“I Want to Advocate for Our Kids”: How Community-Based Organizations Broker College Enrollment for Underrepresented Students

Abstract

This exploratory study examines the role community-based organizations have in bridging low-income students of color to postsecondary institutions. Data came from interviews with organization staff, high school students, and college students associated with three distinct community-based organizations located in a mid-size city. The findings suggest that organization staff are well-positioned in youth, academic, and community social networks. Staff become social brokers across these networks through three steps: cultivating authentic and safe relationships, lessons from students, and becoming advocates. Community-based organization staff strategically advocate for underrepresented student college enrollment and admissions by serving as social brokers between students, schools, and their communities.

Keywords

underrepresented student college access community-based organization social broker

College enrollment, persistence, and graduation are critical for the social mobility of low-income students of color. Underrepresented students gain substantial economic returns and benefits from increasing their level of education (Brand & Xie, 2010). Yet, despite increases in racial and socioeconomic diversity in postsecondary enrollment over the past two decades, these students remain underrepresented across higher education enrollment and graduation rates (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Scholarship about underrepresented student college access highlight the importance of social capital (Ahn, 2010; Cox, 2017; Farmer-Hinton, 2008; George Mwangi, 2015; Hill et al., 2014). Despite nondominant forms of capital that could elevate student success (Yosso, 2005), social capital—the resources invested and embedded in social networks—is seen as critical for college enrollment and persistence. However, low-income students of color have limited access to capital needed to enroll in higher education. To better assist students in accumulating social capital for postsecondary enrollment, research must identify how individual agents within students’ social networks shape postsecondary access.

Many minority students struggle to locate agents in their network that are familiar, and willing, to bridge them to postsecondary opportunities. They face additional barriers in utilizing parents or educators to advance their postsecondary aspirations, compared to their White and affluent counterparts. Furthermore, well-intentioned educator efforts or governmental initiatives are limited in resources, often resulting in selective assistance to only high-achieving underrepresented students. In an attempt to identify additional and inclusive underrepresented student pathways to college enrollment, this paper explores the role of additional institutional agents within youth social networks. This exploratory study examines the role community-based organizations (CBOs) have in bridging low-income students of color to social capital and selective postsecondary institutions.

To explore the relationship between community-based organization staff and underrepresented student postsecondary enrollment, I address the following questions. (1) What role do community-based organizations have within underrepresented students’ social networks? (2) How do community-based organization staff bridge low-income students of color to higher education enrollment? In this paper, I define CBOs as nonprofit organizations or social service agencies that provides services to help people access life opportunities. I study how students from three distinct CBOs incorporate CBO staff into their networks. I identify these staff as uniquely located within youth, education, and community social networks. I draw from literature on social brokerage and institutional empowerment agents to examine the processes CBO staff use to intervene in students’ social capital accumulation. This study identifies CBO staff as institutional agents that utilize their organization affiliation to intervene, mediate, and negotiate unrepresented students’ access to higher education. They engage in alternative methods to help students get admitted and enrolled in higher education. In doing so, I argue that this type of social brokerage introduces an inclusive pathway to underrepresented student college enrollment.

Barriers in Postsecondary Access

Low-income students of color experience both racial and socioeconomic barriers to receiving academic support and guidance. As racial minorities, they must navigate the negative assumptions that educators make about Black and Latinx student intelligence and academic motivations (Lewis & Diamond, 2015). Even if students attend high- or low-poverty schools, educators often have lower educational attainment perceptions of students of color (Lewis & Diamond, 2015; Mahatmya et al., 2016). These perceptions manifest themselves across teacher-student relations, with students of color feeling discouraged to seek help or establish strong relationships with their teachers (Bryan et al., 2011; Harris & Marquez Kiyama, 2013; Wong, 2010). Not having strong relationships with teachers can disadvantage their educational attainment. Studies on non-parental mentorship reveal that teachers affect access to college entrance of low-income and students of color (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2015; Fruiht & Wray-Lake, 2012). Therefore, if these students regularly experience racially antagonistic—rather than supportive—environments, they must look elsewhere for academic guidance.

Compared to their White or affluent counterparts, low-income students of color have limited access to college preparatory coursework, a factor weighted as the largest predictor of college admission (Clinedinst, 2019). Attewell and Domina’s (2008) national study found that family socioeconomic status has a high influence of determining access to college preparatory curriculum. Likewise, underrepresented students often lack awareness of advanced placement (AP) class enrollment requirements (Welton & Martinez, 2014). This disparity is furthered by the benefits both affluent and White students receive from having parental advocates. These parents are more likely to intervene in AP class enrollment, advocating and experiencing less resistance to place their child in AP classes (Lewis & Diamond, 2015; Welton & Martinez, 2014). Even if underrepresented students enroll in AP classes, their previous academic preparation can hinder their performance. Students who attended schools with large enrollment of underrepresented students share feelings of unpreparedness for rigorous coursework, which they believe to be a primary factor of low academic performance and retention in AP courses (Welton & Martinez, 2014). By having limited access to advanced or college preparatory coursework, low-income students of color are limited by the resources and classroom opportunities that could increase their chances of college admission.

Low-income students of color encounter additional barriers to academic success because they often attend under-resourced schools with limited high school counselor interaction. According to McKillip et al. (2012), high school counselors provide limited help to students because of large caseloads and competing counselor duties. Furthermore, schools with large proportions of low-income high school students have high counselor to student ratios, like one counselor for schools with 1,000 to 5,000 student populations (De La Rosa, 2006). These unbalanced, large caseloads, and competing duties limit how school counselors can work with students. McKillip et al.’s (2012) synthesis of student counselor literature demonstrated that school counselors dedicate most of their meeting time with students to providing general information, rather than providing individual guidance. Therefore, Black, Latinx, and low-income students have difficulty accessing their school counselor and receiving adequate college access guidance (Bryan et al., 2011; McKillip et al., 2012). If students have limited access to high school counselors, they must turn to additional individuals or settings for college access support.

Some students of color have turned to out-of-school intervention or supplementary academic programs to foster academic success. High performing underrepresented students can enroll in out-of-school intervention programs aimed at promoting college access or high school completion. Federally funded initiatives, like TRiO and GearUP, aim to provide academic supplemental support to low-income students to ensure high school graduation and postsecondary education enrollment. Morgan et al.’s (2014) case study found that students participating in a local GearUP program had significantly higher graduation rates, standardized test scores, and immediate college enrollment rates. Domina’s (2014) national study on merit aid programs revealed that programs that provide generous financial aid to students can increase college enrollment. However, not all intervention or supplementary academic support programs result in increased access to higher education. One study of an intervention program that provided various forms of academic support (e.g., standardized test preparation, summer academic programs, and scholarship incentives) to underrepresented students did not result in any significant differences in college enrollment among participants and non-participants (Bergin et al., 2007). While these studies suggest the importance of continued out-of-school programming, it is critical to remember that due to funding or education policies, most students who are targeted or eligible for these programs are already high-performing students. To find solutions with the potential to support diverse academic performing students, it is crucial to examine other agents within underrepresented youth’s social networks.

The Role of Social Networks and Brokerage

Social scientists and education scholars have detailed the importance of social capital and networks in relation to educational attainment. Social capital theory asserts that individuals utilize the resources invested and embedded within their networks to produce social status, transmit other forms of capital, and secure economic returns (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 2000). Yet, members of social networks have differential access to capital. Granovetter (1973) introduced how social networks are composed of strong and weak interpersonal ties that are influenced by the amount of time, emotional involvement, and reciprocity within a relationship. Having strong ties preserves social capital among largely homogenous social networks (Lin, 2000). This preservation of capital benefits members of middle-class social networks, but disadvantages members of minority groups, like low-income people of color because they have limited access to social capital needed for social mobility. To disrupt this social stratification process, scholars have explored how individual actors can bridge capital across different social networks.

Social capital brokerage literature describes processes of information or resource transactions among multiple social actors. Social brokers are individuals who establish an indirect relation between two or more actors (Gould & Fernandez, 1989). Gould and Fernandez’s (1989) brokerage typology specified that social brokers bridge, negotiate, inform, or facilitate resource flows between two other actors. Of note, liaison brokers contribute to resource flows between multiple actors as an outsider to both the initiator and receiver of the transaction (Gould & Fernandez, 1989). Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2011) work on low-income racial minority student socialization expanded social brokerage literature by describing how institutional agents can bridge minority populations to highly-valued, dominant social capital. Institutional agents, or people in positions of high-status or authority that facilitate the transmission of dominant forms of capital, strategically support minority youth to navigate dominant spaces (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). They can serve as brokers by negotiating agreements on behalf of individual students.

Social network locations and capital of institutional agents who help students gain access to college warrant further study. Ahn’s (2010) study on the social networks of college mentors revealed that mentors can be located either centrally in networks that contain multiple institutional agents or at the periphery of these networks. If agents are located centrally in networks with multiple institutional agents, the students they mentor or help can benefit immensely because they can rapidly increase the transmission of social capital to underrepresented students (Ahn, 2010). Alternatively, agents located in the periphery of these networks can limit the transmission of social capital to students (Ahn, 2010). Institutional agents that fulfill a broker role are well-positioned to bridge students to social capital for academic success because they are often centered in networks with ties to education institutions and the local community. Studies that examine institutional agents in the lives of low-income and students of color support the argument of their pivotal role in underrepresented youth’s academic or personal success (Harris & Marquez Kiyama, 2013; Wong, 2008, 2010).

Some scholars identify community members or organization staff as institutional agents that contribute to underrepresented student success. According to Stanton-Salazar (2011), institutional agents (1) aim to empower low-status youth, (2) have a critical understanding of the positive relationship between the success of students and institutional support, (3) are willing to resist established hierarchies that only award high-achieving students, and (4) distinguish themselves as advocates of marginalized students (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Community members and organizations can establish culturally relevant spaces that foster underrepresented student academic success through guidance, trusting relationships, and safe spaces (Harris & Marquez Kiyama, 2013; Miller, 2011; Wong, 2008, 2010). Harris and Marquez Kiyama (2013) found that community-partners from local nonprofits, academic support programs, and community-school members established confianza, or mutual trust, with Latinx high school students. These students perceived the community-program staff as family members that they could approach about academic, emotional, or cultural support; a bond that helped them persist in high school (Harris & Marquez Kiyama, 2013). Similarly, Wong (2010) demonstrated that staff from a community-based youth center created a physical and metaphorical safe space for low-income Asian American immigrant children. Students benefited emotionally and academically from the youth center’s staff who checked-in regularly with students, showed respect and trust, and developed a space that celebrated students’ ethnic identities and experiences. As a result, students engaged with the community-based youth center’s academic programming of ESL courses, tutoring, and college application workshops or support (Wong, 2008, 2010). These studies suggest that community-based organization agents have the potential to serve as institutional agents that empower underrepresented youth. However, scholars have not fully explored the connection between these community-based forms of empowerment and academic success. This exploratory study addresses this need in scholarship by examining how institutional agents engage in processes of social brokerage to help low-income students of color access higher education.

Methods and Context

Data for this article come from in-depth semi-structured interviews and a focus group from a larger study on how community-based organizations (CBOs) help low-income students of color access higher education. Data collection consisted of in-depth semi-structured interviews, a document analysis, and a focus group, collected over the course of 3 months. I used a convenience sample of nine participants affiliated with three distinct community-based organizations. This included four staff member participants, two high school student participants, and two college student participants. Three of the staff members identified as White and middle-class, and one identified as multi-racial and low-income. All student participants were women or girls, with two identifying as Black and the other two as Latinx. During the interviews and focus group, the staff members and high school students reflected on their current experiences with the organizations and the college students reflected on their former experiences with the CBOs. The interviews lasted between 34 and 63 minutes. Data analysis included two rounds of coding, from gathering initial themes to identifying the most noticeable themes in the individual and group transcripts.

The study was conducted with three community-based organizations, located in a mid-size city in the Midwest. Within the past decade, the city experienced economic growth, a substantial growth in Latinx residents, and an expansion of public and private postsecondary institutions within the city’s metropolitan area. I used convenience sampling methods to identify three CBOs that served low-income youth of color to participate in the study. One organization, the DSC, is a CBO that aims to fulfill the unmet needs of a local Latinx population through housing, education, translation, immigration, and social services. The DSC’s youth department provided direct services to help youth meet their education, employment, and personal goals. It largely served low-income Latinx and immigrant youth between the ages of 14 and 24. Another organization, the YDO, is an out-of-school CBO aimed at youth development. It largely served low-income Latinx and Black youth between the ages of 6 and 18. The CMC is a community coalition between a community-based organization and local schools aimed at preparing and providing postsecondary scholarship funds to local students. The CMC partnership organization funded an employee, Ashley, to work directly in a local high school to provide direct services and programming to help students access postsecondary education opportunities. Ashley largely worked with first-generation, low-income Latinx, and Black students.

Findings and Discussion

The interview data highlighted a social brokerage process involving youth, staff, and schools or colleges. I describe this process through three themes or steps: cultivating authentic and safe relationships, lessons from students, and becoming advocates. The first theme confirmed scholarship about youth, trust, and empowering relationships. Current and former student participants spoke at length about their interpersonal relationships with staff, indicating how staff intentionally cultivated safe spaces and authentic, empowering relationships with youth. The second theme demonstrates how these strong bonds resulted in vulnerable disclosures from the students. The students expressed agency by choosing to share the personal circumstances, which expanded CBO staff awareness of the structural barriers affecting low-income student of color success. The third theme describes how CBO staff become social brokers by using this newfound knowledge to intervene in college preparation and admission processes. In doing this, CBO staff become advocates of low-income students of color. Together, these three themes outline a process on how CBO staff become institutional agents that serve as social brokers between underrepresented students and educational institutions.

Cultivating Authentic and Safe Relationships

Cultivating trusting and authentic relationships with students resulted in higher youth participation and engagement with CBO staff interactions and out-of-school programming. Student participants spoke in length about their interpersonal relationships with the CBO staff. Current and former student participants shared that CBO staff made individual efforts to connect with them. Students valued these relationships because CBO staff treated them with respect and individualized support. Christine, a college student participant, reflected on her experiences with the YDO. She described the mutual initial shock she and her peers experienced when they realized how caring the YDO staff was to them. “Some of the students would be like, ‘you really care like that?’ . . .You could really tell they wanted to be here and work with you.” When asked how she felt about this level of care, she reflected by stating the following.

I always thought it was cool, just different to go somewhere where all the workers would accept you, talk to you about anything. They wouldn’t really say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about, it didn’t matter.” They always made me feel like everything I said was important. (Christine, personal communication, 2018)

Like Christine, other student participants felt accepted as members of a CBO. Students felt comfortable engaging with the CBOs as their whole selves. For instance, Flower, a current student involved with the YDO, was amazed by how comfortable she felt interacting with staff. To Flower, the YDO staff were her friends: people who listened, not judged, what she had to say.

I feel like the staff are more like friends to me than just the staff of the [YDO]. Like friends. You could talk to them like you could really tell your whole day and they will just listen to you. You even tell them simple jokes and they will listen to you, laugh about it and they try to engage with us. Basically, they try to be like our age sometimes, they just hang around and ask what’s going on. (Flower, personal communication, 2018)

CBO staff could empower low-income students of color by establishing individual bonds with students through regular communication, trust, and care. Students described CBO staff as encouraging of their future endeavors. They felt empowered. One student, Maria, shared how Ashley from the CMC was particularly essential in encouraging her to believe she could go to college.

I guess it was just [Ashley] personally. She would believe in me. She knew that I could be at a university. I guess that it’s just the way she would look at me. She would believe in me. I don’t know how else to say that. . .So it’s like I had somebody that knows I can do it because she sees it in me. [Now] I know I can do that. (Maria, personal communication, 2018)

Similar to Wong’s (2008) findings about youth interactions with staff at a community-based youth center, it was evident that CBO staff were invested in building strong relationships with the students. The experiences of students like Christine, Flower, and Maria demonstrate that staff were interested and attentive to students, regardless of the conversation topic. Regular communication helped students and staff develop strong, trusting relationships with one another (Wong, 2008, 2010). The trusting relationships established CBO staff as caring adults within students’ social networks and opened the possibility of building a strong tie with CBO personnel outside family, peer, or education networks. Having heterogeneity within students’ social networks can have positive implications for youth, like informal mentorship that results in college acceptance and completion (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2015; Fruiht & Wray-Lake, 2012). These relationships also promote trust with nonparent adults, which can increase youth help-seeking (Hagler, 2018).

Furthermore, students could exercise agency in developing, sustaining, or terminating their engagement with the CBOs. While all three organizations implemented formal programming for youth, staff shared that most of the time, students could opt in or out of their CBO participation. The students interviewed in this study all took the initiative to regularly check in with staff as high school and college students. Of note, Maria shared that she sustained her relationship with Ashley beyond high school by seeking out help during the summer before her first semester in college. Later, Maria volunteered to share her college experiences with the CMC’s current students. Unlike relationships with parents and education personnel, relationships with CBO staff were unique because students could choose to develop or terminate these relationships without informal or formal sanctions. The combined self-initiated and regular contact with CBO staff suggests that students developed their help-seeking behavior and confidence. Their continued engagement helped strengthen their ties with CBO staff, which resulted in continued resource and information flows, as well as individualized student support.

Lessons from Students

As students and staff continued to develop strong relationships, CBO staff developed an increased awareness of the structural inequalities and personal barriers that impact low-income students of color. The staff in this study possessed diverse forms of knowledge about students through their education, previous work experience, or their own lived experiences. Despite their initial levels of awareness, staff were challenged to reassess their assumptions about the barriers and gaps in student knowledge that affect college access. For example, Ashley, a White-middle class woman, initially believed that all students understood college and financial aid application jargon when she first started working for the CMC because of her own experience and family knowledge. Additionally, Amy, a working-class Latina, initially made assumptions about what college information students needed to make college-choice decisions. Both staff members redirected their efforts as soon as they noticed trends in their interactions with students. As staff continued to form bonds with students, the students disclosed the issues most affecting them. As Marissa described the process, “We get to know [the students]. That’s how we learn, we learn from communicating with them.”

CBO staff recalled student difficulties with structural forms of inequality, including race, economic, and immigration issues. Staff participants presented these issues as structural barriers affecting student engagement with postsecondary exploration. For instance, Ashley acknowledged the emotional turmoil students encounter because of their combined undocumented and low-income status in the U.S.

I mean, just last year, I sat and cried in my office with a student who was asking me if he should go to school or go back to his country—or go to school, or work. Because if he went to school, he was worried that [it] would increase his chances of getting caught and being deported. And if he worked, well then at least he would have some money that he could take with him if he were deported. (Ashley, personal communication, 2018)

In sharing this experience, Ashley recognized the difficult choices undocumented, low-income students grappled with because of systems outside of their control. Ashley’s interview responses suggested that similar immigration issues affected a proportion of the students she worked with. She witnessed first-hand the consequences that undocumented students, or undocumented family members, grappled with in the U.S. Recognizing this structural barrier is important because having undocumented status, or having a parent with this status, in the U.S. often limits the types of financial aid students can access for postsecondary study. This legal status also has negative implications for student residency classification or postsecondary decision-making.

In addition to developing an awareness of immigration-related barriers to postsecondary enrollment, CBO staff learned about the day-to-day racialization and economic barriers minority students encountered. Chase shared a memory when students reminded him of the gendered racialization of Black boys.

We have a lot of especially African American males who I’ll say [to], “What do you want to do when you’re 18?” And they are like, “Well, if I’m alive when I’m 18.” That just gives me pause to step back and go, “Wow. I can’t even imagine being 15 and thinking if I’m alive when I’m 18.” That’s where they are starting from. (Chase, personal communication, 2018)

Chase learned that the experiences of Black and Latinx youth that the YDO served were also complicated by economic disparities. He noted these circumstances as having the following impact.

They want to get out of their neighborhood, or the “hood” they’ll call it. But they want to get out. But then they also feel guilty to do that. To leave people behind or they feel immense responsibility to become successful so that they can take care of their entire family and raise their entire family out of poverty. . .there is just a lot that I think low income kids of color are dealing with. That’s traumatic and it’s stressful. And it’s very unique to them. (Chase, personal communication, 2018)

These lessons about structural inequality prompted Chase to investigate further. He demonstrated his accumulated knowledge by referencing descriptive statistics of minority youth access to support services and employment. He also pointed out how important it was to call attention to these barriers that stakeholders sometimes forget about when developing youth support services.

By establishing caring and trusting relationships with students, CBO staff gained access to intimate life details and student knowledge. This often included the structural barriers impacting low-income, student of color academic success. As staff continued to build these relationships with multiple students, they identified shared trends across the students they served. CBO staff recognized that low-income students of color had additional postsecondary barriers that are not captured in dominant college preparatory frameworks. Not only did these barriers shape engagement with coursework and classroom performance, they also resulted in economic or personal consequences. Recognizing these additional barriers demonstrate how CBO staff can be institutional agents that possess an awareness of the marginalization of low-income students of color (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). They recognized that the youth they largely served needed additional institutional support to be successful in meeting their future goals (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). As the results of the next section describe in detail, CBO staff members in this study took it upon themselves to resist these structural inequities by distinguishing themselves as advocates for their students and serving as social brokers.

Becoming Advocates: CBO Staff as Social Brokers

Paired with the knowledge of structural inequalities affecting underrepresented students, CBO staff are well positioned to bridge students to postsecondary institutions. Rather than only providing college information to students, CBO staff served as social brokers between students, postsecondary institutions, educators, and student families. Instances of social brokerage included advocating for students with weak college profiles, mediating conversations with educators or gatekeepers, and negotiating access to diverse, beneficial racial, and economic networks. These findings establish CBO staff as strategic social brokers that advocate for the educational success of low-income students of color.

Staff participants had an active role in their students’ college application process. Although each CBO’s objective differed from one another, all participants expressed that the organizations shared information about colleges and financial aid to students. CBO staff would use college guides, websites, and workshops to inform students of their postsecondary options and understanding. Some students received individual attention from staff to understand college and financial jargon, as well as assistance in filling out forms. College student participants reflected on individual advising sessions with CBO staff to help make college decisions, where they gathered information about college. These examples demonstrate that CBO staff possessed college knowledge needed to access higher education and willingly advised individual students to help make postsecondary decisions. While students largely talked about the information gathered from CBO programming and individual college advising from staff, it was also evident that CBO staff strategically intervened in negotiating relationships and opportunities on behalf of students. As Kiara, an African American alumni participant described this mediation, “I feel like [Ashley] was kind of like that guide in the middle that pushed to actually get me going.”

CBO staff recalled instances where they would advocate, or negotiate, on behalf of students with educators and education personnel. Whereas White and affluent students likely have parents advocating on their behalf for higher grades or access to beneficial academic opportunities (Lewis & Diamond, 2015), low-income students of color often have difficulties accessing the same support because of additional parental responsibilities (e.g., work constraints; Wong, 2008). Yet, CBO staff actively advocated on behalf of students by bridging conversations with education personnel. Amy recalled instances where she would assist in mediating difficult conversations with educators and students. She described the process as the following.

If I have a student that comes in. . .they’re having a misunderstanding or something with the professor. Even a teacher, if they’re in high school, I’d sit down with the student. We go over what’s happening. And then, depending on how that’s affecting them academically, if their grades are really declining, I send out an email to the teacher, just tell them that I’d just had a conversation with the student and just break down that conversation with them and ask them to see if we can sit down and have a conversation, the three of us, so that we can figure out what’s really happening there. How all of us can try to address it, and make sure to fix it, so that it’s not affecting the student. (Amy, personal communication, 2018)

Amy recognized that opening a conversation between students and educators could benefit students dealing with poor academic performance. Her approach to the situation provided students with agency to describe their personal account of the situation. This also allowed her to assess if the situation warranted intervention. By offering to mediate a conversation on a student’s behalf, Amy removed the discomfort that low-income students often have toward help-seeking or not feeling “entitled” to receive help (Lareau, 2015). Furthermore, this strategy helps reduce the unspoken disparities that White or affluent families already engage in by intervening in education personnel-student relationships (Lewis & Diamond, 2015; Welton & Martinez, 2014).

Similarly, Ashley negotiated social ties with college admissions personnel that students often do not directly interact with. When asked how she helped students access higher education, she shared the following.

I like to think that I’m advocating for my students every day. Whether it’s being in communication with admissions reps that are requesting more information about a student, and you know, being honest about if I think that student’s a good fit and can do well there, but maybe they didn’t score well on their SAT. I’m gonna advocate for that student and say that the qualities I see in them as a good student. (Ashley, personal communication, 2018)

Ashley’s communication with student admission representatives demonstrates her efforts to intervene in the reproduction of education disparities that privilege students with high academic profiles. Rather than risking the denial of a student because of a weak academic profile, Ashley actively facilitated conversations with admission representatives to advocate on behalf of her students. By having these conversations, Ashley brought attention to the non-academic circumstances that could result in lower grades, compared to underrepresented students’ White and affluent counterparts. Yet, rather than centering a deficient or sympathetic approach, Ashley was willing to take on a strengths-based approached by sharing the qualities that made her student(s) “a good student.” This intervention is helpful because low-income students of color are often first-generation students that are unaware or under-exposed to the unwritten rules of higher education access. Not possessing this knowledge could result in weak college essays or application materials that do not highlight the non-dominant forms of capital marginalized populations possess, like resistance and aspirational capital (Yosso, 2005); resulting in further disparities in higher education enrollment.

CBO staff also utilized their institutional networks and organization resources to negotiate access to diverse, beneficial racial, and economic networks. Of note, staff created job or internship pathways that assisted with college tuition or directly connected students to higher education employees. For instance, Ashley used her social network to get Maria a high school internship at a bank after Maria expressed interest in the banking sector. This internship led to a high paying, permanent bank position after Maria graduated from high school. During her interview, Maria expressed that this job also offered tuition remittance, which she was exploring. This example of using a direct connection to pair students with highly-valued opportunities reinforces the importance of examining the social networks of institutional agents (Ahn, 2010). Moreover, the DSC youth department oversaw a youth employment program that placed students in competitive, paid summer or year-round internships—including placements in local college or university departments. Having access to these higher education employees could help students accumulate knowledge and expand their networks to include additional institutional agents within colleges. Notably, these formalized pathways were intentionally cultivated to address gaps in economic disparities, cultural capital, and social capital. At the time of the interview, Chase was working to establish a youth employment program for the YDO. Across all CBOs, staff members noted that jobs and internships could help students gain access to higher education by expanding their social networks, appealing to college representatives, gaining highly-valued work skills, and increasing students’ income.

The exploratory findings from this research suggest that CBO staff were not merely social brokers who negotiated resources or information on behalf of students. Instead, CBO staff are institutional agents that possess knowledge about the structural inequalities that impact student access to college entrance. CBO staff are social brokers and institutional agents, but they are also community-based advocates for low-income students of color. Chase described his experiences yearning to be an advocate for his students as the following.

I want to advocate for our kids. Again, we’re understanding that a lot of our kids are not operating from a level playing field. And a lot of people only see the world through the perspective of their own experience. And they might say something like, “well that’s only 30 dollars a week. Why is that a problem?” And I’m trying to advocate [by] saying, “for some families, $– a month for something would be a huge expense and a huge barrier.” So, I’m trying to help people understand that we need to be intentional to give everybody access. (Chase, personal communication, 2018)

Chase, like the other CBO staff participants in this study, are invested in the success of all students. They invested their time and patience toward establishing authentic and trusting relationships with low-income students of color. They learned directly from students about the structural inequalities that students face within and outside education settings. Equipped with this structural knowledge, CBO staff are well-positioned within multiple networks afforded to them because of their ties to students, the local community, schools and postsecondary institutions, and organizational networks. This was evident in their outreach to external stakeholders and educators, despite concerns about CBO funding. Chase shared his knowledge and YDO data at youth service coalition meetings and policy summits. Ashley organized meetings with out-of-school intervention or supplementary academic programs that interacted with the CMC student community. The DSC established formal partnerships with local school districts and nonprofit organizations. These examples suggest that CBO staff can be institutional agents that continue to directly impact the individual educational trajectories of underrepresented students by intervening and mediating the ties between students and the institutions affecting their postsecondary access. As advocates, they challenge ongoing racial and economic educational disparities in postsecondary entrance and continue to educate stakeholders of the lived experiences of minority youth.

Implications for Underrepresented Student College Access

This exploratory study introduces CBO staff as unique advocates that engage in social broker processes on behalf of underrepresented students. Students take an active role in expanding and shaping their networks to include CBO personnel. CBO staff and students invest in cultivating authentic relationships outside of a family and education context. The students contribute to staff knowledge and understanding of marginalized youth experiences by sharing the intimate details of their own lives. This knowledge and ongoing, trusting relationships are necessary processes for staff to build their knowledge about low-income students of color. In this study, the information staff gather from youth is generalized to understand racial, economic, and immigration structural inequalities that affect student academic success. CBOs utilize this general understanding to inform their future work with low-income students of color.

The findings from this study suggest that CBOs are aware of the indirect support and resources that low-income students of color need to get to the college application and admission stage. CBOs focus on alternative methods to help students gain access to higher education. These methods often contradict the latent forms of gatekeeping prevalent across education institutions. CBOs challenge the effects of antagonistic educational environments by strategically cultivating safe spaces that students are willing to visit. Together, students and staff establish supportive social networks that minimize bureaucratic forms of resource gatekeeping. Rather than pushing students toward college preparatory course work and school counselors, CBO staff mediate conversations with educators and admissions staff by educating them about the structural influences affecting student academic performance. In addition, CBO staff shape student information or resource flows through college guides, websites, workshops, and individual advising. CBOs also develop students’ social capital through job placements within higher education networks. Lastly, CBO staff push against the narrative of only distributing resources to high-achieving students through advocacy work external community stakeholders. Together, this work establishes CBO staff as key institutional agents and advocates on behalf of low-income students of color. I recommend that schools and colleges should partner with CBOs to facilitate future college preparation and admission of traditionally underrepresented students.

Collaborations between CBOs and high schools or colleges have the potential to reach additional students who encounter barriers in social capital accumulation. This study introduced the unique exposure and relationships CBOs have to the lives of low-income students of color. This study suggests that CBO staff possess knowledge about the structural influences that shape how students engage in academic and college application processes. CBOs could mediate the difficult conversations students feel conflicted about sharing with education personnel. Mediation could take place as individual conversations, such as those made by Amy with teachers and faculty. Moreover, mediation could be CBO staff informing educators of non-identifiable circumstances that affect multiple students within the communities they serve, such as fear or limitations established by immigration status. By allowing CBO staff to advocate on behalf of students, education personnel can adjust policies and practices to be more inclusive of how they reach out and support low-income students access to higher education. Lastly, partnerships with colleges, can address the financial or infrastructural barriers that CBOs shared as limitations to their work.

While this exploratory study is an example of how CBOs can be critical for underrepresented student college preparation and enrollment, we need additional research about the relationship between community-based organizations and student postsecondary access. Additional studies should assess CBO staff knowledge about college knowledge and admissions to ensure that students receive similar information that they would get from a high school or college admissions counselor. Additional studies should identify the outreach thresholds of CBOs. Furthermore, studies should expand research to an inclusive college access framework. This study only examines the role of CBOs in getting to the admissions and enrollment college stage. However, to have a comprehensive understanding of college access, future studies must identify the institutional agents that cultivate cultural and social capital necessary for college persistence and graduation. Although this study is exploratory, the findings warrant future scholarship about low-income students of color, social brokerage, and college access.

Conclusion

Community-based organizations like the CMC, YDO, and DSC offer low-income students of color opportunities to implement agency and enhance their chances in selective college enrollment. Although parents and educators will continue to serve as primary agents within underrepresented student experiences, CBOs advance individual opportunities for college admissions and enrollment. By being committed to the success of largely underrepresented populations, facilitated through relationship-building and social brokerage processes, CBO staff are well positioned to assist individual students with their future aspirations. CBO staff address a disparity in access to social capital for postsecondary access that affects low-income students of color. They bridge students to multiple social networks and institutional resources through their mediation and negotiation efforts. Therefore, practitioners and scholars should identify CBOs as collaborators and advocates in challenging the underrepresentation of low-income students of color in higher education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Irma Y. Ramirez

Author Biography

Irma Y. Ramirez is a sociology doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her work concentrates on race and ethnicity, migration, and organizational studies of higher education.

References

Ahn

(2010). The role of social network locations in the college access mentoring of urban youth. Education and Urban Society, 42(7), 839–859.

Ashtiani

Feliciano

(2015). Access and mobilization: How social capital relates to low income Postsecondary Educational (PSE) attainment. Youth & Society, 50(4), 439–461.

Attewell

Domina

(2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51–71.

Bergin

D. A.

Cooks

H. C.

Bergin

C. C.

(2007). Effects of a college access program for youth underrepresented in higher education: A randomized experiment. Research in Higher Education, 48(6), 727–750.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

J. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Brand

J. E.

Xie

(2010). Who benefits most from college?: Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneous economic returns to higher education. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 273–302.

Bryan

Moore-Thomas

Day-Vines

N. L.

Holcomb-McCoy

(2011). School counselors as social capital: The effects of high school college counseling on college application rates. Journal of Counseling and Development, 89(2), 190–199.

Clinedinst

(2019). State of college admission report. National Association for College Admission Counseling. https://www.nacacnet.org/soca

Cox

A. B.

(2017). Cohorts, “siblings,” and mentors: Organizational structures and the creation of social capital. Sociology of Education, 90(1), 47–63.

10.

Domina

(2014). Does merit aid program design matter?: A cross-cohort analysis. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 1–26.

11.

De La Rosa

(2006). Is opportunity knocking?: Low-income students’ perceptions of college and financial aid. The American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1670–1686.

12.

Farmer-Hinton

R. L.

(2008). Social capital and college planning: Students of color using school networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 127–157.

13.

Fruiht

V.M.

Wray-Lake

(2012). The role of mentor type and timing in predicting educational attainment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1459–1472.

14.

George Mwangi

C. A

. (2015). (Re)examining the role of family and community in college access and choice: A metasynthesis. The Review of Higher Education, 39(1), 123–151.

15.

Gould

R. V.

Fernandez

R. M.

(1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.

16.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

17.

Hagler

(2018). Processes of natural mentoring that promote underrepresented students’ educational attainment: A theoretical model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(1–2), 150–162.

18.

Harris

D. M.

Marquez Kiyama

(2013). The role of school and community-based programs in aiding Latina/o high school persistence. Education and Urban Society, 47(2), 182–206.

19.

Hill

L. D.

Bregman

Andrade

(2014). Social capital for college: Network composition and access to selective institutions among urban high school students. Urban Education, 50(3), 316–345.

20.

Lareau

(2015). Cultural knowledge and social inequality. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 1–27.

21.

Lewis

A. E.

Diamond

J. B.

(2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. Oxford University Press.

22.

Lin

(2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785–795.

23.

Mahatmya

Lohman

B. J.

Brown

E. L

Conway-turner

(2016). The role of race and teachers’ cultural awareness in predicting low-income, Black and Hispanic students’ perceptions of educational attainment. Social Psychology of Education, 19(2), 427–449.

24.

McKillip

Rawls

Barry

(2012). Improving college access: A review of research on the role of high school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 16(1), 49–58.

25.

Miller

P. M.

(2011). Community-based education and social capital in an urban afterschool program. Education and Urban Society, 44(1), 35–60.

26.

Morgan

Sinatra

Eschenauer

(2014). A comprehensive partnershp approach increasing high school graduation rates and college enrollment of urban economically disadvantaged youth. Education and Urban Society, 47(5), 596–620.

27.

Stanton-Salazar

R. D.

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

28.

Stanton-Salazar

R. D.

(2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1066–1109.

29.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019-144). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594978

30.

Welton

A. D.

Martinez

M. A.

(2014). Coloring the college pathway: A more culturally responsive approach to college readiness and access for students of color in secondary schools. The Urban Review, 46(2), 197–223.

31.

Wong

N. A.

(2008). “They see us as resource”: The role of a community-based youth center in supporting the academic lives of low-income Chinese American youth. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 39(2), 181–204.

32.

Wong

N. A.

(2010). “Cuz they care about the people who goes there”: The multiple roles of a community-based youth center in providing “youth (comm)unity” for low-income Chinese American youth”. Urban Education, 45(5), 708–739.

33.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.