An Anti-Deficit Investigation of Resilience Among University Students with Adverse Experiences

Abstract

Experiencing extreme adversity — such as homelessness, abuse, or incarceration — creates barriers for educational success. Yet, there is a dearth of literature on the higher education pathways of students who experienced adversity (SEA). A researcher-practitioner collaboration aimed to understand the structural challenges SEA navigated on campus and the factors promoting their resilience and retention. Ten SEA-identified students participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Using thematic analyses, we constructed three themes describing challenges they encountered, including experiencing a lack of community, safety concerns, and stigmatization. We also noted four themes reflecting resilience, including how SEA found a sanctuary through a campus program, gave back to similar others, reframed stigmatization, and gained personal strength through networks. An anti-deficit framework helped identify how SEA are leveraging their community strengths and past experiences to thrive in institutions still not fully prepared to serve them. We offer recommendations for how institutions can be more inclusive of SEA.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) include direct (e.g., neglect) and indirect (e.g., parental substance) abuse that contributes to maladaptive outcomes later in life (Gresham & Karatekin, 2022). ACEs was originally coined in a medical journal (Felitti et al., 1998), subsequently prompting a large body of research to establish the detrimental effects on wellbeing and health (Goodwin-Smith et al., 2017; Morton, 2018; Rebbe, et al., 2017). In this paper, we are especially interested in research focused on the experiences of ACEs and student outcomes. Indeed, literature points to how experiencing extreme adversity in childhood or adolescence — such as dealing with abuse, homelessness, family history of addiction, or being impacted by various systems (e.g., foster care, incarceration) — creates barriers when navigating educational settings (Skobba et al., 2018). Yet, there is a dearth of literature on such experiences in higher education.

Although a medical term, we found the phrase “experienced adversity” to most adequately describe our population of interest (see Gresham & Karatekin, 2022). Despite difficult life circumstances, the students in our study enrolled in a degree-granting university. The phrase “students who experienced adversity” (SEA) acknowledges what these students overcame, highlights the common thread uniting diverse experiences of adversity, and replaces terms like “vulnerable” (Osgood et al., 2010). In adopting this term, we take an anti-deficit approach to explore their educational resilience – which emphasizes academic success in the face of environmentally precarious situations (Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007) – in higher education, including the positive impact of programs devoted to supporting them.

Extreme Adversity and College Pathways

Though we take an anti-deficit approach, we review literature documenting the challenges in college pathways for SEA as this represents the majority of the literature and because it acknowledges persisting structural barriers. For example, SEA encounter precarious pathways to higher education and retention (Courtney et al., 2020; Dworsky & Pérez, 2010; Morton, 2018; Okpych & Courtney, 2014). The reasons for this precarity vary, including: lack of access to academic preparation and to college-prep resources; limited financial resources, including awareness of support mechanisms as “independents;” and experiences of mental health and behavior issues that interfere with academics (for review see Dworsky & Pérez, 2010). Other literature identifies placement in special education, early parenthood, repeating grades, and unstable school and home environments as additional impediments (Okpych & Courtney, 2017, 2018; Skobba et al., 2018).

Even after enrolling in college, SEA encounter a range of challenges. Challenges include navigating college courses, developing critical academic skills, balancing work-life demands, participating in extracurricular activities, and developing close relationships with peers and mentors (Dukes, 2013; Enriquez et al., 2020; Hernandez & Naccarato, 2010; Hirano, 2014; Kinarsky, 2017; Opsal & Eman, 2018; Skobba et al., 2018). SEA frequently struggle with basic needs and economic security, which disrupts learning and requires students to rely on creative means to sustain themselves, including sleeping in cars or couch surfing (Dukes, 2013; Kinarsky, 2017; Opsal & Eman, 2018). These various economic, academic, and social challenges impact students’ likelihood of succeeding in college.

Such structural barriers have consequences for student well-being (Hernandez & Naccarato, 2010; Gresham & Karatekin, 2022; Kinarsky, 2017; Morton, 2018; Philips et al., 2015; Rojas-Flores et al., 2017). Students with experiences in systems, like foster care or incarceration, reported feeling stigmatized and isolated because of their identities and questioned reaching out for help because of poor prior experiences doing so (Dworsky & Pérez, 2010; Halkovic & Green, 2015; Kinarsky, 2017; Ott & McTier, 2020). Foster youth program coordinators observed a tendency for students to attribute problems to their foster youth identity, viewing themselves as “terminally unique” (Hernandez & Naccarato, 2010). These consequences are further complicated by limited access to mental health support (i.e., not being able to afford counseling sessions, Opsal & Eman, 2018).

Overall, literature documents the structural barriers SEA confront in higher education. While recognizing these challenges is important, it is only part of the story. Indeed, despite barriers, these student groups aspire to attend higher education (Dukes, 2013; Enriquez et al., 2020; Halkovic & Greene, 2015; Hirano, 2014; Morton, 2018). Less emphasized are ways these students resist barriers and their strategies and supports for thriving and persisting in higher education. The focus on deficit narratives underscores the need for anti-deficit approaches.

Anti-Deficit Approaches for Understanding SEA

Anti-deficit approaches explore how minoritized students persist in the face of structural and social barriers (Harper, 2010). Grounded in critical theoretical frameworks and praxis, the goal is to reframe students’ experiences from vulnerable or struggling, to resilience and strength. Deficit perspectives focus on what students lack (e.g. motivation), whereas an anti-deficit approach asks what students bring that leads to persistence (Harper, 2010). Anti-deficit approaches treat student communities “as strong, capable survivors” (Watt et al., 2013, p. 1410).

The focus on students as “strong, capable survivors” represents an important discussion about how scholars and educators understand and frame resilience. For example, some frameworks focused on resilience, such as grit, which is the perseverance toward long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007), have come under criticism for the strong focus on individual agency instead of highlighting the role of larger social structures in supporting student persistence (Denby, 2016). A related critique is that such a framework better represents the lived experiences of middle-to-upper-class, white families with access to resources and cultural privileges (Herold, 2015; Strauss, 2016). Other frameworks centered on the cultural strengths and lived experiences of minoritized students have offered a critical lens of resilience (see navigational and resistance capital, Yosso, 2005). A community cultural wealth model, for example, not only acknowledges the structural challenges brought on by overlapping systems of oppression (e.g., racism, classism) but also highlights how community resources and networks are central for the resilience and persistence of minoritized groups when navigating such systems (Azmitia et al., 2018; Cooper, 2011; Yosso, 2005).

Although research has focused on the resilience of low-income, first-generation, and students of color in higher education (Ayala & Contreras, 2019; Covarrubias et al., 2022; Duffy et al., 2020; Garriott, 2020), very little work has focused on the experiences of SEA specifically. In truth, only in the past decade have scholars adopted an anti-deficit approach to understanding how to support SEA in higher education (Hass & Graydon, 2009; Watt et al., 2013). One anti-deficit approach to studying resilience has focused on the role of programs that serve SEA (Dworsky & Pérez, 2010; Geiger & Beltran, 2017). A systematic review of campus-based programs supporting SEA noted links to positive experiences and belonging on campus (Randolph & Thompson, 2017), presumably because they offer critical sources of support and highlight strengths of students they serve. Namely, when programs focused on building the resilience of foster youth through a strengths-based framework, this facilitated participants’ sense of ability to attend higher education and of connection with older peers who also navigated mental health challenges while pursuing higher education (Phillips et al., 2015).

Other work highlights the benefits of strength-based approaches. Interview data with foster youth revealed they often thought of their identities as associated with something negative (Watt et al., 2013). To counter these deficit views, one program (i.e., Foster Care Alumni Creating Educational Success) worked to imbue a survivor's identity and emphasized taking pride in accomplishments (Watt et al., 2013). Students noted the program offered the opportunity to create a support network and to share resources as a community. An anti-deficit approach helped students redefine their identity. Inherent in this approach is the need to highlight educational resilience. For example, interviews with academically successful foster youth revealed their educational resilience emerged from an interplay of personal, social, and environmental factors (Hass et al., 2014). Their resilience stemmed from encountering a newfound autonomy, supportive and helpful people in their lives, and “safe havens” or places that protected them from ongoing stressors.

Much of this work focuses on foster youth status generally and does not consider communities that experience multiple forms of adversity. In the current study, we explored the experiences of students in the SEA Scholars Program (SEA-SP ¹ ), which serves approximately 130 students from 11 SEA communities (e.g., foster youth, formerly incarcerated). Specifically, the project aimed to understand the experiences of SEA-SP students, with a focus on the structural challenges they navigated on campus as SEA and factors that promoted their resilience on campus. We add to scarce literature on the experiences of SEA in higher education. This is particularly true as we study our research questions in a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) context, which serves at least a 25% Latinx student population. This allows us to better understand the ways in which these students are or are not being served, especially as majority low-income, first-generation students of color.

Method

SEA Scholars Program

SEA-SP serves students who become independent at an early age because of extreme adverse experiences. SEA-SP students experience a range of circumstances, including but not limited to: engaging with the foster care system; experiencing homelessness, violence or neglect in their homes; having parents or guardians with severe mental illness or substance abuse; being forcibly removed from homes and families due to gender identity or sexual orientation, incarceration, or deportation. Students identify with multiple of these experiences. Program staff are not systematically tracking all the experiences that would qualify a student for SEA-SP, but they are tracking two specific categories. To date, SEA-SP serves 46 students (18.78%) who identify as current or former foster youth and 34 students (13.88%) who have been formerly-incarcerated.

In general, SEA-SP is currently serving 245 undergraduates (Mean Age = 24 years, range = 17 to 67 years). Seventy-four students are considered re-entry, these are students, 24 years-of-age or older, who are entering college for the first time or returning after a long absence. The racial/ethnic breakdown of this group includes: 144 students who identify as Latinx/Hispanic, 73 as white, 23 as multi-racial/ethnic, 18 as Asian, 10 as African American/Black, one as Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and six as undisclosed. The majority identify as women (n = 148), followed by 68 men-identified students, 24 who identified as non-binary, and five whose gender identity is unspecified. There were 22 first-year students, 25 second-years, 75 third-years, and 123 fourth-years. Approximately half the sample (n = 122) are transfer students to the university, and the majority (n = 138) are eligible for a state-wide program designed to serve students from low-income and “economically disadvantaged” backgrounds. The average retention rate for transfer students from 2010 to 2018 was 96.04%; for first-time first-year students, the average retention rate from 2008 to 2018 was 91.52%.

SEA students are initially identified through coordinated efforts between the SEA-SP and campus admissions and financial aid offices. Potential SEA-SP students are targeted for participation based on self-disclosed information on college applications (e.g., imprisonment, foster care) and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Students then have the choice of opting into the program and its services. There are students who may not be comfortable self-disclosing or may have experienced other circumstances that qualify them for the program (e.g., forcibly removed from homes and families due to gender identity or sexual orientation) that could be missed. Therefore, the program and its services are also shared widely in university welcome packages to ensure students are informed about the program and how to join. Additionally, a program coordinator, with a background in social work, regularly meets with students who have been referred by staff, faculty, other participants of the program, or have located it on their own. Students are able to join the program after an initial process with the coordinator who determines their eligibility.

SEA-SP aims to empower SEA and offer holistic opportunities aimed to promote their independence and success. The program offers academic (e.g., academic advising, priority course enrollment, peer mentoring, student study lounge), psychological (e.g., holistic and general counseling, referrals), social (e.g., social events, networking mixers), financial (e.g., guaranteed on-campus housing options, emergency funding towards basic needs), and professional (e.g., internships, work-study) support systems. This program is housed in a division focused on student success; though there are robust supports offered to minoritized students on campus, this is the only program with the explicit mission and vision to serve SEA.

A Researcher-Practitioner Approach

This project engaged a researcher-practitioner approach in order to leverage the experiential expertise of diverse members of the research team. In these collaborations, researchers and practitioners collaboratively produce, engage, and utilize rigorous research that centers on problems or issues of practice (Coburn et al., 2013). Such collaborations aim to produce research findings that inform institutional policy and practice in meaningful ways. The current collaboration spanned across two academic years (2018 − 2019 and 2019 − 2020). The team of practitioners heavily involved in SEA-SP included the director of a student transfer center and the SEA-SP program counselor. The researchers included a postdoctoral fellow and a faculty principal investigator. At the time of the study, the postdoctoral and faculty researchers were members of a student success research center focused on producing actionable research findings. Additionally, the team included an undergraduate student who was both a member of SEA-SP and a student researcher of the student success research center, offering a unique perspective as both a program participant and researcher.

The collaboration between SEA-SP and the researchers stemmed from a program need to better understand the experiences of SEA-SP members and a desire to improve program support. It was listening to student concerns, issues, and experiences that led the staff members to question whether the program and campus were truly serving student needs. This inspired an evaluation project that would be transparent and inclusive of students’ expertise as the program aimed to refine their efforts. This project was particularly important as the campus received designation as an HSI in 2015, three years before the start of the collaboration. There were increased conversations around what it meant to serve students from minoritized backgrounds on campus and increased efforts to evaluate our student success approaches.

The staff reached out to both the undergraduate scholar/researcher and the student success researchers to initiate the project. Each team member brought expert skills and knowledge to the problem under investigation. The student transfer director, SEA-SP counselor, and student guided the project intentions, ensuring the relevance of the questions to the community. The postdoctoral researcher steered the research process (e.g., supervising analyses). The undergraduate researcher brought rapport with the SEA-SP community and led all interviews. The team designed, implemented, and analyzed the interview questions. The primary authors of this paper – the postdoctoral scholar and faculty researcher – both identify as women of color from low-income, first-generation backgrounds. Their research focuses on educational equity of minoritized groups in higher education, which provided critical expertise for the project.

Participants

Ten SEA-SP scholars completed in-depth interviews. Because of the sensitivity of the population's lived experiences, we made two important considerations when recruiting the sample. First, we remained flexible and open in determining the target number of our sample and adopted an in-depth interview method that would allow us to develop a rich understanding of the lived experiences of our sample (Braun & Clarke, 2021; O'Reilly & Parker, 2013). The depth of the data collected coupled with targeting the exact population of interest to the research questions ensured that the sample was appropriate (Morse et al., 2002). Second, we did not collect demographic information to protect the confidentiality of participants’ identities. However, we did ensure that all participants were 18 years of age or older and affiliated with SEA-SP.

We also know from information shared in the interviews that there was an overrepresentation of formerly-incarcerated students in the sample. The rationale behind oversampling this population was two-fold. First, during our initial conversations as a team and based on our review of the literature, we noticed there was a paucity of research on this population. The work that was present largely focused on topics of stigma related to this lived experience (Ott & Mctier, 2020). Second, the student researcher on our team identified as belonging to this community, and given our commitment in the researcher-practitioner relationship, we made an intentional decision to include more formerly-incarcerated students. Program staff also expressed wanting to better understand this population within their program. Despite this oversampling, it is important to reinforce, again, that many of the students in SEA-SP belong to multiple communities. Though the program is not systematically tracking identification with these communities, program surveys revealed that students on average belong to at least three SEA communities. Thus, while there might be distinct experiences related to being formerly-incarcerated in our findings, such as challenging labels of stigma related to their incarcerated status (Halkovic & Greene, 2015), our findings also capture the shared experiences of SEA as they likely experience multiple, intersecting forms of adversity.

Procedure & Interview Protocol

All SEA-SP students were contacted via an email flier from the SEA-SP counselor or by word-of-mouth. In the latter case, when appropriate and relevant, the SEA-SP counselor shared information about the interviews in one-on-one sessions with scholars. Students who then wished to participate in an interview contacted the SEA-SP staff. Scholars who participated also recommended others for the study, reflecting a snowball sampling process for recruitment.

The team chose semi-structured, individual interviews as the primary method in order to gain more in-depth knowledge of the experiences of SEA on campus and to offer a safe space to share difficult experiences. Consequently, to maintain confidentiality and to facilitate rapport with interviewees, the undergraduate researcher conducted all interviews in a private setting. This approach also invited vulnerability and an opportunity to develop closeness in the conversation with participants, a critical part of reflexivity (Smith & Luke, 2021). The semi-structured format allowed for consistency across the interviews in topic areas while also resembling an informal conversation where participants and the researcher could adapt their discussion (Wengraf, 2001). The interview protocol asked participants questions about their lived experiences, including memorable experiences, challenges, and resources, within SEA-SP and on campus. The final portion of the interview asked students to make recommendations for improving SEA-SP and program support.

At the end of the interview, participants received campus resource information on mental health and basic needs support. Interviews ranged from 34 to 62 minutes. Participants received a $25 electronic gift card to a retailer for their participation. The recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a pseudonym, which all participants selected at the beginning of the interview. All procedures were approved by the university's Institutional Review Board.

Coding Procedure

The research team coded and analyzed the transcripts using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, the postdoctoral scholar and undergraduate researcher became familiar with the data. They began generating initial codes, intentionally coding perceived challenges and for instances of resilience both within SEA-SP and on campus. When generating initial codes, they gathered relevant transcript data for each code.

At this stage, the full research and staff team, except the lead faculty researcher, participated in coding. They attended biweekly and weekly meetings to begin revising the initial codes and then developing themes. After reviewing the themes and how they related to the research questions, the team began to name and define the themes. Part of our rigor in this process was drawing from multiple perspectives, including the perspectives of our student researcher and program counselor who both had insights as current and former program participants, respectively. The program counselor also offered perspectives as a current staff member. Through group discussions, the team could work through any shared or discrepant understandings of the data, and even challenge assumptions about the experiences of students in the program, especially given the diverse relationships team members had to the program (Smith & Luke, 2021).

To further ensure consistency and rigor in our coding, we then moved to establishing reliability with a focus on an iterative process of coding (Syed & Nelson, 2015). We used a third-party resolution and reconciled differences via consensus. In our third-party resolution, the postdoctoral researcher invited the faculty researcher (third-party), familiar with the project but not the data, and had her familiarize herself with the codebook and theme definitions. Applying the codebook, the postdoctoral and faculty researcher coded the entire data set independently. The data excerpts were extracted randomly and in segments to make the data more manageable to code and to prevent coder drift. After each independent coding session, the coders reconciled differences using coding consensus. Throughout the process, the postdoctoral and faculty researchers revisited and refined the codebook. Reaching consensus helped to ensure that the codes represented the data well.

Having multiple investigators read, code, and discuss the data at various time points enhanced the trustworthiness of our work (Merriam, 1998). This form of investigator triangulation allowed the team to engage in constant comparison of the data from multiple perspectives. That is, the team relied on their reflexive process, noting how differences in prior knowledge with the literature, population, and data served as both strengths and limitations to the work (Smith & Luke, 2021). For example, the faculty researcher had less expertise and experience with the data, so offering new perspectives or questions about the data excerpts offered a chance to discuss where the team's perspectives overlapped and diverged. This enabled the researchers to explore the data from different perspectives and to reach thematic saturation in our coding (Fusch & Ness, 2015).

Results

We constructed seven themes, based on their salience, to describe the challenges and resilience of SEA-SP scholars. The first three themes documented their everyday challenges, including lacking a community, feeling stigmatized by their past, and experiencing safety concerns on campus. Such challenges derive from university structures not prepared to serve students from their backgrounds (Garcia, 2019). The remaining four themes described facets of the scholars’ resilience, including how they drew from their own forms of capital (e.g., social, navigational, resistance) to navigate such challenges (Hass et al., 2014; Yosso, 2005). These included finding a sanctuary through SEA-SP, giving back by building community for others similar to them, reframing their stigmatized past experiences, and gaining personal strength on campus through their networks.

Challenges

Lacking Community

Many SEA-SP scholars expressed a need for community and reported feeling alone and isolated on campus because of their backgrounds. Jack shared this reasoning, “I was feeling really alienated on campus. Feeling like a lot of people had access to familial support and normative experiences….” Similar to Jack, scholars noted how isolating it felt coming from backgrounds that did not make it easy to build connections to their privileged peers. Roberto, for example, described the disconnect between his background and those of his classmates and by extension, the university,

That was one thing for me, not really knowing anybody who came from a similar background or anything like that. It's hard to connect with students [who] you know their parents come from a lineage of wealth and their parents are themselves PhDs and essentially, they’re rich. I was looking for a community of my own where I felt like we shared something in common.

Their past and current circumstances led students to feel different from others on campus and subsequently to search for and connect with a similar community to feel seen and validated.

Perceptions of Stigma

Scholars mentioned feeling their SEA-SP background was apparent to others, which provoked feelings of being judged or even feared. When asked whether he felt people see or treat him differently for sharing the fact he is formerly incarcerated, Jesus stated,

I think people treat me differently just when they see me… I think that's because I feel like I wear my status like a cloak. I feel like people know I’ve been locked up, people know that I’ve lived a rough life just by looking at me…. Now, maybe they don't know that I’m an [SEA-SP] scholar but I know that they think like, ‘He's been locked up. He's lived a certain kind of life.’

Jesus described his stigma as “a cloak” that he wears and, perhaps because he felt his status is apparent, reported feeling comfortable sharing his non-traditional background.

This was not the case for all scholars. Due to fears of being judged, other scholars described adjusting their behavior (e.g. mannerisms, appearance, vocabulary) to gain acceptance and prevent negative judgment. That is, scholars felt the need to code switch in order to feel less targeted or excluded (McCluney et al., 2021). For example, Armando reflected:

Yeah, there's a movie that I saw in my last Classical Soc[ial] Theory class, it was called Sorry to Bother You and they reference this thing called the ‘white voice’ and it was basically like that persona that you change up to make other people feel comfortable, And, I, after watching that movie, I realized that yeah, I do feel like I have to sound cheerier, a little bit brighter. Because…. I feel being tall and dark just carries that implication that I’m a certain way… I have to focus on being less threatening.

Students were often wary about who they trusted to disclose their SEA-SP affiliation or personal lived experiences. Their willingness to disclose ranged. Some were open about their past experiences, others only disclosed when they felt the other person would understand their circumstances. Still others, while cognizant it was part of their experience, felt their status was not something important to highlight about themselves. Regardless of their level of disclosure, students noted structural issues of stereotyping because of their appearances, especially as men of color (Day, 2006).

Safety Concerns

Finally, scholars identified safety concerns related to being profiled on campus. Jesus described being harassed by authority figures:

CSOs [Community Safety Officers], police, both on campus and off campus, both at gunpoint and not gunpoint. They all had to do with somebody thinking I’m not a student or I’m up to no good… I mean the first time I got dragged out of my car by the [campus] parking lot [was] because they thought I wasn't a student and I was driving around looking suspicious and they dragged me out at gunpoint… just for driving while being big, brown, and beautiful…. And then when I told people about it nobody cared.

Jesus pointed to a serious safety issue among the scholars, including being questioned because of their status and dealing with aggressive confrontations. Roberto had a similar unprovoked confrontation while studying,

I don't even know if it was a cop or security…. He had the flashlight out and it was dark you know… and it was late, it was like ten o’clock. I think I remember studying…and I remember not really feeling ok with going to the library yet. I was on my laptop doing some homework and kinda this security comes up, and he has his light, he's like ‘Ay are you supposed to be here?’ And I didn't even respond, I mean he got at me, like, kind of aggressive …I just didn't want to feed into it. I felt like I didn't have the time to feed into it, I was like, I got some other stuff. And I just walked past him, I just left and that was it.

Although emotionally taxing, scholars often mentioned they de-escalated the situations themselves as they worked to focus on being students over being questioned.

As part of de-escalating situations, students remained hypervigilant about their safety and appearance to avoid harassment and dangerous confrontations with authorities. For example, Armando described the need to be more cautious:

I remember standing at the base of campus. I was waiting for one of my friends…. I guess [I was] walking, trying to look like I was going somewhere, but I was really just waiting, but I didn't wanna just stand there. I guess it looked like I was loitering, so as soon as she picked me up I noticed a cop car and they had just pulled up. They got out and they were looking at us in the distance…. I don't know if I’m assuming or what not but I feel like that officer was just, like, looking at me. I guess I wasn't really combed and what not, I had an old black sweater. I know I hadn't shaved that morning so I guess I looked really baggy and stuff…ever since then I kind of made sure you know to try and keep a shave (laughs). I know it sounds really silly to say out loud now.

Underlying these encounters is the message that these scholars do not fit representations of what a college student should look like. Narrow or limiting representations can easily provoke a form of invisibility that leaves targeted groups questioning their fit and belonging on campus (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008).

Resilience

Finding a Sanctuary

For many scholars, SEA-SP was a sanctuary — an emotionally safe and welcoming place for SEA students where they found support and assistance amidst the numerous challenges they recalled. This theme captured how the non-judgmental atmosphere of SEA-SP led to a family-like environment and capacity to meet the scholars’ needs. Cassandra described the following about the program, “[I]t's definitely a space where you can feel comfortable, everybody is friendly, there's a lot of assistance and things like that. It's just a very welcoming space… I feel that's important, especially when you’re new on campus.”

The assistance and reception from the program led members to characterize their relationships to the program as one of a family or a haven for students like them. JJ shared, “[I want to] make sure we maintain the comfort and the family feel [in SEA-SP], so we can have a sanctuary of sorts on campus where we feel that we aren't being judged or anything, [where] you just feel very welcomed.” This safe space provided tangible benefits that had a large impact. As JJ added later in this interview, SEA-SP helped them “to not lose my mind while being on campus.” For Armando, SEA-SP provided the “ability to enjoy school. … [The assistance with] my housing situation and financial aid situation that lowkey saved my life not gonna lie.”

Furthermore, in SEA-SP, scholars connected with staff and peers that overcame similar circumstances and, as such, felt affirmed and validated. Jack shared, “I REALLY like my check-ins with [the SEA-SP counselor]. She's been really supportive and I think the fact that she's a peer and she's been through some similar shit with family. I think that's REALLY important.” Armando described a similar experience, “I feel like cause [the staff are] so close…they’re just all very calming and sometimes I tell them a bunch of the things that I’m going through… and they give me a reason to validate something.” A significant characteristic of finding a sanctuary was the opportunity for students to air their doubts and connect with others who understood their experiences.

Paying It Forward

Because scholars felt a strong kinship to the program that provided them with a refuge, they made efforts to give back to others in the same way and to actively develop their community. As students who have struggled to access basic needs and resources, SEA-SP scholars recognized the importance of their access to newfound resources and sharing them more broadly with others who experienced similar lived experiences. In this way, SEA-SP scholars became advocates for their community. Sophia described the importance of creating community for others, “I’ve worked here [SEA-SP] for like a year and a half, and I’ve gained that comfortability… but that's always been my concern when I was working here, was how do I make other people feel comfortable?”

Scholars gave back and found ways to build community by leveraging social (e.g., accessing their networks) and navigational (e.g., sharing their expertise, connecting others with resources) forms of capital (Yosso, 2005). Roberto described how the networks he created within the program could lead to opportunities for others, “I feel like we’re able to make these connections and introduce somebody to somebody else…. So for me that [is] about the community and being able to like give but also like not only take but give.” Macario also offered an example of how he built community by connecting others with critical resources. He shared:

What do I value most? The space…. that they allow me to help the community by feeding them… Every Thursday and Saturday, I go to Trader Joe's and I get food. It's not stolen, it's given to me. They donate it to me. On Thursdays I’ll bring it to [the transfer center], and then on Saturdays I go around the campus delivering.

Scholars made the transition from community members to community builders. They helped to enthusiastically grow the SEA-SP community and took pride in their efforts.

Reframing Past Experiences

In a mark of resilience, scholars expressed deriving strength from their adverse experiences and actively challenged deficit notions of their identities, demonstrating a form of resistant capital (Yosso, 2005). For example, Macario stated, “I’m proud. There's no shame in my game. We all have our stories and we all, we’re all different you know? So, this is who I am.” The scholars offered examples of this framing even in how they spoke about success in higher education. Jesus shared:

For the longest time I defined success as not being dead and not being locked up… because I never thought I would make it to 30 years of age, which many of us don't. But then that shifted as I got into the [university]. Being successful TO ME, is being in a position to do what we need to do for a better tomorrow. So it doesn't mean like a monetary…. it doesn't mean like I’m getting straight A's, it doesn't mean that I have the best job. It means that I’m continuing to, putting myself in positions to do the best that I can with what I got. You know, as a former homeless, as a former person who you know who has suffered and been on the streets, I know how to survive. I do have a place to live, I do have a steady income, but THAT doesn't make me successful. I think what makes me successful is my ability to use what I have to the best of my ability.

Similar to Jesus, other scholars accepted the reality of having overcome many life challenges and recognized they had more room to grow in the context of higher education. This recognition of their experience as critical capital allowed them to combat any challenges, including stigma, they might otherwise have felt (Covarrubias et al., 2022; Hass et al., 2014; Yosso, 2005).

Drawing Strength from Trusting Relationships

The final facet of resilience included the scholars’ ability to identify key folks with whom they build trust, which led to stable relationships, more confidence in themselves, and deeper capacity to cope with challenges. The Finding a Sanctuary theme focused more on the process of acceptance rather than these important outcomes. For example, Armando described how he developed a sense of security from participating in the program,

[Y]ou know how when people say ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child? … I feel that community at SEA-SP … because through them I feel like a little home base. From there I kinda grew to my little other colonies and what not and other programs in other areas of campus, and because I knew I officially belonged here, just gave me a strong vocal.

Within SEA-SP, Armando found a place of belonging through peers and mentors that provided him the confidence to branch out to other areas on campus. Jane further recounted the benefits she experienced in working as a student program coordinator for SEA-SP,

I think being a part of the core team for the SEA-SP has been very beneficial because I’ve [found] some of my closest friends…. so that actually [got me] … more involved in school which is something that I would not have done without it. I just would not [have] had the courage. So you can say that it gave me more confidence to meet other students out there who have my experiences.

Scholars also noticed how expanding their networks helped them to handle daily stressors. Armando, for example, explained, “I feel like the community that I have now, it's helping a lot more than before in the sense that I can deal with a couple more stressors because I have more people.” Connecting with others provided a foundation for creating a supportive and understanding network that buffered against challenging circumstances they encountered.

General Discussion

The current study examined the ways in which SEA navigated challenges in higher education and the factors that supported their resilience and persistence. SEA participants expressed, in interviews, experiencing ongoing psycho-social challenges with isolation, stigma, and safety on campus. Yet, the scholars cultivated resilience in concrete ways, especially with the support of SEA-SP. Within SEA-SP, they found a sanctuary on campus that provided safety from doubts, judgment, and financial burdens. SEA-SP peers and staff were a critical part of their belonging as they understood their circumstances. Scholars also discovered ways to reciprocate, where they mirrored the help they received from others by giving back in various forms. Ultimately, their emerging empowerment provided them the space and ability to use their ties and skills towards building and strengthening their community. They also reframed their backgrounds as strengths for navigating their new educational trajectories and developed new strengths (e.g., confidence, hope) through trusting connections. Research often frames SEA as the ones in need but students shared examples of their capacity to negotiate and transform challenging circumstances.

Indeed, past work has chronicled the insidiousness of stigma for SEA, threatening their belonging on campus (Halkovic & Greene, 2015; Watt et al., 2013). Yet, we further document how campus-support programs help students connect to overcome this stigma and ostracization. The focus on community resources for facilitating the resilience and persistence of SEA provides an anti-deficit approach to the study of resilience (Yosso, 2005). Not only can we highlight the strength of SEA, but we also acknowledge the role of structural support in their educational pathways, moving beyond just a simple focus on individual agency. This approach understands resilience and persistence as a dynamic process between students and systems (Hass et al., 2014).

Implications for Practice

This view of resilience is particularly important in an HSI context with a focus on servingness, or preparedness in providing necessary provisions to welcome and retain minoritized students (Garcia, 2019). Much of the research on servingness focuses on Latinx students and growing research has complicated this by understanding other intersections, such as first-generation or low-income status. Although many of these identities overlap with the SEA-SP community (i.e., the vast majority are from low-income, first-generation backgrounds, and identify as students of color), these students encounter additional barriers because of adverse experiences. Servingness frameworks have yet to consider what it means to serve SEA.

In addressing servingness for SEA, we uniquely adopted a researcher-practitioner approach (Coburn et al., 2013). With this approach, we could leverage the strengths of practitioners who brought a wealth of knowledge serving SEA, researchers who brought theoretical and methodological expertise and experience translating research into practice, and a student researcher who brought lived experience, deep connection with the SEA-SP community, and a commitment to action. This collaboration revealed that servingness for SEA includes fostering connections with others with shared invisible status, facilitating stability through relationships and basic needs, and promoting opportunities to reframe negative experiences.

A central feature of researcher-practitioner collaborations is the use of research to address problems of practice (Coburn et al., 2013). Thus, as a team, we worked to share findings (e.g., producing a research brief for staff, faculty, and administrators, delivering presentations at university and national conferences) with broader audiences to bring awareness of the experiences of SEA. The SEA-SP community also used the findings, and other collected data, to advocate for and establish a separate campus program dedicated to serving the needs of students impacted by incarceration, to expand peer mentoring programs, and to increase access to basic needs such as subsidized year-round housing on campus. Finally, we worked as a team to develop robust recommendations, grounded in student voices, for institutional practice.

Such recommendations were useful for SEA-SP and other programs serving SEA indirectly, and are useful for informing practice at other institutions with similar aims to serve SEA. First, bringing awareness to the lived realities of SEA in higher education settings is an important step in shifting practice. This awareness helps to counter the hypervisibility these students experience because of their circumstances. Such hypervisibility can reinforce stereotypical narratives or differential treatment of already marginalized groups (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). Sharing research findings, such as those of the current project, can help members of the campus community (e.g., faculty, staff, peers) better learn about the strengths and needs of SEA, and encourage these members to reduce their own prejudices and biases toward this group.

Additionally, any efforts to build a sense of connection to the broader campus community could also help ameliorate feelings of isolation among marginalized groups (Laiduc et al., 2021; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Walton & Cohen, 2007). Faculty and instructors could work to partner with programs serving SEA to build better faculty-student relationships, as these are critical for student success (Kim & Sax, 2009; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Trolian et al., 2016; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). For instance, the SEA-SP staff invited the faculty researcher for a panel on navigating college. Several faculty joined SEA-SP students for lunch and conversation, with the goal of cultivating community.

Second, the team highlighted the importance of ensuring sufficient staff resources to continue to provide holistic support to SEA. Currently, there is only one full-time staff member, the program counselor who was part of the collaboration, who oversees programming; there is also support from undergraduate interns, who play a critical role as peer mentors. Funding these existing roles and the expansion of new staff roles is necessary for strengthening support, especially for students who have difficulty finding and accessing resources on campus (Covarrubias et al., 2022). Without this support, limited program staff are often forced to take on more responsibilities to maintain the program, taking away important resources that could be focused instead on improving servingness of students (Cunningham et al., 2014).

Finally, and relatedly, given the benefits of internship opportunities for some of the SEA-SP scholars, one critical way to support students is to invest more in such opportunities on campus. Students shared how professional development activities provided a source of income, fostered critical leadership and professional skills, and helped them to build community. These skills helped students’ build confidence in their abilities and can translate well into post-college plans. This is consistent with literature demonstrating the benefits of such opportunities for college students (Celio et al., 2011), particularly those attending HSI contexts (Adamczyk et al., 2021). In general, these approaches acknowledge the importance of investing in SEA by strengthening institutional structures of support; such investment can enhance their educational pathways.

Concluding Remarks

The current research informs theory and practice on servingness of SEA, from an anti-deficit perspective. Yet we acknowledge that our project focuses on one campus-based program with limited numbers of respondents. The richness of data gathered from the voices of 10 scholars contributes to naturalistic generalizability, where illustrative examples can connect to the lived experiences of readers (Smith, 2018). But it does limit our ability to engage other types of generalizability, such as statistical-probability, that are more appropriate for large-scale quantitative research designs (Smith, 2018). Future research should employ quantitative methods to explore how the current findings generalize to other populations. For example, our interviews over-represented the experiences of formerly-incarcerated students and likely under-represented other demographic groups, given the HSI context (e.g., Black students). Thus, future work should explore the challenges and resilience of SEA in other settings (e.g., community college, Predominantly White Institutions), from other racial/ethnic backgrounds, and, if possible, with larger sample sizes. Such methodological approaches might also be adapted to understand students’ experiences across time, to better track their pathways through higher education (see Gresham & Karatekin, 2022). This includes also exploring how support programs, like SEA-SP, might facilitate success on more traditional metrics, including retention and graduation.

Still, our findings contribute novel understandings about the educational pathways of some SEA attending an HSI, especially how they navigate challenges and build networks that contribute to their resilience. We acknowledge that documenting experiences of resilience does not resolve larger structural barriers and inequalities these students experience. But this work does provide a step toward laying a foundation for developing institutional supports that can help them navigate these broader structural issues.

In translating findings from our researcher-practitioner project, we can begin to refine institutional practices in ways that are more inclusive of the lived experiences and needs of SEA. The strength of such a collaboration is that we can simultaneously inform practice through research-informed recommendations and inform theory and frameworks that detail the student experience for broader scholarly audiences. An anti-deficit approach necessarily helped us to identify the community resources and background strengths of SEA as they navigate higher education. SEA are leveraging their community strengths and past experiences to thrive in institutions still not fully prepared to serve them.