Beyond Financial Aid: Relational and Cultural Supports as Systemic Drivers of STEM Success for Community College Students

Abstract

Low-income students remain underrepresented in STEM pathways at community colleges, facing structural and financial barriers that constrain degree completion and transfer. This qualitative cross-case study examines how STEM students perceive and engage with National Science Foundation (NSF) S-STEM scholarship programs across three institutions: two community colleges and one research university serving transfer students. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 62 scholars and institutional stakeholders, findings reveal that financial support is valuable but insufficient. Students identified sustained faculty advising and mentorship, intentional community-building, and institutional validation as the most influential factors in shaping persistence and STEM identity development. Despite programmatic differences—faculty-driven mentoring at Everett Community College, culturally relevant pedagogy at Holyoke Community College, and compensated community engagement at the University of South Florida—all three sites converged on a common principle: belonging must be structurally embedded through relational support systems. Students consistently described S-STEM programs as creating “family” atmospheres that legitimized their presence in STEM fields. The study demonstrates that equity in STEM education requires integrating financial, relational, and cultural supports, transforming persistence from individual endurance into shared institutional achievement.

1. Introduction

Low-income students remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways at community colleges and are less likely than their higher-income peers to transfer into four-year STEM programs (Zhang, 2022). Moreover, a substantial proportion of community college students who successfully complete STEM coursework depart without earning a postsecondary credential, underscoring significant challenges in persistence (Bahr et al., 2022). These outcomes are consistent with prior evidence that community college students frequently encounter structural and financial barriers—including limited advising, complex transfer processes, and unmet financial need—that constrain their ability to progress in STEM fields (Bahr et al., 2017; Quadlin, 2017; Wang, 2020).

In part to respond to these persistent inequities, the National Science Foundation (NSF) created one of the largest federal investments in postsecondary STEM education: the Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) program. While not unique to community colleges, the initiative provides need-based scholarships to academically talented low-income students while simultaneously supporting institutions to deliver co-curricular interventions such as faculty mentoring, cohort-building, and career development activities (NSF, 2024; Rodriguez & Blaney, 2021). Research shows that S-STEM programs are designed to improve student outcomes across multiple domains, including academic performance, retention, and degree completion in STEM disciplines. In early 2024, there were 651 active S-STEM awards nationwide, of which approximately 15 percent (about 100) were granted to community colleges. Award sizes range from $30,000 to $5 million, although single-institution grants—those most commonly secured by community colleges—are capped at $2 million (NSF, 2024).

Given investment in community colleges and their continued role as key pathways for underserved STEM students, this study endeavors to elucidate S-STEM programs in community colleges. Situating this examination in a description of community college S-STEM programs, we highlight the diversity of approaches in three institutions that serve current or transfer community college students. Specifically, this study examines how community college STEM students perceive and engage with the scholarship, academic, and social support services and how the scholarship and related support influences their academic and career decision-making across three diverse institutional contexts.

A survey of 74 S-STEM programs conducted by researchers through the Community College S-STEM Network (CCSN) reveals S-STEM grants employ diverse programmatic approaches in community colleges. Among these approaches, faculty mentoring, career exploration workshops, intentional cohort building, and research opportunities are all frequently utilized strategies.

A systematic literature review of 36 peer-reviewed studies also conducted by CCSN (Espino & Meza, 2024) provided important insights into S-STEM programs operating within community college contexts, revealing both promising practices and significant research gaps in this critical area of STEM education. Four major themes emerged from the literature that illuminate both the potential and limitations of S-STEM programming.

First, intentional programmatic support systems demonstrated significant promise in fostering STEM identity development and sense of belonging among participants. As Rodriguez and Blaney (2021) noted, these programs enable community college students to focus on engineering identity through enhancing student connections with STEM faculty, program staff, and peers. Second, despite the financial support provided by S-STEM scholarships, students continued to experience significant financial stress that affected their academic performance and retention. Baltaci et al. (2014) documented how financial barriers lead to two main problems for students: affordability issues, with many unable to pay for college despite receiving financial aid, and reduced study time due to work and family responsibilities. Affordability improves when you focus on low-income students by addressing underrepresentation by providing for the financial need gap. Third, the literature consistently emphasized that STEM pathways, particularly transfer processes, require expert navigation and guidance. The complexity of credit transfer, competing institutional requirements, and limited understanding of STEM career options emerged as persistent barriers. Programs that provided multi-level institutional support, such as those described by Ford et al. (2015), demonstrated higher retention rates and improved transfer outcomes, highlighting the necessity of comprehensive support systems. Finally, S-STEM students face multiple, intersecting priorities that complicate their educational journeys. Wickersham and Wang’s (2016) longitudinal study of women caretakers revealed that transfer intent for community college women is a complex, nuanced issue, influenced by both, what happens inside and outside of school. Wickersham and Wang’s (2016) finding underscores the need for holistic support approaches that acknowledge the complex life circumstances of community college students.

Although this systematic literature review was expansive, relatedly, scholars have drawn attention to the role of familial and quasi-familial relationships in sustaining minoritized students in STEM. Revelo’s work on ‘la familia’ demonstrates how Latino/a students draw on familial cultural values and community bonds as sources of academic resilience (Revelo, 2015). Simmons and Martin (2014) research on fictive kin relationships in STEM highlights how non-biological family structures—formed among peers, mentors, and faculty—function as critical support networks that buffer students against the isolation and alienation that often characterize STEM environments. Similarly, Major’s work on chosen family underscores how students actively construct relational communities that substitute for or extend biological family support, particularly among first-generation and low-income students navigating unfamiliar institutional cultures (Major, 2025). Together, this body of work suggests that relational belonging in STEM is actively built through cultural practices and institutional structures that affirm students’ identities and communities.

While S-STEM programs aim to address inequities in STEM education, reviewing the S-STEM literature reveals gaps, particularly regarding community college-specific outcomes and robust theoretical foundations. Much of the research focuses on four-year institutions or partnerships, leaving the role and potential of community colleges underexplored. Enhancing program design with evidence-based practices, informed by theories, can help address systemic barriers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Questions

With this in mind, our research questions centered around the experiences of students in S-STEM programs to explicate and expand on what is known about the influences of S-STEM on these students’ decision-making. Particularly on their decisions to enter, persist, and transfer in STEM disciplines. The research questions are:

• How do community college STEM students engage with the S-STEM scholarship and academic and social support services in three unique institutional contexts?
• What aspects of the S-STEM grant program did students find most influential in shaping their academic and career decisions?

2.2. Theoretical Framing

As we conducted our three-case study analysis, distinct theoretical perspectives emerged as particularly relevant for understanding the phenomena we observed. This emergent approach aligns with case study methodology that emphasizes the importance of allowing theoretical understanding to develop through deep engagement with empirical data (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018). We draw primarily on Strayhorn’s (2019, 2023) conceptualization of belonging as a product of perceived care and social support, framing S-STEM programs as institutional mechanisms responsible for generating that belonging through structured support. Specifically, sense of belonging refers to students’ perceived social support on campus (i.e., a feeling or sensation of connectedness and the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by) and important to the campus community or others on campus, such as faculty, staff, and peers. In this view, belonging is neither a personality trait nor a self-generated outcome; it is the result of institutional practices that signal to students that they are valued, supported, and included. We also recognized the complexity of community college student experiences and the importance of context in shaping educational outcomes (Wickersham & Wang, 2016).

Complementing this framework, Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) model informed our analysis by reframing what counts as ‘capital’ in educational settings. Rather than treating low-income and minoritized students as deficient, CCW recognizes the aspirational, navigational, social, familial, linguistic, and resistant forms of capital students bring from their communities. In this study, CCW served as a deductive analytic lens particularly salient at Holyoke Community College. Holyoke Community College operationalizes its S-STEM program centering CCW through its seminar curriculum, enabling us to examine how students drew on their community-based assets to persist and develop STEM identities.

Perna’s (2006) college access and choice model became relevant as we observed how students navigated multiple contextual layers when evaluating scholarship opportunities, support services, and transfer experiences. Students’ individual habitus—shaped by their social backgrounds and prior experiences—intersected with school and community contexts, higher education environments, and broader social and economic policies in ways that fundamentally influenced their perceptions and engagement patterns.

Together, these frameworks (Strayhorn’s (2019, 2023) belonging, Yosso’s (2005) CCW, and Perna’s (2006) contextual model) guided both our data collection and analysis. Specifically, we examined how S-STEM program structures either fostered or constrained students’ sense of belonging, how students mobilized community cultural wealth within those programs, and how broader contextual layers shaped their engagement. In this way, belonging serves as the central organizing construct of the study: it is understood not as an individual disposition students bring to college, but as an institutional achievement produced through deliberate relational and cultural supports.

2.3. Methods

This qualitative cross-case study employs comparative case study methods following Yin (2018) and Stake (1995) to examine S-STEM scholar experiences within and across three distinct regional higher education contexts. Semi-structured interviewing was selected as the primary data collection method because it allows for systematic comparability across sites while preserving space for participants to elaborate on their experiences in their own terms (Merriam, 1998). The research design allows for both within-case understanding and cross-case pattern identification.

Site Selection, Data Collection, and Analysis

Two community colleges and one public research university, where the NSF S-STEM grant program explicitly serves students who transferred from community college were purposefully selected to represent the three diverse regional higher education contexts used for this study. Furthermore, these settings all employed diverse programmatic supports for S-STEM scholars, allowing for an illumination of how different approaches to S-STEM supports operate. These purposefully selected sites present a diversity of ways of implementing STEM education and support programs for S-STEM scholars.

Semi-structured interviews using the same interview protocol across the three sites with S-STEM scholars focused on STEM education and transfer journeys, identity negotiation, and meaning-making processes. These interview foci were drawn from a larger multi-site study examining S-STEM program implementation and student outcomes across the community college context (Espino, 2026; Meza & Espino, 2025; Meza et al., 2025; Tyson et al., 2024). The current study represents a cross-case analysis of the qualitative strand of that work, focusing specifically on how students perceived and engaged with program supports. Interview questions addressing identity negotiation and meaning-making were included because belonging is understood as a subjective, interpretative experience that manifests through students’ self-perceptions and sense-making within institutional contexts (Strayhorn, 2019). Focus groups with these students explored individual and collective experiences and S-STEM scholar community formation. In the cases centering on community colleges, interviews with institutional stakeholders provided details on programmatic and institutional contexts needed to compare these three sites. Because the student focus groups were more extensive at the university site, institutional stakeholders were not interviewed (see below for sampling methods and numbers). Document analysis examined program materials, institutional policies, and student artifacts in all three settings.

Semi-structured interviews with 62 STEM scholars (15 from the Everett CC site in the pacific northwest, 8 from the Holyoke CC site in Massachusetts, and 39 from University of South Florida site) who represent diverse backgrounds in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, age, and STEM disciplines or majors. Providing demographic data would risk compromising participant confidentiality, given the small sample sizes at two of the three sites (n = 15 and n = 8). In accordance with our IRB protocols and ethical commitments to participant anonymity, we report demographic information in aggregate as mentioned above. The data emerging from interviews with these students describe the students’ educational journeys, identity development and negotiations, academic challenges and successes, and meaning-making processes within their specific regional contexts.

Individual interviews with 9 faculty and staff members in the two community college contexts (5 at Holyoke CC and 4 at Everett CC) provide institutional perspectives on student experiences and programmatic contexts. As noted earlier, the interviews with institutional stakeholders were not conducted due to the larger number of student interviewees in the USF site. Program materials and class syllabi provided additional contextual data on STEM student experiences in the three sites. These data also reveal multiple perspectives on student STEM education experiences.

Within-case analysis developed descriptions of the unique contexts associated with STEM student experiences at each institution. Cross-case analysis identified patterns, themes, commonalities and variations across the three contexts. Thematic analysis, guided by research questions and theoretical frameworks, examined how students navigate contexts, boundaries, and construct meaning about their educational experiences, including transfer.

2.4. Phase 1: Within-Case Analysis

Each institutional case was analyzed independently to develop deep understanding of the unique context, institutional cultures, and student experiences (see Espino, 2025; Meza et al., 2025; Tyson et al., 2024). Interview transcripts and focus group data were coded using both deductive codes derived from theoretical frameworks (i.e., Community Cultural Wealth and sense of belonging) and inductive codes emerging from student narratives. This phase involved creating detailed case profiles that captured the student demographics and institutional context, while identifying key themes specific to each site.

2.5. Phase 2: Cross-Case Comparative Analysis

Following Yin’s (2018) cross-case synthesis approach, data from all three cases were systematically compared to identify patterns, variations, and contradictions across regional contexts. This involved examining how S-STEM program activities and strategies manifested differently across institutional contexts. Using Saldaña (2021) thematic analysis process, the research team identified, analyzed, and reported patterns across the entire dataset. Research team members collaborated to validate interpretations, engage in peer debriefing, and met regularly to ensure reliable data interpretations.

3. Results

3.1. Everett Community College

In 2017, Everett Community College (EvCC), a mid-sized institution located north of Seattle in Washington State’s Puget Sound region, was awarded its first National Science Foundation Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) grant. The goal was to increase persistence and degree completion among low-income and underrepresented students in STEM pathways. From the outset, the EvCC team viewed S-STEM as more than a financial aid mechanism. Rather, it was conceived as a comprehensive ecosystem of support—an opportunity to align academic, social, and financial resources to improve retention and foster identity development in STEM (Washburn & Bragg, 2022). Following a successful five-year implementation period, the college secured a renewal award in 2022, enabling continued development of the model through expanded mentoring and career-integrated programming. In addition to the scholarship monies the program features other supports faculty designed to address and enhance student retention in STEM (Meza et al., 2025). Program features include:

• Assign each student a faculty mentor who is a subject matter expert in their field and a member of the grant leadership team.
• Coordinate quarterly field trips and social activities. Field trips are academic (e.g., visiting potential transfer institutions), social, or career-related.
• Provide first year students with peer mentors and more advanced students with career mentors.
• Deliver enhanced academic support in STEM gateway courses through course specific tutoring.
• Infuse equity into the classroom by training faculty in equity-centric practices.

3.1.1. EvCC Findings

When EvCC developed its S-STEM grant, the institution planned a range of activities and supports to enhance the academic success of STEM students. However, due to staffing changes, resource constraints, a new computer system implementation, and the lingering effects of COVID-19, not all planned activities came to fruition as originally envisioned. In student interviews, we found that some activities, such as field trips to transfer institutions, were readily recognized by students as valuable, but the value of other supports, such as course-specific tutoring, was not as evident. This led us to conclude that students interpret and make sense of the S-STEM program’s supports and activities in diverse ways. As one faculty member remarked, “There’s a difference between what I think is important and what has turned out to be important [to students].” Specifically, faculty focused on academic-related supports such as tutoring while students found social activities and those meant to build community to be very valuable. In these social events students found likeminded friends, often forming informal study groups that lessened the need for formal tutoring.

Analysis of student interviews revealed three interconnected domains of program influence: (1) STEM identity development and belonging, (2) academic navigation and mentoring, and (3) financial stability and engagement.

STEM Identity Development and Belonging.

Strayhorn’s (2019) conceptualization of belonging as a fundamental need emerged as central to student experiences, particularly as participants described their developing identities as STEM students and future professionals. Throughout the findings, references to STEM identity are used descriptively to capture how students talked about seeing themselves as STEM people, rather than as a formal application of identity theory. The program created a sense of community that many students had previously lacked—particularly those who had been studying online or felt isolated. One student captured this directly:

When I first started coming back [to college], I was all online and didn’t really have much of a community. The S-STEM program brought me a lot closer to people who are interested in the same things I’m interested in.

For this student, S-STEM provided something that coursework alone could not: consistent, trusted connection to peers who shared their goals and circumstances.

Students engaged deeply with the community-building aspects of the program, describing it as creating a “family” atmosphere. This sense of belonging proved crucial for their confidence and willingness to pursue opportunities outside their comfort zones. Another student reflected: “If I didn’t have the E-STEM program, I’d probably be a lot more to myself and wouldn’t jump at certain opportunities.” The program’s emphasis on peer connections and professional networking through field trips helped students envision themselves as legitimate members of the STEM community. In fact, the most influential aspect identified by students was not a specific service or activity but the sense of institutional recognition that came with being designated an “S-STEM scholar”—a designation that validated their self-identification as legitimate members of the STEM community and influenced their persistence and career aspirations. We observed how students’ sense of connection and validation within STEM programs directly influenced their persistence and engagement with available resources. Students consistently identified program elements that fostered belonging and community as among the most influential aspects of their experiences.

Faculty Mentoring and Academic Navigation.

Students perceived the multi-layered support system as essential to their success. They particularly valued STEM-specific advising over general academic counseling, with one student explaining,

Before E-STEM, I was taking classes I didn’t even need because my general advisor didn’t understand the engineering prerequisites. My faculty mentor helped me get back on track and saved me probably a whole quarter of unnecessary classes.

For this student, the shift from generalist to specialist mentoring was the difference between wasted time and a viable transfer. Students engaged actively with faculty mentorship, recognizing mentors as guides who understood the complexities of STEM transfer pathways. This specialized support contrasted sharply with their previous experiences with general advising, leading to higher levels of engagement and trust in the guidance they received.

Financial Stability and Academic Engagement.

Students perceived the scholarship component as addressing fundamental survival needs, enabling them to reduce work hours and focus more on academics. However, their engagement was sometimes complicated by administrative challenges—late disbursements and unclear processes created stress and uncertainty. Despite these issues, students valued how financial support allowed them to participate more fully in academic opportunities like office hours and study groups. The scholarship’s role in enabling academic focus was consistently identified as influential. Students described how reduced work hours allowed deeper engagement with coursework, participation in study groups, and attendance at office hours—activities that directly influenced their academic success and career confidence. One student noted that financial stability enabled participation in office hours and study groups that had previously felt unattainable while working long hours “before I got it I was working all the time, it was a struggle, I could never make any of the study things or talk with faculty or even like, events and fun stuff.” In this sense, the scholarship functioned as a prerequisite for engagement, addressing what Strayhorn (2019) and others describe as the survival level before higher-order needs like belonging can be met.

3.1.2. EvCC Discussion

The EvCC case illustrates how belonging, identity development, and academic persistence emerge from the intersection of financial, social, and relational supports. Yet, the study also reveals an enduring tension: students viewed the community college S-STEM experience as temporary. As they prepared to transfer, many expressed concern that the strong support system they had come to rely on would not exist at the receiving university. One student summarized this sentiment: “The scariest part about transferring isn’t even the harder classes—it’s leaving this support system behind.”.

In this way, the EvCC program underscores both the promise and the fragility of belonging-centered interventions. The findings suggest that while S-STEM programs can successfully construct micro-communities of care within two-year institutions, sustaining these gains across the transfer boundary requires system-level articulation with four-year partners. EvCC’s experience highlights the transformative potential of faculty mentorship and community recognition—and the need for continued innovation to ensure that these supports extend beyond the community-college context.

3.2. Holyoke Community College

Holyoke Community College (HCC) is a public two-year institution in Holyoke, Massachusetts, designated as a Hispanic-Serving Institution that serves a diverse student population in the Pioneer Valley region. HCC received an S-STEM award to strengthen its STEM Equity program, a comprehensive initiative designed to merge academic, social, and professional supports for students who have been historically marginalized in STEM. Within this initiative, the S-STEM Scholars Seminar functions as a one-credit, semester-long course reserved for S-STEM recipients. The seminar combines financial support with intentional community building, mentoring, and culturally grounded instruction, thereby transforming the scholarship from a purely economic intervention into a holistic model of educational empowerment (Espino, 2025).

The HCC S-STEM Scholars Seminar is intentionally structured to foster cognitive, social, and cultural development. Weekly sessions integrate academic enrichment with personal reflection, mentorship, and exposure to professional pathways. Guest lectures from industry and academic experts, peer-led discussions, and structured reflective assignments are used to situate STEM learning within students lived experiences. The course provides an academic space distinct from students’ conventional STEM classes—a space explicitly devoted to identity exploration, critical dialogue, and belonging.

Two theoretical frameworks anchor the seminar’s design. Culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) positions teaching as a means of affirming students’ cultural identities while cultivating academic excellence and sociopolitical consciousness. Rather than emphasizing hierarchical knowledge transfer, CRP values relational, dialogic learning and challenges structural inequities that shape access to STEM careers. Complementing CRP, Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth framework reframes the notion of “capital” in education, recognizing aspirational, navigational, social, familial, linguistic, and resistant forms of capital as assets students bring from their communities. By drawing on these asset-based frameworks, the seminar helps students reinterpret their life experiences as sources of strength and resilience within the STEM ecosystem.

Within this theoretical structure, HCC operationalizes several interrelated grant strategies:

• Integration of CRP and CCW across the curriculum, connecting STEM content to students’ cultural identities, lived experiences, and community contexts.
• Structured seminar design combining academic preparation, professional development, and peer connection through weekly sessions.
• Faculty and peer mentorship networks, where advanced scholars and faculty mentors provide guidance and model persistence while students assume leadership roles over time.
• Reflective and narrative assignments such as the “CCW Wheel” and “Cultural Wealth STEM Narrative,” which prompt students to articulate how their identities intersect with their academic and professional goals.
• Community-building and discussion-based learning, fostering inclusive dialogue that validates diverse perspectives and expands conceptions of STEM.

3.2.1. Holyoke CC Findings

Together, these strategies constitute a cohesive pedagogical model that unites academic subject matter with cultural validation and community engagement. Three interrelated outcomes capture how students experienced the S-STEM Scholars Seminar: (1) the cultivation of a sense of belonging and community, (2) the development of positive STEM identities and self-efficacy, and (3) engagement through culturally grounded, asset-based pedagogies.

Sense of Belonging and Community.

Students consistently described the seminar as the most affirming and inclusive space in their academic trajectories. The classroom environment contrasted sharply with earlier educational experiences characterized by marginalization or isolation. Participants emphasized that the seminar provided an atmosphere of mutual respect and collective purpose, where peers and instructors alike recognized their aspirations and humanity. One student, Alma, contrasted the seminar with her high-school experiences, noting that it offered a community of adults with “goals, dreams,” and mutual encouragement. Another student, Dolores, emphasized how the seminar’s disciplinary diversity—spanning fields from health sciences to anthropology—broadened her conception of what constitutes STEM and strengthened her engagement “It was really cool to hear how everyone connected to certain ideas from all of these different majors, it made me want to take more classes and get more involved.” This collective dynamic illustrates how belonging operates as an academic resource. The seminar’s inclusive peer culture mitigated alienation, creating a critical community that reinforced persistence and redefined participation in STEM as a shared, relational endeavor.

Development of STEM Identity and Self-Efficacy.

A second major outcome concerns the transformation of students’ self-perceptions. Similar to at EvCC, being named an S-STEM Scholar conferred legitimacy that validated their presence in STEM. Students described increased confidence, motivation, and a newfound sense of capability. Bobby characterized his acceptance into the program as “empowering,” marking a turning point in how he viewed his potential. Similarly, Dolores explained that seminar discussions dismantled her belief in “natural talent” as a prerequisite for success, helping her see interest and effort as central to achievement. Alma described the experience as rediscovering her identity as a lifelong learner: the seminar, she said, “made me fall in love with learning again.” Jim, who took the course three times, described the dialogue as “what makes the seminar incredibly important,” noting that CCW helped him see his own “navigational capital”—self-advocacy and persistence—as strengths. Such reflections demonstrate how identity-affirming pedagogies can shift students’ internal narratives from deficit to empowerment. The seminar’s combination of CRP and CCW created conditions under which students internalized belonging as competence, developing resilient self-efficacy and agency within academic and professional STEM contexts.

3.2.2. Holyoke CC Discussion

The seminar’s community orientation aligns with research emphasizing social belonging as a key determinant of retention (Strayhorn, 2019). Its emphasis on identity development resonates with scholarship linking self-efficacy and recognition to STEM persistence (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chemers et al., 2011). Moreover, the seminar’s integration of CRP and CCW confirms that culturally responsive pedagogy not only affirms identity but deepens cognitive engagement (Gay, 2018; Yosso, 2005) underscoring that belonging and learning are mutually constitutive. When students feel that their identities and voices matter, their intellectual engagement deepens.

3.3. University of South Florida

At USF, S-STEM operates under the Transfer Undergraduate Rural/Nontraditional Student Pathways through Identity, Knowledge & Engagement (TURNPIKE) partnership, which links Polk State College with USF’s College of Engineering. TURNPIKE’s explicit mission is to facilitate the transition of rural, low-income, and nontraditional community-college students into four-year engineering programs, addressing equity gaps in recruitment, persistence, and degree completion. USF’s engineering college enrolls roughly 7500 undergraduates, many of whom are commuters, first-generation students, or racially minoritized.

The S-STEM/TURNPIKE program at USF is organized around three principal forms of social and academic support. These consist of intrusive and personalized advising, bi-weekly scholar meetings and tutoring and peer study groups (Tyson et al., 2024). Major S-STEM grant strategies at USF include:

• Intrusive, personalized advising that emphasizes mentorship and care.
• Structured tutoring and peer study groups that normalize collaboration.
• Bi-weekly scholar meetings combining academic, professional, and social development.
• Compensation for participation, reducing economic barriers to community involvement.
• A holistic “compensated community” framework that integrates academic support with social belonging.

3.3.1. USF Findings

Across the data, participants described S-STEM as both a financial lifeline and an emotional anchor. Nearly all respondents credited the program with expanding their peer networks, increasing their confidence, and easing their transition to USF. Three central themes emerged.

Advising as Relational Scaffolding.

Students portrayed S-STEM advisors as “safety nets,” mentors who monitored progress and offered consistent guidance rather than waiting to be sought out. Advising relationships often took on quasi-familial qualities, with one participant describing their mentor as “a small parent just waiting in the background.” For transfer students, navigating an unfamiliar large research university, this consistency was foundational. Daniel, who transferred into an engineering program, articulated what the investment meant for his sense of belonging:

Knowing that there are faculty and advisors who are invested in your success personally makes a very big difference just in terms of your mentality, because especially as an engineering transfer student, you spend so much time doing prerequisites and not doing anything engineering related. So you feel like you don’t even belong… But when I transferred, knowing that there are people who are actually personally invested in me succeeding made a very big difference.

For Daniel, belonging was not a feeling he arrived with; it was one the institution produced through consistent, personalized attention. Multiple students named advising as the best or most beneficial part of the program, even above the scholarship itself, reflecting how deeply relational investment outweighed transactional support in students’ accounts. These relationships alleviated the precarity typical of transfer students, instilling a sense that faculty were personally invested in their success.

Academic Community through Tutoring.

Tutoring sessions and peer study groups served as structured venues for social integration. Students who previously studied alone found themselves “pushed” into collaboration and discovered its benefits for both learning and belonging. Alexander, who described social anxiety as a barrier, explained how the program’s structure resolved it:

The tutors were very helpful. It pushes you… Most people that have social issues, like social anxiety, they don’t pursue the way I want to study with somebody. It helps a lot if you have somebody to study with… but people like that, they need a pushing hand. So if you have a tutor… basically you’re put in a group, nobody ever even asked you, they tell you. You told me that you’re free now, so we’re going to meet at that time… It helps so much, basically.

Participants with social anxiety described tutoring as a “helpful intervention,” transforming potentially isolating coursework into shared endeavor. By removing the logistical and social pressures of finding, scheduling, and initiating academic support, S-STEM lessened the burden on students to form their own community. These experiences not only improved academic outcomes but also reframed engineering—often perceived as solitary work—as inherently collaborative.

Collective Identity through Bi-Weekly Meetings.

The bi-weekly gatherings emerged as the symbolic heart of the program; this space where academic support and social belonging most visibly converged. Students repeatedly used familial language—“it’s our thing,” “we’re a family”—to describe their S-STEM cohort. Oscar captured the feeling:

Having a program, an institution or a group of people that support you, you feel like you belong to some group of people and that actually empowers you. If you feel like you’re by yourself, a lot of times you cannot actually go out and feel confident. It’s like a family. If you have family backing you up, then you feel like you can take on the world, right?

Alexander described community as the defining feature of the program: “That’s one of the main aspects of S-STEM. It’s a community, right? It’s our thing. We’re a family.” The meetings also surfaced a recurring theme: the positive role of structured, expected participation for students who would not have built these connections independently. For students like Luke, the program’s structure did not feel coercive; it felt like permission and a push to become more connected than they would have allowed themselves to be otherwise. The meetings normalized the challenges of transfer, providing a space where students saw their own struggles reflected in others. The result was a durable sense of community grounded in shared experience and mutual encouragement.

3.3.2. USF Discussion

In this S-STEM model rather than expecting students to self-integrate into a four-year university culture, S-STEM’s design embeds belonging into the structure of financial aid and programming. This approach embodies what Strayhorn (2023) terms the perception of care: students feel supported because institutional systems actively demonstrate concern for their progress and well-being.

The program’s success also aligns with Deil-Amen’s (2011) notion of socio-academic integrative moments—interactions that blend academic purpose with social connection. S-STEM’s advising sessions, tutoring groups, and meetings all occur in academic contexts yet yield powerful social outcomes. While participants acknowledged improved grades, they most frequently highlighted newfound confidence, motivation, and interpersonal bonds as the program’s lasting impact.

Crucially, S-STEM’s compensated model acknowledges the economic realities of transfer students. By subsidizing not only tuition but also the time required for community participation, the program removes a major structural barrier: the trade-off between paid labor and campus involvement. In doing so, it democratizes access to the social dimensions of higher education that are typically reserved for students with more free time and resources. Through intrusive advising, structured tutoring, and required yet supported community gatherings, S-STEM at USF transforms financial aid into a holistic equity strategy.

3.4. Cross-Case Analysis

Despite differences in institutional scale and context, all three programs converge on the principle that financial aid alone is insufficient; it must be coupled with intentional structures that cultivate connection, validation, and purpose. At EvCC, S-STEM functioned as a faculty-driven ecosystem of mentoring and community building, anchoring its support in relational advising and field-based experiences (Meza et al., 2025). HCC’s model embedded culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) and community cultural wealth (CCW) into a seminar that linked students’ cultural identities to academic persistence (Espino, 2025). USF’s TURNPIKE partnership translated these principles into a large research-university setting by embedding institutional responsibility for belonging through a “compensated community” framework in which students were remunerated for participation in advising, tutoring, and cohort meetings (Tyson et al., 2024). Across cases, S-STEM advanced a common triad of financial stability, structured mentorship, and culturally or socially grounded belonging.

The first unifying theme is the centrality of human relationships. Students across sites described sustained mentorship—not transactional advising—as the most influential factor in their persistence. Faculty mentors demystified transfer processes (EvCC), facilitated identity exploration (HCC), and provided relational scaffolding (USF). These ties reflect Rendón’s (1994) concept of validation—the experience of being seen and supported by institutional agents who affirm students’ capacity to succeed.

A second shared element is the intentional construction of community and belonging. Whether through peer networks and field trips (EvCC), reflective seminar cohorts (HCC), or bi-weekly meetings (USF), each program designed belonging as a structural outcome rather than a spontaneous one. In doing so, they operationalized Strayhorn’s (2019) framework of belonging as a basic human need central to persistence. Belonging heightened students’ confidence and motivation and decisions to persist and to pursue advanced study.

Third, all three institutions demonstrated how material and social supports intertwine. Financial awards addressed survival needs, while mentoring and engagement fostered what Deil-Amen (2011) terms socio-academic integrative moments—spaces where academic success and social affirmation converge. Through these mechanisms, S-STEM students described not only improved grades and transfer readiness but also a deepened sense of self-efficacy and professional identity.

Differences across contexts highlight the adaptability of the S-STEM framework. EvCC’s model thrived on personalized faculty interaction but faced staffing and system challenges. HCC’s seminar achieved exceptional depth in reflective practice but required sustained facilitation and professional development. USF’s compensated model scaled community at a large institution but relied on continued funding. Collectively, these cases illustrate that S-STEM’s efficacy depends on contextual alignment—tailoring financial, relational, and pedagogical supports to local missions and student populations while maintaining the program’s equity-centered core.

Ultimately, the three cases converge on a single insight: equity in STEM education requires embedding belonging and care into institutional systems. When colleges and universities design programs that integrate financial support with intentional structures to support belonging, cultural affirmation and mentoring, persistence ceases to be an individual act of endurance and becomes a shared institutional achievement.

4. Discussion

Guided by Strayhorn’s (2019, 2023) conceptualization of belonging and informed by validation theory (Rendón, 1994), this study examined how community college STEM students engaged with S-STEM scholarships and associated supports across three institutional contexts, and which aspects of those programs most strongly shaped students’ academic and career decision-making. Across cases, students’ accounts suggest that S-STEM functioned less as a discrete financial intervention and more as an institutional mechanism for producing belonging through structured relationships, recognition, and care.

Addressing the first research question, students’ engagement with S-STEM supports was deeply relational rather than transactional. Although the scholarship initially motivated participation, students across sites described sustained engagement as emerging from regular contact with faculty, advisors, and peers. This finding aligns with Strayhorn’s assertion that belonging is generated through repeated signals of mattering, rather than through access alone. Students did not simply use S-STEM services; they described themselves as embedded within S-STEM communities that provided continuity, predictability, and affirmation in otherwise fragmented institutional environments.

Importantly, engagement took different structural forms across institutions—faculty mentoring at Everett Community College, a culturally grounded seminar at Holyoke Community College, and compensated cohort participation at the University of South Florida—but students interpreted these structures similarly. In each context, S-STEM was experienced as a bounded space in which expectations were clear, relationships were stable, and institutional actors assumed responsibility for students’ academic and professional development. This suggests that while program design may vary, engagement is most robust when S-STEM supports are organized as integrated systems rather than optional add-ons.

In response to the second research question, students consistently identified relational support and institutional recognition as more influential than financial aid alone in shaping persistence and career decisions. While the scholarship reduced financial stress and enabled greater academic focus, it was the combination of financial stability with mentoring and community that students credited with sustaining motivation and confidence in STEM pathways. This finding reinforces prior research showing that financial aid, while necessary, is insufficient to address the structural barriers facing low-income community college STEM students (Baltaci et al., 2014; Zhang, 2022).

Across cases, faculty and advisor relationships functioned as mechanisms of validation. Students described mentors as individuals who not only provided academic guidance but also affirmed their legitimacy as STEM students. These interactions align with Rendón’s (1994) theory of validation, particularly its emphasis on proactive institutional agents who communicate belief in students’ ability to succeed. Validation in this study was not limited to encouragement; it was enacted through ongoing practices such as advising check-ins, cohort meetings, and pedagogical spaces explicitly designed for reflection and dialogue.

The familial quality of these relationships—evident across all three sites in students’ descriptions of S-STEM as creating a ‘family’ atmosphere—resonates with a growing body of scholarship on relational belonging in STEM. Revelo (2015) concept of ‘la familia’ is particularly salient at Holyoke CC, where the seminar’s cultural grounding explicitly drew on students’ familial values and community identities as assets rather than distractions. The quasi-familial mentoring relationships students described at Everett CC and USF align with Simmons and Martin (2014) theorization of fictive kin, in which non-biological relationships with faculty and peers come to carry the emotional and practical weight of family support. Major’s (2025) notion of chosen family further illuminates how students across all three sites actively constructed communities of care within S-STEM programs—communities that were not simply byproducts of program participation but deliberate relational achievements.

Belonging also emerged as a mediating factor between program participation and identity development. Students frequently linked feelings of connection and recognition to increased confidence, willingness to seek help, and clarity about future goals. This pattern is consistent with scholarship demonstrating that belonging operates as a precursor to academic engagement and persistence in STEM (Strayhorn, 2019; Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Rather than viewing belonging as an affective byproduct of success, students’ narratives suggest it functioned as a condition that enabled sustained participation in demanding STEM pathways.

A key contribution of this study is its illustration of how S-STEM programs redistribute responsibility for belonging from students to institutions. Traditional models of student success often presume that students must navigate institutional cultures independently, placing the burden of integration on individuals. In contrast, the S-STEM programs examined here embedded belonging into program structures through required advising, cohort-based participation, and—in the case of USF—compensation for engagement. This approach aligns with emerging critiques of integrationist frameworks that inadequately account for the constrained choices and time scarcity faced by low-income and transfer students.

By structuring care, recognition, and community as institutional practices rather than optional supports, these S-STEM programs reframed persistence as a collective endeavor. Students’ success was understood not as individual endurance but as the outcome of coordinated academic, social, and financial systems. This finding extends existing S-STEM literature by highlighting the importance of institutional design choices in shaping how students experience support, belonging, and opportunity in STEM education.

5. Implications

5.1. Beyond the Scholarship: Reframing What S-STEM Programs Are for

The findings of this study challenge a narrow conception of S-STEM as primarily a financial intervention. While scholarship support meaningfully reduced financial stress and enabled greater academic focus across all three sites, students consistently identified relational and cultural supports—mentoring relationships, cohort community, and institutional validation—as the factors most responsible for sustaining their motivation and shaping their STEM trajectories. This pattern suggests that S-STEM program designers, institutional leaders, and NSF should reframe the purpose of S-STEM not as aid delivery with supplemental programming, but as the deliberate construction of belonging-centered ecosystems in which financial support is one component among several equally essential ones. Programs that invest heavily in scholarship administration but treat co-curricular supports as secondary or optional are likely leaving significant student outcomes unrealized. The AAAS report on S-STEM mentoring and support programs similarly concludes that non-financial program components are among the strongest drivers of student success and workforce entry—a finding this study corroborates across three distinct institutional contexts (Davis et al., 2025).

5.2. Structurally Embedding Relational Supports

A central lesson from the cross-case analysis is that the relational supports students found most valuable were not incidental features of S-STEM programs—they were structurally embedded ones. At Everett CC, faculty mentors were formally assigned and integrated into the grant leadership team. At Holyoke CC, the STEMinar created a required, credit-bearing space for identity exploration and community formation. At USF, cohort participation was compensated, removing the economic barrier to engagement that might otherwise have prevented low-income students from participating fully. In each case, belonging was produced not by hoping students would find community, but by designing institutional structures that made community unavoidable. This has direct implications for how S-STEM programs are designed and evaluated. Mentoring, cohort-building, and validation practices should be treated as core programmatic infrastructure—built into grant budgets, staffing plans, and accountability frameworks from the outset—rather than as enrichment activities that are scaled back when resources are constrained. Institutions applying for S-STEM funding should be encouraged to articulate not just what financial supports they will provide, but how they will structurally embed the relational conditions necessary for belonging to develop.

5.3. Recommendations for S-STEM Program Designers and NSF

Several concrete recommendations follow from these findings. First, S-STEM programs should designate faculty mentors with disciplinary expertise in students’ intended STEM pathways, rather than relying on general academic advising. As students at Everett CC made clear, STEM-specific mentoring that addresses transfer prerequisites, career pathways, and identity development produces qualitatively different outcomes than generalist advising. This expertise should be recognized and compensated accordingly. Second, programs should create structured, recurring spaces for cohort formation—whether through credit-bearing seminars as at Holyoke CC, regular scholar meetings as at USF, or field trip and social programming as at Everett CC to enhance the sense of belonging in their program. The specific format matters less than the consistency and intentionality: students need repeated, predictable contact with peers and faculty who know them by name and affirm their legitimacy in STEM.

Third, institutions should attend explicitly to the transfer transition as a site of belonging disruption. Students across all three sites expressed anxiety about leaving their S-STEM communities behind upon transfer, and this concern was not adequately addressed by any of the programs studied. NSF and institutional partners at four-year receiving institutions should explore articulation agreements, bridge programming, and continuation of relational supports across the transfer boundary to prevent the loss of belonging gains made at the community college level. Fourth, and more broadly, NSF should consider whether current S-STEM reporting requirements and evaluation frameworks adequately capture relational and cultural outcomes alongside retention and completion metrics. If programs are assessed primarily on scholarship disbursement and grade point averages, the relational infrastructure that this study identifies as most consequential remains invisible to funders and therefore vulnerable to defunding. Incorporating measures of belonging, mentoring quality, and cohort community into S-STEM program evaluation would better align accountability structures with what the evidence suggests actually drives student success.