants work for is provided.
Painting the Context: Program Descriptions
The support programs represented by participants in this study do not represent all
existing programs supporting FGCSOC. Despite the study’s purpose not being to talk about
specific programs, understanding the programs, their services, and their goals paints a whole
picture of the support spaces from where participants come. Programs were grouped into three
general categories: grant-based support programs supporting current college students, grantbased support programs of a transitional nature at a college supporting prospective college
students, and institutionalized support programs. Some of the general descriptions of these three
categories will be described next. Of the 10 participants, five worked at grant-based support
programs for FGCS, two worked for grant-based support programs for prospective FGCS, which
I refer to as transitional programs, and three for institutionalized support programs or centers.
Grant-Based Support Programs for Current College Students
These types of programs generally involve an application when the students apply for
college admissions. Some of the qualifying criteria mentioned during the interviews were being a
first-generation student, coming from a low-income family, having a documented disability, and
one of the programs was specifically designed for English learners. Despite not being part of the
official qualifying criteria, some study participants emphasized that their program student
population was predominantly SOC. Gracia, who works in a support program with a language
component, mentions, “I’d say they’re 99% non-White because that’s how they got to have a

76
second language because English is their second language.” Nouna supported that by mentioning
that despite not being a race-based program, most students of color are within their firstgeneration-low-income student population. Similarly, Jorge brings up the presence of students of
color and other identities that intersect with the generational status: “You know, I think we’re
close to 60% Latino, or Hispanic, but beyond that, it’s a very wide variety of different groups.”
He continues to describe the student population, including refugee students from East Africa,
Southeast Asia, and Middle East countries.
The number of students served, but from those that provided a number, it ranged from
approximately 500 to 900. Some staff also supported more than one program and said some
students were part of multiple support programs. While trying to understand the program’s
capacity, Lupe brought up the changes in program enrollment in the past few years, which has
been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic was detrimental to student
enrollment, and it has taken a few years for programs to get back to regular numbers. The size of
support teams ranged depending on the size of the university, but Nouna mentioned her team had
five advisors at the moment, and each advisor had around 100 students.
Some of the components in common between programs shared by the study participants
were academic counseling, academic advising, workshops, tutoring, coaching, peer mentoring,
access to resources, and organizing activities of a cultural and leisure nature. To provide some
examples of the services mentioned by research participants, Sergio talked about some examples
of the workshops provided by his programs:
Other ways that we provide that support or space to do that are through our workshops.
So, we have a workshop series every semester, we strive to do at least one or two
workshops a month. ... These workshops range from anything like time management

77
study skills, but they also range from stuff like career exploration and identity
exploration.
Another example Gracia gave is having a financial advisor dedicated to supporting
students on matters ranging from FAFSA applications to managing their personal finances.
Every program seemed to tailor its services differently, offering the same support or resources in
unique ways.
Grant-Based Transitional Programs for Prospective College Students
Two participants in this study were directors of transitional programs. These programs
are grant-based and have a home within a university campus but serve in multiple high schools in
neighboring communities. To be part of this type of program, students need to attend the high
schools that are part of the programs, be prospective first-generation college students, and be
low-income. These programs do not aim to recruit students into their universities, as explained
by Victoria:
We don’t recruit for this University even though we’re housed there; we recruit for all
educational, higher-ed institutions or pathways they want to go into. So, some people
decide to go to trade school for a year, in-state or out-of-state community college. It’s
really helping them navigate, equipping them with the skills necessary to navigate postsecondary.
The staff interviewed from these programs reported serving approximately 90 to 150
students. Victoria talked about her team size and the role they play: “So I oversee a team of at
least, I would say, ten individuals who work with their students day in and day out through
academic advisement, academic tutoring, college field trips, summer enrichment programs,
research opportunities.”

78
Julia describes more about the support team. She says that year-round, they have a
program director, a coordinator, and a few student assistants. The team grows to about 20 during
the summer when they need teachers and resident advisors.
The programs offer after-school sessions, individual advising, academic tutoring, college
information and college visits, fun activities, and a summer college residential component. Julia
provided an overview of the program activities, which included after-school sessions, talks about
schools and majors, one-on-one advising, college visits, cultural field trips, and weekend
sessions where they talked more in-depth about specific topics such as financial aid. One of the
major components of these programs is a summer residential program where students stay on
campus for 6 weeks and experience the college environment. These programs follow up with
students for 6 years after their program participation, reaching out regularly and tracking where
they are in their journey to or through college.
Institutional Programs
Three of the study participants worked at institutional programs. These programs are not
grant-funded. Instead, they are part of their universities’ services. In all cases, they exist as a
center that offers services to all first-generation students without needing to apply to the
program. The programs in this category represented in this study came into existence a few years
after their university became an HSI. Luisa describes:
We’re now institutionalized, so we’re here to stay on campus. We serve specifically firstgeneration students. Our campus or undergraduate student population is about 22,000.
And we have approximately 7,500 first-generation students. However, that’s all selfidentified, so we know that there could possibly be more first-gen students on campus.

79
One participant described the program’s staff as a small all first-generation core team, an
academic advisor, a graduate school advisor, and a group of student peer mentors. Another
participant described their program as having 45 to 50 staff members at the time, including
tutors, advisors, and coordinators. These programs provide academic advising, graduate school
advising, tutoring, campus life resources, college navigation resources, and peer mentoring. This
is what Pedro describes as an academic resource center with the primary goal of supporting the
academics of FGCS and prioritizing programming for 1st year students and transfer students to
learn the basics of school management. Other efforts mentioned by Pedro included career
navigation, grad school applications, and peer mentoring.
Besides the services, the physical space was another aspect highlighted by these types of
programs. Ana describes the space as it relates to facilitating learning as an open space where
students can “practice their learning out loud.” Luisa also emphasized the space as a critical
component of their program. She describes it as a multi-purpose space where students can go to
study, attend a workshop, have a snack, or get exam materials at any point.
Addressing Research Questions
To address the research questions, 10 individuals working in support programs were
interviewed. The goal was to understand where programs were aligned with the CCW model.
The research questions address specific components of this alignment, including awareness of
CCW types of capital in the population they serve, specific strategies for support that work
through a strength-based lens, and last, how support programs and parent institutions are aligned
regarding CCW or strength-based perspectives of FGCSOC and support systems for them. The
next section of this chapter is organized by addressing the research questions and the bigger

80
overarching research question by incorporating some components of the results and themes that
emerged in relation to the main question.
Research Question 1: Awareness/Understanding of CCW Types of Capital.
To answer this question, I looked at how and to what extent participants were able to name
CCW types of capital or to identify these types of capital as an asset, even if they were not
naming them formally as a form of capital. Two major themes emerged from this study’s
interviews, including staff and administrators’ awareness of CCW forms of capital from their
own journey as FGCSOC and awareness of CCW forms of capital as they recognized the
realities of FGCSOC they support. Most participants did not name specific forms of capital but
provided insights showing their recognition of them. Eight of the 10 participants were firstgeneration individuals of color. All participants provided examples showing that they recognize
the strengths students brought with them to the academic environment. Nine out of ten
individuals showed awareness of types of capital aligned with CCW. Only one participant
referred to the student’s strengths as the skills and knowledge they gained after being part of the
support program.
Some of the understanding FG participants had of CCW types of capital showed up in the
stories of their experiences through college and their understanding of how their assets were
what took them through college. Here are some ways CCW types of capital showed were part of
their stories. Aspirational capital showed up in the way they described their experience in
college; Victoria, for example, expressed aspiration and determination despite mentioning it was
challenging: “College was one of those things where, like, I got to high school, I got through
high school, and I got to college, so now I can do it by myself.” Aspirational capital was also

81
shown by Sergio, that shared their opportunity to attend college and how familial capital showed
up in this journey:
I think for me, having been first generation, having grown up in a community that could
be categorized as marginalized, disenfranchised, you know? One that was full of poverty
and violence. I think having been given this opportunity at this University was like a
lightbulb moment for me and made me realize that it was a second chance for me to try to
have that better future that my parents, my mother, and grandmother wanted for me.
Luisa described similarly to Sergio how familiar capital was a source of motivation but
also showed up as a driver to inspire the next generation of her family. At the same time, all her
involvements came from her aspirational navigational capital:
I was in a sorority, I did a research internship program, and I studied abroad. And no one
told me a lot of that. I just was like, oh, there’s this thing called a career office. Let me go
check it out. And then you see what that is. And that’s what a lot of how it was. … I just
wanted to make the most out of my experience because I knew that I was the first one. I
knew I had only one shot at this experience. And I also have younger nieces and
nephews, so I wanted them to see, like, wow, their aunt can get involved in all these
things they can too. So yeah, that was my experience in college.
Forms of capital were often exemplified together in the experiences of first-generation
support staff who shared their experiences, as shown by Luisa. Likewise, Victoria’ aspirational,
navigational, and social capital show up as she shares that not getting accepted to be part of a
support program did not stop her from looking for ways of getting support from other sources as
shared here:

82
I applied for the grant-based support programs just for services but wasn’t accepted. I
tried my best, but I kind of just did it through working on campus, networking, and
building mentorships with faculty or directors of pre-college programs who helped other
students. I kind of fell under their wing and had that support system through my oncampus jobs.
Study participants described FGCSOC and talked about their CCW types of capital, often
from the lens of their own experience. Pedro, for example, talks about students, including
himself, being shy in new environments and yet using their navigational capital to venture out
and explore possibilities:
I think a lot of students I’ve encountered are just really curious. And I think they’re
always, at least from my experience, they’re always like, willing to learn, and they’re
always like, willing to grow. I think a lot of them are just really eager and excited to see
what’s out there. And so, I think that leads them to just try new things and just be
thinking creatively and outside of the box to just like explore the campus. I think even
with students I’ve encountered that are like really shy or like, I feel like students, myself
included, are really scared to try new things because I think a lot of us have grown up like
really low income, so we just didn’t really experience much, you know. So, I think
college students are afraid to do things like one trip, or like go camping, you know,
because I feel like it’s just that they were not able to do it before. I just didn’t know that
they could do it. But even in shy students, I sense that they want to experience more
things. So yeah, I would say just the curiosity and enthusiasm many students have.
Luisa talked about students’ strengths and the same curiosity and willingness to learn
described by Pedro, as well as bringing unique experiences, knowing how to use their networks,

83
and navigating other situations in life. This interview response shows that she is aware of the
complexity of FGCSOC using aspirational, navigational, and social capital in pioneering through
college:
I think they’ve come from a lot of different communities, and so they bring in such a
beautiful knowledge of their communities’ systems or community systems and their
support systems as well. I mean, they’re resilient individuals, right, and they also like
they are Hustlers, you know, they’re gonna do the job there. And sometimes, I know that
it also comes at a cost, right? So, we’re making sure that they’re also taking care of
themselves, and we’re having conversations around family and impostor syndrome and
familiar guilt. But you know, they’re already coming in with a lot of different, really
great knowledge and experiences. They already know how to navigate the system. It’s
just this one. That is really can get really challenging and really tough. And especially
being the first one in their family, right? And kind of not knowing this hidden curriculum
that the university has. But yeah, they’re resilient, really beautiful, smart individuals.
Luisa recognizes the student’s curiosity about everything around their new college life
and academic environments and how they use their multiple forms of capital and previous
experiences to embrace this particular new space despite the hidden rules and expectations of this
space. Jorge described students’ aspirational capital in their desire to advance their careers
beyond college and understanding that continuing their education will have an impact on their
futures:
Many of our students don’t stop at a bachelor’s degree. They continue on to master’s and
doctorate. And I think in the bigger picture of what this whole program is about, you
know, social empowerment, really getting, you know? Everyone in the state should be

84
able to have access to higher education and the opportunities that come with it. An
education that you know can lead to, you know, economic, different economic
opportunities that you might not otherwise have without education.
Jorge, later in the interview, emphasized the student’s aspirational and navigational
capital to get to college despite the lack of resources, not having role models to show them their
way to college, and coming to college with the resiliency to make it through despite the
struggles:
So again, you know that resiliency and determination and Ganas, those kinds of things
are things that a lot of our students really have because they needed to have that just to
make it into college to get that determination to do well in their schools and high schools
because some of the students that are served here came from high schools that were not
very well resourced, you know, they didn’t necessarily have a real strong college-going
culture. But these students had that determination within themselves that they knew that
that was a pathway for them to make a change in their life, give themselves more
opportunities, but getting higher education ... I think that’s that comes with the territory
of the students that the experiences they come from, and the communities they come
from over.
Jorge explains that the resiliency of the students he works with comes from facing
adversity and, through their struggles, learning to manage and navigate difficult environments;
he also recognizes that students sometimes are not completely aware of having developed those
skills and knowing they can use them in their college environment. While Jorge acknowledges
resiliency as a strength and a tool to persist in the adversity of college, resiliency brings conflicts
to Sergio:

85
The reason why I say I have a dislike for it is because sometimes I think people put too
much of that on our students’ shoulders, like you’re resilient. You should be able to get
through everything because look what you went through in life, and I don’t think that’s
fair either. Right? But I think there is a middle ground where you do you can
acknowledge the resiliency… Some of these institutions and some of these structures
make it so much harder for us, especially as first-gen students or for students of color.
But that resiliency, though, I will say that when they are able to tap into it in a healthy
and productive way, it does go a long way.
The way that Sergio describes resiliency shows awareness of resistant capital used to
persist in a challenging environment. Ana also recognizes resistant capital and familial capital in
the form of values and an understanding of justice:
So that’s the challenge that they’re bringing, and certainly, they’re bringing a wealth of
knowledge and understanding that others, and they’re bringing their whole family
histories, their values, their lived experiences elsewhere. And that’s vitally necessary
here. They’re bringing a sense of justice and what’s different about the world elsewhere,
like necessary in their classroom spaces, but also a burden. To have to be that person. It’s
not fun. I know what that experience feels like, directly myself as a student, and I
empathize a great deal.
Finally, participants recognized through the interviews, in Sergio’s words, that “They all
have their own unique stories, their own unique skills and their own unique needs and just
making sure that we meet those to the best that we can.” This is a recognition of linguistic capital
in the value of their stories and the awareness that knowing their stories and knowledge of the
student’s assets are needed to provide the appropriate support.

86
Research Question 2: Strength-Based/CCW-Aligned Support Strategies.
This next section presents the support strategies used by programs that aligned with
CCW. This means strategies that use students’ assets rather than supporting them from a deficit
perspective. One of the key questions participants responded to was how their program leans on
the skills and knowledge of the students they support. Some participants responded to this
question by emphasizing that they needed to learn from their students by giving them space to
show their skills and needs. Lupe exemplified this by discussing how the narrative often involves
meeting the students where they are and what is lacking. She talked explicitly about
understanding the deficit narratives that exist around FGCSOC, and then she emphasized that it
is the program that has to catch up to where students are:
What I love about the way you structured the question is what you are doing to meet
them where they’re at. Because they’re bringing so much with them. And so, I don’t
think the first thing that came to mind is technology. Right? And so, they are bringing
with them so much more knowledge about technology that we’ve had to keep, we have to
keep upright, and we have to create programming that’s engaging to them because we
have to meet them where they’re at.
The themes that emerged in answering this research question were peer mentoring,
community creation, and facilitating resources. These three themes or strategies often appeared
in interviews. Peer mentoring was mentioned by seven study participants, and student tutoring,
which I am counting as a form of peer support by one additional program. All participants talked
about having access to resources through their programs in the form of information or materials
resources. Finally, community building was also mentioned through all interviews; eight

87
participants talked about actively building community in their programs, and two talked about
using their community as a resource.
Peer Mentoring, FGCSOC as Role Models
Peer mentoring was described as a support strategy where students support other
students. The peer mentors were described as students from the same population, in this case,
FGCS and often FGCSOC. Most programs’ peer mentors are students who have already gone
through the support program, are more advanced in their education, and can share their
knowledge and experience through college. Luisa describes their peer mentors here: “We have
eight undergraduate peer mentors who work in the space, and everyone who works here in this
space identifies as US first generation, either current students or college graduates.” Programs
were strategic about the way they structured peer mentor; Nouna describes how their peer mentor
programs are designed:
We have a leadership pipeline, where in the 1st year, they can be mentors in a university
program setting up for going into a university program working with Grant-based support
program first-generation students; they don’t have to be in our program. And then after
they’ve been mentors in there if they’re interested in continuing. Taking that to the next
level. They can apply to the grant-based support program peer advisor.
Nouna continued to describe how students advance in the peer-advising pipelines and,
with proper training, contribute to degree and post-graduation planning advising. She added that
this pipeline has even taken students into the student affairs career path. This strategy supports
students in a way that makes them comfortable with other students like them while supporting
the growth of student mentors. Gracia also talked about how they prepare mentors to have
leadership skills and work with diverse student populations:

88
We build on the strengths that they already have and make it even stronger. So, they have
leadership skills; we mentor them so that they can become peer coaches. We provide
them with training to help them figure out, for example, how to work with students with
disabilities. I just gave a training. We just had a two-day training on for our peer coaches
so that they can become leaders so that they can become peer mentors for our students.
That’s an example. We’re also bringing them to a leadership conference, we meet with
them weekly, we figure out how they are doing with their mentees or their coaches, and
we provide them support, so maybe that’s what you’re getting out like,
These previous examples emphasize the training and the progressive growth of students
into peer mentors. There were examples of peer mentors continuing the student support career
path after graduation; Sergio and Pedro among the study participants exemplify this. Here, Pedro
talks about peer mentors running some of the program activities:
We also have a team of a peer mentors, so they’re all undergraduate students, and they
are the ones who primarily like work the front desk and they like facilitate all of our
programming. And they also hold mentorship hours. So, students should come and can
ask them questions about just navigating the university. Yeah, so in my position, I was a
peer mentor, and then I was a lead for a mentor. And now I’m a program staff.
Peer mentoring emerged as an asset-based strategy that taps into the student’s strengths,
develops leadership skills, continues to support peer mentors in their roles as mentors, provides
training, and gives room for student mentors to create programming aligned with their
experiences. This shows recognition of FGCSOC’s value and strengths and an accessible
strategy to create a positive support cycle.

89
Facilitating Access to Resources
Facilitating access to resources is another strategy that aligns with CCW. This support
strategy is about more than access to resources; it is about uncovering all the hidden resources
that are not visible to FGCSOC due to lack of access to generational college knowledge. Study
participants discussed the program or the staff providing access to resources through knowledge,
services, or materials. These resources aim to bring students awareness of the tools, services, and
hidden rules of academia so they can focus on using their strengths to advance academically. The
program strategies are the ways of delivering resources. Gracia, for example, talked about
students having one advisor they can go to. This advisor is the source of resources so that
students do not have to go from place to place looking for answers to their questions.
I just want to make sure that they always have just one contact person for everything so
that they’re not wondering, especially if they’re new to the campus. I want them to feel
supported. And I want them to always feel like they know where to go when they don’t
know where to go.
Similarly, Lupe talked about a one-stop center where they had access to multiple
academic resources, including a Writing Center, the Academic Advising Office, and the
Learning Center, which provided tutoring, among other services. Other participants also talked
about a holistic approach to support and about being the first point of contact for other nonacademic resources. Sergio emphasized instances of access to resources that tap into the wellness
and livelihood of students:
Whether that be mental health, accessibility services, or food insecurity, right? We
partner with our campus to know all of the resources that exist, so if there’s anything that
we don’t provide, we can create a direct contact for students with those programs.

90
Nouna, Victoria, and Sergio also discussed providing resources in other areas to give
more stability when the students’ families struggle financially. They talked about what
facilitating access looked like sometimes; it has to have access to printing and providing school
supplies, such as a graphing calculator for their calculus class. Sergio even said that they were
able to provide tablets to students through a grant and mentioned that besides the material
resources, those supplies meant easing the academic experience for students.
Lastly, facilitating access to resources emerged through the interviews regarding physical
space. Space appeared in the interviews as a place to access resources of diverse nature, from
material resources to safe spaces. Nouna provides an example:
We also have safe spaces where they can come in and you know if they’re having a really
tough day in the front reception knows like we have a protocol of like how to manage if a
student is having a really tough day. We have some offices that are often open at different
times of the day where we can put them in, maybe with an advisor or another staff
member who can spend some time with them.
Pedro also mentioned access to physical space: “We are centered as it is like a physical
study space and community space.” The space Pedro describes offers snacks, textbooks, and a
board game library. While materials and supplies are important resources students can access,
the actual space is crucial for students to study, be, and create a community. Altogether,
participants talked through the interviews about the multiple ways in which they provide
supplies, uncover information, and open spaces, and all of these actions remove barriers from
multiple angles so that students can focus their strengths on their academic endeavors.

91
Leaning on Social and Familial Capital for Support: Creating Community
Creating community was the last emergent theme from participants’ responses
concerning what support strategies were aligned with CCW. This strategy taps into the familial
and social capital of FGCSOC to help them succeed academically. Ana talked about how
learning is a process that eases when there is collaboration and that student centers offer the
space to facilitate collaboration and contribute to the college experience of collectiveness.
Victoria also talked about how the transitional programs she works for lead students to network
before getting to college, and they do it intentionally in the way the program is designed:
Saturday academies are an opportunity for the six school sites to come together. So,
they’re once a month, and what we do is our students in the community… all six school
sites are together. And then when we do our 6-week summer program, all six school sites
are together, and when they’re living in the dorms because they do that as we mix them
all up. So, they have friends across different schools and school districts. And we tell
them it’s important because once they apply to college, they already have a network of
friends from other school sites. … So, we start that network from really young without
telling them it’s networking, and they create those bonds.
Jorge, who oversees multiple programs, also talked about how multiple programs are
designed to incorporate community-building components. He talked about how these strategies
are key for the student experience: “It really gives them a real good head start not just
academically but socially connected to resources and all that sense of belonging and all those
different things that can be challenges.” He explained that transitional programs have major
community-building components before starting college, while other programs have shorter
versions of this component. He mentions a three-day program for students transferring from

92
community colleges that, despite being a short time, allows students to meet other students and
sets them up with a peer mentor whom they can connect with from the beginning.
Similar to the previous examples, Luisa describes another instance when they are
intentional about bringing students together in a different way by creating a safe space for
conversations:
We have a weekly program, every quarter called Real Talk, and so it’s just a space where
first-generation students can come together. … Develop their own topics, and it’s usually
led by one of our undergraduate peer mentors. So, I think being able to have them being
community, build networks support one another, I think is one way.
Luisa later described that students could create a community with staff and faculty,
adding that students provided feedback about feeling comfortable and safe connecting in these
spaces. In the end, Sergio sums up very well what it means to create community and why it plays
an essential role in higher education:
I think there’s just an understanding that we need to do things that are outside of just the
one-on-one kind of experience, right? We also need to do workshops, not only as a way
to provide our students with great information, but to invite students so that they can also
build community amongst each other as well. Right. I think one of our beliefs is we can
do it all by ourselves. We need our students to build support systems. We need our
students to create community. So, we try to build spaces where they can see that they
have a lot of things in common beyond just being first-gen and low-income. And the
more that we can help them build relationships with each other, the more confident we
feel that they’re going to push each other to just succeed and strive for better.

93
Sergio recognizes that community building is a support tool that allows students to build
from their strengths. This support strategy aligns with community cultural wealth by recognizing
and leaning on their social capital and building a reinforcing dynamic to move everyone forward.
Every participant brought up some way in which their program or them is a way for students to
network and meet other students like them, staff and faculty that are role models, and safe spaces
to develop their social and familial capital. Even the inclusion of peer mentoring as a support
strategy mentioned before indirectly builds community and, in turn, students’ social capital.
Research Question 3: Institutional Accountability
This section addresses the third research question, which aims to understand how the
institution’s housing support program aligns with the support programs’ perspectives and goals.
Through the interviews, two themes emerged: institutions’ lack of alignment with programs
supporting FGCSOC and their lack of recognition of FGCSOC’s value. This section presents
these two emergent findings.
Disconnect between Support Programs and Institutions
This theme emerged as study participants were asked if the institutions that housed their
programs had the same goals for FGCSOC as the support programs they work for. Most
respondents said that goals were either not the same or there was a disconnect between goals and
actions. Ana is part of an institutionalized program, so she points out that thanks to the Title V
grant, the programs she works for have been integrated as part of the university resources. The
availability of this institutionalized program has increased access to support for all FGCS
without the need to qualify for a grant-based program. Ana brings up it is a challenge to deny
access to FGCS that are not part of grant-based support programs:

94
When that HSI step grant came, it was an incredible opportunity to take some seed funds.
So, we had that grant and were able to demonstrate our growth and ability to serve a
larger population that way, which ultimately freed up grant-based support programs to do
other things.
Despite the addition of access to resources, Ana describes institutions falling short “I
think there can be a chasm between, you know, what we wished for and what we’re actively
working on, right? And how we create institutional structures to support that in actual action.”
Ana describes that there are people or groups of people on board with the goals of her
program, but in the end, institutional structures are necessary for real action and change to occur.
Similarly, Julia points out that support programs are necessary to close the gap between what
institutions offer and what students need:
I think there’s definitely a gap in resources and just historically how things have been; I
think this helps bridge the gap. It doesn’t fix everything, but I think it definitely provides
the students with an opportunity that they haven’t always gotten in the past. And at this
point, I think it’s still, I mean, it was legislation and things like it. It’s definitely a
prevalent enough issue. I think these programs are necessary for sure.
Julia explained that the need for her program would not be covered if the program was
not in place. There is, however, an overlap in goals between programs and institutions. Jorge
explains that institutions have the same goals as programs in terms of metrics but not in the
generational change that having a college education implies for the student and their families:
I think, at least in theory, yes. Of course, the university wants every student that attends
the university to graduate, so of course, they do have those kinds of goals. But I think the
kind of larger goals that I’m speaking to in terms of how it’s, you know, a game changer

95
for an entire family. I think those are not necessarily things that are considered in terms
of what the rest of the departments and faculty and everyone that’s supporting students.
Because they’re not necessarily focusing on this narrow niche of low-income firstgeneration post, the more kind of lower on the societal, you know, socio-economic
ladder. ... So, of course, we’re seeing it from that lens, where the rest of the campus isn’t
necessarily serving specifically this niche, you know, serving a wider population.
Jorge continues to point out some agents of change by mentioning that his institution now
has a woman of color leading the university for the first time and how important that is for
making the university a welcoming space for communities of color. He expressed hope that this
change in leadership can be a steppingstone for increasing an institutional emphasis on diversity,
equity, and inclusion. He reflected on having staff representation within the program he works
for, saying that it is essential for reaching out to students and families that had not considered a
college education in the past:
Because, you know, without programs like this, you know, I don’t think you’d have as
the outreach that we do I think we I think that outreach is necessary to really bring the
past the dreams and possibilities to students that are in middle school and high school to
recognize the colleges can be for me, even though maybe nobody in my family is ever
going to college. But these people will come to my school. They look like me, talk like
me, they talk about things. They’re in college, and maybe I can do it.
This representation that he sees in his programs has worked to make it a welcoming space
for underrepresented communities. He points out the need for more effort to bring representation
in other areas of academics that could, in turn, make college education a welcoming space for

96
more communities. This reflection points to a disconnection between what programs are trying to
do and the broader institutional efforts toward FGCSOC.
Not Seeing the Value of FGCSOC
After talking about the strengths that research participants saw in the students they
support, I asked them if those strengths and values were seen by the institution that houses them.
Pedro hesitated when I asked this question. He first said he was thinking about the people he
interacts with daily, people who work with the same student population as him. Still, when he
reflected on the other people in the institution who do not work with the same student
population, he often hears a narrative of who FGCSOC are:
I feel like I’m seeing this narrative of, oh! first-gen students are resilient, like they are
resilient. ... I think the general population is like, oh, this student, these types of students
need support. But it doesn’t really go above, it doesn’t really go see the bigger picture,
like why do they need support? Like, I think a lot of first-gen students do need support,
and I think, but I also think a lot of their struggles aren’t necessarily just because they’re
first gen I think there are other factors; I think there are people of color, I think they have
low-income backgrounds. I think like the more intersectional components of it like, like
they’re not struggling just because they’re first time like they’re struggling because of
these other systemic issues of, like, not having access to basic needs, or like growing up
in an immigrant household. Yeah, so I think the general perception of them is very one
sided, or not one side, one dimensional.
Pedro understands that FGCSOC are more than just students that have needs; he sees that
the stories of students have multiple level of backgrounds and needs. His reflections point also
about students being perceived from a deficit perspective. Similarly, Sergio talked about how

97
students’ strengths are seen by the institutions but in a different way from how he sees them.
Sergio explains just like Pedro that FGSCOC are labeled as resilient, but in contrast he perceived
that the resiliency labels come with different assumptions:
I think sometimes what I’ve heard our students say, is feeling as if though, when they do
have a challenge just minimized and it’s like, well, you’re resilient. Like, you got this like
you’re okay in not being validated. So I think if you don’t come from a similar
background, or you don’t, if you haven’t lived something similar as our students, it can
be very easy to just say you’ll be okay, like you’ll figure it out without first at least
validating them and creating a safe space for them to feel whatever emotions or
experiences that they’re that they’re navigating in that moment.
Jorge reflects on how resiliency on the surface seems like a broadly recognized strength,
but he does not think it is recognized compassionately or in a way that can nurture students’
strengths. Julia, in contrast, explained that she did not think that institutions value the strengths
of students because higher education is tailored for students who represent the norm:
I think the university just kind of expects students to come ready to navigate and to learn.
… But a lot of these programs we’ve seen on college campuses are just very catered to
like to the majority population, which is oftentimes White students or straight students, or
you know, they’re it’s a lot of campuses don’t necessarily think about, or it’s just not
been the norm to really tailor things to students from different with different identities,
underrepresented students, I feel like sometimes aren’t.
Julia did not think the university gave much thought to the extra challenges that FGCSOC
might have. She thinks that the assumption is that all new students have a period to adjust to their
new environment, so when FGCSOC are successful in navigating college, the assumption is that

98
they are just like any other student instead of realizing that “But for these students, I think it’s
like an extra bonus because it’s, it can be more intimidating for them to enter a campus like this
one.” Victoria reinforces Julia’s perspective by mentioning that their talents remain hidden
unless students are outstanding and outspoken. Students are often overcome by imposter
syndrome and feel they do not belong:
If it isn’t for us showing them how to advocate for themselves, I don’t think that
universities will see their full potential because oftentimes, especially now, with
affirmative action, they have to stand out a little bit more and highlight the skills right.
And so, programs play an essential role in ensuring FGCSOC are seen. The study
participants often mentioned that they work in partnership with other groups on campus. Nouna
provided examples of places within the University where the value and strengths of students are
seen. She brings up all the cultural centers within the institution that are dedicated to Chicanos,
Native Americans, and other centers with a particular affinity or connection to the student
population:
We see them in the cultural centers … this wouldn’t be the only space, however, outside
of the cultural centers and grant-based support program. I don’t, I don’t think so. Unless
they feel that connection with faculty, you know, every now and then there’s a faculty
that will connect.
From these responses, there was a common trend of being one of them or having a strong
connection to the student population to see all their assets. Jorge stated that “Faculty and staff
who themselves were first-generation and their families to achieve and to graduate and they have
that same that they can relate in that sense because they themselves live that that experience.” He
thought that it takes having common experiences or backgrounds to value his students’ different

99
strengths and attributes. In a similar reflection, Ana thought it was valuable to have staff that had
overcome some hardship in their lives to better understand and support students. Participants
generally agreed that outside their support programs, students’ strengths were not recognized
because they had not faced shared experiences.
Addressing the Major Research Question: Support Program Alignment With CCW
This last section presents results addressing the major question asked in this study.
Addressing first the three questions was necessary to different components of this question and
to be able to paint a bigger question of the programs, their staff and administrators, their
perspectives on the populations they serve, their support strategies, and where they are within the
broader higher education institutional environment. Looking at the previous section, the
emergent themes were that staff and administrators working in programs supporting FGCSOC
were aware of CCW types of capital, first because most of them were also once FGCSOC and
through their lived experiences, they were able to recognize their own challenges and the
motivations and sources of strength and support that took them through college. Not only were
most participants FG, but as Lupe shares, “We’re all first generation. I’m lucky to work with
everybody who is first generation.” Some support teams were all FG individuals.
Then, when looking at what support strategies were aligned with CCW, three themes
emerged: peer mentoring, uncovering, and facilitating access to resources, and leaning onto
students’ social capital by creating a community. Some of these strategies were part of the
program design, but the work that the study participants and their programs carried out seemed to
go above and beyond the official goals of the program. One of the questions during the
interviews was about the support program’s goals. After the first two interviews. This question
was divided into the formal or official goals of the programs and the informal goals. Despite the

100
diversity of the programs and institutions, the goals seemed to be aligned with CCW, but the
programs’ goals could be placed in two categories: the official and unofficial goals. The official
goals were established by the grant supporting the programs or the funding source. Then,
participants or their program teams brought the unofficial things to action.
Formal goals were generally the same for all the programs; they fit a goal aligned with
institutional success by showing some kind of academic metric, whether that was attendance,
grades, or retention rates. As described by Lupe, “The main components that we have to meet are
retention, graduation rates, and good academic standing.” Pedro provides another example of
formal goals:
It’s mainly to promote the success and retention of first-generation college students.
Again, we put emphasis on the 1st-year transition and underrepresented student
experience, so that entails freshmen and also pursuing transfer students. So, we provide
mentoring and academic support in a learning-centered space for students to connect with
faculty, staff, and peers in order to grow personally and excel academically. So, I think
we really focus a lot on, like, the community-building aspect of it. But it has like a little
asterisk, I think, the community building aspect of it; I think it always has to be related to
academics in some sort. So, it has to be mainly academic focus.
Pedro recognizes that the program work is about meeting those academic metrics and that
the program designs activities that tap into the student strengths using their unofficial goals like
community building as a medium to carry their official program’s goals. Jorge also describes the
program’s main goal: “I think the main goal is the achievement of a bachelor’s degree.”
While this study did not intend to look at the stories of the research participants but rather
learn from their perspectives on how the programs were aligned with CCW, it became apparent

101
that their stories as FGSOC were crucial in their role. As first-generation individuals, their lived
experiences created a perspective based on understanding their own strengths and how they
navigated a system that was not designed for them, and yet they learned. Their experience with
the hidden rules of higher education gave them an understanding that allowed them to support
the new generations of their own. This is what I describe as unofficial goals, the vision that the
study participants had to see beyond the academic metrics and recognize the students with their
backgrounds in the college environment. In the words of Sergio:
And so, we like to say that we want to support the whole student, right? Because that is
what our students deserve to be acknowledged beyond just their academic experiences or
their academic strengths. They deserve to be acknowledged as a person.
Gracia as well expressed that the program was more than academic support:
Maybe it’s a subset of that success goal, but we try to provide community like, you know,
we tried to give them a sense of belonging, we try to make them feel like we are 100%
here, 101% here for them. So that they feel included. We you know, just a sense of
community, a sense of home, a sense of they can come to us anytime.
Other participants like Pedro described their approach as holistic support, but this could
also be described as personal investment:
I think we’ve been trying to incorporate kind of a bit more of a holistic approach to
things. … And I feel like they love to put their own personal spin on, like the
programming. So, I think some people are really passionate about undocumented
students. So, they love to collaborate with like, the undocumented student services
department. … And I feel like all that stuff isn’t really in like our mission. From what
I’ve heard, I think the leadership in our department really wants us to remain focused on

102
academics. Yeah, so I think there are definitely some stuff that, like I think we try to do
that isn’t really written.
Ana brought up another component of unofficial goals, in making sure that the diversity
of their program represents their student population to be able to have staff that understands the
background and challenges of students:
Some of those unofficial goals, in that sense, really are to define ourselves as an equity
program on campus. Not just in words but also in the way in which we train and hold our
staff accountable. I’d say another aspect of that, too, is being very active in ensuring, for
instance, and our staff is not White, that they are not all highly privileged people who are
also White and, you know, making sure you know that the staff is representative of the
whole student body and student experience.
While Ana mentions training here, one of the questions during the interview asked
participants what training they received to do their jobs. Every participant said that they did not
undergo training to do their job. Some refer to how their degrees provided some preparation for
their jobs; others mentioned that their predecessor provided some guidance, and mostly, they had
to learn how to provide support on their own. While staff training was not the focus, it emerged
as an important factor to consider while looking at support for students. It seems that the study
participants used their personal experience and background to either the support they received in
the past or they wished they had. Jorge stated how he views his work:
You know? it’s very personal for all of us. All of us who work here are first generation
ourselves. So, it’s very personal. All of us have a really strong passion for supporting
these students because it’s a way of just paying it forward in terms of the support that we

103
all received ourselves when we were in college. … Because we’ve all been through it
ourselves. So, I feel very fortunate to be in this kind of role to support students like me.
Jorge’s view of his work was shared by most participants, talking about paying it
forward, taking the initiative to answer the questions that students have not yet asked, and doing
what they wish others had done for them. They used the lens of their lives and communities to
see the needs and strengths of students and support them in their growth with awareness of the
generational impact their support can have.
Summary
In summary, this chapter presents the findings for the major research question and the
three specific questions asked in this study. As described in this chapter, academic support
program goals are aligned with the CCW model. The study participants, who are staff and
administrators in academic support programs, are knowledgeable of CCW forms of capital.
Addressing the questions asked in this study, it was found that study participants can recognize
those assets in their stories and in the students they support. Next, the asset-based strategies used
by support programs were presented, including peer mentoring, facilitating access to resources,
and community building. The findings of the last question included some contradictions. The
study participants’ perception is that institutions housing the academic support programs were
aligned with programs wanting to achieve success metrics for FGCSOC but not in supporting the
student through actions. Institutions also continue to assume that FGCSOCs are resilient and
assume that they will make it on their own.

104
Chapter Five: Discussion
This study aimed to understand how academic support programs perceive FGCSOC and
how this perception aligns with how support is provided. To achieve this purpose, it used Yosso’s
(2005) CCW model as a theoretical framework. This chapter discusses the study’s findings by
examining the results and how they relate to the literature review. Then, it continues with
practice recommendations presented at the support program and institutional levels. The chapter
will end with recommendations for future research and close with conclusions.
Discussion of Findings
The findings in chapter four were presented by providing brief biographies of the study
participants and describing the three types of programs represented in the study for context
setting. Next, the research question asked in this study is as follows: How are the goals of
academic support programs aligned with the CCW model? This question held multiple layers and
was intended to be answered through three questions that address some of those layers. Some of
these layers are related to the conceptual framework proposed in Chapter Two. The conceptual
framework proposed that because of socio-historical factors, higher education was built on
colonialism, racism, and oppression. FGCSOCs who have made it to higher education have been
portrayed by academic research from a deficit perspective (Brown et al., 2020; Yosso, 2005). The
perspective provided by academic research about this student population informs practices.
Yosso’s (2005) CCW model challenges the deficit perspectives of students of color by
highlighting the forms of capital they bring into the education space. Academic support programs
for FGCSOC are part of the higher education system, and they provide much-needed support for
students and are tools to close the education debt (Brown et al., 2020; Ladson-Billings, 2016).
This study aimed to learn how this essential part of the academic system perceives FGCSOC and

105
how these fit into the institution’s perspective. Next, the discussion of the findings will be
organized into three layers, starting at the core of the support programs with the participants’
awareness of CCW in the students they support, following outwards to how the programs use
students’ CCW to provide support through asset-based strategies, and ending looking at the
alignment of the programs within the bigger institutional perspective.
The first layers of the conceptual framework attempted to see how FGCSOC are seen
when they look for support. The study found that research participants supporting FGCSOC were
aware of CCW types of capital; they could recognize the assets students brought with them. An
interesting thing to consider was that most participants were first-generation college graduates;
this was an unexpected finding. The generational status of the participant was relevant because as
they shared their backgrounds and stories, it was revealed that they recognized those assets in
their journeys, which allowed them to recognize assets in the FGCSOC that they support now.
The assets that they recognized cover all types of CCW described earlier. In a way, their own
journey into this career path shows a familial, social, and resistant capital.
Participants enacted their familial capital; as described earlier, FGCSOC embraced their
pioneering role and often become role models in their families and communities (Espino, 2014;
Boettcher et al., 2022). The majority of participants in this study fit a population of firsgeneration professionals described by Dominguez-Whitehead et al. (2021); first-generation
professionals are individuals with college degrees, whose parents did not attend college, and who
do not work in the higher education space (Dominguez-Whitehead, 2021). Participants said they
wished they had the support they now offer students in their programs so they have become
pioneers and a source of support for the next generations. In a way, having first-generation
individuals of color supporting FGCSOC confirms that, as Solórzano et al. (2001) pointed out,

106
communities of color share their lived experiences through linguistic capital. The findings show
that at the core of the support programs, the individuals interviewed for this study were aware of
CCW types of capital.
Looking at the next layer, we have the actual programs and their strategies for support.
This study asked for specific strategies to support FGCSOC through CCW of asset-based
perspectives. This study found three general strategies that all programs used to support students.
These three strategies were peer mentoring, facilitating resource access, and community
building. Programs used these asset-based support strategies as intermediaries to achieve their
goals. These findings align with the promising practices described in Chapter Two. These
promising practices tap into the student’s assets. The first common practice described by the
study participants was peer mentoring. Previous research proposes that faculty of color acting as
role models and mentors would be ideal; the underrepresentation of faculty to match the
backgrounds of FGCSOC does not allow this (Rios-Ellis, 2015). Instead, support programs have
turned to their students’ assets to support and guide other students. Peer mentoring is a form of
support that centers all CCW forms of capital students (Chin Goosby, 2021; Rios-Ellis, 2015).
Peer mentorship supports students and continues to develop the peer mentors’ leadership.
Support programs play a crucial role in facilitating access to resources. This strategy is
crucial for the FGCSOC, who have navigated barriers to reach higher education. Facilitating
access to resources showed up in this study in three ways: knowledge, materials or supplies, and
space. Resources in the form of knowledge play a role in uncovering hidden resources. Hidden
resources have a long history in the United States. In the context of CRT, Matsuda (1991) talked
about hidden norms in a society where the voices of dominant groups are centered. The hidden
norms extend to higher education and hold an expectation for assimilation into a White-centered

107
culture (Means & Pyne, 2017; Quaye et al., 2015). Programs facilitating access to generational
knowledge and expectations for success in college are a way of easing their journey and focusing
their efforts on their academics. As Hodge et al. (2020) showed, resources might be available but
not always visible to those who need them. Multiple participants emphasized having one person
or one place where students can go for anything they need without having to go from one office
to another to find the right place for their needs.
Participants also talked about programs providing supplies and space. Access to supplies
is a direct form of supply to cover the needs of students with financial needs. This study did not
focus on low-income status but is one common intersectionality for FGCSOC. Participants
recognized that providing access to supplies was a financial relief for families, which taps into
familial capital by mitigating additional burdens on students and their families. The last resource
facilitated by programs was space. The findings of this study aligned with previous research on
counterspaces, which provide students with a safe academic and non-academic space for support
(Luedke, 2019; Roberts & Lucas, 2022). Having a space where FGCSOC can gather with other
students like them supports the development of their social capital. Yosso et al. (2009) proposed
that spaces can allow students to face academic rigors in the community. Building this social
capital with their peers is beneficial beyond the student’s college journey. One participant said
the networks that students in their college community have the potential for generational change.
The last layer of the research question asked in this study looked at the alignment
between support programs and the institutions that house them. This last question intends to
explore how FGCSOC are perceived in higher education. The findings of the previous questions
showed that programs have practices aligned with CCW and that staff and administrators are
aware of CCW forms of capital in the students they support. The next part of this study looked

108
outside of the programs at the institutional level. The conceptual framework in this study
proposed that higher education as an institution was built on colonialism, racism, and oppression,
and it has been informed by academic research holding deficit perspectives of FGCSOC. This
study found a disconnect between support programs and institutions; participants did not think
institutions had the same goals for FGCSOC. Participants said there were metric goals to achieve
in common but not a genuine interest in creating a welcoming space through better
representation of staff and faculty or in creating real opportunities for generational change.
Participants said there was a gap between words and actions and that the gaps would not be
covered if it were not for support programs. This finding aligns with the goals stated by most
funding sources. Most federally funded academic support programs’ goals include increasing
retention, graduation rates, and the presence of students in STEM fields (Hodge et al., 2020;
Quinn et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2023b). Even the Title V grant aims to expand
access, improve attainment, and enhance academic offerings and program quality at HSIs. All
these programs aim to improve the access and academic performance of the students and, in turn,
to improve the institutional metrics. However, it is never explicit that they intend to create a
generational change or improve the educational experience of the student the same way staff and
administrators expressed in this study. It seems that the programs are aware of CCW forms of
capital and use asset-based strategies to support their students because of the staff and
administrators’ understanding of the FGCSOC population. The institutions outside of these
programs continue to have deficit perspectives and be driven by the idea that some students’
deficits need to be improved instead of developing their strengths; this aligns with what has been
observed before by Brown et al. (2020).

109
The last finding presented from this study goes hand in hand with the unalignment of
institutions with an asset-based perspective. Participant in this study did not think that FGCSOC
values and assets were recognized outside of their programs the way they are in their programs.
Participants discussed that there is an expectation for students to be resilient and adjust to the
university environment. Multiple study participants found this idea of resiliency conflicting.
While recognizing it as a strength, they wished others would want FGCSOC to experience ease
in their college journey. As Yosso (2005) expressed, resilience is a manifestation of Aspirational
capital and a tool for survival. While acknowledging students’ resilience is commendable, it
would be more beneficial if concrete actions followed this acknowledgment. When students
succeed or do well academically, there is no recognition of the additional effort or the enactment
of their CCW to navigate and succeed academically. Participants reported that only other people
with similar life experiences and other culturally based organizations seem to see the value of
these students, consistent with the findings of Brown et al. (2020) that FGCS do not need to be
fixed, but maybe they need to be seen.
Recommendations for Practice
This section presents four recommendations for practice based on the findings of this
study. The first two recommendations are at the support program level, and the last two are at the
institutional level. Recommendations are provided at these two levels because potential actions
are achievable at the program level, and program administrators might find these helpful to
integrate into their practices. However, the environment outside the programs is outside the
control of the programs and requires institutional intervention aiming to achieve a systemic
change through increased awareness and access.

110
Recommendation 1: Integrate Current Informal Goals into the Formal Goals of the
Program
Staff and administrators shared that programs have specific formal goals to achieve as
part of the grant or institution funding the program. These goals are metrics like graduation,
retention, academic performance, or meeting a certain number of interactions with the program.
These goals are meant to reflect success. This is consistent with previous research indications
that programs for FGCS goals are to improve metrics of access, affordability, and performance
(Ishitani, 2016; Schelbe et al., 2019). However, in this study, staff and administrators shared
goals for the students that went beyond the metrics. These goals include the student feeling
supported holistically, having an increased sense of belonging, career preparation, community
building, having role models and mentors that students can identify, and empowerment.
Programs already track their metrics for the current formal goals to report to their funding
sources. Participants, especially those in director positions, talked about creating productive
relationships with stakeholders from cultural-based organizations on their campus. Some study
participants expressed that outside their programs, only other cultural-based organizations could
see the value of FGCSOC from an asset-based perspective and have similar goals for them. This
finding reflects what Gallimore and Goldenberg (2019) called a shared cultural model. In this
case, there is a shared cultural model between diverse culturally based organizations and
programs supporting FGCSOC. Luedke’s (2019) findings on students feeling supported
academically and mentally and free to be themselves in culturally based organizations that
provide counterspaces align with the perspectives of the study participants wanting to create a
space of belonging and for the development of students through their values. The goals that
participants shared as part of their personal goals have been shown previously to create a positive

111
environment conducive to learning in the community and with the potential of achieving the
current metrics of success (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015).
Incorporate into the formal goals of the program’s community building, increase students’
sense of belonging, increase access to mentors and role models representing students, and
provide career preparation tailored for FGCSOC. Stating these as formal goals will mean
creating a strategic plan for incorporating them as part of their practice and not as an isolated
practice of some staff and administrators working at the program. Operationalize this goal with
an asset-based perspective, considering CCW forms of capital. This formalization should also
prompt the program to measure progress in these areas. These goals should include formal and
active collaboration with other culturally based organizations to increase capacity and maximize
resources.
Recommendation 2: Create Training for all Staff and Administrators Working in
Academic Programs Supporting FGCSOC
Most study participants reported not having formal training to perform their roles in their
programs supporting FGCSOC. They shared that their own experiences as FGCSOC were
reference points for providing support. Sometimes, their degrees were in some way preparatory,
but mostly, they worked with what was available and figured out how to operationalize their
roles. Only when prompted did one participant mention attending conferences from their funding
sources. Training is available for some programs, like the Federal TRiO programs (U.S.
Department of Education, 2023b). However, training must be uniform across multiple types of
programs.
The participants in this study showed awareness of FGCSOC challenges and strengths
because most of them were also FGCSOC. While it has been found in other studies that having

112
diverse staff and mentors to represent the student population, it has yet to be a current reality,
and incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy and social justice training can make a difference
in working with students (Love et al., 2021). While participants did not express explicitly that
they wanted more training for their jobs, a study in a similar group of participants found that
participants wanted more specialized training (Covarrubias et al., 2023).
Create a training plan for new staff and administrators in academic programs supporting
FGCSOC and a continuing education component every year. Training should incorporate a
sociohistorical background for the population supported by the programs, current standings of
FGCSOC in higher education and within the institution, incorporating CCW knowledge, assetbased support strategies, and storytelling. Training should be independent of the role staff and
administrator’s role in the program, but they should also receive additional training tailored to
their roles and responsibilities. Training should be reviewed on a regular basis and updated to
reflect the latest findings of research on asset-based support strategies.
Recommendation 3: Increase Institutional Awareness of FGCSOC CCW by Targeting
Institutional Agents.
According to staff and administrators in this study, FGCSOC were not seen or valued in
the same way the programs supporting them did. There appeared to be a disconnect between
academic support programs and what the broader institution expected of the students. While
participants talked about wanting students to learn, experience new things, feel like they
belonged, and succeed in their educational journey, the institutions expected good academic
standings and students to be resilient and figure out things for themselves. This was even the
case at institutions with HSI designation receiving Title V funds. This is consistent with previous
findings from Allen-McCombs (2022), who found that the campus environment outside a

113
support program for FGCS was hostile and contradicted the intentions of the support program.
Previous research also found that academic programs have successfully supported students, but
access, campus climate, and culturally relevant curriculums could be improved (AllenMcCombs,2022; Hodge et al., 2020; Love, 2019).
To switch perspectives regarding students at institutional levels, we need to increase the
awareness of the broader university community. According to Covarrubias et al. (2022), deficit
perspectives prevail when institutions fail to recognize the CCW forms of capital in minoritized
students, and resources remain inaccessible. In previous studies, it has been reported that
students felt like staff and faculty were catering exclusively to whiteness, assuming everyone in
the classroom was on the same page in terms of societal norms and mainstream cultural capital
and access to resources, making them feel invisible (Covarrubias et al., 2022). Love et al. (2021)
explain that there is a missed opportunity to secure support for students outside the classroom,
but especially in the classroom because that is the one place where every student has to be
present. One of the key institutional agents is the faculty. Having a more diverse faculty would
be beneficial in aligning with the student population (Stout et al., 2018). Still, other ways exist to
de-center whiteness and increase awareness of FGCSOC among the current faculty.
Create an annual training for institutional agents, specifically faculty. Disseminate
training through the office of faculty development to increase awareness and the visibility of
FGCSOC and training targeting leadership and faculty. This training should include inclusive
classroom practices, asset-based support, and FGCSOC experiences through students’
storytelling. The purpose of this intervention is to bring awareness to faculty to their practices in
propagating inequities in the classroom and to provide them with tools to bring in students to
form relationships that would make students more comfortable in asking questions, expressing

114
their needs, or feeling comfortable to talk to professors and increase trust, engagement, and sense
of belonging. This training should be integrated into the faculty process for promotion and
supplemented with access to consultations as needed and opportunities to connect with
FGCSOC.
Recommendation 4: Increase Access to Resources to FGCSOC by Increasing Visibility.
One of the findings of this study was the role participants play in facilitating access to
resources. Participants were aware of hidden resources and the energy it takes to navigate to find
them. They often emphasize how they wanted them or the support program to be the one place
where they could look for any resource and could point them in the right direction. Covarrubias
et al. (2022) reported that students called out that White-centered practices made resources less
accessible for FGCS. The institution failed to serve this population despite students using their
navigational capital to find non-explicit resources.
The findings of the efforts of participants to facilitate access to resources reflect their
knowledge of how challenging it is to access them. This finding aligns with previous findings
that resource information for first-generation students was not readily accessible on their home
websites or other frequently visited websites such as financial aid sites, making services
challenging (Hodge et al., 2020). Another interesting point brought up by a few participants was
that if FGCSOC were not accepted to a grant-based support program, the support would not be
accessible either. These findings also align with similar findings from Hodge et al. (2020) that
some students might not be aware of support programs and struggle to find resources through
institutional websites.
Increased visibility of resources for FGCSOC through existing structures, such as
University websites. This would make information accessible to all students, even if they are not

115
in a formal academic support program. Add a clear and upfront section for first-generation
students to access information on academic, financial, and mental health services. Include access
through these platforms to counselors specialized in FGCSOC to provide guidance and
consultations as needed. Include links to FGCSOC-specific resources on websites like financial
aid and student services.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study examined how staff and administrators perceive FGCSOC and how they
support this population through an academic program. The study’s eligibility criteria delimited
participation to staff and administrators working in academic support programs in 4-year public
colleges in California. This qualitative study focused on an individual perspective and key
elements of the support programs but not on a speaker for the programs. This study intended to
reach participants from all programs. However, it was limited to those who responded to the
invitation to participate in the study. Most of the study participants were previously FGCSOC;
this was not intended as a qualifying criterion. The backgrounds of the individual participants
might have influenced the findings of this study and, therefore, been delimitated by their
common experience and relatability to the student population.
The study was limited to the research questions and the instrument’s design. The
instrument was designed to understand the participants’ perspectives regarding FGCSOC and
their CCW. However, it missed the opportunity to delve deeper into important topics that
influenced their perspective and could have provided a better understanding of the structural
elements of their program and their institutions, such as program design, funding, and
institutional support, among others.

116
This research was also limited by the sample size and diversity of roles within the sample
size. Participants included program directors, coordinators, counselors, coaches, and program
assistants. While saturation was reached, it would be interesting to see how this research would
hold if all participants had the same role within the program. This study represents the
perspectives of this group of individuals at 4-year public colleges in California. While it cannot
be generalized to all staff and administrators working at programs supporting FGCSOC, it
provides insights that might be helpful in similar settings. Lastly, the study was delimited by the
researcher’s understanding and interpretation of the data.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was in no way comprehensive in terms of the way all the different higher
education agents see FGCSOC. While the findings provide a view of how FGCSOCs are seen by
staff and administrators supporting them in 4-year colleges in California, questions remain to be
asked. It would be interesting to look at other institutional agents and find their perspectives and
how perspectives change when the backgrounds differ from those of FGCSOC. It would also be
interesting to see how the findings of this study would be different if the settings were different.
How would the perspective of FGCSOC be different at PWI, at exclusively HSIs, HBCUs, Tribal
colleges, or community colleges? Or if the geographical location of the study was different.
California is one of the states with the highest diversity ratings. The academic support program
staff and administrators might have different backgrounds from those in California, and the
diversity of students in colleges might also differ. It would also be interesting to see how the
perspectives of FGCSOC change after asset-based support training has been implemented within
support programs. Lastly, it would be worth looking at deeper level at first-generation

117
professionals and their motivations for pursuing this work, the challenges they confront and their
aspirations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study looked at support systems in 4-year public colleges in California
through the voices of staff and administrators working in academic support programs for
FGCSOC to learn how they align with Yosso’s (2005) CCW model. Historically, deficit
perspectives of FGCSOC have dominated the narrative of this student population. It was
important to see how the perspective of FGCSOC plays a role in higher education and in the
spaces intended to support their education success. With 30% of the college population,
FGCSOC represent a significant proportion of students in the United States (Schuyler et al.
2021). The presence of support programs is an acknowledgment of how relevant this population
is to the workforce and economy of the United States (Ishitani, 2016; Schelbe et al., 2019).
However, the influence of a long history of oppression and deficit narratives about FGCSOC
continues to reflect in intuitional practices.
It is important to continue to move away from a deficit perspective from the core of
interactions in important places like support programs to the outer university and into higher
education in general. It is essential to name in what ways academic structures continue to be
unaligned with the recognition of students’ strengths and values and when those values are
acknowledged to have parallel actions to support them.
The findings are relevant to examining higher education practices and centering the
students in designing practices and resources. A college education for FGCSOC brings the
possibility of generational change (Sáenz et al., 2007). Switching the lens from what they lack to
what assets can be developed can have a great impact not only on the FGCSOC population but

118
also on other groups of minoritized students. Past research has provided evidence that when
support programs are informed by asset-based research, it is possible to operationalize assetbased support (Chin Goosvy, 2021; Luedke, 2019; McGowan & Pérez, 2020; Means & Pyne,
2017; Rios-Ellis, 2015). Likewise, this study found that it is possible to acknowledge the CCW
that FGCSOC brings to the education environment and use CCW-aligned practices to develop
those strengths further. This study proposes that it is possible to extend CCW-aligned practices
to other areas of higher education, which might require increasing diversity, awareness, and
visibility of resources accounting for experiences and background of FGCSOC.

119
References
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The
New Press.
Allen-McCombs, J. (2022). Using the Cultural Wealth Framework to Examine How Institutional
Conditions Impact Minoritized First-Generation College Students’ Success and Life
Outcomes. Journal of First-Generation Student Success, 2(1), 18–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2022.2027220
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. University of North
Carolina Press.
Astin, A.W. & Oseguera, L. (2005). Pre-college and institutional influences on degree
attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success
(245–276). ACE/Praeger.
Bell, D. (1989). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. Basic Books.
Bell, D. A. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory? University of Illinois Law Review,
1995(4), 893–910.
Bell, D. (2005). Silent covenants: Brown V. board of education and the unfulfilled hopes for
racial reform. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Berkeley Connect. (2020). The impact of Berkeley Connect.
http://www.berkeleyconnect.berkeley.edu/impact-of-berkeley-connect/
Boettcher, M. L., Lange, A., Hanks, S., & Means, D. R. (2022). Rural Black and Latinx students:
Engaging community cultural wealth in higher education. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 38(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.26209/jrre3801

120
Bordelon, S. (2022). The 1931 Lemon Grove case and segregation arguments: Learning from a
multilayer, cross-border rhetorical endeavor. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 52(1), 32–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2021.1990379
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
Brayboy, B. (2001) Toward a tribal critical theory in higher education, paper presentation at
Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond,
VA.
Brayboy, B.M.J. (2006). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review,
37(5), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown, E. M., Ramrakhiani, S., & Tate, K. A. (2020). Not a problem to be fixed: Successful
first‐generation graduates and implications for college counselors. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 48(4), 243–256.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12197
Cataldi, E. F., Bennet, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access,
persistence and postbachelor’s outcomes. (Stats in Brief). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018421
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2020). Building momentum: Using guided
pathways to redesign the student experience. The University of Texas at Austin, College
of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, Program in Higher
Education Leadership.

121
Chang, R. S. (1993). Toward an Asian American legal scholarship: Critical race theory, poststructuralism, and narrative space. California Law Review, 81(5), 1241–1323.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3480919
Chen, X., Elliot, B. G., Kinney, S. K., Cooney, D., Pretlow, J., Bryan, M., Wu, J., Ramirez, N.
A., Campbell, T., & RTI international. (2019). Persistence, retention, and attainment of
2011–12 first-time beginning postsecondary students as of spring 2017 (NCES 2019401).
National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019401
Chin Goosby, K. (2021). Development of an unorthodox support model to mentor undocumented
immigrant students. Journal of College Access, 6(2), 109–131.
Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). The impact of self-relevant representations on school
belonging for Native American students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 21(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037819
Covarrubias, R., Laiduc, G., Quinteros, K., & Arreaga, J. (2023). Lessons on servingness from
mentoring program leaders at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal for Leadership,
Equity, and Research, 9(2), Article 2.
https://journals.sfu.ca/cvj/index.php/cvj/article/view/259
Covarrubias, R., Laiduc, G., & Valle, I. (2022). What institutions can learn from the navigational
capital of minoritized students. Journal of First-Generation Student Success, 2(1), 36–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2022.2065109
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. The University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 164, 139–167.

122
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1996). Critical race theory: The key
writings that formed the movement. The New Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Delgado Bernal, D. (1998) Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research,
Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555–582.
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002) Critical race theory, latCrit theory and critical raced-gendered
epistemologies: recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge,
Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105–126.
https://doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/107780040200800107
Delgado, R. (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press.
Delgado, R. (1997). Rodrigo’s fifteenth chronicle: racial mixture, Latino-critical scholarship, and
the Black-White binary. Texas Law Review, 75, 1181–1201.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,
and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023
Denton, M., Borrego, M., & Boklage, A. (2020). Community cultural wealth in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education: A systematic review. Journal of
Engineering Education, 109(3), 556–580. https://doi-org/10.1002/jee.20322
Dominguez-Whitehead, Y., Phommasa, M., & Caudillo, A. (2021). Unmasking first-generation
college students and professionals. Journal of First-Generation Student Success, 1(2),
145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/26906015.2021.1940390

123
Dumas, M. J., & Ross, K. M. (2016) “Be real Black for me”: Imagining Blackcrit in education.
Urban Education, 51(4), 415–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916628611
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, firstgeneration students. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Moving_Beyond_Access_2008.pdf
Espino, M. M. (2014). Exploring the role of community cultural wealth in graduate school access
and ersistence for Mexican American PhDs. American Journal of Education, 120(4),
545–574. https://doi.org/10.1086/676911
Esposito, J., & Evans-Winters, V. (2021). Introduction to Intersectional Qualitative Research.
SAGE Publications.
Fry, R. (2021, May 18). First-generation college graduates lag behind their peers on key
economic outcomes. Pew Research Center. (2021). https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2021/05/18/first-generation-college-graduates-lag-behind-their-peers-on-keyeconomic-outcomes/.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications.
Gist-Mackey, A. N., Wiley, M. L., & Erba, J. (2018). “You’re doing great. Keep doing what
you’re doing”: Socially supportive communication during first-generation college
students’ socialization. Communication Education, 67(1), 52–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1390590

124
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without Racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
Havlik, S., Pulliam, N., Malott, K., & Steen, S. (2020). Strengths and struggles: First-generation
college-goers persisting at one predominantly White institution. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 22(1), 118–140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117724551
Hodge, L., Wilkerson, A., & Stanislaus, E. P. (2020). How can we help you? An exploration of
what institutional websites reveal about first-generation support services. Metropolitan
Universities, 31(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.18060/23360
Housel, T. H. (2019). First-generation college student experiences of intersecting marginalities.
Peter Lang Publishing.
Iftikar, J. S., & Museus, S. D. (2018). On the utility of Asian critical (AsianCrit) theory in the
field of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(10),
935–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2018.1522008
Ishitani, T. T. (2016). First-generation student’s persistence at four-year institution. College and
University, 91(3), 22–34.
Jenkins, S. R., Belanger, A., Connally, M. L., Boals, A., & Durón, K. M. (2013). First-generation
undergraduate students’ social support, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of
College Counseling, 16(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2013.00032.x
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher
expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In M. P.

125
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281–388).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60240-3
Keengwe, J., Mbae, J. G., & Onchwari, G. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of research on global issues
in next-generation teacher education. IGI Global.
Knotek, S. E., Fleming, P., Wright Thompson, L., Fornaris Rouch, E., Senior, M., & Martinez,
R. (2019). An implementation coaching framework to support a career and university
readiness program for underserved first-year college students. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 29(3), 337–367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1544903
Kohler Giancola, J., Munz, D. C., & Trares, S. (2008). First- versus continuing-generation adult
students on college perceptions: Are differences actually because of demographic
variance? Adult Education Quarterly, 58(3), 214–228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713608314088
Kouyoumdjian, C., Guzmán, B. L., Garcia, N. M., & Talavera-Bustillos, V. (2017). A
community cultural wealth examination of sources of support and challenges among
Latino first and second-generation college students at a Hispanic serving institution.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(1), 61–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715619995
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000) Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies, in: N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 257–277). Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

126
Landman, J. H. (2004). An end and a beginning: The fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of
education: The landmark case that led to the abolition of school segregation. Social
Education, 68(1), 17-J.
Lee, D. M., Duesbery, L., Han, P. P., Thupten, T., Her, C. S., & Pang, V. O. (2017). Academic needs
and family factors in the education of Southeast Asian American students: Dismantling the
model minority myth. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education &
Advancement, 12(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.7771/2153-8999.1154
Love, B. L. (2019). Chapter 6. Theory Over Gimmicks: Finding Your North Star. We want to do
more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon
Press.
Love, M. B., Kased, R. A., Malik, S. K., Taylor, S. D., Legion, V., Graterol, C., Shada, A.,
Previde, P., & Wirth, P. (2021). Achieving equity: An evaluation of a multicomponent,
lower-division student success program. Journal of Educational Research and Practice,
11(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2021.11.1.05
Luedke, C. L. (2019). “Es como una familia”: Bridging emotional support with academic and
professional development through the acquisition of capital in Latinx student
organizations. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(4), 372–388.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717751205
Ma, P.-W. W., & Shea, M. (2021). First-generation college students’ perceived barriers and
career outcome expectations: Exploring contextual and cognitive factors. Journal of
Career Development, 48(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319827650
Marable, M. (1992). Black America. Westfield, NJ: Open Media.

127
Martinez, A. Y. (2014). Critical race theory: Its origins, history, and importance to the discourses
and rhetorics of race. Frame, 27(2), 9–27.
Matsuda, M. J. (1991). Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and a jurisprudence
for the last reconstruction. The Yale Law Journal, 100(5), 1329–1407.
https://doi.org/10.2307/796694
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McGowan, B. L., & Pérez, D. (2020). “A community built just for me”: Black undergraduate
men bridging gaps to community cultural wealth. Journal of The First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition, 32(1), 43–57.
Means, D. R., & Pyne, K. B. (2017). Finding my way: Perceptions of institutional support and
belonging in low-income, first-generation, first-year college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 58(6), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0071
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Molina, N. (2013). Examining Chicana/o history through a relational lens. Pacific Historical
Review, 82(4), 520–541. https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2013.82.4.520
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Profile of undergraduate students: 2011–12
(NCES 2015-167). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015167.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Digest of Education Statistics: Degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by control and classification of institution and state or
jurisdiction:2020-21. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_317.20.asp

128
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Odeleye, B.-G., & Santiago, J. (2019). A Review of some diverse models of summer-bridge
programs for first-generation and at-risk college students. Administrative Issues Journal:
Education, Practice, and Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5929/9.1.2
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., & Wolniak, G. C. (2004). First-generation college students:
Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education,
75(3), 249–284. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0016
Quaye, S. J., Griffin, K. A., & Museus, S. D. (2015). Engaging students of color. In S. J. Quaye
& S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives
and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 15-35). Routledge.
Ramirez, E. (2011). “No one taught me the steps”: Latinos’ xxperiences applying to graduate
school. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(3), 204–222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2011.581105
Redford, J., & Hoyer, K. M. (2017). First-generation and continuing generation college
students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences. National Center
for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf
Renee Posselt, J., & Black, K. R. (2012). Developing the research identities and aspirations of
first‐generation college students: Evidence from the McNair scholars program.
International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(1), 26–48.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17597511211278634

129
Revelo, R. A., & Baber, L. D. (2018). Engineering resistors: Engineering Latina/o students and
emerging resistant capital. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(3), 249–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717719132
Rios-Ellis, B., Rascón, M., Galvez, G., Inzunza-Franco, G., Bellamy, L., & Torres, A. (2015).
Creating a model of Latino peer education: Weaving cultural capital into the fabric of
academic services in an urban university Setting. Education and Urban Society, 47(1),
33–55. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/0013124512468006
Roberts, S. A., & Lucas, K. L. (2022). A Title V center as a counterspace for underrepresented
minority and first-generation college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
21(2), 198–211. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/1538192720951307
Rockafellow, M. (2021). Impact of Support Programs on Leadership for First Generation
Women in Student Affairs (Order No. 28416398) [Doctoral dissertation, St. Francis
College of Education]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
RTI International. (2019). First-generation college students: Demographic characteristics and
postsecondary enrollment. Washington, DC: NASPA.
https://firstgen.naspa.org/files/dmfile/FactSheet-01.pdf
Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A
profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971.
https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Special/Monographs/FirstInMyFamily.pdf
Santa-Ramirez, S., Wells, T., Sandoval, J., & Koro, M. (2022). Working through the experiences
of first-generation students of color, university mission, intersectionality, and postsubjectivity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 35(2), 109–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1783012

130
Schelbe, L., Becker, M. S., Carmella, S., & Denesha, M. (2019). First generation college
students’ perceptions of an academic retention program. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i5.24300
Schuyler, S. W., Childs, J. R., & Poyton, T. A. (2021). Promoting success for first-generation
students of color: The importance of academic, transitional adjustment, and mental health
supports. Journal of College Access, 6(1), 12–25.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jca/vol6/iss1/4
Scrivener, S., Weiss, M. J., Ratledge, A., Rudd, T., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2015). Doubling
graduation rates: Three-year effects of CUNY’s accelerated study in associate programs
(ASAP) for developmental education students. In MDRC. MDRC.
https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/doubling-graduation-rates
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Solórzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping,
and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5–19.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). A critical race counterstory of race, racism, and
affirmative action. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 155–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713845284
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counterstorytelling. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110063365

131
Spring, J. H. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using
trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–
28.
Stout, R., Archie, C., Cross, D., & Carman, C. A. (2018). The relationship between faculty
diversity and graduation rates in higher education. Intercultural Education, 29(3), 399–
417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1437997
Tate, K. A., Fouad, N. A., Marks, L. R., Young, G., Guzman, E., & Williams, E. G. (2015).
Underrepresented first-generation, low-income college students’ pursuit of a graduate
education: Investigating the influence of self-efficacy, coping efficacy, and family
influence. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 427–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547498
Thomas, V. (2009). Critical race theory: Ethics and dimensions of diversity in research. In
Mertens, D. M., & Ginsberg, P. E. (Eds) The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 54-
68). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971
Toutkoushian, R. K., Stollberg, R. A., & Slaton, K. A. (2018). Talking ‘bout my generation:
Defining “First-generation college students” in higher education research. Teachers
College Record, 120(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000407
Toutkoushian, R. K., May-Trifiletti, J. A., & Clayton, A. B. (2021). From “First in family” to
“First to finish”: Does college graduation vary by how first-generation college status is
defined? Educational Policy, 35(3), 481–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823753

132
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72-89.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). 2020 Census: Racial and ethnic diversity index by state. U.S.
Department of Commerce.
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/dec/racial-and-ethnic-diversityindex.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011, September 9). History of the federal TRIO programs.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/triohistory.html
US Department of Education. (2016). Developing Hispanic-serving institutions program - Title V
FY 2016 Award. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/awards.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2023, January 20). About OPE-higher education program
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/hep.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2023, November 3). Developing Hispanic-serving institutions
Program - Title V https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/index.html
Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). The Evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203046586
Waterman, S. J., & Lindley, L. S. (2013). Cultural strengths to persevere: Native American
women in higher education. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 6(2),
139–165. https://doi.org/10.1515/njawhe-2013-0011
Yosso, T. J. (2002). Toward a critical race curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2),
93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845283
Yosso, T. J., Parker, L., Solórzano, D. G., & Lynn, M. (2004). From Jim crow to affirmative
action and back again: A critical race discussion of racialized rationales and access to

133
higher education. Review of Research in Education, 28, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X028001001
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–691.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.m6867014157m707l

134
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction to the interview:
Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me. This interview is part of my
dissertation project. I’m looking to learn about programs supporting FGCSOC through the
perspective of staff and administrators working for support programs. I would like to remind you
that your participation is voluntary and if at any point you decide you no longer wish to
participate, you can let me know and we will stop the interview. If you decide to proceed with
this interview, I would like to let you know that any identifiable information will be removed
from the interview transcripts and a pseudonym will be assigned to you and the program and
organization you are part of.
I would like to use zoom recording to be able to transcribe and review our interview after
our session. Do I have your permission to record?
Part 1: Background
1. Can you tell me about yourself? What is your career background?
2. Were you a first-generation student when you were in college?
3. Can you tell me what it was like for you navigating college?
Part 2: Programmatic Experiences
1. Can you tell me about the academic program you work for?
• What is the size of the program?
• What population are you serving?
2. What is your job within this program?
• Can you tell me a little bit about why you work for this program?
• Did you have similar jobs in the past?

135
3. What kind of training did you receive to do your job providing support to students?
• Did it take place at the beginning of job?
• Have you taken continuous education?
• Was your training from previous similar job experiences?
4. Can you describe the goals of the academic program you work for?
• What is the mission of your program?
• What end results are getting measured?
• Do you see students achieving those goals?
5. Do you think the university outside this program shares the same goals?
6. From your opinion, what are the needs of the students your programs support?
• Why do you think the students you serve are part of this program?
• What are students gaining from being part of this program?
7. Some programs are focused on developing existing strengths/skills in students that
they possess when entering college while other programs are focused more on
teaching students’ new strengths/skills. Where do you see the programs, you work for
in this spectrum?
• Can you elaborate on how the program is developing students’
skills/strengths?
• Can you elaborate on what new skills/strengths the program is teaching
students?
8. What resources do students have access to through your program?
• Do you have examples? (mentors? role models? internships? networks?
workshops? financial support?)

136
• Who is providing or guiding those resources?
9. Do you think the strengths that you see in the students your program serves are seen
by the university outside of these programs?
10. What strengths and/or assets have you see students bring with them into the college
environment?
• How does that knowledge and skills contribute to the student success?
• Do you have some examples?
11. How does your program lean on the skills and knowledge students bring to the
college environment?
• Can you think about students and things in common they have?
• In what ways does the program introduce new skills and knowledge?
12. In what ways do you collect data directly from students that impacts the way the
program supports them? Is there an example that you can remember that you can
share?
Part 3: Experiences With Students and Reflections
1. What kinds of resources do students ask for?
• Can you provide examples?
• How is the feedback provided (formal/informal channels?)
2. In what ways do students manifest what they want or need from the program and
from the college environment?
3. What types of self-organized efforts have you observed in the students in your
program?
4. Is there anything else that you would like to share with me today?

137
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you very much for taking the time to talk and share your thoughts with me. This is
a very important part of my study and I really appreciate it. If I have follow-up questions to
clarify something, can I reach out to you by email?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

First-generation, low-income Latina students and cultural capital: a case study for academic advisors

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

PDF

And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students

PDF

Addressing financial barriers to college completion through community cultural wealth

PDF

Student support program for first-generation law students

PDF

Designing college transition programs for low-income, first-generation commuter students

PDF

Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution

PDF

Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Who’s taking care of our graduate students? The impact of the onboarding process for first-generation students transitioning into graduate school during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Intent vs. impact: exploring how community-based organizations support Latino/a/e students through their educational journeys

PDF

Preparing international students for management school through pathway programs

PDF

Families first: supporting first-generation college students’ families

PDF

A different world: exploring how Black students facilitate their own success at a public, 4-year institution

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

From classrooms to careers: an exploration of how undergraduate Latina engineering students achieve their post-baccalaureate

PDF

Latine college belonging: influences and differences of immigration and college generation

Asset Metadata

Creator Perez, Saida Gracia (author)

Core Title Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/22/2024

Defense Date 03/05/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic support programs,asset based perspectives,asset based support,community cultural wealth,first generation,first generation college students,first generation professionals,OAI-PMH Harvest,students of color

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Banuelos, Sheila (committee member), Zaragoza-Petty, Alma (committee member)

Creator Email saidaperez@gmail.com,sgperez@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113893037

Unique identifier UC113893037

Identifier etd-PerezSaida-12846.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PerezSaida-12846

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Perez, Saida Gracia

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240422-usctheses-batch-1143 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu