Students' Experiences of Innovative Housing Supports: Findings from a Statewide Evaluation of College-Focused Rapid Rehousing

Background and Purpose:

Across the nation, rates of college student housing insecurity are staggering. According to the California Student Aid Commission, in May of 2023, more than 50% of college students who receive financial aid reported housing insecurity. Yet, student homelessness is not new. In 2019, the California State Legislature allocated $19 million annually to create and support a college-focused rapid rehousing (CFRR) program for students facing housing insecurity and homelessness. CFRR provides housing identification services, financial assistance, and case management services through a campus/community-based organization partnership. In 2021, the Center for Equitable Higher Education at California State University, Long Beach embarked on a three-year evaluation of the statewide program. The purpose of this paper is to elevate the experiences of students who participated in CFRR to understand their perceived impact of housing resources and case management on housing stability over time, academics, mental, physical and financial wellness, and provide recommendations for strengths and gaps within CFRR.

Methods:

This paper presents the qualitative findings of a larger mixed methods CFRR evaluation study that incorporated administrative program data, student surveys, and qualitative interviews of students, staff and community-based partners. A total of 41 CFRR students across California were interviewed for the present study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore individual experiences of CFRR, transcribed verbatim, uploaded to Dedoose analysis software, and coded through constructivist grounded theory analysis.

Results:

Generally, students reported improved housing stability as a result of CFRR participation. Nearly all students were experiencing homelessness prior to entering the program. Many participants noted that living in “survival mode” was a significant barrier to health, wellness, and academics prior to the program. Students appreciated the safety and security of the housing provided. Additionally, several of the CFRR students noted they had always been diligent students, but that access to housing allowed them a dedicated place to study, sense of stability, and the ability to focus on school.Yet, some students still reported significant mental health challenges and stress despite moving into housing. Upon exit from the program, most students either found permanent housing or felt supported in finding housing. Finally, students had three major suggestions for program improvement including increasing campus awareness of CFRR as a resource, training case managers in trauma-informed practice, and strengthening support for the post-CFRR transition.

Conclusions and Implications:

Findings from the evaluation suggest the promise of CFRR in supporting student housing stability and academic engagement. The research findings also offer a preliminary sense of strengths and challenges of the model and further illuminate areas for continued exploration. Resources for housing after program completion may be integrated in order to strengthen the long-term impact of the program. As student housing insecurity continues to rise across the country, the need for innovative strategies must be at the forefront of future research and practice.