Addressing Homelessness in Higher Education: Early Learnings from Staff on a State-Wide Housing Initiative

Background: Several recent studies suggest that student challenges with basic needs—financial, housing, and food insecurity— are widespread in most college and university campuses throughout the U.S. There is wide variability in how institutions of higher learning across the country address (or choose not to address) this issue. In 2019 the California legislature established permanent funding (approximately $19 million per fiscal year) to support a new housing intervention called College-Focused Rapid Rehousing (CFRR) to help postsecondary students facing housing insecurity and homelessness. With this funding, participating campuses were required to create partnerships with community-based housing organizations (CBOs) to support subsidized housing and case management for students. In this paper, we explore the perspectives of campus and CBO staff across the state of California, who developed and implemented programs. In particular, we explored what factors they believed affected the development of the program, and their perceptions of the challenges and successes of implementation.

Methods: After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board at the sponsoring university, researchers emailed administrators and staff across California community and 4-year colleges participating in CFRR and invited them to participate in a series of virtual (Zoom) focus groups. In Spring 2022, researchers facilitated seven 90-minute focus groups with 24 university administrators and 15 CBO staff across the eight campuses who have been piloting the College-Focused Rapid Rehousing program. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Qualitative coding and analysis were conducted by two team members with the use of Dedoose software for data management.

Results: Campus staff reported that having trusted, experienced community partners provide housing was instrumental in the implementation of the new program. They also noted that developing an MOU with housing providers that sets clear roles and expectations of each entity, though there was a need for ongoing communication to address uncertainty and changes in staffing. For some, co-locating both campus and partner agency staff on campus was helpful for communication purposes. Many expressed that there were initial tensions between campuses and partner agencies, particularly regarding eligibility criteria, but found that strong communication helped resolve those challenges. College staff expressed that there was variation in eligibility for the program across campuses, including initial minimum GPA, but that they later built in flexibility in these requirements. Addressing student mental health was a challenge, as some found that responding to these needs was not always an anticipated and funded element of the program. Campus staff found that, once students were referred to a community agency, engagement with the program was generally smooth, and that the financial relief supported students’ overall well-being.

Conclusions: This research provides an understanding of the initial challenges and successes of the CFRR program from the perspectives of service providers. Learnings included strengthening communication and definition of roles between campuses and partners, providing support to students with mental health support needs, and ensuring agreement on eligibility requirements. As these programs grow and change, strong communication between partners is of utmost importance, and further research is needed to determine outcomes and best practices.