Examining Servingness at California Community College Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) for LGBTQ+ Latinx Students

Yolanda Cataño

San Diego State University

Ángel Gonzalez

San Diego State University 

ABSTRACT

Literature around Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) has been on a steady increase with a focus on racialized experiences, servingness, and outcomes. Yet, much of the research is situated within the four-year higher education context. Recently, scholarship around HSI community colleges has emerged and near to none has explicitly centered LGBTQ+ Latinx students. This content analysis study examines HSI policy implementation in the San Diego region through a critical policy analysis, multidimensional conceptual understanding of servingness, and queer theory lens. Recommendations for policy and practice on how current servingness can be inclusive of LGBTQ+ Latinx students are provided.

INTRODUCTION:

Latinx[1] student enrollment at community colleges continues to increase (Hagedorn et al., 2007) with California at the forefront of demographic shifts.  In conjunction with such student enrollment changes is the emergence of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) (Excelencia in Education, 2020). According to Excelencia in Education (2020), California serves 163 HSIs and 98 of those are two-year public institutions (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). As California Community Colleges (CCC) continue to diversify (students, staff, faculty, and administrators), equity gaps persist across disproportionately impacted students, including Latinx students. In 2015, Latinx (44%) and Black (6%) community college students made up the majority of first-time students enrolled (Latinx 70% and Black 65%) in college in the state (California Community College Chancellor’s Office Datamart [CCCCO Datamart], 2021; Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015). When higher education attempts to address diversification beyond race and ethnicity, the data are limited. Of particular interest is noting how many LGBTQ+[2] students are enrolled at California community colleges. Until more recently, summer 2019, the California Community College application portal, CCC apply did not collect LGBTQ+ data for incoming students. From summer 2019 to last fall 2020, there were 111 students enrolled at California community colleges who self-identified as non-binary and Hispanic (CCCCO Datamart, 2021). Which leads to question, how are they being served and what about those Latinx students who are also queer?

Across HSI community colleges in California there continues to be a lack of support for Latinx and LGBTQ+ students (Gonzalez & Cataño, 2020). There is a need for recommendations at a national, state, and institutional level for policy implementation to support queer college students of color (Duran & Perez, 2017). This study situates policy actors (i.e., grant managers, grant writers, administrative leaders, faculty, and professional staff) as key players in shifting the narrative and practices of HSIs to include LGBTQ+ Latinx community college students in servingness. Thus, it is important to deconstruct and reform HSI policy to support the multiplicity of identities that Latinx students hold, particularly for LGBTQ+ students. To better inform practices in servingness, this study will refer to the community colleges who have both received HSI status and received grant funding at their respective colleges as HSI policy. The competitive grants assist HSIs in the expansion and enhancement of academic offerings, program quality, and institutional stability. Therefore, this study is guided by the following questions:

1. In what way are HSI California community colleges using grant funds as an opportunity to address educational inequities facing LGBTQ+ Latinx students?

   1. What institutional indicators and structures of “servingness”[3] have been identified in support of LGBTQ+ and Latinx students?

   2. In what ways were LGBTQ+ and Latinx students explicitly addressed in the grant goals and activities articulated?

This study asserts that these questions will offer perspective into the ways HSIs are being inclusive of their LGBTQ+ Latinx students, either explicitly or continuing to unintentionally exclude a vital student population.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Scholarship around LGTBQ+ Latinx students continues to be scarce (Duran, 2018) and further non-existent within the community college arena.  As such, this study will delve into three main topics regarding inequities related to policies and implementation. In order to examine “servingness”, this study looks at Latinx/a/o students at community colleges, HSI policy, and defining “servingness” to comprehend the need to expand servingness to include LGBTQ+ Latinx students. This paper will provide an overview of the current demographic landscape at community colleges broadly and relative to our study, including stating what HSI policy does for two-year public institutions. There is limited information on community college HSIs beyond a racialized perspective, thus this paper will discuss the inclusion of the multiplicity of identities in conjunction with the continuous development of the servingness aspect of HSIs.

Latinx/a/o students at Community Colleges

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), enrollment increased 29 percent at two-year institutions over the last 10 years, from 5.9 million to 7.7 million students. Although Latinx/a/o students are overrepresented in enrollment, their representation is not mirrored among completion rates, with a significant amount stuck in the “cyclical trap” of developmental education (Felix et al., 2018). Given this, when examining the number of students who successfully transferred to four-year institutions in the San Diego region, the latest cohort data (cohort 2012-2013) noted only 41 Hispanic[4] students out of 1,625 successfully transferred to a four-year university within two years (CCCCO Datamart, 2021). This represents a 2.5% transfer rate among Hispanic community college students; therefore, demonstrating the ways Latinx/a/o students are highly represented in enrollment and underrepresented in the latter (Contreras & Contreras, 2015). The context around who enrolls, is retained, and completes college serves as an urgent call for HSIs to deliver equitable outcomes for Latinx/a/o students. The barrier remains however, in the lack of data collection mechanisms in place that allow for disaggregation as it pertains to sexual orientation.

Visibility, validation, and safety of LGBTQ+ identities are still something missing in higher education, especially at community colleges (Rankin, 2005; Rankin et al., 2010; Renn, 2010; Zamani-Gallaher & Choudhuri, 2011). Such lack of spaces for students to feel valued, safe, and seen impact LGBTQ+ students’ sense of belonging and academic success (Garvey & Rankin, 2015; Garvey et al., 2015; Strayhorn, 2012; Yost & Gilmore, 2011). Additionally, these concerns highlighted by scholars, are exacerbated for queer students of color (QSOC) as they must navigate their racial and ethnic identity at the intersections of their LGBTQ+ identity, causing dual identity distress given their multiple minoritized identities (Duran, 2019). Therefore, to better understand how LGBTQ+ Latinx students benefit or not from HSI policy, it is crucial to examine how HSI servingness is practiced. Because policy is often written through a color evasive approach (Annamma et al., 2017) without clear requirements or guidelines, such as the implementation process (Nienhusser, 2013), the vagueness allows for those who are policy implementers to inform how the policy is carried out.

HSI Policy

In accordance with the United States Department of Education (DOE), the federal government defines HSIs as non-profit, degree-granting postsecondary institutions that enroll at least 25% of both low-income and Latinx full-time (FTE) students and also meet low-income student levels (Santiago, 2006). The Higher Education Act (HEA) defines HSI designation based on enrolling at minimum 25% Latinx students at any given two-year and four-year public or private institution (Garcia, 2019). Compared to other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), HSIs enroll more Latinx students than any other institution of higher education, enrolling approximately 66% of all Latinx students in the country (Excelencia in Education, 2020). HSIs are the fastest growing MSIs, compared to Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (ANNAPISIs), and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the nation (Excelencia in Education, 2020).

In 2019, the DOE reported $124.4 million in grant funds (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). HSIs play a pivotal role in supporting and advocating for Latinx students in higher education (Martinez & Freeman, 2018). The political landscape has shifted to include policy and regulation centering Latino/Hispanic students due to the high demands and economic impact for the country. The intent is to further the research of the history of HSIs regarding policy and analysis framework through a Latinx and LGBTQ+ lens at community colleges (Gonzalez & Cataño, 2020). The evolution of HSI designation and coalitions is important for understanding the role policy actors play in advocating for Latinx-focused policies (Martinez & Freeman, 2018).

Defining Servingness

At the inception of HSIs, the concept of servingness was not introduced until a later time. HSIs rose out of the Civil Rights Movement and were part of a larger political movement in legislation to provide access to Latinx students (Laden, 2001, 2004; Olivas, 1982; Solórzano, 1995). Arguably, one of the primary goals for HSIs is to provide equitable outcomes for all Latinx students (Contreras et al., 2008). Professional organizations like the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) share a similar vision towards a future where HSIs achieve educational opportunities that secure Latinx inclusion in the economy, society, and government (Calderón Galdeano et al., 2012). The historical context provides us with an understanding of how public policy is informed by the collective group to make decisions for funding and resource allocation. It is important to note that it is not HSIs sole responsibility to address the history of oppression experienced by Latinx communities (Garcia, 2018). It is the collective effort, whereby policy actors take into account the multiplicity of identities that Latinx students hold in order to serve them equitably.

According to Garcia et al. (2019), servingness is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to define. As noted earlier, HSI policy is limited in its definition and therefore its ability in practice to hold limitations as to who benefits. Each institution is responsible for not only seeking grant monies designated by federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), but they are also responsible for defining and interpreting their own ideas of servingness at their institutions once grant funds have been allocated (Garcia, 2019). Consequently, there is no one-size-fits-all definition to define servingness for all HSIs (Calderón Galdeano et al., 2012). This vagueness in language directly impacts outcomes in the policy implementation process (Nienhusser, 2013).

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

The U.S. Department of Education has awarded grants in the amounts of millions of dollars to HSIs, which have enrollments of at least 25% of Latinx and 50% low-income students (Garcia & Koren, 2020; U.S. Department of Education, 2019). This designation of 25% Latinx students only pertains to the racial and ethnic make-up without a critical inclusive analysis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Therefore, this paper problematizes this element by examining current HSI policy through a critical policy analysis that is framed by a queer theory lens.

HSI Typology and Servingness

In 2017, Garcia proposed the Typology of HSI Organizational Identities (Appendix A) to analyze the advancement of servingness from an organizational approach rather than an individual one. She approached two specific dimensions that are reflected in the typology: outcomes and culture. In taking an organizational approach, the typology could be controlled for institutional size and selectivity (Rodríguez & Calderón Galdeano, 2015). The typology would be used by policy actors at HSIs to inform their perceptions of servingness at their institutions to address ethnic and racial disparities in educational outcomes (i.e., graduation rates). Garcia et al. (2019) then proposed defining servingness through a multidimensional conceptual model that integrates the following: indicators for serving, structures for serving, and external influences on serving. The authors use a racialized lens that stress the importance of reaching equitable and holistic outcomes for Latinx students.

The Multidimensional Conceptual Framework of Servingness in HSIs (see Appendix B) suggests that structures for serving should account for validating and racialized experiences within institutions (Garcia, et.al., 2019). The framework supports the need for culturally validating experiences among students at HSIs, in addition to examining the racialized experiences rooted in white supremacy like discrimination, harassment, and microaggressions. In summation, the multidimensional conceptual framework serves as a tool that institutional agents and leaders can utilize to identify indicators and structures for servingness, however, the gap remains in the frameworks inability to capture experiences rooted in other oppressive structures, such as cisheterogenderism (Pryor, 2020).

Critical Policy Analysis

Critical policy analysis (CPA) (Ball, 1997; Felix & Trinidad, 2020; Felix et al., 2018; Martinez-Aleman, 2015) has been utilized by scholars to dissect policy systems, structures, and constructs that examine racialized effects of policies that were sought to be inclusive of all (Iverson, 2007).  In order to understand Latinx students' experiences with HSI policy, utilizing Iverson’s (2007) pairing of Critical Race Theory (CRT) with CPA to center race as a tenant of interest in policy implementation is important for understanding how policy is carried out by institutional agents. By examining policy implementers and policy vagueness, there lies the opportunity to question and push forth HSI policy to further expand servingness to include LGBTQ+ Latinx students. (Garcia, 2019; Gonzalez & Cataño, 2020; Nienhusser, 2013).

Queer Theory

To move the prior conceptual frameworks towards understanding the racialized outcomes of policy at the intersection of sexual orientation and gender, queer theory (Butler, 1990) offers a lens for transforming dominant structures. Queer theory lies in the framing of 'queer' as a site of 'becoming' (Dilley, 1999; Edelman, 1995) and of constant questioning of norms. This is extremely important as similarly the term Latinx is meant to disrupt traditional understandings of language, culture, and gender (Salinas & Lozano, 2019). Therefore, thinking through queer theory alongside HSI typology and a multidimensional understanding of servingness, and critical policy analysis can be fruitful to holistically understand how policy implementation moves servingness to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ Latinx students at community colleges.

METHODS

This study employs a content analysis at a community college district in southern California. Utilizing a critical policy analysis (CPA) framework through a queer theory lens, this study explores publicly available data from documents and looks at HSIs in a community college district in Southern California. To protect anonymity of the community colleges analyzed, pseudonyms and average data were used to provide a snapshot of institutions. Two community colleges were examined, Skyscraper Community College (SCC) and Sunset Hills Community College (SHCC). SCC is an urban campus with roughly 15,000 students, of which 52% identify as Latino and approximately 60% are low-income. SHCC is one of the largest community colleges in California with an enrollment of approximately 23,000 students, of which 37% are Latinx and 41% are low-income. Both institutions meet HSI status based on policy determinants of Latinx enrollment and low-income status.

Employing a CPA approach allowed us to examine how the implementation of HSI grant funds may differentially impact LGBTQ+ and Latinx students. Qualitative content analysis is a “systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hseih & Shannon, 2005; Serafini & Reid, 2019, pg. 4). According to Serafini & Reid (2019), there are analytical approaches to content analysis: (1) conventional, (2) directed, and (3) summative. This tool allows for a virtual (i.e., webpage) examination of communication materials, surveys, manuals, books, and any contemporary forms of representation and communication modes. Furthermore, CPA allows for a systematic approach to manifest in testing for qualitative triangulation.

As previously mentioned, HSI policy has limited guidelines to determine how actors should enact servingness at their institutions, particularly in community colleges. This paper aims to use content analysis to examine public documents that are readily available within the district. Utilizing Garcia’s (2017) multidimensional conceptual framework of servingness as our guiding reference, this article seeks to examine current structures and indicators that explicitly reference LGBTQ+, sexual orientation, and gender identity in any form of affiliation to servingness. Additionally, the content analysis will also be informed by two descriptors, Hispanic and low-income in accordance with HSI policy designation. To do so, a content analysis tool was developed by the researchers (Appendices C-D) that captures HSI specific language, inclusive LGBTQ+ language and non-inclusive language.

The content analysis tool was used to examine references to specific terms noted in public documents, such as brochures, website, social media, annual performance reports (APR), initiatives, and Title III and/or V project abstracts. These public documents were obtained from the institutional websites of the two HSIs in this study, as well as the U.S. Department of Education’s website. Information was initially gathered via institutional websites as no Title III or V program brochures were readily available. HSI social media accounts were searched and traced with the use of our own personal Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook accounts. Furthermore, an extensive online search for Title III and Title V APRs was conducted and found that project abstracts were the only documents made publicly available. Project abstracts are only available for awarded HSIs. Lastly, all program initiatives were found on the college’s website and these were vastly different based on policy actors (project managers) approach and institutional resources.

Positionality and Trustworthiness

The power of qualitative inquiry lies in the opportunity to posit yourself as the researcher as a participatory agent that informs and analyzes the construct studied (Creswell, 2007; Saladaña & Omasta, 2016). As scholars, we approach this work through a transformative epistemology, that centers the voices and experiences of queer, trans, womxn, indigenous and other minoritized peoples in order to co-construct knowledge with the purpose of mobilizing transformation of structures and systems, in this case community colleges (Creswell & Poth, 2016). Additionally, as researchers our expertise has been curated by our educational experiences as doctoral candidates at San Diego State University’s (SDSU) doctoral program in Community College Leadership. But moreover, through our lived narrative as children of immigrants and first-generation, queer, Latinx/a/o scholars, we believe that what we are doing is not new, but a necessity for survival in the academy and amidst the social constructs of minoritized identities within structures of power that maintain such hierarchy and oppression. In addition, we are both products of HSIs throughout our educational trajectories and have direct experience with LGBTQ+ Latinx students at community colleges.

RESULTS

Upon reviewing various public documents (website, brochure, initiatives, social media, annual performance report, project abstract), it was evident how LGBTQ+ Latinx students were fundamentally never included in HSI documents for the two community colleges in this study. SCC used HSI policy language eleven times, inclusive LGBTQ+ language three, and non-inclusive language in twenty-five locations across our content analysis (Appendix C). HSI Hispanic and low-income descriptors were used thirty-five times at SHCC, and seventeen times for inclusive and forty-eight non-inclusive LGBTQ+ language (Appendix D).

A total of three times were the words “Hispanic and low income” utilized within the HSI policy language category on the website for Sunset Hills Community College. When examining social media sites from the two community colleges that were specific to HSI, meaning not their generic institution social media sites, SHCC utilized HSI policy language twenty-one times, inclusive language (Latinx/a/o) nine times, and non-inclusive language thirty times.  were found to include these terms when searching on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter for SCC.  The same results were evident when looking for program brochures on the HSI website of Skyscraper Community College and Sunset Hills Community College. The term “Hispanic” appeared once on a website for Skyscraper Community College when referring to “Hispanic college students.” The website did not explicitly note initiatives supported by the grant aside from naming the undocumented center/services housed within the HSI landing page. Even when exploring and analyzing the undocumented center/services page, no words within our tool surfaced. Within the APR, the terms “male” and “female” also came up as identifiers for an institutional population graph, yet again, in a gender binary. The term “Latinx”, only showed up once on the website for SCC. Additionally, LGBTQ+ appeared once on the HSI website but only because the website footer across all webpages housed a logo for the “HSI '' designation, veteran friendly campus, and LGBTQ+ safe space. Logos were not specific or intentional to HSI servingness of LGBTQ+ Latinx students. Lastly, in the project abstract for both community colleges, the term “Latino(s)” was used to constantly describe the general student demographic that HSIs aim to support. 

When looking at Sunset Hills Community College social media its presence adeptly represented servingness towards Latinx students. However, while the terminology of Latinx was used to inform their programs, there was little to no mention of the use of LGBTQ+ programming and content to support this notion. This was the same for SHCC’s project abstract where Latinx was used six times with no LGBTQ+ connotation. Their inclusivity in the use of Latinx sustained the racial component as the priority. The number of times the HSI policy descriptors were used are indicative of both institutions studies designation in accordance with the definition provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Particularly noted are the efforts made by the institution and policy actors to uphold the transparency in the terminology and distribution of programming and support via these channels. The institution's social media presence provided more of a story about their attempts to be more inclusive in their use of Latinx for most webinars and event promotions. This was mostly due to the conversations surrounding terminology and language used by professional organizations and the role of the administrator in connection to these professional organizations. Additionally, the institution had received funding for both Title III and Title V grants. The terminology in the grant abstracts shifted over time from Hispanic to low-income, to the use of Latinx in the promotion of their events. The STEM grant focused more on events for students in support of their career development and educational opportunities, while their Title V grant catered more towards cultural validation of their identities. However, no other LGBTQ+ inclusive language was utilized.

The tool utilized for the content analysis provided a general overview of the progressiveness in their prioritization of serving Latinx students. This is important to disclose because both of these community colleges have made efforts to focus on race in their servingness. Their websites language is informed by the U.S. Department of Education’s descriptors of Hispanic and low-income students. 

DISCUSSION

The initial content analysis revealed that there continues to be a lack of servingness for LGBTQ+ Latinx students in the two community colleges engaged in this project. Reviewing five sources of publicly available documents (website, brochure, initiatives, social media, annual performance report, project abstract) for two HSI community colleges, highlights policy specific, LGBTQ+ inclusive, and non-inclusive language, that sheds light on the need for HSI policy implementers to approach this work with a critical eye. This is an important moment in U.S. history where equity, diversity, and inclusion are needed and where systems of oppression, particularly white supremacy, microaggressions, and discrimination in any form will not be tolerated. Because Critical Policy Analysis (Ball, 1997; Martinez-Aleman, 2015) acknowledges the players who employ and carry out policy, when HSI policy and the multidimensional framework of servingness is examined through a queer lens, it is evident that LGBTQ+ Latinx students are rendered invisible. This was made evident through our content analysis when searching for keywords of inclusivity in the numerous sites used by these two community colleges. This is important now more than ever given the complex systems brought to light given the current socio-political context of a double pandemic both rooted in white supremacy, COVID-19 and racism. Given the current climate of civil unrest, community colleges are summoned to a higher calling to produce more and serve a greater number of Latinx students in ways that have not existed before.

Queer theory (Dilley, 199; Eldeman, 1995) offers a framework by which to deconstruct and transform dominant structures towards more equitable outcomes for both Latinx and LGBTQ+ students. Latinx/a/o students are enrolling at a higher rate and attending primarily HSIs, it is incumbent upon the policy actors to advocate for the diversification and representation of Latinx and LGBTQ+ students in their approach to servingness. Policy implementers are a critical component to this change. For example, if an HSI policy implementer understood the students they served beyond racial/ethnic categories, they could be critical about the information they produce via webpages and social media and the ways they include LGBTQ+ Latinx students explicitly. This is the same for the HSI grant abstracts. When LGBTQ+ Latinx students are not written in, then they are not represented in the allocation of resources. Data collection and budget allocation towards programming support for LGBTQ+ students are an important step. HSI leaders must educate themselves on inclusive language to create opportunities that explicitly support the multiplicity of identities that LGBTQ+ Latinx students hold. When leaders do the work to understand their own biases, it can be an important step towards expanding the notion of servingness at HSI community colleges.

LIMITATIONS

There are three limitations to this study: (1) the use of the tool, (2) the institutions researched, and (3) the information available. First, the tool mainly focused on LGBTQ+ inclusive and non-inclusive language as well as HSI policy descriptors of Hispanic and low-income students. Recommendations for future studies is to use similar tools to account for undocumented status and abilities, for example. Second, only two community colleges were considered. Results could vary if we extend this study beyond Southern California and include four-year institutions. Third, the information available was limited. For example, the HSI APRs are not readily made available to the public. Interpreting servingness of Latinx and LGBTQ+ students via public documents was the most logical approach given accessibility to public domain and documents. We discovered the challenge of transparency in public documents and these varied by institution. Overall, the tool was curated specifically for this study, which was to focus solely on LGBTQ+ findings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HSI PRACTICE

As institutional agents begin to decipher HSI policy beyond the descriptors of Hispanic and low-income, the conceptualization of servingness becomes infinitely more difficult to support. Institutional agents must interrogate how servingness encompasses the multiplicity of identities of LGBTQ+ Latinx students. The federal guidelines are not enough to be inclusive of all Latinx students and institutions must work with Institutional Research (IR) leadership to move beyond compositional diversity and explicitly ask the right questions in assessment, that will allow HSIs to expand their working definition of servingness and let these results inform decisions to best serve Latinx college students (Franco & Hernandez, 2018). Findings suggest policy actors examine their practices and work towards implementing the following strategies:1) redefine and enact servingness to be inclusive of the multiplicity of identities Latinx students hold, 2) prioritize hiring of LGBTQ+ Latinx leaders to disrupt HSI grant activities and goals, 3) transform current dimensions of student outcomes by explicitly naming students that are being served or excluded within HSI policy, 4) provide transparent budget allocation and name LGBTQ+ Latinx leaders as beneficiaries of initiatives being funded, and 5) begin to create metrics that are inclusive of who you are trying to serve such as the LGTBQ+ Latinx population. Adapting these strategies will lay the foundation towards a more inclusive and broader implementation of servingness that has not existed before.

Expanding the Concept of Servingness

This study proposes to define and enact servingness beyond a racialized lens to be inclusive of the multiplicity of identities that Latinx students hold to promote an environment that is affirming and supportive of LGBTQ+ students. HSI scholars and policy actors across the board have supported the notion of servingness with the intent to transform their institutions to better serve Latinx students. The multidimensional conceptual framework of servingness purposefully posits white supremacy as a final element to the structures of servingness (Garcia et al., 2019). To call out systems of oppression, institutional agents have to go back to the drawing board and reconceptualize which groups are missing from the narrative. Homophobia and cisheterogenderism, similar to that of racism in this country, are prevalent systems of oppression meant to maintain the status quo. The inclusion of LGBTQ+ can offer a different narrative for researchers and policy actors and further complicate their understanding of servingness. Including missing variables of gender identity and sexual orientation in systematic processes will reveal equity gaps. The expansion of the concept of servingness will empower community colleges to invest in the students they are intending to serve.

LGBTQ+ Latinx Leadership and HSI Policy Implementation

In order for greater inclusion to exist, this study urges the prioritization of hiring diverse LGBTQ+ self-identified staff, faculty, and administrators to enhance cultural awareness and representation via institutional hiring practices who then work collaboratively with HSI activities/initiatives. Studies have shown an increase in student success when students attend colleges where they have staff, faculty, and administrators who look like them (Cejda, 2004; Chang, 2005; Wood & Harris III, 2020; Turner et al., 2010). When students enroll at HSIs, they may or may not know that they are attending an institution whose designation is to serve Latinx students. As Latinx student enrollment continues to rise, the community college leadership should reflect and represent their students. It is not enough to hire only Latinx leaders. The diversification of employment opportunities should be reflective in the institution’s hiring practices and priorities to hire more LGBTQ+ and Latinx employees. With a leadership that reflects the student population, HSI policy implementers are able to disrupt HSI grant activities and goals with the sole purpose of explicitly and outwardly addressing LGBTQ+ and Latinx students in the expansion of grant-funded events, centers, and programming support. Latinx populations are not monolithic. This is a call for grant writers and grant writing teams to produce programming and support explicitly for LGBTQ+ students. Some HSIs recognize the need to serve undocumented students and this is housed under their grants. Equally so is the priority of serving LGBTQ+ student populations. 

Transform Current Dimensions of Student Outcomes

Changes to hiring and representation cannot exist without a shift in current dimensions of student outcomes and organizational structures. For example, faculty, staff, and administrators should ensure that content across platforms (HSI webpage, social media, abstract, Annual Performance Report (APR)) is consistent and inclusive of LGBTQ+ Latinx students. In the age of technology, the messaging and the branding reflects the values and mission of the community colleges. Specifically, social media presence is important. Just as HSIs take a month long to celebrate Hispanic (or Latinx) Heritage Month, the recommendation set forth is to celebrate the marking of LGBTQ+ Pride Month and any other milestones in support of the multiplicity of identities that Latinx students hold to truly provide a holistic and culturally validating experience. Across the board, policy actors need to envision what diversity means beyond race. Researchers have shown an increase in student success and outcomes if students feel validated and included in academic spaces. This shift happens when policy decisions transform current organizational structures that impact student outcomes. 

Budget Allocation

Title III and Title V awards are not permanent. Grant writers are tasked annually with the submission of the grants Annual Performance Report (APR) or procurement of grant funding. One of the main critiques of HSIs is the ever-elusive concept of servingness. Grant managers, directors, and staff have mandates from their respective institutions, districts, state, and federally to allocate funding to increase retention and success rates for Latinx students. Therefore, funding allocation from grants need to be clear and transparent about the outsourcing of those funds. Funding should have data to support their decisions. Both quantitative and qualitative data should be gathered in support of LGBTQ+ students. The California Community College Chancellor’s Office does not disaggregate data beyond gender ‘male and female’ identifiers. Funding is often influenced by such data, so without LGBTQ+ student data funding priorities are often at risk for not being as inclusive as they should. This study’s purpose is to urge policy implementers to take action.

Collection of LGBTQ+ Latinx Data

Lastly, institutional agents need to develop metrics to help attain LGBTQ+ Latinx data to inform HSI policy across the board. One of the main reasons why servingness is challenging to implicate at community colleges, is in the vagueness of the policy itself. HSI advocates, leaders, and professional organizations should take this into account. Developing metrics as HSI community colleges in similar fashion to that of Guided Pathways and AB 705 should be considered. This is one of the main debacles in creating a more equitable environment that is truly serving our LGBTQ+ Latinx student populations.

These are initial implications for practice towards a reconceptualization of LGBTQ+ Latinx students attending community colleges. HSI policy, from its inception, is a challenge for any institutional agent to implement. Community colleges’ initiative fatigue combined with budget and funding issues are in constant flux. This study advises five initial implications for HSI practice in support of current grant managers. Their leadership and their vision regarding budget allocation, funding, data collection, and even hiring, are key to the advancement of servingness at their institutions. Just as racism has been a marker of oppression, multiplicity of identities are also markers of oppression and it is time scholars, researchers, policy leaders, and institutional agents take LGBTQ+ communities into account.

CONCLUSION

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, institutional leaders across community colleges are policy implementers. Therefore, the way in which HSI policy is dissected and understood beyond mandates provides opportunity to address disparate outcomes for LGBTQ+ Latinx students. As new models to understand HSI work emerge by scholars (Garcia, 2017, 2018, 2019) there is an opportunity to expand this framing beyond just silo identity experiences and examine conditions and outcomes at the intersections of students’ LGBTQ+ identity and latinidad. Latinx students at community colleges are experiencing HSI institutions in a complex manner yet the way they are “served” remains one dimensional. To expand “servingness”, policy must define what servingness includes explicitly, prioritize hiring diverse LGBTQ+ Latinx leaders, challenge current HSI activities and metrics, and transform the approach institutional leaders take towards implementation. When institutional agents shift their lens to interrogate policy systems, structures, and implementation to incorporate a queer theory perspective, they can begin to challenge rigid constructs that define who is included as a beneficiary in policy implementation, discourse, and practice.

[1] The X in Latinx is intentionally utilized to be inclusive of gender fluidity, transgender, non-binary folx at the intersections of their latinidad. We also expand the X to include members of the LGBTQ+ community. The term Latinx/a/o will be used when the literature refers to it as such. See Salinas and Lozano (2019).

[2] LGBTQ+ is an acronym utilized to include the array and fluidity of identities within the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer community.

[3] The word servingness will be utilized across this piece as a verb and action based on scholarship from Dr. Gina Garcia (2016, 2017, 2018). We will also use “servingness”, in quotations, when trying to bring attention to the gaps in current understanding of servingness and who is not being served (i.e., LGBTQ+ Latinx students).

[4] We use these terms as data collection metrics that follow census classification into Hispanic racial/ethnic categories.

REFERENCES

Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and

society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 

Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent education policy and policy research. British educational research journal, 23(3), 257-274.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192970230302

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse.

Feminism/postmodernism, 327, x.

Calderón Galdeano, E., Flores, A. R., & Moder, J. (2012). The Hispanic association of colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions: Partners in the advancement of Hispanic

higher education. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11(3), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2012.686352

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2021). Datamart Information Systems.

Retrieved from March 1, 2021, from http://datamart.cccco.edu/DataMart.aspx 

Cejda, B. D., & Rhodes, J. H. (2004). Through the pipeline: The role of faculty in promoting associate degree completion among Hispanic students. Community College Journal of Research

and Practice, 28(3), 249-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920490256435

Chang, J. (2005). Faculty-Student Interaction at the Community College: A Focus on Students of Color. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769-802. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40197445

Contreras, F., & Contreras, G. J. (2015). Raising the bar for Hispanic serving institutions: An analysis of college completion and success rates. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(2), 151-

170. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1538192715572892

Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-serving institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for Latino/a students. In M. Gasman, B.

Baez, & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority serving institutions (pp. 71–90). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2, 53-80.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Dilley, P. (1999). Queer theory: Under construction. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(5), 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183999235890

Duran, A. (2019). Queer and of color: A systematic literature review on queer students of color in higher education scholarship. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(4), 390.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dhe0000084

Duran, A. A. (2019). An intersectional grounded theory study examining identity exploration for queer collegians of color at historically white institutions (Published Doctoral dissertation, The

Ohio State University). https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1554222778730153&disposition=inline

Duran, A., & Pérez II, D. (2017). Queering la familia: A phenomenological study reconceptualizing familial capital for queer Latino men. Journal of College Student Development, 58(8), 1149-

1165. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0091

Duran, A., & Pérez II, D. (2019, March 26). Supporting Queer College Students of Color.

Retrieved May 26, 2020, from  https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/supporting-queer-college-students-color/

Edelman, L. (1995). Queer theory: Unstating desire. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 2(4), 343-346.

Excelencia in Education. (2020). Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): 2018 -19 Fact Sheet. Excelencia in Education. Washington, DC.

Felix, E. R., & Trinidad, A. (2020). The decentralization of race: tracing the dilution of racial equity in educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(4), 465-490.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538

Felix, E. R., Trinidad, A., Ching, C. D., & Bensimon, E. M. (2018). California’s student equity plans policy:  An unexploited opportunity among Hispanic-serving community colleges. In A. G. de

los Santos Jr., G. F. Keller, R. Tannenbaum, & A. Acereda (Eds.), Moving Forward: Policies, Planning, and Promoting Access of Hispanic College Students, (pp. 75-94). Bilingual Press.

Franco, M. A., Hernández, S. (2018). Assessing the capacity of Hispanic Serving Institutions to serve Latinx students: Moving beyond compositional diversity. In Zerquera, D., Hernández, I.,

Berumen, J. G. (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: Assessment and social justice: Pushing through paradox (pp. 57–71). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20256

Garcia, G. A. (2017). Defined by outcomes or culture? Constructing an organizational identity for Hispanic-serving institutions. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl),

111S-134S. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0002831216669779  

Garcia, G. A. (2018). Decolonizing Hispanic-serving institutions: A framework for organizing. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(2), 132-147.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1538192717734289

Garcia, G. A. (2019). Becoming Hispanic-serving institutions: Opportunities for colleges and universities. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Garcia, G. A., & Koren, E. R. (2020). Connecting research, practice, and policy to define “servingness” at Hispanic serving institutions. Hispanic serving institutions (HSIs) in practice: Defining

“servingness” at HSIs, 1-20.

Garcia, G. A., Núñez, A. M., & Sansone, V. A. (2019). Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding “servingness” in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: A synthesis of the

research. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 745-784. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654319864591

Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. R. (2015). The influence of campus experiences on the level of outness among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum students. Journal of homosexuality, 62(3), 374-

393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.977113

Garvey, J. C., Taylor, J. L., & Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(6), 527-541.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.861374

González, Á., & Cataño, Y. (2020). Queering community college HSIs: An environmental scan of current programs and services for Latinx students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community

College, 27(1), p. 81-95

Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W. Y., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). An investigation of critical mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college

students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9024-5

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732305276687

Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 586-611.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X07307794

Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody Journal of  Education, 76(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7601_05

Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they?. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181-198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920490256381

Martinez-Aleman, A. M. (2015). Critical discourse analysis in higher education policy research. In A. M. Martinez Aleman, B. Pusser, & E. M. Bensimon (Ed.), Critical

approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 7-43): Johns Hopkins University Press.

Martinez, M., Freeman, M. L. (2018). Policy Actors and Public Policy in Higher Education: Developing a National Organizational Infrastructure for Latina/o Postsecondary

Advocacy. Latinx/a/os in Higher Education: Exploring Identity, Pathways and Success Washington, DC: NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. 

Nienhusser, H. K. (2013). Role of community colleges in the implementation of postsecondary education enrollment policies for undocumented students. Community College Review, 42(1),

3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552113509837

Olivas, M. (1982). INDIAN, CHICANO, AND PUERTO RICAN COLLEGES: STATUS AND ISSUES. Bilingual Review / La Revista Bilingüe, 9(1), 36-58. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25743988

Pryor, J. T. (2020). Queer activist leadership: An exploration of queer leadership in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dhe0000160

Rankin, S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(111), 17-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.170

Rankin, S., Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for LGBT people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132-141.

https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X10362579

Rodríguez, A., & Galdeano, E. (2015). Do hispanic-serving institutions really underperform. Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Advancing research and transformative practice, 196-215.

Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2016). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage Publications.

Salinas Jr, C., & Lozano, A. (2019). Mapping and recontextualizing the evolution of the term Latinx: An environmental scanning in higher education. Journal of Latinos and Education, 18(4),

302-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1390464

Santiago, D. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): The Basics. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.

Serafini, F., & Reid, S. F. (2019). Multimodal content analysis: expanding analytical approaches to content analysis. Visual Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219864133

Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). Satisfaction and retention among African American men at two-year community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(5), 358-375.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902782508

Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001 through Spring 2019, Fall Enrollment

component; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Projection Model, 2000 through 2029. See Digest of Education Statistics 2019, table 303.70.

years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139.

U.S. Department of Education, Funding Status - Title V Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program. (2020, January 23). Retrieved May 26, 2020, from

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/funding.html

Valliani, N. (2015). The state of higher education in California: Blacks. Campaign for College Opportunity. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571120.pdf

Wood, J. L., & Harris, F. (2020). Equity-Minded Educators: Identifying Differences in Student    Services Practices that Benefit Students of Color. Journal of Applied Research in the Community

College, 27(2), 25-36.

Yost, M. R., & Gilmore, S. (2011). Assessing LGBTQ campus climate and creating change. Journal of homosexuality, 58(9), 1330–1354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605744

Zamani‐Gallaher, E. M., & Choudhuri, D. D. (2011). A primer on LGBTQ students at community colleges: Considerations for research and practice. New Directions for Community Colleges,

2011(155), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.456

APPENDIX A

Figure 1: Typology of HSI Organizational Identities

Note: This figure is from Garcia, G. A. (2017). Defined by outcomes or culture? Constructing an organizational identity for Hispanic-serving institutions. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 111S-134S.

APPENDIX B

Figure 2: The Multidimensional Conceptual Framework for Understanding Servingness in HSIs

Note: This figure is from Garcia, G. A., Núñez, A. M., & Sansone, V. A. (2019). Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding “servingness” in Hispanic-serving institutions: A synthesis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 745-784.

APPENDIX C

Table 1: Skyscraper Community College content analysis overview

APPENDIX D

Table 2: Sunset Hills Community College content analysis overview

©2021 Journal of the Alliance for Hispanic Institution Educators