University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Stigma, self-efficacy, and spheres of influence: factors that impact college success for formerly incarcerated college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Stigma, self-efficacy, and spheres of influence: factors that impact college success for formerly incarcerated college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Stigma, Self-Efficacy, and Spheres of Influence: Factors that Impact College Success for
Formerly Incarcerated College Students
Bryan Ross Hirayama
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 Bryan Ross Hirayama 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Bryan Ross Hirayama certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Lawrence Picus
Brantley Choate
Dennis Hocevar, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study looked at the experiences of formerly incarcerated college students at a community
college in California. Using grounded theory as a theoretical framework, Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory (EST) was the lens applied to identify and understand how various
structures and relationships in students’ spheres of influence impact their experiences with
stigma and self-efficacy as they strive for college success. This study looked to flush out
reciprocal relationships between the concepts of stigma, self-efficacy, and structures and
relationships. Through interviews, common themes revealed both uniformity and divergence in
perceptions of these concepts in building confidence in the capability and capacity to succeed as
college students. Participants identified strategies they used on campus to mitigate the stigma
they faced, as well as avoid negative judgments and treatment through different communication
strategies. Participants also identified the different structures and relationships on and off campus
that helped shape their self-efficacy as it relates to being successful in college. They expressed a
heightened sense of confidence and belief in their capabilities and capacity to succeed.
Keywords: formerly incarcerated college students, justice-involved, stigma, self-efficacy,
capabilities and capacity, confidence, structures and relationships, spheres of influence,
communication

v
Dedication
To Kiano R. Hirayama, Kai B. Hirayama, and Kinen E.Hirayama.
My passion for more starts and ends with my boys. My greatest responsibility and joy is being
your dad.

vi
Acknowledgements
I have learned a lot about the joys and sorrows of life over these past 3 years while
completing the coursework and writing this dissertation at USC. It has not been easy by any
stretch of the imagination. There were so many people in my corner rooting me on throughout
this process, and it is only right to acknowledge them for their kindness, support, and faith in me
throughout this adventure.
I would like to start off by thanking the amazing professors in the OCL program. Dr.
Ayesha Madni was not only an amazing instructor, but a decent human being who I believe is
living the principles of OCL through her work and scholarship. Thank you for the extra time you
spent before, during, and after class conversing with me. I would like to extend my sincerest
gratitude to my committee chair Dr. Dennis Hocevar. This was a journey for me to walk alone,
but I appreciated the fact that you were there when I needed it most. Thank you to Dr. Larry
Picus for agreeing to be a part of this committee. One day, I hope to answer emails as efficiently
as you. Last but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Brantley Choate. Dr. Choate created the
space for me to discover my passions and purpose in working with justice-involved people. I am
forever grateful for your groundbreaking work in the field of higher education in prison.
By luck, chance, or circumstance, I got linked up with the smartest and most caring group
of colleagues to walk this journey with. I would like to offer a special thanks to Dan Watkins,
Linda Vasquez, Pauline Fong, and Taylor Mizuno-Moore. It was a wild ride, and I couldn’t have
asked for a better crew. Just knowing I had someone to call and count on throughout this process
made the difference on those long nights and hard days. Last but not least, I would like to thank
my family and especially my wife, Tritia. Thank you, Tritia, for allowing me to live out my
dreams regardless of your understanding of where they would lead or what they would turn into.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions...................................................................4
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................7
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................13
Stigma ................................................................................................................................14
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................20
Conceptual Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory...........................23
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................26
The Researcher...................................................................................................................27
Setting and Sample ............................................................................................................28
Interview Protocols............................................................................................................30
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................40
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................41
Ethics..................................................................................................................................42
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................43

viii
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................45
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................46
Participants.........................................................................................................................46
Findings..............................................................................................................................55
Summary ..........................................................................................................................101
Chapter Five: Recommendations.................................................................................................103
Discussion of Findings.....................................................................................................103
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................108
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................111
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................113
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................115
References....................................................................................................................................116

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Interview Questions 35
Table 2: Participants’ Identification of Structures and Relationships 76
Table 3: Frequency of the Structures and Institutions the Interviewees Identified 80

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Visual of Research Questions 6
Figure 2: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Adapted for Formerly Incarcerated
College Student 11
Figure 3: Self-Efficacy Theory Model: Formerly Incarcerated College Student Success 22

xi
List of Abbreviations
EST Ecological Systems Theory
FICS Formerly Incarcerated College Students
RSP Rising Scholars Program

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Postsecondary educational opportunities for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated
people are subject to the ebb and flow of funding and political landscapes. However, with the
passing of SB 1391, which initially granted California community colleges access to this
traditionally closed system (Senate Bill No. 1391, 2014), postsecondary education is a reachable
reality for incarcerated people looking to gain more from the time they spend behind bars. Now,
individuals in custody settings receive face-to-face postsecondary opportunities for the first time
in decades. Traditional college campuses have also evolved to meet these students’ needs.
Forward-facing on-campus programs across California in community colleges, state colleges,
and other public and private universities appear motivated to serve these traditionally ignored
and closeted students. Although it is not perfect or to scale, colleges operating in carceral settings
and on traditional campuses address gaps in access and demystify higher education for justiceinvolved people.
Despite education’s potential to significantly alter a person’s life and trajectory, justiceinvolved individuals are far less likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree than people without a
criminal record (Couloute, 2018). With more jobs requiring higher education (Quach et al.,
2022), a degree seems essential for financial and personal success. Education can be an effective
leveraging agent for justice-involved people as they will likely face obstacles in their personal,
social, and professional lives. Although state legislation prohibits certain employers from asking
job applicants about previous convictions (California Assembly Bill 1008; California Fair
Chance Act, 2017), formerly incarcerated people face obstacles to reintegration (The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 2017). Individuals who turn to higher education may

2
face different obstacles due to their conviction history and the culture of college and collegegoing people.
Through the participants’ lived experiences, this exploratory study sought to examine the
role of stigma, self-efficacy, structures, and relationships in overall perceptions of success in
college. Current scholarship is unclear on whether life’s various structures and relationships
mitigate or enhance stigma and the impact of these on perceptions and experiences when dealing
with it. Also, research has not explored the role of these structures and relationships in formerly
incarcerated college students’ self-efficacy or the impact of this self-efficacy on their structures
and relationships. Lastly, this research sought to uncover how stigma affects self-efficacy and
how self-efficacy might affect the experience of stigma internally and externally, both on and off
campus.
Context and Background of the Problem
California has made significant strides in passing legislation, revamping institutional
policies, and building partnerships between colleges and universities and the California state
prisons to make higher education a reality inside and outside the prison system (California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2023c). Face-to-face and correspondence
associate degree programs granting Associate of Arts and Associate Degree for Transfer are
currently available in 34 state prisons, and eight of the 35 state-owned facilities offer BA
programs (Hayes et al., 2019). With the significant investment of time, resources, and funding,
stakeholders must understand the obstacles formerly incarcerated college students face to build
effective programs that enable them to graduate. Colleges and universities that are building
programs to serve these students need to be better equipped to meet their needs. These students
require assistance to overcome the apprehension of college life and ongoing personal, academic,

3
and professional barriers to college success. For these students, transitioning onto a college
campus can be disconnected and difficult. Their educational past and experiences in the criminal
justice system may create distinct obstacles in the form of stigma and doubt about their
capabilities and capacity to succeed in school.
The data about education’s impact on incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people can
be both encouraging and disheartening. Justice-involved people have traditionally achieved
lower educational outcomes than individuals who have not been in contact with the criminal
justice system (Wolf Harlow, 2003). Although formerly incarcerated people make up only four
percent of the population in the United States, they are eight times less likely to complete a
college degree than the general public (Couloute, 2018). In contrast, individuals who participate
in postsecondary education while in prison experience less disciplinary action than nonparticipants (Pompoco et al., 2017) and have enhanced individual learning, communal
interactions and learning, and teacher-student dynamics (Kallman, 2020). They also have greater
interpersonal and social development (Conway, 2023b).
College-in-prison programming has also had positive post-release outcomes on
recidivism (Bozick et al., 2018), direct cost savings to the state (Davis et al., 2013), and
improved economic outcomes (Oakford et al., 2019). With a direct correlation between
educational attainment and median usual weekly earnings and unemployment rates (Vilorio,
2016), obtaining postsecondary education could give justice-involved individuals the best chance
at sustaining their livelihoods and freedom. For those who seek a future through higher
education, all invested parties need to understand the obstacles they face so they can be better
prepared to deal with adversity.

4
For formerly incarcerated people looking to succeed in college, both they and the
institution need to be prepared for academic and personal challenges. Best supporting these
students requires institutional agents to have a greater understanding of how stigma, self-doubt,
and support systems help or hurt their chances of reaching their academic goals. Students are
likely to encounter stigma as a result of their previous incarceration and fitting into a
nontraditional student persona. Additionally, they may experience campus life very differently
than traditional students, given their structures and relationships on and off campus.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the lives of formerly incarcerated
college students and the experiences they have on campus as they confront the stigma associated
with their justice involvement and student’s beliefs in their capabilities and capacity to be
successful in college. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. How do various structures and relationships in formerly incarcerated college students’
lives impact stigma, and conversely, how does stigma impact the structures and
relationships of formerly incarcerated students’ lives?
a. Do students’ experiences with stigma impact the structures and relationships
within their spheres of influence?
i. How do students’ experiences with stigma create conflict or connection
with the structures and relationships in their spheres of influence?
b. Do the structures and relationships within formerly incarcerated college students’
spheres of influence impact their understanding and experience with stigma?
i. In what ways do the elements of a student’s sphere of influence create,
sustain, or mitigate stigma for a formerly incarcerated student?

5
2. How do formerly incarcerated college students’ structures and relationships influence
their perceptions of their capabilities and capacity (self-efficacy) to succeed in college,
and conversely, how do their perceptions of their capabilities and capacity (self-efficacy)
to succeed influence the structures and relationships in their lives?
a. Do students’ perceptions of self-efficacy impact their structures and relationships
within their spheres of influence?
b. Do the structures and relationships within formerly incarcerated college students’
spheres of influence impact their belief and confidence (self-efficacy) in their
success in college?
c. In what ways do the structures and relationships within a formerly incarcerated
college students’ spheres of influence create, sustain, or diminish their selfefficacy?
3. How do formerly incarcerated college students’ perceptions of stigma influence their
perception of their capabilities and capacity (self-efficacy) to be successful in college,
and conversely, how do their perceptions of their capabilities and capacity (self-efficacy)
influence their perceptions of stigma?
a. How does stigma impact formerly incarcerated college students’ self-efficacy to
succeed in college?
b. How does a formerly incarcerated college student’s self-efficacy impact a
student’s perceptions and experiences with stigma and being successful in
college?

6
Figure 1
Visual of Research Questions
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is two-fold. First, as the state continues to fund and support
college for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, there is a bottom line that must be
considered. It is imperative that students, the communities they will reenter, and the state’s
taxpayers know that there is a return on investment. The general public and taxpayers need to see
that educational initiatives and programming are rehabilitative, productive, and worthy of
continued funding. Second and most important, this study can further promote awareness and
call attention to the needs of formerly incarcerated college students. Those who are interested in
attending college need to have confidence that support services and resources exist and are
accessible to them. For those currently in college, this study sought to hear their voices and
recognize their needs.
Structures and
relationshiips
Stigma Self-efficacy

7
The most important reason for conducting this research is to raise the voices of formerly
incarcerated college students and understand their campus experiences. There are a number of
obstacles that present challenges for justice-involved college students as they pursue their
degrees. Finances, secure housing, lack of transportation, childcare, employment, feeling
unwelcomed on campus, not knowing how to be a college student, and stipulation of
parole/probation are top-ranked challenges for academic attainment (Smith & Digard, 2020). As
more of these students step foot on college campuses, research to identify, understand, and fix
the bottleneck in the prison-to-college pipeline will lead to better educational, structural, and
personal outcomes for some of the most vulnerable and minoritized student groups.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (EST) provided the theoretical framework
for a holistic approach to unpacking how various factors impact the college experience. EST
posits there are five interrelated systems or levels (the individual, microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem) that influence the development of any individual or
entity (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Figure 2). Various constructs or elements within and between each
of these systems or levels impact an individual and shape their development. Each of these
systems can be understood as a sphere of influence as the different constructs and elements
therein could influence, in both positive and negative ways, the individual, what they do, and
how they handle experiences.
The system that is closest to the individual in EST is known as the microsystem. The
microsystem is quite intimate and close to the individual and is immediate to the person’s
existence, and development ultimately occurs (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). The close constructs that
compose the microsystem engage directly with the person. In the case of formerly incarcerated

8
college students, this could be their families, classmates, roommates, work and school
environment, and other relationships and settings they are in on a frequent or regular basis.
Formerly incarcerated college students have additional experiences and settings they may inhabit
as part of their justice involvement, including relationships with parole/probation, substance
abuse counseling, mentorship relationships, and assigned living situations that likely impact their
experiences on campus. Formerly incarcerated college students face stigma and potentially
question their self-efficacy differently than their traditional and nontraditional student peers.
The next system that the microsystem falls within and is impacted by is called the
mesosystem. The mesosystem involves the linkages and connections between two or more
settings involving the person or entity (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The mesosystem consists of the
ways in which microsystem family and teacher constructs communicate. This relationship of
microsystem becomes especially important to this study as the participants navigate campus and
confront stigma. Stigma alone is not a construct or product in the microsystem but rather a result
of other systems, such as the mesosystem, impacting campus relationships with peers and
employees and experiences in different offices. How employees talk about justice-involved
people may filter into their everyday interactions with formerly incarcerated college students and
their experiences with stigma on campus.
The exosystem is comprised of the connections between two or more settings where the
individual or subject is not directly contained (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Also thought of as an
extension of the mesosystem, the exosystem involves various social structures and environments
outside of the individual but can influence what goes on with the individual (Bronfenbrenner,
1977). Although the exosystem is somewhat out of the control or influence of the individual, the
linkages and processes taking place could directly impact them. For example, the work world,

9
media, and government agencies are out of individuals’ control but could affect them. Formerly
incarcerated college students’ confidence in their capabilities and capacity to succeed in college
maybe influenced by how society and the media have characterized justice-involved people over
time.
Macrosystems are further removed from the individual but are part of their operating
environment. Macrosystems are even less connected to the individual and their development;
these are entrenched elements of culture, echoed throughout the system, that set the patterns for
behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Cultural, political, and social systems reside in this system but
tickle into all other systems as part of the individual’s environment. The preconceived notions
about justice-involved individuals permeate throughout American society and the different
institutions that compose the macrosystem. The concept of stigma is a judgment created on this
level and communicated directly and indirectly through society’s beliefs, resources, and
warnings about individuals with a criminal background. This study is interested in the
experiences of formerly incarcerated college students and their handling and impact of both
stigma and self-efficacy. The macrosystem, although quite removed from the student’s direct
influence, is impacted by the social, political, and cultural practices that make up this level
within EST.
The final system within EST is the chronosystem, which is a dimensional characteristic
of EST and embodies not just physical time in the years that pass but the additional changes in
life (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Changes that evolve over time, such as with maturity and the level
of importance something might have in this political landscape versus that of 10 years ago, are
influenced and contextualized in time. Formerly incarcerated college students are in a climate
and period where landmark legislation is changing what is available to them and what they are

10
eligible for. This study is situated at a time when funding in California’s college system is
earmarked for formerly incarcerated college students, and educational opportunities are now
available to them. The chronosystem contextualizes the larger environment that formerly
incarcerated college students are operating as they step onto campus and reach to accomplish
their educational goals.
A formerly incarcerated college student’s educational past and present and the structures
and relationships surrounding them may impact stigma and their self-efficacy as it relates to their
college life. Each of the systems in EST presents additional factors and influences that might
help expose why the participants took a particular course of action when confronting stigma or
building self-efficacy. For example, students may be highly motivated to finish or further their
education post-release but not have support from family (microsystem), be harmed by
governmental agencies such as financial aid (exosystem), or may confront the stigma
surrounding their felony record (macrosystem), dissuading them from degree completion. Thus,
EST offers a holistic, parsimonious, and heuristic lens to uncovering why these students further
their education.

11
Figure 2
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory Adapted for Formerly Incarcerated College
Student
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. This chapter presents the context and
background of the problem, the purpose and importance of the study, and a theoretical and

12
conceptual framework. Chapter Two presents a literature review of the central concepts of the
study. Chapter Three outlines this study’s methodology, including protocol, procedures, and data
collection. Chapter Four analyzes the data from participants’ interviews and presents findings.
Chapter Five offers a broader discussion of the findings, including recommendations for future
research and limitations of the study.

13
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Individuals with criminal pasts and felony convictions often find themselves in
precarious positions during reentry into society and the job market (K. Middlemass, 2017), and
their criminal records have been shown to have an impact on their employment options (Agan &
Starr, 2017) and earnings (Kling, 2006). The seriousness of an individual’s crime and the
increased demand for specific applicants in different career fields makes it more difficult for
formerly incarcerated people to find gainful employment (Pager, 2003). To find gainful
employment, these individuals may require further training, certifications, or degree acquisition
to meet employer demands (Mukamal, 2000), making higher education a necessary bridge to
financial sustainability. Community colleges, trade schools, and other institutions can be an
avenue for them to obtain the skills, certifications, and education to be competitive in the current
job market, pursue their passions and interests, and to stay out of future run-ins with the law.
As individuals with a criminal past turn toward education to change their life trajectories,
the college experience has both personal and societal benefits for them, as college can be about
more than merely lowering recidivism. Although recidivism is, in fact, an important measure
when looking at the holistic picture of any program’s effectiveness, the “academic and
professional attainment, social and psychological development, civic engagement, and health and
wellness” of a college education are additional measures that are not highlighted enough when
discussing the impact on justice-involved students (Keller, 2022, p. 89). College can also act as a
catalyst to breaking cycles of imprisonment, mutual respect and mentorship, development of
tangible skills and personal exploration, and self-reflection and inquiry (Conway, 2023a).
Formerly incarcerated college students’ engagement and integration into college culture have
yielded numerous benefits to their personal and professional lives, including strengthening their

14
social networks and gaining access to more resources (Livingston & Miller, 2014), social
support, and community. In some cases, education can be viewed as a life-or-death choice and
education as liberation (Johnson & Mayweather, 2023). These students feel empowered,
confident, and better prepared for the job market (Baston & Miller, 2017) and can be assets to
the classroom through their lived experiences and perspectives (John Jay College Institute for
Justice and Opportunity, & The City University of New York, 2021). Education can be a source
of both personal and social capital.
The college experience in California for justice-involved individuals has changed over
the past decade. Their visibility and the resources for them at community colleges, the California
State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) systems, and private colleges and
universities have never been greater. Programs dedicated to serving these students, such as the
Rising Scholars Network in the California community college (CCC) system, CSU’s Project
Rebound, UC’s Underground Scholars/Underground Scholars Initiative, and other programs and
groups help them navigate their postsecondary educational pursuits (Mukamal et al., 2015).
Although these students may have more academic resources and support at their disposal, it is
unclear how stigma and stereotypes held by the institutions and their peers about individuals with
felony convictions and popularly held generalizations about certain crimes may affect the
motivation to stay engaged in college. Individuals with prison records face stigma from the
general public (Shi et al., 2022) and will likely encounter it on campus.
Stigma
There are variations in the definition of stigma (Link & Phelan, 2001), yet it can be
generally defined as the perceived or felt unfavorable stereotype, judgment, and/or rejection from
others due to (a) physical or visible characteristics of one’s appearance and/or (b) behaviors of an

15
individual deemed socially unacceptable. Important distinctions of stigma for formerly
incarcerated college students may exist among and between public, perceived, and self-stigma,
making it necessary to also define. Although intimately connected, the subtleties between these
concepts may offer insight into how college students at large encounter stigma and how it
impacts their well-being, college performance, and experience in school (Guarneri et al., 2019).
Public stigma refers to negative, pervasive, and potentially harmful attitudes and beliefs
the general public has toward individuals with attributes or alleged behaviors deemed taboo and
unacceptable (Corrigan, 2004). Connected and related, perceived stigma refers to the stereotypes,
generalizations, and negativity people believe are held toward individuals who are thought to
belong to a particular group, whether individuals actually apply these negative judgments to
people that fit into that category (Pattyn et al., 2014). Lastly, self-stigma is putting oneself down
and threatening one’s self-esteem and self-worth through labeling and self-identifying as
someone who fits into the marked traits or behaviors of a stigmatized group (Vogel et al., 2006).
Anticipated stigma can lead to internalized stigma (K. E. Moore et al., 2016). Because formerly
incarcerated college students are stepping onto a campus where they know their peers may hold
preconceived notions about them (Binnall et al., 2022), it is important for all faculty and staff
working with them to understand the potential impacts on these students and the obstacles that
stigma can create for them.
Stigma on College Campuses
Since Goffman’s (1963) introduction of stigma and identity management, considerable
research has been conducted across disciplines and fields of study, including higher education
(Rudick & Dannels, 2018). Researchers have studied stigma associated with college studentathletes (Simons et al., 2007), differences in stigma and attitudes toward counseling between

16
athletes and non-athletes (Hilliard et al., 2019), stigma of sobriety of nondrinking undergraduates
on wet campuses (Herman-Kinney & Kinney, 2013), intersectional stigma of students from both
minoritized identities and socially stigmatized identities (Brower et al., 2021), stigma and mental
health (Morris et al., 2022), post-traumatic stress disorder (Shalka & Leal, 2022), students who
fall on the autism spectrum disorder (Kitchin & Karlin, 2022), and stigma associated with weight
and eating behaviors of college students (Brewis et al., 2016; Stevens, 2018). Perceived stigma
and self-stigma appear to be pervasive in the college experience, yet it is unclear how and to
what extent formerly incarcerated college students are impacted by stigma. It is important to
understand this phenomenon to build both a more adaptive and effective prison-to-college
pipeline that transitions students to college directly from the carceral setting and equips oncampus programs to help students build more confidence and collegiality. Efforts have been
made within the college and university context to design and implement interventions to combat
stigma and the ill effects it has on students it impacts.
The Experiences of Formerly Incarcerated College Students and Stigma
It is not clear what formerly incarcerated college student’s experiences with stigma are on
college campuses and the potential impact on their motivation. It is also unclear which constructs
and elements in a student’s sphere of influence aid them in coping with internalized stigma and
staying motivated to succeed in college. Considering that the most logical landing place for
reentry students with criminal records is community colleges, there should be clear support
structures to support them. Community colleges are trying to understand their justice-involved
students to better serve them (MacKillop, 2017). These students face significant barriers to
reintegration and matriculation into college (Livingston & Miller, 2014; Murillo, 2021), securing
adequate housing (McTier et al., 2023), and digital literacy (McTier et al., 2023), and they are

17
concerned about not having enough money while dealing with feelings of apprehension, among
other barriers (Smith & Digard, 2020). In addition to traditional barriers and obstacles that most
college students face around time management, outside employment, and school-work-life
balance, these students are likely nontraditional students who are not attending college
immediately following high school graduation. The student life of a formerly incarcerated
college student may include many of the elements of a traditional college student yet have
additional obstacles, restrictions, and constraints.
Research focusing on formerly incarcerated college students has seen traction since the
passing of California’s SB 1391. A 2015 report put out by Stanford Law School and UC
Berkeley Law School discusses the expansion of college opportunities for currently and formerly
incarcerated Californians. The report outlines the necessity and value of educational
opportunities for justice-involved people, as well as the many personal, institutional, and
systemic barriers individuals may face as they attempt to go to college (Mukamal et al., 2015).
Research putting the experiences of black, indigenous people of color (also referred to as Black,
Indigenous, and People of Color or BIPOC) has centered around exploring how formerly
incarcerated Black males (FIBM) experience college (Rosser-Mims et al., 2014; Strayhorn et al.,
2013), importance and cultural capital of FIBM in college (Johnson & Mayweather, 2023), and
the disparities Latino men experience pursuing their postsecondary education (Abeyta, 2020).
The voice of parolees also contributes to the literature about the critical role community colleges
play in reentry (Potts & Bierlein Palmer, 2014) and how community college attendance
challenges the deficit perspective of formerly incarcerated college students (Abeyta, 2022).
Justice-involved individuals face many difficulties in their reentry (K. M. Middlemass & Smiley,
2019), and for those attending college, other struggles accompany college life (Truesdale-Moore

18
& Lewis, 2023). Stigma is one of the many barriers they will face in their postsecondary
education (John Jay College Institute for Justice and Opportunity & The City University of New
York, 2021), and it is important that students with criminal records and colleges understand the
potentially debilitating impact stigma might have on individuals as they reach for their
educational goals.
Criminal offenders are at risk of internalized stigma associated with criminal convictions
(Vogel et al., 2013) and have unique perceptions about the stigma they experience (LeBel, 2012).
Students with incarceration histories are stigmatized by their peers, who view them more
negatively than peers without a record, broadly less moral, and less competent (Overton et al.,
2022). Research has also looked at the perceptions of faculty members and found their views
were significantly more negative toward college students with a criminal record as opposed to
students without a record (Ott & McTier, 2020). In contrast, general research about faculty
members’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors toward nontraditional students reported that
participants held very positive attitudes and perceptions of their adult learners and often made
more accommodations for them (Brinthaupt & Eady, 2014). This contradiction further illustrates
the difference in perceptions toward these students when compared to disaggregated student
populations to which they also. College administrators’ perceptions of sex-related crimes and
inclusion and safety as they relate to college students with criminal records further illustrate
strongly held negative beliefs about these students (McTier et al., 2020).
Formerly incarcerated college students may identify as being more susceptible to
internalized stigma, and with a lack of support from family, friends, and other physical and social
networks, college may serve as yet another site of judgment. It is important to understand these
experiences and the impact stigma might have on them to build better on-campus programming

19
and create sustainable practices and culture to support this nontraditional student group. Some
inventions and programming solutions have been implemented to address stigma on college
campus that deserve mention when considering how to address stigma.
Interventions to Combat Stigma
Research specifically addressing interventions to combat stigma as it relates to mental
health (Conley et al., 2020; Tomar et al., 2022), student-athletes’ mental health and mental health
literacy (Chow et al., 2021), use of food pantries on college campuses (El Zein et al., 2018), and
a student-led organization efforts to create a stigma-free campus (Pescosolido et al., 2020) all
show promise to address stigma in the college and university context. Recommendations for
programs that serve formerly incarcerated people (Miller et al., 2014), advice for student affairs
professionals (Escobar et al., 2013), and invention programs that focus on the needs and special
circumstances of females with criminal records (Case et al., 2005) together show the necessity
for targeted solutions to working with formerly incarcerated college students on campus. If
protective factors are present in an individual with a criminal record environment, it may help to
prevent the internalization and anticipation of stigma (Moore et al., 2018).
These efforts to combat the ill effects of stigma and barriers for college students with
criminal records on college campuses offer some insight into the necessity for further research to
help peers on campus, the college system, and the community assist students who feel
stigmatized and help them overcome these potentially debilitating thoughts and stay motivated to
progress toward certificate or degree completion. College students with criminal records likely
experience stigma and must be welcomed by a campus culture that helps them silence and
overcome this perceived and felt barrier. Colleges that serve formerly incarcerated college
students have much to gain from them (Halkovic & Greene, 2015); without systemic support

20
built into these campuses, it could prove increasingly difficult for these students to stay
motivated to reach their educational, career, and professional goals.
Self-Efficacy
The motivation to attend college or university depends on the individual, their
circumstances, and their goals. Some reasons individuals choose college include getting a better
job, gaining general knowledge, and enhancement of self-esteem (Broekemier, 2002).
Additionally, ethnically diverse university freshmen reported wanting to help their families,
prove their self-worth, and encourage those around them as motivation to attend college
(Phinney et al., 2006). Where does this leave formerly incarcerated college students? Very little
research identifies the reasons, motivations, and factors individuals with criminal records
consider when deciding to pursue postsecondary education. There are large educational
inequities for this population (Couloute, 2018). These students have identified the value of
higher education in prison (Conway, 2023a, 2023b), their “hustle” to thrive in higher education
(Hernandez et al., 2022), and the overall benefit of educational attainment (Quach et al., 2022).
However, clearly established indicators of motivation and self-efficacy for these students are
unclear, given the void in the current research. Merely looking at the differences between men
and women in their reasoning for attending college (Green & Hill, 2003) without considering the
influence of other experiences on attrition, retention, and completion potentially sets students up
for failure. More holistic research on reasons for attending and their impact on academic success
and post-college plans (Milovanska-Farrington, 2020) would be better suited for better
programmatic, cultural, and structural planning to reach these often minoritized and
disenfranchised students. Developing the agency to take whatever initially motivated them to

21
turn toward college and translate that into sustained confidence and progress can aid in the
completion of educational and personal goals.
With the potential for stigma to have a debilitating effect on people in various contexts,
what impact does it have on the self-efficacy of formerly incarcerated college students and their
college experience from enrollment to degree completion? Bandura (1977) established selfefficacy theory “to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of
treatment” (Bandura, 1977, p. 191). Self-efficacy, put very simply, is a person’s belief that they
are both capable of initiating behaviors (via efficacy expectations) and have the capacity (via
outcome expectations) to produce a particular result (Bandura, 1982). Individual’s capabilities,
which are directly influenced by four sources of “efficacy expectations” (i.e., performance
accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal), inform an
individual beliefs that they can carry out the necessary behaviors to create an outcome. However,
believing in one’s capabilities to carry out the necessary behaviors does not guarantee a desired
outcome if the behaviors enacted cannot produce the sought-after result. Although research
studying self-efficacy spans disciplines and contexts, few published works discuss self-efficacy
and formerly incarcerated college students.
Self-Efficacy: Justice-Involved People and Formerly Incarcerated College Students
Research that specifically addresses self-efficacy and system-impacted people spans from
housing and abstinence (Whipple et al., 2016), sexual risk behaviors and communication (Henry
et al., 2022), and employment (Lindsay, 2022). The few research projects and articles that were
discovered that specifically look at justice-involved people were loosely connected to the scope
of work undertaken in this dissertation. For example, self-efficacy was a tertiary element of study
in how the curriculum in alternative schools empowered formerly incarcerated Black youth (Lea

22
et al., 2020), the impact of tutoring/mentoring programs on at-risk adolescents’ self-efficacy and
future career expectations (Michael, 2019), dramaturgical self-efficacy and white-collar crimes
(Engdahl, 2022).
Figure 3
Self-Efficacy Theory Model: Formerly Incarcerated College Student Success
Formerly
Incarcerated
College Student
Self-Efficacy:
Capabilities Student Success
Capacity Student Success

23
With justice-involved individuals returning to their communities and many finding their
way to community college campuses, it is essential to better understand them to better serve
them. Although idealistic, when a student steps onto campus, there is an expectation that colleges
will meet them where they are. This expectation requires colleges to provide support and
services to give students the tools and resources to have their best chance at success. For
formerly incarcerated college students, their experiences with stigma and self-efficacy are
unclear, as is the impact of their spheres of influence on helping them face obstacles. Without a
greater understanding of their experiences, building support for them will be virtually
impossible. This research sought to illuminate potential issues these students face to better serve
them and support their academic, personal, and professional success.
Conceptual Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
When thinking about formerly incarcerated college students and the experiences that
shape who they will become as students, it was important that the study use a theory that placed
individual students as the foci and identified the influences of their external world. I selected
Bronfenbrenner’s EST because it provides a conceptual framework that positions these students
at the center of EST’s nested concentric ecological contexts and discusses the impact various
forces have on them. These nested connected environments, referred to as systems, influence
these students in their pursuit of college success. It is important to contextualize this theory and
review the relevant literature to set the basis for further conversation and analysis in this study.
EST allow for the breaking down of complex systems or environments and flush out
influences and products as a result of participation within that context (Friedman & Allen, 2014).
From the relationships, connections, and interplay between and among various factors and
influences, individuals are influenced as a result of these various factors and relationships within

24
a system. EST expanded upon earlier conceptions of systems theory to “capture the complex
dynamics that occur within social systems”(Friedman & Neuman Allen, 2021). According to this
study of formerly incarcerated college students, they are a part of a complex system of
experiences, influences, and relationships that may impact how they react, cope, and succeed in
college. Literature that looks at these students through a lens that considers the various forces
that influence their success is non-existent. However, research has been conducted in relevant
fields that help to give the necessary depth of this conceptual framework for this study.
EST has been applied to study the impact various systems and forces have on individual
students from different backgrounds and different contexts. Research has focused on college
success for returning nontraditional students (Jepson & Tobolowsky, 2020), the issues relating to
equality, diversity, and inclusion impact medical students experiences in their medical students
(Nolan & Owen, 2024), and the nested networks and settings for unrepresented minority gifted
students (Crawford et al., 2020). Considering the complex nature of students’ lives, EST gives
researchers a theoretical tool to look at how multiple systems contribute to many outcomes of
student life. Formerly incarcerated college students’ previous educational experiences,
incarceration history, and widely held beliefs about those who have been in touch with the
criminal justice system lend themselves to analysis through EST. EST has been the theoretical
and conceptual framework for studying other nontraditional and marginalized students.
One of the appeals of EST for this study is that it allows the constructs that exist within a
subject’s system or environment to be flushed out in the analysis. Any given student group or
subject group is presented with changes and obstacles that deserve attention to understand their
impact. Past educational research applied EST to minoritized and marginalized students by
focusing on the internal and external factors former foster youth perceived contributed or

25
impeded their abilities in college (Avant et al., 2021), ways to improve undocumented
undergraduate students’ college experiences (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015), and the experiences of
female transfer students over the age of 25 (Adams, 2018). Some of the struggles and barriers
that formerly incarcerated college students might face mirror the lives of traditional college
students yet deviate as they confront additional stereotypes and judgments due to their justice
involvement.
A further rationale for using EST lies in research focusing on justice-involved individuals
and those transitioning from different living environments. Prior research has addressed the
characteristics of female youth offenders (Lim et al., 2019), the family’s function as a socialecological construct for immigrant children and their families (Paat, 2013), and the resources and
services for veterans transitioning from the military to university life (Bagby et al., 2015). Each
of those studies focused on a targeted group and how different levels or systems affected them
within the larger environment. Similarly, this study focused on the different structures and
relationships that formerly incarcerated college students believe are critical to their college
success. This study also examined the role of stigma and self-efficacy in formerly incarcerated
college students’ lives as they reach for academic success.

26
Chapter Three: Methodology
With returning citizens turning to community colleges for professional and personal
options likely to compensate for their past criminal records, it is important to better understand
how the structures and relationships around them support, influence, and impact how they show
up and perform on campus and their beliefs in their capacity to succeed in higher education.
Additionally, it is important to the work of serving justice-involved students to better understand
their lived experiences of stigma and self-efficacy to build better campus processes, systems, and
supports to position them for academic, personal, and professional success. Closing equity gaps
for underrepresented students continues to be an embedded goal of California community
colleges (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office [CCCCO], 2023b), and systemimpacted individuals are often from the most disenfranchised and minoritized groups. There is a
need for more work addressing justice-involved people to build better systems, policies, and
communities. Due to the lack of research on formerly incarcerated college students, more must
be done to reveal the circumstances they face and the obstacles they overcome so that the
systems of higher education can begin to understand this nontraditional student group.
To best capture how formerly incarcerated college students lived experiences with stigma
and self-efficacy and how they are mitigated, exacerbated, or eradicated through their support
system, peers, and society-at-all (microsystem), this study used qualitative research methodology
couched in grounded theory. Given the relatively uncharted territory of research involving this
population, grounded theory allows the researcher to act as a conduit for the subjects’ voices and
“derive meaning from the data” collected as part of this dissertation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
It is important that these students’ voices are brought into focus so internal practices and
procedures at institutions can address their needs and issues. Additionally, their experiences

27
should inform both local and statewide initiatives and policies created about and for them.
Lastly, this work and the growing field of research addressing justice-involved students will also
help build future conceptual and theoretical frameworks to further bring the experiences of this
traditionally marginalized and disenfranchised group to the attention of others. Using interviews
as sources of data, this research sought to begin a conversation about how stigma on and off
campus affects and is affected by social and personal relationships. Additionally, it was
important to understand how stigma might be related to self-efficacy and the impact that an
individual’s spheres of influence have on fueling, deflating, or decimating their belief in self as it
pertains to their educational goals. Grounded theory allows for the flushing out of these different
relationships between core concepts and the identification of core categories that may lead to the
building of substantive theory.
The Researcher
For the past 9 years, I have worked with incarcerated and formerly incarcerated college
students. My journey working with this student population started when I attended a conference
where a pioneer in inmate education, who was the founder and executive director of the Prison
University Project in San Quentin State Prison (SQ), spoke about their experiences with higher
education inside a California state prison. I always had an interest in doing something with
people in carceral settings, so I approached Jody after the panel discussion, and we exchanged
information. As mentioned, SB 1391 allows California community colleges to teach in the closed
system of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and gain
apportionment from the state for the students who attend courses.
As the lead faculty for the Rising Scholars Program (RSP) at a large community college
in California, I have now transitioned into a role where my sole purpose is building our on-

28
campus presence and support structure for formerly incarcerated college students. The college
has seen, with the hard work of the RSP, a drastic increase in the enrollment of justice-involved
individuals at the college in the past year. There continues to be a learning curve for the best
ways to meet these newly enrolled and returning students where they are, provide the necessary
on-campus services to set them up for success, and put them in touch with services off campus
that can help them meet their personal needs. It has been my mission since getting involved with
working with justice-involved people, whether that is behind the walls in prison or on the outside
as returning students, to provide the best learning experience possible and breathe life and hope
into these traditionally disenfranchised minorities and marginalized individuals. The current
study is an attempt to understand how their mentality is impacted by various factors in their
spheres of influence to create and develop better working systems to help them overcome stigma,
as they encounter it on and off campus, as well as help students build and sustain confidence in
their capabilities and capacity to succeed in college.
Setting and Sample
This study took place within a large community college in the CCC system that serves
over 40,000 students (California Community College Chancellor’s Office: Management
Information Systems Data Mart, 2023). The college is located in central California in one of the
most populated counties in the state (America Counts Staff, 2021). The coounty is no stranger to
crime and incarceration, ranking in the top three in arrest rates in the state despite the trend of
urban areas having lower arrest rates in California (Lofstrom et al., 2019a). Regardless of
population size, the incarceration rate for both Black and White people is the highest when
compared to the 15 largest counties in the state (Committee on Revision of the Penal Code,
2021). The city the college is located is home to one of the four male community reentry

29
programs in the state (CDCR, 2023b) and has one of the six custody-to-community transitional
reentry (CCTRP) for female offenders (CDCR, 2023a). These programs’ seemingly strategic
placement suggests a concentration and need for services in this geographic area. While there are
other reentry programs in the state, without a comprehensive list from a reputable source, the
number of reentry, transitional, and halfway houses that currently house justice-involved people
is unclear.
The present landscape of prison is changing, directly impacting individuals in the
criminal justice system and their ultimate return to the community. Once individuals are out,
either in supervised custody or off parole or probation, they may decide to enroll in community
college. Assembly Bill (AB) 109, which allows individuals found guilty of certain felony crimes
to be sentenced to local jails or be supervised by county probation departments versus parole or
CDCR custody, gets individuals back in the community sooner than more lengthy prison terms
(California Assembly Bill (AB) No. 109: Criminal Justice Realignment, 2011). With a reduced
budget from the California Governor’s office, the closure of two state prisons, as well as the
shutting down of six yards at various prisons (Petek, 2023), it would appear the likelihood of
individuals’ sentences being reevaluated, them being released, or them receiving alternative
sentences are possible outcomes. Among many other legislative changes, including Senate Bill
(SB) 416, which requires the CDCR to make college programs available to currently incarcerated
inmates (Corrections: Educational Programs, 2021), start the process or plant the seed that
education is an option after their release from custody. The college is one of the 50 colleges that
has an on-campus program (Rising Scholars Network, 2021a) to serve those individuals who
decide to continue their education while in supervised custody or off parole or probation.

30
The target population for this study consists of formerly incarcerated individuals who are
now enrolled and actively taking face-to-face classes at this particular college. The college does
not track or flag these students. I obtained a list of active and inactive students from the RSP
office, which serves currently and formerly incarcerated college students. At the time of this
study, the program had a list of approximately 80 students who had enrolled and actively took
classes within the past two semesters, with new students signing up weekly. This study’s sample
is an emergent feature of the data collection process, and the threshold of participants was the
number of interviewees needed to meet theoretical saturation. Saturation occurs when no
additional data is found that would add substantively to the idea or concept under investigation
(Glaser & Strauss, 2017). I conducted interviews until it was clear through the repetitiveness or
redundancy of interviewee responses that additional interviews were not likely to produce new
data.
I took every precaution to protect the participants’ anonymity and that of the institutions
mentioned as a part of this research. I protected the privacy, rights, and dignity of participants in
accordance with the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct guidelines (APA, 2016) and the University of Southern
California’s (USC) Institutional Review Board. I asked the participants to choose a pseudonym
prior to the submission of this dissertation to protect their identity. If a participant did not select a
pseudonym, one was assigned on to them. Additionally, I altered other identifying markers to
protect the names of institutions and offices.
Interview Protocols
Considerable effort was made to design a study that spoke to the population of students
that was the focus of this work. It was important both for the integrity of the study but also given

31
this unique student groups exposure to participating in research to design a user-friendly setting,
so the burden of access was taken off the participant as well as made it comfortable to interact.
The following outlines the basic protocols of the study and the interview questions.
Basic Information About the Interview
For consistency in the interviewing protocol, I collected and documented the following
information. I conducted interviews via Zoom and transcribed using Zoom’s audio transcription
feature. To ensure transcription occurs accurately and reliably, I employed a second program. I
scheduled interviews up to 2 weeks prior to the set Zoom meeting notification. I recorded all
interviews via Zoom. I transcribed and stored the transcripts with the interviewee’s privacy in
mind. No one else had access to sign in to Zoom. Prior to the interview, I asked participants
questions regarding demographics, custody history, and other personal information, including
current residency, campus support, and public assistance they may be utilizing.
Introduction to the Interview
In preparation for the interview, I sent the participants a consent letter outlining the
purpose of this study, information about what I would ask during the interview, and how the
interviewee’s information would be kept private and protected. I asked interviewees to sign and
return the consent letter prior to the interview. Prior to the start of the interview, I read
interviewees the following message to both inform and acclimate them to the interview that is
about to be conducted:
Thank you for setting some time aside to talk with me today. As I mentioned when I
contacted you before, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California
(USC) and a practitioner in higher education working with incarcerated and formerly
incarcerated students. The interviews I am conducting will inform my research on

32
system-impacted individuals and their experiences leading up to and in college postrelease from prison. Know that your personal information and any recognizable details or
factors will be protected in the dissertation. A pseudonym, or alias, will be used for you
and any other individuals that are mentioned by name as well as any institutions or
organizations mentioned within the interview. We will discuss at the end of the interview
if you have any preferences concerning the pseudonym that is assigned to you. This
interview will take approximately 60 minutes. I will ask you a series of follow-up
questions regarding your experience with stigma and self-efficacy as it relates to your
perceptions of college success and questions about the support you have on and off
campus. If at any time you would like to take a moment to gather yourself, please do not
hesitate to mention it. These interviews are a collaborative process between the two of us.
I will be recording this interview for accuracy both through zoom and a third-party
recording device. Our conversation will be transcribed for accuracy and for my analysis
of our conversation. I do ask at this time that you silence your cell phone, as I have, so we
are uninterrupted during our time together. Are there any questions before we proceed? In
that case, let’s get started.
Immediately following the short introductory welcome, a definition of both stigma and
self-efficacy was offered to interviewees for clarity and context. The definition of stigma is that
provided by (Link & Phelan, 2001). Self-efficacy will be defined as a person’s belief that they
are both capable of initiating behaviors that have the capacity to produce a particular result.
Plainly put, self-efficacy is one’s belief that they can do something and that their effort can
create their sought-after outcome. The introductory portion of the interview then led to some
questions to settle respondents in and prepare them for the more intentional line of questioning.

33
Opening Questions
At the start of the interview, it was important to ease participants into the process and
reassure them this was a safe space and that at any time during the interview, if they needed to
take a bio break or pause, they could do so. The first series of questions I asked was, “How are
you doing today? “How are classes going? Any major successes recently you would like to
share?” I also reassured the interviewees that there were no right answers to the questions
presented to them and that their experiences were invaluable to the work of creating, building,
and providing better services for formerly incarcerated college students both here at the college
and idealistically any college that serves system-impacted students.
Before addressing the major substance of the interview, general demographic and other
information is important. I used the demographic categories for race/ethnicity, sex/gender, age,
financial support, first-generation status, foster youth history, Disabled Student Programs and
Services, homeless status, and LGBT designation used by the CCCs’ student success metrics
(California Community Colleges, 2023) for alignment between this study and the categories of
the California community colleges. I also asked participants how many semesters they had been
enrolled in college, the number of units they were enrolled in, and their educational goals. Given
the special student population and the experiences of being justice-involved, additional questions
pertained to the type of carceral setting they most recently served time in, the amount of time
served, and their current parole/probation status. I also collected additional information about
current residency and whether they were in a court-mandated living facility, sober living, reentry
program, or on their own. Lastly, I asked about their employment status on or off campus and the
average hours of work per week. These opening questions complement the data of the California

34
community college system by disaggregation and establishing additional measures for the
population of focus moving forward.
Content Questions and Probes
The content questions, or central questioning at the heart of the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks under inspection in this dissertation, involved stigma, self-efficacy, and an
individual’s structures and relationships and the impact each of these elements has on the
individuals as they attempt college (Table 1). The line of questioning sought to discover how the
interviewees’ college success is impacted by the influence and interplay between these factors.
The interview questions were appropriately separated into three lines of questioning.

35
Table 1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes Research
question target
Can you identify
different structures in
your spheres of
influence that you
interact with on a
regular basis?
Probe: Which structures, offices, or institutions in
your spheres of influence are critical to you at
this point in your life?
Probe: Which structures, offices, or institutions in
your spheres of influence are positive for you as
a student?
Probe: Which structures, offices, or institutions in
your spheres of influence are not necessarily
good for you or are negative as a student?
RQ 1
RQ 2
Can you identify by
relationship type the
relationships in your
sphere of influence
that you interact with
on a regular basis?
Probe: Which relationships do you believe are the
most critical to you and your continued
freedom?
Probe: Which relationships do you believe are the
most critical to you and your success as a
student?
Probe: Which relationships do you believe are the
most critical to you, in either a negative or
positive way, as a student?
Probe: Are there people in your sphere of
influence that you know are not good for you as
a student?
Follow-up: If they are actively in your life, why do
they have an active role?
RQ 1
RQ 2
Do you believe you
experience stigma as
a person with a
criminal record?
Probe: From structures or relationships in your
sphere of influence?
Follow-up: Please be specific.
Probe: While on campus from faculty, staff, and/or
peers?
Follow-up: Please be specific.
RQ 1
RQ 3
Do you believe in your
capabilities to be
successful in
college?
Probe: What structures or relationships have
supported your belief in your capabilities to be
successful in college?
Probe: What experiences have you had that have
led you to believe that your capabilities will lead
to college success?
RQ 2
RQ 3
Do you believe your
actions have the
capacity to lead you
to success in college?
Probe: What structures or relationships led you to
have confidence that your actions have the
capacity to be successful in college?
RQ 2
RQ 3

36
Interview questions Potential probes Research
question target
Probe: What experiences have you had that have
led you to believe that your actions have the
capacity to lead to college success?
What does it mean to
be successful in
college?
Probe: Are you achieving that success now?
Probe: What structures or relationships have
helped you define what college success looks
like?
RQ 1
RQ 2
RQ 3
Structure and relationships in a student’s sphere of influence and stigma
Do you believe people
can look at you/or
see you and know
you have a criminal
past?
Probe: If so, what do you believe from your
appearance or observable behavior is a sign of
your criminal past?
Probe: If not, why do you believe they cannot tell,
based on your appearance or observable
behavior, that you have a criminal past?
RQ 1
Do you believe people
have negative
perceptions about
people who have a
criminal past?
Probe: Do you believe faculty, staff, and peers on
campus have a negative perception of people
with a criminal past?
Probe: Do you believe people have a negative
perception of you?
RQ 1
When people find out
you have a criminal
past, do you believe
it leads them to
stereotype, judge, or
reject you in some
form or fashion?
Probe: Please provide examples from your
everyday life.
Probe: Please provide examples from your
experiences on campus.
RQ 1
Who do you believe
passes the greatest
negative judgments
of you because of
your criminal record?
Probe: Structures and people within your sphere of
influence?
Probe: Faculty, staff, and peers while you are on
campus?
Probe: Other sources?
RQ 1
Does the stigma you
experience on or off
campus have an
impact on your
college experience?
Probe: Do these perceptions of you impact how
you operate on campus?
Probe: Do these perceptions of you impact what
you do on campus?
Probe: Does stigma influence your communication
with others on campus?
Follow-up: Peers, Faculty, and Staff?
RQ 1
Does stigma create an
obstacle for you as a
college student?
Probe: Academically?
Probe: Socially?
Probe: Interacting with faculty and staff?
Probe: To your success as a college student?
RQ 1

37
Interview questions Potential probes Research
question target
Probe: Is this stigma increased or decreased by the
structures or relationships in your sphere of
influence?
Follow-up: Please provide specific examples
Are there structures or
relationships in your
sphere of influence
that impact how you
experience stigma?
Probe: Do the structures or relationships help you
overcome stigma?
Probe: Are there structures or relationships that
add to the stigma you experience?
RQ 1
Do you believe stigma
stands in your way of
being a successful
college student?
Probe: Are there any structures or relationships in
your sphere of influence that help you overcome
people’s perceptions to have a greater chance at
being a successful college student?
RQ 1
Structure and relationships in their sphere of influence and self-efficacy
Are there structures and
relationships in your
sphere of influence
that impact your
beliefs that you will
be successful in
college?
Probe: Are there other supports or hindrances to
your beliefs in your success in college?
RQ 2
What type of impact, if
any, do the structures
and relationships in
your sphere of
influence have on
your beliefs that you
will be successful in
college?
Probe: Could you specify which structures or
relationships have a positive impact on your
beliefs that you will be successful in college?
Follow-up: Do you have any specific examples?
Probe: Could you specify which structures or
relationships have a negative impact on your
beliefs that you will be successful in college?
Follow-up: Do you have any specific examples?
RQ 2
What type of impact do
the structures and
relationships in your
sphere of influence
have on your
confidence that your
actions will result in
you being successful
in college?
Probe: Could you specify which structures or
relationships have a positive impact on your
confidence that your actions will result in your
success in college?
Follow-up: Do you have any specific examples?
Probe: Could you specify which structures or
relationships have a negative impact on your
confidence that your actions will result in your
success in college?
Follow-up: Do you have any specific examples?
RQ 2
Does your belief in
your abilities to be
successful in college
impact the structures
Probe: Could you specify whether the impact of
your belief in your abilities to be successful in
college on the structures or relationships in your
sphere of influence is positive?
RQ 2

38
Interview questions Potential probes Research
question target
and relationships in
your sphere of
influence?
Probe: Could you specify whether the impact of
your belief in your abilities to be successful in
college on the structures or relationships in your
sphere of influence is negative?
Does your confidence
that your behaviors
are capable of
producing success in
college impact the
structures and
relationships in your
sphere of influence?
Probe: Could you specify whether the impact of
your confidence in your behaviors capable of
producing success in college on the structures or
relationships in your sphere of influence is
positive?
Probe: Could you specify whether the impact of
your confidence in your behaviors capable of
producing success in college on the structures or
relationships in your sphere of influence is
negative?
RQ 2
Stigma and self-efficacy
Does stigma impact
your beliefs in your
ability to be
successful in
college?
Probe: Which judgments, stereotypes, or forms of
rejection hinder your belief in your abilities that
will lead you to be successful in college?
RQ 3
Does stigma impact
your confidence that
your behaviors are
capable of producing
your desired success
in college?
Probe: What stereotypes or forms of rejection
hinder your confidence that your behaviors will
lead you to be successful in college?
RQ 3
Does your belief in
your ability to be
successful in college
impact the stigma
you perceive from
others?
Probe: How does your belief in your ability help
you overcome the stigma from others?
RQ 3
Does your confidence
that your behaviors
are capable of
producing your
desired success in
college impact the
stigma you perceive
from others?
Probe: How does your confidence that your
behaviors are capable of producing your desired
success in college help you overcome the stigma
of others?
RQ 3

39
Closing Instructions
At the completion of the interview, I read the participants the following scripted message
thanking them for their time, disclosure, contribution to this research, and the impact their
insights could have on programs systemwide:
That concludes our interview. I cannot thank you enough for your time and your
willingness to share openly about your experiences involving your college education. As
mentioned at the start of the interview, your privacy is of the utmost importance, and I
will be using a pseudonym for you in my dissertation. Is there a name, unrelated and
untraceable to you, that you would prefer I use? Know that I will also disguise any person
you named specifically, organizations, or other entities to maintain that privacy and
traceability as well. What you shared with me today will become a part of my larger data
collection and has the potential to be used within my dissertation about the formerly
incarcerated students’ educational experiences and intentions to finish or further their
education upon release from prison. As shared earlier, this work is very important to me,
and I am hoping my discoveries will lead to better educational outcomes for justiceinvolved individuals who started their education while in prison. Once completed and
approved by all parties, my dissertation will be published in the University of Southern
California (USC) library for you and other participants to access. If you have any
questions about my work or my findings, please reach out, and I would be more than
happy to share where I am at and what came of the work you were a part of. Thank you
again, and I wish you all the best for the future.

40
Data Collection
Basic Concepts
Data were collected through interviews to best capture the participants’ perceptions and
thoughts. The research questions guiding this research sought to uncover lived experiences with
stigma and self-efficacy, as well as their impact on each other and how the various elements of
the interviewees’ spheres of influence impact and are impacted by stigma and self-efficacy.
Interviews are the most appropriate given that other methodologies and data collection tools
within the qualitative research are not observable behaviors and, therefore, have to be shared
with participants directly. This study’s research design was aimed at creating a better
understanding of the interplay between stigma and self-efficacy and how different structures and
relationships in spheres of influence mitigate or enhance experiences with stigma and selfefficacy as a student strives toward academic success in college.
Methods of Collecting and Recording Qualitative Data
Students were recruited through the college’s RSP active student roster. I sent an
invitation to participate in one-on-one interviews through their college email with a follow-up
text message to ensure they have received the email correspondence. As a part of the recruitment
email, I embedded a link to an online scheduling tool with the available times to participate in
Zoom interviews. At the time of this study, the formerly incarcerated college student population
was predominately male, probably around 90% of the active students, with a growing number of
females, who represent the other 10%. Their demographics are likely slightly more diverse, with
a high representation of BIPOC that reflects the racial disparities in arrest rates of people of color
in California (Lofstrom et al., 2019b). The college holds the designation of a Hispanic-serving
institution, with approximately 70% of students being Hispanic/Latino/a/x (Menting, 2021).

41
I set up interviews throughout the day and at times that were convenient for participants.
Although classes at the college run all day, starting in the early morning and finishing as late as
9:30 pm, most students have breaks in their schedules, and few classes are offered on Fridays.
Friday and weekend interview slots were available to participants to create the best opportunity
possible for them to take part in the study. Not all potential participants had access to working
Wi-Fi or internet access, so I set up a contingency for those who wanted to participate but did not
have the technology or access.
For reliable and accurate data collection procedures, I utilized Zoom’s recording and
transcription feature. Additionally, I employed a separate recording and transcription program or
application as a back-up. Given the research questions driving this research, interviews are the
most appropriate data collection procedure as the study seeks to understand the experiences of a
population of students that the present research does not cover. This exploratory research sought
to capture the essence of the participants’ experiences in college as they strive for academic
success.
Data Analysis
Following the recommendations of Creswell and Creswell (2018), the data analysis
followed a five-step sequential process to take the participants’ comments and flush out the more
generalized themes across interviews. The multiple levels of analysis identified reemerging
commonalities from the content to inform conceptual and grounded theory constructed from the
participants’ insights. The five-step process includes the following steps: organize and prepare
the data for analysis, read or look at all data, start coding all of the data, generate a description
and themes, and represent the description and themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, pp. 193–194).

42
Each of these essential sequential steps allowed for rigorous data analysis and meaningful
discoveries.
Ethics
In accordance with federal legislation and the policies and procedures assigned by the
institutional review boards at the USC as well as the CDCR and Division of Rehabilitative
Programs (DRP), I obtained all necessary approvals prior to the start of research on human
subjects. The initial assessment of the potential harm of this study on human subjects was low.
The benefits of the study could result in improvements to the prison-to-college pipeline,
improved resources for formerly incarcerated college students, and other services for them.
Every effort was made to protect both participants’ and institutions’ anonymity by using
pseudonyms and removing other identifiable markers or descriptions associated with individuals
or offices. As the lead faculty of a program that serves incarcerated and formerly incarcerated
college students at BC, I have a vested interest in this study’s findings. I work closely with many
of the students who qualified to be participants, but I do not know any students who are enrolled
in the courses that I teach, nor do any directly report to me in their role as a student worker or
professional expert. My interest in this line of research is to build better structures and
relationships with these students to support their success, help mitigate stigma, and empower
students to have confidence in their capabilities and capacity to reach their educational goals. I
do not believe my current position nor my relationship with this population creates a conflict of
interest, especially given the theoretical and conceptual framework guiding the research.
Prior to conducting this, the CITI training, which prepares researchers to conduct
research with human subjects, was certified. The USC Institutional Review Board and the BC
Institutional Review Board approved the study. I consulted with the CDCR and the DRP about

43
the protocol for interviewing individuals in reentry programs and on parole and probation.
Additionally, I abided by the code of ethics and ethical standards of the APA and the American
Educational Research Association. I took steps to ensure safe and anonymous participation in the
research and to protect all parties from harm.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of Qualitative Research
As is the case with both qualitative and quantitative research, there are limitations to the
insight or predictive power of the research findings. Both methods are geared toward
contributing valid and reliable information to the subject matter (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) and,
regardless of methodology, demonstrate credibility through rigorous inquiry. For qualitative
research, the primary goal or rationale is to promote understanding and bring into the light, or
further into the light, what is still unclear or nuanced in such a way that it is difficult to firmly
grasp or to say with high degrees of certainty that things are a certain way. I sought better insight
into the world of formerly incarcerated college students and their experiences with stigma and
self-efficacy as it is impacted by and also impacts the structures and relationships in their spheres
of influence. Through its careful design and methodical implementation, the themes in the results
add to the current void in the research regarding this student population. Given how little is
known about the student experience of justice-involved people, the exploration of their reality as
they confront stigma and work to have self-efficacy to reach their educational goals is important
to many parties looking to improve the prison-to-college pipeline, college and university
programs for these students, and other services aimed at helping justice-involved people apply
themselves and improve their personal and professional opportunities. This research sought to

44
view these students’ world and walk away with greater insight into a world that remains mostly
uncharted.
The implications of this research lie in that it could offer greater insight into the
experiences of other traumatized and minority student identities and experiences. There are
likely similar threads, perspectives, and experiences shared among nontraditional student groups.
The findings from this research contribute to the knowledge base about college student
experiences as they confront potential roadblocks on their journey to academic success. I
conducted interviews until the data reached saturation and the participants’ narratives,
consultation with previous research, and my insights, given my work in this field for the last 8
years, coalesced into a reliable, transferrable, dependable, and consistent research project. That
reliability should stretch into future research by others and produce similar results. The strategies
of triangulating data, researcher position or reflexivity, and the validity, transferability,
dependability, and replicability of this research made for another important pillar to conducting
sound, responsible, ethical, and safe research.
Delimitations of Qualitative Research
Given my position at the college and direct interaction with the interviewees, it was
important to not openly discuss this research in shared spaces or in front of anyone on campus
where potential participants would have been exposed and felt their privacy for participation or
their responses were shared openly. Individuals’ participation remained confidential. I did not
disclose it to anyone. With the potential proximity to participants in direct contact with me and
my office, I kept the notes, recordings, transcripts, and drafts associated with this research offsite to protect the anonymity of participants and the content of the interviews. In alignment with
the institutional review board’s various requirements, guidance from different codes of ethics

45
and ethical standards, and recommendations from the CDCR and the DRP, I sought to conduct
sound and safe research considering all parties’ privacy and interests.
Conceptual Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s EST identifies and elaborates on how different factors form concentric
circles that influence an individual or entity. The scope of this research will solely focus on a
formerly incarcerated college student’s sphere of influence, which are the structures and
relationships closest to the individual. Although each of the different systems has an impact on
the individual, to make this research project manageable and parsimonious, the scope must be
narrowed. One of the outcomes this research will produce is a set of recommendations for future
research and grounded interventions to address students’ experiences with stigma and selfefficacy. Focusing on the sphere of influence yielded workable solutions for direct
implementation, as discussed in Chapter Five.

46
Chapter Four: Findings
The interviewees represent the diverse backgrounds of people impacted by the criminal
justice system. Although unique and nuanced in their experiences on and off campus, their
voices highlight the various perspectives, influences, and beliefs related to their student life as
justice-involved students. Before a detailed analysis of the findings, it must be said that the
interviewees opened and demonstrated a level of vulnerability often difficult to access within a
culture shrouded in omission and secrecy. I wish to honor their disclosures and candidness
through their words. The interview findings in the following sections present themes that
emerged as a result of the collection of their lived experiences and thoughts about their student
life as a student who is justice-involved.
Participants
Before the start of content questions in the interviews related to the central focus of this
study, I collected demographic information on each participant. The demographic questions were
informed by the general demographic categories and disaggregated groups tracked by the
community college system in California, with additional questions relevant to this student
population. I asked participants about their age, race/ethnicity, sex/gender, financial aid status,
involvement in the foster care system, student status based on unit count (part-time or full-time),
and major. I asked additional questions that reflected their experiences, addressing their current
living situation, parole/probation status, additional financial support outside the federal financial
aid system, the amount of time spent incarcerated, types of carceral settings, and college
enrollment status prior to, during, and after incarceration.

47
General Demographics
In regard to age, participants ages ranged from 19 to 51 years old (M = 34.4, SD =,
Mdn = 37). Only five participants were under 30 years old, with the remaining nine over 30.
Three participants were in their 40s, and only one was over age 50. The average amount of time
individuals spend in prison varies by the offenses they are charged with (Kaeble, 2021). Most of
the participants had multiple run-ins with the criminal justice system, leading to an increased age
of participants.
Participants were asked about their race/ethnicity and were provided the ethnicity options
used within the state’s community college to self-identify: White, African American, American
Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic, multi-ethnicity, Pacific Islander, and other.
Nine of the 14 participants identify as Hispanic, with two of them also identifying as Chicano
and Mexican. One identified as Native American. Three identified as African American with two
distinctly identifying as Black. An additional participant identified as both African American and
White. Only one participant identified as White.
In regard to sex/gender, 10 participants identified as male and four as female. I asked all
participants about their preferred pronouns, and all 10 male participants asked to be referred to as
he/him/his in the study results, and the four female participants asked to be referred to as
she/her/hers.
Three interviewees reported having been in the foster care system. Among community
colleges in California, about 2% of the student population are foster care youth (CCCCO, 2024).
It is estimated that 18% of state prisoners and 10% of federal prisoners spent time in foster
homes and other institutions (Beatty & Snell, 2021). The number of participants who came in

48
contact with the foster care system reflects the data of individuals who also come in contact with
the criminal justice system.
The number of units being attempted by participants ranged from 6 to 16.5 units
(M = 11.25 units, SD = 2.8 units, Mdn = 12 units). I asked participants about the declared major,
and their responses varied vastly. Only two were undeclared majors, and all others identified
their designated areas of study. Other than two participants who both identified business
administration as their major, all others identified different majors. They identified sociology,
pre-med, automotive, pre-law and business, criminology, biology, culinary arts, industrial
electronics, psychology, and a double-major in communication and psychology.
Demographics Unique to Formerly Incarcerated College Students
Participants’ living situations differed from those of traditional college students. Two
participants disclosed they were displaced or homeless, with one admitting to couch-surfing and
the other utilizing a homeless shelter as a primary residence. Four reported that they live on their
own, with two of them living with people who are not blood relatives. Two participants lived
with their spouses but did not mention if other people, including children or extended family,
were also habituated in their homes. Four participants shared that they lived in their family home
with parents, stepparents, and/or siblings. Lastly, two participants disclosed that they were living
in a reception center and were under surveillance as part of their custody status.
All but one participant receives federal financial aid. With nearly half of all community
college students in the state receiving financial aid and added employment issues for systeminvolved individuals (McCorkell & Hinkley, 2019), it makes sense that more formerly
incarcerated college students receive federal financial aid. Additionally, five participants
disclosed receiving additional government assistance through the state’s nutrition assistance

49
program. Only one participant explicitly referenced receiving social security but did not specify
the exact services they were receiving.
The time participants spent incarcerated ranged from 18 months to 30 years (M = 9.6
years, SD = 9.7 years, Mdn = 5 years). Two served less than 3 years in custody, with the
remaining 12 serving 3 years or more. Eight served between 3 and 10 years, and four served 10
or more years in custody. I did not ask about the number of their encounters with the criminal
justice system or the lengths of separate stays in custody. As participants recounted the total
time, it appeared many of them were doing some math, which may suggest the total time spent in
prison was not consecutive and involved multiple convictions. With two-thirds of offenders
serving less than 2 years (Kaeble, 2021), it would make sense that some participants needed time
to arrive at the total amount of time spent incarcerated. Adding all of the time participants spent
incarcerated collectively amounts to 134 years. I did not ask about the nature of the crimes they
were convicted of. It did not seem relevant or necessary to the research project but could be to
future research.
When asked about the carceral settings participants came in contact with after their arrest
and subsequent incarceration, participants specifically referenced California Youth Authority
(CYA) (4), juvenile hall (4), youth detention juvenile camp (5), jail (5), county (3), California
state prison or state prison (8), and federal prison (3). Youth authority, juvenile hall, and youth
detention juvenile camps are all institutional settings primarily designed for youth. Jail and
county generally house individuals awaiting trial or who have short-term sentences that can be
served locally. State and federal prisons are differentiated by their funding source, state versus
federal funding, the types of crimes individuals were convicted for, and the length of their
sentences.

50
Half of the participants disclosed currently being on parole or probation. Three shared
that they were on parole, with one of them being on both state and federal parole. Parole involves
individuals being released from prison and being under direct or indirect supervision and
monitoring for some length of time in lieu of remaining physically incarcerated. The remaining
four participants commented that they were on probation as opposed to parole. Probation, on the
other hand, is when individuals are convicted of a crime but are sentenced to local supervision
instead of prison.
The last question I asked participants involved their prior college enrollment prior to and
during incarceration and the amount of time it took for them to enroll in college after being
released from custody. Five of the 14 participants had enrolled in college prior to incarceration.
Given the scarcity of college in prison during their time in custody, only two enrolled and took
classes during their time in state prison. The amount of time it took for participants to enroll in
college following their release from custody varied considerably from a matter of weeks to 15
years. Ten participants enrolled in college within 24 months after release (M = 42.8 months,
SD = 93.7 months, Mdn = 15 months).
Participant Profiles
Ashley
Ashley is a racially mixed Black and White female. She is 19 years old, single, and lives
in on her own in Section 8 housing. Ashley spent 3.5 years in the juvenile justice system. She
started attending college in the Summer of 2023 and is taking 8 units. Ashley is a criminal justice
major and hopes to become a juvenile probation officer.

51
Aurora
Aurora is a Hispanic and Native American female. She is 39 years old, single, and a
proud mother. Aurora spent 1 year incarcerated in jail and is no longer on probation or parole.
Aurora initially started college in 2003 with little success but returned in 2021 and is close to
graduation. She is enrolled in 16 units. Aurora is pre-med and biology and wants to become an
ethnobotanist and/or a functional medicine doctor.
Cali
Cali is an African American/Black female who is a single mother to a beautiful daughter.
She is 44 years old. She has served 5 years incarcerated from their adolescence to adulthood.
Cali is no longer on parole or probation. Cali has been enrolled at the college since Spring of
2023 and is currently taking 7 units. Cali is a psychology major and wants to get into a career in
education.
Casey
Casey is a Hispanic male. He is 35 years old, single, and the proud father of three
children. Casey currently lives at home with his parents and siblings. Casey spent 4 years
incarcerated as an adult in adult facilities and is currently on probation. Casey has been attending
the college since Spring 2021 and is currently taking 12 units. Casey is majoring in electrical
engineering and hopes to continue his education and get his master’s degree. His ultimate goal is
to specialize in prosthetics.
Clumsy
Clumsy is a Hispanic male. He is 23 years old, in a committed relationship, and lives
with his parents. Clumsy spent a year total in custody and has been through the juvenile justice
system as well as the state prison system. Clumsy is currently on probation. He enrolled in

52
college in Fall 2023 and is taking 12 units. Clumsy is majoring in biology with hopes of doing
wildlife biology and working outside in a zoo or with captive animals.
Issy
Issy is a Hispanic/Chicano male who lives with his wife. He is 47 years old. Issy has
served 30 years in juvenile, state, and federal custody. Issy is still on both state and federal
parole. He has been at the college since the summer of 2023 and is currently taking 12 units. He
is double majoring in sociology and human services and wants to earn his master’s degree and
become a substance abuse counselor. Issy’s educational goals include earning a bachelor’s,
master’s, and possibly a doctorate. His dream school is UCLA.
JJ
JJ is an African American male. JJ is single and lives on his own. He is 51 years old and
is currently on state parole. JJ served 30 years incarcerated in juvenile, jail, state, and federal
prisons. JJ is currently on parole. He enrolled in college in the summer of 2023 and is taking 12
units. JJ is a business administration major and hopes to work for a large corporation.
Juan
Juan is a Chicano Mexican American/Hispanic male. He is 48 years old and is currently
single but dating. Juan’s living situation is stable, and he rents a home with a few roommates.
Juan spent approximately 6 years in prison but has been in and out of the carceral system since
he was a youth. He is off of parole or probation. Juan entered college in the fall of 2022 and is
expecting to graduate this spring. Juan’s major is automotive, and he is taking 12 units. Juan
hopes to get a job as a mechanic in the industry and be productive.

53
Junior
Junior is a Mexican male. He is 22 years old, single, and is technically still incarcerated
and finishing his sentence. Junior has spent 5 years total incarcerated since first being in contact
with the juvenile justice system and later state prison. Junior has been enrolled in college since
Spring 2023. Junior is attempting eight units and is an industrial electronics major who hopes to
find a career in the electrical field as an electrician.
Mario
Mario is an African American male. He is 28 years old, single, and a proud father. Mario
is in a residential transitional housing. Mario is a formerly foster care youth and spent 4 years
total time incarcerated both as a youth and as an adult. Mario is no longer on parole or probation
after 8 years. Mario has been enrolled at the college since Fall 2023, is taking 14.5 units, and is a
business administration major. Mario hopes to give back by working with foster care youth to
support them as they age out of the system.
Mitchell
Mitchell is a Hispanic male. He is 19 years old, single, and lives with his grandparents.
Mitchell has spent roughly 5 years incarcerated as a juvenile and is currently on probation.
Mitchell is in his first semester of college and is taking 8 units. He is a business major and would
like to own his business in the future.
Ross
Ross is a White male who is currently in a reentry facility and is technically still
incarcerated and finishing his sentence. He is 39 years old. Ross has served 17 years total in
juvenile and state custody. Ross has been enrolled in college since the Fall of 2022 and is

54
currently taking 12 units. He is double-majoring in communication and psychology and aspires
to be a professor in the future.
Ruth
Ruth is a Hispanic female. She is 39 years old, is happily married to her husband, and
lives in a home with her family. Ruth spent 2 years incarcerated in federal custody and a halfway
house for women. She is no longer on parole or probation. Ruth has been in college now since
the fall of 2022 and is a full-time student. She is a business administration major who plans on
attending a 4-year university where she wants to earn a bachelor’s degree in public
administration and a master’s degree in organizational leadership.
Stylo
Stylo is a Hispanic male. He is 32 years old, single, and currently displaced and couchsurfing. Stylo spent 14 years in carceral settings, starting as a youth in the juvenile system before
eventually ending up in prison. Stylo attempted to enroll in college many times. He started back
in Spring 2023 and is currently taking 11.5 units. Stylo is a culinary arts major and hopes to use
his skills in the kitchen for a career.
Participant Summary
As diverse as the participants are, their general make-up highlights the state’s
incarceration rates through a number of factors. There remain disparities in incarceration among
BIPOC compared to their White counterparts (Paragini et al., 2019). There are disparities
between Black and White system-impacted people, with Black people incarcerated at
disproportionally higher rates (Vera Institute of Justice, 2023). The study participants represent
various perspectives of age, race, sex/gender, incarceration histories, and lived experiences. It is
from their diversity that this study hopes to gain insight into their perceptions of their college

55
experience regarding stigma, self-efficacy, and spheres of influence these factors have on college
success.
Findings
The research questions for this study guided the interview questions. Through the
participants’ voices and lived experiences, certain themes and commonalities emerged that
deserve further attention and discussion. The findings section is presented according to the
themes that surfaced organically through the interviews. Although roughly aligned in some ways
with the initial direction of the research questions, the three major foci were magnified by
participants’ responses involving stigma, self-efficacy, and social and personal relationships. The
reoccurring themes in each conceptual area offer insight into the experiences of formerly
incarcerated college students on a community college campus in California. The themes
pertained to struggles and resilience as the interviewees navigated higher education when
confronted by stigma, their thoughts about self-efficacy, and their social and personal
relationships. Students’ own volition and a combination of structures and relationships mitigate
or exacerbate the doubt, questions, and obstacles of succeeding in college.
Stigma is Out There
Stigma was operationally defined in the interviews as the perceived or felt unfavorable
stereotype, judgment, and/or rejection associated with one’s criminal record and/or previous
incarceration. I asked the participants questions about stigma on and off campus as well as how
it relates to self-efficacy. Additionally, I asked them about support from structures and
institutions and their own social and personal relationships as these relate to stigma, selfefficacy, and college success. There was a sweeping consensus from the participants about
justice-involved stigma as a result of their incarceration. Without confirming the existence and

56
experience of stigma, the study’s design and intent would be misdirected. It is essential to
establish what stigma is according to the participants and its existence as they see it in their
everyday lives.
All participants identified that having a criminal record is a stigmatized identity.
Although they attributed how they were recognized or labeled as someone who has been in touch
with the criminal justice system differently, all participants mentioned feeling judged or treated
differently as a direct result of their being perceived as a justice-involved person. When asked if
he experienced stigma, JJ simply stated, “In society? Of course, Yeah! I mean without a
question.” Juan echoed this taken-for-granted sentiment, sharing the reality of experiencing
stigma by saying, “It’s normal and a part of everyday life.” Aurora further echoed the realities of
experiencing stigma by saying,
Yes, definitely. … So, when they see that [label me as being justice-involved], or they
find out about [my incarceration], automatically they think I am a liar, and they don’t
trust me. They think that I’m a really bad criminal or something.
It is important to recognize the inherent obstacle that the stigma associated with a criminal past
creates for students as they are on and off campus. People with a criminal past are one of the
most stigmatized groups in society, which creates a major barrier to both reintegration and
sustained freedom (Moore et al., 2013). The recognition by all participants that they face stigma
demonstrates it is an ongoing societal issue and one that tickles into the lives of formerly
incarcerated college students on campus. Participants mentioned ways others might be labeled or
judged as being justice-involved.
When discussing stigma in general, participants mentioned how others might pick up on
their previous incarceration. Issy shared, “I know that people look at me. They see the tattoos,

57
and, I mean, I am pretty sure I give off a different vibe.” Ross echoed this sentiment,
commenting that his tattoos and overall appearance are a giveaway: “I have a full body covered
in tattoos, and I dress a certain way, right? And so, you know, that stigma is that perceived
stereotype? Right?”
Although many participants called out the markers that give away their justice
involvement, others said they are not called out or labeled by appearance alone. Participants
mentioned passing as someone who would not be labeled as justice-involved. Mitchell and
Clumsy both specifically referenced not having tattoos and that people often do not know they
have criminal records. Ruth and Cali shared that they look like everyone else on campus even
though they are a little older, so they are questioned less. It is clear that participants recognize the
stigma of being justice-involved, but most participants perceived stigma, judgments,
stereotyping, or discrimination on campus.
Finding 1: Stigma On Campus
Justice-involved people face obstacles when they reenter society post-incarceration. How
they access employment (Agan & Starr, 2017), find employment (McCorkell & Hinkley, 2019),
and navigate the job market (Lindsay, 2022) are directly impacted by their criminal record and
the judgments that accompany their conviction and incarceration. Regardless of those outcomes,
similarities might be assumed as individuals enroll in higher education. However, there were
discrepancies between whether participants experienced stigma on campus and how they
experienced it. Half of the 14 participants perceived they were being judged negatively and
experiencing different treatment.
Given the prevalence of stigma that participants experienced off campus, one might
suspect that on-campus life would reflect judgments and stereotypes. In fact, half of the

58
participants expressed that they perceive being stigmatized by various employee groups and
peers. Cassius commented that from the very first day on campus, he felt “out of place.” He said,
“They kinda already judged me, you know. They kinda already put me in a certain … category.”
Similar to Cassius, Ashley shared, “When I walk towards the Rising Scholars office … people,
regardless, students, or like teachers, they just look like, I don’t know, like ‘she’s a bad kid,’ or
oh, I see that like with other kids, too.” Both Cassius and Ashley called attention to the subtle yet
perceived sense of being unnecessarily judged because their peers can detect their past.
Participants identified experiencing stigma, and many participants could also describe specific
instances on campus that reinforced their suspicions of being judged.
Participants discussed more overt confrontations with stigma and feeling judged and
stereotyped by people on the college campus. Ross, who wears an ankle monitor as a part of their
custody situation, stated, “As people see that ankle monitor, most people are nice about it, and
you have a conversation with them, and then they just cut it short, right? Like, they’re short,
clipped answers.” Ross suggests that the conversations are short and impersonal as a result of the
recognition that someone with a monitor has been in trouble. Ross explained a situation on
campus where an employee called Ross out as “you people.” When Ross asked the employees
what they meant when they referred to them as “you people,” they responded by saying, “You
know, like you guys on parole.” In addition, participants had other run-ins on campus that appear
to confirm that they are not free from stigma on campus.
The participants mentioned all major offices on campus where they come in direct
contact with faculty, staff, and peers as places where they felt they were treated differently as a
result of their identity. They named the offices of admission and records, financial aid, student
life, disability services and programs for students, extended opportunity programs and services,

59
and public safety as offices that they believe looked at and treated them differently. Participants
also mentioned staff and administrators as employees they felt slighted. Common to the
comments from participants was the idea of feeling unnecessarily judged and stereotyped.
Aurora described what happens when people on campus find out about their justice past and
what results from it when they shared, “I feel like when certain people have found out about it,
they’re judging me and not wanting to support me as a student or discriminating me based on my
criminal record.” There was a sense of pain and disbelief in Aurora’s responses that highlights
what others shared, and that is feeling hurt, pushed aside, and marginalized based on what they
believe is connected to the stigma surrounding being justice-involved. Although many
respondents seemed prepared for the judgments and stereotypes from others in regard to their
involvement with the criminal justice system, it did not seem to soften the feelings of rejection
nor prepare them for their encounters when they perceived being treated differently. Two
participants identified the difficulties due to their situation that made them question the stigma
that they might experience.
A few participants explicitly recognized the existence of stigma, but because of their
personal circumstances, they navigate campus life quite differently than the other interviewees.
Ruth, who is actively involved in student life, is an officer in the student government and holds
an appointment at the college’s district office. They lamented the stigma attached to being in
touch with the criminal justice system and explained how they attempt to avoid it directly by
withholding their justice involvement. Ruth explained,
I have opened up to a couple of students … within, … my group, but I haven’t yet opened
up to advisors, deans, or executives … because I know that they have … it’s a black-and-

60
white view [of those who have been in touch with the criminal justice system], and it
tends to be dark.
Ruth’s decision to keep her justice involvement private calls attention to the stigma that would
await her if she were more open, given her roles, responsibilities, and the identity she is trying to
carve out as a student. She seeks to avoid unwanted judgments. Ruth’s experiences and efforts to
avoid negative perceptions and judgments from others speak to the complicated terrain that
formerly incarcerated college students navigate on top of their already stressful student lives.
Outside of their previous experiences with the criminal justice system, other parts of their
identity might also lead them to question how others perceive them.
Unlike Ruth, Casey also has to unpack the stigma on campus as someone who has both a
criminal record and a disability. Casey is an amputee, missing part of his left arm. It is an easily
recognizable feature of his physical appearance and makes him question whether certain
judgments he faces on campus have more to do with his arm or the fact that he spent time in
prison. Casey shared, “Sometimes I am balancing; what is it more? Is it, is it my disability now,
or is it my record?” Casey also admitted that the first impression people have of him is that he
might be a “veteran” and not an ex-gang member who has been to prison. Casey was one of the
students who felt stigmatized and discriminated against as a result of his previous incarcerations.
However, only half of the respondents believed they encountered stigma on campus.
Participants reported that they might not be able to see it or not believe they really experienced it
directly. JJ admitted, “I haven’t had any kind of … bad feelings or encounters or interaction with
any kind of staff or anything like that.” JJ said the stigma associated with his previous
incarceration was a “non-issue.” Cali also did not feel she experienced stigma on campus even
after disclosing her run-ins with the justice system in a speech in class. Cali rejoiced at the fact

61
that she “got so much love. The outpour of love was just ridiculous.” When asked about the
negative experiences on campus, Junior commented that “it really isn’t noticeable.” Stylo made a
similar comment by saying, “When I’ve been walking around, like, everybody minds their own
business.” Whether stigma is there or not, it appears these participants did not believe they were
subject to the negative perceptions of others because of their criminal records. It is unclear why
these participants did not perceive nor experience these perceptions compared to some of their
peers. However, considering the consensus among participants that stigma exists for justiceinvolved people, an additional theme of how they were treated reveals that they might be
subjected to different treatment.
Stigma and Structures and Relationships
The participants described a myriad of experiences on the college campus, some of which
suggest that they were treated differently due to their involvement with the criminal justice
system. Participants identified faculty as one of the employee groups they believe treated them
differently as a result of their previous incarceration. Junior’s nutrition instructor made a
comment that did not sit well with him. They shared that the instructor was lecturing the class
about the health benefits of eating fish, including how it promotes brain health, and then said,
“Not a lot of people in prison eat fish.” Junior was caught off guard, as incarcerated people were
not the subjects of the discussion surrounding the nutritional benefits of eating fish nor the focus
of the assigned reading. Junior shared that he believed this was an insult being hurled at justiceinvolved people, inferring that they supposedly do not eat much fish and that “people who go to
prison are basically dumb because they don’t eat fish.” It is unclear what the motive or point of
the instructor’s comment was or if Junior misconstrued them, but he felt slighted by the comment
and believed these types of comments were insulting and demeaning, which “brings me down.”

62
Any student’s campus interactions can have a lasting impact, and this study’s participants
described other situations that called attention to the judgments people hold about them.
Stigma seems to reveal itself in even subtle and less direct ways in some classroom
settings. When I asked Juan whether college employees have a negative perception of people
with criminal records, he immediately answered, “No.” Almost before his answer registered in
the closed captioning, Juan autocorrected to say,
Well, I mean by joking around. I had a lot of instructors tell me I am a gang member or
[announce to the class,] “Oh, we got a gang member in here,” or “We got this guy who’s
been to prison.
Although it did not register with Juan at first, before his answer could settle, he interjected,
almost like a self-realization, that, indeed, he had faced unnecessary judgments and negative
perceptions. It seemed that Juan took these unnecessary spotlighting comments in stride. While
Juan was the only participant who identified such an accusation and outing by an employee,
other participants identified other compromising situations based on what can be perceived as
justice-involved stigma.
Formerly incarcerated college students on campus are putting one foot in front of the
other as they strive for a new future. As they walk to leave the criminal justice system in the
background, having negative interactions with them on campus can have a lasting impact. Ross
reminisces about a run-in he had on campus after public safety was called on a man who attacked
Ross. After public safety arrived, they interviewed Ross about what took place. Ross, who is a
professional expert on campus and is employed through the college, notified public safety that he
worked on campus. Public safety was in disbelief that Ross worked on campus, and it was only

63
after Ross presented the public safety officer with his employee identification and business card
that Ross’ story seemed believable to the officer. Ross shared,
I told him I worked here, and he was shocked. When I showed him my card that says
“staff,” he was like, “Oh, well, your stories are credible.” So, this kind of made me think,
well, what if I didn’t work here? What do you mean my story is credible? I sat here and
just told you the truth, and it made me feel like because of my tattoos and persona, you
know, the way I look. They made me feel like he didn’t believe me.
Ross stated he was made to feel like he had to prove himself as a credible witness because of the
stigma the officers carried with them into the interaction. Ross described it best in his reflection
about his “tattoos” and “persona” that made him suspect and a questionable person in this
incident. It is possible that the officer carried no preconceived notions about Ross based on
physical appearance, but Ross was treated differently as a result of that officer’s judgments and
perceptions. Ross is not alone, as other participants recounted other incidents where they
believed they were judged and discriminated against.
Unlike Ross, Aurora does not bear visible tattoos or dress in a way that might associate
her with gang life or prison. However, Aurora has felt judged and discriminated against across
campus in multiple offices. Aurora attributes the unfair and imbalanced treatment to when people
discover she has a criminal record. Aurora inferred that “because it was once they found out I
was in the [on-campus program for formerly incarcerated students], I was treated differently.
Instead of being supported, I was unsupported [sic], and I felt discriminated against.” Aurora
said that once people found out about her association with the program, she was treated
differently.

64
Both Ross and Aurora highlighted the feeling that staff on campus treated them
differently because of their perceptions or knowledge of their previous incarceration. Ruth, who
is a very active student outside the classroom, also expressed a belief that they experienced
discrimination due to her criminal record. While discussing whether Ruth believes that she is
treated differently on campus, she shared, “I have been removed, with no explanation, from
certain committees that have to do with executive leadership.” Ruth believed that her removal
from committee work in student government was in direct response to her background even
though she is not open about her justice involvement. Other participants expressed skepticism
and suspicion about college employees having access to students’ files, including past criminal
records. Ruth stated, “There’s still an HR file,” suggesting people have looked into her
background and used that information to remove her from committees she would have otherwise
stayed on if not for her criminal past.
Communication Practices to Mitigate Risk of Stigma
Regardless of participants’ perceived experiences with stigma on campus, many admitted
to adapting their communication practices to avoid or mitigate the stigma they might encounter.
Both participants who did and did not identify feeling stigmatized made comments about how
their demeanor, interactions with others, and physical appearance were adjusted to avoid being
detected or identified as someone who was formerly incarcerated. Self-disclosure surfaced as a
practice employed by participants to avoid, address, and control a narrative about their justice
involvement.
Self-Disclosure. The control of information via avoidance, omission, and direct selfdisclosure emerged as strategies to mitigate perceived risk. What is talked about and how it is
talked about seemed to be under some control of participants. Participants explained having

65
some control over conversations on campus and their willingness to intentionally hide or openly
disclose information about their previous contact with the criminal justice system. Selfdisclosure involves the intentional and explicit sharing of personal information through verbal
communication (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Participants identified implementing a variety of
strategies to allude, soften, or control the anticipated stigma they would be confronted with as
formerly incarcerated college students. Stylo mentioned, “I don’t interact with anyone, so I don’t
have this [stigma].” Stylo inferred he avoided relationships with peers, specifically classmates, to
not have to disclose or reveal personal information that might subject him to being judged or
stigmatized.
All interviewees were primarily taking classes face-to-face on the grounds. That put them
in direct contact with peers and classmates in class and on campus in general. Cassius reflected
on his movement on campus by saying, “I call myself an extroverted introvert,” and though he
feels comfortable communicating with people from all walks of life, the judgment and stigma
provoked a realization:
I tend to stay to myself, you know, in a lot of situations. So, you know, I don’t put myself
out there as much as I used to. And, you know, that’s kind of dealing with, you know, the
negative stereotypes or things of that nature that I did experience. I kinda of, you know,
kinda turned into an introverted person.
Cassius’s comment calls attention to both a recognition of the stigma that exists on campus and
the lengths a student will go to in order to not be detected and ultimately judged. Despite
Cassius’ talkative and social nature, they enact introversion as a strategy to protect private
information regarding their criminal record to avoid judgment, stereotypes, and potential
discrimination. Cassius was one of the participants who did not feel that they had experienced

66
stigma on campus yet recognized the ongoing threat of being outed as someone who is justiceinvolved. Cassius keeps his distance by withholding information and not forging relationships
with classmates. In a similar vein, other participants mentioned similar strategies for staying
anonymous to avoid stigma.
Both Stylo and Cassius discussed not interacting with anyone so as not to be detected by
peers and classmates. The described a level of conscientiousness that Junior also commented on:
“I try really hard not to show them [my professors, peers on campus, and classmates] anything
that might make them think that I’ve been in any kind of trouble.” Aurora shared something
similar when she said, “I am just trying to be very careful with what I say because I was told that
I was disruptive. And so, I’m trying to do everything in my power to not appear or sound
disruptive to people.” Obviously, additional contextual information is necessary to understand
the nature of Aurora’s preoccupation with being “disruptive.” However, both Junior and
Aurora’s worries about being perceived negatively as it relates to or brings negative attention to
their previous justice involvement drive their communication practices.
The strategic communication of self-disclosure through avoidance and omission appears
to be conscious decisions a few participants made to circumvent stigma. Ruth addressed the
motivating factors and consequences of sharing too much. She shared a reality that guides her
interactions with others: “I am not willing to open up all the time about my situation.” Her
unwillingness speaks to both the factors and consequences when she shared, “I’m gonna lose
something if I disclose who I am.” There does not seem to be a benefit to disclosing only
negative outcomes. Ruth’s decision to not disclose her previous convictions and incarceration is
driven by the stigma she recognizes exists on campus and the impact it could have on her
opportunities. As mentioned earlier, Ruth believed her removal from a committee was due to her

67
justice involvement, and that is not something she wants moving forward as a part of her college
life. Ruth is unwilling to lose out on potential opportunities, so she is very careful with her
disclosures in light of what can happen. Withholding information for their privacy and protection
was not the only strategy participants discussed to avoid or repress open judgment. Others
identified taking a direct approach in their talk on campus.
Whereas some participants used specific methods of information control to protect
themselves from stigma and the consequences of people knowing about their past justice
involvement, others talked about jumping at opportunities to discuss their past. Cali, who did not
feel she experienced stigma on campus, talked about a biographical speech she gave in her
communication course where she shared about her justice involvement. She rejoiced in the
“outpouring of love” from her instructor and classmates. Whether Cali intentionally uses selfdisclosure to mitigate the stigma and judgments she might face or does not feel stigmatized or
judged because she is in control of sharing her story with others is unclear. However, this more
open approach stands in contrast to other participants who look to hide completely or only let a
few people know about their justice involvement.
In a similar circumstance, there was a direct conversation about a student’s previous
contact with the criminal justice system. Ross shared about his disclosures in class but was much
more forthright in the motivations behind telling people about his past. Ross stated,
I took small group communication, and part of the assignment was to give a speech about
myself. And I chose the very first speech to talk about how I was a heroin addict, and I
spent the last 17 out of the last 20 years in prison. And I was extremely nervous, and I
was outing myself, you know. And the reason I did this is I figured, well, you know,
they’re gonna find out anyway. I get this ankle monitor. And when I stood up there in the

68
front of the class, it was all they were going to be looking at. And so, I’m like, let’s just
get it out there, so nobody asks me, or so nobody looks at me differently.
Ross mentioned more declaratively that his open self-disclosure about both his battle with
addiction and his previous incarceration was to address the elephant in the room and to put it out
there so his peers do not look at him or treat him differently. In this vein, Ross looked to control
in some respect how people viewed him and the judgments they would have about his criminal
past and addiction history. His openness and directness through an in-class assignment were
hoped to minimize the stigma from his instructor and peers and approach the judgment from
others head-on. Participants in the study mentioned additional strategies used to mitigate stigma
that were much less straightforward from some of their peers on campus.
Appearance and Dress. A number of participants mentioned how their appearance was a
site of passing as a “traditional” college student and blending in with their peers. In some cases, a
participant expressed having some control over the physical appearance and how it was received,
but in other cases, it was out of their hands and marked on their skin. A few participants
lamented their inability to cover up what they perceived as markings of a criminal past. Issy,
Ross, and Juan all commented that they do not have the luxury of blending into the sea of
students on campus. Their outward appearance of visible tattoos and their placement style are
signs of their past gang life and justice involvement. In addition, each mentioned they could not
be returning adult college students. Issy, Ross, and Juan leveraged other factors of their
communication to combat the judgment and stigma that they did have control over. The next
section explores this finding. Beyond tattoos and age, there were additional uncontrollable
elements that gave participants some apprehension, and they were very conscious of being
labeled and looked at differently from people on campus.

69
Similar to the experiences of Issy, Ross, and Juan with visible tattoos, some formerly
incarcerated college students are required to wear an irremovable electronic monitor. While these
might be required for a number of reasons (CDCR, 2024), they are a clear indication of contact
with the criminal justice system. Interviewees mentioned the burden this device was on their
student life, as it was a constant reminder and mark of their justice involvement. JJ, whose ankle
monitor was removed shortly before the interview, stated, “I did feel the stigma a lot when I did
have that ankle monitor. Especially during the summertime, wearing shorts and stuff.” The
participants’ college experiences very hot summers, and wearing pants may not be feasible for
those who use public transportation and walk considerable lengths to and from their housing and
from the bus stop to classrooms on a very large campus. Ross mentioned how the inability to
cover up the monitor due to wearing shorts in the summer further perpetuates stigma they
experience. Ross stated,
People see the ankle monitor, see the tattoos, see the way I dress, and all combined and
tend to, you know, I know I belong here, but it’s easy to feel as if you don’t belong. And
it’s so easy to feel that stigma with students.
Both with the tattoos and the ankle monitor, participants recognized the message these
physical and electronic embellishments can relay to people on campus but are somewhat helpless
to actively avoid the display of said artifacts and face the judgments that accompany them.
However, some participants mentioned small but effective measures they take with their
appearance to avoid or mitigate the judgments and stigma they might encounter.
People’s clothing, make-up, and accessories in Western culture are used for much more
than warmth and survival. It is a form of self-expression and cultural participation, among other
motivations and forms of expression. In Mitchell’s case, he admitted to using the way he dresses

70
to not be labeled or designated as someone who has been incarcerated. Jesse shared, “I don’t
hold myself as a criminal. Not a criminal, but like somebody that’s been incarcerated.” Mitchell
described how he dresses “casually,” wears “glasses,” and sports “hats and some sunglasses” as a
part of their everyday appearance. Mitchell said, “I dress like the next person is going to dress.”
Mitchell also admitted it is easier for him to blend in because the few tattoos that he does have
are less visible and easy to hide. Ruth made a similar comment about being able to blend in with
their appearance in both the way she dresses and carries herself and the fact she does not have
tattoos. Both Mitchell and Ruth said they look to fit in with their clothing decisions, but more
importantly, they avoid being labeled and subjected to judgment and mistreatment. It appears
they both just want to be like, look like, and be treated like every other student, and the best
chance to receive this opportunity is to dress in ways that meet expectations.
One participant mentioned using a disguise on campus to avoid stigma, judgment, and
discrimination more directly than the other participants. Aurora believes people on campus and
individuals who work in the offices she frequents can identify her. Upset about how she was
being treated, which she attributed directly to her justice involvement, she took measures to not
be identified in an attempt to get the resources and assistance she believed were being withheld
from her. Aurora shared that she resorted to wearing a shawl over her face to avoid being
recognized so he could be treated better. She admitted, “I was kinda trying to change my look,
even because I was feeling so uncomfortable going in there.” Although Aurora is the only
participant who mentioned resorting to such extreme measures, the collection of participants’
experiences demonstrates they made calculated decisions and carried out specific actions they
believed to serve them best. One last theme that emerged, sometimes in response to self-

71
disclosure and appearance and dress, was the way participants carried themselves and acted
while on campus.
Communication Style and Demeanor. Participants mentioned both controllable and
uncontrollable elements that draw attention to them. There was a common in many participants’
responses about how they conduct themselves and communicate on campus. The concept of
respect emerged as a strategy used to soften how others receive them as students on campus.
Additionally, it appears that being respectful helps students manage some of the uncontrollable
features of their personhood, such as tattoos, age, and wearing an ankle monitor. How
participants described being respectful or demonstrated respect on campus varied slightly, but
they made it a point to be very careful in their interactions with others and erred on the side of
being almost too polite.
For people who spend any time incarcerated, in jail or prison, respect is paramount. Issy
comments on the necessity of respect in prison:
I’m not gonna put off a negative vibe because I know the repercussions of a negative
vibe. To survive in prison, we have to show respect. We have to carry ourselves with the
level of respect that is extended to everybody who has it coming.
Interestingly enough, Issy carried some of the ethics learned in prison onto campus. Although the
repercussions Issy alluded to are much more severe in prison, he suggests there are consequences
on campus as well for not being respectful or polite. To avoid those consequences, it appears Issy
employs a communication style that invites the type of attention he aspires to receive. Issy shared
that he was raised to be respectful and courteous, but he does not want a “negative vibe” in his
student life. Issy makes it very clear that he is in college to study and leave a positive impression
on others. Issy suggests that he uses respect and communicates in a way that is friendly and non-

72
threatening. Issy said, “I know people just look at me and see the tattoos. I am pretty sure I give
off a different vibe than other students who have never been incarcerated or never been in trouble
with the law.” He prides himself on saying “hi” to everyone and opening and holding doors open
for people. Goffman references individuals’ efforts to manage impressions when stigmatized
(Goffman, 1963). Issy’s communicative behaviors reflect strategies of impression management
as compensation for the judgments someone who is formerly incarcerated might face. Other
participants mentioned similar compensatory communication both as a product of upbringing by
way of managing impressions.
Similar to dressing for an interview or changing out of one’s work clothes before going
out, people make both subtle and obvious changes to their communication to reach their desired
goals, create and maintain an image, and a whole host of other personal and professional goals.
Participants’ comments revealed that many of them are conscious of the judgments they face and
make considerable effort to be polite and respectful. They recognized that their peers on campus
do not necessarily practice respect. Similar to Issy, Clumsy shared that he was raised to be
respectful, and prison increased his awareness and practice of respect. When talking about how
he acts on campus, he said,
It’s in the way I introduce myself. Maybe if they [students on campus] were to get more
comfortable, then they’ll open up, and then they’ll find out slowly [who Clumsy is and
about his past]. I always shake hands, and then respectfully talk to them like, you know,
like I wouldn’t instantly go into slang, or I wouldn’t like, my posture wouldn’t instantly
tell them, my dressing isn’t like as, like no affiliation [gang affiliations], like it’s just
regular casual.

73
Clumsy’s comment highlights his awareness of how his communication directly impacts others’
perceptions of him and attempts to lead how others see him at face value. He is conscious of and
intentional in how he carries himself and talks. From his posture to the colors he wears, Clumsy
actively monitors his communication to mitigate the judgment and stigma associated with gangs
and criminal activity.
Regardless of how respectful participants claimed they were, there was a sense that they
had to tread lightly on campus and always be aware of how they were talking. Junior identified
many individuals and offices that he has at his disposal to talk to, but in the same breath, he
mentioned how cautious he is in the way he carries himself and how he communicates to avoid
judgments, stereotypes, and stigma. Junior specifically identified trying to “carry my energy
around in a positive way,” trying to “look comforting, be respectful and nice,” and always
“maintain a smile.” Junior appears to be much more extroverted and social on campus than other
study participants, but still is conscious of their actions and communication and is calculated and
intentional to not alarm others or give off a “vibe” that might suggest they have served time in
prison. There is a sense of hypervigilance to not be detected and communicate in ways that do
not give off the wrong impression.
The participants’ comments suggested an awareness of markers that might lead people to
label stereotypes and maybe even discriminate. Tattoos, age, and dress were the more common
features mentioned. However, as reflected in Clumsy’s response, even the way someone stands
might be read a certain way. Ruth, who has gone to considerable lengths not to be labeled or
detected as someone who has been incarcerated, echoed Clumsy’s sentiment by discussing her
observations about how people are detected. When asked about whether they are recognized as
someone who has spent time in prison, Ruth stated,

74
No, I’m not, their mannerisms. You know, some [justice-involved individuals] can’t get
over the hands behind the back, the position you stand in, the way, you know, you say hi.
The way that they communicate a lot of times. That’s one big reference. And then, of
course, I don’t have a lot of, you know, [people in general] associate, a lot of times,
tattoos with criminals. So, you know, when you add that to other communication and the
way that they interact with others, they may be easier to detect.
Ruth works to pass as a traditional college student. Ruth recognizes how others are detected,
does not have some of those markers, and communicates in a way to avoid being labeled or
stereotyped. Ruth’s comments summarize how people talk, what they talk about, their
appearance and dress, and how their communication style and demeanor can lead to someone
being judged or treated differently because of the stigma associated with being justice-involved.
Participants had various levels of awareness, care concern, or agency to do anything about their
communication practices to mitigate stigma.
Finding 2: Structures and Relationships Impact on Capabilities and Capacity
The second research question sought to expose how the structures and relationships in the
interviewees’ lives influenced their thoughts about their capabilities and capacity to succeed in
college. Through participants’ responses, the goal was to flush out the institutions and
relationships that form their surrounding environment and determine if there is consistency
among the offices and people who feed or deter their self-efficacy. This search for the impact of
one’s surrounding social and personal environment on one’s beliefs is informed by
Bronfenbrenner’s EST. To best answer the research questions and reinforce the use of EST as a
parsimonious theoretical framework for this study, I used the participants’ responses to identify
the structures and relationships they believe are essential to their beliefs in self. Initially, the

75
interview questions sought to flush out how structures and institutions impact self-efficacy and
how self-efficacy might impact structures and institutions. Participant responses did not speak to
the second dynamic of individuals’ personal beliefs in self-influencing their structures and
institutions, such as family, peers, and co-workers, but did identify structures and institutions that
build up and destroy self-efficacy.
I asked participants to identify the structures and institutions that they interact with on a
daily basis that were detrimental, in both positive and negative ways, to their beliefs in their
capabilities and capacity (self-efficacy) to succeed in college. Participants individually identified
the structures and institutions listed in Table 2. Structures and institutions consisted of social and
personal relationships, both on and off campus, that had a positive and or negative effect on them
in their student life. Not all participants evaluated the structures and institutions in the same way.
Whereas some participants viewed certain offices to be helpful, other participants identified them
as an obstacle to their success in school. The number of distinct structures and institutions named
by participants ranged from 5 to 20 (M = 12.8, SD = 4.7 units, Mdn = 11.5). Specific structures
and institutions emerged after a close reading and coding of interview transcripts. Participants
explained to various specificity different people, positions, offices, services, and employee types
within various structures and institutions listed in Table 3. The majority of structures and
institutions listed by participants positively built up or reinforced self-efficacy. The impact of
these structures and institutions from on and off campus had various positive implications for
participants’ self-efficacy, which will be explored in the next section.

76
Table 2
Participants’ Identification of Structures and Relationships
Participant Structures and relationships
Ashley Church spirituality,
Close friend (1 friend)
Disabled student program
Formerly incarcerated college student peers
Mental health services
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Office of student life
Parents (mom)
Parole/probation
Peers
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Staff (general)
Students
Work and co-workers
Aurora Campus police
Children
Church/spirituality
Classmates,
Dean of students
Disabled student program
Extended opportunity program counselor
Extended opportunity program
Extended family (mom’s side)
Living situation,
Mental health team
New generation STEM leaders program
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Office of student life
Office of student life
Parents (mom)
Peers
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students
STEM counselor
Cali Children (daughter)
Church/spirituality
Classmates
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Neighbors
Professors

77
Participant Structures and relationships
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Siblings (brother)
Casey Children
Church/spirituality
Daughter (children)
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Parent (mom and stepdad)
Peers (FICS)
Probation
Professors
Romantic partner (girlfriend)
Staff (general)
Tutoring
Work/co-workers
Clumsy Classmates
Family
Friends (close circle)
Mentors
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Parole/probation
Positive people
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Romantic partner (wife)
Issy Case manager
Children,
Church/spirituality
Classmates
Family
FICS club (student organization)
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Parole/probation
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Recovery services
Romantic partner (wife)
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
JJ Community club for African American students
Extended family (cousin)
Extended family (niece and her daughter)
Extended Opportunity Program
Family
FICS club (student organization)
Friends (off-campus)
Friends (on campus)
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences

78
Participant Structures and relationships
Peers (FICS)
Professor
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Staff (general)
Student government
Student government council
Juan Church/spirituality
Friends (on campus),
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Peers (FICS)
Peers
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students,
Work relationships
Work/co-worker
Junior Access and opportunity program for students
Extended Opportunity Program counselor,
Extended Opportunity Program,
Extended family (grandmother),
Family (general)
Food drive
FICS club (student organization)
Latinx students education program
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Parents
Peers (FICS)
Professors,
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Siblings
The Consent Project (student organization),
The office of student life
Tutoring center
Mario African American male success program,
Children
Community club for African American students
Local non-profit Organization B
Local non-profit Organization C
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students
staff (general)
Mitchell Children,
Classmates
Friends (on campus),
Local non-profit organization A
Girlfriend

79
Participant Structures and relationships
Mentors
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Parents
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Siblings (sisters)
Ross Children,
Classmates
Co-workers
Counseling for mental health,
CTE department
Dean,
Direct advisor to student government,
Family
FICS club (student organization)
Friends (on campus)
Local non-profit organization A
Living situation
Peers
Probation/parole officer
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated Students
Staff (general)
Work
Work/co-worker
Ruth Academic counseling,
Children,
College administration,
District office
Extended Opportunity Program
Family
Financial aid
Friendships
Negative interpersonal relationships and influences
Office of student life
Peers in student life
Peers
Positive people
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Romantic partner (husband)
Staff (general)
Staff
Student government
Work/co-worker
Stylo Negative interpersonal relationships and influences

80
Participant Structures and relationships
Parents (mother)
Professors
Program for formerly incarcerated students
Sibling (sister)
Table 3
Frequency of the Structures and Institutions the Interviewees Identified
Structure and institution Frequency
Church/spirituality 6
Classmates and peers 18
Peers (12)
Peers (formerly incarcerated college students) (5)
Peers in student life (1)
Employees and staff 24
Campus police (1)
College administration (3)
Dean (1)
Dean of instruction (1)
District office (1)
Professor (12)
Staff (unspecified) (7)
Family 35
Children (8)
Daughter (2)
Extended family (5)
Cousin (1)
Grandmother (1)
Mother’s side of the family (1)
Niece (1)
Niece’s daughter (1)
Parent or parents (6)
Mother (4)
Stepfather (1)
Romantic partner (5)
Girlfriend (2)
Husband (1)
Wife (2)
Siblings (4)

81
Structure and institution Frequency
Sister (2)
Brother (1)
Interpersonal relationships 24
Friends (8)
Friends (general) (1)
Friends (close circle) (2)
Friends (off campus) (1)
Friends (on campus) (3)
Friends (one friend) (1)
Mentors (2)
Neighbors (1)
Negative relationship (11)
Positive people (2)
Living situation
2
Local non
-profit organization
4
Local Non
-profit Organization C (1)
Local Non
-profit Organization A (2)
Local Non
-profit Organization B (1)
Offices on campus 19
Academic Advising and Counseling (8)
Academic advising (2)
Counseling (6)
Extended Opportunity Program Counseling (3)
General Counseling (1)
Program Counseling (1)
Financial Aid (1)
Office of student life (7)
Basic needs (food) (1)
Mental health (1)
Tutoring (3)
Outside services
4
Case manager (1)
Mental health services (2)
Recovery services (addiction support) (1)
Parole/probation
5
Parole/probation (general) (3)
Parole/probation officer (2)
Programs for specific student populations 27
Access and opportunity program for students (1)
African American male success program (1)
Community club for African American students (2)
Disabled Students Program (3)
Extended opportunity program
Extended opportunity program counselor (2)
Latinx students education program (1)

82
Structure and institution Frequency
New generation STEM leaders program (1)
Program for FICS (13)
Student government 9
Advisor (1)
FICS Club (student organization) (4)
The Consent Project (student organization) (1)
Student government (general) (2)
Student government council (1)
Technical education and career planning 1
Work 8
Work (general) (2)
Co-workers (6)
Confidence and Belief in Self
There was a blurring of the lines between capabilities and capacity from participants’
responses during interviews for this study. Self-efficacy, as defined previously, embodies both
individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities, regarding whether they have the necessary skills,
knowledge, and tools to accomplish something and their capacity, the fitness to execute and see
action through to completion. Although these concepts of capability and capacity were separated
within the study’s design, they inextricably became entangled during interviews and will be
discussed in the findings section together. Although capability and capacity are not synonymous,
they are intimately connected. From participant interviews, six structures and institutions
emerged as having a direct impact on students’ self-efficacy and their perceptions of confidence
and success. The six structures and institutions include employees and staff, family, interpersonal
relationships, offices on campus, programs, and work as directly impacting self-efficacy and
ideation of success. Each of these structures and institutions will be discussed separately in this
section to tease out the impact these structures and institutions are having on formerly
incarcerated college students.

83
Employees and Staff
Students spend the most time with their peers, employees, and staff while taking classes
on college campuses. Regardless of which office, program, or classroom they are in, their
relationships with employees are likely to impact their experiences as a college student. It is
important that formerly incarcerated college students are recognized for their uniqueness and that
staff is adequately trained in strategies and practices that can be implemented to best support
their student success (Contreras-García, 2023). It became apparent early on in the coding process
that there were far more supportive and constructive structures and institutions surrounding the
study participants. It appears from participants’ remarks that much good is being done to support
students’ belief in themselves and position them to reach their personal and academic potential
on campus. One such relationship 12 of the participants mentioned is that with professors.
Participants commented on the rapport they built with faculty and how critical that being
seen is to build confidence and do well in classes. A few respondents commented on the rapport
they built with professors and the impact that had on them overall. Issy, who is upfront with
instructors about his justice involvement, took pride in sharing, “My social psychological teacher
is fully aware of it [justice involvement], and she picked my brain, just, you know, to get a
different perspective.” Other participants shared these types of validating experiences as well. JJ
commented, “I try to get real social with my instructors, so I can learn from them and get a good
understanding from them and a good rapport with them.” JJ, who is an older student, takes the
initiative to get to know his instructors, but he feels the door is open for that relationship
building. JJ also commented on his interactions with professors and how that gave him the
“encouragement” he needs to keep pushing. JJ also mentioned, “[My professors] let me know
that I can do this.” There is much power in being seen in the way both Issy and JJ described, and

84
when students experience a sense of belonging, it sets a foundation for students to persist and
complete their studies (Tinto, 2017). Additional participants commented on similar feelings they
experienced with the instructors and the impact that had on their beliefs in self.
Without support, formerly incarcerated college students face a myriad of challenges upon
reentry and on college campuses (Smith & Digard, 2020). Participant responses revealed that
their relationships on campus with faculty were supportive. Ashley rejoiced when she shared,
“Low key, my professors I have right now are very cool and open, and they are very
understanding. And they’ve been through some struggles, so they’re very like, like, I don’t
know, they’re good.” Ashley said that her instructors have disclosed her personal and family
struggles, and that makes her feel supported. Ross shared a similar feeling of support when he
discussed his instructors’ disclosures. In addition to saying he feels “very supported” by his
professors, he mentioned two instructors and their stories. One of Ross’s professors discussed
their background and shared that their father is in prison, and despite all this instructor has been
through, Ross said, “If I can get support from somebody who has done so much [referring to
their instructor who had to overcome many obstacles to be a professor] it really helps you believe
in yourself.” Ross also identified one of his instructors who has also been incarcerated. After
talking with this professor about their story, Ross admitted, “I find other people who have been
down the avenues that I’ve been down. It really helps solidify my belief that I’m gonna crush it.”
Ashley and Ross alluded to the support they feel by having relationships with their professors. It
seems to breathe life into them, and Ross highlighted how his interactions with professors
reinforced his belief in himself. The social and personal relationships formed on campus appear
to influence positive sentiments and promote self-efficacy. Students expressed building rapport
with instructors, feeling supported, and being motivated by their professors.

85
It is not enough to have self-efficacy to reach one’s goals. Someone could have the
capabilities and capacity to accomplish something but lack the drive and determination to
execute the knowledge, skills, and behaviors to reach the finish line. Motivation is a necessary
component to make dreams a reality, and participants reported feeling motivated. Cassius shared,
The professors that I have met during the semester, you know, and the confidence they
instill in me. You know, just them hearing, you know, who I am. They’re actually
meeting me as a person. Ahh, my aspirations, my motivations. You know, they kinda,
they kinda, instill that motivation into me. Because they do see, you know, the overall
product of what my motivation, what my mindset is, truly yearns to be in the future.
Cassius’ reflection captures the constructive nature of the relationships built within the structures
and institutions of college and how being seen by others is motivating and invigorating to one’s
belief in one’s capabilities and capacity to achieve success. However, participants did not all feel
the same way about professors or other employees and staff on campus. There is another side to
this story that could also be detrimental to formerly incarcerated college students’ overall
success.
When it comes to interacting with faculty, a few participants brought up some
disparaging experiences that deflated students’ potential and growth. One participant discussed
the wounds that have never healed from their educational past. Junior shared,
Relationships with my professor: I don’t really know how to ask many questions in class
because it’s hard for me to ask, like, for help or to go seek help during the professor’s
office hours because when I was a kid, everybody would laugh at me. You don’t like,
even though I’m grown now, for some reason it’s just very hard for me to seek help when
I’m struggling with an assignment. If I don’t understand something, it’s very hard for me

86
to seek help from anyone because I don’t wanna feel like I’m not intelligent or I might
get laughed at.
Carrying around these suspicions and bearing the scars of previous educational trauma is
impacting how Junior can interact within the structures and institutions of higher education and
could negatively impact his beliefs in self as he reaches for his academic goals. Junior was not
the only participant to mention harmful relationships with professors.
Casey discussed the tale of two instructors in his responses. Casey admits to feeling very
supported on one hand by professors within his major and instructors he interacts with as a part
of his job as a tutor. He gives them much credit for being a tutor and goes as far as to say he
would not be this far along in his education and job as a tutor without professors. However,
Casey also described how their relationship with some professors as potentially harboring
negative thoughts about people who have a criminal record. Casey discusses the burden he
places on himself to try to change the professor’s sentiments by being a positive person and
proving people wrong. From both Junior’s and Casey’s responses, there is a sense that the
relationships built within the structures and institutions of higher education are not all furthering
students’ self-efficacy as they reach for success on campus and beyond. For the most part, the
relationships built with faculty on campus seemed to empower students, build up their selfesteem and sense of purpose, and provide rapport, support, and motivation for formerly
incarcerated college students. Participants also identified additional structures and institutions
that are a detriment to their self-efficacy as college students.
Family
For traditional college students, family members often provide financial, moral, and other
immediate support as they navigate postsecondary education. Outside support is essential to

87
college students’ personal and academic success. However, there is a gap in the literature
regarding the role family plays for formerly incarcerated college students and their success, as
support can be very different for this population. Research does support that higher levels of
emotional support by the family are connected to a significant reduction in reoffending (Taylor,
2016). The participants shared their thoughts about the role of the family in their ideas of selfefficacy, and their experiences of a family as a support system varied considerably. Traditional
influences such as parents were not as evident as one might assume. Participants identified the
family as playing a role in their college life but not necessarily contributing to their overall
beliefs in self and their capabilities and capacity to succeed in college.
When discussing structures and institutions that are critical to participants’ beliefs in self
and student success, family was identified the most but not as a structure or institution that
promoted confidence in their ability to succeed in school. Family was discussed more as a
motivating factor and provided aspirational thinking but not necessarily fueling their ideas about
their capabilities and capacity to succeed in college. The family members or members identified
by participants included children, extended families such as aunts and nieces, parents, romantic
partners, and siblings. The most discussed family member groups were children, who comprised
over half of the participants. Considering that the participants’ average age was 34, it makes
sense that their children played a large role in their thinking, actions, and movement as adults.
They shared the impact their children have on them as a source of support. However, they did
not discuss their children as a direct source that gave them confidence to reach their educational
goals. Aurora said their daughter is “my biggest support,” and Casey shared that his daughters
were his incentive for going to college and achieving success. Casey stated,

88
The other incentive for doing this is my kids. I have three children, and I guess I know
I’m doing this degree for myself, but it’s mostly for them. So that I can show them that,
you know, I did fall down, but now I’m getting back up, and I can become something.
Similar to Casey, Cali shared the impact that her daughter has on her as she pursues higher
education. She referred to her daughter as having a lot of faith in her and that her daughter thinks
she is a “superwoman.” Each of these participants discussed how their relationship with their
children is motivating and how they feel directly or indirectly supported by their children, but no
mention is made during the interviews of this contributing to their beliefs in self. Other
relationships were mentioned as being motivating and supportive but not necessarily helping
build up a student’s self-confidence.
The participants mentioned parents, siblings, and extended family as motivating and
supportive relationships. It appeared that participants who had a family member or romantic
partner who also attended college were motivated and inspired. Issy identified their wife, who is
pursuing a Ph.D., and Mitchell, who has family members and siblings who have graduated and
are currently in college. Clumsy mentions his girlfriend, who is also attending college with him,
as a family member who is motivating them to succeed in college. There is a sense of hope,
support, and an “if they can do it, I can do it” mentality as they receive this support from their
family members who are also in school. Issy shared, “I neglected family for years because I was
out there doing other things. Focusing on things that weren’t good for me. So, you know, now
I’ve restored those relationships, and I have a support team.” It was surprising not to hear more
participants mention family as a contributing source for building confidence that might not be
novel to the realities of justice involvement and the faith some families can lose in their formerly
incarcerated family member. Many interviewees celebrated the family support structure they

89
have, but not all respondents were so lucky. Family was also described as a hindrance and
obstacle that can further impact a formerly incarcerated college student’s ideas of self.
Comments from three of the participants capture the complicated nature of the family as a
formerly incarcerated college student. Juan expressed a sense of envy when he heard about the
support of many of his classmates and peers who have not been in touch with the justice system.
Juan said, “It gets me a little upset for the simple fact that you should be lucky to have parents
that have your back as you are going to school.” Juan’s discomfort seemed to stem from the fact
that he does not have this type of support for reasons that were not discussed. Juan’s comments
suggest a lack of support from family, but both Junior and Ruth were much more direct about the
obstacle family can create for them as they reach for success.
Both Junior and Ruth recognize that some family members are unable to be supportive
because of the lifestyle that they are in or the choices they make. Junior commented about how
rarely he speaks to his family, and when they do, it is only in short conversations. Junior seemed
to suggest that keeping their distance from family is the only way for him to stay on track. Ruth
also identified the family as something that complicates her academic life. The pressure the
family puts on Ruth to take care of things but is still involved in “the life” puts her academic life
and her freedom in jeopardy. Although participants highlighted family as a structure and
institution they interact with regularly, and how critical family is to their success in college, the
role family plays in their lives is not consistently positive.
Interpersonal Relationships
Students of all backgrounds interact on college campuses as they pass one another
between classes or are in courses together. As formerly incarcerated college students become
more visible on these campuses, there will be an increasing need to understand how their life and

90
experiences impact their academic lives. This study sought to view their worlds. In part, this
study set out to uncover structures and institutions that build their self-efficacy for student
success. Similar to the findings about family, interpersonal relationships surfaced as a central
theme in participants’ responses. Interpersonal relationships, on and off campus, were mentioned
as a motivating factor but not explicitly as a source of confidence in their capability and capacity
to reach their academic goals. In contrast to the positive role interpersonal relationships can
serve, participants identified negative relationships as detrimental to their student success.
Participants identified their relationship with peers, classmates, and friends, on and off
campus, as detrimental to their student success. Participants identified various levels of closeness
to their peers, classmates, and friends. These close, semi-close, and pseudo-close relationships
seemed to have a positive effect on participants in terms of their perception of reaching their
academic goals. Ross described how important building good relationships on campus is to his
success. Participants seemed to recognize the benefits of good relationships, and many expressed
a desire to build friendships with their peers. In reference to her peers and classmates, Ashley
said, “Seeing everybody around me that they can do it gives me motivation, like, okay, I can do
it.” Issy, Junior, and Juan shared similar thoughts of feeling motivated by their peers and friends
on campus. Juan elaborated on the idea of feeling motivated when he shared,
My friends who have been there since I took my intro classes have followed me in my
classes now. And they’ve pushed me and inspired me to do better and not give up. Those
are my college buddies, my friends, those are the ones I call my friends, they’ve been
having a positive impact.
Others also mentioned that the motivation they get from seeing people on campus “doing their
thing” and seeing others reach for their goals reinforces that they are on the right track. A few

91
additional responses from participants further highlight the motivations gained from participants’
interpersonal relationships.
Only one participant addressed concepts associated with self-efficacy. Although many
participants expressed the necessity and potential of the interpersonal relationships that surround
them, very little in the response spoke to ideas of confidence, capabilities, and capacities. When
asked about the relationships that have an impact on their confidence that they will succeed in
college, JJ recognized the role their classmates play in building confidence. JJ responded, “Yes
[the relationships help me build confidence], my classmates, I speak with, you know, friends, but
we all help support each other all the time.” JJ said that there were only a few relationships like
this on campus, and it is mostly his family that provides the primary support for him. It seems
that the participants were much less focused on the interpersonal relationships that helped build
them up as they were preoccupied with the relationships they recognized as threatening to their
student success.
Nearly two-thirds of participants spoke about the negative relationships and influences
that are detrimental to their student success. Participants identified interpersonal relationships
both on and off campus, family members, and people from their past as potentially threatening
the positive things they have going at the college. When discussing how these parties impact
their identity as a student or their student life, all but two participants who mentioned these
negative relationships said they cut these relationships out of their lives completely. The
participants described a clear conscious decision-making process to “cut ties,” “not go back,”
“not get involved,” and “removed from them.” The majority of participants actively try to
eliminate these relationships from their lives as they recognize these structures do more harm
than good and create a direct obstacle to student success.

92
There were negative interpersonal relationships that participants mentioned they could
not necessarily stay away from. It is unclear what exactly the situations they were basing their
response on, but participants made it clear they do everything in their power to not allow these
“toxic” interpersonal relationships to interfere with their academic goals. Ruth explained,
I’ve had to disconnect from a lot of people, not because they were bad peers or socially,
or they were going to impact me in any way for me to go back into incarceration. But
I’ve had to disconnect because I became very harshly judged for going after my goals,
which is kind of ironic.
Ruth explained how they have had to “draw boundaries” and limit their exposure to “risky
relationships.” Ashley, who also cannot completely separate themselves from some negative
interpersonal relationships, shared that she does not let her “outside life” impact what she has
going on campus. Participants who cut ties with negative interpersonal relationships identified
what is at stake if they do not disengage from these relationships.
There was a sense from a few participants that “going back” to the neighborhood or
letting anyone who is perceived to be a negative influence too close is counterproductive to
where they are and what they are doing. Juan mentioned, “I don’t go back to that [neighborhood
and old relationships]. I don’t get involved with anything like that anymore. I grew up, I keep to
myself, and I stay with the positive part with my positive peers.” Mitchell also recognized the
danger associated with the wrong people or letting old friends into his life when he stated, “If
you want to hang out with the same people, you’re gonna go back in there [prison]. And that’s
not what I’m doing. If not, then you hang out with your family.” One reading of both Juan and
Mitchell’s comments speaks to their perceptions of their self-efficacy and their capability and
capacity to succeed in college. Falling back into prior social groups or lifestyles would, in fact,

93
jeopardize their capabilities and capacity to succeed. The participants claim to not be willing to
let negative interpersonal relationships into their world. The structures and institutions of social
and personal relationships seem to be a detriment, in both positive and negative ways, to their
success, as these relationships affect their motivation, feelings of support, and, in some cases,
their confidence that they will reach their goals.
Offices on Campus
Various offices on campus were named specifically during the interviews and the role
each of the offices played in participants’ perceived success. The offices identified by
participants included Academic Advising and Counseling, Financial Aid, the Office of Student
Life, and Tutoring. Although the individual offices mentioned did provide services and support
to the technical matters of student life, participants made very little mention that these offices are
an apparatus that helps them develop confidence to meet their educational goals. No one office
emerged as dominating or leading the space in assisting these students or providing information
or mentorship beyond the technical information those offices specialize in. As needs differ from
student to student, it makes sense that there was no greater frequency in responses identifying
certain offices more consistently.
There may be some parallels to draw, considering the need for formerly incarcerated
college students to find themselves post-release and on a college campus for the first time. Many
may lack the necessary knowledge they need about campus offices and services, accounting for
less contact and relationship building with those offices. First-generation students, for example,
have been found to lack knowledge about the financial aid process and resources (Coleman,
2023), yet it is understood that the financial aid office is essential to student success. Another
explanation is that formerly incarcerated college students seek help from various programs on

94
campus that do not necessarily specialize in the area in which they are encountering problems,
but they still help them find an answer. Some programs and offices may function to circumvent
or act as liaisons between different offices on campus, giving off the appearance that the program
helped them get resources and find answers, but really, it was in collaboration across offices that
specialize in this type of work. It is unclear why these offices did not act as contributing agents
to building self-efficacy for the formerly incarcerated college student participants, but there were
a few programs that did emerge as directly supporting students’ development of self-efficacy as
they reach for academic success.
Programs on Campus
Students named many different programs as having a positive impact on their student life.
The support each of the different programs provided students help with navigating campus,
getting needed resources, and conducting regular student business on campus. Participants
named the Access and Opportunity Program for Students, African American Male Success
Program, Community Club for African American Students, Disabled Students Program,
Extended Opportunity Program, Latinx Students Education Program, New Generation STEM
Leaders Program, and the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students during interviews. Most
participants identified Both the Extended Opportunity Program and the Program for Formerly
Incarcerated Students, with the latter being identified as a program that directly and indirectly
contributed to self-efficacy as a college student.
The Extended Opportunity Program is a program on campus that serves financially
disadvantaged students and provides other services for single parents, work opportunities for
students who participate in state-funded programs, aid for families in need, and resources for
former and current foster care youth. Many participants qualify for this program or its

95
subsidiaries. It is no surprise, then, that they identified this program as critical to their success.
Multiple interviewees mentioned what a “big help” this program offered and the support they
received from it. Offices and programs that they consistently and voluntarily visit also speak to
the level of safety they feel in the program setting. Although it was not explicitly stated, the
participants do not seem to enter spaces where they are uncomfortable and unwelcome.
As mentioned in the previous section, the Extended Opportunity Program offers
counseling and might hinder recognizing offices like those for academic advising and
counseling. Two of the five participants mentioned that they only receive counseling through the
Extended Opportunity Program. Students getting help through this program lessens the potential
impact of academic advising and counseling and speaks to the strength of the Extended
Opportunity Program and the atmosphere it provides. Because formerly incarcerated college
students face both traditional and nontraditional obstacles in education, they need the same
services and resources as traditional students. The Extended Opportunity Program had a direct
impact on a few participants as they looked to build self-efficacy for college success.
The support that participants acknowledged from various programs on campus speaks
volumes about the services being offered on campus and the employees who do the work to
reach students. As it relates to the research questions driving this study, two participants
specifically recognized how their interactions with this program fueled their beliefs in their
capabilities and capacity to succeed in school. When asked a follow-up and probing question
about where, if anywhere, students felt their beliefs in success and their confidence regarding
student success was strengthened, Aurora shared, “My [Extended Opportunity Program]
counselor is excellent. He told me he cares and that I’m trying to do good for myself and for the
world. He’s constantly encouraging me and congratulating me for my good grades and stuff.”

96
Aurora commented that her confidence and belief in herself are reinforced through her
interactions with this program and that the program is essential to their success. Ruth, who also
commented that she does the majority of her counseling through the Extended Opportunity
Program, recognized the role that the Extended Opportunity Program has played in helping her
develop her confidence and drive. Outside of the Extended Opportunity Program, one other
program on campus was identified as having a direct impact on students’ self-efficacy and
perceptions of capabilities and capacity that will lead to success.
All but two participants mentioned the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students
during interviews. Based on participants’ testimonies, the Program for Formerly Incarcerated
Students serves a number of important functions, including helping students build confidence in
themselves. Participants mentioned the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students more than
any other structure or institution as a whole and the direct impact the program is having on their
college students. Of the 12 participants, only one who mentioned the program said she did not
interact with it much for fear of being stigmatized by others outside the formerly incarcerated
college student population. Outside of this isolated incident and the two other participants who
did not mention the program at all, participants had a lot to say about the significance this
program is having in their college experience.
One theme became apparent early in interviews with formerly incarcerated college
students. The Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students on their campus is viewed as an
essential office. It is a program that students share “assists” them, offers “tremendous help,” and
is a “great resource” for justice-involved students. Both in the services offered and the
relationships with program staff, participants expressed a need for this student-centered program.
They identified this office as giving “positive feedback” that “boosts morale” and is critical to

97
their academic success. The Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students appears to do much
more than offer encouragement and support. The empowerment seems to radiate from what the
program offers students and from the relationships they build within the program.
Based on participants’ comments, the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students does
much more than assist students with their academic needs. Formerly incarcerated college
students can face many obstacles to fitting in on campus, and the Program for Formerly
Incarcerated Students appears to offer students a home. Ross shared, “Before I actually found the
[program], I did not even know if I belonged on campus.” A sense of belonging, inclusion, and
support exists in this office that was not mentioned in other offices or programs on campus.
There appears to be a real sense of community created through this program, and participants
identified getting many their interactions with program staff. Ashley shared,
Every time I go in there, and I talk to somebody, like, I always feel better. Like, always. I
get reassurance that remembrance and reminders like, “Hey, you got this.” You go,
people rooting you on.” Issy made similar comments when he stated, “If I am struggling,
they will lift me up.
This program represents the belonging, encouragement, and empowerment that help the
participants tackle college life. Based on their responses, it seems the program is a place they can
go to charge up, but it appears to provide more than just kind support.
Most relevant to the research questions guiding this study is the impact structures and
institutions, like the relationships forged in the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students, have
on formerly incarcerated college students’ self-efficacy to succeed in college. The interviews
revealed that participants’ beliefs in their capabilities and capacity to succeed were directly
influenced by their interactions with the staff and program as a structure at the college. When

98
speaking about the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students, Mario commented, “It has
really, you know, benefited me and helped me. … I speak with people in the office … from time
to time, and … those conversations motivate me. They kind of give me confidence.” When asked
directly if there are any offices that help to support beliefs in self and their capabilities, Junior
first named the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students. Junior discussed the environment as
one where he can actually ask for help and walk out feeling like he can accomplish his goals.
Others shared the thoughts that both Mario and Junior identified. The program seems to give
participants the confidence to believe in themselves.
An important part of being a good college student is knowing one’s capabilities and
capacity to do the work to instructors’ expectations. Research on the imposter phenomenon, or
imposter syndrome in later research, captures the idea that people do not feel like they fit in or
might feel like a phony among colleagues and peers with whom they are qualified to comingle
(Clance & Imes, 1978). Sometimes, people deny or fail to recognize their capabilities and
capacities when compared to others. Participants’ comments suggest that their doubts about who
they are as students and what they are capable of are overcome through their relationships with
program staff and peers. Ross shared that being around positive staff and peers fuels him, and the
everyday talk of the program helps him feel normal. These positive relationships also helped him
“build confidence,” and he has been able to talk about his future as he reaches for it every day as
a 4.0 grade point average college student. He expressed, “I’m gonna keep going.” There seemed
to be a sense of reassurance in his short comment that they now have enough belief in
themselves to keep forging forward, which might not have always been a part of their thoughts
about self.

99
Participants had much to say about different programs on campus from across services
and areas. However, the program designed to reach these students specifically appears to be
reaching them in significant ways.
Finding 3: Perceptions of Stigma, Self-efficacy, and College Success
The final research question for this study looks at the impact formerly incarcerated
college students’ perceptions of stigma and self-efficacy have on their college success. As was
the case for each of the three research questions, this question looked to get at the reciprocal
nature of how stigma impacts self-efficacy and how self-efficacy impacts stigma with regard to
college success. However, based on participant’s responses, only one of the two parts of this
research question was addressed. Students’ perceptions and experiences with stigma were
discussed as having a direct and indirect impact on their beliefs surrounding self-efficacy.
Regardless of the amount of support participants had from various structures and institutions
within their sphere of influence (i.e., family, interpersonal relationships, offices, and programs on
campus, among others), 10 of the 14 participants identified the impact of stigma as a motivating
factor that is pushing them to have greater capabilities and capacity to reach their academic
goals.
There was a distinct sense from participant interviews that the stigma and judgment that
formerly incarcerated college student participants felt acted as an accelerant to their drive and
determination to succeed in college. There is a sense that participants, because of the experiences
they had in incarceration and the judgments they face, are motivated to do right for themselves,
reach their goals, prove themselves right, and prove others who have a stigma toward people like
them wrong. Mario stated, “I get motivated by negative thoughts and negative perceptions. You
know, that motivates me that I got to prove you wrong.” Clumsy shared similar thoughts about

100
how stigma is impacting his self-efficacy and that there are haters out there. He is going to strive
for success and be an inspiration to others to prove them wrong. These types of comments
illustrate the control that many participants claim to have over their future. When participants
spoke of this grip they have over their capabilities and capacity to succeed, it embodies ideas of
self-efficacy and their capacity to execute the necessary behaviors to produce their desired
outcome.
Stigma also seemed to instill a sense of absolute confidence in participants’ self-efficacy
as it relates to the capabilities and capacity to reach their desired goals. When asked about their
confidence in their capabilities and capacity to achieve success, participants like Casey said, “I
am confident in myself, I know I am intelligent, I know I can do certain things.” Casey shared
that he is “100% confident” that he will reach his goal of becoming an engineer. Ross shared
something similar when asked about whether stigma is standing in his way of being a successful
college student. He said,
Nothing will stand in my way because you don’t let it. Because you don’t let it. Oh, yeah,
I forgot. Let me clarify that I believe stigma is a big thing but if you, and I hate to sound
rude here, but if you let it conquer you, it will conquer you. And that’s [stigma negatively
impacting people] prevalent and out there. I just don’t let it stand in my way because I am
very determined.
There almost seems to be a level of defiance against stigma. No matter how it presents, the
interviewees will move through, pass, and around it to reach their self-determined academic
goals.
One last theme in participants’ comments was a mentality of me, myself, and I.
Regardless of how many resources, relationships, and actors in their spheres of influence these

101
students interacted with, the burden of succeeding in college completely rested on their
shoulders. Stylo’s comments gave off the impression that they are all alone in their pursuit of
reaching their academic goals despite having some support around them. Their comments
confirmed that this is a “solo mission,” and it will be them, and only them, who has to fight the
battles and win the war. Others shared similar sentiments. Issy stated, “I am in control of my
part,” and that his success rests on his actions and decisions. It is unclear if this sense of
complete autonomy is a direct response to stigma, but it seemed necessary to mention in the
conversation about stigma and self-efficacy. There is a sense of hyper-responsibility for
themselves, and participants were very clear that they are accountable for their actions regardless
of the obstacles they face, including stigma.
Summary
This study’s findings are based on the lived experiences and perspectives of formerly
incarcerated college students and give insightful responses to address this study’s research
questions. In response to RQ1, the interviewees’ recognition of stigma was consistent, but how
they experienced it on campus varied. Regarding RQ2, the structures and relationships
participants had within their spheres of influence varied by individual. There was no consistent
agreement on which structures and relationships helped them address stigma as it relates to selfefficacy and student success. It is clear that various structures and relationships within
participants’ spheres of influence helped to lessen stigma’s impact on their capabilities and
capacity to succeed in college. RQ3, which set out to understand how stigma impacts selfefficacy, produced mixed results. The impact on participants’ perceptions of self-efficacy and
college success varied. They used a number of communication practices to mitigate risk,

102
including strategic self-disclosure, conscious decisions with appearance and dress, and strategic
implementation of communication style and demeanor.
Findings regarding the second research revealed equally nuanced experiences on campus.
Participants recognized different employees and staff, family, interpersonal relationships, offices
on campus, and programs at the college as being both structures and relationships within their
spheres of influence that changed the way they experienced stigma and built self-efficacy as they
reached for college success. The potential impact these individuals, offices, and programs had on
a student’s experiences with stigma and self-efficacy were expressed in the degree to which
participants experienced stigma, constructively negotiated stigma, and developed and sustained
self-efficacy with their academic success in mind. Lastly, although fewer themes arose out of the
interviewing process for the third research question of this study, participants were quite clear
that stigma could act as a motivating factor for them to take more charge, responsibility, and
accountability for their actions to reach their academic aspirations. Participants expressed
considerable confidence in their capabilities and capacity to reach their goals as a direct result of
perceived and felt stigma associated with their justice involvement.
In closing, it is important to again honor the participants’ disclosures. Their vulnerability
to discuss their thoughts, experiences, and aspirations in the face of perceived obstacles and
threats to their student success is commendable. The hope driving this research is to add to the
growing literature about these students and to help them navigate the social, political, and
cultural space of college more effectively.

103
Chapter Five: Recommendations
From the conception of this study to the analysis of participants’ responses,
Bronfenbrenner’s EST has been the backstop to catch meaningful content to better understand
the ecological forces that impact formerly incarcerated college students’ development as
successful college students as they are confronted with stigma and the impact their experiences
have on their perceptions of their capabilities and capacity. The results help to identify the
various relationships, institutions, and connections between them that impact the participants’
experiences as they relate to the concepts of stigma and their capabilities and capacity to succeed
in school. To better unpack the findings from the previous chapter, a discussion of the findings
will follow. As for the conceptual framework, Bronfenbrenner’s EST allowed for gaining greater
insight into the participants’ lived experiences confronting challenges as they find their
confidence as nontraditional college students.
Discussion of Findings
Bronfenbrenner’s EST breaks down the complex nature of the development of an
individual. Its application in this study places formerly incarcerated college students in the center
and the structures and relationships, institutions, and various social, political, and cultural
byproducts of these elements in the surrounding systems of the student. There is a combination
of forces within a formerly incarcerated college student spheres of influence that impact each
other that help to shape a formerly incarcerated college student’s environment to be more or less
conducive to their overarching academic goals. It became very apparent through the words of the
study’s participants how instruments, various structures, and relationships within their spheres of
influence had an impact on their pursuit of college success. To better understand how the

104
concepts of stigma, self-efficacy via capabilities and capacity, and structures and relationships
impacted participants’ perception, EST will be applied to each of the study’s concepts.
Stigma
Participants identified the existence of stigma for justice-involved people, yet its impact
on their college experience as it related to their ideas of self-efficacy, capabilities, and capacity
was not uniform or consistent. Participants who discussed feeling stigmatized expressed feelings
of being alienated, spotlighted, and, in more serious situations, targets of unnecessary judgments,
accusations, and discrimination. Stigma, both on and off campus, is a part of the larger
environment in which these students must operate, not just as a barrier to overcome in their
college education but a societal hurdle they will continue to confront.
Within the lens of EST, stigma is neither a structure nor a relationship but a product of
the relationships, social and cultural norms, and ideology of society at large that filter into
individuals’ everyday lives through their relationships and everyday interactions. EST explains
stigma as a byproduct of the outer systems. Although the stigma of being justice-involved is
seemingly decreasing because of a variety of social, political, and cultural factors, it is unlikely
to be eradicated. Formerly incarcerated college students must recognize its existence and develop
strategies and support to address it, as it could affect their campus experiences and beliefs in
their capabilities and capacity to succeed. Without greater understanding from interpersonal
relationships, family, programs, and faculty and staff, the on-campus environment will not
provide the support they need to thrive.
Structures and Relationships
The microsystem in EST is the closest system to the individual in the nested arrangement
of structures that facilitates that individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Within the context of the

105
formerly incarcerated college students, the particular structures and relationships that emerged as
having the most contact and impact were employees and staff, programs and offices on campus,
interpersonal relationships, and family. The participants mentioned other structures and
institutions, including parole/probation, mental health services, and addiction support, but they
did not rise to the level of the other structures to be identified as constructs within this study’s
microsystem.
One of the more interesting takeaways from participant responses was the observation
that family and interpersonal relationships were not as strong as one might expect in providing
the support participants identified as instrumental to their success in college and overcoming
barriers related to stigma. Research supports that not all formerly incarcerated people have the
same levels of positive support upon release from prison (Galeste, 2019). When formerly
incarcerated individuals do have emotional support, it significantly reduces recidivism for both
genders (Taylor, 2015) and can lead to more successful reintegration (Taylor, 2016).
Instrumental support from family has also been shown to significantly lower the odds of
recidivism and substance abuse (Mowen et al., 2019).
Family support is also relevant to this conversation regarding college success. When
college students have a family as a support network, it has a perceived impact on their college
grade point average or GPA (Cheng et al., 2012), they have less fear of academic success and
achievement (Gore et al., 2016), and emotional versus financial support has shown to play an
important role in positive academic outcomes for low-income students (Roksa & Kinsley, 2019).
Although family was the most mentioned structure by participants, the distribution of family
spanned across relationship types and was not centralized to parents or spouses as one might
expect. It is unclear from the analysis of interviews why participants are not closer to more

106
traditional family members or, if they are close to family, why they were not identified as
playing a more pivotal role in participants’ social support network. One might only speculate that
their justice involvement may have strained some of these relationships leaving formerly
incarcerated college students to rely on their social support from other structures within the
microsystem.
A second noteworthy observation based on the findings is the role that both employees
and different programs and offices play in the lives of formerly incarcerated college students. It
might come as no surprise that other structures and relationships on campus were mentioned for
their importance and impact, both in positive and less-than-positive ways. The role that faculty
play in the lives of the participants was echoed by the majority of participants, who were
assigned a positive designation both in how formerly incarcerated college students experienced
stigma and in building their beliefs in capabilities and capacity to succeed. Bronfenbrenner’s
comments about how the “magnitude of the microsystem expands and contracts” given different
live events, time, and space (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) give heed to the idea that this student group,
and in the absence of other types of support, turn toward campus for tangible and intangible
resources such as emotional support. When employee programs and offices recognized
participants, validated their belonging on campus, and supported them in various ways,
participants expressed a sense of belonging.
Lastly, the construct that would also be situated within the microsystem based on
participants’ responses and aligns with previous conceptions of EST is the Program for Formerly
Incarcerated Students. If stigma is, in fact, a byproduct of the communication between and
among structures and relationships of all system forces within EST, it appeared that this
program/office, directly and indirectly, helped students. The program provided a space where the

107
students felt safe and judgment-free and knew resources were there to help them navigate college
life more effectively. Best practices for serving formerly incarcerated college students in college
have been outlined, with many of these overarching goals included in recommendations (Rising
Scholars Network, 2021b). The participants also identified the value of programs catered to them
added to their college experience and success (Bostick, 2022). The development of formerly
incarcerated college students requires a holistic understanding of the forces and systems that
impact them as they reach for success and completion. In this study, EST allowed for a deeper
analysis of the structures and relationships imperative to the participants’ experiences as they
encounter stigma and work to build capabilities and capacity to succeed in college.
Self-Efficacy (Capabilities and Capacity)
The discoveries made related to self-efficacy through a sense of capabilities and capacity
to succeed in college reflect the chronosystem, macrosystem, exosystem, and mesosystems.
Participants discussed a sense of self-determination and hyper-belief in their capabilities and
capacity to succeed. Perceptions of capabilities and capacity seem to be a byproduct of
entrenched ideology, social and cultural expectations, and norms that filter down to the
microsystem, impacting what the individual student thinks about their self-efficacy. Recognizing
the stigma and odds against them, participants appeared to take on a me, myself, and I mentality
when it came to their capabilities and capacity to succeed. Many shared that they are in complete
control, their success is a measure of their will, and nothing would stand in the way of them
reaching their goals. This reaction speaks to the idea espoused in EST of how the entire system
and various forces impact the individual and their educational development. It is important to
understand that on- and off-campus relationships and campus programs and offices play a role in
the interviewees’ sense of capabilities and capacity to reach educational goals.

108
Recommendations for Practice
This study used Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) grounded theory as a theoretical framework
and Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) EST as a conceptual framework to identify students’ perceptions
about the structures and relationships within their sphere of influence, the stigma associated with
their previous incarceration, and self-efficacy as college students through their beliefs in their
capabilities and capacity to succeed in college. The findings that emerged from participant
interviews suggest a number of areas for improvement inside the community college system to
give this marginalized and disenfranchised student group the best chances of college success.
Recommendation 1: Raising Awareness
Common to most of the study participants’ responses, they experienced stigma both on
and off campus as a result of their criminal past. However, there is little to no support for
students through college onboarding or professional development to become aware of what they
may face on campus as justice-involved students. Without the necessary tools to cope, deal with,
and address stigma, it may take more time for this vulnerable student population to acclimate to
college life, which is likely leading to attrition. It is important for students with various
stigmatized identities to learn how to manage self and social perceptions and for institutional
improvements to be made to better serve students with these identities (Brower et al., 2021).
In addition to offering campus services that students may leverage, formerly incarcerated
college students must also learn to embrace their past and see it as a strength. They bear gifts and
insight not afforded to the everyday college student and can motivate themselves and others
through their stories (Halkovic & Greene, 2015). Focused onboarding and ongoing support must
be available on campus to raise students’ awareness about stigma and how it may manifest on
and off campus, within self, and from others.

109
Recommendation 2: On-Campus Presence
Twelve of the 14 participants, directly or indirectly, mentioned on-campus programs that
work with formerly incarcerated college students as an asset to their college success. Community
colleges should have a forward-facing program on campus for formerly incarcerated college
students. The efforts to address the needs of nontraditional students through support-catered
resources specific to nontraditional students are a contributor to their success (Remenick, 2019).
Research affirms the importance of social and personal support for formerly incarcerated female
college students (Heidemann et al., 2014) and that direct support from actors on campus
contributes to student retention and program sustainability (Contreras-García, 2023). Forwardfacing programs and services on campus geared toward formerly incarcerated college students
can help students enroll, acclimate, succeed, and progress in community college, giving them a
better foundation and likelihood of overall academic success.
In addition to having a direct presence on campus for formerly incarcerated college
students, it is important for the offices they frequent to understand their circumstances, struggles,
and triumphs. Employees and staff who are knowledgeable, skilled, and empathetic to field these
students’ questions and concerns better help them address technical questions and combat stigma
and imposter syndrome. Meeting students where they are for both technical and emotional
support will lead to better success outcomes.
Recommendation 3: Training and Literacy
A quarter of the study participants lamented their encounters with various employee
groups where they felt stigmatized or further engrained their stigmatization and educational
trauma related to their criminal and educational past. Formerly incarcerated African American
males identify their previous academic experiences as having a direct impact on their social,

110
cultural, and psychological development (Jeffers, 2017), and college administration, faculty, and
staff need to be aware of and implement interpersonal and academic practices that support this
student population in their quest for success in college. Considering the fact that colleges and
universities admit, enroll, fund, and grant opportunities to system-impacted college students (Ott
& McTier, 2021), ongoing training and professional development should be provided to support
this growing population. Left unexamined and without remedy, inequitable practice will likely
further perpetuate barriers for formerly incarcerated college students reaching their educational
and career options post-release.
It is imperative that college campuses hold true to the pillars of inclusivity, diversity, and
fairness that compose their mission and core values statements by increasing their awareness of
the challenges formerly incarcerated college students face. More adequate training needs to be
provided, and greater awareness must be achieved to avoid discriminatory practices and
treatment of these students. For example, criminal records have been shown to have a direct
impact on the rejection rates for college admissions (Stewart & Uggen, 2020) as well as
perceptions of African American college applicants (Anderson et al., 2013). Without deeper
introspection, training, and effective best practices to address the problematic policies, practices,
bias, and discrimination, these students’ success o may suffer.
Recommendation 4: Scaling Up Programming and Support
What was very clear from the findings in this study is that the programs and support for
formerly incarcerated college students is necessary to help them address many of the obstacles
and barriers of their academic and personal life. Dedicated programs and services for formerly
incarcerated college students are instrumental to student success and dedicated space on campus
as well ongoing funding is critical to address the needs for an often marginalized and

111
disenfranchised student population. Formerly incarcerated college students, who face additional
obstacles to student success, must be prioritized through funding. At the core, supporting
formerly incarcerated college students is a diversity, equity, and inclusion issue as their
demographics reflect minority populations that are disproportionately impacted.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Inherent to all academic research are limitations and delimitations. Limitations involve
the factors and variables outside a researcher’s control (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
limitations of this study were skepticism, suspicion, and distrust. When contacting potential
interviewees, contacts were very hesitant to volunteer after they read about it and were told they
would be recorded. Additionally, initial contacts expressed discomfort about not knowing where
their ideas would be shared and how their words might be used even after I explained the study’s
academic context. Distrust and suspicion are not uncommon among justice-involved people who
learn through their incarceration that it can be dangerous to trust others, and many develop an
unwillingness to trust others out of fear (Haney, 2001). Most of the initial contacts for this study
had previous contact with me, their skepticism, distrust, and suspicion dissuaded many from
joining the study for recorded interviews. Strangely enough, a handful of individuals who
declined to participate contacted me to have a side conversation about the study and shared their
experiences and perspectives on the matter. It appeared that many of the initial contacts wanted
to share, but their skepticism would not allow them to be vulnerable despite the low-stakes risk
of participating in the study.
The study participants were connected to me through their association at the college with
the Program for Formerly Incarcerated Students. Not that the relationship between us influenced

112
their responses, it would be remiss not to mention that connection in response to the content of
their comments. Could the fact that there was a working and professional relationship between
the participant and me have influenced their responses?
As it relates to the design of interview questions, participants had full liberty to answer
questions regarding structure and relationships as they interpreted them. Although their
responses and identification of various structures and relationships within their spheres of
influence seemingly fit within the theoretical and conceptual framework guiding this study, it
may have been more advantageous to narrow the focus of questions to use relationships
previously identified in research. With that said, it was also important to let the participants have
the freedom to identify the structure and relationships with the greatest impact on them, so there
is a give a take in the way the interview questions’ wording and the result from their collective
voice through the analysis of their responses.
Delimitations
The main delimitation of this study is the pool from which subjects were recruited for
interviews. Participants were only collected from one community college in California. With
programs and services becoming more readily available at community colleges (California
Community Colleges, 2021), colleges, and university campuses (California State University
Office of the Chancellor, 2023), collecting data from a wider pool with diverse college
experiences could have contributed additional depth to this study. However, expanding the pool
of participants could have also threatened the contributions the study’s participants offered that
were germane to the community college system. Although it was a delimitation of this study, the
narrow scope of participants is also a strength.

113
Based on the demographic information collected on participants, it is possible that themes
between the different markers and the concepts of stigma, self-efficacy, and structures and
relationships could have been connected. For example, it is possible that an individual’s living
situation and their experiences with stigma may be linked. Formerly incarcerated college
students who do not live in a family dwelling like a homeless shelter may have reported
experiencing stigma versus someone who lives with their spouse. Drawing these inferences
stretched outside the intended connections this study sought to uncover yet could be an important
site to revisit or center in future research projects. Demographic information was collected to get
a more holistic sense of participants and their backgrounds but was not intended to be a variable
as a part of this study. It is from the potential of this type of reflection that future studies might
benefit.
Recommendations for Future Research
Research looking into the lives and experiences of formerly incarcerated college students
is prime for further inquiry. This study sets a foundation for looking into concepts such as stigma
and self-efficacy via capabilities and capacity through Bronfenbrenner’s EST as a conceptual
framework. Top to bottom, more must be understood about this nontraditional student group,
from motivations to enroll in college to the desired outcome of earning certificates or degrees if
higher education as a whole looks to serve justice-involved students. From enrollment to
retention to progression to completion, really every aspect of a formerly incarcerated college
student’s life can offer necessary insights to build a better community around them to support,
nurture, and provide the necessary programs and services to help them reach their personal and
professional goals. More research is necessary to inform policies and procedures as well as
protocols and practices to research this population.

114
One particular area of research that this study did not address in any great depth is the
prison-to-college pipeline. The participants of this study were already enrolled and taking
classes, but what about other justice-involved individuals who, for whatever reason, do not turn
toward college after incarceration? Does stigma dissuade justice-involved people from enrolling
once released from custody? Especially for the individuals who may have started their college
education while incarcerated but do not finish once released from custody, what stops them from
further pursuing their postsecondary education? The concepts of stigma, self-efficacy, and
structures and relationships could all benefit from additional study and research to better
understand the obstacles and opportunities for formerly incarcerated college students.
On a system-wide level, it is imperative to have a better understanding how the Rising
Scholars Program supports formerly incarcerated college students. Further research in this area
would have two important implications. First, understanding the role Rising Scholars Program
and the Rising Scholars Network has in the lives of formerly incarcerated college students can
help to build better support services, programming, and partnerships with organizations offcampus. Without a better understanding of what is going well and assisting students but also
where are the gaps, statewide and local programs could be missing necessary services and
support. Second, from a better understanding of the impact of the Rising Scholars Program and
Rising Scholars Network the necessity for continued financial support from federal, state, and
local funding streams. If in fact college helps to deter criminal activity and recidivism, there
would likely be valuable information to decision makers on both sides of the aisle when budgets
are being made and programs are being funded.

115
Conclusion
Formerly incarcerated college students are becoming more visible in California’s higher
education institutions. To reach this often invisible, marginalized, and disenfranchised student
population, lessons from the field, research, and, above all, their own voices must inform best
practices, policies, and procedures that consider their experiences. Through these students’ lived
experiences, this study set out to reveal how the interplay between stigma, self-efficacy, and the
structures and relationships within their spheres of influence affect their perceptions of college
success. Through their perspectives, this study sought to illuminate what these students confront
as they pursue their academic goals.
The purpose of this study was to add to the growing research and literature highlighting
formerly incarcerated college students and bring to light their experiences to create a better
future for these students. It is important that institutions of higher learning recognize these
students’ circumstances to allow for better support on and off campus.

116
References
Abeyta, M. (2020). Formerly incarcerated Latino men in California community colleges. Journal
of Applied Research in the Community College, 27(2), 51–62.
Abeyta, M. (2022). Academic pathways for formerly incarcerated students: “If I could do 12
years in prison, why can’t I do 12 years in college.” Journal Committed to Social Change
on Race and Ethnicity, 8(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2642-2387.2022.8.1.36-
49
Adams, H. (2018). Understanding the experience of women community college transfer students
over the age of 25 at UCLA (Publication No. 10826669) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Agan, A., & Starr, S. (2017). The effect of criminal records on access to employment. The
American Economic Review, 107(5), 560–564. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171003
America Counts Staff. (2021, August 25). California remained the most populous state but
growth slowed last decade. U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/california-population-changebetween-census-decade.html
American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethicscode-2017.pdf
Anderson, K., Varghese, F. P., Trower, E., Sandlin, L., & Norwood, N. (2013). Perceptions of
African American College Applicants: The Roles of Race, Criminal History, and
Qualifications. Race and Social Problems, 5(3), 157–172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-013-9091-0

117
Avant, D. W., Miller-Ott, A. E., & Houston, D. M. (2021). “I needed to aim higher:” Former
foster youths’ pathways to college success. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(4),
1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01892-1
Bagby, J. H., Barnard-Brak, L., Thompson, L. W., & Sulak, T. N. (2015). Is anyone listening?
An ecological systems perspective on veterans transitioning from the military to
academia. Military Behavioral Health, 3(4), 219–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2015.1057306
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist,
37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Baston, M., & Miller, B. (2017). On the other side is the re-engagement of formerly incarcerated
students. In J. R. Chaney & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Race, education, and reintegrating
formerly incarcerated citizens (pp. 61–74). Lexington Books.
Beatty, L. G., & Snell, T. L. (2021). Survey of prison inmates: Profile of prison inmates [Special
report]. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppi16.pdf
Binnall, J. M., Scott-Hayward, C. S., Petersen, N., & Gonzalez, R. M. (2022). Taking roll:
College students’ views of their formerly incarcerated classmates. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, 33(3), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2021.1962932
Bostick, J. D. (2022). Rising Scholars: Narratives of formerly incarcerated/system-impacted
community college students in an on-campus support program [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Loyola Marymount University.

118
Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with education
improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in
the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389–428.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6
Brewis, A., Brennhofer, S., Van Woerden, I., & Bruening, M. (2016). Weight stigma and eating
behaviors on a college campus: Are students immune to stigma’s effects? Preventive
Medicine Reports, 4, 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.10.005
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Eady, E. (2014). Faculty members’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors
Toward their nontraditional students. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,
62(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.956027
Broekemier, G. M. (2002). A comparison of two-year and four-year adult students: Motivations
to attend college and the importance of choice criteria. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 12(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v12n01_03
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. The
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and
fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context:
Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). Psychology Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. N. Postlewaite & T.
Husen (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Elseiver.
Brower, R. L., Bertrand Jones, T., & Hu, S. (2021). Overcoming the “Trash Talk in Your Head”:
Extending an Ethic of Care to Students Experiencing Intersectional Stigma in
Community College. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211006381

119
California Assembly Bill (AB) No. 1008: California Fair Chance Act, 1008 (2017).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1008
California Assembly Bill (AB) No. 109: Criminal Justice Realignment, 109, California
Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown (2011).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB109
California Community Colleges. (2021). Serving California’s incarcerated formerly
incarcerated community college students. https://risingscholarsnetwork.org
California Community Colleges. (2023). Student success metrics dashboard: SSM 5.0: Metric
definition dictionary. California Community Colleges.
https://www.calpassplus.org/Launchboard/Student-Success-MetricsMDD#_Toc138666917
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2023a). Annual/Term student count report.
https://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Headcount_Term_Annual.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2023b). Vision for success: Strengthening
the California community colleges to meet California’s needs. https://www.cccco.edu/-
/media/CCCCO-Website/About-Us/Reports/Files/vision-for-success.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2024). Student enrollment demographics.
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Digital-Innovation-andInfrastructure/research-data-analytics/data-snapshot/student-demographics
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2023a). Custody to Community
Transitional Reentry Program. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/pre-releasecommunity-programs/custody-to-community-transitional-reentry-program/

120
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2023b). Male community reeentry
program. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/pre-release-community-programs/mcrp/
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2023c). Post-secondary education.
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/pse/
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2024). Electronic monitoring.
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/parole/electronic-monitoring/
California State University Office of the Chancellor. (2023). Project Rebound.
https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/student-success/project-rebound
Case, P., Fasenfest, D., Sarri, R., & Phillips, A. (2005). Providing educational support for female
ex-inmates: Project PROVE as a model for social reintegration. Journal of Correctional
Education, 56(2), 146–157.
Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding
disclosure decision making and post-disclosure outcomes among people living with a
concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236–256.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018193
Cheng, W., Ickes, W., & Verhofstadt, L. (2012). How is family support related to students’ GPA
scores? A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 64(3), 399–420.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9501-4
Chow, G. M., Bird, M. D., Gabana, N. T., Cooper, B. T., & Swanbrow Becker, M. A. (2021). A
program to reduce stigma toward mental illness and promote mental health literacy and
help-seeking in national collegiate athletic association Division I student-athletes.
Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 15(3), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2019-
0104

121
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women:
Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy, 15(3), 241–247.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006
Coleman, C. J. (2023). Financial aid knowledge and resources among first-generation college
students. College and University, 98(3), 10–19.
Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. (2021). Annual report and recommendations
California Law Revision Commission.
http://www.clrc.ca.gov/CRPC/Pub/Reports/CRPC_AR2021.pdf
Conley, C. S., Hundert, C. G., Charles, J. L. K., Huguenel, B. M., Al-khouja, M., Qin, S.,
Paniagua, D., & Corrigan, P. W. (2020). Honest, open, proud–college: Effectiveness of a
peer-led small-group intervention for reducing the stigma of mental illness. Stigma and
Health, 5(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000185
Contreras-García, N. (2023). “Setting down roots”—Developing formerly incarcerated student
programs through advocacy and network building. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2023.2256256
Conway, P. F. (2023a). Beyond recidivism: Exploring formerly incarcerated student perspectives
on the value of higher education in prison. Review of Higher Education, 46(4), 453–483.
Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2023.a900569
Conway, P. F. (2023b). ‘Education changes a person’: Exploring student development in a
college-in-prison program through critical andragogy. Teaching in Higher Education,
(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2172568
Corrections: Educational Programs, SB 416, Regular Session, Penal Code (2021).
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB416/id/2436648/California-2021-SB416-Chaptered.html

122
Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. The American Psychologist,
59(7), 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614
Couloute, L. (2018). Getting back on course: Educational exclusion and attainment among
formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/education.html#figure1
Crawford, B. F., Snyder, K. E., & Adelson, J. L. (2020). Exploring obstacles faced by gifted
minority students through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory. High Ability
Studies, 31(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568231
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the
effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide
education to incarcerated individuals. Bureau of Justice Assistance.
El Zein, A., Mathews, A., House, L., & Shelnutt, K. (2018). Why are hungry college students not
seeking help? Predictors of and barriers to using an on-campus food pantry. Nutrients,
10(9), Article 1163. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10091163
Engdahl, O. (2022). Dramaturgical self-efficacy and opportunity structures for white-collar
crime. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 78(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-
021-10012-z
Escobar, E.-K., Jordan, T. R., & Lohrasbi, E. A. (2013). Redefining lives: Post-secondary
education for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. The Vermont Connection,
34(1). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=tvc

123
Friedman, B. D., & Allen, K. (2014). Systems theory. In J. R. Brandell (Ed.), Essentials of
clinical social work (pp. 3–20). Sage. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1132.9281
Friedman, B. D., & Neuman Allen, K. (2021). Systems theory. In J. R. Brandell (Ed.), Theory &
practice in clinical social work (3rd ed., pp. 5–20). Cognella.
Galeste, M.-A. (2019). All support is not created equal: Examination of the positive and negative
emotional family support on recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State University.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
Gore, J. S., Thomas, J., Jones, S., Mahoney, L., Dukes, K., & Treadway, J. (2016). Social factors
that predict fear of academic success. Educational Review, 68(2), 155–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1060585
Green, R. J., & Hill, J. H. (2003). Sex and higher education: Do men and women attend college
for different reasons? College Student Journal, 37(4), 557–563.
Guarneri, J. A., Oberleitner, D. E., & Connolly, S. (2019). Perceived stigma and self-stigma in
college students: A literature review and implications for practice and research. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 48–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2018.1550723
Halkovic, A., & Greene, A. C. (2015). Bearing stigma, carrying gifts: What colleges can learn
from students with incarceration experience. The Urban Review, 47(4), 759–782.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0333-x

124
Haney, C. (2001, January 30–31). The psychological impact of incarceration: Implications for
post-prison adjustment [Paper presentation] From Prison to Home: The Effect of
Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities National Policy
Conference.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//42351/Haney.pdf
Hayes, J., Goss, J., Harris, H., & Grumbs, A. (2019). California’s prison population. Public
Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-prisonpopulation/
Heidemann, G., Cederbaum, J. A., & Martinez, S. (2014). “We walk through it together”: The
importance of peer support for formerly incarcerated women’s success. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 53(7), 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.944741
Henry, B. F., Hartmann, J., Goddard-Eckrich, D., Chang, M., Wu, E., Hunt, T., Gilbert, L.,
Wimberly, A. S., & El-Bassel, N. (2022). Typologies of stressful life events and their
association with sexual risk behaviors and communication among justice-involved males
and their female sex partners. AIDS Education and Prevention, 34(5), 379–394.
https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2022.34.5.379
Herman-Kinney, N. J., & Kinney, D. A. (2013). Sober as deviant: The stigma of sobriety and
how some college students “stay dry” on a “wet” campus. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 42(1), 64–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241612458954
Hernandez, J. L., Murillo, D., & Britton, T. (2022). Hustle in higher education: How Latinx
students with conviction histories move from surviving to thriving in higher education.
The American Behavioral Scientist, 66(10), 1394–1417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211054827

125
Hilliard, R. C., Redmond, L. A., & Watson, J. C. (2019). Differences in stigma and attitudes
toward counseling between college student-athletes and non-athletes. Journal of College
Student Psychotherapy, 33(4), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2018.1504639
Jeffers, A. R. (2017). Reflections of academic experiences from formerly incarcerated African
American males. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 222–240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301834
Jepson, J. A., & Tobolowsky, B. F. (2020). From delay to degree: The postsecondary
experiences of six nontraditional students. Journal of College Student Retention, 22(1),
27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117724347
John Jay College Institute for Justice and Opportunity, & The City University of New York.
(2021). College after prison: A review of the literature on barriers and supports to
postsecondary education for formerly incarcerated college students.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED615575.pdf
Johnson, R. M., & Mayweather, L. (2023). Examining the experiences of formerly incarcerated
black men at community colleges: The role of community cultural wealth. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 36(3), 287–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2127015
Kaeble, D. (2021). Time served in state prisons 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp18.pdf
Kallman, M. E. (2020). “Living More Through Knowing More”: College education in prison
classrooms. Adult Education Quarterly, 70(4), 321–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713619889589

126
Keller, B. (2022). What’s a prison for? Punishment and rehabilitation in the age of mass
incarceration. Columbia Global Reports.
Kitchin, J. L., & Karlin, N. J. (2022). Awareness and stigma of autism spectrum disorders in
undergraduate students. Psychological Reports, 125(4), 2069–2087.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211014144
Kling, J. R. (2006). Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings. The American Economic
Review, 96(3), 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.3.863
Lea, C. H., III, Crumé, H. J., & Hill, D. (2020). “Traditions are not for me”: Curriculum,
alternative schools, and formerly incarcerated young Black men’s academic success.
Social Sciences, 9(12), 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120233
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (2017). Barriers to successful re-entry
of formerly incarcerated people [Fact sheet]. http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/criminaljustice/Re-Entry-Fact-Sheet.pdf
LeBel, T. P. (2012). Invisible stripes? Formerly incarcerated persons’ perceptions of stigma.
Deviant Behavior, 33(2), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.538365
Lim, S., Lambie, I., & Van Toledo, A. (2019). Characteristics of female youth offenders in New
Zealand. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
63(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18799002
Lindsay, S. L. (2022). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: How formerly incarcerated men
navigate the labor market with prison credentials. Criminology, 60(3), 455–479.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12307
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1),
363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

127
Livingston, L., & Miller, J. (2014). Inequalities of race, class, and place and their impact on postincarceration higher education. Race and Justice, 4(3), 212–245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368714532952
Lofstrom, M., Goss, J. Hayes, J., & Martin, B. (2019a). Arrests in California counties. Public
Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/arrests-incalifornias-counties.pdf
Lofstrom, M., Goss, J., Hayes, J., & Martin, B. (2019b). Racial disparities in California arrests
(Just the facts). Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wpcontent/uploads/racial-disparities-in-california-arrests.pdf
MacKillop, J. (2017). Creating counterspaces in college. In J. R. Chaney & J. Schwartz (Eds.),
Race, education, and reintegrating formerly incarcerated citizens: Counterstories and
counterspaces (pp. 165–176) Lexington Books.
McCorkell, L., & Hinkley, S. (2019). Finding employment after contact with the carceral system
[Policy Brief]. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Finding-Employment-AfterContact-with-the-Carceral-System-1.pdf
McTier, T. S., Jr., Briscoe, K. L., & Davis, T. J. (2020). College administrators’ beliefs and
perceptions of college students with criminal records. Journal of Student Affairs Research
and Practice, 57(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1648273
McTier, T. S., Jr., Smith, C. T., Smith, G., Hodges, A., & Bah, S. (2023). Full-time students with
part-time benefits: How being denied on-campus housing affects college students with
criminal records. Journal of College Student Retention, 24(4), 947–972.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120960667

128
Menting, P. (2021, November 23). Bakersfield College was awarded $5 million from the U.S.
Department of Education. 23 ABC News.
https://www.bakersfieldcollege.edu/news/2021/1123-bakersfield-college-receives-5-
million-grant-designed-to-support-the-hispanic-serving.html
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Michael, R. (2019). Self‐efficacy and future career expectations of at‐risk adolescents: The
contribution of a tutoring program. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(4), 913–923.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22163
Middlemass, K. (2017). Convicted and condemned: The politics and policies of prisoner reentry.
New York University Press.
Middlemass, K. M., & Smiley, C. (Eds.). (2019). Prisoner reentry in the 21st century: Critical
perspectives of returning home (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351138246
Miller, B., Mondesir, J., Stater, T., & Schwartz, J. (2014). Returning to school after
incarceration: Policy, prisoners, and the classroom. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 2014(144), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20115
Milovanska-Farrington, S. (2020). Reasons to attend college, academic success, and post-college
plans. Education Economics, 28(5), 526–547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1801597
Moore, K., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. (2013). Jail inmates perceived and anticipated stigma:
Implications for post-release functioning. Self and Identity, 12(5), 527–547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.702425

129
Moore, K. E., Milam, K. C., Folk, J. B., & Tangney, J. P. (2018). Self-stigma among criminal
offenders: Risk and protective factors. Stigma and Health, 3(3), 241–252.
https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000092
Moore, K. E., Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. B. (2016). Self-stigma of individuals with criminal
records scale [Dataset]. American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t53158-000
Morris, P. A., Carpenter, D., Agbonlahor, O., & Rodriguez, F. (2022). Examining mental health
stigma in a first-year seminar for student veterans. Journal of American College Health,
70(8), 2247–2252. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1851231
Mowen, T. J., Stansfield, R., & Boman, J. H., IV. (2019). Family matters: Moving beyond “if”
family support matters to “why” family support matters during reentry from prison.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(4), 483–523.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818820902
Mukamal, D. A. (2000). Confronting the employment barriers of criminal records: Effective
legal and practical strategies. Clearinghouse Review, 33, 597.
https://law.stanford.edu/publications/confronting-the-employment-barriers-of-criminalrecords-effective-legal-and-practical-strategies/
Mukamal, D. A., Silbert, R., & Taylor, R. M. (2015). Degrees of Freedom: Expanding College
Opportunities for Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Californians. Stanford Criminal
Justice Center. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/degrees-of-freedom-expandingcollege-opportunities-for-currently-and-formerly-incarcerated-californians/
Murillo, D. (2021). The possibility report: From prison to college degrees in California. The
Campaign for College Opportunity. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613716.pdf

130
Nolan, H. A., & Owen, K. (2024). Medical student experiences of equality, diversity, and
inclusion: Content analysis of student feedback using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), Article 5.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04986-8
Oakford, P., Brumfield, C., Goldvale, C., Tatum, L., diZerega, M., & Patrick, F. (2019).
Investing in futures: Economic and fiscal benefits of postsecondary education in prison.
Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality & Vera Institute of Justice.
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/investing-in-futures.pdf
Ott, M., & McTier, T. (2021). Should students with criminal convictions be allowed to
participate in higher education? What faculty think. College and University, 96(1), 57–
60, 62.
Ott, M., & McTier, T. S. (2020). Faculty attitudes toward college students with criminal records.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4), 297–308.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000138
Overton, J., Fretwell, M. D., & Dum, C. P. (2022). Who do you trust? College students’
attribution of stigma to peers with incarceration histories. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 18(4), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09463-0
Paat, Y.-F. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 23(8), 954–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.800007
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–
975. https://doi.org/10.1086/374403

131
Paragini, A., Henrichson, C., Schattner-Elmaleh, E., Kang-Brown, J., Hinds, O., & Wallace-Lee,
J. (2019). Incarceration trends in California: Incarceration in local jails and state
prisons. Vera Institute of Justice & Arnold Ventures.
https://www.vera.org/downloads/pdfdownloads/state-incarceration-trends-california.pdf
Pattyn, E., Verhaeghe, M., Sercu, C., & Bracke, P. (2014). Public stigma and self-stigma:
Differential association with attitudes toward formal and informal help-seeking.
Psychiatric Services, 65(2), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200561
Pescosolido, B. A., Perry, B. L., & Krendl, A. C. (2020). Empowering the next generation to end
stigma by starting the conversation: Bring change to mind and the college toolbox
project. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(4),
519–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.06.016
Petek, G. (2023). The 2023-2024 Budget: The California department of corrections and
rehabilitation. Legislative Analyst’s Office. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2023/4686/CDCRBudget-021623.pdf
Phinney, J. S., Dennis, J., & Osorio, S. (2006). Reasons to attend college among ethnically
diverse college students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 347–
366. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.2.347
Pompoco, A., Wooldridge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing inmate
misconduct and prison returns with facility education programs: Prison education
programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-
9133.12290

132
Potts, K. S., & Bierlein Palmer, L. (2014). Voices of parolees attending community college:
Helping individuals and society. Community College Review, 42(4), 267–282.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552114534725
Quach, K., Cerda-Jara, M., Deverux, R., & Smith, J. (2022). Prison, college, and the labor
market: A critical analysis by formerly incarcerated and justice-impacted students. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 701(1), 78–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221112772
Remenick, L. (2019). Services and support for nontraditional students in higher education: A
historical literature review. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(1), 113–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419842880
Rising Scholars Network. (2021a). Program directory. California Community Colleges and the
Foundation for California Community Colleges.
https://risingscholarsnetwork.org/programdirectory/?_program_keyword_search=Palo%20Verde%20College#directory-list
Rising Scholars Network. (2021b). Serving formerly incarcerated students: Guiding principles.
California Community Colleges. https://risingscholarsnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/Guiding-Principles-On-Campus-Final-FINAL-s.pdf
Roksa, J., & Kinsley, P. (2019). The role of family support in facilitating academic success of
low-income students. Research in Higher Education, 60(4), 415–436.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9517-z
Rosser-Mims, D., Palmer, G. A., & Harroff, P. (2014). The reentry adult college student: An
exploration of the Black Male experience. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 2014(144), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20114

133
Rudick, C. K., & Dannels, D. P. (2018). Yes, and …: Continuing the scholarly conversation
about mental health stigma in higher education. Communication Education, 67(3), 404–
408. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1467563
Senate Bill No. 1391, No. 1391, California State Senate, 3 (2014).
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_1351-
1400/sb_1391_bill_20140630_amended_asm_v96.htm
Shalka, T. R., & Leal, C. C. (2022). Sense of belonging for college students with PTSD: The role
of safety, stigma, and campus climate. Journal of American College Health, 70(3), 698–
705. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1762608
Shi, L., Silver, J. R., & Hickert, A. (2022). Conceptualizing and measuring public stigma toward
people with prison records. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(11), 1676–1698.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221108932
Simons, H. D., Bosworth, C., Fujita, S., & Jensen, M. (2007). The athlete stigma in higher
education. College Student Journal, 41, 251–273.
Smith, L., & Digard, L. (2020). From corrections to college in California: An evaluation of
student support during and after incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice.
Stevens, C. (2018). Fat on campus: Fat college students and hyper(in)visible stigma. Sociological
Focus, 51(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2017.1368839
Stewart, R., & Uggen, C. (2020). Criminal records and college admissions: A modified
experimental audit. Criminology, 58(1), 156–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-
9125.12229
Strayhorn, T. L., Johnson, R. M., & Barrett, B. A. (2013). Investigating the college adjustment
and transition experiences of formerly incarcerated Black male collegians at

134
predominantly White institutions. Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, 2(1), 73–98.
https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.2.1.73
Suárez-Orozco, C., Katsiaficas, D., Birchall, O., Alcantar, C. M., Hernandez, E., Garcia, Y.,
Michikyan, M., Cerda, J., & Teranishi, R. T. (2015). Undocumented undergraduates on
college campuses: Understanding their challenges and assets and what it takes to make an
undocufriendly campus. Harvard Educational Review, 85(3), 427–463.
https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.3.427
Taylor, C. J. (2015). Gendered pathways to recidivism: Differential effects of family support by
gender. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(3), 169–183.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989305
Taylor, C. J. (2016). The family’s role in the reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals:
The direct effects of emotional support. The Prison Journal, 96(3), 331–354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516635085
Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on student persistence. Student Success, 8(2), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.376
Tomar, N., Jensen, T. M., & Pace, N. (2022). An intervention framework for addressing stigma
on college campuses: Findings from a 3-year-long intervention program. The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 210(9), 708–715.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001527
Truesdale-Moore, S. Y., & Lewis, J. S. (2023). In the mix: A phenomenological study examining
college campus experiences of formerly incarcerated students. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, (ahead-of-print), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2023.2234777

135
Vera Institute of Justice. (2023). Incarceration trends: California.
https://trends.vera.org/state/CA
Vilorio, D. (2016). Data on display: Education matters. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2016/data-on-display/education-matters.htm
Vogel, D. L., Bitman, R. L., Hammer, J. H., & Wade, N. G. (2013). Is stigma internalized? The
longitudinal impact of public stigma on self-stigma. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
60(2), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031889
Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Haake, S. (2006). Measuring the self-stigma associated with
seeking psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 325–337.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.325
Whipple, C. R., Jason, L. A., & Robinson, W. L. (2016). Housing and abstinence self-efficacy in
formerly incarcerated individuals. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(8), 548–563.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1229713
Wolf Harlow, C. (2003). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Education and correctional
populations. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

PDF

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

Understanding barriers and resiliency: experiences from Latina leaders in local government

PDF

Navigating the academy and beyond: an examination of major and career self-efficacy of Latin* first-generation college students

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

What will I be when I grow up? Understanding how the lived experiences of African American community college students impact their academic major choices

PDF

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

Exploring the scholarly writing development of master’s nursing students

PDF

A qualitative examination of educational re-entry programs for formerly incarcerated students attending 4-year institutions: perceptions of effectiveness by staff

Asset Metadata

Creator Hirayama, Bryan Ross (author)

Core Title Stigma, self-efficacy, and spheres of influence: factors that impact college success for formerly incarcerated college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/01/2024

Defense Date 04/22/2024

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

Tag capabilities and capacity,Communication,confidence,formerly incarcerated college students,justice-involved,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,spheres of influence,stigma,structures and relationships

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis Jr. (committee chair), Choate, Brantley (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email bhirayam@usc.edu,bryan.hirayama@bakersfieldcollege.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113920228

Unique identifier UC113920228

Identifier etd-HirayamaBr-12886.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HirayamaBr-12886

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Hirayama, Bryan Ross

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240507-usctheses-batch-1148 (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