University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EXAMINING THE NETWORKS OF PROGRAM LEADERS IN THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPONENT OF THE PUENTE PROJECT
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A SOCIAL CAPITAL FRAMEWORK

by

Cristina Castelo Rodriguez

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Cristina Castelo Rodriguez
ii
DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my husband and my parents who have always encouraged and
supported me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following people for their support that made this
endeavor possible. Dr. Kim Hirabayashi and Dr. Ricardo Stanton-Salazar, who
guided me through this process. The members of my thematic dissertation group for
their collegial support. The numerous friends, mentors, and colleagues who have
supported me throughout this experience.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION: .............................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: ............................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES: ......................................................................................... v

ABSTRACT: .................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................. 17

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 56

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................... 78

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .................................................................. 125

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 160

APPENDICES .................................................................................................166
v
LIST OF TABLES:

Table 3.1
SBCC Student Ethnicity for Fall 2005 .............................................................. 59

Table 3.2
SBCC Student Enrollment Status for Fall 2005 ................................................. 60

Table 3.3
APS Student Ethnicity for Fall 2002 .................................................................... 61

Table 3.4
APS Student Enrollment Status for Fall 2005 ...................................................... 62

Table 3.5
VRCC Student Ethnicity for Fall 2005 ................................................................. 63

Table 4.1
Position Generator – Access to High-, Medium-, and Low-status Alters ............ 80

Table 4.2
Resource Generator – Access to High-, Medium-, and Low-Status Alters
and Self ................................................................................................................. 82

Table 4.3
Position Generator – Percentage (%) of High-, Medium- and Low-Status
Items Identified...................................................................................................... 87

Table 4.3
Resource Generator – Percentage(%) of High-, Medium- and Low-Status
Items Identified ..................................................................................................... 88

Table 4.5
Name, Position, and Resource Generators – Average Percentage (%) of High-,
Medium- and Low-Status Items Identified in the Position and Resource
Generators; Average Percentage (%) of Status of Alters Identified and Accessed
in the Name Generator .......................................................................................... 89

Table 4.6
Position Generator – Status and Relationships of Alters ...................................... 92

Table 4.7
Resource Generator – Status and Relationships of Resources .............................. 92

vi
Table 4.8
Position Generator – Status and Relationships of Alters Total ...................... 93

Table 4.9
Resource Generator – Status and Relationships of Alters ............................... 94

Table 4.10
Name Generator – Percentage (%) of Relationships by Ethnicity ................... 95

Table 4.11
Name Generator – Percentage (%) of multiplex relationships and
weak ties ........................................................................................................... 96

Table 4.12
Name Generator – Acting as Sources of Support for Alters ............................. 99

Table 4.13
Resource Generator – Average percent (%) of high-, medium-, and
low-status resources provided by site .............................................................. 100

vii
ABSTRACT

This study focuses on social capital theory and the community college
component of the Puente Project. Specifically, this research study analyzes the
social capital of intervention program leaders. The specific questions that guided
this study included, what are the characteristics, features, and composition of the
social resource networks of intervention program coordinators? What are some of
the factors that facilitate or constrain the program leader’s access and mobilization of
resources on behalf of themselves, students, program associates, and the program
agenda? How do program coordinators work to enhance the program participants’
social networks so that participants themselves become independent and learn to
network and access resources? How do program coordinators deal with the
pressures associated with being a program leader? The results suggest that program
leaders must be conscious of social capital, the composition of their own networks,
and in providing students with opportunities to network. Secondly, program leaders
must actively choose to activate their social capital on behalf of the program and
their students. Third, program leaders must develop relationships with individuals
and not rely on the referral system as this is not social capital. Additionally, an equal
balance of capital between coordinators is imperative such that the program does not
rely on only one coordinator’s network. Furthermore, hiring committees need to be
conscious of social capital and assess potential candidate’s level of social capital and
help-seeking orientation. Lastly, proper training of program leaders is imperative to
help the program coordinators, students, and program thrive. In the end, more
viii
empirical research needs to be invested in studying institutional agents as the concept
of institutional agents has been both understudied and undertheorized in social
capital research.

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Differential academic success based on gender, socioeconomic status, race,
and ethnicity is a heated topic in education today. Individuals located at high levels
in the social structure control resources and knowledge. Since middle-class
individuals are regularly engaged in cultural circles and in occupations with high-
status individuals, they have access to the cultural knowledge that reveals how the
system works to maintain social inequality. Researchers are interested in
understanding what strengthens academic success for minority students (Bensimon,
2004; Conchas, 2001; Maeroff, 1998; Ream, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, Vasquez &
Mehan, 2000). Social capital theories may help explain minority student success as a
dynamic of their relationships with program coordinators that may act as institutional
agents in intervention programs. These relationships may be a way for these
students to access resources that are otherwise unavailable to them.
Since social capital theories are very much in flux and have by no means
congealed into dogma, there are many conflicting definitions of what constitutes
“social capital” within the discourses currently in play within social capital research.
However, since a research study such as this must utilize some paradigmatic
concepts, the working definition of social capital theory used in this study is
primarily defined as resources which are embedded within social networks that are
accessed and used by individuals for actions (Lin, 2001). There are two main
2
schools of thought within social capital theory – those that view social capital
through the normative school and those that view it through the social resource
school; but for reasons expanded upon in Chapter II, this study will emphasize a
conceptualization of social capital based on the social resource model.
According to Stanton-Salazar (2006), there are four key dimensions of social
capital theory: social mediums – social ties and networks that act as conduits;
properties or characteristics of social mediums – such as the strength of the
relationship, trust, and social closure; resources and forms of empowering social
support; and social structure – resources and mediums that are embedded in a social
structure. Stanton-Salazar (2006) asserts that the key difference between these two
schools is how they define social capital using these dimensions. He argues that the
normative school defines social capital through the properties or characteristics of
social mediums dimension while the social resources school defines social capital as
resources and forms of empowering social support.
Social capital theory is important in understanding academic success and its
relationship to minority students and research studies have found that social capital is
materially linked to academic achievement for these students (for a comprehensive
review see Stanton-Salazar, 2004). Intervention and outreach programs that serve
low-income minority community college students such as SITE (Summer Intensive
Transfer Experience), MESA (Mathematics, Engineering, and Science
Achievement), EOP (Educational Opportunity Program), and the Puente Project all
function as channels to enable students to access social capital. It is through the
3
program coordinators, who have the potential to act as an institutional agent, and
their social networks and relationships that they are able to channel social capital to
low socioeconomic status minority students in their programs.

Background of the Problem
Lareau (2003) argues that middle-class and working-class families operate
with different logics of childrearing, which reflect and contribute to the transmission
of inequality. This is evident in the research that continues to show that
underrepresented students still lag behind their white counterparts in academic
success in higher education (Bensimon, 2004). Out of all the ethnic groups, Latino
students are the least likely to attend four-year colleges (Gándara, 2002). This is
evident by the fact that three-fourths of all Latino college students in California
enroll in community colleges versus four-year colleges according to the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (as cited in Gándara, 2002). Furthermore,
data from the California Postsecondary Education Commission (2003) reveals that
approximately 11% of baccalaureate degrees in California from 1992 to 2001 were
awarded to Latino students.
To exacerbate the situation, many Latino students are first generation college
students. Horn and Nunez (2000) found that first generation college students tend to
come from low-income families and were more likely to be Latino or African
American. Research has also shown that first generation students are less likely to
enroll in college (Choy, 2001). The National Education Longitudinal Study found
4
that only 65% of first generation students enrolled in college as compared to 87%
enrollment for students whose parents did go to college (Choy, 2001).
The majority of Latino students enter higher education at the community
college level (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1999). Therefore, it
is important to review and understand the critical data that has been generated about
community colleges. First and foremost, it is a fact that community colleges enroll
the largest number of first generation and low-income students in the higher
education system in the United States (Bailey, Alfonso, Calcangno, Jenkins, Kienzel,
& Leinbach, 2004). The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study,
from 1995 - 1996, provides information about community college student
achievement (Bailey et al., 2004). This study was based on a sample of students
who started college for the first time during the 1995 - 1996 school year and were re-
interviewed in 1998 and 2001. After this six-year span, only 36% of the community
college students had completed a certificate, associate, or bachelor’s degree. An
additional 13% had transferred to a four-year institution, but had not yet earned any
degree. In comparison to community colleges, degree completion rates are much
higher among students starting at four-year institutions and a larger number of
degrees obtained by these students are bachelor’s degrees (Bailey et al., 2004). As
this data would suggest, community colleges have struggled to provide equitable
access to bachelor’s degree completion for their students.
5
While the average student faces barriers to academic success, Latino students
face additional challenges, especially if they are the first generation students
attending college. For example, low-income, first generation students lack sufficient
support networks such as family, peers, or mentors that understand the types of
challenges that college students face (Phinney & Hass, 2003). Furthermore, these
students may lack the knowledge and skills in obtaining educational resources,
scholarships, and advice (Olivérez & Tierney, 2005). For example, parents who
have gone to college can transfer knowledge such as educational information or the
types of credentials needed for specific careers (Brewer & Landers, 2005). Not
surprisingly, these are only some of the challenges faced by low-income students
when we consider the fact that an overwhelming two-thirds of low-income students
come from families in which neither parent has attended college (Corrigan, 2003).
Intervention programs, such as the Puente Project, were created to combat
this phenomenon. In 1981, Felix Galaviz and Patricia McGrath from Chabot College
in Hayward created the Puente Project (“Puente Project”, 2006). Currently, there are
56 community colleges and 36 high schools Puente programs throughout California
(“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006). Puente is an academic preparation program whose
mission is to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students who enroll
in four-year colleges and universities, earn college degrees, and return to the
community as mentors and leaders for future generations (“Fact Sheet, Puente”,
2006).
6
Social capital theories may help explain minority student success as a
dynamic of their relationships with program staff members who actively assume the
complex role-set of institutional agents in intervention programs, such as Puente.
These relationships may be a way for these students to access resources that were
otherwise unavailable to them.
Based on the social resource school of social capital theory, certain
relationships that students establish during their academic careers may create a flow
of resources and are critical to their success. However, it is important to remember
that socioeconomic status already has a great impact on the types of social networks
that individuals have, or have the potential of having access to. For example,
according to Stanton-Salazar (2001) the networks of middle-class individuals can be
described as “cosmopolitan networks” (p. 17) in which relationships are formed with
a diverse group of people that transforms into accessibility to the mainstream where
individuals have entry to privileges, institutional resources, and opportunities in
career mobility. In contrast, working-class networks, such as those of low
socioeconomic status minority students, are often structured as a consequence of
segregation, exclusion, and scarcity, which activate the necessity to conserve and
cope with the competition over scarce resources with other low socioeconomic status
groups (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Furthermore, working-class networks are “smaller,
more homogeneous, tightly knit …, and turf-bound” and grant little access to
institutions and diverse networks found in the mainstream (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, p.
17). In sum, low socioeconomic status students do not have equal access to social
7
capital because their relationships are integrally bound to socioeconomic status.
Therefore, low socioeconomic status students do not experience the same types of
social relationships that middle- and upper-class students do as they grow up.
Given the class dynamic that is operant in the United States, we are faced
with the fact that in considering the networks of low socioeconomic status
individuals, it is apparent that their networks are not as rich or extensive as those of
middle- and upper-class students. However, it is possible that program leaders of
intervention programs can act as institutional agents by expanding the networks of
low socioeconomic status minority students by acting as conduits that allow for
access to social capital.
Institutional agents are individuals who have the ability to transmit, or
channel the transmission of institutional resources and opportunities. For students,
institutional resources and opportunities can include programs like Puente, academic
tutoring and mentoring, or decision-making in terms of careers (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Sennet and Cobb’s (1972) study determined that institutional agents hold
power and their power enables them to have the ability to give or withhold important
knowledge that may help a student to succeed (as cited in Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Institutional agents’ power is vital to student success as it stems from their ability to
provide young adults with richer social networks by changing the traditional course
of social and institutional forces that determine the “haves” and “have nots” – who
will make it, and who will not (Stanton-Salazar, Vásquez, & Mehan, 2001). They
are also in a position to have accumulated resources they directly possess and can
8
directly provide their program and students with support through authentically caring
relationships. For low socioeconomic status minority students, an institutional agent
can help direct their course in life both academically and professionally.

Purpose and Research Questions
This study is geared towards employing the analytical lenses of social capital
theory as a means to closely examine those features that seem to empower both low
socioeconomic status minority students who participate in Puente as well as the
program personnel that run the Puente Project. This study does not evaluate the
Puente Project. Simultaneously, this study will examine the Puente Project as a
vehicle for exploring, through several theoretical frameworks, the role of program
leaders as institutional agents. In particular, this study will examine how the
program leaders mobilize their resources to assist low socioeconomic status
community college students to transfer and succeed. Thus, beside the central
concept of social capital in this study, the concept of empowerment, borrowed from
the field of social work, will be applied to articulate how the complex network
activities of institutional agents may play an important role in an effective student
intervention.
First, this study will focus on social capital theory drawing heavily from the
social resource school. To better understand the concept of institutional agents and
their impact on Latino college students, this study will analyze the role of the
program leaders that can act as institutional agents in the Puente Project as well as
9
their social networks in light of social capital and empowerment theories.
Specifically, a focus of this study will be to analyze the types of support and
resources that these institutional agents provide to student program participants.
Next, this study will examine how the resources institutional agents offer to program
participants are an outcome of their own connections and social capital through their
own social networks. This study will also examine the institutional agents’ “weak”
and “strong” ties and how these ties play a role in the institutional agents’ own
resources (Granovetter, 1983). Lastly, this study will analyze how institutional
agents work to enhance program participants’ social networks so that students
themselves become independent and learn how to network and access resources.
This research study is guided by the following questions:
1. What are the characteristics, features, and composition of the social
resource networks of intervention program coordinators?
2. What are some of the factors that facilitate or constrain the program
leader’s access and mobilization of resources on behalf of themselves,
students, program associates, and the program agenda?
3. How do program coordinators work to enhance the program participants’
social networks so that participants themselves become independent and
learn to network and access resources?
4. How do program coordinators deal with the pressures associated with
being a program leader?
10
The methodological orientation of this study is both inductive analytical and
deductive analytical. The inductive orientation of this study is two-fold. First, it
explores how program leaders view the challenge. In this study the “challenge” is
defined as the means and methods that are instituted to increase the number of
educationally disadvantaged students who enroll in four-year colleges and
universities, earn college degrees, and return to the community as mentors and
leaders of future generations. Secondly, it explores program leaders’ understanding
of how the Puente Project works and why they think it works. It will explore the
meaning and significance they attribute to various social ties and to their
participation, or lack of participation, in various social domains in their school,
community, and in society. Additionally, the deductive orientation uses theories of
social capital and empowerment to also add depth to our interpretation of how the
program works and why it works with an emphasis on the role of program leaders.

Significance of the Study
This research study utilizes and is based on the foundational premises of
social capital theory. First, social capital theory is enabling in terms of the objects of
this study in that it advances our theoretical understanding and formal articulation of
what strengthens minority students’ academic success and development in spite of
the oppressive environments they grow up in. More specifically, this study will
focus on how the Puente Project acts as a vehicle to identify key underlying
processes of social capital. The assumption being that students in intervention
11
programs, such as Puente, will benefit from the kinds of social capital that thrives
within the program, and that they should correspondingly have access to. It is
through the relationships of the program leaders to key individuals that valued
resources and funds of knowledge are made available to the students.
The social resource approach also provides key theoretical insights that
enlighten the processes that prevail in the Puente Project. Here, the focus is on the
dimension of resources as forms of empowering social support and not necessarily
on trust, norms, and sanctions as found in the normative school (Stanton-Salazar,
2006). Additionally, unlike the normative school, the resource approach emphasizes
the socialization of class by the dominant class (Bourdieu, 1972; Bourdieu &
Passeron, 1977). Thus, the values and norms of the elite are forced upon others to
take them on as their own (Lin, 2001). This viewpoint is different from Coleman,
the leader of the normative school, who viewed the family as the unit that controlled
the advancement of the success of their children (Lareau, 2001). The social resource
approach is a critical aspect of this study as it explains the experiences and pressures
of the minority student and the importance of intervention program leaders and their
role as institutional agents.
As the social resource approach has evolved over time, Lin (2001) brought to
light that social capital was not bound or premised by relationships, as had been
suggested in earlier social capital research. Instead, Lin suggests that social capital is
resources which are embedded in social networks that are accessed and used by
individuals for actions – which, as stated earlier, is the working definition of social
12
capital as utilized in this research study. Stanton-Salazar (1997) argues that by social
structure, Lin is referring to the social stratification system - our class system, system
of racial segregation, and divisions by gender. Stanton-Salazar continues to suggest
that similar to Bourdieu, this refers to hierarchy and how positions that are higher in
the hierarchy act in a very exclusionary manner. Lin’s view, once again reiterates
the premise that institutional agents possess the power to transmit resources to low
socioeconomic status minority students. Therefore, institutional agents are able to
enter into these higher social circles and mobilize those resources to empower their
students.
Traditionally, social capital research has been described as a function of
relationships with kin being positioned within the normative camp. However, it is
very important to examine non-kin networks, like those found in intervention
programs like Puente, and the social networks of program leaders who have the
potential to act as institutional agents. These relationships are especially important
for low socioeconomic status minority students who do not possess the extensive and
rich networks that their middle and upper-class counterparts experience. Other
studies have also found that this type of analytical approach to the concept of social
capital is important. For example, Cochran, Larner, Riley, Gunnarsson, and
Henderson, Jr. (1990) examine how youths experience human development in light
of their personal networks. Cochran et al.’s study focuses on how young adults’
personal networks create developmental support. Cooper (2002) also examines
intervention programs and institutional agents that make a difference in students’
13
lives. In her study, she found that the Puente Project can boost resources that young
adults draw from and how the program can bridge the different worlds that these
students live in to build pathways to college, career, and family roles (Cooper, 2002).
Most research on social capital theory has focused on the student and their
social capital networks. The concept of institutional agents has been both
understudied and undertheorized in social capital research. Therefore, more
empirical research needs to be invested in studying institutional agents.
Consequently, this study will analyze the social networks of potential institutional
agents and reveal the key underlying mechanisms that appear to be critical in
assisting low socioeconomic status Latino community college students to succeed
both academically and professionally.
Many different people can act as institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
However, there is a disparity according to class with regards to how one approaches
critical relationships with institutional agents. This disparity is important to
recognize and understand. For example, upper-middle class students have
relationships with many individuals that act as institutional agents, including their
own family members. However, lower- and working-class students are more likely
to create relationships with institutional agents through intervention programs like
Puente. Furthermore, schools do not provide working-class minority students with
the necessary social “training” to understand the underlying processes that are
integral to succeeding both academically and professionally. These unwritten rules
are essential to the academic advancement of any student, especially minority
14
students. In sum, ties to institutional agents are imperative because they function as
sources where disadvantaged students can learn the appropriate skills to gain other
forms of institutional support.
Institutional agents must have a network orientation that serves as a source of
social capital for the students in their program. In addition, institutional agents must
also be willing to use their own social capital on behalf of the students they serve.
Therefore, one of the salient limitations that ensue from such a dynamic is that the
program’s capacity is limited in terms of empowering students based on the program
coordinators’ own channels of access to social capital. If coordinators have not
accumulated social capital, they may not be aware of how important social capital is
not only to empower students, but to make their program more effective. Therefore,
the program’s capacity is limited in empowering students based on the program staff
members’ own social capital. Additionally, if institutional agents are unaware of the
importance of social capital and have not accumulated this capital, there will also be
stagnant growth and limited ability not only to empower students, but also on the
program’s own development. A program leader is not automatically an institutional
agent; they must actively choose to act as one. This study will examine this key
limitation.
In studying institutional agents, this study will provide new information about
how program leaders who have the potential to act as institutional agents help low
socioeconomic status minority community college students in their pursuit of
academic and career goals. The hypothesis of this study is that students’ own social
15
capital will increase via the social networks of the program coordinators who act as
institutional agents. Not only will students’ experiences within the Puente Project
improve, but students are more likely to benefit from these relationships
educationally, personally, and professionally. For example, the relationship between
a student and a program coordinator may lead to opportunities to develop mentorship
relationships between the student and someone within the program coordinator’s
social network. Furthermore, this relationship could lead to student internship
opportunities and eventually to a potential job or career. With this new information,
we will learn how to better serve Latino students through the Puente Project at the
Sierra Bonita, Alameda Padre Serra, and Vista Riviera Community Colleges Puente
sites. In addition, this data may be applicable to understanding the efficacy of other
minority groups and intervention programs. Lastly, this study may improve our
understanding of intervention programs as we may learn about possible future
applications.

Definition of Terms
Institutional agents are defined as individuals who have the ability to transmit
directly or negotiate the transmission of resources and opportunities to others
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 6; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush, 1995, p. 117). For
students, resources and opportunities include information about college programs,
tutoring, mentoring, or internships. Institutional agents, in terms of education, can
16
include professors, counselors, or program administrators. With regards to this study
– the Puente Project English teacher and counselor can act as institutional agents.
Social capital, as defined by Lin (2001), is resources that are embedded
within social networks that are accessed and used by individuals for actions. This
differs from previous social capital research that viewed social capital as networks
and not resources. Instead, Lin views resources as the key qualifying dimension of
social capital. Therefore, relationships do not equate to social capital. Social capital
is resources that can be accessed through relationships.

Organization of the Study
Chapter II will begin with a literature review of social capital and
empowerment theories to better understand institutional agents and their social
networks. The emphasis of Chapter II will be on social capital theory and focus on
key concepts that will better explain institutional agents, their networks, and a
conceptual framework. The chapter will also review the history and success of the
Puente Project as well as the literature that has focused on this program. Chapter III
will include an in-depth description of the methodology, rationale of the sample, data
gathering process, and methods of analysis. Chapter IV will consist of an analysis of
the significant findings. Lastly, Chapter IV will discuss future implications
regarding social capital and institutional agents.
17
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Social capital theory is important in understanding academic success and its
relationship to minority students, and research studies have found that social capital
is materially linked to academic achievement for these students (for a comprehensive
review see Stanton-Salazar, 2004). Intervention programs that serve low-income
minority community college students all function as channels to enable students to
access social capital. It is through the program leaders, who have the potential to act
as institutional agents, and their social networks and relationships that they are able
to channel social capital to low socioeconomic status minority students in their
programs.
Social capital theories aim to describe the social relationships that people
have with each other within specified social spaces. The potential dynamic of these
relationships vary according to who is involved in the relationship and what the
relationship has to offer each person. For the purpose of this study, social capital
that may be generated by networks of the program leaders aligned with intervention
programs, such as Puente, who may act as institutional agents will be studied. This
will be examined as a vehicle for studying the ways in which these potential agents
provide vital resources to the low socioeconomic status minority students they serve
in their programs. As described by the literature in the field, the role of the program
leaders with the potential to act as institutional agents is imperative in achieving the
18
program’s goal to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students who
enroll in four-year colleges and universities, earn college degrees, and return to the
community as mentors and leaders for future generations (“Fact Sheet, Puente”,
2006).
This study will focus on how intervention programs, specifically the Puente
Project at Sierra Bonita, Alameda Padre Serra, and Vista Riviera Community
Colleges, act as a vehicle to identify key underlying processes of social capital. The
assumption being that students in the Puente Project will then benefit from the kinds
of social capital that thrives within the program, and that they should
correspondingly have access to. It is through the relationships of the program staff
that have the ability to act as an institutional agent and their relationships to key
individuals that valued resources and funds of knowledge are made available to the
students.
Institutional agents must have a network orientation that serves as a source of
social capital for the students in their program. In addition, institutional agents must
also be willing to use their own social capital on behalf of the students they serve.
Therefore, one of the salient limitations that ensue from such a dynamic is that the
program’s capacity is limited in terms of empowering students based on the program
coordinators’ own channels of access to social capital. If coordinators have not
accumulated social capital, they may not be aware of how important social capital is
not only to empower students, but to make their program more effective.
19
Furthermore, a program leader is not automatically an institutional agent; the leader
must actively choose to act as one.
The challenge for researchers is to pinpoint the underlying processes within
intervention programs that act as a vehicle of social capital. Several research studies
have focused on the Puente Project, which will be reviewed later in this chapter,
have aided in the evaluation and development of program designs (Cooper, 2002;
Gándara, 2002; Gándara & Moreno, 2005, Grubb, Lara, Valdez, 2002; Moreno,
2002; Rendón, 2002; Pradal, 2002). However, while these studies have focused on
programmatic features and practices in working with low socioeconomic status
students, they still do not explain why and how these features empower students to
learn the appropriate skills to gain other forms of institutional support. Therefore, it
is necessary to use theoretical frameworks to clearly understand this topic.
Two theoretical approaches frame the literature review of this study – social
capital and empowerment theories. Furthermore, this review focuses on the two
main schools that currently inscribe social capital theory: the normative and social
resource schools, which work off the research of Coleman and Bourdieu,
respectively. In essence, the normative school focuses on the properties or
characteristics of social mediums – such as the strength of the relationship, trust, and
social closure, while the social resource school focuses on resources and forms of
empowering social support (Stanton-Salazar, 2006).
One of the paradigmatic figures embodied by social capital theory is the
notion of institutional agents, a concept first articulated by Stanton-Salazar (1997).
20
As described by Stanton-Salazar, institutional agents are those individuals that
occupy positions of moderate to high status within a specified social hierarchy or
other system of stratification. For the purposes of this study, institutional agents can
be program leaders. However, as Stanton-Salazar critically points out, program
leaders are not automatically equivalent to an institutional agent, within the
theoretical projection, if they are not in corresponding possession of social capital.
Given this dynamic, this study aims to provide a better understanding of the role that
institutional agents play, specifically in the process of creating social capital and
acting as immediate and direct sources of social capital for students in their
intervention programs. In addition, within the context of social capital, the research
and theory identifies “strong” and “weak” ties, a concept which will be examined
further to understand the different types of relationships that institutional agents have
with people who can provide access to valuable resources for intervention programs.
Secondly, borrowing from the field of social work, empowerment theory will
be used and analyzed to determine how such theories of empowerment relate to low
socioeconomic status minority students and institutional agents. Finally, in order to
understand these theories in relation to intervention programs, it is also important to
describe the history of the program under review in this dissertation, the Puente
Project. Consequently, this literature review will also examine the literature on the
Puente Project using social capital theory as context. But first, this review begins
with a discussion of social capital theory.

21
Social Capital
Social capital theory was initially rooted in the field of sociology and has
been recently utilized in research that has attempted to understand the relationship
between social capital and educational development (Dika & Singh, 2002). Several
researchers in education have used social capital theory to explain the disparities in
educational experiences based on differences based on class, gender, race and
ethnicity (Lareau, 2001; Lareau & Horvart, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001).
The notion of “capital” itself in its various manifestations can be traced back
to Marx, and his seminal work Das Kapital (1933). Subsequent to Marx’s
formulations, we now understand that capital works and manifests itself in a variety
of forms including human and social capital. Human capital is defined as resources
possessed by an individual who can use those resources without concerns about
being compensated for utilizing those resources (Lin, 2001). In other words, human
capital is based solely on the individual alone and not necessarily reliant on an
individuals’ relationship with others. In contrast, the basic premise behind social
capital is that it is an investment in other human relationships with an expectation of
being compensated in a material way (Lin, 1999). Therefore, social capital
emphasizes the importance of social networks and relationships with others as a
foundation for economic capital.
Although social capital researchers may agree with this basic premise and
privilege the importance of social networks, social capital theory is by no means
univocal and there are still various positions and viewpoints within social capital
22
research. These perspectives have been divided into two paradigmatic schools:
normative and social resources, which respectively have been drawn from the works
of Coleman and Bourdieu. Recent research has identified four key aspects of social
capital theory: social mediums – social ties and networks that act as conduits;
properties or characteristics of social mediums – such as the strength of the
relationship, trust, and social closure; resources and forms of empowering social
support; and social structure – resources and mediums that are embedded in a social
structure (Stanton-Salazar, 2006). What follows is a discussion of the salient
research on these two schools and an examination of the essential differences
between the two schools.

Normative perspective. Coleman is one of the forefathers of social capital
research. His work stems from the structural-functionalist roots going back to
Durkheim. Coleman’s (1988) work focused on the role of social capital in the
creation of human capital. According to Coleman (1990), there are two basic
elements of social capital. First, it is a part of social structure and second, it
facilitates actions of people within that structure. Therefore, individuals must
exchange and transfer resources in order to gain from a particular relationship.
According to Coleman (1988), the critical aspect and dynamic of his perspective is
the role of social capital in the creation of human capital. Social networks are
important in Coleman’s viewpoint; however, his main focus is on family structure
and parental involvement (Coleman, 1992). Therefore, according to Lareau (2001),
23
Coleman’s work supports the notion that it is the family’s responsibility to adopt
certain norms that will help their children to advance.
As stated by Coleman (1988), social capital is intangible and has three forms:
level of trust – obligations and expectations; information channels; and norms and
sanctions that promote common good over self-interest. According to Coleman’s
definition of social capital, the key component for the efficacy of social capital is due
to the importance and combined interaction of trust, norms, and sanctions. Coleman
further explains that certain communities are able to create ties that lay the
groundwork for trust and mutual benefits. In turn, this leads to the formation of
norms and sanctions that encourages group members to work for the collective good.
Stanton-Salazar (2004) has stated that these norms and sanctions are the:
tacit rules that guide social life and that create forms of power and
influence in community social interactions. These “norms and
sanctions” are treated as “social capital” of certain communities and
organizations whose members are able to come together to activate or
enforce these norms and sanctions for the purpose of motivating
certain other members of the community (e.g., students) to engage in
certain desired behaviors (e.g., the necessary effort to accomplish
academic tasks). (p. 23)

For Coleman, social structure are schemes of perceptions, appreciations, unspoken rules,
norms, tacit procedures, normative practices, sanctions, and regulations which are both
written and unwritten and serve to regulate social behavior. This social structure makes
people unconsciously act in routine conditioned ways (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Most
importantly, the properties of the social medium are most important for Coleman whose
main focus is on the concepts of norms, trust, and sanctions. Therefore, for Coleman,
social capital is defined as the dimension of social mediums (Stanton-Salazar, 2006).
24
Another example of Coleman’s (1998) emphasis on the importance of
properties of social mediums is his description of a characteristic of social networks
that he calls “closure”. For the purposes of understanding this concept, imagine a
relationship between three people that know and work with each other – Linda, the
community college instructor; Michelle, the community college counselor; and
Renée, the community college student. When Linda and Michelle work together,
they are able to provide collective sanctions or rewards to Renée, the student they
both work with. However, this phenomenon does not hold true for an open structure.
In this case, Linda and Michelle do not have a relationship with each other but have
relationships with other people, such as other instructors, counselors, or
administrators. Therefore, unlike what occurs in a closed structure, in an open
structure Linda and Michelle are unable to join forces and impose sanctions on
Renée.
Coleman (1988) further applies this notion of closure to families. He argues
that parents are able to impose norms on their children, which he calls
“intergenerational closure”. Carbonaro (1998), studied Coleman’s concept of
intergenerational closure and examined it’s affect on educational outcomes.
According to Carbonaro, this intergenerational closure is very important. Carbonaro
states that if social networks do not have closure, parents end up losing an important
resource - the power of sanctions for bringing up their children. Therefore,
intergenerational closure is essential to negotiate a child’s future by imposing norms.
25
Portes has also researched social capital theory and has aligned himself with
Coleman and the normative school. Portes (1995) defines social capital as:
… the capacity of individuals to command [scarce] resources by
virtue of their membership in networks or broader social structures …
The ability to obtain [social capital] does not inhere in the individual
… but instead is a property of the individual’s set of relationships
with others. Social capital is a product of embeddedness.” (p. 12)

Here, Portes is also emphasizing the social mediums dimension of social
capital theory.
Portes (1995) differentiates between two types of embeddedness: relational
and structural. Portes defines relational embeddedness as a dyadic expectation of
reciprocity based on the expected ability of other individuals to enforce sanctions.
However, when both individuals are part of a larger network, which is defined as
“structurally embedded”, the level of trust is increased because of mutual expectation
that the larger community enforces sanctions, which Portes names “enforceable
trust”. He believes that the expectation of reciprocity and enforceable trust are
motivated by the fear of sanctions. This notion is very similar to Coleman’s (1988)
conceptualization of social capital which also emphasizes norms and sanctions that
promote common good over self-interest.
According to Brown (1999), Portes’ definition of social capital is ego-
centered, but his viewpoint of enforceable trust incorporates the potential influence
of the structure of social networks. Therefore, Brown suggests that Portes looks at
both the micro- and meso-levels of analysis in his research on social capital. Brown
26
(1999) also states that Portes’ research on social capital is important in that Portes
looks at the:
… difference in the characteristics of the social ties among egos,
explaining these differences as an outcome of the differing
characteristics of the social network in which they are embedded, and
as an outcome of the degree or type of embeddedness in the network.”
(p. 4)

For that reason, Brown (1999) suggests that Portes’ standpoint permits us to envision
social capital as a process that is an outcome of the “reciprocal causation between an
ego and the social structure in which the ego is embedded” (p. 4).
Secondly, Brown (1999) argues that Portes has identified different types of
motivation in the structure of social capital, which goes beyond Coleman’s
definition. Brown further contends that from this embedded ego perspective, we are
able to conceptualize social capital as various theories of agency, motivation, and
social structure.
The normative school does have its limitations. First, Coleman defined social
capital in terms of its function (Brown, 1999). According to Brown (1999), this
declaration is “responsible for … many of the undertheorized, oversimplified, and
weakly conceptualized arguments that have plagued social capital scholarship to
date, as researchers have accepted Coleman’s definition uncritically” (p. 2). Brown
contends that examining social phenomenon in terms of outcomes only confuses
antecedents with results. He states that first and foremost, antecedents and results
need to be identified and differentiated in the primary conceptualization of the
problem. Therefore, Brown maintains that because of this oversight in Coleman’s
27
definition, social capital researchers have assumed that social capital can be
understood in terms of its outcome and that social capital always results in fruitful
outcomes.
Portes and Coleman also do not properly address the role of unequal power in
relationships. For example, Brown (1999) states that the role of unequal power
influences the “creation, maintenance, and destruction of social capital” (p. 5).
Therefore, Brown asserts that the individual with greater power will in fact have
more opportunities to control and exploit social networks. This social inequality will
be further discussed later in this chapter.
Moreover, Portes (1995) discusses the negative aspects of social capital. For
example, Portes argues that social relations and resources can in fact involve
obligations to other members of the network. This in turn creates two problems for
the individual. Portes states that the individual is subject to the claims that transpire
from obligations, which exposes the individual to be taken advantage of by others.
Secondly, community norms can be restrictive of the person’s own individuality
such that it influences their decision making process.
Another critique of Coleman is that he places too much emphasis on parents
as the source of social capital and not enough on the student (Morrow, 1999). For
example, Coleman states that social capital outside the family “can be found … in
the community consisting of the social relationships that exist among parents [italics
added], in the closure exhibited by this structure of relations, and in the parents’
relations with the institutions of the community” (Coleman, 1998, p. S113).
28
Therefore, according to Morrow, this viewpoint fails to account for ways that
students can influence their own environment as Coleman believes that parents are
the main source of social capital. In addition, this emphasis on parents as the main
source of social capital cannot explain social capital that takes place in non-kin
relationships.
Morrow (1999) further argues that Coleman’s perspective is gender-blind,
ethnocentric, and does not take cross- and inter-cultural differences into account.
This argument also holds true for first generation college students who may not be
able to rely on their parents as a source of social capital in terms of pursuing higher
education. Despite these limitations, this perspective may act as a framework for
interventions by creating a sense of collectiveness, norms, and sanctions which still
remain critical features of intervention programs.
Lastly, according to Stanton-Salazar (2006), for the normative framework,
social capital is the properties or characteristics of the social mediums such as rules
and norms, etc. The normative framework does not emphasize the resource or social
structure dimensions of social capital. For example, as previously discussed, the
social structure dimension is deemphasized as it does not properly address the role of
unequal power in terms of class, race, or gender oppression. This is a key difference
between the two social capital theory schools.

Social resource perspective. Bourdieu (1986) describes capital in three
forms: economic capital; cultural capital; and social capital. Bourdieu views social
29
capital as consisting of social obligations or connections. In contrast to Coleman
(1988), whose roots were structural-functionalist, Bourdieu focused his theories on
social reproduction and symbolic power (Dika & Singh, 2002). To further
distinguish between the two researchers, Coleman’s definition of social capital
focused on norms, or as Stanton-Salazar (2006) describes as the social medium
dimension, while Bourdieu focused on access to institutional resources (Dika &
Singh, 2002). As previously stated, this last comparison is a key difference between
the two schools of social capital theory.
According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital is “the aggregate of the actual or
potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or
less institutional relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (p. 248).
Therefore, according to Bourdieu, social capital is a production of the group’s
members in which there are repeated exchanges that are reinforced by mutual
recognition and boundaries that reaffirm collectivism. Bourdieu (1983) also views
economic capital as the “root of all the other types of capital” (p. 252). Therefore,
Bourdieu suggests social capital can be converted into economic capital. Economic
capital leads to an increase in status, which in turn leads to other benefits for low
socioeconomic status individuals.
One key element of the social resource framework is the understanding that
there is inequality within social capital (Lin, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Schneider,
2004). According to Stanton-Salazar (2006), this is encompassed in the social
structure dimension of social capital. Bourdieu focused his theory on social
30
reproduction and symbolic power (Dika & Singh, 2002). According to Lareau and
Horvart (1999), social reproduction focuses on conflict, change, and systemic
inequality. Social reproduction is useful in understanding how race and class
influence the transmission of educational inequality (Lareau & Horvat, 1999).
These inequalities could be linked to socioeconomic status. Lin (2000)
explains that inequality of social capital “occurs when a certain group clusters at a
relatively disadvantaged socioeconomic position, and the general tendency is for
individuals to associate with those of similar group or socioeconomic characteristics”
(p. 786). Lin (2001) also suggests that low socioeconomic status individuals face
more challenges in terms of social capital than high-status individuals. He states that
women and minorities have fewer opportunities to use improved social resources to
attain and promote careers. This concept is essential in understanding the
importance of social capital networks of institutional agents and low socioeconomic
status minority students. Bourdieu (1986) also argues that institutional biases reflect
and reward the social-cultural capital of upper classes and devalue lower classes,
which in turn reproduces social inequality. In other words, social capital is a prime
example of how discrimination and exclusion continue to be perpetuated in society
(Portes & Landolt, 1996).
While Bourdieu’s social reproduction research has touched on important
theoretical findings, it still is not complete or sufficient to explain other observable
phenomena within social capital research. Lareau and Horvat (1999) give three
reasons as why it is insufficient. First, social setting plays an important role on the
31
value of capital. Therefore, different social settings privilege different levels of
capital. Secondly, there is a difference between possessing and activating capital or
resources. In other words, people who have social and cultural capital choose when
they want to make use of that available capital. In addition, different individuals
possess varying levels of skill in using social capital. Lastly, the reproduction of
capital is inconsistent and is continually being negotiated by the individuals.
The social resources lens has further evolved since Bourdieu. Lin (2001)
describes social capital as resources that are embedded in social networks that are
accessed and used by individuals for actions – which is the working definition for
this research study. Thus, for the social resource camp, social capital is resources
(Stanton-Salazar, 2006). There are two key components of social capital according
to Lin (2001). First, social capital represents resources that are embedded in social
relations, and not necessarily individuals. Resources are critical in social capital as
they take on values. Lin (2001) postulates that it is the distribution of these
resources in society that creates structural embeddedness. Second, the potential
ability to access and use these resources exist within the individual. Therefore,
according to this second component, the individual must be aware of the presence of
such resources within his or her own networks and relationships and make choices in
activating these particular resources (Lin, 2001). For institutional agents, this
awareness of the importance of resources within their own personal network and the
necessity to share this with students in the intervention program is important to make
the greatest positive impact on their program and on the program participants.
32
Lin (1999) further argues that “status attainment can be understood as a
process by which individuals mobilize and invest resources for returns in
socioeconomic standing” (p. 467). Lin (1999) defines socioeconomic standing as
valued resources that are attached to a certain position. He states that these valued
resources fall into two categories: personal resources - which are used by the
individual without thinking about compensation and social resources - which are
accessed through direct and indirect ties.
As previously stated, social capital theory is by no means univocal and there
are still various positions and viewpoints within social capital research. Even within
each school of social capital there are discrepancies. For example, within the social
resources view, Stanton-Salazar’s research has intended to follow Lin in defining
social capital. However, he has on occasion reverted to the more colloquial
understanding of social capital, in terms of social ties and networks that produce
resources and those properties that make these ties and networks productive.
Recently, Stanton-Salazar has created a new understanding of social capital that
settles on consistency and is used in this study. Stanton-Salazar’s (2006) new
understanding of social capital concludes that there are four key aspects of social
capital theory: social mediums – social ties and networks that act as conduits;
properties or characteristics of social mediums – such as the strength of the
relationship, trust, and social closure; resources and forms of empowering social
support; and social structure – resources and mediums that are embedded in a social
structure. This finding has created a clearer picture of social capital and allows
33
others to understand the key difference between the two perspectives in terms of
these dimensions: the normative school defines social capital through the properties
or characteristics of social mediums dimension while the social resources school
defines social capital as resources and forms of empowering social support. The
following section will examine institutional agents and their role in social capital
theory.

Institutional Agents
Most research done on social capital theory with regards to differential
educational experiences of low socioeconomic status minority students has focused
on students or schools and not necessarily on social capital in relation to institutional
agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2004). Therefore, the concept of institutional
agents has been undertheorized and is in need of more empirical research.
Institutional agents are the key focus of this study and are defined as
“individuals who have the capacity and commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate
the transmission of, institutional resources and opportunities to others” (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997, p. 6). For students, resources and opportunities include information
about college programs, tutoring, mentoring, or internships. With regards to this
study – the Puente Project English instructor and counselor can act as institutional
agents.
Students are able to decode the “culture of power and gain access to
institutional resources” through institutional agents (Lopez & Stack, 2001, p. 48).
34
This is accomplished through “cultural bridging”, which is the development of
knowledge and skills that will help low socioeconomic status individuals overcome
socio-cultural obstacles (Stack, 1998). Cultural bridges have several functions
(Lopez & Stack, 2001). First, bridging creates a safe place for students to decode
and understand the culture of power. Secondly, it permits low socioeconomic status
individuals to apprehend the unfamiliar codes of the culture of power as praxis.
Lastly, it integrates and affirms community cultural values, rights, and resources.
Lopez and Stack (2001) argue that individuals in the dominant mainstream are able
to facilitate cultural bridging. This is important to consider when examining
relationships between program leaders who have the potential to act as institutional
agents as they are individuals in the dominant mainstream working with low
socioeconomic status students.
In terms of this research study, program leaders who can act as institutional
agents create social networks, thereby increasing students’ level of social capital
with influential individuals. It is through these networks that social capital, or
resources, flows through conduits to low socioeconomic status minority students
involved in intervention programs. The appropriate social networks are essential to
increase the social capital of low socioeconomic status students and to improve the
intervention program.
The social networks of institutional agents are crucial to the effectiveness of
intervention programs serving low socioeconomic status minority students. It is
through the institutional agents’ social networks that program resources and services
35
are created and enhanced. For example, consider the role of a director of an
intervention program serving students interested in pursuing health professions. The
director’s connections and ability to access resources from relationships with certain
health professionals and centers are essential in creating mentorship and internship
opportunities for students in the program. In other words, the social networks of an
institutional agent can greatly help students, especially low socioeconomic status
minority students, by putting them in contact with influential individuals through the
creation of new relationships and social capital for these students.
Institutional agents must have a network orientation that serves as a source of
social capital for the students in their program. In addition, institutional agents must
also be willing to use their own social capital on behalf of the students they serve.
Therefore, the program’s capacity is limited in terms of empowering students based
on the program coordinators’ own channels of access to social capital. If
coordinators have not accumulated social capital, they may not be aware of how
important social capital is not only to empower students, but to make their program
more effective. If institutional agents are unaware of the importance of social capital
and have not accumulated this capital, there will be stagnant growth and limited
ability not only to empower students, but also on the program’s own development.
Secondly, as described by Lareau and Hovart (1999) there is a difference between
possessing and activating capital or resources. In other words, people who have
social and cultural capital choose when they want to make use of that available
capital.
36
Additionally, one challenge that institutional agents face is that although they
have been identified as transmitters of support and social capital, they are not
formally taught or trained on how to give support or transmit social capital. This
phenomenon will be discussed later in this chapter. The following section of this
chapter will examine weak and strong ties in relationships as it relates to institutional
agents and social capital.

Strength of Relationships
According to Granovetter (1983), there are two types of relationships that
individuals have - strong and weak ties. The strength of ties defines the properties or
characteristics of social mediums in the dimensions of social capital (Stanton-
Salazar, 2006). Strong ties are relationships with close friends within our social
network and weak ties are relationships with acquaintances. Despite its name,
Granovetter argues that weak ties may actually be more powerful than strong ties
since they play a key role in a person's mobility. For example, he explains that weak
ties provide individuals with access to information and resources beyond their social
circle. Furthermore, he contends that individuals with weak ties have been found to
have better access to job information since their acquaintances move in different
social circles. Lin (1999) states that the strength of weak ties may “lie in [the
individual’s ability] to [access] social positions vertically higher in the social
hierarchy” (p. 470).
37
As previously discussed, social status has an impact on social capital. The
weak ties of individuals with low socioeconomic status do not act as bridges.
Instead, Granovetter (1983) explains that low socioeconomic status individual’s
weak ties consist of acquaintances with friends or relatives. In comparison, he
explains that high-status individuals’ weak ties work to their benefit as their ties
bridge across social distances. Therefore, he concludes that the weak ties of low
socioeconomic status individuals are generally created with other low socioeconomic
status acquaintances, which are not useful. However, high-status individuals’
relationships are much more beneficial than those of others.
Lin (1999) states that low socioeconomic status individuals must use
“strategic behaviors” that allows them to access resources beyond their given social
circles (p. 483). Lin (1999) uses the example of Mexican American high school
students that go beyond their daily social circle by creating ties with institutional
agents on their high school campuses such as teachers and counselors (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997).
Weak ties are crucial as they contribute to the flow of information between
social groups (Granovetter, 1983; Lin, 2001). Without weak ties, information would
not flow between groups and would stay within the same social group. Imagine a
program director of an intervention program that does not have weak ties. His
information would be restricted to only what is within his immediate social circle.
Therefore, if he does not have a network outside of his intimate circle, he may not be
38
able to help students with information about special events or programs to put
students in contact with influential individuals.
Traditionally, research has been done on social capital as a function of
relationships with kin being positioned within the normative camp. However, it is
very important to examine non-kin networks, like those found in intervention
programs like Puente, and the role that institutional agents play in such
organizations. These relationships are especially important for low socioeconomic
status minority students who do not possess the extensive and rich networks that
their middle- and upper-class counterparts experience. Other studies have also found
that this type of analytical approach to the concept of social capital is important. For
example, Cochran, Larner, Riley, Gunnarsson, and Henderson, Jr. (1990) examine
how youths experience human development in light of their personal networks.
Cochran et al.’s study focuses on how young adults’ personal networks create
developmental support. Cooper (2002) also examines outreach programs and
institutional agents that make a difference in students’ lives. In her study, she found
that the Puente Project can boost resources that young adults draw from and that the
program can bridge the different worlds that these students live in to build pathways
to college, career, and family roles.
Stanton-Salazar (2001) also describes two key concepts that relate to the
strength of ties: network orientation and help-seeking orientation. According to
Stanton-Salazar, network orientation is related to disposition and skills that are
related to network building and can adapt to demands, stressors, and opportunities.
39
He continues to describe network orientations as being influenced by an individual’s
attitudes and beliefs that motivate their personal initiatives to create social
relationships and enter into certain group affiliations. An important part of network
orientations is the individual’s ability to resolve personal, academic, and family
problems by using relationships and networks, which Stanton-Salazar calls help-
seeking orientation. Trust, or confianza as Stanton-Salazar describes, is a vital
component of help-seeking behavior. Help-seeking behavior occurs not only occurs
when there is trust, but it is also important that the individual possesses the belief
that trust is a potential source of support or help.

Significance of Past Research and its Relation to this Study
This study will draw from both schools with an emphasis on the social
resource perspective to theoretically explain how social capital becomes operant in
programs like Puente. For example, the normative school focuses on the dimension
of properties or characteristics of social mediums (Stanton-Salazar, 2006).
Therefore, this school emphasizes the importance of trust, norms, and sanctions (Lin,
2001). Thus, certain communities are able to create ties that lay the groundwork for
trust and mutual benefits (Stanton-Salazar, 2004). In turn, these ties lead to the
formation of norms and sanctions that encourages group members to work for the
collective good. This is essential in intervention programs like Puente in which trust,
norms, and sanctions are key in enabling optimistic possibilities and building a sense
of the collective. Additionally, the social resource perspective is important because
40
it defines social capital as resources and forms of empowering social support
(Stanton-Salazar, 2006). This framework is different from the normative perspective
because it understands that there is inequality within social capital (Lin, 2001;
Stanton-Salazar, 204; Schneider, 2004). Thus, program leaders can bridge this gap
by allowing low socioeconomic status minority students access to their social capital
networks through the intervention program context.
Most research on social capital theory has focused on the student and their
social capital networks. Therefore, more empirical research needs to be invested in
studying institutional agents. Consequently, this study will analyze the social
networks of program leaders that have the potential to act as institutional agents and
reveal the key underlying mechanisms that appear to be critical in assisting low
socioeconomic status community college students to succeed both academically and
professionally.
In studying institutional agents, this study will provide new information about
how program leaders that have the potential to act as institutional agents help low
socioeconomic status minority community college students in their pursuit of
academic and career goals. The hypothesis of this study is that via the social
networks of the program coordinators who act as institutional agents, students’ own
social capital will increase. Not only will students’ experiences within the Puente
Project improve, but students are more likely to benefit from these relationships
educationally, personally, and professionally. For example, the relationships
between a student and a program coordinator may lead to opportunities to develop
41
mentorship relationships between the student and someone within the program
coordinator’s social network. Furthermore, this relationship could lead to student
internship opportunities and eventually to a potential job or career. With this new
information, we will learn how to better serve low socioeconomic status Latino
students through the Puente Project at the Sierra Bonita, Alameda Padre Serra, and
Vista Riviera Community Colleges Puente sites. Furthermore, this data may be
applicable to understanding the efficacy of other low socioeconomic statusminority
groups and intervention programs.
In summary, there are many conflicting definitions of social capital within
social capital research which can be separated into two key schools – normative and
social resource. There are four key dimensions of social capital theory: social
mediums – social ties and networks that act as conduits; properties or characteristics
of social mediums – such as the strength of the relationship, trust, and social closure;
resources and forms of empowering social support; and social structure – resources
and mediums that are embedded in a social structure. The normative school focuses
on properties of social mediums while the social resource school focuses on
resources. It is through institutional agents that act as conduits that resources are
able to flow to low socioeconomic status minority students. Lastly, individuals have
both strong ties and weak ties. Weak ties may actually be more powerful than strong
ties as they provide access to information and resources beyond their social circle.
Moving beyond social capital theory, the following section borrows from the field of
42
social work and examines empowerment theory as it relates to low socioeconomic
status minority students and institutional agents.

Empowerment Theory
In addition to social capital theory, empowerment theory demonstrates the
impact of institutional agents on the lives of low socioeconomic status minority
students. Institutional agents have social capital and have the ability to empower
students. Through empowerment and social capital, institutional agents grant access
to more resources and increase networks for students.
Empowerment theory has been used for the past three decades in the field of
social work (Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999). Pinderhughes (1983) described client
empowerment as the major goal of social work. She suggests that social workers
must understand the power dynamics operant within a given society, culture, family,
and individuals to effectively empower their clients. According to Pinderhughes,
empowerment is the development of “the ability and capacity to cope constructively
with the forces that undermine and hinder coping, the achievement of some
reasonable control over [one’s] destiny” (p. 334).
Similar to the social resources school of social capital theory, the
empowerment perspective recognizes that separate groups exist in society and each
group possesses a different level of power and control (see review in Gutiérrez &
Lewis, 1999). Social inequality is also acknowledged in empowerment theory. For
example, Flynn argues that social justice is a key concept to the empowerment
43
perspective which refers to equity, equality, and fairness in the distribution of
societal resources (as cited in Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999).
Power is also a key element of empowerment theory. According to
Pinderhughes (1983), power is defined as “the capacity to influence the forces which
affect one’s life space for one’s own benefit” (p. 332). Empowerment theory is
based on the perspective that “assumes that power can be generated in the process of
social interaction” (Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999, p. 5).
According to Gutiérrez and Lewis (1999), critical consciousness is one means
to gain power. These researchers argue that critical consciousness is an
understanding of how power relationships in society shape perceptions and
experiences as well as the ability to identify how to assume a role in social change.
However, these researchers also acknowledge that power can also be used to act as a
roadblock to stigmatized groups’ opportunities, exclude others and their concerns
from making decisions, and controlling others. Discrimination in relation to power
and empowerment theory is similar to the social resource framework which
incorporates the understanding that there is inequality within social capital (Lin,
2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Schneider, 2004). This inequality in turn exemplifies
how discrimination and exclusion continue to be perpetuated in our society (Portes &
Landolt, 1996).
Awareness of how group membership affects life circumstances is vital to
identifying powerlessness as a source of problems and to understand the need for
social change (Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999). These researchers argue that low
44
socioeconomic status group members are usually more critical of the system of
stratification than others. For example, according to Kleugel and Smith (1981),
members of powerful groups in society approve the social system and do not see the
disparities of income and resources between the poor and rich, minorities and whites,
or women and men. Furthermore, they often overestimate the overall level of social
ability.
Empowerment has also played a role in academic intervention programs.
Cummins (1986) argues that intervention programs can make an impact on the
achievement gap of minority students if intervention programs use empowerment as
a framework. Cummins claims that power and status relations between minority and
majority groups act as a significant intermediary of school performance. He suggests
that intervention programs should work towards changing society by empowering
minority students instead of hindering students. His research also proposes that
academic and group identity are critical to empowering students and by ignoring
even one of these factors will result in continued academic achievement gaps for
minority students.
As previously stated, institutional agents are not formally taught or trained on
how to give support or social capital. However, as graduate students, social workers
are taught to be aware of their complex role-sets. For example, in Social Work and
Social Welfare: An Introduction, a textbook used to teach social work students, the
different roles that social workers play are explicitly described and expected of
future social workers (Heffernan, Shuttlesworth, & Ambrosino 1988). Betty Piccard
45
(1998) describes 12 different roles of a social worker including advocate, care giver,
and consultant (as cited in Heffernan et al., 1988). One role of the social worker is
that of a “broker,” which describes the social worker as someone who “steers people
toward existing services that may be of service to them” (Heffernan et al., 1988, p.
39).
Although a connection was not made in this textbook to social capital theory,
there appears to be a similar complex role-set found in institutional agents. Similar
to social workers, institutional agents are also expected to carry out various roles.
The challenge is that this complex role-set can be very stressful, especially if one is
not trained or prepared for this responsibility. This problem will be discussed later in
this chapter.
Livermore and Neustron (2003) have used social capital theory to explore
whether or not social workers use their own social capital to help clients find jobs.
They found that some caseworkers do use their personal networks to help their
clients find jobs. According to Stanton-Salazar (2006), this supports the resource
dimension of social capital theory in that empowerment theory also emphasizes the
aspect of resources.
In summary, empowerment theory displays the impact of institutional agents,
in this case social workers, on the lives of low socioeconomic status individuals
through its emphasis on resources. Similar to social capital theory, empowerment
theory also recognizes that social inequality exists. Research has also shown that
empowerment can also make an impact on intervention programs that focus on the
46
academic success of minority students. Lastly, we can learn a lot from the field of
social work by learning how to incorporate their training techniques for graduate
students to take on a complex role-set to better serve as an institutional agent. Next,
this chapter will describe the program under review in this dissertation, the Puente
Project, and review the literature on the Puente Project using social capital theory as
context.

The Puente Project
In 1981, Felix Galaviz and Patricia McGrath of Chabot College in Hayward
created the Puente Project (“Puente Project”, 2006). Currently, there are 56
community college and 36 high school Puente programs throughout California (“Fact
Sheet, Puente”, 2006). Puente is an academic preparation program whose mission is
to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students who enroll in four-
year colleges and universities, earn college degrees, and return to the community as
mentors and leaders for future generations (“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006).
Both sectors of the Puente Project, high school and community college, have
proven to be successful. Academically, Puente community college students are three
times as likely to earn a grade of C or higher in pre-transfer-level English courses
and 35% more likely to succeed in transfer-level English courses in comparison to
their non-Puente community college counterparts enrolled in the same courses (“Fact
Sheet, Puente”, 2006).
47
Puente participants also have high retention rates. Close to 90% of Puente
students are retained in community college after a year of participation in the
program and 73% are retained two years after completing the program (“Fact Sheet,
Puente”, 2006). In terms of transfer rates, between 1999 and 2003 Puente transfers
to four-year institutions grew by 67% (“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006). In fact, in 2003
Puente student transfers to the University of California increased 55% from the
previous year from 73 students to 116 students (“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006).
Puente has also been recognized nationally for its success. Puente was one of
only 10 programs selected from a national pool of over 1,400 programs to win the
prestigious “Innovations in American Government Award”, a program of the Ford
Foundation, and also received awards from the John F. Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University, and the Council for Excellence in Government
(“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006). In addition, Puente was chosen as one of six model
programs nationwide to help policy makers improve college access and success by
the “Pathways to College Network”, a national consortium of educational
institutions, foundations, and non-profit organizations (“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006).
There are three components to the Puente Project: teaching; counseling; and
mentoring (“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006). Puente staff members are trained to conduct
the Puente Project at their community college sites (“Fact Sheet, Puente”, 2006). As
part of the first component, teaching, community college Puente students are
required to take two consecutive writing classes where they build confidence in their
writing skills through an exploration of the Mexican American/Latino experience
48
(“Puente Project”, 2006). In the counseling component, students work closely with
their Puente counselor until they graduate. With the guidance of their Puente
counselor, students explore career opportunities, develop an academic educational
plan, and identify long term goals. Puente students visit various University of
California and California State University campuses and attend Puente student
transfer conferences. In the last component of the program, mentoring, each Puente
student is matched with a mentor from the business or professional community.
Mentors and students create a relationship in which mentors are able to share their
personal, academic, and career experiences with students. Mentors are also able to
provide insight into real life work environments. The network of trained Puente
mentors provides many resources, not only for Puente students but also their
families, colleges, and the community (“Puente Project”, 2006).
Several research studies have been conducted on the Puente Project (Cooper,
2002; Gándara, 2002; Gándara & Moreno, 2005, Grubb, Lara, Valdez, 2002;
Moreno, 2002; Rendón, 2002; Pradal, 2002). Although most of the research
conducted has been on the high school component, the findings are still transferable
to the community college level. First, Gándara (2002) collected data by examining
transcripts and conducting ethnographic studies on 75 matched pairs of Puente and
non-Puente high school students to examine the impact of the Puente Project. She
found significant differences on attitudes towards school, preparation for college,
aspirations to attend college, and percentage of students going on to four-year
colleges. She also found that Puente students reported going to four-year colleges at
49
almost twice the rate as non-Puente students who had the same grades and test
scores. According to Gándara, this data confirmed the impact of the Puente
counselor and teacher by suggesting that “a powerful component of the Puente effect
is directly due to the primary adults in these students’ academic lives – the Puente
teachers and counselors, and the consistency of their impact over time” (p. 491).
Gándara’s (2002) study confirms the power of institutional agents. It is
through institutional agents that Puente students were able to “learn the system, the
discourse, and the expectations of schools early [and] get a head start” (p. 492).
Furthermore, via relationships with institutional agents, Puente students have learned
to understand the underlying processes that would enable them to succeed
academically and professionally. In sum, ties to institutional agents benefit Puente
students as the institutional agents are sources in which students can learn the
appropriate skills to gain other forms of institutional support. This emphasizes the
resource aspect of social capital theory in that institutional agents provide access to
important resources to low socioeconomic status students. Additionally, this
exemplifies the concept of cultural bridging in that program leaders teach students to
decode the system.
Moreno (2002) contacted and interviewed 31 of the same matched-pair
sample from Gándara’s (2002) evaluation study. He found that Puente does make a
difference in students’ college participation, persistence in college, and preparation
for college. More importantly, he found that students attributed their academic
success to the knowledge and information they obtained in the Puente Project from
50
the counselor who served as an institutional agent. In the Puente model, the teacher,
counselor, and mentor all serve as a network to provide students with the skills and
knowledge necessary to successfully complete high school and move on to higher
education.
Grubb, Lara, and Valdez (2002) examined the strengths and weakness of
implementing a new counseling role in the high school Puente model by conducting
interviews, focus groups, and attending Puente training meetings. Grubb et al. found
that Puente has taken a different approach by creating a network of mentors that is
not common in intervention programs. Furthermore, the researchers suggest that the
student’s feeling of validation is a key component of the Puente Project. Thus,
students need to feel that they are not discriminated against by the program
administrators and that they have role models that connect them to their community
(Grubb et al., 2002).
In addition, Grubb et al.’s (2002) study magnifies the importance of
Coleman’s (1988) concept of collectiveness and community through the idea that
Puente is a familia (family). This sense of familia gives students a sense of
belonging to something that is positive while also being a source of positive pressure
for manifesting appropriate behavior (Grubb et al., 2002). In terms of social capital
theory this is described as norms and sanctions.
Puente “gives (students) a place they can fit” as it is a “ready-made
community” (Grubb et. al, 2002, p.556). In sum, Puente exudes a “we-group
feeling” (Stanton-Salazar, 2004, p. 23). This is essential to create ties that lay the
51
groundwork for trust and mutual benefits as emphasized in social capital theory.
Subsequently, these ties lead to the formation of norms and sanctions that encourages
group members to work for the collective good.
Grubb et al., (2002) also compared the role of the Puente counselor to that of
a social worker and case management. The researchers explained that the social
worker or caseworker role is similar to that of the Puente counselor who follows the
clients over time and is responsible for all the services that he or she may need while
simultaneously customizing activities and guidance to the individual. As previously
described in the social work and empowerment theory section, Grubb et al. also note
that Puente counselors have not received any type of preparation or training to
prepare them for this new role-set. Specifically, in the Puente Summer Institute
which trains counselors and teachers, Grubb et al. (2002) found that there was little
time spent on counseling and no discussion of how to manage the multiple roles of
the Puente counselor. Furthermore, the researchers suggest that the multiple roles of
counselors are too exhausting, which is a problem that plagues the Puente Project.
This finding validates the need to train potential institutional agents in learning to
manage multiple role-sets and be more effective.
Puente counselors may not be familiar with the theoretical aspect of social
capital theory or their own role as an “institutional agent”. However, they may be
conscious of the influence they have on students as demonstrated in the following
excerpt from a Puente counselor interview in the Grubb et al. (2002) study:
I want them to know that [the] university is a choice for a person
that’s outside the dominant culture, that it’s not a privilege either, it’s
52
our right …. But Puente isn’t their life, we’re not the ones that get
them to college, we’re just an element or vehicle [italics added] that
helped to assist them to get to college. (p. 561)

Puente counselors’ and other program leaders’ willingness to act as a vehicle or
institutional agent is important to the success of Puente students. However,
Coleman’s (1992) viewpoint of social capital with regards to parental involvement
presents a challenge to many Latino students, such as those in the Puente program,
considering that many of them are first generation college students and may not be
able to rely on their parents for specific educational information. This is why certain
students are “especially dependent on schools for support and guidance if they
cannot find these forms of social capital elsewhere in their lives” (Croninger & Lee,
2001, p. 549). Therefore, they must rely on program leaders who act as institutional
agents for this important information.
Lastly, Rendón (2002) conducted face-to-face interviews and focus groups
with Community College Puente staff members utilizing her theory of validation.
Since interventions may ensure that students are retained, the validating team of the
Puente instructor, counselor, and mentors play an important role in promoting
college access (Rendón, 2002). This team is responsible for the following: the
Puente Counselor creates an educational plan and information about transfer
requirements; the English Instructor provides a solid academic preparation,
especially literacy skills; and the mentors provide knowledge about the benefits of a
college education, information about a secure well-paying career, and giving back to
the community and helping future college-going generations (Rendón, 2002).
53
Hence, validating agents may be viewed as an access team and together they take on
the task to move students through the educational pathway (Rendón, 2002).
In summary, Puente is effective because there is an institutionalized system
of collaborative learning. In order for collaborative learning to work, the program
needs social solidarity which is possible through the normative framework. It is also
effective because of the allocation of institutional resources affiliated with academic
achievement which derives from the social resource framework. Therefore, it is a
combination of both schools of social capital theory – norms and sanctions as well as
resources. It is necessary to use these two schools because they highlight different
processes of a successful intervention program. Yet, the main focus in this research
study will be on the social resource camp which takes differential access into
account. However, we still do not know the impact of social capital, empowerment,
and institutional agents in intervention programs that serve minority students. Thus,
this topic further needs to be studied.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it is necessary to use both schools of social capital research to
understand the underlying processes of intervention programs and institutional
agents. This chapter has discussed the two schools and their different focuses on
resources and relational aspects. It also discussed the main distinction between the
two schools: the focus on properties of social mediums for the normative framework
and the focus on resources for the social resource framework. Furthermore, their
54
weak ties and strong ties were also examined to understand the strength of different
ties and how they can create an impact on various individuals.
Empowerment theory also brought to light the importance of enabling the
individual through intervention programs through its emphasis on resources. The
impact of empowerment theory is also evident in intervention programs like Puente.
The social justice aspect of empowerment theory is crucial to work towards equity,
equality, and fairness in the distribution of societal resources. It is through
institutional agents that students can come one step closer to this goal.
Empowerment theory, similar to the social resources framework, emphasizes the
importance of resources. Lastly, we can learn a lot from the field of social work by
understanding how to incorporate social worker’s training to take on a complex role-
set to better serve as an institutional agent.
This research study used social capital theory to examine the program leaders
who can act as institutional agents in the Puente Project as well as the ties that they
form. The data gathered will exhibit the importance of institutional agents in
intervention programs, particularly the Puente Project. It shed light on how the
networks of program leaders who can act as institutional agents are able to provide
valuable resources to the Puente Project and its students. In addition, this study used
empowerment theory as it relates to low socioeconomic status minority students in
the Puente Project. It is through institutional agents that Puente students are able to
experience some form of empowerment. This study is important not only to
understand the underlying processes of intervention programs, such as Puente, but to
55
also truly understand the importance and impact of the institutional agent. The next
chapter will discuss the methodology of this study. It will review the sample and
population, provide an overview program, and describe the program coordinators. It
will also discuss the data collection instruments and methods used in this study.
Lastly, it will provide a summary of the data analysis.
56
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study is geared towards employing the analytical lenses of social capital
theory as a means to closely examine those features that seem to empower both low
socioeconomic status minority students who participate in the Puente Project and the
program leaders that run the program. This study does not evaluate the Puente
Project. Simultaneously, this study examines the Puente Project as a vehicle for
exploring, through several theoretical frameworks encompassed within social capital
theory, the role of program leaders as institutional agents. Beside the central concept
of social capital in this study, the concept of empowerment, borrowed from the field
of social work, is applied to articulate how the complex networking activities of
institutional agents may play an important role in an effective student intervention
program.
First, this study focuses on social capital theory drawing heavily from the
social resource perspective. To better understand the concept of institutional agents
and their impact on Latino college students, this study analyzes the role of the
institutional agents in the Puente Project and their social networks in light of social
capital and empowerment theories. Institutional agents are defined as individuals
who have the ability to transmit directly or negotiate the transmission of resources
and opportunities to others (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush,
1995). With regards to this study – the Puente Project English teacher and Counselor
57
can act as institutional agents. However, as previously stated, program leaders are
not automatically institutional agents just because they are leaders of a program.
They must actively choose to act as an institutional agent. Specifically, a focus of
this study was to analyze the types of support and resources that these institutional
agents provide student program participants and program colleagues. The program
leaders must be willing to use their own social capital on behalf of the students they
serve.
Next, this study examined how the resources institutional agents offer to
program participants are an outcome of their own connections and social capital
through their own social networks. This study also examined the institutional
agents’ “weak” and “strong” ties and how these ties play a role in the institutional
agents’ own resources (Granovetter, 1983). This study analyzed how program
leaders work to enhance program participants’ social networks so that students
themselves become independent and learn how to network and access resources.
Lastly, this study examined how program leaders handle pressures associated with
their position.
This research study was guided by the following questions:
1. What are the characteristics, features, and composition of the social
resource networks of intervention program coordinators?
2. What are some of the factors that facilitate or constrain the program
leader’s access and mobilization of resources on behalf of themselves,
students, program associates, and the program agenda?
58
3. How do program coordinators work to enhance the program participants’
social networks so that participants themselves become independent and
learn to network and access resources?
4. How do program coordinators deal with the pressures associated with
being a program leader?

Sample and Population
Sample. Convenience sampling was used for this study. Sierra Bonita
Community College (SBCC) was selected due to it’s proximity to the researcher.
Two other sites were also selected due to their proximity to the researcher – Alameda
Padre Serra Community College (APS) and Vista Riviera Community College
(VRCC). SBCC was the primary research site of this study and the researcher used
the APS and VRCC sites to extract supplemental data. Of the four data collection
phases, which will be discussed later, APS and VRCC only completed Phase I in its
entirety, with the exception of questions asked to new and former program
coordinators, portions of Phases II and IV, and did not complete any aspect of Phase
III. However, SBCC completed all four phases.
For students, resources and opportunities that an institutional agent can
directly or indirectly provide include information about college programs, tutoring,
mentoring, or internships. With regards to this study – the Puente English instructor
and Puente Counselor are both in the position to act as institutional agents as they are
the coordinators of the Puente Project at SBCC, APS, and VRCC. A mentor was not
59
selected to participate in this study because there are numerous mentors at each site
and the mentors do not act as coordinators for the Puente Project. Furthermore,
some Puente sites had new coordinators who had not yet established the mentoring
component at their site. Therefore, the English instructor and Counselor at SBCC,
APS, and VRCC were selected as participants for this study. Additionally, the
former counselor coordinators from APS and VRCC were also selected to participate
in this study because it was the current counselor coordinators first year working in
the program.
SBCC population. SBCC is located in Los Angeles County in Southern
California. According to SBCC’s Institutional Research website, in fall 2005, the
total student enrollment was 24,494. Of this total population, approximately 55% of
the students were female and 45% of students were male. The majority of students,
approximately 63% were between the ages of 18 - 24. Latinos were the largest
student ethnic group at SBCC. Table 1 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of students
in fall 2005 at SBCC.
Table 3.1
SBCC Student Ethnicity for Fall 2005
Ethnicity Percent (%) of Population
African-American 18.6
American Indian or Alaskan 0.5
Asian 13.6
Filipino 3.9
Latino 30.5
Pacific Islander 0.9
White 21.6
Other 1.9
Unknown or decline to state 8.6

60
Of the student population, 80% were high school graduates or possessed the
equivalent. Only 37% of students stated that their educational goal was to transfer
while 30% were undecided. In terms of enrollment, 66% of students were enrolled
during the daytime, 66% of all students were enrolled part-time and 25% were full-
time. Most students were continuing students. Table 2 depicts the enrollment status
of SBCC students.

Table 3.2
SBCC Student Enrollment Status for Fall 2005
SBCC Student Enrollment Status
for Fall 2005
Percent (%) of Population
First-time student 12.7
First-time transfer 6.7
Returning 18.4
Continuing 59.2
K-12 special admit 2.9

Puente Project population at SBCC. The Puente Project at SBCC has been
in existence for 20 years. According to the SBCC Puente English instructor, 35
students participated in the program at SBCC in the 2005 - 2006 academic year.
About 30 - 35 students have participated each year in the SBCC Puente Project, with
a grand total of approximately 650 total participants. Approximately 90% of these
Puente students were Latino and about 70% were full-time students. The average
age of these students was 21, but the range is between 18 to 40 years old. Most of
the transfer rate information was self-reported. According to the Puente English
61
instructor (e-mail exchange), the Puente Project estimates that 75% of the students
who complete SBCC’s Puente Project ultimately transfer.
APS population. APS is located in Los Angeles County in Southern
California. APS has two campuses - a main campus and a satellite campus. For the
purpose of this study, only the data from the main campus was collected. According
to APS’s Institutional Research Office, in fall 2005, the total student enrollment was
21,850. Of this total population, approximately 58% of students were female and
42% of students were male. The majority of students, approximately 48%, were
between the ages of 18-24. Latinos were the largest student ethnic group at APS.
Table 3 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of students in fall 2002 at APS.
Table 3.3
APS Student Ethnicity for Fall 2002
Ethnicity Percent (%) of Population
African-American 3.5
Asian 17.5
Latino 68.3
White 6.7
Other 4

Of the student population, 62% were high school graduates or possessed the
equivalent.. Only 30.2% of students stated that their educational goal was to transfer
while 20.7% were undecided and 34.2% were interested in a vocational goal. In
terms of enrollment, in fall 2003, 59.1% of students were enrolled in either daytime
only courses or day and evening courses. In fall 2005, 80% of all students were
enrolled part-time and 18% were full-time. Most students were a continuing student.
Table 4 depicts the enrollment status of APS students.
62

Table 3.4
APS Student Enrollment Status for Fall 2005
Characteristic Percent of Population
First-time student/transfer 28.3%
Returning 12.6%
Continuing 59%

Puente Project population at APS. The Puente Project at APS has been in
existence for 21 years. According to the former Counselor, 23 students participated
in the program in fall 2005 and 18 in spring 2006, with a grand total of close to 600
total participants at APS. Nearly all Puente students at APS have been Latino and
the majority were full-time students. The average age of these students is 21, but the
range was between 17 to 40 years old. Most of the transfer rate information is self-
reported and was not recorded by the APS Puente site.
VRCC population. VRCC is located in Los Angeles County in Southern
California. According to VRCC’s Institutional Research website, in fall 2005, the
total student enrollment was 12,757. Of this total population, half of the students
were female and the other half were male. About 20.8%, were under the age of 20.
Latinos were the largest student ethnic group at VRCC. Table 5 illustrates the ethnic
breakdown of students in fall 2005 at VRCC. (See following page):

63
Table 3.5
VRCC Student Ethnicity for Fall 2005
Ethnicity Percent (%) of Population
African-American 30.8
Asian 8.5
Latino 52.3
White 6.2
Unknown, decline to state,
or other
2.2

Only 16.2% of students stated that their educational goal was to transfer
while an overwhelming 52.8% stated their goal was vocational. In terms of
enrollment, 57% of students were enrolled during the daytime, 29% of all students
were enrolled part-time and 71% were full-time. Information about student status
such as continuing students or first-time students was not obtainable.
Puente Project population at VRCC. The Puente Project at VRCC has been
in existence for six years. According to the former counselor, 25 students
participated in the program at VRCC in the 2005 - 2006 academic year. They have
had a grand total of approximately 135 total participants at VRCC. Approximately
90% of these Puente students were Latino and about 50% were full-time students.
The average age of these students was 21, but the range was between 18 to 45 years
old. According to the former Puente Counselor at VRCC, it is not known how many
Puente students have transferred.
Participants’ background information. As part of Phase I, background information
for all of the participants was gathered. Age, marital status, number of children, ethnic
background, other positions held in the Puente Project, role in the Puente Project (such as
64
the current Counselor, former Counselor, or English instructor), the particpants’ educational
background, and the participants’ parents’ highest level of education were obtained.
There are two co-coordinators at the primary site, SBCC. The first
coordinator was Renée, a 36 year old single Mexican female with no children. She
was the Counselor coordinator of this team and was a former Puente student herself.
She had an Associate degree in General Studies\Business from SBCC, a Bachelor of
Arts in Sociology from Loyola Marymount University, and a Master of Arts in
Education with an emphasis in Counseling from California State University,
Dominguez Hills. Renée was a first-generation college student as the highest level
of education for her mother was 2
nd
grade and 3
rd
grade for her father. Her co-
coordinator, Amalia, was biracial of Mexican and Caucasian decent. She was a 52
year old married female with three children. She was the English coordinator of this
team and had worked as the State English Coordinator for the Puente Project.
Amalia had a Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics, a Master of Arts in Applied
Linguistics, and an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership all from the University of
California, Los Angeles. Amalia’s parents’ highest level of education was high
school making her a first-generation college student.
At the first secondary site, APS, the Counselor, former Counselor, and
English instructor participated in this study. Linda was a 48 year old divorced Latina
with three children. Her family had lived in New Mexico prior to the United
States/Mexico war when New Mexico was part of Mexico. She was the current
Counselor and had held no other positions in the Puente Project. Linda had a Liberal
65
Arts Degree from APS, a Bachelor of Arts in Social Work from California State
University, Los Angeles and a Master of Social Work from the University of
Southern California. Linda’s mother finished the 11
th
grade and her father finished
the 7
th
grade, making Linda a first-generation college student. Tomás, was a 59 year
old Mexican male who was married with three children. He was the former
Counselor at APS. Tomás had a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from the University
of California, Los Angeles, a Master of Arts in Counseling from California State
University, Los Angeles, and completed his coursework in an Ed.D. program but did
not complete his dissertation at the University of California, Los Angeles. Tomás
was a first-generation college student as his mother graduated from high school and
his father finished the 6
th
grade. Lastly, Michelle was a single 62 year old Chinese
American female with no children. She was the English instructor of this team. She
had a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations from the University of Southern
California and a Master of Arts in English from California State University, Los
Angeles. Michelle’s mother graduated from the 8
th
grade and she thinks her father
may have graduated from high school, making her a first-generation college student.
At the second secondary site, VRCC, the Counselor, English instructor and
former Counselor participated in this study. Mariam was a 46 year old married
Iranian female with two children. She was the current Counselor coordinator and
had not held any other positions in the Puente Project. Mariam had a Bachelor of
Arts from Coe College and a Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology from the
University of Southern California. Both of Mariam’s parents’ highest level of
66
education was the 6
th
grade, making her a first-generation college student. José was
a 33 year old Salvadorian male who lived with his girlfriend and their child. He was
the English coordinator of this team. José had an Associate degree in Liberal Arts
from VRCC, a Bachelor of Arts in English and Spanish Literature as well as a
Master of Arts in English Literature both from California State University, Long
Beach. José was also a first-generation college student as his mother finished 6
th

grade and father finished the 2
nd
grade. Lastly, María was a 38 year old single
Mexican female with no children. She was the former Counselor at VRCC and has
also been a mentor at another Puente Project site. María had a Bachelor of Arts in
Social Work with a minor in Criminal Justice from California Polytechnic Pomona
and a Master of Science in Social Work from the University of Southern California.
María’s mother’s highest level of education was the 2
nd
grade and her father’s was
the 4
th
grade, making her a first-generation college student.

Instrumentation
This was essentially a qualitative research study with quantitative
components. Qualitative analysis provided a view of the program holistically as well
as information about the participants’ experiences, opinions, feelings and knowledge
(Patton, 2002). In contrast, quantitative methods used standardized measures to
analyze and compare various perspectives and experiences (Patton, 2002).
Spradley’s (1979) critical ethnography approach provided the framework for this
study in the qualitative approach.
67
Occupational status ranks were adapted from Blau and Duncan’s (1967)
study, Dirk de Graaf and Flap (1988), as well as Nakao and Treas (1992) which
investigated occupational prestige coding. Lastly, Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) study,
which separates and categorizes resources into domains were also used as a model
for this study’s instruments. For the purpose of this study, questions for the Name
Generator were separated in the following domains:
1. Medical or Mental Health and Wellness
2. Social Service
3. Campus Specific/College Gateway
4. Law and Politics
5. Business, Financial, or Economic
These domains and occupations found within these domains are illustrated in
Appendix 1.

Name generator. The Name Generator (see Appendices B1 to B11) used for
this study was drawn from McCallister and Fisher’s (1978) study. This instrument
acted as a starting point for identifying the participant’s social network. The Name
Generator mapped out the participant’s social network and gave very detailed and
informative social capital descriptions. This instrument identified the specific
individuals within the participant’s social network as highly likely sources or past
sources of social support and key institutional resources. There were 42 items on
this instrument, which were broken down into 14 categories with three questions
68
within each category. A sample item of this instrument is: If one of your students
has a medical problem, such as eating disorders, STDs, physical wellbeing, etc. or a
substance abuse problem that he/she is aware of but does not know how to seek
assistance, who can you call with confidence to assist you in getting the proper
attention the student needs?

Organizational affiliations. Baker’s (2000) professional affiliations
assessment was used and adapted for this study (see Appendix 13 to C3). This
instrument shed light on the various types of organizations that the participants were
currently involved in. Current involvement is defined as attending meetings at least
once per year that had face-to-face interactions. This instrument questioned
participants about the top three organizations that participants were involved in.
There were six types of organizations participants were questioned about:
professional, trade\industry, political party\organization, church\religious,
charitable\philanthropic, and sports\recreation. Participants were also asked about
the nature of their involvement in the organization, such as a member, President, or
other position.

Position generator. Lin and Dumin’s (1986) study developed the Position
Generator which was used and adapted for this study (see Appendices D1 to D3).
The purpose of this instrument was to collect access-type social capital data.
Information that was gathered demonstrated the range of the accessed prestige, the
69
highest accessed prestige, and the number of different positions accessed. This
instrument also measured the strength of the ties through which the positions were
accessed as indicated by the role of the tie: family members, friends, or
acquaintances.
The positions listed in the generator are divided into three categories: high-,
middle-, and low-status. The categories were developed using Duncan’s
Socioeconomic Index Scores for Major Occupation Groups (Duncan, 1961) and by
the U.S. Bureau of Census, 1970 Census of Population Classified Index of Industries
and Occupations (NLSY, 2006). Scores of 75 or higher on the Duncan Scale were
considered to be high-status, 53 to 74 were middle-status, and 52 and below were
low-status. For this study, the range of the middle-status has been altered to 60 to
74. Additionally, the 53 to 59 range which is considered lower middle-class was
omitted, so that the instrument includes positions with higher socioeconomic index
scores and is considered to be a built in bias. Occupations that could not be found on
the scale were assigned a score by taking the average of three similar occupations as
shown in Appendix 18. A sample item of this instrument is: Do you know anyone
who is an Attorney?
The 30 positions listed in this instrument are listed in a pattern throughout
three stages according to level of status. Appendix 18 illustrates this pattern. The
positions were selected randomly by status. For Stage One, numbers 1 through 6, the
positions were listed in the following order: question #1 is high-status (HS), #2 is
middle-status (MS), and #3 is low-status (LS). This pattern repeated for numbers 4
70
through 6. For Stage Two, numbers 7 through 12, the positions are listed in the
following order: #7 is MS, #8 is LS, and #9 is HS. This pattern continues for
numbers 10 through 12. For Stage Three, numbers 13 through 18, the positions were
listed in the following order: #13 is LS, #14 is MS, and #15 is HS. This pattern
continued for numbers 16 through 18. Stage One repeats for numbers 19 through 24
such that number #19 is HS, #20 is MS, and #21 is LS. Stage One repeats for
numbers 22 through 24. Stage Two repeats for numbers 25 through 30 such that #25
is MS, #26 is LS, #27 is HS. Stage Two repeats for numbers 28 through 30.
Additionally, seven high and eight medium positions were either related or
not related to the program. Of these high and medium status positions, 10 were
positions that could be found on-campus and were designated as “in” and five were
outside of campus and designated as “out”. This is exemplified in Appendix 18.

Resource generator. Flap, Volker, Snijders, T. and Van der Gaag’s (2003)
Resource Generator (Appendices E1 to E3) was also used and adapted for this study.
This instrument combines the economic internal validity of the Position Generator
with the detailed information gathered from the Name Generator. This instrument
asked about access to resources, included resources that represented a collection of
social capital, and the strength of tie to which the resources were accessed were
measured by asking about the role of the tie: family members, friends, acquaintances,
or the participant.
71
There were 25 items in this instrument. The same pattern of high-, medium-, and
low-status in the Position Generator was used in the Resource Generator. In this
case, 15 items were related to on-campus resources. Appendix 21 illustrates this
pattern. A sample item of this instrument is: Do you know anyone who teaches in a
college/university with a masters’ degree or above?

Guided conversation protocol. Livermore & Neustrom’s (2003) guided
conversation protocol (see Appendix 22), was used and adapted for this study. This
instrument allowed the researcher to ask specific questions that shed light on
institutional agency and social capital. The instrument asked questions that allowed
the researcher to determine if the program leaders’ actions were a function of the
program’s goals or if they are driven by their own agenda, teaching students
strategies or skills, and coping skills as a program leader. This instrument had five
questions with one to three sub questions for each question. A sample question of
this instrument is: Is teaching students strategies or skills that enhance their ability to
become independent and learn to network and access resources on their own
something that you do in your program?
In sum, the Name Generator mapped out the participant’s social network and
gave very detailed and informative social capital descriptions. The organizational
affiliations examined determined how many and what types of organizations
participants were currently involved in. The Position Generator collected access-type
social capital data, which demonstrated the range of the accessed prestige, the
72
highest accessed prestige, and the number of different positions accessed. It also
measured the strength of the ties through which the occupations were accessed as
indicated by the role of the tie: family members, friends, or acquaintances. The
Resource Generator asked about access to resources and included resources that
represented a collection of social capital. The strength of tie to which the resources
were accessed was measured by asking about the role of the tie: family members,
friends, acquaintances, or self. The guided conversation protocol allowed for the
researcher to gather additional qualitative information about the program and its
leaders. These instruments were designed to measure social capital in surveys of
very large populations and have been modified for this study. These instruments
were not used singularly or discretely by themselves. For example, the Name
Generator survey was following by detailed questions of each of the relationships
identified. These instruments answered the research question targeting the types of
support and resources institutional agents provided to the Puente Project and its
participants and how these resources are a direct result of the institutional agents’
own social capital. Secondly, it also answered the research question focusing on the
program leaders’ own understanding of themselves as an institutional agent and how
it affects their role.

Data Collection
Data was collected in December 2006 and January 2007. Coordinators, both
present and former, were contacted via email or telephone starting in April 2006
73
seeking voluntary participation. Identities were kept confidential by assigning
pseudonyms to the participants and the research site locations.
The participants were contacted to set up times and dates for the interviews.
The interviews were conducted at various locations both on and off participants’
campuses such as in their offices or at a local café. All interviews were taped on a
digital voice recorder and documented using handwritten field notes. Data was
gathered in four phases during several scheduled appointments ranging from one to
four appointments.

Phase I: First, the researcher gave the participants a description of the study
and discussed the participant’s rights (see Appendix 23). The researcher also asked
about the participant’s background information (see Appendix 24). Next, the
researcher asked the participant about who the key people were that helped the
participant run the program (see Appendix 25). The researcher asked the participant
about their position or role in the program, the goals of the program, the types of
students in the program, and what the participant believed were the most important
things, practices, or activities that represented the core of their program (see
Appendix 26). Lastly, new and former coordinators were asked questions about why
they were interested in joining the Puente Project or why they left (see Appendix 27).
The researcher used the instrument in Appendices G1 to G4 for all of the participants
and only used Appendix 27 for the new and former coordinators.
74
Phase II: Data for this study was gathered through four instruments in Phase
II. The Name Generator was administrated only to participants at the primary site,
SBCC, and not to the participants in the secondary sites, APS and VRCC.
Participants were first read instructions about the Name Generator (see Appendix 2).
The researcher then read the Name Generator questions (see Appendix 3) and the
participant was given a copy of the questions to help them follow along (see
Appendix 4). The researcher used the Name Generator spreadsheet (see Appendix 5)
to record the responses to the Name Generator. The researcher used codes to
identify the relationships of the “alters”, the individuals identified by the participant
on the Name Generator (see Appendix 6). The researcher also used codes to identify
the ethnicity of the alters that the participants identified (see Appendix 7). The
researcher used codes to identify the three most important settings that the
participant had contact with the alter in (see Appendix 8). In addition, the participant
was given a copy of the various setting responses to help them answer the questions
(see Appendix 9). The researcher used codes to identify the frequency of contact
that the participant had with each alters (see Appendix 10). In addition, the
researcher also used a spreadsheet to document the occupations of the alters
identified in the Name Generator (see Appendix 11). Follow up questions and
requests for examples were asked when appropriate.
Next, the Organizational Affiliations instrument was administered to all
participants from both primary and secondary sites (see Appendix 13). The
participants were given a copy of the questions to help them follow along (see
75
Appendix 14). Lastly, the participants’ answers describing the nature of their
involvement in each organization were recorded in on a spreadsheet (see Appendix
15).
The Position Generator was the next instrument administered. First, the
researcher read the instructions on how to complete the Position Generator (see
Appendix 16). Both participant and researcher had a copy of the survey and the
particpant filled out the survey (see Appendix 17). Lastly, the Resource Generator
instrument was administered. First, instructions on how to complete the Resource
Generator were read by the researcher (see Appendix 19). The participant and
researcher both had a copy of the survey and the participant filled out the survey (see
Appendix 20). The researcher stayed in the room to answer any questions the
participant had. The researcher collected both surveys once they were complete.

Phase III: In this phase, the researcher asked specific questions about the
background of the alters identified by the participants on the Name Generators (see
Appendix 12). Only participants from the primary site participated in Phase III.
Phase IV: The final phase consisted of questions about the participant’s
beliefs and perceptions about the Puente Project as well as their role in the program
(see Appendix 22). Participants from the primary site were asked questions #1 - 5,
while participants from the secondary sites were only asked questions # 4 and 5.

76
Data analysis
The methodological orientation of this study is both inductive analytical and
deductive analytical. The inductive orientation of this study is two-fold. First, it
explores how program leaders view the challenge. In this study the “challenge” is
defined as the means and methods that are instituted to increase the number of
educationally disadvantaged students who enroll in four-year colleges and
universities, earn college degrees, and return to the community as mentors and
leaders of future generations. Secondly, it explores program leaders’ understanding
of how the Puente Project is effective and why they think it is so. Additionally, the
deductive orientation uses theories of social capital and other related frameworks to
also add depth to our interpretations and interpretative strategies of how the program
works and why it works with an emphasis on the role of program leaders. The
information gathered in both phases of the data collection process corresponds to the
research questions.
All recordings were listened to and detailed notes and quotations were
produced during the data collection process and analysis. The hand written notes of
the comments, reactions, and behaviors during the interviews were also used.
Themes and patterns were noted and organized by research questions to analyze the
data of both portions of the transcribed interviews and the hand written notes taken
during the interviews. The responses from the surveys were added together in order
to compare the number of alters and resources. The responses from the interviews,
field notes, and surveys were stored and organized using Microsoft Word and Excel.
77
The issues explored in the instrument data analysis revolved around the
research questions:
1. What are the characteristics, features, and composition of the social
resource networks of intervention program coordinators?
2. What are some of the factors that facilitate or constrain the program
leader’s access and mobilization of resources on behalf of themselves,
students, program associates, and the program agenda?
3. How do program coordinators work to enhance the program participants’
social networks so that participants themselves become independent and
learn to network and access resources?
4. How do program coordinators deal with the pressures associated with
being a program leader?
Chapter IV will discuss general trends in the analysis of the participants’
social networks, implications for intervention programs, future research needed as a
result of the findings in this study, limitations, and a conclusion of this study.
78
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter analyzes the data gathered from the Name, Position, and
Resource Generators, Organizational Affiliations survey, and the ethnographic
interview. Responses will also be provided for the four research questions that
guided this study:
1. What are the characteristics, features, and composition of the social
resource networks of intervention program coordinators?
2. What are some of the factors that facilitate or constrain the program
leader’s access and mobilization of resources on behalf of themselves,
students, program associates, and the program agenda?
3. How do program coordinators work to enhance the program participants’
social networks so that participants themselves become independent and
learn to network and access resources?
4. How do program coordinators deal with the pressures associated with
being a program leader?

Research Question 1: What are the Characteristics, Features, and Composition of
the Social Resource Networks of Intervention Program Coordinators?
Disparities in coordinators’ overall net size and access to resources. Net
size represents the number of alters identified on the various network surveys.
79
Recall that “alters” are the individuals identified by the participant in the generator.
The Name, Position, and Resource Generators all showed disparities in the
coordinators social capital in terms of their overall net size which consequently
affects their access to resources. A common pattern found was that one coordinator
dominated over the others at the same site in terms of their level of social capital.
First, the results of the Name Generator indicated that Amalia’s net size was 22
while Renée’s net size was 16. Thus, Amalia’s net size was 37% larger than
Renée’s. Therefore, this indicates that one coordinator had a net size that was 1/3
larger than her co-coordinator.
As illustrated in Table 1, the Position Generator also showed a pattern of
disparities in the coordinators’ overall network by site, gender, and type of
coordinator. As a result, the size of the overall network also affects their level of
social capital. In Table 1, the number in superscript indicates the number of times
the participant indicated that they knew 10 or more people that were in a particular
position. For example, Mariam’s results indicate that she identified 47
3
high-status
alters in Table 1. Therefore, on four survey items Mariam identified that she knew
10 or more people in four different high-status positions. In addition, she also knew
seven people in various other high-status positions. (See following page):

80
Table 4.1
Position Generator – Access to High-, Medium-, and Low-status Alters
Site SBCC VRCC APS
Status Renée Amalia Mariam José María Linda Tomás Michelle
High 1 26 47
3

13 15 30
1
101
8
14
Medium 0 14 66
2
7 16 41
3
54
4
12
Low 3 6 55
4
6 6 10 59
4
1
Total 4 46 168
9
26 37 81
4
214
16
27

Looking at the data by site in Table 1, there are disparities in the net size
between coordinators. The results also illustrate that one coordinator had a much
larger overall network than his or her co-coordinator(s) at each site. In other words,
one coordinator had a more extensive network than the other coordinator(s) at the
same site. For example, at Sierra Bonita Community College (SBCC), Amalia had a
much larger net size than Renée. At Vista Riviera Community College (VRCC),
Mariam, the Counselor, had a larger net size than her co-coordinator José, the
English instructor, and María, the former Counselor. Lastly, at Alameda Padre Serra
Community College (APS), Tomás, the former Counselor, had a larger network than
Linda, the current Counselor, and Michelle, the English instructor.
Comparing the data by coordinators overall also indicated that there were
disparities. Thus, some coordinators had more access to social capital than others
due to their net size. For example, Tomás, the former Counselor at APS, and
Mariam, the Counselor at VRCC, overwhelmingly had more relationships than the
other six participants. Furthermore, Tomás also had the highest number of 10 or
more relationships overall. Note that Mariam, Linda, and Tomás were the only
participants that could identify groups of 10 or more alters. Thus, the coordinators
81
that were not able to identify groups of 10 or more alters had fewer relationships, and
hence less social capital, than those coordinators that could identify groups of 10 or
more alters.
Data from the Position Generator also showed gender differences in the
coordinators’ overall net size. Although the majority of the participants in this study
were female, the participant with the largest net size was a male – Tomás, the former
Counselor from APS. However, five of the six female participants had a larger net
size than the other male in this study – José, the English instructor from VRCC.
Therefore, the males had both the most and one of the least extensive networks of all
the participants. In addition, note that Tomás is currently not working with the
program. Thus, the participant with the largest network no longer has as much
influence in the day-to-day operations of the Puente Project at his site and his
network is not as readily accessible as those that do currently work in the program.
The Position Generator data varied according to campus in relation to the
type of coordinator - English instructor or Counselor. At two of the three sites, the
former and present Counselors both had larger net sizes then their English instructor
co-coordinators. At the two secondary sites VRCC and APS, the present and former
Counselor coordinators were the participants with the largest net size. However, at
SBCC, Amalia, the English instructor, had a larger network size overall in
comparison to her co-coordinator Counselor. This data suggests that one type of
coordinator could posses more social capital than the co-coordinator(s).
82
The Resource Generator also exhibited similar disparities by site, gender, and
type of coordinator (see Table 2). Similar to the Position Generator, the number in
superscript demonstrates the number of times the participant indicated that he or she
knew 10 or more people that could provide a particular resource.
Table 4.2
Resource Generator – Access to High-, Medium-, and Low-Status Alters and Self
Site SBCC VRCC APS
Status Renée Amalia Mariam José María Linda Tomás Michelle
High 18 30 92
5
87
5
28 79
5
126
11
70
4

Medium 36 38
2
167
14
87
6
71 89
6
111
9
114
7

Low 4 9 47
2
15 9 4 54
4
30
2

Total 58 77
2
306
21
189
11
108 172
11
291
24
214
13

Looking at the data according to site, the results from the Resource Generator
were similar to that of the Name and Position Generator. Thus, one coordinator had
a much larger network than his or her co-coordinator(s). In addition, the same
coordinator with the larger net size found in the Position Generator also identified
more access to resources in the Resource Generator. For example, Amalia, the
English instructor from SBCC again reported more access to resources than her co-
coordinator, Renée. At VRCC, Mariam again reported a larger overall network than
José and María. Lastly, at APS, Tomás once again reported a larger network than
Linda and Michelle. Thus, not only does the coordinator have more access to
positions, but they also have more access to resources as illustrated by the results of
the Position and Resource Generators.
Comparing the data of all of the coordinators also indicated that there were
disparities. Therefore, some sites had more access to resources than other sites.
83
Once again, Mariam, the current Counselor from VRCC and Tomás, the former
Counselor from APS, indicated they had the highest access to resources on this
generator. This time Mariam indicated that she had the highest access to resources
overall and highest access of medium-status resources. Note that in this generator
Amalia, Mariam, Linda, Tomás, and Michelle were able to identify groups of 10 or
more people for some of the items in contrast to the Position Generator where only
Mariam, Linda, and Tomás identified groups of 10 or more people. Thus, the results
of the Resource Generator indicated that at least one coordinator from each site could
identify a large number of resources for particular items.
Comparing the Resource Generator data by gender also showed disparities in
access to resources. However, the data from this generator indicated that the
participant with the largest network size was female – Mariam, the current Counselor
from VRCC. The male participants ranked second and fifth highest overall of the
eight participants.
Similar to the Position Generator, the Resource Generator data in relation to
net size and the type of coordinator varied according to campus. However, the
results were somewhat different in this generator. Similar to the Position Generator,
at SBCC, Amalia, the English instructor, once again had a larger net size overall in
comparison to her co-coordinator Counselor. The results from the Position
Generator showed that at the two secondary sites, VRCC and APS, both the present
and former Counselor coordinators were the coordinators with the largest net size.
The results were different for the Resource Generator. The Resource Generator
84
indicated that Mariam, the current Counselor, had the most access to resources
overall and José, the English instructor, had the second largest net size. The results
were similar at APS. Tomás, the former Counselor, had the largest network and
Michelle, the English instructor, had the second largest network. Thus, at two of the
three sites, at least one of the former or present Counselors had the largest net size
and the English instructor had the second largest net size.
In sum, the results of the three generators showed disparities between the net
size, and therefore, levels of social capital between co-coordinators at each site. In
other words, one coordinator had a larger net size than his or her co-coordinator(s).
At SBCC, the English instructor had a larger net size in all three generators whereas
at least one of the former or present Counselors at the two secondary sites had larger
net sizes than the English instructors. Results by gender were mixed in that a male
indicated he had the largest net size on the Position Generator, but a female had the
largest net size on the Resource Generator.
Disparities in participants’ status-level access to alters and resources. The
various generators also indicated that there were disparities in the participants’
access to various status-levels. According to the Name Generator results, both
participants identified medium-status alters as individuals that provided them with
the most support. The Name Generator results indicated that the average SEI of
alters for Renée was 62 which was considered medium-status. Renée’s own SEI
score as a Counselor was 65, indicating that both she and the alters she identified as
sources of support were of medium-status. On the other hand, Amalia, the English
85
instructor, had relationships with alters with an average score of 70 which was also
medium-status. However, Amalia’s own SEI score was 84 which was high-status.
While Amalia’s SEI score is considered high-status, on average the alters she
identified as sources of support were of medium-status. Overall, on average the
participants received the most support from medium-status alters versus high-status
alters. This suggests that the participants may not have had as much access to high-
status support since most of their support came from medium-status alters.
Additionally, the Position Generators showed disparities in terms of access to
high-, medium-, and low-status relationships (see Table 1). First, looking at each
site, there were overwhelming disparities between coordinators’ access to high- and
medium-status alters. At SBCC, Amalia had much more access to high- and
medium-status alters than Renée. At VRCC, Mariam reported more access to high
and medium-status alters than both José and María. And at APS, Tomás also had
more access to alters than both Linda and Michelle. Therefore, one coordinator at
each site had more access to high- and medium-status positions than their co-
coordinator(s).
Examining the data overall also indicated that there disparities. Comparing
all of the coordinators indicated that some coordinators had overwhelming larger
access to high- and medium-status alters than the other coordinators. In other words,
they had more access to social capital. For example, Tomás had the highest number
of relationships to high-status individuals which was over twice as many as Mariam,
who reported the second highest number of high-status individuals on survey.
86
Tomás and Mariam overwhelming identified more access to high- and medium-
status positions than the other six participants. Additionally, Tomás also had the
highest number of 10 or more high-status relationships. Again, recall that Tomás no
longer works with the program. Thus, his network may not be as readily available as
those who do currently work in the program.
The results of the Resource Generator also illustrate the disparities in the
number of high-, medium-, and low-status resources each participant had access to
(see Table 2).
Similar to the Position Generator, the Resource Generator results display disparities
in access to high-, medium-, and low-status resources amongst the participants.
Thus, one coordinator had more access to social capital than his or her co-
coordinator(s). At SBCC, Amalia had more access to high-status resources than
Renée. However, they had similar access to medium-status resources. At VRCC,
Mariam and José had similar access to high-status resources, but Mariam
overwhelmingly had more access overall in terms of medium-status resources.
Lastly, Tomás had more access to high-status resources. Yet, both he and Michelle
had similar access to medium-status resources.
Additionally, comparing all of the coordinators indicated that there were also
disparities in access to resources between sites. Tomás reported more access to high-
status resources while Mariam reported more access to medium-status resources than
any other participant. Therefore, these results also indicate disparities in access to
social capital.
87
Table 3 examines the percentage of high-, medium, and low-status items that
each participant was able to identify at least one alter in each status group on the
Position Generator. For example, on the Position Generator, Renée was able to
identify at least one person for 10% of the high-status items, no one for medium-
status items, and at least one person for 30% of the low-status items.
Table 4.3
Position Generator – Percentage (%) of High-, Medium- and Low-Status Items
Identified
Site SBCC VRCC APS
Status Renée Amalia Mariam José María Linda Tomás Michelle
High 10 70 90 40 80 70 70 50
Medium 0 40 80 60 80 50 50 70
Low 30 20 70 30 30 60 60 0

Note that Amalia ranked highest at SBCC in terms of high- and medium-
status items. She could identify over seven times as many high-status and four times
as many medium-status items than her co-coordinator. At VRCC, Mariam ranked
the highest amongst the three current and former coordinators in terms of high-status
items. She was able to identify 12% more high-status items than María and more
than double the high-status items than José. Furthermore, Mariam and María were
able to identify at least one individual in 80% of the medium-status items, which was
33% more than José. Lastly, at APS, both Tomás and Linda identified the highest
percentage of high-status items which was 40% more than Michelle. However,
Michelle identified the highest percentage of medium-status items which was 40%
more than Tomás and Linda. Therefore, these results indicate that some coordinators
had more access to social capital than others.
88
Table 4 examines the percentage of high-, medium-, and low-status items in
which participants were able to identify at least one resource, regardless of
relationship.

Table 4.3
Resource Generator – Percentage(%) of High-, Medium- and Low-Status Items
Identified
Site SBCC VRCC APS
Status Renée Amalia Mariam José María Linda Tomás Michelle
High 33 100 100 100 100 89 100 89
Medium 88 100 100 75 88 75 100 100
Low 25 63 75 75 75 38 88 63

Note that in Table 4 at least one person per team was able to identify at least
one person in 100% of the items for both high- and medium-status resources. This
indicates that each team was able to access at least one person for all high- and
medium-status resources. However, again these results do illustrate an uneven
balance between coordinators in that one coordinator may have more access to social
capital than his or her co-coordinator(s).

Possessing capital but not activating it. The results of the three generators
indicated that a participant may have access to a particular resource or position, but
may not necessarily activate the relationship. Furthermore, the results indicated that
participants had mid-level access to high-status resources and positions, but they did
not necessarily identify these people as sources of support or access support from
them.
89
Table 5 examines the results of the Name, Position, and Resource Generators
for SBCC, the only site that was administered these three instruments.

Table 4.5
Name, Position, and Resource Generators – Average Percentage (%) of High-,
Medium- and Low-Status Items Identified in the Position and Resource
Generators; Average Percentage (%) of Status of Alters Identified and Accessed
in the Name Generator
Position
Generator
Resource
Generator
Name
Generator –
Alters
Identified
Name
Generator –
Alters
Accessed
High-Status 40 67 28 20
Medium-
Status
20 94 60 50
Low-Status 25 44 12 8

Specifically, Table 5 examines the average percentage of high-, medium-,
and low-status items on the Position and Resource Generators in which the two
participants were able to identify at least one item. This was compared with the
overall average percentage of status of alters identified as sources of support or who
helped the participant in the past year as well as alters that were actually accessed in
the Name Generator. Multiplex relationships are taken into consideration in this
calculation by counting each time the alter was named.
As exemplified in Table 5, the two participants were able to identify at least
one individual in 40% and 67% of the high-status items in the Position and Resource
Generators respectively. This indicates that on average participants identified at
least one person in 50% of the items for both generators. However, the results of the
90
Name Generator show that the number of high-status individuals named was only
28% of which only 20% were actually accessed.
Additionally, the results showed that participants had a high-level of access
to medium-status resources. Participants were able to identify at least one individual
in 20% and 94% of the medium-status items on the Position and Resource
Generators respectively. This signifies that the participants were able to identify a
low-level of medium-status individuals due to the Position Generator results, but
they had access to a much higher level of high-status resources as indicated by the
Resource Generator results. Despite the high level of medium-status resources
accessed on the Resource Generator, the Name Generator results paint a different
picture. Of the alters identified on the Name Generator, only 60% of the alters
identified in each resource category were medium-status while only 50% were
actually accessed.
Not only did participants have low-level access to low-status resources, but
the participants were even less likely to be able to identify or access those sources of
support. Participants were able to identify at least one individual in 25% and 44% of
the low-status items on the Position and Resource Generators respectively. This
signifies that on average the participants knew at least one individual for about 30%
of the low-status items on each generator. Despite the fairly low level of low-status
resources accessed and persons identified on the two generators, the alters that were
identified and actually accessed as sources of support were much lower as illustrated
by the Name Generator results. Of the alters named on the Name Generator, only
91
12% of alters identified in each resource\support category were low-status while only
8% were actually accessed.
As described in Chapter II, program leaders must be willing to use their
social capital on behalf of their students. The effectiveness of the program is
determined by the program leaders’ willingness and ability to access their social
capital on behalf of their students and the program. Therefore, these results indicate
that although it appears that there is an extensive network looking at the Position and
Resource Generators alone, these alters and resources were not necessarily identified
as sources of support or even accessed by the participants.

Relationships are primarily with colleagues\acquaintances from the same
workplace. The results of the Name, Position, and Resource Generators indicated
that the majority of the relationships participants had were with
colleagues\acquaintances from the same workplace. Renée and Amalia identified
that the majority of their relationships with the alters identified on the Name
Generator were “Work Associates” and “Colleagues\Acquaintances” respectively.
Additionally, the majority of the participants also worked at SBCC. Renée and
Amalia identified that respectively 100% and 70% of their alters also worked at
SBCC.
Table 6 illustrates the total number of relationships by the type of relationship
(family, friend, colleague\acquaintance at the same workplace,
colleagues\acquaintance at a different workplace) established in the Position
92
Generator. The number in superscript indicates the number of times the participant
indicated that they knew 10 or more people in a particular position.

Table 4.6
Position Generator – Status and Relationships of Alters
Family Friend Colleague\
Acquaintance
Same
Workplace
Colleague\
Acquaintance
Different
Workplace
Total
36 182
10
255
15
130
5

Similar to the results of the Name Generator, Table 6 exhibits that the
majority of relationships were with colleagues\acquaintances at the same workplace.
Therefore, most of the coordinators’ access to resources was from people that
worked at their college versus other colleges and career fields.
Table 7 illustrates the relationships for each resource accessed by status and
also by the type of relationship (family, friend, colleague\acquaintance at the same
workplace, colleague\acquaintance from a different workplace, and self) established
in the Resource Generator. The number in superscript indicates the number of times
the participant indicated that they knew 10 or more people that provided a particular
resource.
Table 4.7
Resource Generator – Status and Relationships of Resources
Family Friend Colleague\
Acquaintance
Same
Workplace
Colleague\
Acquaintance
Different
Workplace
Self
Total 120
3
311
18
532
31
393
29
59
93

Similar to the Name and Position Generators, most resources were accessed
from relationships with colleagues\acquaintances from the same workplace. Thus,
resources were accessed from individuals from the same college versus other
colleges or career fields.
Considering that relationships were primarily with colleagues\acquaintances,
it is also important to consider the status level of these individuals in terms of what
types of positions they are in and what resources they possess. Table 8 closely
examines the overall number of relationships by status and relationship in the
Position Generator.

Table 4.8
Position Generator – Status and Relationships of Alters Total
Status Family Friend Colleague\
Acquaintance
Same
Workplace
Colleague\
Acquaintance
Different
Workplace
Self
High 7 98
6
87
4
55
2
27
Medium 16 55
2
80
5
59
3
29
Low 13 29
2
88
6
16 3

Table 8 illustrates that the number of colleagues\acquaintances from the same
workplace were about the same in all status levels. However, of the various types of
relationships, friends were actually more likely to be high-status. Thus, although the
coordinators’ knew more people from their workplace, friends were more likely to be
high-status and thus, provide more access to high-status resources.
94
Table 9 illustrates the results in terms of overall number of relationships by
status and relationship in the Resource Generator.

Table 4.9
Resource Generator – Status and Relationships of Alters
Status Family Friend Colleague\
Acquaintance
Same
Workplace
Colleague\
Acquaintance
Different
Workplace
High 36
1
119
7
186
10
162
12

Medium 63
2
134
9
289
18
198
14

Low 21 58
2
57
3
33
3

In this case, in terms of all relationships, colleagues\acquaintances provided
mostly high- and medium-status resources. However, colleagues\acquaintances from
the same workplace provided more medium-status resources than high- or low-status
resources. Thus, coordinators have the most relationships with
colleagues\acquaintances from the same workplace that mostly provide medium-
status resources.

Relationships are principally with alters of similar backgrounds. The
participants primarily had relationships with people of their same ethnic background.
Of the three generators, the Name Generator was the only instrument that collected
ethnic background data of the alters identified. Again, recall that only the two
participants from the primary site were administered the Name Generator instrument.
Table 10 describes the types of relationships participants had with alters by ethnicity.

95
Table 4.10
Name Generator – Percentage (%) of Relationships by Ethnicity
Ethnicity Renée Amalia Mean
African American 6 5 5.5
Biracial 13 0 6.5
Caribbean 0 5 2.5
Caucasian 6 23 14.5
Caucasian\European 6 0 3.0
Chinese 6 5 5.5
Cuban 0 5 2.5
Japanese 13 9 11
Mexican 31 50 40.5
Vietnamese 13 0 6.5
Unknown 6 0 3

Renée was of Mexican decent and Amalia is biracial of Mexican and
Caucasian background. As shown in Table 10, the majority of alters reported by
Amalia and Renée were also of Mexican decent, a mean of 40.5%. Therefore, the
participants do not have as many relationships with alters from different ethnic
backgrounds.
In addition, the participants’ relationships were largely with alters of the
same gender. According to the results of the Name Generator, Renée and Amalia,
who are both female, had relationships to female alters at the rate of 75% and 65%
respectively. Therefore, they do not have as many relationships with male alters.

Participants have few multiplex relationships and many weak ties. The
Name Generator results indicated that the participants had few multiplex
relationships and the majority of their relationships were weak ties as demonstrated
in Table 11.
96

Table 4.11
Name Generator – Percentage (%) of multiplex relationships and weak ties
Percent (%) of multiplex
relationships
Percent (%) of weak ties
Renée 25 56
Amalia 5 73

Multiplex relationships are defined as an alter acting as three or more
sources of support. On the other hand, weak ties are defined as uniplex ties in which
an alter is a non-family members and acts as only one source of support. As
discussed in Chapter II, weak ties may be more powerful than strong ties because
they contribute to the flow of information between social groups (Granovetter, 1983;
Lin, 2001). Thus, the participants were more likely to go to one person for one
particular type of support instead of going to one person for various types of support.

Mostly long-term relationships. The Name Generator results indicated that
the participants had fairly long-term relationships. On average, Renée and Amalia
reported that they knew the alters for eight and 12 years respectively. Renée’s
relationships ranged from two to 15 years while Amalia’s ranged from one to 30
years. This data suggests that the participants rely on long-lasting relationships for
support instead of seeking support from new relationships.

Non-existent relationships and relying on the referral system. There were
several types of resources\support identified in the Name Generator that neither
97
Amalia nor Renée could identify any individual as a source of support. As part of
the Name Generator, the participants were asked questions addressing 1) who the
participant would go to for support (questioned about 14 types of support); 2) who
actually helped the participant in the past year; 3) who the participant would not
normally go to, but actually did provide help in the past year; and 4) if the participant
ever provided the support themselves (see Appendix 3).
The results indicated that the coordinators could not identify anyone that they
would go to for a particular type of support, anyone who had actually helped them
with this type of support in the past year, or anyone that they would normally not
rely on but did help them in the past year. This occurred on two occasions for
Amalia and in four cases for Renée. However, in some instances, the participants
answered that they themselves had provided the resource\support.
Both Renée and Amalia could not identify anyone for academic and student
affairs support, such as assistance with academic petitions, withdrawals and grade
changes. However, they did both identify themselves as someone that could provide
this type of support. In addition, neither participant could identify anyone for
program\grant funding support nor did they provide this type of support. Lastly,
Renée did not identify anyone for legal assistance or mental health\wellness support.
However, she did identify herself as someone that has provided mental
health\wellness support.
In some cases, the participants were not able to identify a particular person
that could provide a certain type of resource\support. Instead, they would refer
98
students to a particular department on campus. For example, when Amalia was
asked who she would go to for crisis support, she responded that she would send
students to the therapist at the Mental Health Center at SBCC. However, she did not
know the therapist’s name. Renée also was unable to identify particular individuals
when asked about legal support as illustrated in the example below:
Renée: Legal assistance … actually, we have a free legal
service [on campus] …. In the past they have [provided] free
legal advice to students on campus.

Researcher: So you would refer [the students] more to the
program instead of someone [specific] … there’s not a
particular person [who you would refer them to]?

Renée: No.

The following is a second example from Renée’s interview when asked about social
integration support:
Renée: Well, we have the writing center [on campus]… I don’t
think there’s any particular person, it would be more like the
service we would refer the students [to].

Therefore, in some cases, a tie did not exist with an individual to provide
certain types of resource\support. In addition, the coordinators themselves could not
provide the resource\support to the student. Thus, the coordinators were not able to
help the student with particular resources\support since they had no one to turn to for
assistance. Instead, they would refer the student to a department and not a particular
person. This suggests that the coordinator lacked social capital in specific types of
resources\support since no tie existed.

99
Non-reciprocal support relationships. Participants were also asked if they
acted as a source of support for the alters they identified in the Name Generator.
Three of the major questions the participants were asked were: if they had ever acted
as a source of support to the alters they named; what type of support they provided;
and if they considered themselves to be a major source of support for the alters. The
Name Generator results indicated that on average the participants acted as sources of
support for less than 50% of the alters they identified (see Table 12).
Table 4.12
Name Generator – Acting as Sources of Support for Alters
Percentage of alters
that participant gave
support to
Most common type
of support given to
an alter
Participant feels she is
major source of
support for alter
Renée 50% Educational and\or
Gateway
(Support #4)
43%
Amalia 45% Academic and
Student Affairs
(Support #8);
Career, Internships,
and Employment
Opportunities
(Support #9)
36%

In fact, several times Amalia responded that the alter was more of a support
for her than she was for them. One would suspect that the participants would not
provide as much support to alters that were of a higher status. However, recall that
on average the alters identified by the participants were of medium-status, which was
the same status level as Renée and actually a lower status level for Amalia. Thus,
these results suggest that the participants did not provide as much support as they
received.
100

Participants providing resources themselves. The results were mixed for
participants providing resources themselves. In the Name Generator, the two
participants indicated that they provided students or program colleagues with support
in over 50% of the 14 different types of supports they were questioned about. The
results for the Resource Generator are shown in Table 13.
Table 4.13
Resource Generator – Average percent (%) of high-, medium-, and low-status
resources provided by site
Site SBCC VRCC APS Mean
High 44 44 33 40
Medium 0 62 25 29
Low 50 13 0 21
Total 32 40 20 31

Table 13 looks at the average number of high-, medium-, and low-status
resources by team illustrating the average number of resources provided per
participant. Overall VRCC provided the most resources of the three sites and SBCC
was close behind. Coordinators from both SBCC and VRCC provided the most
high-status resources. VRCC participants provided the most medium-status
resources while SBCC participants provided the most low-status resources.
However, on average, the participants indicated that they provided 40% or
less of any of the resources they were questioned about in the Resource Generator.
Therefore, on average, the coordinators less than half of the time could provide a
resource themselves. Thus, they are more likely to turn to other people to access
resources.
101

Limited involvement in organizational affiliations. The results indicated that
the participants were primarily involved in professional organizations and had little
involvement in organizations overall. All of the participants were asked about their
professional affiliations. They were questioned about five different types of
affiliations: professional, trade\industry, political party\organization,
church\religious, charitable\philanthropic, and sports clubs\recreation. Participants
were asked to identify the three most important organizations that they were
currently involved in and attended a face-to-face meeting at least once a year.
Most of the participant’s were involved in mainly professional organizations
which were tied in someway to the participant’s profession. In terms of professional
organizations, Amalia was a member of three professional teaching associations.
Renée was not able to identify any professional organization that she was a part of.
Mariam was a member of a therapist association and a campus organization geared
towards stopping violence against women. She was also the Vice President of the
Academic Senate. José was a member of one professional organization - a
community college administrator group for Latinos. María was a member of three
professional associations: student advising, counseling, and a group for community
college professionals. Tomás identified three professional organizations. He is a
member of a transfer director association, a counseling group, and community
college administrator group for Latinos. Lastly, Michelle identified herself as a
member of a writing association in which she presented at their annual conferences.
102
None of the participants reported affiliations with trade\industry
organizations. Renée and Amalia were the only participants to report involvement in
charitable\ philanthropic organizations. Renée was a member of one organization on
campus that assisted orphans while Amalia volunteered at a local museum. Linda
was the only participant involved in a political party\organization, a church\religious
organization, and a sports club\recreation group. She was a volunteer for one
political association helping at the polls. She was also a volunteer for a
church\religious organization where she helped with catechism. Linda volunteered
for a sports club\recreation group by helping with her daughters’ soccer team.
When participants were questioned about their involvement in the various
organizations, some responded that they were too busy with their families and just
too busy in general to get involved. One participant, José, the English instructor at
VRCC, spoke about the irony of the fact that he expects his students to participate in
organizations, yet he himself does not participate.
José: I wish I could say that I have participated in more organizations.
It’s funny because here I am trying to get my students to participate in
others things and then I just don’t have the time. Yet, I don’t accept
their excuses.

In addition, note that all of the participants, with the exception of Mariam, were
members of organizations and did not hold any type of leadership position.

Difference in key staff members identified that help to run the program. All
of the participants were asked to identify the key people that help them run the
Puente Project at their site. SBCC and APS participants all named their co-
103
coordinator or former coordinators as people who helped them run the program.
However, VRCC not only named current and former coordinators, but they also
named several administrators and other faculty members, such as the Transfer Center
Director, English department chair, and a speech instructor, as key individuals that
helped them run the program. The participants explained that administrators
approached the Puente Project coordinators. These administrators let the
coordinators know that they were there to support them in any way possible. In
addition, these administrators held true to their promises and did in fact help the
Puente Project coordinators during times of need. Furthermore, the faculty members
were strong supporters of the Puente Project at VRCC and helped in any way that
they could. For example, the librarian at VRCC would lead special presentations on
how to conduct library research for the Puente Project class. However, VRCC was
the only site that appeared to have this type of support from other high- and medium-
status individuals on campus besides their co-coordinators.

Research Question 2: What are Some of the Factors that Facilitate or Constrain the
Program Leader’s Access and Mobilization of Resources on Behalf of Themselves,
Students, Program Associates, and the Program Agenda?
Several factors were identified that facilitated or constrained the program
leaders’ ability to access and mobilize resources. Primary among this was the
program leader’s ability to establish networks as their relationships with others assist
the flow of resources to low socioeconomic status students in the program.
104
Secondly, taking a personal interest in student success facilitates the program
leaders’ own motivation to help their students. Additionally, the fact that all
program leaders were first-generation to be college educated also affected how they
ran the program. Full-time status of Puente coordinators could facilitate access and
mobilization of resources due to the type of relationships that they can build due to
their full-time status.

Program leaders establish networks. As discussed in Chapter II, based on
the social resource school of social capital theory, certain relationships that students
establish during their academic careers may create a flow of resources and are
critical to their future success. In this case, the relationships students create with the
Puente Project leaders opens the doors to other types of networks that they normally
would not have access to.
As further discussed in Chapter II, awareness of the importance of social
networks is vital. Therefore, the program’s capacity is limited in empowering
students based on the program staff members’ own social capital. If institutional
agents are unaware of the importance of social capital and have not accumulated this
capital, there will be stagnant growth and limited ability not only to empower
students, but also on the program’s own development.
Michelle explained that one of her major roles was to coordinate guest
speakers for her Puente English class. These guest speakers were usually Chicano or
Latino writers whose novels the students were reading in her classroom. Although
105
Michelle taught English, she felt that one of her major functions as a coordinator was
to interact with writers and network so she could invite them to come speak to her
students. This type of networking that Michelle does is important because it
provides her students with a unique opportunity to socialize with individuals that
they would not normally be able to interact with if it had not been for Michelle’s
connections and ability to bring these people to her classroom.
Tomás also spoke about the importance of establishing networks. He
explained that he felt his role was to interact with people both on and off campus.
As the coordinator, he felt his role was to introduce his students to these different
people in his network. This type of networking and introducing students to
individuals on and off campus is essential as the students may not have an
opportunity to meet these people without their connection to Tomás.
Personal interest in student success. Taking a personal interest in student
success is one factor that facilitates the program leaders’ motivation to help their
students. Amalia spoke about how she takes a personal interest in her students’
success. She explained that she truly believes that all students can be successful.
Furthermore, her goal as a program leader is to make sure that students do the best
that they can and provide them with the support that they need. She tries to provide
them with the support not just for her class but in all their classes.
Renée also stated that she likes to help the Puente students overcome their
obstacles and see them succeed because it brings her personal satisfaction to see the
students make progress towards their goals. Furthermore, she explained that through
106
the program she is able to directly help students. Because she has been at SBCC for
so long, she feels that she has a lot of knowledge of the different resources and
services available on campus. Because of this, she feels she is an asset to the
students who are not well informed about the resources that SBCC has to offer them.
Renée herself was a Puente student and she feels that she can relate to the
type of concerns that the Puente students have. Furthermore, she feels her
personality is one that lends itself towards helping others. Lastly, Renée felt that
helping students better understand the college policies help them to avoid common
pitfalls many students encounter in their college life.
As described earlier in this chapter, all of the program leaders were first-
generation college students. This was another factor why program leaders took
personal interest in their students. María spoke about how she and her former co-
coordinator, José, both wanted to give their students the salient information that they
did not have when they were going to school. She explained that her parents did not
know anything about college. Although she had older siblings, they knew nothing
about applying for scholarships or financial aid. As a coordinator, she learned that
she had to teach these skills to her students. As a result of her experience, she taught
the students how to apply to four-year colleges, write a personal statement, apply to
scholarships, and fill out financial aid forms.
María further believes that as long there are first-generation students, there
will always be a need for programs like Puente. As she stated, she felt that her
cultural background was an asset since there is no other way for parents who have
107
not attended college themselves to envision what college would be like unless there
is someone who resembles their children and speaks the same language and is able to
explain the process to them. Furthermore, she spoke about how Puente students need
to understand that it is not that their parents do not want them to go to college, rather
it is that their parents do not know how to best support their children in attending
college. This is where the program leaders can step in and give the students the
support that they need.

The importance of full-time faculty members as Puente coordinators. María
spoke about the importance of having full-time faculty members as Puente
coordinators versus adjunct faculty members. According to María, working as a full-
time faculty member was another factor that could facilitate the program leaders’
ability to access and mobilize resources. María explained that it is important that
Puente coordinators have access to high-status individuals in their network. In
addition, the coordinators need to cultivate the relationships between the Puente
coordinators and high-status individuals on campus. She argued that a full-time
faculty member could advocate for the program and educate the campus-wide
community about the need for, and value of, Puente. She explained that it is difficult
to do this as an adjunct faculty member because adjuncts do not have the opportunity
to meet the “key players” on campus such as administrators, instructors who teach
transfer courses, or individuals working in various student services departments. She
reasoned that all of these “key players” need to understand that the Puente students
108
are transfer students and that VRCC needs to give the Puente students an experience
similar to that of a four-year college.
María further explained that full-time faculty members attend meetings that
allow them to meet with influential people such as department chairs, academic
senate meetings, or go to foundation meetings to ask for donations. She felt that
adjunct faculty members do not have the same clout on campus and many just go to
work and leave and do not have the time or the impetus to get involved with life on
campus. To really advocate for the students she felt that a full-time faculty member
was necessary.

Research Question 3: How do Program Coordinators Work to Enhance Program
Participants’ Social Networks so that Participants Themselves Become Independent
and Learn to Network and Access Resources?
Program leaders enhanced their students’ social networks and enabled
students to be independent and learn to network in various ways. First, coordinators
exposed students to high SEI activities in order to help them see that there were other
alternatives besides the traditional route that many students at their campus followed.
Additionally, they taught students the appropriate skills to succeed academically,
such as study skills and learning about the transfer process. Secondly, they provided
students with various opportunities to build connections by attending conferences
and creating relationships with guest speakers. Additionally, program leaders
created a sense of familia and built trust through classroom and outside activities.
109
Lastly, program coordinators empowered students so that they could succeed both
academically and professionally.

Acting as a gatekeeper by exposing students to high-status experiences and
skills. As discussed in Chapter II, ties to institutional agents are imperative because
they function as sources where the disadvantaged students can learn the appropriate
skills to gain other forms of institutional support. It is important that students
understand the importance of networking and accessing resources on their own in
order to increase their own personal social capital network. All of the coordinators
found it important to work towards this goal.
Renée spoke about informing students to utilize available resources in the
college success counseling courses that she taught. In the counseling class, Renée
taught the Puente students particular strategies to succeed in college. For example,
Renée spoke about their efforts to teach students the importance of deadlines. The
team aligns their academic deadlines with the college policy deadlines and talks to
the students about how it will affect them in the long run academically. In doing so,
the coordinators taught the students the necessary skills they need to succeed in
college. She explained that the English instructor stresses the importance of
submitting papers on time. In addition, both coordinators follow up to make sure
that the students are following the classroom deadlines and turning in their
assignments. If students are not doing their work, they could be disqualified from
the program which could lead to the possibility of dropping out of school.
110
Therefore, the team stresses the drop deadlines so that the students maintain good
academic standing.
Michelle stated that she felt that teaching students study skills and how to be
a good student were some of the important features of the Puente Project. She felt
the classroom experience was an important avenue to teach students study skills.
She taught students how to “do school,” such as the techniques to improve their
reading and writing. She emphasized the importance of being organized and
completing tasks ahead of time, such as book grant paperwork.
María also spoke about the importance that she and her former co-
coordinator, José, placed in their classrooms on the process of transfer. They placed
a critical emphasis on preparing their students for transfer to a four-year college. She
explained that as a counselor, she truly believed that there is a lot more to education
than just sitting in class and listening to the instructor. One of her goals was to teach
the students good note-taking, test-taking, and time management strategies so that
they had the basic college survival skills.
Tomás also explained that one of the goals of the Puente Project is to make
sure that the students are on the right track - the transfer track. He further explained
that Puente works to instill the notion that the student’s experience in Puente is just
the beginning of their academic career and that they have many future goals to fulfill.
The purpose of Puente is to help students to get to that next level academically. At
his site, his team made a concerted effort to try to get students out of the area, meet
other people, and see other city environments to facilitate this next step.
111
Renée also spoke about exposing students to other educational options since
many of the students were first-generation students. In her opinion, this is a goal of
the Puente Project – exposing students to other alternatives – and it is something that
she too feels strongly about. Renée also tried to work closely with the transfer center
so that students could become familiar with options in terms of universities. She
explained that many of the students did not know about the different options they
had. They came to college thinking that they needed to brush up on their English,
writing, or math skills and through the program the coordinators exposed the
students to different university options. She also arranged for guest speakers in the
classrooms, such as various university representatives. Renée explained that many
students come to SBCC thinking that they will just transfer to the university near
their home, but they do not think about UCLA or USC as an option. Bringing in the
admissions representatives who explore the requirements with the students makes it
more tangible. Sometimes the mentors came and spoke to the class about their
career and the process they went through to get there so that the students could feel
that they too can be there someday.
Additionally, Puente coordinators exposed their students to outside activities
and helped them see that there are other alternatives besides the traditional activities
and academic path that many of the students in their college pursued. Many of these
activities were high SEI level activities. Thus, as explained in Chapter II, the
students were exposed to experiences that they may not have normally had access to
without their connection to someone, such as a Puente coordinator, that could
112
introduce them to high status experiences that middle and upper class students
experience every day.
For example, José explained that some of the students had never left Los
Angeles and it was an amazing experience for them to go on a bus to tour
universities. In addition, Michelle explained that she felt one of the core goals of the
Puente Project was to expose the students to areas beyond Los Angeles and to new
things such as taking their students to see “The Phantom of the Opera”, various
music centers, museums, and bookstores. At a local bookstore, Puente students
would even have a designated open-mike night where they could read some of their
own works. These activities would expose students to a world they were generally
not familiar with.
Teaching students leadership skills is another way to enhance the students’
experience in college and improve their social networks. Puente coordinators spoke
about teaching their students leadership skills. María stated that a significant goal of
the Puente Project is for students to become leaders in their communities. She
explained that the ultimate form of leadership at school is to be part of student
government. At one time the entire student government executive board at VRCC
was made up of Puente students. Because of this, their Puente program received a
lot more recognition on campus.
José also spoke of the importance of teaching students leadership skills. He
explained that because of the students’ involvement in the Puente Project, the
students realized that they could become leaders themselves. At the beginning, a lot
113
of the students saw themselves as someone who was powerless to affect change in
their immediate society. When the Puente coordinators tried to teach the students
that they were leaders too, the students started to get involved. José explained that
he encouraged the students to think about what they had learned from doing research
on the topics he assigned to them. Then, José pushed them to become an expert in
the topic so that they would be able to share this information with their peers. By
encouraging them to become experts and to speak with their peers, the students
would then start to realize that they had something important to say. José explained
that students’ lives changed when they were empowered to see themselves as
leaders. Some of the students who never saw themselves as leaders ended up
participating in the activities that José had initially assigned to them as research
topics. For example, one student who later transferred to the University of
California, Los Angeles became a strong student advocate for the California Dream
Act, which was a topic José had assigned to his Puente class to research while the
student was attending VRCC.

Opportunities for students to build connections. In terms of this research
study, program leaders who can act as institutional agents create social networks,
thereby increasing students’ level of social capital with influential individuals. It is
through these networks that social capital, or resources, flows through conduits to
low socioeconomic status minority students involved in intervention programs. The
114
appropriate social networks are essential to increase the social capital of low
socioeconomic status students and to improve the intervention program.
Amalia spoke about how the Puente coordinators create a network system for
students and encourage students to create their own networks. She explained that if
the students are having problems in other classes, the coordinators will help students
to make the connections to get tutoring and speak to their Professors so they have a
whole network system.
Renée spoke about the annual university fair that the Puente Project hosts for
Puente students. This event provides students with an opportunity to network with
other Puente students and coordinators from other Puente sites. It also allows the
students to see how big and how important the Puente Project is and that it is not just
SBCC’s program.
Renée and Mariam also explained that they felt her role was not only to
expose the Puente students to different services and resources on campus, but that on
a broader scale, their role was to introduce their students to key people on campus in
financial aid, EOPS, and tutoring services. These counselors spoke to their students
about the services that their campus offered by taking them on tours of these
services. In doing so, their goal was for them to eventually seek these services on
their own. By exploring these services in a non-threatening way, similar to an
orientation with an overview of what the program is, they felt they were more likely
to return and seek these services on their own. Renée also invited representatives
from the different services on campus to speak to her class before she would take
115
them on the tour so they could become acquainted with the person and not feel afraid
about going to these departments to ask for assistance.
Michelle explained that in her classroom she exposes the students to novels,
not just textbooks, because reading novels is “unfamiliar territory” for her students.
She had developed relationships with local writers due to her own social networks.
She frequently asked these writers to come and speak to her students in her
classroom. She hoped that these interactions would encourage the students to see
how they are not the only ones going through a particular experience and that they
too could write about such experiences. Her goal was for the authors to act as
mentors for her students. Michelle explained that “the writers can speak to the
students in a way that [she] cannot”.
Many of the authors did not do well academically. She gave an example of
the last speaker that came to APS - Victor Villaseñor, who is dyslexic and overcame
many obstacles to succeed. Michelle explained that although he is a famous writer,
the students could relate to his struggles. In some cases, authors such as Gary Soto,
Helena María Viramontes, and Alejandro Morales spoke to her class, all authors who
have obtained degrees. These are also the type of authors she wants to bring into her
classroom because they have come from a similar background, become successful,
and received their degrees. These authors also act as a source of inspiration for her
students.
Renée and María spoke about how Puente mentors inspire students. Renée
explained that most of the Puente mentors have earned master’s degrees. Through
116
the students’ relationships with the mentors, they see that it is possible to earn a
degree one day, and that this is an obtainable goal and not one that is beyond their
reach. She explained that because of the relationships with the mentors, a lot of the
students changed their minds about higher education, and felt that educating
themselves beyond the community college was something they could achieve.
María spoke about how Puente coordinators are role models themselves and
she viewed herself as a role model, especially for some of her female students.
Many of her female students would talk to her about how challenging it was to be at
a community college. She shared with her students her own challenges, such as
being a first-generation college student and having parents who did not know how to
give her moral support. María spoke about going to visit the homes of her students
because she felt it was important for her students’ parents to see that the Puente
coordinators were going to be responsible for their children. María felt her role went
beyond just being an instructor in the classroom. She explained that the students did
not always need academic counseling. Sometimes they needed emotional therapy
more than anything else.

Creating a sense of familia and building trust. As described in Chapter II,
one characteristic of social capital is collectivity, trust, and norms. These
characteristics were evident in the program leaders’ responses when they spoke
about the importance of building a familia. According to María, the Puente Project
offers students the ability to find other students in their community that are dealing
117
with similar challenges. Mariam spoke about how the goal of the Puente Project was
to build a sense of belonging to a group and for students to identify themselves as
Puente students. Activities out of the classroom, such as fundraising for the
program, really brought the students together. She explained that beyond building
cohesiveness in the classroom, it is really the outside activities that created a sense of
solidarity within the group and made students feel that they were part of an extended
family.
Similarly, Amalia stressed that an important goal of the program was to
establish a sense of familia so that the students felt they were part of a community.
The coordinators also help the students understand that they too need to give back to
their communities. From her perspective, by breaking students up into small groups
in the classroom and share their writings with each other, students correspondingly
learn to share other elements of their lives as well. Thus, they were able to establish
a sense of familia. Amalia also noted that coordinators ask the Puente students to
take classes with other Puente students who may be facing similar challenges, not
just to enhance their academic skills, but once again as a way of feeling they are part
of a helpful community.
Other coordinators spoke about how they enjoyed watching the bonding that
occurs between Puente students and the interaction and encouragement they received
from one another. The program leaders explained that the students struggle with
issues of self-esteem and confidence and the program helps them to see that they are
118
not alone. The students see that there is a process they need to go through to achieve
their goals.

Impacting students’ lives. Institutional agents have social capital and have
the ability to empower students. Through empowerment and social capital,
institutional agents grant access to more resources and increase networks for
students. Puente coordinators spoke about empowering students and helping them
develop self-confidence.
For example, coordinators try to empower their students by teaching them to
create their own networks. As previously described in this chapter, program leaders
pointed out various ways that they created a network system for students. For
instance, they encouraged students to create their own networks by attending
conferences and establishing relationships with guest speakers and mentors.
In addition, program leaders try to empower students in the classroom. As
described earlier in this chapter, José spoke about how students’ lives changed when
they were empowered to see themselves as leaders in his classroom. Another
example is when Michelle spoke about how writing was a fundamental activity in the
Puente Project. Writing comes first as “it is the link to so many other things”. She
reasoned that if the students do not have proper writing skills, then it will be very
difficult for them to transfer to a university. Furthermore, she explained that writing
is very difficult for the students because many of them feel insecure about their
skills. She stated that many of the students felt that they did not belong to the world
119
of academia – which stemmed from the lack of empowerment that the students have.
Thus, the program leaders took opportunities in their classroom to empower their
students by helping them improve their writing skills and feel more confident in
themselves.
Additionally, Michelle’s former partner Tomás explained that Puente instills
confidence in the students’ in terms of their writing abilities and helps them to find
their voice, which correspondingly enhances their self-confidence. He explained that
their students come to APS unprepared and may not have experienced much
academic success in the past. In that sense, it’s always a matter of working carefully
with the students, which he explained is an everyday goal for the coordinators. Thus,
enabling the students as writers correspondingly builds their self-confidence and
hence, their empowerment.

Research Question 4: How do Program Coordinators Deal with the Pressures
Associated with Being a Program Leader?
Participants reported differing viewpoints on whether or not they experienced
pressure in the Puente Project. There were two types of common pressures that
Puente coordinators mentioned: first, working with students who had many personal
problems and second, difficulty in juggling the various roles that they played.
In particular, the coordinators at VRCC spoke of the significant emotional
toll they experienced as a Puente coordinator. The coordinators attributed this to the
fact that their students had many personal problems. Mariam stated that the fall
120
semester had been very difficult because there were students with unbelievable
amounts of personal problems. Some of the students and even some of the faculty
members had identified her as someone they could send students to when students
had problems.
José also noted that students would come in to talk to him about their
problems. He found it difficult to disconnect himself from their problems when
he had established such a personal bond with them. He explained that he could
not stop thinking about the students. He realized that it was a personal choice
and he knew that most Professors stopped thinking about their students once they
left campus. Yet, he cannot stop thinking about these students because for him
they are a part of the larger Puente family. He explained that he thinks about the
Puente students more than any other group of students.
Amalia, a coordinator from SBCC, experienced pressures associated with her
position as well, but not quite to the extent as the coordinators from VRCC. Amalia
explained that being a coordinator is emotionally rewarding. It is energizing for her
to be around people and she does not feel drained or depleted. But she did feel that
the experience took a lot out of her in that she worried about the students and she
tried to follow through with all the issues the students had raised.
In contrast, María, the former Counselor from VRCC who also has
experience working as a social worker, stated that she did not believe her role as a
Puente coordinator was draining. Instead, she found it rewarding because of the
connection she made with students because they learn so much about their lives and
121
who they are while in the program. She explained that “you just naturally care about
what is going on in their lives and their goals”. She stated that “when they
transferred, I was happy for them, when they graduated, I was happy for them”.
The second challenge was managing the various responsibilities in not only
the Puente Project, but other duties as a faculty member. Renée, from SBCC noted
that the end of the semester was particularly difficult for her in trying to make sure
she and her students completed all of their necessary assignments and job duties on
time. For example, she had to ensure that the students had finished their assignments
in her class as well as the Puente English class. Most of the deadlines for class
assignments and her job duties all came at the same time, which was sometimes
difficult to manage.
Renée also spoke about the fact that Puente coordinators only have a set
number of designated hours dedicated to their position as the coordinator. She
explained that this made her job more difficult as she had to split her time amongst
all her job duties and meet all of the deadlines. She explained that “[It’s hard to
change] hats from Puente to the other activities”.
Pressures like these could explain the high turnover rate of Puente
coordinators. José explained that the average Puente coordinator lasts five years in
the program. He did feel that dealing with students’ personal problems is a huge
challenge at his Puente site. However, he was not sure if other Puente program
leaders experienced this same type of pressure at their sites.
122
Renée explained that the Puente Project coordinators had opportunities to
seek assistance from other Puente coordinators. Coordinators attended a one week
intensive training where they discussed different issues and situations that they could
encounter working with this type of student population. Every semester there was
also a regional training where the coordinators could collaborate and discuss any
issues that they were experiencing. This training provided her with opportunities to
ask for help from other Puente Counselors. The other coordinators were able to offer
her strategies and techniques that she was not familiar with. These meetings also
gave her a network of people she could call from the Puente organization, even the
Puente state officers. Additionally, the regional officer provided support to Puente
coordinators in terms of resources or publications with contact information so that
the coordinators knew whom to contact if they were seeking assistance for a
particular type of support.
Nevertheless, most coordinators felt they could deal with the stress related to
the program. They handled stress by exercising, enjoying time with their families, or
speaking with colleagues about challenges they were facing. Mariam explained that
as a therapist, she knows how to take care of herself and the importance of setting
boundaries so that she is “not taking it with [her] everywhere”.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the generators showed overwhelming differences between sites
in the size and status level access of networks. However, when data was compared
123
by the three generators another finding was revealed. Although a site may have a
particularly large number of alters and resources identified, these alters and resources
may not necessarily be identified as sources of support or even accessed on behalf of
the program as exemplified by the results of the Name Generator. Additionally, the
results of the organizational affiliations and identification of staff members also
provided insight into the type of networks and support that the participants and sites
had.
Secondly, several factors were identified that facilitated or constrained the
program leaders’ ability to access and mobilize resources such as establishing
networks, taking a personal interest in student success, the effect of first-generation
coordinators on the program, and full-time status of Puente coordinators.
A common practice of program leaders’ help-seeking behavior as
demonstrated in the Name Generator was to refer students to other programs or
services. Students were not necessarily sent to speak with a particular person. This
type of referral system can be problematic as no personal ties are created with a
particular person, thus making follow through difficult. Nonexistent ties also suggest
that social capital does not exist in certain contexts.
Program leaders enhanced their students’ social networks and taught students
to be independent and learn to network by teaching them skills in the classroom,
providing them opportunities to build connections, creating a sense of familia and
trust, teaching students leadership skills, connecting students with mentors and role
124
models, exposing students to high SEI activities and other alternatives, and
empowering students.
Participants differed on whether or not they experienced pressure in the
Puente Project and identified two types of common pressures that Puente
coordinators had - working with students who had many personal problems and
difficulty in juggling various roles. However, the program leaders were able to
handle the various pressures and not let those pressures overwhelm them. The
following chapter will discuss the significance of the findings, provide
recommendations, implications for intervention programs, and areas of focus for
future research.
125

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This study utilizes social capital theory to closely examine the features that
empower low-status minority students and the program leaders at the Puente Project.
Simultaneously, this study examines the Puente Project as a vehicle for exploring the
role of program leaders as institutional agents. In particular, this study analyzes how
program leaders mobilize their resources to assist low socioeconomic status
community college students to transfer and succeed academically and professionally.
This chapter will discuss general trends regarding institutional agency and social
capital that were discernible from analyzing the participants’ social networks. This
chapter will also discuss implications for intervention programs, future research
needed as a result of the findings of this study, limitations, and conclusions.
This study revealed several trends that shed light on social capital and
institutional agency. First, general trends in terms of network characteristics and its
effect on social capital were found. For example, program leaders must be inclusive
of individuals from various work settings, occupations, genders, and ethnicities when
creating social networks. Both coordinators at each program site should also have
broad networks so that the program does not rely on just one person’s network. It is
not enough to possess social capital; program leaders must also activate their social
capital so that their students can truly benefit from the program leaders’ social
126
network. Weak ties are crucial, but they must also encompass individuals from other
social circles. Program leaders must also try to create new ties and not always
depend on their long-term relationships. They must also have a broad-range of
contacts that are not concentrated in one field so they can properly assist students
with various support services. Program leaders must develop relationships with
individuals and not rely on referring students to departments as this is not social
capital. To ensure longevity of ties, program leaders must reciprocate support to
alters instead of only receiving support. Program leaders must also increase their
involvement in organizations and have a range of organizations that they are
involved in.
Second, there are several factors that facilitate or constrain the program
leaders’ access and mobilization of resources. Program leaders must be conscious of
creating their own personal networks. They must also take a personal interest in
their students to truly act as an institutional agent. Lastly, full-time status could have
an effect on the ability to access key individuals and resources.
Third, program leaders are able to enhance students’ networks and access to
resources by acting as a gatekeeper to high-status activities and skills by teaching
their students to decode the system. They also can provide opportunities for students
to increase their own social capital. Additionally, a sense of family created in the
program through outside activities can enhance students’ networks. Mentors are
equally important to intervention programs and the enhancement of students’
networks as they too can act as institutional agents and grant access into their
127
personal network. Lastly, program leaders must make empowering their students a
priority.
Finally, program leaders faced many pressures associated with their role. A
proper support system, especially one that consists of other Puente coordinators, can
help alleviate this pressure and provide coordinators with assistance. Additionally,
training coordinators on how to deal with their complex role-set and the importance
of social capital are imperative to a successful program.

Network Characteristics Affecting Social Capital
Similar backgrounds between participants and their alters. The results of the
Name, Position, and Resource Generators indicated that the majority of relationships
participants had were with colleagues\acquaintances from the same workplace. The
Name Generator also exhibited that the two participants, Renée and Amalia,
primarily had relationships with people of their same ethnic background. Lastly, the
Organizational Affiliations assessment revealed that most of the participants had
little involvement in organizations outside of professional organizations related to
their profession in education. All participants, with the exception of Mariam, were
members of organizations and did not hold any type of leadership position in the
organizations they identified.
It is important that participants have a strong connection with colleagues\
acquaintances in their workplace, within their own cultural backgrounds, and are
involved in professional organizations within their field. However, it is equally
128
important that the participants also have a social network outside of their campus,
own ethnic background, and the field of education.
As discussed in Chapter II, weak ties are crucial as they contribute to the flow
of information between social groups (Granovetter, 1983; Lin, 2001). Without weak
ties, information would not flow between groups and would stay within the same
social group. In this case, the program coordinators ties are concentrated in a social
circle of educators on campus from the same ethnic background. Because of the lack
of networks outside of their intimate educator circle, on campus, and ethnic
background, the program coordinators may not be able to help students with
information and contacts outside of their campus or the field of education.
In addition, relationships were primarily with alters of the same gender. The
Name Generator results indicated that the percentage of ties to alters of the same
gender (female) was very high - 75% for Renée and 65% for Amalia. It is possible
that there are more females who are counselors, teachers, or staff members that the
participants were more likely to interact with. Furthermore, considering that the
majority of the alters were from the same workplace, it is also possible that the
majority of the people the participants had contact with were female. Nevertheless,
the lack of relationships with males appears to be problematic as males could possess
a different type of capital or resources because of their gender. For example, the
results of the Position and Resource Generators indicated that the participant with the
largest net size for the Position Generator, and the participant with the highest
number of high-status alters and resources for both generators was a male. Thus,
129
creating a relationship with individuals that possess such an extensive network is
important as the program leaders can tap into those individuals’ networks and use
them for their program.

Co-coordinator differences in networks. The results of the Position and
Resource Generators indicated that at the two secondary sites, VRCC and APS, at
least one the present or former counselor coordinators overall had a larger net size
and access to resources than their English instructor counterparts. Yet, at the primary
site, SBCC, the opposite was true. Here, the English instructor’s net size was larger
than the Counselor’s network.
It is possible that counselors could interact with more faculty and staff
members. Or, possibly the instructors are more likely to focus on teaching and do
not try to build relationships with their colleagues on campus or elsewhere. Perhaps
personality differences could play a factor in that certain people may be more
reserved and hesitant to network. The true reason for this difference was not found
in this study.
Nevertheless, these results do raise concerns in terms of significant
differences in net size and access to resources between co-coordinators. Thus, some
coordinators have more access to social capital than others due to their net size and
access to high- and medium-status positions and resources. Instead, both
coordinators at each program site should have broad networks so that the program
does not rely on just one person’s network.
130
Another area of concern was that the former Counselor at APS, Tomás, had
the largest network and status level access to positions and resources than the current
coordinators at his site. This is problematic considering that he no longer works in
the program and his network is not as readily accessible as those that currently work
in the program. The current coordinators should always have a broad and extensive
network as they have the most contact with the student participants and the day-to-
day operations of the program.

Differences in fiscal and institutional resources by site. It is possible that
fiscal and institutional resources could affect the program’s effectiveness. That is,
some colleges may allot more money to student program than others. In other
words, some programs may be able to provide more services to their students than
others. For example, they may be able to take students on more university visits or
give students scholarships. Intuitional resources, such as space, can also have an
affect on the program’s effectiveness. Of the three sites only VRCC had it’s own
Puente Project office where students and program leaders could meet and
congregate.

Coordinators sharing networks. It is unknown if coordinators shared their
networks with each other as this type of team effort was not described by any of the
participants. For example, if the English instructor did not have a contact for a
particular resource he would ask his counselor co-coordinator if she knew of anyone
131
that could provide this resource. By making it a team effort, coordinators are able to
produce a collective network. Constant communication between coordinators about
students’ needs is helpful to the Puente Project’s own social capital as a program.
By sharing their networks, coordinators are able to create a stronger network for the
program itself. As a result, they are able to increase the social capital of the program
itself.

Possessing and activating capital. The Name Generator and Resource
Generator results revealed that the participants possessed social capital. Recall that
social capital is resources embedded in their social networks that are accessed and
used by individuals for actions (Lin, 2001). However, the possession of social
capital is not enough. As described by Lareau and Hovart (1999), there is a
difference between possessing and activating capital or resources. In other words,
people who have social and cultural capital choose when they want to make use of
that available capital.
Program leaders must activate their social capital to truly help low
socioeconomic status students in their intervention programs. As described in
Chapter II, program leaders must have a network orientation that serves as a source
of social capital for the students in their program. In addition, program leaders must
also be willing to use their own social capital on behalf of the students they serve.
As previously described in Chapter II, the program’s capacity is limited in terms of
132
empowering students based on the program coordinators’ own channels of access to
social capital.
In Chapter IV, the Name, Position, and Resource Generators were compared
to examine the difference between possessing and activating capital or resources at
the primary site, SBCC. The results indicated that although it appears that there is an
extensive network as a result of the Position and Resource Generators alone, these
alters and resources were not necessarily identified as sources of support or accessed
by the participants. Therefore, although the participants may possess a certain level
of social capital, the results of the Name Generator indicate that they are not
activating this capital or resources on behalf of their students. Thus, the program
leaders are not assisting students to their utmost potential and the students are not
benefiting as much as they could from their relationships with these coordinators.
Perhaps the program leaders do not consider asking people in their network
for assistance to help their students. Or, maybe the program leaders keep their
personal and professional lives separate. Another possibility is that the program
leaders only request help from one person whenever the same problem occurs. At
any rate, the results still indicate that there is underused social capital and resources
that could and should be used to assist the students in their program.

The strength of weak ties. Several trends were found in terms of
characteristics of ties as demonstrated in the Name Generator. First, the participants
had few multiplex relationships and many weak ties. Recall that multiplex
133
relationships are defined as an alter acting as three or more sources of support and
weak ties are defined as uniplex ties in which a non-family member acts as one
source of support. The Name Generator results indicated that 25% of Renée’s ties
and only 5% of Amalia’s ties were multiplex relationships. Furthermore, 56% of
Renée’s ties and 73% of Amalia’s ties were weak ties. Looking at the positions of
these weak ties, the two participants had a fairly broad range of access to various
positions. Recall that the majority of these ties were to alters that also worked at
SBCC.
As described in Chapter II, despite its name, Granovetter (1983) argues that
weak ties may actually be more powerful than strong ties since they play a key role
in a person's mobility. Weak ties are crucial as they contribute to the flow of
information between social groups (Granovetter, 1983; Lin, 2001). Without weak
ties, information would not flow between groups and would stay within the same
social group.
Thus, this high percentage of weak ties in this study appears to be beneficial
in the participants’ networks and ability to gain access to information. There are
pros and cons to the majority of the alters also being from SBCC. It is beneficial in
the case when a student needs assistance with something on campus. However, at
the same time this can work against the coordinator in that they have little access to
social circles off campus. Program leaders need to have an equal balance of access
to positions and resources from various locations.

134
Long-term versus short-term relationships. The results of the Name
Generator indicated that the participants had fairly long lasting ties with their alters.
Renée’s relationships ranged from two to 15 years while Amalia’s ranged from one
to 30 years. However, on average, Renée and Amalia reported that they had known
the alters for eight and 12 years respectively. The long-term relationships could be
due to the fact that both participants have worked at SBCC for at least 15 years. The
longevity of the tie is important as it suggests that the participants are able to
continue accessing resources from these alters over a long period of time. Yet, at the
same time, this data suggests that support is not sought from their new relationships.
In addition, the Name Generator results also indicated that the majority of the
alters named on the generator also worked at the same workplace. This is somewhat
problematic because it implies that the participants are closing the doors to new
relationships and social network circles outside of SBCC.
Developing relationships and not relying on the referral system. As
discussed in Chapter IV, the results of the Name Generator showed that in some
cases, the two participants were not able to identify a particular person that could
provide a certain type of resource\support. Instead, they would refer students to a
particular department on campus. Program leaders must develop relationships with
individuals and not rely on the referral system as this is not social capital.
Referring students to a department and not an individual that the program
leader has a relationship with may imply that program leaders are teaching students
to become more self-regulated learners. However, as discussed in Chapter II, it is
135
the social networks of program leaders that are crucial to the effectiveness of
intervention programs serving low socioeconomic status minority students. It is
through the program leaders’ social networks that program resources and services are
created and enhanced.
It is problematic if the program leader does not have a social network or a
relationship with an individual and is only able to refer the student to a department.
Referring only to a department, and not an individual, indicates that no tie exists.
Therefore, the program leader is not able to refer the student to anyone that they
know and trust. Nor will the program leader be able to follow-up on the referral they
have made. Thus, no actual connection to an individual indicates that social capital
does not exist.
Therefore, program leaders need to create ties with individuals in other
departments. Then the program leaders will be able to refer their students to the
appropriate individuals that can handle the problem. These individuals may have
additional expertise in a specific area and can properly care for and assist the student.
Furthermore, due to these preexisting relationships with other department members,
the program leader is able to follow-up on the referral to ensure that the student
received proper assistance. Referring someone to a department is not social capital.
Instead, a tie or relationship with an individual in which resources can be accessed is
what defines social capital.

136
Non-reciprocal support relationships. The Name Generator also revealed
that the participants did not provide support to many of the alters they identified as
their own sources of support. For example, Renée and Amalia responded that they
provided support to 50% and 45% respectively to the alters they identified. This
would suggest that their relationships could be more readily defined as a “one-way”
support system that is non-reciprocal.
The participants’ fatigue and the length of the instrument and interviews may
have caused the participants to respond that they did not provide support so they
would not need to go into further details and prolong the interview. In addition, it is
possible that status could have affected whether or not the participant provided the
alter with support. You would not expect that an individual would be able to provide
support to someone of a higher status. However, recall that on average the alters
were of the same status or lower status level than the participant. Despite this
possibility, the fact still remains that the participants did not act as sources of support
for at least 50% of their alters. In other words, the alters are not supported as much
as the participant was.
Program leaders must be wary of this type of relationship. This lack of
reciprocity of support could case a breakdown in relationships. Thus, the alters
could feel that they are not gaining anything from the relationship and that the
participant is the only person benefiting. Therefore, this could leave little incentive
or desire for the alter to continue a relationship from which they do not reap any
rewards.
137

Lack of contacts for certain types of support\resources. Another trend found
in the Name Generator results was that in some cases, one of the participants could
not name one person that could provide legal assistance, social integration,
program\grant funding, or crisis support. To make matters worse, the program
leaders themselves were not able to provide this support. It is possible that some of
the resource\support that they were questioned about, for example, program\grant
funding, is not a type of support that students seek from program leaders. However,
it would seem reasonable to expect that program coordinators would be able to
identify at least one person that could provide program\grant funding or legal
assistance support as these appear to be areas that they themselves would need a
contact person in order to help them run the program.

Lack of involvement in professional organizations and modeling behavior.
The participants were asked if they taught students the importance of networking and
accessing resources on their own. All of the participants answered that they did feel
this was important and tried to teach students this important lesson. As program
leaders of the Puente Project, modeling certain behaviors would seem useful as
program leaders are role models for their students. Additionally, as discussed in
Chapter III, acting as a role model is one of the forms of support that program
leaders provide to their students. Furthermore, as described in Chapter II, lower- and
working-class students are more likely to create relationships with institutional
138
agents through intervention programs like Puente. Schools do not provide working-
class minority students with the necessary social “training” to understand the
underlying processes that are integral to succeeding both academically and
professionally. These unwritten rules, such as networking through involvement in
organizations, are essential to the academic advancement of any student, especially
minority students.
However, the lack of participant involvement in organizations appears to
contradict what the program leaders try to teach their students. Furthermore, the
participants themselves recognized that they were not as involved in professional,
trade\industry, political party\organization, church\religious,
charitable\philanthropic, and sports clubs\recreation organizations as they should be.
Recall José’s statement about the irony that he expects his students to participate in
organizations, yet he himself does not participate in many organizations. His
statement only solidifies the importance of program leaders’ involvement in
professional organizations especially in relation to the intervention program context.
In conclusion, program leaders in this study seemed to concentrate their
networks in the same workplace, ethnicity, career field, and gender; coordinators
should diversify their networks. Additionally, differences in terms of overall net size
and status level access within the type of coordinator, Counselor or instructor, were
also found. Possessing capital is not enough; program leaders must activate their
capital on behalf of their students and the program. Weak ties are extremely
important in accessing other social groups. Furthermore, the coordinators had fairly
139
long-lasting relationship and need to focus on accessing resources from new
relationships.
Program leaders need to develop relationships and not rely on the referral
system as this is not social capital. They also need to provide support to their alters
as much as they receive support in order to maintain relationships. Coordinators
were not able to identify individuals as sources of support for particular resources
nor were they able to provide this support themselves. This is problematic as they
cannot provide any type of support for students in these areas. Lastly, coordinators
should model good networking behavior and be actively involved in professional
organizations.

Factors that Facilitate or Constrain the Program Leader’s Access and Mobilization
of Resources
Program leaders must be conscious of establishing networks. Several
program leaders spoke about how they were conscious of the fact that networking
was important. As described in Chapter II, the social networks of institutional agents
are crucial to the effectiveness of intervention programs serving low socioeconomic
status minority students. It is through the program leaders’ social networks that
students’ networks, as well as the program resources and services, are created and
enhanced. In other words, the social networks of program leaders can greatly
support students by putting them in contact with influential individuals through the
creation of new relationships and social capital. If institutional agents are unaware
140
of the importance of social capital and have not accumulated this capital, there will
be stagnant growth and limited ability not only to empower students, but also in
terms of maintaining the program’s own development and evolution.
Additionally, as described in Chapter II, Lin (2001) describes that the
potential ability to access and use resources exist within the individual. Therefore,
the individual must be aware of the presence of such resources within his or her own
networks and relationships and make choices in activating these particular resources
(Lin, 2001). For institutional agents, this awareness of the importance of resources
within their own personal network and the necessity to share this with students in the
intervention program is imperative to make the greatest positive impact on their
program and on the program participants.

Taking a personal interest in students. Several program leaders spoke about
how they took a personal interest in their students’ success. In addition, recall that
all program leaders were first-generation college students themselves. María
specifically spoke about how her own experience as well as her co-coordinator’s
experience as a first-generation college student affected how they worked with their
students in that they wanted to teach them the skills that they themselves never had
when they were in college. Program leaders must have a genuine desire to help
students and to mobilize resources on behalf of their students and the program.
Without this drive to help students, the students and the program cannot truly benefit
141
from the potential of social capital. Program leaders must be willing to go the extra
mile for their students and geniunly take pride and interest in their successes.

Full-time status and its effect on mobilization of resources. Additionally full-
time status could have an effect on the type of networks an individual has. María
spoke about the importance of having full-time coordinators that have the
opportunity to meet and socialize with key players on campus. She argued that
generally speaking, adjunct faculty members are not as involved on campus due to
their part-time status. This is especially true if adjunct members also work at other
campuses. Their time and interests could be divided between two or more campuses.
Because of a faculty members full-time status, María further explained that these
coordinators have the ability to meet with department chairs, attend academic senate
meetings, and get together with key individuals at the college. These types of
interactions with key players are important as the program leaders are able to build
relationships with them. However, regardless of their full-time or adjunct status,
program leaders must be willing to create these types of relationships and access the
resources from them.
In sum, program leaders must be conscious of the importance of social capital
and the types of networks that they possess. If a program leader is not aware of this,
then the productivity and success of the program is limited. In addition, the program
leader must take a personal interest in helping students in order for them to truly
benefit from the networks of the program leader. Lastly, full-time status could have
142
an effect on the types of relationships that program leaders are able to develop and
the types of resources they have access to.

Enhancing Students’ Networks and Access to Resources
Acting as a gatekeeper by exposing students to high-status experiences and
skills. As discussed in Chapter II, students are able to decode the “culture of power
and gain access to institutional resources” through their connection to institutional
agents (Lopez & Stack, 2001, p. 48). This is accomplished through “cultural
bridging”, which is the development of knowledge and skills that will help low
socioeconomic status individuals overcome socio-cultural obstacles (Stack, 1998).
Cultural bridging permits low socioeconomic status individuals to understand the
unfamiliar codes of the culture of power as praxis. Lopez and Stack (2001) argue
that individuals in the dominant mainstream, such as Puente Project leaders, are able
to facilitate cultural bridging.
Several program leaders spoke about how they incorporated activities such as
going to plays and taking students on trips to universities outside of Los Angeles. In
doing so, these coordinators open the doors to other experiences that these students
would not normally have. While middle- and high-status students can rely on their
parents and family to teach them these skills, low socioeconomic status students do
not have this luxury.
As described in Chapter II, lower- and working-class students are more likely
to create relationships with institutional agents through intervention programs like
143
Puente. As first-generation college students, these students must rely on the program
leaders to teach them these skills because their parents are unable to do so. Thus,
program leaders must make this a priority and cannot assume that their students
already know and understand the system. Puente coordinators need to make a
conscious effort to help students decode the system and recognize the importance of
social capital and accessing resources.
As described in Chapter IV, Puente coordinators tried to teach students
college survival skills in their classrooms. Additionally, María taught her students to
apply to four-year schools, write personal statements, and apply for financial aid.
Lastly, Puente coordinators spoke about how they taught their students leadership
skills. Thus, as explained earlier in this chapter, this cultural bridging helps develop
knowledge and skills that will help low socioeconomic status students overcome
these socio-cultural obstacles. The classroom environment allows a safe place for
students to learn, decode, and understand the culture of power. Cultural bridging
also allows the students to capture the unfamiliar codes and learn the codes so that
they become second nature to them.

Providing students with opportunities to network. The program leaders also
spoke about providing students with opportunities to network in this study. Renée
mentioned the annual university fair that the Puente Project hosts for Puente
students. This event provides students with an opportunity to network with college
admissions officers, other Puente students, and coordinators from other Puente sites.
144
Puente coordinators need to make a conscious effort to help students recognize the
importance of social capital and accessing resources. This is key to enhancing
students’ networks and social capital. Not only do program leaders need to be
conscious of their networks, but they also need to help develop the networks of their
students. Helping students understand social capital and the importance of
networking and accessing resources is imperative so that students will continue to
cultivate their social capital once they leave the program, move on to the university,
and begin their career endeavors.

Trust and familia. Building trust and a sense of familia was a common theme
in the responses of the Puente coordinators. These are important characteristics of
social capital according to Coleman (1988). Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter II,
this sense of familia gives students a sense of belonging to something that is positive
while also being a source of positive pressure for manifesting appropriate behavior
(Grubb et al., 2002). Puente exudes a “we-group feeling” (Stanton-Salazar, 2004, p.
23). This is essential to create ties that lay the groundwork for trust and mutual
benefits as emphasized in social capital theory. Subsequently, these ties lead to the
formation of norms and sanctions that encourages group members to work for the
collective good. Participants described how activities, both inside and outside of
class, helped create this sense of solidarity. However, Mariam explained that no
matter how much you try to build cohesiveness in class, it is really the outside
activities that build solidarity.
145
Trust is key to facilitating the flow of social capital. Without this sense of
trust, strong relationships between the coordinators and students and between the
students themselves cannot be built. If students do not trust each other, or more
importantly, their coordinator, they may not be willing to seek help from or learn
from the institutional agent.

Mentors acting as institutional agents. Mentors also play an important part
in the Puente Project. The counselors at the secondary sites were in their first
semester of the program and had not yet paired their students with mentors.
However, they understood the importance that mentors play in the program and plan
to implement the mentor component in the upcoming year. Even without the mentor
component, María spoke about how Puente coordinators themselves can act as
mentors to the Puente students.
Mentors are important because they also act as institutional agents and open
new doors for Puente students. Thus, they are an additional source of social capital
for students and their social networks can help students by putting them in contact
with influential individuals. Furthermore, as many of the coordinators explained,
these mentors act as a source of inspiration for the students as they are someone who
comes from a similar background and have succeeded.
Since mentors can also act as institutional agents, the mentors need to
understand their potential influence on students through the social capital lens. As
described in Chapter II, individuals are not formally taught or trained on how to give
146
support or provide social capital. Moreover, many program leaders may not even be
aware of the concept of social capital and how it can affect their students and their
program. Thus, it is extremely important that these concepts be taught to program
leaders. In addition, program leaders need to learn how to increase their social
capital as this is essential and can make the largest impact on the program. Once
program leaders understand the importance of social capital and learn how to
increase their own social capital, they can continue the cycle of teaching and can
create change in their students’ lives by teaching them these concepts.
An additional challenge is that institutional agents have a complex role-set
that can be a very demanding, especially if one is not trained or prepared for this
responsibility. Therefore, potential program leaders also need to be trained to learn
how to manage multiple role-sets and be more effective agents.

Empowering students. As described in Chapter II, empowerment theory was
used to describe social workers and how they empower their clients. Empowerment
reveals the impact of institutional agents on the lives of low socioeconomic status
individuals through an emphasis on resources. Similar to social capital theory,
empowerment theory also recognizes that separate groups exist in society, each
group possesses a different level of power and control, and that social inequality
exists. Research has also shown that empowerment can make an impact on
intervention programs that focus on the academic success of minority students.
147
Puente coordinators stated that many Puente students felt disempowered and
lacked self confidence, primarily because they had not experienced significant
academic success. Coordinators felt it was their job to work with the students to
create successful experiences leading to a sense of empowerment for the student.
Furthermore, by empowering students, by default program leaders are increasing the
students’ social capital.
In sum, program leaders enhance students’ social networks by acting as a
gatekeeper to high-status activities and teaching students skills such as networking,
test-taking, and skills related to the transfer process. Additionally, building a sense
of trust and familia is key to facilitating the flow of social capital. Mentors also have
the ability to act as institutional agents and grant students access to their networks.
Additionally, program leaders must teach social capital concepts and how they can
increase their social capital. In turn, the program leaders can teach their students
about social capital and how to increase their capital. Lastly, empowering students
enhances students’ experiences in the program.

Dealing with Pressures Associated with the Position of Program Leader
Program leaders spoke about pressures associated with the position. Several
coordinators spoke about the personal crises they encountered with their students.
Others mentioned that they were worried about their students or felt pressured by
timelines. Support systems were found to be helpful in enabling program leaders to
148
deal with these pressures. In addition, specific training dealing with complex role-
sets and on social capital could be helpful for program leaders.

Support systems. Program leaders discussed pressures they experienced as
program leaders. Renée spoke about regional Puente meetings where the
coordinators collaborate and receive feedback on teaching and counseling strategies.
However, she was the only participant that spoke about these meetings. It was
unclear if the other Puente leaders found these meetings to be unproductive, hence
they did not mention them, or if their silence was due to the fact that they just had
not attended a meeting yet since some of the coordinators were new. Nevertheless, it
appears that more meetings such as these need to be held to create a support system
for Puente coordinators. This support system also creates a flow of necessary
information between coordinators and provides opportunities for coordinators to
increase their social capital by expanding their network.

Training for complex role-sets and social capital. The annual Puente
meeting is also where Puente coordinators receive their training. Coordinators
discuss various topics they may encounter in dealing with this particular population.
However, as discussed in Chapter II, similar to how social workers are trained about
their complex role sets, program leaders should also receive similar training. As
previously discussed, training program leaders about social capital theory and how
149
their own social networks have an affect on students would be useful. Currently, this
type of training does not exist in the Puente Project.
In sum, program leaders can use their networks within the Puente Project as
sources of support. Seeking assistance from other Puente leaders is especially
helpful because they are dealing with the same population and unique challenges.
Additionally, program leaders need training on complex role-sets and on social
capital theory.

Implications
This study has shed light on institutional agency and key underlying factors
that facilitate Puente Project program leaders’ social capital. This research provides
significant findings for different groups, programs, and future research.
First, awareness of the importance of social capital is vital for the program
leader’s access and mobilization of resources on behalf of themselves, students,
program associates, and the program’s agenda. Program leaders must be aware of
the importance of establishing their own networks. In order to truly help low
socioeconomic status students, program leaders must be conscious of their own
personal networks and have a desire to create opportunities for their students to
network. In doing so, program leaders allow students to have the opportunity to
build their own social capital by granting students access into the program leaders’
own personal networks and the students creating their own networks.
150
Thus, program leaders need to self-assess their networks and to whom they
seek assistance from. They need to be conscious of the importance of having a
broad-range of access to different types of status positions as all these relationships
can be helpful in some way. However, high- and medium-status relationships and
resources are of utmost importance and should be sought out and nurtured. In
addition, program leaders need to have a broad network that is diverse in the type of
career field, workplace, ethnicity, and gender. Program coordinators must also
develop networks outside of their campus, ethnic background, and career fields. The
five different types of organizations that participants were questioned about
(professional, trade\industry, political party\organization, church\religious,
charitable\philanthropic, and sports clubs\recreation) are all areas in which program
leaders can focus on increasing their social networks. Alumni gatherings,
community events, fundraisers, and other social events are key opportunities to
network with people in other fields and create contacts. In doing so, program leaders
will not only expand their own personal social networks, but will also be able to
better serve the students in the Puente Project with their networks.
In addition to maintaining long-term relationships, program leaders need to
focus on accessing resources from new relationships. These new relationships will
allow the program leaders to access new social circles. Furthermore, when program
leaders think about developing the networks they have, importance must also be
placed on extending their weak tie networks. This is another avenue to gain access
to other social circles. However, as discussed earlier in this chapter, program leaders
151
must extend their weak tie networks to encompass individuals in other fields and
backgrounds.
Program leaders should provide as much support as they receive from alters.
This will most likely make the alter feel that the relationship with the program leader
is useful for them. Additionally, the alter will not feel that the participant only
comes to them when they are in a time of need. Thus, a reciprocal relationship will
be preserved as the alter sees value in the relationship as well.
In addition to being conscious of their own personal networks, program
leaders need to be conscious of teaching their students the importance of creating
their own networks. This can be accomplished by being direct with students and
discussing the power of social capital and accessing resources from relationships.
Since both coordinators teach courses, the fundamentals of social capital can be
incorporated into their classes and coursework. Classroom assignments can help
facilitate this effort. For example, as part of the Puente Project activities,
coordinators can require that students interview their other professors or an
individual in their aspiring careers, volunteer, or do an internship with the idea that it
is important to build a relationship with these key individuals. Additionally,
program leaders need to provide students with opportunities to network themselves
such as taking students to conferences and encouraging them to make connections
with other students and conference officials. Puente Project sites can also work
together on joint projects to push students to initiate relationships with each other.
152
When the hiring committee is searching for a candidate to work as a
coordinator in an intervention program, several things need to be taken into
consideration. Ideally, full-time faculty members are the best candidates for program
leader positions. Whether the candidate is an inside or outside campus candidate, the
individual must be conscious of the importance of their networks and activating
those networks on behalf of their students and the program. The program leaders
must actively seek to create relationships with key players such as deans, department
chairs, the campus foundation, community leaders, and the President, and activate
these resources to have a genuine affect on students and the program. Hiring
committees should be aware of this and ask questions that can assess the individuals’
social capital and level of willingness to seek out assistance.
Thus, when hiring coordinators for intervention programs, their network size
should be taken into consideration if the college truly wants students to benefit from
the program. Individuals that have worked on campus prior to joining the program
would be good candidates for the position as they may have already had time to
establish a network. However, even individuals that have not worked at the college
could still be good candidates, but only if they have the inclination to get to know
people and develop relationships quickly both on and off campus.
Additionally, the program cannot depend on only one person’s network.
Both coordinators need to have strong and extensive networks. Most importantly,
possessing a large network is not enough. The individual must access the people and
resources in their network to really help the students in the program.
153
Furthermore, the time that a candidate can dedicate to the program is crucial
and should be discussed in the interview process and presented as a job duty or
expectation of the future program leader. Without this type of dedication, students
will not thrive as they would if this extra time was spent to create bonds in the
program.
As previously discussed, fiscal and institutional resources could affect the
effectiveness of the program. A designated Puente Project office would make
communication between coordinators. Additionally, communication between
students and between coordinators and participants would be more likely to occur.
This common area may also create more opportunities for student and coordinators
to get to know each other and create a sense of familia and trust. A Puente Project
office could also facilitate the production of a shared network between coordinators
as they are more likely to see each other and discuss problems that may arise with
the Puente students.
Coordinators should also meet on a regular basis to discuss problems that
Puente students are facing, such as a “Student Success” meeting commonly found in
K-12 education. This will enable coordinators to be able to catch problems at the
beginning rather than trying to intervene later on. Additionally, these meetings will
help create a shared network between coordinators and a network for the program
itself.
Similar to how social workers receive training, program leaders need training
to understand the importance of social capital and activating resources. Training and
154
support for program leaders is essential to the effectiveness of the program.
However, program leaders not only need to learn the importance of social capital, but
they also need to understand the importance of activating their resources. They need
to understand that not mobilizing resources is almost like not having access to the
resource at all. Thus, program leaders need to learn strategies to activate their social
capital. One way to do this would be for individuals to have extensive networks and
access resources from their relationships to teach others how they create and activate
their social capital.
Additionally, program leaders need to get to know people in the community.
They need to make an effort to get to know key people at various community
agencies such as local hospitals, therapists, law enforcement, and government to
name a few. Intervention program directors should incorporate this professional
development into their annual trainings. Furthermore, coordinators need to also
teach their students about social capital and the importance of developing networks
and accessing resources.
As with networking and social capital, program leaders need to be direct with
students and talk about the importance of empowerment with their students. This
can be done in the classroom through various activities that help students reflect on
their self-worth and enhance their self-concepts. These activities must promote the
students' appreciation of their individuality, ethnicity, and cultural heritage.
Additionally, Puente Project coordinators need to make a conscious effort to give
their students opportunities to succeed in class by encouraging everyone to
155
participate in classroom discussions and in respecting others’ opinions. The
coordinators need to encourage the students to work in groups and help each other
with the class material. In doing so, the students will feel empowered because they
have a sense of ownership of the material that they are learning.
In sum, program leaders need to self-assess their own social networks and
how many relationships they actually activate. They must take into consideration
that a broad-network that encompasses other career fields, genders, and ethnicities is
essential. Additionally, program leaders must make a conscious effort to teach social
capital and networking to their students. Furthermore, hiring committees must
consider social capital when hiring individuals for their programs. Proper training of
program leaders is also vital and important to make the intervention program thrive.
Lastly, program leaders need to teach their students about empowerment and give
students opportunities to succeed.

Future Research
This research study used social capital theory to examine the program leaders
who can act as institutional agents in the Puente Project as well as the ties that they
form. The data gathered exhibited the importance of program leaders in the Puente
Project. It shed light on how the networks of program leaders who can act as
institutional agents are able to provide valuable resources to the Puente Project and
its students. In addition, this study used empowerment theory as it relates to low
socioeconomic status minority students in the Puente Project. It is through Puente
156
coordinators that students are able to experience some form of empowerment. This
study focused on the underlying processes of the Puente Project to also understand
the importance and impact of the institutional agents.
However, further research is needed in the field of social capital and
intervention programs. First, most research on social capital theory has focused on
the student and their social capital networks. The concept of the institutional agents
has been both understudied and undertheorized in social capital research. This study
only scratches the surface of this research area and further research needs to be
conducted.
One important area to focus on in future research is why there are differences
between coordinators and program sites. This can be found by conducting a more
extensive cross-site and participant analysis. These finding would shed light on
institutional agency, social capital, and how to increase one’s own social capital.
The three generators revealed that program leaders may have access to
positions and resources, but that they may not necessarily access and use such
resources. Unfortunately, the nature of the instrumentation of the Position and
Resource Generators did not allow for the researcher to make a connection with the
alters identified on these generators to the alters identified on the Name Generator.
This leaves questions unanswered about which resources accessed in one generator
are connected to alters identified in the other two generators. This type of research
would be helpful to gain a clearer understanding of the social networks of program
leaders.
157
Additionally, for a broader picture of social networks, all sites should
undergo all of the same instrumentation to better compare data. This was a challenge
in this study in that the Name Generator data and ethnographic interview questions
pertaining to the Name Generator were not conducted at the two secondary sites.
This information could shed light on social networks and how they are used and
accessed.
Changing the instrumentation could also increase the reliability of the
different instruments. First, an updated version of the SEI scale would greatly
improve the reliability of the instruments. Second, the length of the Name Generator
may have also caused fatigue in the participants and compromised reliability. To
avoid this in the future, the Name Generator could be converted to a series of surveys
that could be completed by the participant on his or her own time versus a lengthy
oral interview.

Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations and delimitations to this study. First, there are
limitations that cannot be controlled for. For example, it is possible that interview
data could have been distorted due to personal bias, recall error, or other factors.
Additionally, conducting interviews may not have resulted in a true and accurate
picture of the program. For example, interviewees may not have felt they could
respond honestly in an interview. Moreover, participants may have answered
questions to the best of their knowledge, which may not necessarily provide
158
complete or accurate information. It is also possible that participants may not have
understood the questions, which ultimately affected their responses. In addition, due
to the length of instruments, particularly the Name Generator and interviews, fatigue
may have also been a contributing factor to the type, length, and detail of responses.
Furthermore, due to the nature of this study, there were time constraints that could
not be controlled for.
Delimitations may have also affected this study. First, this study was
conducted with a very small sample size which may have compromised validity. In
addition, there are limitations based on selectivity in the people who were hand
selected based on their proximity to partake in this study. The effectiveness of this
study could improve if more program leaders were randomly selected to participate
in this study. Secondly, this study focuses on only three Puente Project sites of
which only one acted as a primary site with complete data collection and the other
two sites acted as secondary sources of data collection with only partial
instrumentation. Additionally, a more up-to-date SEI score index would also greatly
improve the reliability and validity of the instrumentation. Lastly, this study may not
be able to be generalized to other intervention programs or even to other Puente sites.

Conclusion
This study provides insight into social capital and institutional agents, which
is an area within social capital that has been undertheorized and deserves further
research. First, program leaders must recognize the importance of creating social
159
networks, teaching students the importance of creating their own networks, and
providing students with opportunities to network. Secondly, program leaders must
actively choose to activate their social capital on behalf of the program and their
students. Third, program leaders must develop relationships with individuals and not
rely on the referral system as this is not social capital. Additionally, an equal balance
of capital between coordinators is imperative such that the program does not rely on
only one coordinator’s network. Furthermore, hiring committees need to be
conscious of social capital and assess potential candidate’s level of social capital and
willingness to seek help. Lastly, proper training of institutional agents is imperative
to help the program coordinators, the students, and the program thrive. This study
opens the doors to future research on institutional agents as they are a key
component of social capital theory and are vital in the relationships they create with
low socioeconomic status minority students.
160
References
Bailey, T., Alfonso, M., Calcangno, J.C., Jenkins, D., Kienzel, G. & Leinbach, T.
(2004). Improving student attainment in Community Colleges: Institutional
Characteristics and Policies. New York: Columbia University Teacher’s
College College Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED484346).

Baker, Wayne E. (2000). Achieving success through social capital: Tapping hidden
resources in your personal and business networks. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Boss.

Bensimon, E. (2004). The Diversity Scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 45-52.

Bourdieu, P. (1972). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood
Press.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society, Culture.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brewer, E. W. & Landers, J. M. (2005). A longitudinal study of the Talent Search
Program. Journal of Career Development, 31(3), 195-208.

Brown, T. F. (1999). Theoretical perspectives on social capital. Retrieved on April
8, 2004 from http://hal.lamar.edu/_BROWNTF/SOCCAP/HTML.
Unpublished manuscript.

California Postsecondary Education Commission (1999). College-going rates of
California public high school graduates, by racial/ethnic group, fall 1996 to
fall 1998. Higher Education Performance Indicator Report. Sacramento,
CA: Author.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2003). Student Profiles, 2003.
Retrieved on May 3, 2006 from http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/
2003reports/03-09/Display5.PDF.

Carbonaro, W. (1998). A little help from my friend’s parents: Intergenerational
closure and educational outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71, 295-313.
161

Census. (2000). United States Census 2000. Retrieved on May 3, 2006 from
http://www.census.gov/ main/www/cen2000.html.

Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary
access, persistence, and attainment (NCES-2001-126). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.

Cochran, M., Larner, M., Riley, D., Gunnarsson, L, & Henderson, Jr., C. (1990).
Extending families: The social networks of parents and their children.
Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S95-S120.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Coleman, J. (1992). Some points on choice in education. Sociology of Education,
65(4), 260-262.

Conchas, G. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in
Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 475-504.

Cooper, C.R. (2002). Five bridges along students’ pathways to college : A
development blueprint of families, teachers, counselors, and peers in the
Puente project. Educational Policy, 16(4), 607-622.

Corrigan, M. E. (2003). Beyond access: Persistence challenges and the diversity of
low-income students. New Directions for Higher Education, 121, 25-34.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A Framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.

Dika, S. & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature:
A critical synthesis. Review of Education Research, 72 (1), 31-60.

Duncan, Otis Dudley. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A.J.
Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and Social Status. New York: The Free Press.

Fact Sheet, Puente. (2006). Fact Sheet. Retrieved on April 19, 2006 from
http://www.puente. net/printmaterials/General%20Info/factsheet.pdf

162
Flap, H.D, Volker, B., Snijders, T. and Van der Gaag, M. (2003). Measurement
Instruments for Social Capital of Individuals. Universities of Utrecht,
Groningen, and Amsterdam (The Netherlands).

Gándara, P. (2002). A study of High School Puente: What we have learned about
preparing Latino youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy,
16(4), 474-495.

Gándara, P., & Moreno, J. F. (2002). Introduction: The Puente Project: Issues and
perspectives on preparing Latino youth for higher education. Educational
Policy, 16, 463-473.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
Sociology Theory, 1, 201-233.

Grubb, W. N., Lara, C. M. & Valdez, S. (2002). Counselor, coordinator, monitor,
mom: The roles of counselors in the Puente program. Educational Policy,
16, 547-571.

Gutiérrez, L.M. & Lewis, E.A. (1999). Empowering women of color. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Heffernan, W.J., Shuttlesworth, G. & Ambrosino, R. (1988). Social work and social
welfare: An introduction. Minnesota: West Publishing Company.

Horn, L, & Nunez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First generation
students' math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Education
Statistics Quarterly, 2, 81-86.

Kleugel, J. & Smith, E. (1981). Beliefs about stratification. Annual Review of
Sociology, 7, 29-56.

Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu’s concept of capital to the broader field: The
case of family-school relationships. In B.J. Biddle (ed.), Social class,
poverty, and education: Policy and practice (p. 77-100). New York:
Routledge Falmer

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods. University of California Press: Berkeley
and Los Angeles, CA.

Lareau, A. & Horvart, E.M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion:
Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of
Education, 72, 37-53.
163

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28-51.

Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785-795.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge:
University Press.
Lin, N., & Dumin, M. (1986). Access to occupations through social ties. Social
Networks, 8, 365-385.
Livermore, M. and Neustrom, A. (2003). “Linking Welfare Clients to Jobs:
Discretionary use of worker social capital.” Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare 30(2): 87-103.

Lopez, M.L. & Stack, C.B. (2001). Social capital and the culture of power: Lessons
from the field. In S. Saegert, J.P. Thompson, & M.R. Warren (Eds.), Social
Capital and Poor Communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Maeroff, G. (1998). Altered destinies: Making life better for schoolchildren in need.
New York: Martin’s Press.

Marx, K. (1933). Wage-Labour and Capital. New York: International Publishers
Co.

McCallister, L., and Fischer, C. (1978). A Procedure for Surveying Personal
Networks. Sociological Methods and Research 7(1), 131-148.

Moreno, J. (2002). The long-term outcomes of Puente. Educational Policy, 16(4),
572-587.

Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of
children and young people: A critical review. The Editorial Board of the
Sociological Review, 745-765.

NLSY (2006). 1970 Census Industry and Occupational Codes. Retrieved November
1, 2006 from
http://www.nlsinfo.org/nlsy79/docs/79html/codesup/att370.htm# 70occ.

Oliveréz, P. & Tierney, W. (2005). Show us the money: Low-income students,
families, and financial aid. Los Angeles: USC Center for Higher Education
Policy Analysis.

164
Phinney, J.S. & Hass, K. (2003). The process of coping among ethnic minority first-
generation college freshmen: A narrative approach. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 143(6), 707-726.

Pinderhuges, E.B. (1983). Empowerment for our clients and for ourselves. Social
Casework, 65(6), 331-338.

Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: A
conceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of
Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Portes, A. & Landolt, P. (1996). The downside of social capital. The American
Prospect, 26, 18-21.

Pradl, G. M. (2002). Linking instructional intervention and professional
development: Using the ideas behind Puente High School English to inform
educational policy. Educational Policy, 16, 522-546.

Puente Project. (2006). Puente Project. Retrieved April 19, 2006 from http://www.
elcamino.edu/studentservices/co/puenteproject.asp.

Ream, R. K. (2005). Toward understanding how social capital mediates the impact
of mobility on Mexican American achievement. Social Forces, 84(1), 201-
224.

Rendón, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of
learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-
50.

Rendón, L.I. (2002). Community College Puente: A validating model of education.
Educational Policy, 16(4), 642-667.

Schneider, J. (2004). The Role of Social Capital in Building Healthy Communities.
Retrieved online April 21, 2006 from http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/mc/
readingroom/documents/Social.Capital04.pdf

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school support
networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

165
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2004). Social Capital among working-class minority students.
In M.A. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J.P. Koyama (Eds.), School Connections:
U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement. New York: Teachers
College Press, Columbia University.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2006). Contemporary Uses of Social Capital Frameworks.
Unpublished Manuscript.

Stanton-Salazar, R. & Dornbush, S. (1995). Social capital and the social
reproduction of inequality: The formation of informational networks among
Mexican-origin High School students. Sociology of Education Journal,
62(2), 116-135.

Stanton-Salazar, R, Vásquez, O., & Mehan, H. (2000). Engineering success through
institutional support. In S.T. Gregory (Ed.), The academic achievement of
minority students: Comparative perspectives, practices, and prescriptions.
New York: University Press of America.
166
Appendix 1: Resource Domains and Essential Resource and Relationship Groupings

Medical or Mental Health and Wellness
Physician
Dentist
Nurse/LVN
Health educator
Substance abuse counselor
Psychiatrist
Marriage and family therapist
Crisis counselor

Social Service
Licensed clinical social worker/Social worker
Veterans’ office
Child care
Mentor/Community volunteer
Military recruiter
Peace Corps recruiter

Campus Specific/College Gateway
Mentorship coordinator
Cafeteria/Food service worker
Campus janitor
Career counselor
Campus facilities
Board of Trustees member
Academic or Student Affairs Clerk
Campus Computer Technician
Graduate School Mentor Coordinator
College admissions director
Degree evaluator/clerk
Tutor
College counselor
College professor
College recruiter
College Dean or Provost
College President or Chancellor
Scholarship coordinator or chairperson
Financial aid advisor
Campus program director
Grant writing department coordinator
Department chairperson
Principal or Assistant Principal
167
College athletic director/coach

Appendix 1, Continued

Law and Politics
Judge
Executive Law Enforcement personnel, e.g., Captain, Lieutenant, or Sergeant
Police Officer or Sheriff
City or government official
Union representative
Probation officer
Attorney

Business, Financial, or Economic
Banking or financial advisor
Loan officer
Computer programmer
Union representative
168
Appendix 2: Name Generator Script
Phase IIA: Name Generator Script
Preface interview session with the following introduction:
Over the course of our first major survey, I would like to get an idea of the
people who are important to you in your efforts to run [name of program].
Specifically, I am interested in the people you would seek assistance and support
from. This support would be related to:
1. Supporting your students [program youth]
2. Supporting your program colleagues
3. Meeting the objectives of the program
After reading each scenario, I will be asking you to provide me with the
names of the people who you would seek out for support with genuine confidence
and trust. Just to clarify, you would seek them out because you have confidence in
them and because you trust they would be able to provide reliable and substantive
support. These people could be your friends, family, colleagues, supervisors,
mentors, or other people you know. If there is no one that you would go to for a
particular kind of support mentioned in the following survey that is perfectly okay.
Are you ready?
169
Appendix 3: Name Generator (Interviewer’s Copy)

Phase IIB1: Name Generator (Interviewer Only)

1. Social Integration Development Support:
• When you have a student who has an ongoing developmental issue
and is in need of long-term counseling, who would be some of the
people that you would contact first for assistance to get support for
this student?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

2. Medical Health and Wellness Support:
• If one of your students has a medical problem, such as eating
disorders, STDs, physical wellbeing, or a substance abuse problem
that he/she is aware of but does not know how to seek assistance, who
can you call with confidence to assist you in getting the proper
attention the student needs?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

3. Crisis Support:
• If one of your students is experiencing psychological or emotional
crises, such as suicidal tendencies, depression, etc. who are the people
you would most likely call upon for assistance in dealing with the
crisis?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
170
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

4. Educational and/or Gateway Support:
• When you need specific information or assistance, regarding an
educational concern related to one of your program participants, who
are the people you would most likely call upon or refer to for
assistance before you would ask anyone else for help?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

5. Legal Assistance:
• If one of your students has legal issues or questions, who are the
people, you would most likely call upon or refer to for assistance?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

6. College Services and Support:
• If one of your program participants needs access to college services,
such as tutoring, etc., who are the people you would most likely call
upon or refer to for assistance?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

171
7. Financial Information and Support:
• When one of your students needs information or assistance regarding
financial aid, who are the people you would most likely call upon for
assistance?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

8. Academic and Student Affairs Support:
• If one of your program participants needs assistance and/or
information from a person in Academic or Student Affairs (i.e.
academic petitions, academic withdrawals, grade changes), who are
the people you would most likely call upon for assistance?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

9. Career, Internships, and Employment Opportunities Support:
• If one of your program participants needs assistance or information
regarding career, internship, or employment opportunities, who are
the people you would most likely call upon or refer to for assistance?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

10. Political Support:
• If one of your program participants needs assistance with a political
issue, who are the people you would most likely call upon or refer to
172
for assistance, i.e., Associated Students group, Administration,
external advisors, City Council members, State Assembly members?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

11. Academic Integration Assistance and Support:
• When one of your program participants needs specific academic
integration assistance, such as Graduate school mentoring programs
or transfer programs, who are the people you would most likely call
upon for assistance before you would ask anyone else for help?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

12. Mental Health and Wellness Support:
• If one of your program participants is in need of ongoing emotional or
moral support, such as family or relationship problems, who are the
people you would most likely call upon for assistance before you ask
anyone else.
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

13. Law Enforcement Support:
• If one of your students needs assistance with specific law enforcement
concerns, who are the people you would most likely call upon or refer
to for assistance?
173
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?

14. Program/Grant Funding Support:
• If one of your program participants needs assistance with grant or
program funding for a student group, who are the people you would
call upon or refer to before you would ask anyone else for assistance?
• In the past year, which of these people have actually helped you in
this way?
• Is there anyone who you would not normally rely upon for this type of
assistance, but who actually did help you in this way during the past
year?
• Have you ever been in a position where you either directly provided
this resource to one of your students, or directly provided this
resource to one of your program colleagues?
174
Appendix 4: Name Generator (Participant’s Copy)

Phase IIB2: Name Generator (Participant’s Copy)

Categories
1 Social Integration Development Support

2 Medical Health and Wellness Support

3 Crisis Support

4 Educational and/or Gateway Support

5 Legal Assistance

6 College Services and Support

7 Financial Information and Support

8 Academic and Student Affairs Support

9 Career, Internships, and Employment Opportunities Support

10 Political Support

11 Academic Integration Assistance and Support

12 Mental Health and Wellness Support

13 Law Enforcement Support

14 Program/Grant Funding Support

175
Appendix 5: Name Generator Spreadsheet

176

177
Appendix 6: Code Sheet for Relationship Type

Phase IIC2 Code Sheet for Relationship Type

Immediate Family
1. Mother
2. Father
3. Sister
4. Brother
5. Daughter
6. Son
7. Step-Daughter
8. Step-Son
9. Wife
10. Husband
11. Ex-Wife
12. Ex-Husband
13. Girlfriend
14. Boyfriend
15. Step-Mother
16. Step-Father
17. Step-Sister
18. Step-Brother
19. Half-Sister
20. Half-Brother
Nuclear Family
21. Sister-in-Law
22. Brother-in-Law
23. Niece
24. Nephew
25. 1
st
Cousin
26. 2
nd
Cousin
27. Aunt
28. Uncle
29. Grandmother
30. Grandfather
31. Granddaughter
32. Grandson
33. Great Grandmother
34. Great Grandfather
35. Great Aunt
36. Great Uncle

178
Fictive Kin
37. Godmother
38. Godfather
39. Comadre
40. Compadre
41. Mentor/Kinship

Friendship
42. Friend
43. Acquaintance/Colleague
Work
44. Work Associate
45. Supervisor
46. Program Associate
47. Mentor
Organizational/Fraternal
48. Peer
Residential Community
49. Landlord/landlady
50. Neighbor
Church
51. Priest/minister
Business Relationship
52. Attorney
53. Accountant
54. *Other (Write in title of relationship)
________________________________

179
Appendix 7: Ethnicity Coding Sheet

Phase IIC3: Ethnicity Coding Sheet

Interviewer’s Instruction: In completing the information needed for the ethnicity
columns (e.g., Eth 1 and Eth 2) in the Social Network Survey (“Name
Generator”), ask the subjects to identify what is their ethnic background. Place
the letter code found next to the ethnic label (e.g., A1) in the column labeled Eth
1. If the subject identifies a second label, then place the corresponding code in
the column labeled Eth 2.

Racial/Ethnic/National Origin Background Categories

The boxed racial/ethnic/national origin designations are the categories and
definitions detailed in “Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” (Federal Register, 62FR 58781 – 58790). The
categories under the boxed categories include those that are specified in the box, as
well as the racial/ethnic reporting categories specified in AB 813, which created
Section 8310.5 and an amendment to Section 19799 of the California Government
Code. The CSU provides employees, prospective students, and current students with
the opportunity to self-identify. Individuals are not required to specify a
race/ethnicity/national origin.

AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE: A person having origins in any of
the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and
who maintains tribal or community attachment.

Alaska Native A1
North American tribal affiliation or community attachment A2
Central American tribal affiliation or community attachment A3
Other South American tribal affiliation or community attachment A4

ASIAN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asian, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia,
China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and
Vietnam.

Asian Indian B1
Cambodian B2
Chinese B3
Filipino B4
Japanese B5
Korean B6
180
Laotian B7
Malaysian B8
Pakistani B9
Appendix 7, Continued

Thai B10
Vietnamese B11
Other Asian B12

BLACK or AFRICAN AMERICAN: A person having origins in any of the black
racial groups of African. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in
addition to “Black or African American”
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000phc-2-a-B.pdf

African American C1
Caribbean/West Indian C2
African Continental C3
Other African American/Black C4

LATINO or HISPANIC: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Central or
South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Central American D1
Cuban D2
Mexican, Mexican American/Chicano D3
Puerto Rican D4
South American D5
Other Latino/Hispanic D6

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHE PACIFIC ISLANDER: A person having origins
in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
Guamanian E1
Hawaiian E2
Samoan/Chamorro E3
Other Pacific Islander E4

WHITE: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the
Middle East, or North Africa.

White European F1
White Western European (e.g., French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) F2
Eastern European (e.g., Greek, Albanian, Czechoslovakian) F3
Middle Eastern F4
181
North African F5
Jewish Heritage F6
Arabic F7
Other White F8

DECLINE TO STATE

Decline to state G1

* If participant wants to make it clear that alter is Catholic (C), or Protestant (P), then
indicate this with the ethnicity in the coding (e.g., Catholic White European is F1C).

RETRIEVED INFORMATION FROM:
http://www.calstate.edu/PA/racialprivacy.shtml
Content Contact:
Public Affairs
(562) 951-4800 publicaffairs@calstate.edu
182
Appendix 8: Code Sheet for Name Generator Settings

Phase IIC4: Code Sheet for Name Generator: Settings
Where Main Social Interactions Take Place
(Note: We will only ask for the top three settings)

Date
Name of Participant
Location of
Administration

Instructions:
1. What is the most important setting in which you
interact with this person?
2. What do you see as the second most important setting
in which you interact with this person?
3. Are there any other settings in which you interact
with this person?

Codes
Set 1 = most
impt.
Set 2 = second
Set 3 = other

Setting A: Intervention Program/Context
# Examples Label
1 Program staff meetings A
2 Meetings pertaining to outside evaluations A

Setting B: Collaborative Meetings with Outside Entities
# Examples Label
1 Cross-program participation in planning and
organizing activities
B
2 Program-community collaborative meetings (e.g.,
church/temple; social service agencies; recreation
center)
B

Setting C: Community Context/ “personal network”
# Description Label
1 Residential Neighborhood C1
2 Church C2
3 Volunteer Organization C3
4 Community Civic Organization (e.g., political
lobby)
C4
5 Social Circle/ Personal Network (e.g., film club) C5
6 Health and Fitness (e.g., gym, bicycle club) C6
7 Children/oriented activities (e.g., soccer games) C7
183
8 Children/oriented activities—School gatherings
(e.g., plays, science fair)
C8

Setting D: Professional Context/ External to intervention program (related to
professional role as “youth worker”/ ‘institutional agent’ for students
# Description Label
1 Attendance and participation in Professional
Associations (including committees)
D1
2 Departmental staff meetings (wider institutional
context in which program is situated)
D2
3 Staff training and development activities (wider
institutional context in which program is situated)
D3
4 Union activities D4

Setting E: Professional Context/ External to intervention program (NOT related to
professional role as “youth worker”/ ‘institutional agent’ for students
# Description Label
1 Attendance and participation in Professional
Associations (including committees) (e.g., actors
guild)
E1
2 Departmental staff meetings (e.g., theatre) E2
3 Staff training and development activities (wider
institutional context in which professional role is
situated) (e.g., acting classes)
E3
4 Union activities (not related to program) E4

Setting F: Family/Kinship Context
# Description Label
1 Gathering/reunion for special occasions (e.g.,
weddings, baptisms, funerals, camping)
F1
2 Children/oriented activities (e.g., soccer games) F2
3 Children/oriented activities—School gatherings
(e.g., plays, science fair)
F3
4 Adult-kin-oriented activities (i.e., concerts, dinner,
theatre, baseball)
F4

Setting G: Electronic/Technology
# Description Label
1 E-mail G1
2 Cell Phone G2

184
Appendix 9: Code Sheet for Name Generator Setting
(Participant’s Copy)

Phase IIC5: Code Sheet for Name Generator: Settings
(For Participant’s Use)

Setting A

Intervention Program/Context

Setting B

Collaborative Meetings with Outside Entities

Setting C

Community Context/ “personal network”

Setting D

Professional Context/ External to intervention program (related
to professional role as “youth worker”/ ‘institutional agent’ for
students

Setting E

Professional Context/ External to intervention program (NOT
related to professional role as “youth worker”/ ‘institutional
agent’ for students

Setting F

Family/Kinship Context

Setting G

Electronic/Technology

185
Appendix 10: Frequency Code Sheet

Phase IIC6: Code Sheet for Frequency Column
(Interviewer Only)
Prompt for Participant: How often do you interact with person X? (If participant
needs prompting, then read the possibilities listed below - beginning with #9 and
moving up the scale.)
Description Code

Everyday

1

Bi-weekly

2

Once a week

3

Every 2 weeks (bi-monthly)
(more or less)

4

Once a month (more or less)

5

Every 2-3 months

6

Twice a year (more or less)

7

Once a year

8

Every couple of years (or less
frequently)

9

186
Appendix 11: Occupations Descriptions for Name Generator (Interviewer’s Copy)

Phase IIC7: Occupation Descriptions for Name Generator
(Interviewer Only)
Interviewer: Use this form to document the occupations of the individuals named in
the Name Generator. Do not give a copy to the participant. The number on this
form corresponds to the number of the alter identified on the Name Generator.

Number

Name Occupation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

187
Appendix 11, Continued

Number Name Occupation
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

188
Appendix 12: Follow-up Interview on Relationships Identified in the Name
Generator (Interviewer’s Copy)

Phase IIIA: Follow-up Interview on Relationships Identified in the Name Generator
(Interviewer Only)

Interviewer: Read the following questions to the participant for each individual
identified in the Name Generator. No copy should be given to the participant.
Principal questions do not include probe or follow-up questions, but you may ask
them.

Script: This is a meeting where I will need to tape record our conversation. Is that
ok?

1. Let’s talk about your relationship with________. When did you first meet, and
how were you acquainted?
a. Is this person an immigrant to the United States?_____
b. If so, how old were they when they first settled in the United States?____
c. (If applicable) Do you know if one or both of their parents settled in the
United States?_____; if so, from what country or countries?______
d. (If not an immigrant) Do you know what part of the country this person is
originally from?_______

2. How often do you get together or have personal conversations with_______?

3. (Applicable for alters indicated as sources of multiple forms of support) You
indicated that _____ was a source of support for (name the different types of
supports), do you ever feel uncomfortable about asking_______ for help for any
of the sources of support you indicated them as a resource for? (explain the
circumstances)

4. Has any event occurred in the context of this relationship that has either
improved the relationship, or made it more complicated or conflicted? (If yes,
explain the circumstances).

5. (Applicable for providers of three or more types of support) It appears that_____
is an important source of support for you
a. How would you describe your relationship with________

b. Tell me about the last time______ helped you. Describe the situation that
you needed help with.

c. How did you feel about the support he/she gave you?

189
d. Did the support or assistance actually fulfill your needs? Why or why
not?

e. Would you turn to them again for the same type of help in a similar
situation? Why or why not?
f. Has ______ ever asked you for assistance with an issue or problem?
i.If so, what kind of help?
ii.If not, why do you suppose they did not ask you for help?

g. Have you ever been upset at, or had disagreements with _______?
i.If yes, explain.
ii.How did you resolve your differences?

6. I would like to know whether you’ve ever acted as a source of support for __________
and whether or not she/he explicitly asked for such support or help.

(Immediately follow with):

a. Can you scan the list of ‘support categories’ we covered earlier (Phase IIB2), and tell
me whether you ever provided one or two of these forms of assistance for
_____________ .
If you’ve never experienced such an instance, that’s fine as well.

[NOTE: If there appears to be instances of the participant acting as a ‘source of
support’ to ‘alter,’ try to get two instances.]

b. (For each instance—linked to the list of ‘support categories,’ [e.g., “Crisis Support”]
ask the following questions):
• Can you elaborate on this instance where you provided __________ (name
of alter) with ____________ (name of category of support); for example,
what was the situation?
• Was ____________ receptive to your assistance?
• What was the outcome?

c. Do you see yourself as a major source of support for __________________?

190
Appendix 13: Organizational Affiliations (Interviewer’s Copy)

Phase IID1: Organizational Affiliations (Interviewer Only)

Instructions for interviewer: 1) Provide copy to participant.

Script: I am interested in your current involvement in professional organizations.
Specifically, name the three most important professional organizations that you are
currently involved in. By current involvement, I mean attendance at least once a year
at meetings held by a group and has face-to-face interactions.

Type of
Affiliation
(A thru F)
Actively
Involved
?
(Yes or
No)
Name(s)
A
Professional
Association

1._____

2._____

3._____

1._________________________________________

2._________________________________________

3._________________________________________

B
Trade or
Industry
Association

1._____

2._____

3._____

1.________________________________________

2.________________________________________

3.________________________________________

C
Political
Party or
Organization
(e.g., Black
Caucus
neither
Republican
or Democrat)

1._____

2._____

3._____

1.________________________________________

2.________________________________________

3._________________________________________

191
Appendix 13, Continued

Type of
Affiliation
(A thru F)
Actively
Involved?
(Yes or
No)
Name(s)
D
Church or
Religious
Organization

1.______

2.______

3.______

1._________________________________________

2._________________________________________

3._________________________________________

E
Charitable or
Philanthropic
Organization

1.______

2.______

3.______

1._________________________________________

2._________________________________________

3._________________________________________

F
Sports Club
or Recreation
Organization

1.______

2.______

3.______

1._________________________________________

2._________________________________________

3._________________________________________

192
Appendix 14: Organizational Affiliations (Participant’s Copy)

Phase IID2: Organizational Affiliations
(For
Participant’s Use)

Description Type of Affiliation

Professional Association

A

Trade or Industry Association

B

Political Party or Organization (e.g., Black
Caucus neither Republican or Democrat)

C

Church or Religious Organization

D

Charitable or Philanthropic Organization

E

Sports Club or Recreation Organization

F
193

194

Appendix 15: Organizational Affiliations Response Sheet (Interviewer’s Copy)

Phase IID3: Organizational Affiliations—Response Sheet (Interviewer Only)

Participant’s Name ___________________________________________
Date _______________

Type of
Affiliation
Could you briefly describe the nature of your involvement?

________

Type of
Affiliation
Could you briefly describe the nature of your involvement?

________

195
Appendix 16: Position Generator Script

Phase IIE1: Position Generator Script (Interviewer Only)

[Instructions for Interviewer]

1. Both interviewer and participant will have a copy of the generator.
2. Stay in the location while the participant is filling out the generator in case
they have any questions.
3. Please suggest to your participant the following:
a. Tell participant that thinking aloud is encouraged
b. It is allowable to write in the margins, (i.e., notes, thoughts, etc.)
Script:
You will now fill out a survey. I would like you to indicate if any of your
family members, friends, colleagues, or acquaintances hold any of the occupations
listed and the number that hold these positions.
In the grid, you may mark any of the categories that apply. Here are some
examples that will help you to mark your answers.
(Example):
1. If there is a family member who also happens to be a college professor, then
mark 1 in the column of “Family”.
2. If there are two friends who also happen to be college professors, then mark
2 in the column of “Friends”.
3. If you cannot think of anyone then mark “X” in the column of “None”.
196
When you name someone who is a colleague, please consider two types of
colleagues: Someone who is employed in the same workplace and someone who is
not employed in the same workplace. By the same workplace, I mean someone who
is employed in the same institution\organization. At a minimum, they are someone
that you have regular small talk or share opinions with (e.g., faculty member, campus
administrator). By different workplace, I mean someone who is not employed in the
same institution\organization, but that you attend meetings within a professional
context (e.g. conferences, professional development) and have regular small talk or
share opinions with.
Please do not name anyone on your program staff. If there are more than 10
people that you can think of in a column, then mark “10+”.
197
Appendix 17: Position Generator
Phase IIE2: Position Generator

Name:_____________________________________
Date:___________________

• Same Workplace = Someone employed by the same institution/organization.
At a minimum, someone that you have regular small talk or share opinions
with (e.g., faculty member, campus administrator)

• Different Workplace = Someone not employed by the same institution/
organization, but that you attend meetings within a professional context (e.g.,
conferences, professional development) and have regular small talk or share
opinions with.

Job Function Family Friend Colleague or Acquaintance None
Same
Workplace
Different
Workplace

1 Attorney
2 Career Counselor
3 Payroll Clerk
4 College Admissions Director
5 Librarians
6 Nurse
7 Social Worker
8 Mail Carrier, Post Office
9 Foundation Grant Director
10 Marketing Research Consultant
11 Police Officer
12 Accountant
13 Firefighter
14 Internship Coordinator
15 City or Government Official
16 Probation Officer
17 Health Care Administrator

198
Name:_____________________________________
Date:___________________

• Same Workplace = Someone employed by the same institution/organization.
At a minimum, someone that you have regular small talk or share opinions
with (e.g., faculty member, campus administrator)

• Different Workplace = Someone not employed by the same institution/
organization, but that you attend meetings within a professional context (e.g.,
conferences, professional development) and have regular small talk or share
opinions with.

Continuation
Job Function Family Friend Colleague or Acquaintance None
Same
Workplace
Different
Workplace

18 College President or Chancellor
19 Psychiatrist
20 Sales Manager
21 Receptionist
22 College Dean or Provost
23 Academic Counselor
24 Religious Worker
25 Computer Technician
26 Janitor
27 College Professor
28 Real Estate Agent
29 Cafeteria/Food Server
30 Physician

199
Appendix 18: Rationale for the Position Generator

Job Function Score H M L Related In/
Outside
Designated Scores not
found on U.S. Bureau of
Census, 1970 Census of
Population Classified
Index of Industries and
Occupations (Average of
three similar positions)
1 Attorney 92 X
2 Career
Counselor
65 X RM In
3 Payroll Clerk 44 X
4 College
Admissions
Director
79 X RH In 74 – Office Manager
78 – School Administration
84 – College Professor
5 Librarians 60 X RM In
6 Nurse 44 X
7 Social Worker 64 X RM Out
8 Mail Carrier,
Post Office
53 X
9 Foundation
Grant
Director
82 X RH Out
10 Marketing
Research
Consultant
66 X RM Out
11 Police Officer 41 X
12 Accountant 77 X
13 Firefighter 37 X
14 Internship
Coordinator
74 X RM In 74 – Office Manager
65 – Voc and Ed Counselor
84 – Misc College
Professor
15 City or
Government
Official
80 X RH Out
16 Probation
Officer
31 X 41 – Police Officer
34 – Sheriff
18 - Guard
17 Health Care
Administrator
74 X RM Out
18 College
President or
Chancellor
81 X RH In 78 – College Administration
80 – Public Administration
84 – College Professor
200
19 Psychiatrist 77 X RH In 81 – Psychologist
92 – Physician
60 – Therapist
20 Sales
Manager
72 X
21 Receptionist 44 X

Appendix 18, Continued

Job Function Scor
e
H M L Related In/
Outsid
e
Category
22 College
Dean or
Provost
78 X RH In
23 Academic
Counselor
65 X RM In
24 Religious
Worker
57 X
25 Computer
Technician
65 X RM In
26 Janitor 13 X
27 College
Professor
84 X RH In
28 Real Estate
Agent
62 X
29 Cafeteria/
Food Server
11 X
30 Physician 92 X
201
Appendix 19: Resource Generator Script (Interviewer Only)

Phase IIF1: Resource Generator Script
(Interviewer Only)

[Instructions for Interviewer]

4. Both interviewer and participant will have a copy of the generator.
5. Stay in the location while the participant is filling out the generator in case
they have any questions.
6. Please suggest to your participant the following:
a. Tell participant that thinking aloud is encouraged
b. It is allowable to write in the margins, (i.e., notes, thoughts, etc.)
Script:
I would like to know what key occupations, essential resources, and experiences
you have exposure to. I would like you to fill out this survey and indicate if you or
any of your friends, family members, colleagues or acquaintances have any of the
resources listed.
When you name someone who is a colleague, please consider two types of
colleagues: Someone who is employed in the same workplace and someone who is
NOT employed in the same workplace. By the same workplace, I mean someone
who is employed in the same institution/organization. At a minimum, they are
someone that you have regular small talk or share opinions with (e.g., faculty
member, campus administrator). By different workplace, I mean someone who is
not employed in the same institution/organization, but that you attend meetings
202
within a professional context (e.g., conferences, professional development) and have
regular small talk or share opinions with.
Appendix 19, Continued
If you can answer “yes” to any of the following questions, please indicate so by
marking the appropriate box in the last column, marked “Yourself.”

203
Appendix 20: Resource Generator

Phase IIF2: Resource Generator

Name:_____________________________________
Date:___________________

• Same Workplace = Someone employed by the same institution/organization.
At a minimum, someone that you have regular small talk or share opinions
with (e.g., faculty member, campus administrator)

• Different Workplace = Someone not employed by the same institution/
organization, but that you attend meetings within a professional context (e.g.,
conferences, professional development) and have regular small talk or share
opinions with.

I.
Do you know anyone
who…**************
*
Family Friend Colleague or
Acquaintance
Yourself None

Same
Workplace
Different
Workplace

II
.
Are you someone who
(is)…
******* ****** ******* ******* ****
1
…teaches in
college/university with a
masters’ degree or
above…

2
…can fill out a college
application…

3
… who is a member of a
trade union (e.g., janitor,
custodian)…

4
…white collar
professional who
collaborates with public
officials to create new
educational policies
(e.g., director of student
programs at state
level)…

5
… owns a small family-
run business…

6
… who is an expert
gardener…

7
…has knowledge about
financial aid (e.g., Cal
grants, PELL grants)

204
matters…
8
…has a collection of
power tools…

9
… makes decisions on
awarding grants…

Appendix 20, Continued

Name:_____________________________________
Date:___________________

• Same Workplace = Someone employed by the same institution/organization.
At a minimum, someone that you have regular small talk or share opinions
with (e.g., faculty member, campus administrator)

• Different Workplace = Someone not employed by the same institution/
organization, but that you attend meetings within a professional context (e.g.,
conferences, professional development) and have regular small talk or share
opinions with.
Continuation
I.
Do you know anyone
who…**************
*
Family Friend Colleague or
Acquaintance
Yourself None

Same
Workplace
Different
Workplace

II
.
Are you someone who
(is)…
******* ****** ******* ******* ****
1
0
…who has knowledge
about academic/progress
probation…

1
1
… who is licensed to do
plumbing and household
repairs…

1
2
…has authority over
educational departmental
budget…

1
3
… who can give advice
on physical fitness and
nutrition (e.g. trainer,
nutritionist)…

1
4
…knows how to register
for classes…

1
5
…reads a professional
journal (e.g., Chronicle
of Higher Education)…

1
6
…who is a self-
employed artist (e.g.
muralist)…

205
1
7
…has information about
internship
opportunities…

1
8
…has a professional
degree (e.g., MBA,
Ed.D, Ph.D, MD, OD,
DDS)…

1
9
… enforces college
campus policies (e.g.,
academic dismissals) …

Appendix 20, Continued

I.
Do you know anyone
who…***************
Family Friend Colleague or
Acquaintance
Yourself None

Same
Workplace
Different
Workplace

II.
Are you someone who
(is)…
****** **** ****** ****** *****
20
… can use college online
resources for course
equivalency…

21
… who handles and
processes mail….

22
…is active in a political
party…

23
…can fix a computer…
24
…who knows how to
prepare food for sale…

25
…has knowledge about
immigration law…

206
Appendix 21: Rationale for the Resource Generator

I.
Do you know anyone
who…***************
H M L Related

II.
Are you someone who (is)…
1
…teaches in college/university with a masters’
degree or above…
X X
2
…can fill out a college application… X X
3
… who is a member of a trade union (e.g.,
janitor, custodian)…
X X
4
…white collar professional who collaborates
with public officials to create new educational
policies (e.g., director of student programs at
state level)…
X X
5
… owns a small family-run business… X
6
… who is an expert gardener… X
7
…has knowledge about financial aid (e.g., Cal
grants, PELL grants) matters…
X X
8
…has a collection of power tools… X
9
… makes decisions on awarding grants… X X
10
…who has knowledge about academic/progress
probation…
X X
11
… who is licensed to do plumbing and
household repairs…
X
12
…has authority over educational departmental
budget…
X X
13
… who can give advice on physical fitness and
nutrition (e.g. trainer, nutritionist)…
X
14
… knows how to register for classes… X X
15
…reads a professional journal (e.g., Chronicle
of Higher Education)…
X X
16
… who is a self-employed artist (e.g.,
muralist)…
X
17
…has information about internship
opportunities…
X X
18
…has a professional degree (e.g., MBA, Ed.D,
Ph.D, MD, OD, DDS)…
X
19
… enforces college campus policies (e.g.,
academic dismissals) …
X X
20
… can use college online resources for course
equivalency…
X X
21
… who handles and processes mail…. X
22
…is active in a political party… X
23
…can fix a computer… X
207

I.
Do you know anyone
who…***************
H M L Related

II.
Are you someone who (is)…
24
…who knows how to prepare food for sale… X
25
…has knowledge about immigration law… X
208

Appendix 22: Ethnographic Interview Questions

Phase IVA: Ethnographic Interview Questions

1. We spoke about you seeking assistance for students in your program when they
are facing developmental issues – give me an example of how you helped the
student deal with this challenge.
A. Is this standard procedure of the program to help students overcome
developmental issues or is that something that you take on as an individual?
Depending on response, the following will be asked:
i. Tell me more about how the program teaches you to deal with this issue.
ii. Tell me more about why you chose to take a personal interest in this.

2. We spoke about you seeking assistance for students in your program when they
have educational concerns – give me an example of how you helped the student
deal with this challenge.
A. Is this standard procedure of the program to help students overcome
educational concerns or is that something that you take on as an individual?
Depending on response, the following will be asked:
i. Tell me more about how the program teaches you to deal with this issue.
ii. Tell me more about why you chose to take a personal interest in this.

3. We spoke about you seeking assistance for students in your program that need
access to college services, such as tutoring, etc. – give me an example of how
you helped the student deal with this challenge.
A. Is this standard procedure of the program to help students with access to
college services or is that something that you take on as an individual?
Depending on response, the following will be asked:
i. Tell me more about how the program teaches you to deal with this issue.
ii. Tell me more about why you chose to take a personal interest in this.

4. Is teaching students strategies or skills that enhance their ability to become
independent and learn to network and access resources on their own something
that you do in your program?
i. Why or why not?

5. Is your role as a program leader a very emotionally draining task?
Depending on response, the following will be asked:
i. How do you deal with this pressure and time consuming task?

209
Appendix 23: Introduction to the Research Study

Phase 1A: Introduction

Shake hands – Hello, my name is _____________. I thought it would be
appropriate for me to introduce myself. I would also like to provide some
background information about the study I will be conducting.
I am a doctoral student in the school of education at the University of Southern
California (USC). This study is a part of my dissertation project, conducted with
eight other students who are also looking at specific youth\students intervention
programs.
• This study focuses on the relationships program leaders develop with
different people – both inside and outside of the program – as part of the job
of running a youth\student serving organization.
• The emphasis of the study is on the complexities and challenges of managing
diverse ‘relationships’ and the need to sometimes sever relationships.
• The study also focuses on “the reality” that many of us have a finite network
– that we do not yet have social ties to people that we would like to have in
our network and it takes time and energy to build our personal network.
Before we being, I would like to address some important rights you have as a
study participant:
1. I appreciate your involvement in this study and I fully recognize that your
participation is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time.
210
2. If there are any questions that you do not want to respond to, I will honor
your wishes.

Appendix 23, Continued
3. All of the information that you provide is completely confidential and
protected by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) codes of
confidentiality.
4. I will use pseudonyms in all circumstances to protect your identity.
5. I will be recording audio data so that I may pay more attention to what you
say instead of trying to accurately write out the words. Do I have your
permission to record your responses?
6. All transcriptions form recorded interviews and the tapes themselves will be
destroyed when the study is complete.
If you would like a copy of your rights, I can provide you with a copy.
Do you have any questions?
211
Appendix 24: Personal Background Survey

Phase IB: Personal Background Survey (Interviewer Only)

Script: At this time, I would like to ask some questions about your personal
background.

Name of Participant:_________________________________
Date:__________________

Demographic Information
1. How old are you?

2. What is your marital
status?

3. Do you have any
children? If yes, how
many?

4. What is your ethnic
background?

Educational Background

1. What degree or degrees
do you hold? In what
area(s)?

2. From which
institutions were your
degrees granted and in
what year(s)?
(Skip this question if
participant doesn’t have
any degrees.)

212
Appendix 24, Continued

3. What is your parents’
educational background?
Note: If the participant’s
parents attended college,
ask question #2 in
reference to their parents
[including where their
degree(s) were granted
and in what area(s)).

Employment History

1. What are the two most
important employment
experiences that you
have had that apply to
your current job in
[name of program]?

2a. How long have you
worked in your current
position?

2b. Have you held any
other positions in this
program?

213
Appendix 25: Staff Worksheet

Phase IC: Staff Worksheet (Interviewer Only)

Interviewer: This worksheet is useful for providing context for a conversation with
the participant regarding the program. Ask the participant to give information about
the main staff members and/or other leaders of your intervention program. These
individuals must be key people that the participant works with and that help him/her
run the intervention program.
Script: Now I would like to find out about who is on the [name of program] staff.
Please tell me who are the key people that you work with who help you run this
program.

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
214
Employment:
Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

Appendix 25, Continued

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

Staff #______
Name:
Gender:
Title/Position:
Brief Job Description:
Length of
Employment:

215
Appendix 26: Survey of the Program

Phase ID: “Grand Tour” Survey of Program (Interviewer Only)

Script: I would like to now ask you to talk informally about your program, the kind
of youth/students you serve and your role in program.

Current Job

1.Please explain your
current position or role in
the (name of program)

2.What is the mission of
the (name of program)?

3.What kinds of students\
youth are targeted in the
(name of program)?

216
Appendix 26, Continued

4.What are the most
fundamental core aspects
of [name of program]?

Probe for:
l Goals
l Activities
l One or two key
features (e.g.
mentorship,
leadership
building)

217
Appendix 27: New/Former Coordinator Questions

Phase I E New/Former Coordinator Questions

New instructor/counselor questions:
1. Why were you interested in joining the Puente program?
2. What are your goals as the new counselor/instructor?
Former instructor/counselor questions:
1. Why did you decide to leave Puente?
2. What were your goals for Puente while you were the instructor/counselor?
3. Do you still keep in contact with the Puente staff members or participate in
Puente events? Why or why not?
4. Do you think Puente works? Why or why not?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study focuses on social capital theory and the community college component of the Puente Project. Specifically, this research study analyzes the social capital of intervention program leaders. The specific questions that guided this study included, what are the characteristics, features, and composition of the social resource networks of intervention program coordinators? What are some of the factors that facilitate or constrain the program leader's access and mobilization of resources on behalf of themselves, students, program associates, and the program agenda? How do program coordinators work to enhance the program participants' social networks so that participants themselves become independent and learn to network and access resources? How do program coordinators deal with the pressures associated with being a program leader? The results suggest that program leaders must be conscious of social capital, the composition of their own networks, and in providing students with opportunities to network. Secondly, program leaders must actively choose to activate their social capital on behalf of the program and their students. Third, program leaders must develop relationships with individuals and not rely on the referral system as this is not social capital. Additionally, an equal balance of capital between coordinators is imperative such that the program does not rely on only one coordinator's network. Furthermore, hiring committees need to be conscious of social capital and assess potential candidate's level of social capital and help-seeking orientation. Lastly, proper training of program leaders is imperative to help the program coordinators, students, and program thrive. In the end, more empirical research needs to be invested in studying institutional agents as the concept of institutional agents has been both understudied and undertheorized in social capital research.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The manifestation of social capital within the mathematics, engineering, and science achievement (MESA) program

PDF

An AVID program investigation: examining an intervention program within the context of social capital theory

PDF

Using social capital in examining program leaders of intervention programs

PDF

Defining the mobilization of social capital for low-SES minority youth participants in the Summer Bridge program by program leaders

PDF

Significant others in the lives of Latino first-generation college students: how social capital aids persistence

PDF

Social capital networks of institutional agents and the empowerment of African American youth

PDF

The intersection of grit and social capital: a mixed methods examination of successful first-generation college students

PDF

Motivation for participating in virtual religious communities: developing social capital

PDF

Impact of required parental involvement on African American male students and families: a qualitative study of the USC-NAI program

PDF

Social capital networks of institutional agents and the empowerment of low-status youth in a federally funded intervention program

PDF

The revolution just might be digitized: toward a critical race theory of the African-American igeneration's online social enfranchisement

PDF

Noncredit programs: catalyst for development of social capital in adult students

PDF

Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education

PDF

Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

Forming relationships: investigating social capital in a low socio-economic school music program

PDF

The influence of social networking sites on high school students' social and academic development

PDF

A comparative study of average and high-achieving high school immigrant and non-immigrant students of Mexican heritage

PDF

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

PDF

Shoring up the pipeline: a case study of female navigation throughout the science instructional pathway (SIP)

Asset Metadata

Creator Rodriguez, Cristina Castelo (author)

Core Title Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/28/2007

Defense Date 06/01/2007

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

Tag Higher education,minority academic achievement,OAI-PMH Harvest,Puente Project,social capital

Language English

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Cardoza, Raul J. (committee member)

Creator Email cristina_ucla@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m566

Unique identifier UC1225177

Identifier etd-Rodriguez-20070628 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-512293 (legacy record id),usctheses-m566 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Rodriguez-20070628.pdf

Dmrecord 512293

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rodriguez, Cristina Castelo

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu