Methods: Phase 1 methods. A mixed methods approach was used to explore student housing/food insecurity, including open-ended interviews/focus groups with staff, faculty and administrators (N=115); student interviews/focus groups (N=16); and student surveys (N=1,039) at one campus (CSU Long Beach). Findings pointed to the need for a CSU system-wide study to further examine issues from students’ perspectives.
Phase 2 methods. A mixed-methods design was utilized including student data. Housing/food insecurity among college students currently has no standardized measurement. To determine best practices for the phase 2 CSU system-wide survey, a comprehensive survey was developed using experimental measures. Humboldt State University (HSU) piloted the survey and 19% of students (N=1,554) responded. The phase 2 survey was refined and distributed to students across 23 CSU campuses (n=23,880). Descriptive statistics identify prevalence and severity of issues. ArcGIS heat maps identify hot spots of housing/food insecurity. Student focus groups and interviews were conducted with students (n=200) across the CSU system who identified as housing/food insecure on the survey. Qualitative data were analyzed in two coding cycles to develop codes and themes.
Results: Phase 1 results estimated that 1 in 5 students experience food insecurity and 1 in 10 experience homelessness. Participants spoke about students’ passion for learning being obstructed by homelessness. The phase 2 pilot survey data showed that 15% (n=225) of HSU students reported experiencing homelessness at some point since starting college. Food insecurity was reported at extremely high levels, 53% (n=824). Phase 2 quantitative findings (n=23,880) describe the prevalence and severity of the issues across the 23 CSU campuses. Emergent findings from phase 2 suggest parity with the phase 1 study and the phase 2 pilot survey. Qualitative results amplify CSU students’ experiences about housing/food insecurity. Themes are related to how they persist despite confounding struggles to meet basic needs, supportive people, programs and services/barriers experienced during matriculation.
Conclusions and Implications: Findings show the complexity of the university experience for students having housing/food insecurity. Students are persisting despite barriers from within and outside of the university environment. Further research on practices and policies to support students’ needs is required. State and federal policies must be crafted based on research to address students’ needs, so that those with housing/food insecurity have equal opportunity in pursuing a higher education.