University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A Qualitative Examination of Educational Re-Entry Programs for Formerly
Incarcerated Students Attending 4-Year Institutions: Perceptions of Effectiveness by Staff

by

Brittaney Shanae Dennis

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

December 2021

© Copyright by Brittaney Dennis 2011
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Brittaney Shanae Dennis certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Nicole Marie-Gerardi Maccalla, Ph.D.
Shelia M. Banuelos, Ed. D
Ruth Chung Ph.D, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how Project Rebound, the
current educational re-entry programs at the California State Universities (CSU) identify and
engage FIS. This qualitative study addressed the following research questions. (1) do
educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions recruit and retain formerly incarcerated
students (FIS)? (2) How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions define
programmatic success as it relates to recruitment, retainment, and service of formerly
incarcerated students (FIS)? (3) According to staff within educational re-entry programs at 4-
year institutions, what do they perceive are the met and unmet needs of formerly incarcerated
students (FIS)? Several themes emerged in the study, which included the utilization of direct and
indirect outreach practices, fostering and sustaining connections, outcome measures as it relates
to recruitment, retention and services of formerly incarcerated students, and supportive structures
within the educational re-entry program. Findings of this study provided greater understanding
to the importance of educational reentry programs within 4-year institutions. Implications for
policy makers, institutional leaders and practitioners are discussed.

v
Dedication
To the many staff employed by California State University Project Rebound. Thank you for
trusting me with your stories of encouragement, success, and passion. I hope that this research
aids in expanding the necessary educational support of formerly incarcerated students across this
nation.

vi
Acknowledgements
This research would have not been possible, without the spiritual guidance of my late
“PaPa” Mr. Acenayer Brown Sr. I remembered him telling me, while sitting in his living room
chair, “baby girl, if you are going to go to college, go all the way up, up to the top”. I kept his
message in the back of my mind, which carried me through this challenging dissertation process.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee members for their guidance throughout this
dissertation process. Their support was greatly appreciated, especially during the times when I
saw no end to my writing.
I would like to also extend my appreciation and gratitude to all the Project Rebound staff
that participated in my interviews. Your patience, consideration, and wisdom were beyond
impactful to this research, and I could not have started and finished this process without your
knowledge.
This research has been a major part of my life for the past 15 months. My mother and
father sacrificed time, along with my siblings and friends, to ensure that I got through this
process. I thank you all for motivating me, and encouraging me to push, when I felt as though
there was no light at the end of the tunnel.
Finally, the most beneficial guidance to my research was my Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. I honor Him for His motivation and encouragement that He bestowed upon me. I thank
Him for using the Holy Spirit as a voice of affirmation and reason for me during this process. I
was able to have completed this research because of Him.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
United States Incarceration History .................................................................................... 1
Education and Recidivism .................................................................................................. 2
Formerly Incarcerated Students and Higher Education ..................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Recruitment and Retention of FIS ...................................................................................... 9
State of Existing Educational Re-entry Programs ............................................................ 13
Student Enrollment ........................................................................................................... 14
Student Retention and Persistence .................................................................................... 15
Content and Structure of Institutional Services ................................................................ 16
Perceived Programmatic Success by those Delivering Re-entry Services ....................... 18
Summary of Literature Review ......................................................................................... 20
Theoretical Framework- Funds of Knowledge ................................................................. 21
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................. 22
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 24
Interpretivist Paradigm...................................................................................................... 24
Qualitative Research Approach ........................................................................................ 24

viii
Participants and Selection Criteria .................................................................................... 25
Demographics of Participants ........................................................................................... 26
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 26
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 27
Positionality of the Researcher ......................................................................................... 28
Trustworthiness and Credibility ........................................................................................ 29
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 31
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 31
Theme 1: Direct and Indirect Outreach Practices ............................................................. 32
Theme 2: Fostering and Sustaining Connections.............................................................. 34
Theme 3: Measures of Success ......................................................................................... 37
Theme 4: Supportive Structures........................................................................................ 40
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 44
Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................ 44
Foster and Sustaining Connections ................................................................................... 46
Outcome Measures............................................................................................................ 48
Supportive Structures ........................................................................................................ 48
Implications for Policy Makers and Practitioners ............................................................. 50
Policy Makers and Institutional Leaders........................................................................... 50
References ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 64
Participant List .................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 65
Interview Protocol ............................................................................................................. 65
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 67

ix
Informed Consent for Research ........................................................................................ 67
1

Chapter One: Introduction
United States Incarceration History
The history of incarceration within the United States is significant. Over the past three
decades, the United States has experienced incarceration rates that have nearly quintupled, with
1,610,584 prisoners currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons (Sabol, West & Cooper,
2009). Additionally, in 2011, the U.S. was ranked as having the largest incarcerated population
in the world with over 2.2 million people in adult jails and prisons (Human Rights Watch, 2014,
para. 5). Approximately 2.3 million adults can be found under some type of penal control. Since
the 1960s, the number of incarcerated individuals can be attributed to decades of tough on crime
policies, controversial police practices, and racism (Esparza Flores, 2018). About half of state
prison inmates in 2009 were serving time for violent offenses, and 19 percent, 18 percent, and 9
percent of state prison inmates were serving time for property, drug, and public-order offenses,
respectively (Davis, et al., 2017). Mass incarceration has raised significant social justice issues,
especially since it has been heavily concentrated on poor, uneducated Black and African
American men (Esparza Flores, 2018).
An enduring problem facing the broader system of criminal justice is the high rate of
recidivism in the United States. Within three years of release, four out of ten U.S. state prisoners
will have committed new crimes or violated the terms of their release and be reincarcerated (Pew
Center on the States, 2011; Davis et al., 2017). It is estimated that the U.S. releases 7 million
people from jail and 600,000 from prison (People, 2020), and is identified as also having the
highest rates of individuals rearrested. Many of these ex-offenders find themselves unemployed
and uneducated, putting them higher at risk for recidivism (Esparza Flores, 2018). Formerly
incarcerated people return to their communities, which frequently are areas with the least
2

capacity to provide them with needed assistance, and all too often, end up returning to prison.
Although incarceration experiences are individualistic, there are several factors that have been
identified which contribute to an increase in recidivism among this population, including poor
education, racial injustice, and unemployment. Education has been identified as an intervention
that can significantly improve the quality of life for formerly incarcerated individuals.
Education and Recidivism
Many formerly incarcerated individuals are unable to break the rearrest cycle due to lack
of education and workforce skills. It is estimated that 40 percent of federal and state prisoners
lack a high school credential compared to less than 20 percent of the general population (Tolbert,
2012). The deprivation of educational opportunities is perhaps the most significant of the risks
of incarceration, with approximately 68% of the incarcerated persons in state prisons in the
United States without a high school diploma (Fullilove et al., 2020). Education has been a proven
intervention to support recidivism for pre and post incarceration. According to the 2019 meta-
analysis conducted by the RAND Corporation, inmates participating in correctional education
programs were 28% less likely to recidivate when compared with inmates who did not
participate in correctional education programs (McWilliams, 2019). The United States
Sentencing Commission similarly revealed that inmates with less than a high school diploma had
recidivism rates of over 60 percent, while those with a college degree had a 19 percent
recidivism rate. Findings of alternative studies also indicate that correctional education improves
the chances that inmates who are released from prison will not return and may improve their
chances of post-release employment (Davis, et al., 2017)).
3

Formerly Incarcerated Students and Higher Education
States across the U.S. have adopted post-incarceration educational opportunities for
formerly incarcerated students. Many of these programs exist at the community college level,
with California spearheading many of these educational re-entry programs. Higher education
participation among formerly incarcerated students in California has grown exponentially over
the past five years (Colleges, 2020). Programs and student clubs for formerly incarcerated
students on campus have also expanded from fewer than ten to more than 50, serving over 1,000
students in 2019 at University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU)
campuses and California community colleges (CCC) throughout the state. California’s
momentum is mirrored on the national scale where the movement to expand higher education to
incarcerated and formerly incarcerated students (FIS) has gained bipartisan national traction
(Colleges, 2020).
With the implementation of such educational programs for formerly incarcerated,
research has been tailored specifically towards students within 2-year institutions or community
colleges. This is in part to a 2014 state law (SB 1391) that allowed California community
colleges to teach face-to-face in prison and to be compensated for enrolled incarcerated students
just as if those students were on campus. By 2019, 19 community colleges were offering face-to-
face degree-granting courses in nearly all the state’s 35 prisons to almost 6,000 unique students.
The expansion of educational opportunities specific to individuals with forensic history
warranted a closer lens on this topic, specific to the institutions providing the service. This is due
in part to the increase in the diversity of the student population, including FIS, and the increase
in educational expectations of individuals entering the workforce.
4

Universities and community colleges hold a responsibility to support all students. This
includes identifying services specific to diverse populations. Educational disparities exist for
individuals who have been incarcerated. Institutions of higher education must meet objectives to
create inclusive and equitable campus environments for formerly incarcerated students (Castro &
Zamani-Gallaher, 2018). Individuals with incarceration history are often stigmatized, even
within higher education. Formerly incarcerated students who identify themselves as a part of
communities of color, LGBTQ individuals, people with histories of mental illness or substance
abuse, are at even higher rates of stigmatization and under representation throughout higher
education (Castro & Zamani-Gallaher, 2018). Formerly incarcerated students fall into a diverse
and vulnerable population that can benefit from inclusive spaces, provided within educational
institutions. Many educational institutions hold organizational goals around the concept of
diversity and inclusion. Moreover, by providing students with positive social networks, a college
education can mitigate the effects of barriers to social and economic stability (Californians,
2015). There is a greater good regarding societal responsibility to assist vulnerable populations
towards being productive citizens of society, as they enter the workforce.
Historical access to education by individuals with incarceration history has started at the
GED level, with a slow direction towards the community college level. Currently there exists
many communities’ college educational re-entry programs for FIS, and literature that reviews
program services. According to the 2018 report by Corrections to College California which
documents how California leads the nation in using public higher education to address mass
incarceration, community colleges are identified as the primary point of entry for most
incarcerated and formerly incarcerated students (2018). Community colleges are “open access,”
meaning they must enroll any student over 18 who can benefit from instruction (Corrections to
5

College California, 2018). Accessibility to community colleges as a starting point for higher
education has been even more pronounced with 90% of California's jail inmates reportedly less
than ten miles from a community college. However, with the bachelor’s degrees steadily
increasing as a requirement for well-paying jobs, it becomes important to not just focus on FIS
benefiting from community college levels, but 4-year institutions as well. Not until 2016 did 4-
year institutions within California begin to develop re-entry educational programs. In such, there
is significance with studying the need and expansion of these programs within the 4-year
institutional space, to ensure that FIS not only obtain quality education, but have access to the
job market upon graduation.
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education senior writer Goldie Blumenstyk
(2020), by the year 2020, nearly two-thirds of all jobs will require postsecondary education and
training. This statistic points to the importance of educating all people, including those
forensically involved, not solely to prevent recidivism, but also to ensure that once education is
obtained, it qualifies the individual to access the workforce and subsequently lead productive
lives. The adoption of educational re-entry programs beyond the community college level, will
prove beneficial to academia, and allow access to a diverse population of students.
Research has generally been focused on post-incarceration programs within the
community college level and their effectiveness, with limited attention to 4-year institutions.
Given the lack of literature on perceived programmatic success of 4-year re-entry programs for
FIS, this study makes a recommendation for future inquiry into this important issue. There is an
avenue within the literature that identifies how post-secondary educational programs account for
success regarding retention, recruitment, and persistence of FIS.
6

Statement of the Problem
Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the development of educational re-
entry programs for FIS. In 2019 California state legislation was passed to support this
population. Budget Assembly Trailer Bill 1809 provided $5 million in one-time funding to
establish or support programs serving FIS enrolled in community college or providing face-to-
face instruction to community college students in prison or jail (Colleges, 2020). California’s
public higher education growth outpaces any other state, but the momentum is reflected
throughout the country (Colleges, 2020). As the movement to expand higher education access to
FIS grows, understanding the outcomes and effectiveness of such programs is also important.
Research has identified the challenges that FIS face within educational environments, and
the potential institutional practices that can positively influence acclimation to the new
environment. This is identified via the 2015 Degrees of Freedom report. This report reported that
financial barriers, college readiness and campus climate presented as barriers for FIS that
influenced their ability to remain enrolled at their college. Research also identifies how
community colleges have created such spaces to assist FIS with this transition. This is evident as
most of the California Community Colleges have developed an educational re-entry program
targeting FIS. Despite the development of re-entry programs at the community college level,
there lacks significant research on the utility of these programs, particularly at the 4-year
institution level. 4-year institutions like the California State Universities, have begun including
reentry programs into their educational environments. This is a notable transition, to encourage
students to move beyond the establishment of programs at the community college level. There is
need for Research around how students are recruited, retained, as well as the perceived
programmatic success particularly by the staff involved in such programs.
7

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how Project Rebound,
the current educational re-entry programs at the California State Universities (CSU) identify and
engage FIS. This study examined how the universities recruit FIS and retain them within their
institution. This study identified how these institutions perceive and measure the success of their
educational programs and how successful they are in meeting their goals of recruiting and
retaining former incarcerated students. The specific questions explored in this study are as
follows:
1. How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions recruit and retain
formerly incarcerated students (FIS)?
2. How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions define programmatic
success as it relates to recruitment, retainment, and service of formerly
incarcerated students (FIS)?
3. According to staff within educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions,
what do they perceive are the met and unmet needs of formerly incarcerated
students (FIS)?
Importance of the Study
Higher education participation among justice-involved students in California has grown
exponentially over the past five years (Colleges 2020). Formerly incarcerated students in
California community colleges — both incarcerated and formerly incarcerated — are succeeding
academically across multiple dimensions (Colleges 2020). As the movement to expand higher
education for formerly incarcerated individuals, most of the attention has been on how such
students acclimate to the educational environments of 2-year institutions. With the development
8

of re-entry programs like Project Rebound within several California universities, there is a need
to expand research on the retention, support, and institutional practices of these 4-year
institutions. The success of these students demonstrates the magnitude and significance of
increasing support not just via the community college level but expanding it to the university
level. Therefore, a systematic examination of institutional practices to recruit and retain FIS is
important to understanding the degree to which support services are available, how they are
operationalized, and how successful they are. With the conclusions reached from this study, it is
hoped that the leadership within 4-year institutions develop a method to collect and examine the
success of their educational re-entry program to encourage other 4-year institutions to adopt a
model that expands educational opportunities for FIS.
Limitations
This study does embody limitations. This qualitative research lends itself to
understanding a specialized group, that being FIS. Three of these limitations that exist include:
the sample size, the results of the study only apply to those staff being studied, and the results are
only applicable to staff within Project Rebound at the various California State Universities. The
focus of this study is not to be generalized to a broad population, but to provide an in-depth view
of the perceptions of staff working within a Project Rebound. The participants of this study are a
relatively small group, which will mean that the findings of this study will only be applicable to
that group.

9

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the literature related to how 4-year institutions
recruit, retain and support FIS as well as how these institutions evaluate perceived success of
their programs. Overall, there is minimal research available with respect to how educational re-
entry programs recruit, retain and support formerly incarcerated studies, specifically at the 4-year
institution level. Additionally, there has not been any research that looks at the perceived
programmatic success of such programs, from the lenses of staff, employed within these
programs. Despite the limited research pertaining to this topic, a review of the literature
pertaining to the institutional practices that support formerly incarcerated students will be
discussed in this chapter. Although there is a lack of research concerning how educational re-
entry programs perceive their effectiveness, this offers a space for new opportunities to develop
in this area of study, and hopefully inspire future explorations of educational programs for the
incarcerated.
This chapter reviews the literature in four main areas related to the study: recruitment and
retention of FIS, the needs of FIS as it pertains to their post-secondary education, the state of
current educational re-entry programs that support FIS, a review of the content and structure of
institutional services, and lastly identifying how the current analysis of perceived programmatic
success by those delivering re-entry services is outlined in the literature.
Recruitment and Retention of FIS
One of the initial challenges faced by FIS is access to post-secondary educational
institutions. It is not uncommon for FIS to believe that due to their criminal history, they lack the
ability to idealize higher education, let alone apply to such institutions. In this section, I will be
10

reviewing the research that addresses recruitment and retention practices within higher
educational institutions.
Recruitment of FIS consists of the method in which students become aware of academic
educational re-entry programs, as well as the practices that educational institutions conduct to
outreach and engage potential FIS.
A historical study conducted in 1979, demonstrated the beginnings around access,
recruitment, and retention amongst FIS. A comprehensive mixed-methods study by Rose & Nyre
(1979) detailed postsecondary educational programs available to inmates and ex-offenders in the
State of California. The study collected data in the five following areas: 1) correctional
institutions and postsecondary institutions; 2) surveys of inmates, wards, ex-offenders,
employees of correctional institutions and faculty from participating colleges; 3) parolees who
participated in a postsecondary education program while incarcerated; 4) case study site visits to
prison-based post-secondary programs; and 5) case study site visits to ex-offender programs
offered by postsecondary institutions. One of the major study findings was focused on the ability
for FIS to remain within their degree program. Findings noted lack of access to funding
resources as a primary barrier for FIS. Although conducted very early on, the findings in this
study continue to mimic the same limitations that FIS holds today.
In 2015 the Center for Community Alternatives conducted a study on the State University
of New York (SUNY) to explain how the use of the criminal history box in college applications,
and the supplemental requirements and procedures that follow, create barriers to higher
education for otherwise qualified candidates (2015). This study reviewed an access point that
potentially decreased the likelihood of FIS moving forward with applying at universities. Study
findings were as follows: almost every two out of three applicants who disclosed a felony
11

conviction were denied access to higher education, but not because of a purposeful denial of their
application, but because they were driven out of the application process (Alternatives, 2015).
The case study argued that asking potential students about their forensic history, along with
requesting supplemental information regarding their charges, deter students from application
completion, and subsequently stagnating the universities’ ability to recruitment of FIS.
Another study that explored the recruitment barriers faced by FIS, was reviewed in 2015
Stanford Law School, in collaboration with the University of California Berkeley School of Law
report titled Degrees of Freedom: Expanding College Opportunities for Currently and Formerly
Incarcerated California’s. This report detailed expanding college opportunities for currently and
formerly incarcerated Californians. One major discovery included the importance of having
faculty and staff with lived experience, as a tool to recruit prospective students. Prospective
students are typically engaged while still incarcerated at a local jail or prison. Utilizing faculty
and staff who share similar incarceration history as the student, was found to create a space to
build rapport and engagement, and subsequently encourage enrollment into the institution.
However, the report noted that such faculty and staff can be barred from entering local prisons or
jails because of those same prior convictions, particularly if the person is still under probation or
parole supervision (Californians, 2015). It then becomes important for the program to build
strong community relationships with the management and wardens of the jails and prison, to
create an avenue where recruitment of prospective students is unchallenging. Nonetheless,
utilizing individuals who were also previously incarcerated, was of significant benefit to the
education re-entry program.
In addition to describing recruitment barriers of FIS, the report also reviewed limitations
to the retention of FIS. This included college readiness and financial challenges. Once enrolled,
12

FIS may not be ready for college-level coursework and may struggle to persist to completion of a
degree or certificate (Californians, 2015). Successful programs manage expectations and
perform vital triage to route potential and current students to academic support and college
readiness classes before those students commit to loans and enroll in courses that they may not
be able to complete successfully (Californians, 2015). With respect to funding challenges, FIS
often faces hardships with finding academic resources, including textbooks, which impacts their
ability to continue with their degree program. In interviews, students, educators, and program
administrators throughout California emphasized the hurdle presented by the high cost of
textbooks (Californians, 2015). Additionally, the report identified a difference in access to
private versus public educational institutions exists, in part due to funding availability.
Another collaborative study, conducted in 2020 by the California Corrections to Colleges
and Stanford Law School organization reviewed areas that influenced retention amongst FIS at
the community college level. This includes identifying and connecting students to funding
sources, creating educational re-entry programs and clubs on campus and bringing awareness of
FIS to university stakeholders, including District administrators and District trustees. Eleven
California Community Colleges voluntarily between the spring 2018 through the fall 2018
around their student population. Retention levels were evaluated to identify the effectiveness of
their academic support for FIS. As it relates to retention, more than half (57.5%) of the formerly
incarcerated students in the spring 2018 semester continued their studies into the fall 2018
semester (Silbert et al., 2020). The study also identified that formerly incarcerated students were
more likely to be enrolled full-time than other students and that the median semester GPA for
FIS was found to be higher than the media grade earned across the entire campus (Silbert, et al.,
2020). The study presented that when students are recruited and provided the necessary
13

educational support; they typically will remain enrolled in their degree program and perform
high academically.
State of Existing Educational Re-entry Programs
The review of the literature clearly identified a dearth of information on current FIS on
college campuses (Dubkin-Lee, 2016). California’s public colleges and universities have a rich
history of providing supportive services for students with criminal histories living in the
community (Californians, 2015). FIS have become more visible on the state's college campuses
in recent years, with the expansion of Project Rebound at California State University campuses
and growing support networks at community colleges (Rancano, 2020). In 2018, Corrections to
College published a report on how California leads the nation in using public higher education to
address mass incarceration. The report noted that more than any other state in the nation,
California’s public higher education system (College, 2018) has been meeting the needs of
formerly incarcerated students, particularly with the passing of state legislation (SB 1391) which
allowed community colleges compensation for teaching currently incarcerated and formerly
incarcerated students. The report detailed that on-campus support programs have developed at
the 4-year university level, including Project Rebound. Project Rebound is an educational re-
entry program which has expanded amongst the various California State University campuses
(CSU). In addition to the Project Rebound expansion, the Underground Scholars Initiative has
expanded throughout the University of California system, to include UCLA and a sister program
at UC Davis (Colleges 2018).
A supportive organizational infrastructure over the various Project Rebound campuses is
The California Statues University Project Rebound Consortium (CSU Project Rebound
Consortium). The mission of the consortium is to make higher education more accessible and
14

supportive to formerly incarcerated students (Munoz-Murillo, 2020). The CSU Project Rebound
Consortium envisions a just and equitable world in which all people, including those with an
incarceration experience, have access to high-quality higher education and comprehensive
student support services that foster achievement, transformation, empowerment, social
responsibility, and flourishing (Munoz-Murillo, 2020). These comprehensive services consists
five key service objectives including building recruitment pathways for currently and formerly
incarcerated people; helping prospective students prepare, apply and matriculate; supporting
enrolled students to persist, graduate and pursue career options; supporting enrolled students to
participate in student life and leadership, community service and civic engagement; establishing
and fostering empowering networks amongst Project Rebound alumni and students. According to
their 2020 Annual Report, a strategic plan was developed to make higher education more
accessible and supportive to formerly incarcerated students (Munoz-Murillo, 2020).
According to their 2020 Annual Report, a strategic plan was developed to make higher
education more accessible and supportive to formerly incarcerated students (Munoz-Murillo,
2020). The report also outlined findings including student enrollment, student retention and
persistence, recidivism rates and outreach and recruitment findings.
Student Enrollment
According to the 2020 annual report, FIS enrollment, student services begin at the time
students aspire to apply to a CSU. One key strategy for ensuring student success is connecting
Rebound Scholars with academic advisers to help students identify their preferred major earlier
and plan their academic path (Munoz-Murillo, 2020). Since the expansion of the PR programs,
the consortium has noted that enrollment of FIS has almost tripled from 2016 through 2020, with
180 enrolled students in 2016-2017 school year to upwards of 454 students enrolled within the
15

2019-2020 school year. The consortium identified the frequent contact with PR program staff as
an intervention to increased program enrollment.
Student Retention and Persistence
The centerpiece of Project Rebound’s mission and model is the active leadership of staff
who have an incarceration experience and have experience successfully navigating a university
campus, which enables them to effectively mentor formerly incarcerated students and build
community among formerly incarcerated students and the wider university community (Munoz-
Murillo, 2020). Having staff with lived experience, was noted as an influence on the increase in
student retention and persistence. For both the Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 semester, 89.8% and
93.7% of PR students remained enrolled at the CSU, opposed to all CSU students who were at
84.3%.
Recidivism Rates
The annual report identified from 2018-2020 of all PR students enrolled, there was a 0%
recidivism rate, which differed from the State of California rate of 50% in 2018. The Consortium
has identified that education and support of FIS prevents recidivism. The Consortium reports that
PR provides a dedicated on-campus space and a safe environment for students to build a sense of
community and to discuss and strategize about challenges they are experiencing that may be
interfering with their academic progress (Munoz-Murillo, 2020).
Outreach and Recruitment
The annual report identified several outreach and engagement practices that PR
Consortium campuses follow, including cultivating strong, meaningful relationships and
collaborations with community resource managers and principals at correctional facilities and
related support organizations (Munoz-Murillo, 2020) as a means to outreach and recruit
16

prospective students. It has been noted that between 2016 and 2020, there has been an increase in
outreach events, letters received, and academic assessments completed by PR staff, which has
also increased FIS enrollment.
In addition to the expansion of the CSU Project Rebound programs, a third of the state's
114 community colleges now have a student group or an on-campus program like Project
Rebound or Underground Scholars, with more community colleges and 4-year universities in the
process of building similar academic support systems for FIS (Colleges 2018). There are now
about 100 students in Berkeley Underground Scholars, a student support group specific to FIS,
and according to the organization's director, students are building chapters at nearly every other
UC campus (Rancano, 2020). Educational re-entry programs continue to expand, at the
community college level, as demonstrated with a grant funding specific to current and formerly
incarcerated students, created via the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office in
2019.
Content and Structure of Institutional Services
Recruitment of FIS, stigmatization, retention of students, and academic and financial
supportive services are all areas that can be supported via educational re-entry programs. In their
2019 qualitative study, titled “Corrections to College- Reversing the School to Prison Pipeline,”
authors Eddy, Chung, Crowley, and Guerreor-Moreno held focus groups of FIS. The study
focused on the East Bay Consortium of Support Programs for Formerly Incarcerated College
Students, a collaboration between eight California public community colleges and two California
public four-year universities. Findings from the study identified basic reentry needs- housing,
financial and health related as barriers to their education (Eddy et al., 2019). Participants also
mentioned that having access via their educational re-entry program, generated feelings of
17

success and motivation to continue their post-secondary education. The study also detailed the
responsibility of the educational institutions to incorporate additional resources into their daily
practices, to encourage more FIS to participate in higher education.
Another study that focused on how colleges and universities can best support current and
formerly incarcerated students was a 2018 report drafted by Castro and Zamani-Gallaher. This
report specifically detailed two best practices associated with the need for institutions of higher
education to meet two objectives to create inclusive and equitable campus environments for
currently and formerly incarcerated students (Castro & Zamani-Gallaher, 2018). First, faculty,
staff, institutional leaders, and board members must consider incarcerated people as potential
college students, worthy of investment and capable of great achievement (Castro & Zamani-
Gallaher, 2018). Second, colleges and universities must see higher education in prison as part of
the mission of the institution (Castro & Zamani-Gallaher, 2018). The report details that
providing such services demonstrates equity and inclusion within higher education. The report
also identified the importance of employing faculty and staff with shared incarceration history.
Employment of staff or faculty with prior conviction history allows for FIS to connect with
campus personnel with shared experiences to mitigate the effects of stigma (Castro & Zamani-
Gallaher, 2018). The report also offered additional informal areas of improvement that
institutions can also pay attention to, including development of race and gender equity
commitments; supporting social justice and diversity centers to include formerly incarcerated in
their mission statements, publicly acknowledge the importance of having formerly incarcerated
people on campus as students and employees, cultivate critical mass through pointed programs of
support, and organize groups and promote spaces for formerly incarcerated faculty and staff
(American Studies Association, 2020). The report argues that these programs have allowed
18

avenues for FIS to emerge as student leaders, both on and off campus, and pay the support that
they received from faculty and staff within these programs, forward to other prospective
students.
Perceived Programmatic Success by those Delivering Re-entry Services
Staff play a critical role in the college student learning and development (Ott & McTier,
2019). Building a web of support among tenured faculty, administrators, and community leaders
will not only help create a positive campus culture that supports FIS but will also aid the
sustainability of the program allowing it to persist (Californians, 2015). Within this section, I
will be reviewing the current research that focuses on the perceptions of staff towards students
with incarceration history, the importance of having staff with shared experiences working with
educational re-entry programs and how staff perceive the success of their educational re-entry
programs.
Faculty and staff members are critical socializing agents in the college-going process (Ott
& McTier, 2019) and frequent and meaningful contact with professors increases student success.
However, in some cases faculty and staff can also have detrimental effects on student outcomes
(Ott & McTier, 2019) which in turn impacts the perceptions of program services. In their 2019
study, Ott and McTier explored university faculty and staff attitudes toward college students with
criminal records. The study identified that of the 229 faculty and staff who participated in the
study, participants had relatively supportive reactions, but their views were significantly more
negative about college students with criminal records compared with other students (Ott &
McTier, 2019). Their findings identified the stigmatizing viewpoints towards students with
previous incarceration history. This study also indicated that a positive relationship with a
professor or staff member, helps students feel valued and respected which can increase
19

likelihood of persistence (Ott & McTier, 2019; Li & Pitts, 2019). Ott and McTier additionally
advocated for more schools to follow the lead of San Francisco State University, by
implementing specific support systems for college students with records (2019) like Project
Rebound. The study mentioned the impacts of having mentors or peers with similar criminal
backgrounds, on campus to assist FIS with acclimation to the campus environment and provide
additional peer support. The knowledge that staffs potentially hold stigmatizing attitudes towards
FIS, created the space for institutions to advocate for educational re-entry programs and hire
academic professionals with shared experiences of the students.
According to researcher Breainna Alexander in her 2013 article on How Colleges Can
Support the Educational Goals of Formerly Incarcerated Students, a survey of over 500
community colleges found that faculty, staff and administrators working with these students
want to learn from their peers about the following: 1) strategies to identify formerly incarcerated
students 2) developing partnerships with the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation 3) decision-making processes for program development 4) design elements they
consider crucial 5) implementation challenges and 6) budget considerations (Alexander, n.d.).
Subsequently, the Corrections to College California organization developed a toolkit titled:
Fostering Success for Formerly Incarcerated Students on Campus, which detailed that a key
element of an educational re-entry program is the staffing of individuals with personal
experience within the criminal justice system (2017). First person experience builds important
rapport between the program and students and can also be a consistent voice mitigating potential
concerns of college personnel about formerly incarcerated students (Elements, 2017). One
limitation of this study was that there was no report on how programs measure their success,
once such barriers are fulfilled for FIS.
20

Summary of Literature Review
This chapter reviewed previous literature around how FIS are recruited and retained, as
well as how institutions of higher education are structured and perceive their programmatic
success. The studies previously identified, demonstrated several key findings of previous
research as it applied to the retention and recruitment of FIS. Amongst these students, the
identification of FIS forensic history, while completing the college application, often deterred
students from applying to any specific institution, was identified as a recruitment barrier. Lack of
funding and college readiness, where additional barriers identified as it applied to FIS. The
studies also identified that having faculty and staff with lived experience, encouraged both
recruitment and retention of FIS. Additionally, for the FIS who remained enrolled in higher
education, were identified as more academic success, opposed to non-FIS students.
Ample amounts of literature exist for discussion of the intersection of FIS reentry and
issues of housing, health, work, and public safety (West 2011, Dubkin-Lee, 2016), yet there is
limited literature on prison reentry and post-release education (Dubkin-Lee, 2016). In addition,
there is not sufficient literature that accurately assesses the success or failure of educational
reentry programs (Brazzell, et al, 2009; West 2011, Dubkin-Lee 2016). In 2018, over 73
community colleges were surveyed regarding the supportive services they provide to their
formerly incarcerated students. Many of the respondents included college presidents and vice
presidents, who reported having a formal or informal program to assist FIS, approximately 73%
(Yuuhaa et al., 2018). By a wide majority, the top three overall challenges for all survey
respondents were lack of financial resources to compensate dedicated program staff, knowing
who is formerly incarcerated, and meeting students’ non-academic needs (Yuuhaa et al., 2018).
21

Staff play a crucial role in the acclimation of campus culture for FIS. Several challenges
were identified by staff who work within these educational programs. Faculty
and staff who work outside of educational re-entry programs on college campuses may embody
stigmatizing viewpoints as it relates to student’s criminal history. However, faculty and staff
have also been identified to want to learn more about FIS and how to support them. The
challenges identified from the research above are stationed at the community college level, and
essentially demonstrate an inability for programs to evaluate their successes, due to lack of
financial support, identifying potential FIS and meeting their needs. Current research asserts a
focus on the re-entry programs that exist at the community college level, with little focus on 4-
year institutions. Additionally, at the community college level, we have limited literature on the
efficacy of these programs, which in turn is also obsolete at the 4-year institution level
as well. Identifying this problem of practice, encouraged for the development of research that
focuses on the perceived pragmatic success through the lens of the staff who provide the service
to FIS.
Theoretical Framework- Funds of Knowledge
Funds of Knowledge (Fok) is a theoretical perspective that is influential in identifying
how an individual’s social-cultural experiences impact their educational environments and
encourages teachers to utilize such experiences to guide the students' learning. The concept of
funds of knowledge was first introduced by anthropologists Carlos Vélez-Ibañez and James
Greenberg (1992) as part of their household analysis of working-class Mexican families in the
southwestern United States (Rios-Aguilar & Kiyama, 2018). They studied how working-class
and economically marginalized families used their social networks, and the social and economic
exchange relations that such networks facilitate, to mediate the uncertainty of their
22

socioeconomic disadvantage (Rios-Aguilar & Kiyama, 2018). Funds of knowledge was later
identified as a set of knowledge and skills developed from an individual’s social environment.
The experiences of FIS impact their ability to obtain and sustain within educational
environments. FoK is a perspective that can be applied to this research, to better understand how
staff who work within educational re-entry programs can best utilize the experiences of FIS to
assist them with being successful at the university level.
Students with forensic history, embody a unique set of experiences, while incarcerated,
and at times, prior to their incarceration. The experiences of FIS included significant life-altering
and impactful traumas that ultimately triggered and defined an identity embraced by
students (Luis G. Giraldo et al. 2017). These identities outside of classroom space served as a
means of survival and adaptation (Luis G. Giraldo et al. 2017). It is typical that these experiences
will impact the individual's learning environment once they become students. FoK allows for
teachers to be mindful of such experiences and create spaces to utilize them to improve learning.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study is to examine how current educational
re-entry programs at the California State Universities (CSU) identify and engage FIS. This study
examined how the universities recruit FIS and retain them within their institution. This study
will also identify how these institutions perceive and measure the success of their educational
programs and how successful they are in meeting their goals of recruiting and retaining former
incarcerated students. The specific questions explored in this study are as follows:
1. How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions recruit and retain formerly
incarcerated students (FIS)?
23

2. How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions define programmatic success
as it relates to recruitment, retainment, and service of formerly incarcerated students
(FIS)?
3. According to staff within educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions, what do
they perceive are the met and unmet needs of formerly incarcerated students (FIS)?

24

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter discusses the methods used to conduct the study including research paradigm,
research approach, participants and selection criteria, procedure, instruments, positionality of the
researcher, and credibility and trustworthiness.
Interpretivist Paradigm
There are a variety of paradigms used within social research. This research study utilized
the Interpretivist paradigm to investigate and understand the perceptions of staff working within
educational re-entry programs at a 4-year university. The goal of interpretivist research is to
understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it
(McChesney & Aldridge, 2019). This approach relies heavily on interviews, which allows for the
researcher and participant to make the most meaningful assessment of the participants' reality
and beliefs. The knowledge arising from interpretivist research is integrally linked to the
participants and the context of the research, meaning that the products of interpretivist research
are not universally applicable theories or laws but, rather, rich, and contextually situated
understandings (McChesney & Aldridge, 2019). Interpretive research encourages the researcher
to fully articulate the research questions and be mindful of any interpretations made by the
researcher during the interview phase.
Qualitative Research Approach
This qualitative study explores the institutional services, particularly as they relate to
recruitment, retention and needs of formerly incarcerated students within undergraduate 4-year
institutions. Qualitative research is most appropriate for this study as it allows for the researcher
to have close involvement with the study participants and allows for participants to freely
express their perspectives. Through this perspective, researchers gain a more “up close”
25

perspective on the group being examined (Baca Ainn, 1979), specifically as it relates to the
faculty and staff of the educational re-entry programs.
An open-ended qualitative approach was deemed to be the most appropriate method for
this study which seeks to describe the status of existing programs and seek to understand from
those who are delivering services to FIS as to the needs of this population and the effectiveness
of the services that they provide. To conduct this research study as qualitative research can
generate evidence that can be used to develop development programs that are tailored to local
contexts (Skovdal & Cornish, 2015). Utilizing qualitative research methods allows for the
research to identify specific practices and firsthand accounts related to the experiences of staff
and faculty who work for institutions that provide services to FIS.
Participants and Selection Criteria
The California Statues University Project Rebound Consortium (CSU Project Rebound
Consortium) is an organizational infrastructure, consisting currently of nine CSU campuses, with
a mission to make higher education more accessible and supportive to formerly incarcerated
students (Munoz-Murillo, 2020). The CSU Project Rebound Consortium envisions a just and
equitable world in which all people, including those with an incarceration experience, have
access to high-quality higher education and comprehensive student support services that foster
achievement, transformation, empowerment, social responsibility, and flourishing (Munoz-
Murillo, 2020). Participants of this study were identified via the Project Rebound Consortium,
and included staff currently employed at one of the fourteen CSU’s. Purposeful sampling was
utilized to recruit and select study participants. The purposive sampling technique, also called
judgment sampling, is the deliberate choice of a participant due to the qualities the participant
possesses (Tongco, 2007).
26

Demographics of Participants
The results of this qualitative study are based on interviews of ten staff from eight Project
Rebound programs. The CSU locations included: Fullerton, Fresno, San Francisco, Bakersfield,
San Marcos, Pomona, and San Bernardino. All participants voluntarily participated in this study.
Employment positions of the participants varied from upper management positions including
Executive director, to front line staff positions like outreach coordinator. Of the ten participants,
there were three executive directors, one program director, three program coordinators, and three
outreach coordinators. The average length of employment time amongst the participants was 2
years. Of the ten participants, eight identified as having previous incarceration history. Of the ten
participants six also identified as being a formerly incarcerated student who participated in a
Project Rebound program. Description of study participants can be found in Appendix A.
Procedure
A current list of all participating CSUs under the Project Rebound Consortium is listed
via the Consortium website. Participants were identified by employment status with any of the
fourteen Project Rebounds listed. Contact information including emails were listed via CSU
websites. Once participants were identified, an email was sent to introduce the researcher's study
and obtain interest to participate in the interview. Once a response of interest is received, an
informed Consent Form was emailed, to obtain electronic signature, and a virtual interview day
and time was scheduled. An excel spreadsheet of interested participant information was also
maintained by the researcher. Prior to the start of the interview, informed consent, and rights and
responsibilities of participation were explained to the participant.
Data from individual interviews, and my personal observation notes were analyzed to
obtain an accurate understanding of how the participants identified the recruitment and retention
27

of FIS, define program success, perceive the met and unmet needs of their program and how
their institution benefits from having an educational re-entry program. This study utilized semi-
structured, open-ended interviews (Creswell 2007). During this research, a total of ten interviews
were conducted, ranging from 45 minutes to 90 minutes in length. The interviews were later
transcribed and coded according to recurring themes. During the interviews, I took notes using
Microsoft Word, which allowed me to identify recurring themes and ideas. After the interviews
transcribed to a Microsoft Word document, they were then coded thematically and processed
using the qualitative analysis software Delve. All interview data were stored in a secure location
to ensure participant confidentiality. Please refer to the interview protocol in Appendix B.
Instrumentation
The primary method of data collection consisted of interviews with staff of an
educational reentry program.
Interviews
The study solely utilized qualitative interviews. Individual interviews were identified as
best practice to collect data for this research study. Interviewing is central to most qualitative
research designs (Ross, J. 2019). The interviewer–interviewee relationship is the cornerstone of
the research interview, and the intense and individualistic nature of the interviews in qualitative
research makes this one of the most personal of all qualitative research design methods (Ross, J.
2019).
I utilized aspects of ethnographic interview style, which consisted o f an informal
conversational interview strategy (Patton, 2002). This strategy allowed for the participant and I
to have more flexibility (Patton 2002). The goal of the interviews was to obtain the necessary
28

information to describe each participant's views on a successful educational reentry program.
The Interview Protocol (Appendix B) was used to describe the study, and research questions.
One interview was scheduled for each participant and afforded the participants enough
time to convey their personal experiences, as well as generate enough data for me to explore
their experiences as staff within an educational reentry program.
Due to current COVID-19 restrictions, interviews were conducted virtually, utilizing the
Zoom platform. All Interviews were recorded, provided consent of the participant. This ensured
the ability for this researcher to review the data and the accurate transcription of participant
responses. Initial steps of the interview included: reminding the participant of the background
and purpose of the study, expected benefits to practice, and confidentiality and their right to
withdraw from the interview at any time. To build rapport with the participant, I identified my
position as a current doctoral candidate, and my professional experience working with the
forensic population.
Positionality of the Researcher
Having significant experience providing mental health services to the forensic
population, I hold the assumption that society has a duty to identify and provide social and
emotional spaces for the most vulnerable populations. According to Wubbena (2017) in
qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument of data collection, analysis and
interpretation (Goodman, 2019). This assumption and belief correlates to the need that higher
institutions should provide spaces to support students of diverse populations including but not
limited to FIS.
My motivation in conducting this critical research comes from my belief that an
intersection between emotional stability, and educational access can assist formerly incarcerated
29

individuals from re-offending, as well as keep individuals from being involved in the
correctional system. There are a variety of issues that constantly plague the forensic population,
and one of my professional goals is to assist this population towards success. I have found
passion with understanding the experiences of formerly incarcerated students, to eventually
provide such academic services to them upon completion of my doctoral program.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
A major challenge for researchers is striving for the highest possible quality when
conducting and reporting research (Cope, 2014). The most common criteria used to evaluate
qualitative research are those purported by Lincoln and Guba (1985), which is to develop
trustworthiness in qualitative research (Cope, 2014). To increase the trustworthiness of the study
findings, this researcher focused on Credibility.
Credibility refers to the confidence the researcher has with the truthfulness of the study
findings. Provided the study is particular to staff who support formerly incarcerated students, this
researcher believes that the findings will be honest to that specific population. This researcher
also believes that, creating a safe individual space for the participants to share their honest
thoughts and viewpoints regarding the study, will lend itself to the credibility of the study. Two
strategies that were utilized during this study to increase credibility included the use of
mechanically recorded data and verbatim data and clarification of researcher bias.
Field notes, audio and video recordings were utilized to collect data during this study.
The data was then transcribed by hand and utilizing the Zoom transcription application.
Utilization of this data collection technique was found beneficial and aided to the credibility of
the study, to ensure that the information conveyed by the participants was identified. This
30

researcher made sure to utilize the aspects of field notes and interview recordings to decrease
bias and represent the perspectives of the participants adequately.
Other aspects to ensure credibility of this research, was incorporating my bias as a
researcher. I ensured that I provided information related to my personal and professional work
history, relative to the research and the study participants.

31

Chapter Four: Findings
This study is based on interviews with staff of a CSU Project Rebound program.
Identification of the CSU was identified by way of the Project Rebound Consortium. The CSU
Project Rebound Consortium was founded in 2019, after the California State budget allocated
funding to enable fourteen CSU Project Rebound member campuses to establish the
organizational infrastructure and engage in the strategic planning necessary to scale our proven
model of success (Munoz-Murillo, 2020).
Analysis of the research findings yielded four major themes. The major themes identified
from the results of this study included the following:
1. Recruitment of FIS by educational re-entry programs utilized direct and indirect
outreach practices.
2. A method to retain FIS within educational reentry programs was by way of fostering and
sustaining connections.
3. Program success as it relates to recruitment, retention and service of FIS was identified
via outcome measures.
4. The met and unmet needs of FIS were identified by way of supportive structures within
the educational reentry program.
Research Questions
Each of these themes were organized based upon the three research questions:
1. How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions recruit and retain formerly
incarcerated students (FIS)?
32

2. How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions define programmatic success
as it relates to recruitment, retainment, and service of formerly incarcerated students
(FIS)?
3. According to staff within educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions, what do
they perceive are the met and unmet needs of formerly incarcerated students (FIS)?
Themes 1 and 2 answered the first research question: How do educational re-entry
programs at 4-year institutions recruit and retain formerly incarcerated students (FIS)? Theme 3
answered the second research question: How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year
institutions define programmatic success as it relates to recruitment, retainment, and service of
formerly incarcerated students (FIS)? Theme 4 answered the third research question: According
to staff within educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions, what do they perceive are the
met and unmet needs of formerly incarcerated students (FIS)? I will be discussing each theme in
detail below.
Theme 1: Direct and Indirect Outreach Practices
All ten participants identified a variety of outreach and recruitment practices within their
specific Project Rebound program. These practices involved both direct and indirect engagement
of FIS. Study participants identified several methods to recruit FIS participants including in
person (direct) and virtual and/or third party (indirect) outreach efforts. Direct outreach was
described by participants as visiting local jails and prisons and hosting presentations about their
individual programs. Participants reported that such opportunities allowed them to engage
potential students in-person. Participant 7, who is currently a program coordinator reported “We
send out a lot of flyers and information to several different programs, parole meetings, probation
meetings, and try to be as active in the community as possible to show the Project Rebound
33

presence.” Participant 5 also described the impacts of going into the prisons and hosting
workshops. “We are constantly visiting jails and prisons to host workshops and provide
information to those incarcerated on our program. Heck, there have been several times that I ran
into my old buddies that I had been locked up with. They looked at me like “wow, you are in
college bro”. I loved that, being able to show them that if I can do it after serving 25 years, your
10-year sentence will definitely not be a stopping point for you”. Participant 5, a program
coordinator, described his experience on outreach:
One week before COVID we were going into the prisons. I think all [Project Rebounds]
would go into the prisons. But our primary outreach consists of meeting with parole,
probation, and even federal probation. All law enforcement groups. We have filmed
outreach videos and held in person presentations. There is even an array of things that we
do with the larger community. We connect with potential students when they first come
out. Now since COVID, our outreach has been moved from in person to virtual, through
zoom.

Study participants identified indirect outreach efforts as beneficial to recruit potential
students. Participants reported such efforts included virtual parole board meetings, letter writing
and virtual probation meetings. Some of these indirect outreach activities were conducted
exclusively due to COVID regulations, such as the virtual parole and probation meetings. Other
outreach activities were utilized pre and post COVID, including letter writing. Participant 7 also
remarked “They either email us, or we have family members email on behalf of the person who
is still incarcerated. Now that it went virtual, we still have [parole] meetings through zoom. But
now it's only the organizations, there's no [potential students] nobody who we're working with
directly”. All participants reported currently utilizing indirect outreach efforts as a method to
34

engage potential students. Participant 4, a program executive director remarked “Our letter
writing component of Project Rebound was huge prior to COVID and it remains a vital part of
what we do”. Participant 2, a program director, also illustrated the impacts of COVID to
recruitment efforts “Post COVID we are no longer able to go into the prisons; [our university]
assisted with putting together a short video for Project Rebound and it has been sent to various
state prisons”.
Participants also described the impacts of direct versus indirect outreach on student
enrollment. Participant 5 reported “now everything is virtually through zoom, and distance
learning has dropped our numbers down, by like 40%.”. Participant 2 also identified that “it
really cut down that network and that communication that we used to have before. There has
been a decrease in the number of students we are able to access”.
Theme 2: Fostering and Sustaining Connections
Sense of belonging was the second theme that emerged from the research and related to
the retention of FIS, as asked in RQ2. Of the 10 study participants, 9 of them reported lived
experience as a formerly incarcerated person. Of those 9 participants, 8 of them reported having
previously been a Project Rebound student and described how they benefited from the program.
Lived Experience
Participants reported that they believed having staff with lived experience was an aspect
that retained students and improved their chances of remaining enrolled within the institution.
Participant 4 described how he utilized his lived experience as a formerly incarcerated student to
align with prospective and current students “I was able to [connect with students] to say, ‘hey,
look, I'm also from this neighborhood’, this is where I was arrested, this where I got my
convictions from”. Participant 10, who is a program director reported “I know what it is like to
35

look for employment because of your forensic background. I had a hard time finding my
internship, but Project Rebound gave me the opportunity to intern, and now I am fully employed.
Our students have the same chances”. The study supported the idea that staff with lived
experience created an environment for current and potential students to feel as though they
belong. Participant 1, a program executive director reported “The majority of our staff are
formerly incarcerated. We [make sure to] center our program leadership with staff who are
formerly incarcerated to provide guidance to the team and our students”. Participant 2 provided
additional information related to the impacts of having staff with lived experience:
For them, but for what they tell me you know to feel welcomed and part of the community
and like they belong, that they're not second-class citizens. They have as much right to be
there as anyone else. They're Fresno State students, at the end of the day, that's all that
matters. key ingredients in encouraging a student to continue their educational pursuits and
we certainly give the students and project rebound, a sense of connection to campus in the
community, they're also really connected to faculty through the program as well. Retention
of freshmen, not just project rebound any student on the campus building connected to the
campus feeling part of the community and a sense of community and mentorship and
network and peer support you know that's what we really offer to them.
Staff with lived experience act as champions for current and potential students. Participant 1
describes it as “We believe in rehabilitation. We believe that if we can do it, then they can do it.
We want to be the face of who we are, help change the narrative around formerly incarcerated
folks and we offer a number of resources that are really helpful for students”.
36

Previous Project Rebound Students Turned Staff
8 out of the 10 participants with experience as former students within an educational re-
entry program, reported how their experience as students contributed to their interest to work
within the program to help current and future students. Participant 7 reported:
I was in [Project Rebound] a year and a half before I graduated. After graduation I found
it really hard to locate a job. It was really difficult, running into these roadblocks because
of my past conviction history. I let the former [Project Rebound] coordinator know, and
she told me that she was stepping down to pursue her masters, and she believed that I would
do great at the position. I want to do the same for our students now. I want to show them
that their past convictions will not hinder them from being an asset.

Participant 7 continued with reporting: “My past conviction history also gives students a reason to
stay connected to stay focused on their education”. Participant 1 shared similar viewpoints on
encouraging current students to continue a trend of working with Project Rebound while enrolled
and after completion of their undergraduate degree. She reported “We employ many students. We
currently have 15 students employed in our program right now doing through the federal work
study program”. Participant 5, program coordinator reported his experience as a student turned
staff, greatly benefits his ability to connect and encourage current and potential students. He
reported:
[Our] students are able to see our commitment is like theirs. We committed to the streets
and committed to, using [drugs] and, committed to crimes. We are really engaged in our
lives. And both our students and I really use that mentality. We survived prison, so we can
survive the university. I remind them of that. They have this motivation to succeed.

37

Additional participants reported that their experiences as students of Project Rebound also
encouraged them to seek employment while pursuing their undergraduate degrees and encouraged
them to remain employed after graduation. Participant 9, who is a program director reported “I
have a set of skills that separates me from other people, because of my conviction history. Being
a formerly incarcerated student and now director helps me to remind other students that they too
have skills that set them apart. I feel like the students do better when they know we share an
experience and will want to stay connected to us and the university when they are aware.” One of
the 2 participants, Participant 1, who had not been a previous Project Rebound student, but had
incarceration history, reported how knowing about the program could have been beneficial to them
during their enrollment:
When I was incarcerated. I never knew about Project rebound, but I wish I did. There's still
a lot of people that haven't heard about Project rebound, but it's growing because we are
now a consortium of programs that intentionally advocate, recruit, and do outreach to the
prison population to community colleges that have incarcerated students’ programs to four-
year universities that have, you know, formerly incarcerated students.

Staff lived experience as a formerly incarcerated student coupled with having participated in
Project Rebound was identified as a measure of engagement and retention of FIS.
Theme 3: Measures of Success
Two sub-themes emerged to answer RQ2 that fall under the main theme of Measures of
Success, including justice system outcomes, academic and life outcomes. Each participant
identified how they individually measured students' success, and those responses fell amongst
the three sub-themes.
38

Justice System Outcomes
Justice system outcomes were identified as recidivism rates, and the likelihood of FIS re-
offending. Participants reported this as one measure of their program success. Several
participants also discussed using recidivism rates to encourage other 4-year institutions to
develop re-entry programs. Participant 5, a program coordinator, described how he identified
success using the rate of recidivism:
In our classes, maybe one or two within the last four years have gone back to prison. So,
we have a 98% recidivism rate. Our students are staying, they are being retained. They
don't go back to prison and that's a good thing. Once our students are here on campus,
they're not seen as formerly incarcerated. So, we've taken that stigma off and the [last]
place they hear about [being formerly incarcerated] is in our initial meetings. They're not
profiled and identified as formerly incarcerated. So, they blend into the fabric really
nicely. Once we remove the stigma, we keep them here and support them until graduation
and far beyond. Some students even become employed with Project Rebound after
graduation.
Participant 6 echoed similar retention rates, “Project rebound throughout the state has close to
90% to 100% retention rate” and channeled these outcomes as measures of program success.
Academic and Life Outcomes
Participants also looked at academic and life outcomes to identify program success. This
included graduation rates, the ability for FIS completed class assignments, and ability to
acclimate to the university environment, including navigating through campus, and asking for
support with daily living necessities. Participant 5 reported, “We measure success on graduation
rates [because] as graduation increases it prevents recidivism. [We believe that] if everyone is
39

graduating, then no one is recidivating, and in turn, we are successful”. Participant 5, who is an
outreach coordinator identified success in reference to a student’s ability to complete academic
assignments. He reported “My personal [opinion] is not so much as the graduation [rates]. It's per
semester, per essay that they turn in. That's my success. Just one day at a time, one page, one
essay at a time. But of course, the long term is when they graduate”. Participant 2 described the
program as successful through their ability to connect students to academic resources. She
reported “For those students who may be lacking confidence in some of the academic abilities,
were able to connect them with tutoring resources and other learning support services.” She went
on to describe how connecting students to academic resources also increases retention:
Increasing academic competence increases a sense of connection to the community. We
know from research on retention of freshman, not just project rebound, but any student on
the campus, that building a connection to the campus, and feeling part of the community,
is one of the key ingredients in encouraging a student to continue their educational pursuits
and we certainly give the students and project rebound, a sense of connection to campus in
the community, they're also really connected to faculty through the program as well.
Participant 1 also disclosed that it is typical for Project Rebound to be involved in data collection:
We do general data collection periodically through the year, each campus has to report
student numbers. [This includes] their program GPA. So, we're also looking at things like
retention. Traditionally project rebound has such a high retention rate compared to the
general Cal State Universities. It's typically over 90%, the graduation rate. We also look
at things like are they unemployed or if you're going on to graduate school, as indicators
of our program success.
40

Other Participants disclosed life outcomes that they believed contributed to the success of their
students. These outcomes included but were not limited to a student’s ability to obtain employment
upon graduation, a student’s ability to continue sobriety, and a student’s ability to obtain
permanent housing. Participant 10 reported:
Oftentimes we look only at the hard numbers to identify how well someone, or a program
is doing. But [Project Rebound] looks at the whole person. We focus on ensuring that our
students have their emotional health in tack, by connecting them to mental health
specialists. Because for them to be successful in the classroom, they must be emotionally
available. That emotional balance will allow for them to stay motivated to graduate, obtain
housing, employment and be those successful citizens of society.
Participants shared the idea around student activities post-graduation, which was an indicator of
program success.
Theme 4: Supportive Structures
The theme of “Supportive Structures” emerged when identifying the met and unmet
needs of FIS. Participants reported two sub themes, the utilization of the Consortium and
University Support as structures to identify those needs.
Consortium
Several of the participants identified the implications of the consortium as a benefit
towards bringing structure to the numerous educational re-entry programs within the various
CSU’s as well as acting as a framework for other institutions to start educational re-entry
programs. The consortium identifies a unified mission and goal that is adapted by all the PRs and
subsequently aids in how all programs identify program effectiveness. Participant 1 described the
development of the consortium:
41

We have a shared kind of vision and mission through our strategic plan as a consortium.
We are all project rebound, they all operate somewhat differently, but we do have a shared
value and mission. We support higher education and successful reintegration of the
formerly incarcerated. And if it wasn't for us getting together to see more of a consortium
and state allocation to build power across the state, we may not be at 14 [university
campus’] right now.
Participant 2 also described the consortium:
We had to create the CSU project rebound consortium and that's when we had to formalize
our structure and create governance. Right now, we have an executive committee that
consists of the executive directors at every CSU project rebound campus. And just a few
months ago we welcomed five new campuses. So, we're now 14 campuses.
Other participants noted the consortium as a “umbrella organization” and “Project Rebound
Leader”, which helps to guide the various programs university-wide to ensure program practices
are universal. Participant 4 reported: “I know the Consortium is even being used to facilitate a
research subcommittee so that we can identify what improvements need to be made within our
program and the areas in which we are striving in”. The Consortium was identified as “necessary”
and “helpful” regarding assisting Project Rebounds with identifying and attending to program
needs, according to participants.
University Support
University Support was another sub-theme that was present from the study interviews.
University support was described as ways in which the university contributed to the Project
Rebound programs met and unmet needs. Two of the primary supportive positions that
participants reported included program funding and increased marketing of Project Rebound by
42

the university. In relation to funding, several participants described ways in which their
institution could financially support Project Rebound, and inherently also support current and
prospective students. Participant 5 endorsed “funding is always going to be an issue”. Access to
funding resources via the university was a major limitation that several participants verbalized
during the interview. Access to more financial support for the program, created opportunities for
Project Rebound to assist current and prospective students with housing resources, and mitigate
food insecurity issues. Participant 3 reported “we don't have a lot of money, but when we do
come across funding, we help [our students] out with their registration fees, textbooks, and
parking fees. We also have some issues around food insecurity with our students. So, when we
have food vouchers, we make sure to support the students and help them with their meals”.
Participants reported how influential their institutions are with marketing the Project
Rebound program, to bring awareness to prospective students and garner community support.
Participant 3, an outreach coordinator, reported “Individuals are being released every day from
jails and prisons, and connecting them to meaningful and supportive programs like Project
Rebound, builds community”. Other participants reported similar ideals, including Participant 4
who reported:
95% of people who are incarcerated are going to be released, and they're coming to our
communities, our neighborhoods, and in essence, we're going to be your neighbors. So, a
rhetorical question is, what do you want as your neighbor? We know that there's an inverse
relationship between education and [recidivism]. But change is possible through education,
and it just gives you a whole different perception on life. The universities with project
rebounds have the opportunity to showcase how they are creating and supporting that
change to the communities they work within.
43

Another approach identified regarding a university's ability to support the Project Rebound via
marketing was not just showcasing the program to obtain community support but also by way of
recruiting prospective students. Participant 1 reported “I think about how the university can
recruit more marginalized students. whether they are black or formerly incarcerated or have
disabilities or whatever. I think universities don't do enough of that work with recruiting”.
Participants’ responses illustrated that most of them believed that the university held the
ability to meet the needs of FIS through marketing and funding opportunities for Project
Rebound programs. These resources would assist in increasing the success of these programs.

44

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how Project Rebound, the
current educational re-entry programs at the California State Universities (CSU) identify and
engage FIS. This study examined how the universities recruit FIS and retain them within their
institution. This study identified how these institutions perceive and measure the success of their
educational programs and how successful they are in meeting their goals of recruiting and retaining
former incarcerated students. The perspectives of 10 faculty members were captured during these
interviews. Previous research has typically focused on the individual experiences of FIS, while
attending 4-year institutions. My research fills a gap, as it is focused on those individuals who
provide the service to FIS within an educational re-entry program. This research focused on those
within the program who support and guide FIS, and creates space to continue discussion on staff
perceptions, and how they believe such programs can better serve 4-year institutions, specific to
CSU PRs.
There were several significant findings that were identified from the qualitative interviews.
These findings included: a.) direct and indirect outreach practices b.) fostering and sustaining
connections c.) outcome measures and d.) supportive structures. This chapter provides a discussion
of the results and concludes with recommendations for future research on educational re-entry
programs.
Discussion of Results
Direct and Indirect Outreach Practices
Participants identified the importance of recruitment and retainment efforts and how vital
such services are to obtain and maintain new and current FIS. FIS are an underrepresented
population within higher education. It is imperative to understand how FIS are recruited and to
45

what capacity they are retained, which is also a reflection of the FoK theoretical framework. The
field of higher education typically perpetuates the idea that under-represented students, like FIS,
are lacking or deficient simply because they have not done what ‘successful’ students have done
(Rios-Aguilar & Kiyama, 2017). Since this is the lens through which services, programs, and
policies were and are created, it is no wonder why participation, retention, and graduation rates
remain painfully low for under-represented college students around the country (Rios-Aguilar &
Kiyama, 2017). The perceived success as it relates to recruitment and retention of FIS, by way of
Project Rebound staff, is crucial to altering previous thoughts in higher education. Participants
reported a variety of direct and indirect outreach practices that allow for them to engage
prospective students and identified these practices as successful. Participants have reported
between 90-95% retention rates of FIS who are enrolled in their Project Rebound.
Specific direct outreach practices mentioned by participants included going into
correctional facilities to provide information to inmates about Project Rebound. Participants
reported that hosting workshops inside of these facilities was one of the primary avenues which
allowed them to connect with potential students. For example, Participant 5 described his
experience with hosting workshops at the prison he was previously incarcerated, and how
impactful it was to speak to potential students who he also interacted with during his incarceration.
Participant 5 detailed how he was able to connect with fellow inmates and be the face of change
by way of obtaining his education.
Participants identified the shift in engagement practices, to indirect outreach, due to the
COVID global pandemic, but also endorsed that some direct outreach were able to continue,
despite the pandemic. Such indirect outreach practices including letter writing to potential students
became a focal point, as well as word of mouth. Participants agreed that these grassroots outreach
46

efforts allowed for current and prospective students to stay connected with their programs. These
practices also created a cultural connection to FIS, as predominant communication for incarcerated
persons includes letter writing. One goal of FoK is cultivating culturally responsive instruction,
thus tapping into the experiences of students, and utilizing them within the educational arena.
Educational re-entry programs offer this possibility, as they are structured to meet FIS within the
cultural and social environments, they are most comfortable.
The outreach and engagement practices mentioned above moved beyond those detailed in
previous research, including the 2020 PR Consortium Annual report. The report mentioned
outreach practices including letter writing and face to face meetings with potential students while
in custody, as primary outreach methods. Previous studies also detailed that recruitment happens
primarily during incarceration and through partnerships. This study validated previous research as
well as heighten the irreplaceable aspects of direct outreach to potential students. This study
emphasized the importance of the direct route, as identified due to the impacts of the COVID
pandemic on recruitment and engagement practices of the PR programs.
Foster and Sustaining Connections
According to Kiyama and Rios-Aguilar (2106) the funds of knowledge approach can help
teachers to consider a students’ background and conditions as sources of valuable knowledge
rather than mere impediments to college-level learning. For most college students, the main point
of student contact and connection occurs within the classroom context (Chang, 2005; Cotten &
Wilson, 2006; Deil-Amen, 2011; Rios-Aguilar & Kiyama, 2017). Most importantly, the ties
created within the classroom are key sources of students’ sense of belonging in college, which can
improve students’ persistence and success (Deil-Amen, 201; Rios-Aguilar & Kiyama, 2017). For
FIS connectivity, often begins outside of the classroom. This is evidenced at recruitment of FIS
47

into educational settings. Participants described how having lived experience created spaces for
staff to connect with FIS and engage them into their program.
The theme of fostering and sustaining connections focused on how having staff with lived
experience and hurting previous Project Rebound students assisted with recruitment and retention
of FIS. 90 percent of participants identified as FIS and 80 percent of participants acknowledged
having participants in an educational re-entry program. This evidence indicates that having FIS as
staff and having staff with forensic history impacts recruitment of potential students and
encourages current students to remain connected. This study validated previous research which
described how utilizing staff with similar incarceration history as the student, increased rapport,
engagement, and subsequently encouraged enrollment into the institution. According to the
Degrees of Freedom Report, the most successful programs have committed staff, who also share
lived experience, which aids in creating a positive campus experience for the FIS (2015). This
study additionally affirmed what has been demonstrated by Project Rebound’s mission and model
is the active leadership of staff who have an incarceration experience and have experience
successfully navigating a university campus, which enables them to effectively mentor formerly
incarcerated students and build community among formerly incarcerated students and the wider
university community (Munoz-Murillo, 2020). Participants acknowledge that having staff with
lived experience created a space within the program to facilitate shared values and identities
amongst the staff and FIS. A key aspect of the FoK perspective is ensuring that teachers utilize the
cultural and social capital that their students have developed outside of the classroom and within
the classroom setting. Inherently, staff with lived experience have the capacity to understand the
FoK that students hold, due impart to having a shared experience. Participants acknowledged how
FIS are more trusting when identifying staff who are also formerly incarcerated.
48

This study also affirmed the importance of building strong community relationships,
including those with custody facilities, to create an avenue where recruitment of prospective
students is unchallenging. Prior research demonstrated that maintaining strong connections with
local community-based reentry organizations, government agencies and relevant campus services
(California, 2015) assists with improving student success and encourages retention of FIS. Study
participants acknowledged the importance of fostering meaningful community relationships, as a
means towards program success.
Outcome Measures
Students use their FoK to make meaning of their worlds (Alexander, n.d.). Ultimately,
these FoK were used to bridge students’ experiences with teaching and learning in academic
learning spaces. This was evident from my research as participants believed that program success
was not just specific to the number of students within the program who do not recidivate, but also
to how well students navigate through the program and their individual achievements. The
outcome measures that were utilized to identify program success from the participants were not
only justice system outcomes but academic and life outcomes as well. Participant 10 detailed how
program success included how well students functioned emotionally, and believed that in turn,
students will be able to obtain academic success. This idea falls in line with Fok's perspective as
it identifies the factors that influence student college preparedness.
Supportive Structures
During the interviews, several of the participants identified the consortium as a benefit
towards bringing structure across the various CSU Project Rebounds. This study shed light on the
importance of infrastructure as it relates to program success. Participants also described how the
consortium acts as a framework for other institutions to start educational re-entry programs.
49

Participant 2 reported: “[The consortium] is a model that has been replicated more and more
around the country and internationally. I have spoken on this in presentations in England and the
Philippines”. This supportive structure of the consortium aids in identifying best practice for
developing and sustaining a successful academic reentry program. This infrastructure also
inherently contributes to fostering community connections, which ultimately encourage the
recruitment and engagement of FIS.
The consortium adapts aspects founded within FoK perspective in terms of creating an
environment that utilizes the experiences of students to create change. There is a focus on the
educational intervention of modifying the organization of the activities carried out in the
classrooms of our schools so that they make sense for all students, that is, to recognize the
experiences and practices of learners so that teaching can be consistent with those experiences and
practices (Jovés, Siqués, & Esteban-Guitart, 2015).
University support was another theme pulled from the interviews. This theme consisted of
how participants perceived their institution could influence success amongst their educational re-
entry program, along with how the perception the participants hand on the universities ‘by in” of
the program. Having the educational re-entry program established on campus is groundbreaking.
Upholding the support from the university is what maintains such programs. Several participants
verbalized that their institution benefited largely from having the educational re-entry program.
Participants of this study expressed a stronger commitment to the FIS and program rather than the
university itself. Participants valued the tools and resources provided by the institution but focused
their personal responsibility towards the improvement of their educational re-entry program and
providing support to FIS. The FoK perspective holds this mindset, as shared values among staff
and faculty fostered a haven for underrepresented students (Mariscal, Marquez Kiyama, & Navarro
50

Benavides, 2019). Faculty within postsecondary institutions, teachers in secondary schools, and
staff act as agents in developing FoK pedagogy and practices (Mariscal, Marquez Kiyama, &
Navarro Benavides, 2019).
Implications for Policy Makers and Practitioners
The data gathered from this study hold implications for policy makers, institutional
leaders, and practitioners. This research offered a new perspective on the viewpoints of success
by way of staff who provide services to FIS within an educational re-entry program. In this
section, I will describe 1. Implications for policy makers and institutional leaders 2. Implications
for educational re-entry programs and practitioners.
Policy Makers and Institutional Leaders
Policy makers and institutional leaders hold a responsibility to identify and implement
practices that aid the larger population. This holds even more true to populations of underserved
communities, including forensically involved students. Acknowledging the importance of
programs that assist FIS and identifying the success of these programs, is a task that policy
makers and institutional leaders should participate in. Policy makers and institutional leaders
influence educational systems, and the development of additional programs for FIS, would create
for great influence. Implications include this stakeholder group being aware of the benefits of
educational programs from FIS, which includes, but not limited to decreasing recidivism rates,
which has not only been identified by prior research but also verbalized by study participants.
Once policy makers and institutional leaders digest the importance of success of these
programs, allocating resources to implement and sustain programs would be the next step.
Several of the study participants described how funding and support structures within their
institution could improve program success. Program infrastructure, like the Project Rebound
51

Consortium, is an example on how to uphold educational re-entry programs once they begin.
Policy makers can contribute by way of providing funding and creating policy that supports these
educational systems.
Practitioners
Upon identification of successful programs by policymakers and institutional leaders,
practitioners are then held responsible for conducting program interventions. This study
identified several implications for practitioners, which can aid and influence the successfulness
of educational re-entry programs. Practitioners can encourage the development of these
programs, as a means for institutions to increase diversity and inclusion amongst vulnerable
populations. Research has identified that the U.S. releases 7 million people from jail and 600,000
from prison (People, 2020) every year, and the identification of supportive programs to prevent
recidivism is essential for the nation. Institutions of higher education are identified as spaces to
generate change agents, and employing such programs are beneficial.
Identification of useful hiring practices is also an influential task that practitioners can
be mindful of. Ensuring that individuals with lived experience are hired within these programs.
Upholding grassroots recruitment and engagement practices are also necessary for practitioners
to move forward with. Study participants described the impacts to student engagement, which
was shifted during the pandemic. Being aware of how potential students access information
either in person or virtual, is an implication that practitioners can also follow. FIS additionally
benefit from several academic and non-academic needs to support retention and prevent
recidivism during their participation in educational re-entry programs.
52

Conclusion
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how Project Rebound, the
current educational re-entry programs at the California State Universities (CSU) identify and
engage FIS. This study examined how the universities recruit FIS and retain them within their
institution. This study identified how these institutions perceive and measure the success of their
educational programs and how successful they are in meeting their goals of recruiting and retaining
former incarcerated students. As previously mentioned, education has been proven as a tool to
prevent recidivism and improve quality of life amongst FIS. Much of the current research that
exists only focuses on the experiences of FIS. Research has yet to seek the opinions of faculty and
staff regarding their perceptions of program and student success. The goal of this research is to
expand upon that understanding. Application of the FoK was utilized to assist with discussing the
identifiable themes, with the intention of identifying perceived success amongst faculty and staff.

53

References
Ahern, K. J. (1999). Pearls, Pith, and Provocation: Ten Tips for Reflexive Bracketing.
Qualitative Health Research, 9(3), 407–411.
Alexander, B. (n.d.). From Incarceration to College Graduation: How Colleges Can Support
the Education Goals of Formerly Incarcerated Students. Retrieved September 5, 2020,
from https://edinsightscenter.org/blog/2020/05/01/from-incarceration-to-college-
graduation-how-colleges-can-support-the-education-goals-of-formerly-incarcerated-
students/
Alternatives, C. for C. (2015). Boxed Out: Criminal History Screening and College
Application Attrition. Syracuse.
American Studies Association. (2020). Formerly Incarcerated Students & Workers: Best
Practices for Universities (Working Paper Draft). Retrieved from
https://www.theasa.net/communities/caucuses/critical-prison-studies-caucus/formerly-
incarcerated-students-workers-best
Barnett, E. A., Bragg, D. D., Loeb, J., Ikenberry, S., & Levy, S. (2007). Validation
Experiences and Persistence Among Urban Community College Students.
Bennett, B. M. (2015). An Offender’s Perspective of Correctional Education Programs in a
Southeastern State. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 102.
Billups, F. D. (2008). Measuring College Student Satisfaction: A Multi- Year Study of the
Factors Leading to Persistence. Higher Education, Paper 5. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2008%5Cnhttp://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/ner
a_2008/14
54

Blount, T. A., Butler, T., & Gay, H. (2017). How Student Recruitment and Selection Can
Impact Reentry Outcomes: Lessons from the Michigan Department of Corrections and
Jackson College. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 4(1), 0–4.
https://doi.org/10.15845/jper.v4i1.1190
Bowman, S. W., & Travis, R. (2012). Prisoner reentry and recidivism according to the
formerly incarcerated and reentry service providers: A verbal behavior approach. The
Behavior Analyst Today, 13(3–4), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100726
Brown-peters, J. (2019). Support Services for Formerly Incarcerated Students.
Californians, F. I. (2015). Degrees of Freedom_Warren 2015, (February).
Castro, E. L., & Zamani-gallaher, E. M. (2018). Expanding Quality Higher Education for
Currently and Formerly Incarcerated: Committing to Equity and Protecting Against
Exploitation, 1–32.
Çelik, E. (2015). Mediating and moderating role of academic self-efficacy in the
relationship between student academic support and personal growth initiative.
Australian Journal of Career Development.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416215583563
Chou, W. B. (2010). Beyond the box. IT Professional, 12(5), 61–64.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2010.126
College, A. (2017). Measures of Institutional Effectiveness and Mission Fulfillment
Outcomes Effectiveness and Mission Efforts Program, (May).
Colleges, C. C. (2020). Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Students.
Colleges, C. C. (2020). Striving For Success: The Academic Achievements of Incarcerated
and Formerly Incarcerated Students in California Community Colleges, (January).
55

Copenhaver, A., Edwards-willey, T. L., Byers, B. D., Copenhaver, A., Edwards-willey, T.
L., & Byers, B. D. (2015). Correctional Education Association Journeys in Social
Stigma: The Lives of Formerly Incarcerated Felons in Higher Education Linked
references are available on JSTOR for this article: Journeys in Social Stigma : The
Lives of Formerly Incarcerated Felons , 58(3), 268–283.
Dahl, G. B., & Løken, K. V. (2020). Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment Manudeep
Bhuller Magne Mogstad. Journal of Political Economy, 128(4).
Davis, L., Bozick, R., Steele, J., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. (2017). Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide
Education to Incarcerated Adults. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional
Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated
Adults. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr266
De Lourdes R. Da F. Passos, M. (2012). B.F. Skinner: The writer and his definition of
verbal behavior. Behavior Analyst, 35(1), 115–126.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392270
Denscombe, M. (2014). Good research guide: For small-scale social research projects.
(5th ed.). ProQuest Ebook Central New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Dreger, M. L. (2017). Barriers to Postsecondary Education Participation Experienced by
Formerly Incarcerated Community College Students.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Eddy, C., Chung, R. V., & Guerrero-Moreno, R. (n.d.). Corrections to College – Reversing
the School to Prison Pipeline.
56

Ehnow, R. M. (2018). Formerly Incarcerated Adults in Higher Education: A Life-History
Study of a Restorative Approach to Prisoner Reentry.
Elements, E. P. (2017). Toolkit: Fostering Success for Formerly Incarcerated Students on
Campus Fostering Success for Formerly Incarcerated Students on Campus Essential
Program Elements and Services.
Erisman, W., & Contardo, J. B. (2005). Learning to Reduce Recidivism. Higher Education
Policy, (November).
Escobar, E., Jordan, T., & Lohrasbi, E. A. (2015). Redefining Lives: Post-Secondary
Education for Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Individuals, 34(February), 31–41.
Esparza Flores, N. (2018). Contributing Factors to Mass Incarceration and Recidivism.
Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 6(1), 4.
Feinstein, S., Baartman, J., Buboltz, M., Sonnichsen, K., & Solomon, R. (2008). Resiliency
in Adolescent Males in a Correctional Facility. Journal of Correctional Education,
59(2), 94–105. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/229826485?accountid=14548%5Cnhttp://library.h
ku.hk:4551/resserv?sid=PROQ&au=Feinstein,+Sheryl;Baartman,+Jyl;Buboltz,+Miche
lle;Sonnichsen,+Kim;Solomon,+Rebekka&issn=0740-
2708&isbn=&title=Journal+of+Correctional+Education&
Fullilove, R. E., Maxis, H., Cortes, A., & Gamarra, R. (2020). The Bard Prison initiative:
Education, incarceration, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 110,
S33–S34. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305457
George, M. (2013). Teaching Focus Group Interviewing: Benefits and Challenges. Teaching
Sociology, 41(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12465295
57

Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2010). Critical race theory. International Encyclopedia
of Education, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01530-X
Giraldo, L. G., Huerta, A. H., & Solórzano, D. (2018). From Incarceration to Community
College. Funds of Knowledge in Higher Education, 48–65.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315447322-4
Goodman, D. L. (2019). Recruiting and Hiring Female Police Officers: An Evaluative
Study. University of Southern California.
Gore, J. N. (2010). The Importance of Freshman Experiences in Predicting Students’
Retention Decisions, (December).
Harrison, T. (1991). Customer satisfaction measures. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 1(3), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000003141
Hjalmarsson, R., Holmlund, H., & Lindquist, M. J. (2015). The Effect of Education on
Criminal Convictions and Incarceration: Causal Evidence from Micro-data. Economic
Journal, 125(587), 1290–1326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12204
Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of Knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 666–677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.005
Houghton, Catherine, RGN,M.H.Sc, PhD., Casey, Dympna, RGN,M.A., PhD., Shaw,
David,PhD., C.Sci, & Murphy, Kathy, BEd,M.Sc, PhD. (2013). Rigor in qualitative
case-study research. Nurse Researcher (through 2013), 20(4), 12-7. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/scholarly-
journals/rigour-qualitative-case-study-research/docview/1317920491/se-
2?accountid=14749
58

Incarceration. (2020). Retrieved August 12, 2020, from
https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-
health/interventions-resources/incarceration%0D%0A
Jeffers, A. R. (2017). Reflections of Academic Experiences from Formerly Incarcerated
African American Males. Equity and Excellence in Education, 50(2), 222–240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301834
Johnson, A. D. (2006). Privilege, Power, and Difference (2nd Edition).
Johnson, T. (2007). The Lived Experiences of African American Males Who Have Had
Contact with The Juvenile Justice System. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the Counseling Department at the University of Holy Cross in partial
fulfillment of the degree of Do.
Jovés, P., Siqués, C., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2015). The incorporation of funds of
knowledge and funds of identity of students and their families into educational
practice: A case study from Catalonia, Spain. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49,
68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.001
Lau, J., & Ng, K. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the Counseling Training Environment Using
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory. International Journal for the Advancement of
Counselling, 36(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-014-9220-5
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Llopart, M., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2018). Funds of knowledge in 21st century societies:
inclusive educational practices for under-represented students. A literature review.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(2), 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1247913
59

Mariscal, J., Marquez Kiyama, J., & Navarro Benavides, V. (2019). The Embodiment and
Enactment of Funds of Knowledge among Latina/o University Outreach Staff. Journal
of Latinos and Education, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2019.1653299
Mazer, J. P., & Thompson, B. (2011). The Validity of the Student Academic Support Scale:
Associations with Social Support and Relational Closeness. Communication Reports,
24(2), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2011.622237
McChesney, K., & Aldridge, J. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed
methods research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3),
225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1590811
McTier, T. (2015). Can You Help Me? What a Mid-West Land Grant University is Doing to
Help Formerly Incarcerated Students in Higher Education. Educational
Administration: Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsedaddiss/227
McTier, T. S., Briscoe, K. L., & Davis, T. J. (2019). College Administrators’ Beliefs and
Perceptions of College Students with Criminal Records. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 00(00), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1648273
McWilliams, J. (2019). Restoring Prisoners’ Access to Education Reduces Recidivism.
Miralles, K. C. (2017). An Outperforming Non-traditional Urban School: A Qualitative
Case Study on a Visual and Performing Arts High School. University of Southern
California.
Munoz-Murillo, N. (2020). The California State University Project Rebound Consortium
Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www2.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-
60

csu/government/Advocacy-and-State-
Relations/legislativereports1/2020Project_Rebound.pdf
Noble, H., & Heale, R. (2019). Triangulation in research, with examples. Evidence Based
Nursing, 22(3), 67 LP – 68. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103145
Ott, M., & McTier, J. S. J. (2019). Faculty Attitudes Toward College Students with
Criminal Records. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-
efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 472–486.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.58.3.472
People, H. (2020). Incarceration. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from
https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-
health/interventions-resources/incarceration
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C. (2012). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for
Nursing Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Pryor, M., & Thompkins, D. E. (2013). The Disconnect Between Education and Social
Opportunity for the Formerly Incarcerated. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
38(3), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9184-0
Rancano, V. (2020). For Formerly Incarcerated Students, Sheltering in Place Can Feel Like
Prison Again. Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/news/11813278/for-formerly-
incarcerated-students-shelter-in-place-can-feel-like-prison-again
Rios-Aguilar, C., & Kiyama, J. M. (2012). Funds of Knowledge: An Approach to Studying
Latina(o) Students’ Transition to College. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(1), 2–
16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2012.631430
61

Rios-Aguilar, C., & Kiyama, J. M. (2017). Introduction: The need for a funds of knowledge
approach in higher education contexts. Funds of Knowledge in Higher Education:
Honoring Students’ Cultural Experiences and Resources as Strengths, 3–6.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315447322
Rios-Aguilar, C., & Kiyama, J. M. (2018). A Complementary Framework. Funds of
Knowledge in Higher Education, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315447322-2
Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for
the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of
knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 163–184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776
Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total
Quality Framework Approach (1st ed.). Guilford Publications.
Ross, J. I. (2019). Getting a Second Chance with a University Education: Barriers &
Opportunities. Interchange, 50(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-019-
09354-4
Scott, K. J. (2009). Corrections and Education: The Relationship Between Education and
Recidivism, 147–170.
Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (eds). (2014). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014
National Report. Juvenile and Family Justice, 4, 244. Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf
Skovdal, M., & Cornish, F. (2015). Qualitative Research for Development. Qualitative
Research for Development. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448534
62

Theses, E., Jones, P., & Jones, P. A. (2018). What Does an Effective Reentry Program Look
Like at A University Campus?
Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2009). College student ratings of student academic support:
Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education,
58(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520902930440
Tobin, G.A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological Rigor within a Qualitative
Framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388–396.
Tolbert, M. (2012). A Reentry Education Model. Washington, DC.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection.
Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147–158.
https://doi.org/10.17348/era.5.0.147-158
Wheeless, V. E., Witt, P. L., Maresh, M., Bryand, M. C., & Schrodt, P. (2011). Instructor
credibility as a mediator of instructor communication and students’ intent to persist in
college. Communication Education, 60(3), 314–339.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.555917
Whipple, C. R., Jason, L. A., & Robinson, W. L. V. (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
Willis, J. W. (2007). History and foundations of interpretivist research. In Foundations of
qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches (pp. 95-146). SAGE
Publications, Inc., https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781452230108
Witt, P. L., Schrodt, P., Wheeless, V. E., & Bryand, M. C. (2014). Students’ Intent to
Persist in College: Moderating the Negative Effects of Receiver Apprehension with
63

Instructor Credibility and Nonverbal Immediacy. Communication Studies, 65(3), 330–
352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.811428
Yuuhaa, M. I. W. C., S, L. S., Bidang, P., Lingkungan, D., Amrullah, H., Law, A. O. F., …
Selatan, T. (2018). Formerly Incarcerated Students at California Community Colleges.
https://doi.org/10.20961/ge.v4i1.19180
Ziskin, M., Hossler, D., & Kim, S. (2009). The study of institutional practices related to
student persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and
Practice, 11(1),

64

Appendix A
Participant List
Participant Employment
Position
Incarceration Hx Former Project
Rebound Student
Participant 1 Executive Director Yes No
Participant 2 Executive Director No No
Participant 3 Outreach
Coordinator
Yes Yes
Participant 4 Executive Director Yes No
Participant 5 Program Coordinator Yes Yes
Participant 6 Program Coordinator No No
Participant 7 Program Coordinator Yes Yes
Participant 8 Outreach
Coordinator
Yes Yes
Participant 9 Outreach
Coordinator
Yes Yes
Participant 10 Program Director Yes Yes

65

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
INSTRUCTIONS
Hello, my name is Brittaney Dennis, thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview
regarding your experience as a staff working within Project Rebound. This interview will ask
you a variety of questions and consist of both open ended and closed ended questions that I will
ask you about your thoughts and experiences within the program. There are no right, wrong,
desirable, or undesirable answers. Please feel comfortable with speaking about your true
thoughts and experiences, as it relates to the interview questions asked. A one-hour time slot has
been scheduled for this interview.

You have been selected as a participant for our interview, because you have been identified as
having knowledge and experience with working within an educational re-entry program at a 4-
year institution. This study aims to focus on the experiences of staff of educational-re-entry
programs and gain insight on their perceived success of the program to encourage other 4-year
institutions to develop similar programs to assist this population.

TAPE RECORDER INSTRUCTIONS
With your consent, I will be video recording our zoom meeting. The purpose is to ensure that I
have accurate documentation of your responses to the interview questions asked, as well as give
you my full attention throughout the interview. All recordings are confidential, and upon
completion of the interviews, I will document your responses, which will not include references
to specific students or staff.

CONSENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS
Before we begin with the interview, I have previously emailed you over a copy of the consent
form, for your review and electronic signature. Please let me know if you have any questions
regarding that form.

INTERVIEW BEGINS
I will now begin with the interview and start recording our session.

Interview Questions
Background Questions
● Briefly describe your role at Project Rebound.
● How long have you been employed with Project Rebound?

Recruitment Questions
● How does the program recruit and engage formerly incarcerated students?
● How does the program assist potential students with applying to the university?

Retention Questions
● How do you believe the university is benefiting from supporting FIS?
● How can the university assist FIS with the completion of their degree?
66

Perceive Program Success
● How do you perceive Project Rebound is assisting FIS?
● What do you believe are the unmet and met needs of FIS?

Post Interview Comments and/or Observations

67

Appendix C
Informed Consent for Research
Study Title: A Qualitative Examination of Educational Re-Entry Programs for Formerly
Incarcerated Students Attending 4-Year Institutions: Perceptions of Staff

Principal Investigator: Brittaney Dennis
Department: USC Rossier School of Education
Faculty Advisor: Ruth Chung, PhD

INTRODUCTION
We invite you to take part in a research study. Please take as much time as you need to read the
consent form. If you find any of the languages difficult to understand, please ask questions. If you
decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. A copy of the signed form will be
provided to you for your records.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to highlight educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions by
way of the perceptions of staff employed within those programs. We hope to learn that educational
re-entry programs are beneficial within the 4-year university setting. You are invited as a possible
participant because you have been identified as faculty and/or staff working for an educational re-
entry program.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants will be asked to participate in an individual interview via zoom, to answer questions
related to your experience, opinion, and perceptions as it relates to the academic re-entry program
that you are currently associated with. With the consent of the participant, interviews will be
recorded. Option to decline recording is available and will not prevent participation in the
68

interview. Interviews are expected to not exceed 60 minutes. Participants will be emailed a link to
access the zoom recorded interview for review.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to review and sign informed consent; identify the day
and availability to participate in a Zoom interview; and participate in an individual interview.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Audio/Video recordings will take place, and the participant has the right to review the transcripts
from the zoom recordings. Only the researcher and faculty advisor will have access to the
audio/video recordings. All information will be erased approximately May 2021.
Participants will have the option to withdraw from the interview at any time and all video/audio
recording will be deleted.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Brittaney Dennis at Bsdennis@usc.edu
or (310) 999-8960.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University
of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
69

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a
chance to ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this form, I am
agreeing to take part in this study.
______________________ _____________________ __________________
Name of Research Participant Signature Date Signed

Thank you again for taking the time out to interview with me.
Please review and sign informed consent to participate in the interview.
Feel free to reach out to me with any additional questions or concerns.

Thank you in advance,
Brittaney Dennis

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to examine how Project Rebound, the current educational re-entry programs at the California State Universities (CSU) identify and engage FIS. This qualitative study addressed the following research questions. (1) Do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions recruit and retain formerly incarcerated students (FIS)? (2) How do educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions define programmatic success as it relates to recruitment, retainment, and service of formerly incarcerated students (FIS)? (3) According to staff within educational re-entry programs at 4-year institutions, what do they perceive are the met and unmet needs of formerly incarcerated students (FIS)? Several themes emerged in the study, which included the utilization of direct and indirect outreach practices, fostering and sustaining connections, outcome measures as it relates to recruitment, retention and services of formerly incarcerated students, and supportive structures within the educational re-entry program. Findings of this study provided greater understanding to the importance of educational reentry programs within 4-year institutions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Investigating differences in online & traditional student perceptions of value and satisfaction with five key educational elements

PDF

Education after incarceration: identifying practices in prison education programs that positively affect the persistence of formerly incarcerated men to continue education

PDF

A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy

PDF

Access to higher education for formerly incarcerated Black and Hispanic male youth

PDF

Chinese-Vietnamese American college students: narratives of educational experiences and college success

PDF

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

PDF

Medical student loan indebtedness and decision-making in the selection of specialty

PDF

International student perceptions of threat in U.S. higher education

PDF

Examining the influence of new student orientation on graduate international students’ campus involvement, intent to persist, and sense of belonging

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Uncovering promising practices for providing vocational opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals

PDF

Students with disabilities in higher education: examining factors of mental health, psychological well-being, and resiliency

PDF

Underrepresented students with disabilities transitioning into a 4-year university

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of outsourcing student services for online graduate students

PDF

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

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

A quantitative analysis on student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 6th grade middle school students

Asset Metadata

Creator Dennis, Brittaney Shanae (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 12/09/2021

Defense Date 12/08/2021

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

Tag educational re-entry,educational re-entry programs,effective re-entry programs,forensic,formerly incarcerated,formerly incarcerated students,incarcerated student,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions,re-entry

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Banuelos, Shelia M. (committee member), Maccalla, Nicole Marie-Gerardi (committee member)

Creator Email bsdennis@usc.edu,Dr.BConnection@outlook.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC18010052

Unique identifier UC18010052

Legacy Identifier etd-DennisBrit-10289

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Dennis, Brittaney Shanae

Type texts

Source 20211210-wayne-usctheses-batch-903-nissen (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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