This article is part of the Under the Lens series
Street Blocks to Alphabet Blocks: The Housing-Education Connection
“Just having to worry about day-to-day survival made it very difficult for me to do things like study for exams or write papers. I could go to campus and use the library and the Wi-Fi anytime I wanted to, but I always had these worries in the back of my head about where am I going to sleep. . . . I might have to sleep in my car and shower in the gym.” – College-Focused Rapid Rehousing participant
For some students, enrollment in college comes with a steady dorm or apartment home. But for many others, as the cost of housing and tuition rises and financial aid covers less, housing security is out of reach. For the first time, in 2023, the U.S. Department of Education included data in its annual National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) about the housing crisis facing U.S. college students. According to analysis of that data by The HOPE Center, more than 1.5 million students enrolled in post-secondary education in the U.S. are homeless. The HOPE Center’s own 2022-23 survey of 74 campuses further describes a bleak housing experience for many college students, with 49 percent facing housing insecurity and 14 percent homelessness.
According to NPSAS data and the California Student Aid Commission Food and Housing Spotlight, non-binary, Native American, and Black students enrolled at private for-profit and community colleges are least likely to have a fixed, regular, and adequate place to stay. The HOPE Center found that parenting students, LGBTQIA+ students, and Pell Grant recipients have the highest rates of basic needs insecurity.
Over the past decade, the harm that homelessness and housing insecurity do to college student well-being and academic progress has become increasingly evident. College students experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity have higher levels of mental health concerns and lose more days to physical ill-health than students who have secure housing. In the study Poverty in American Higher Education, researcher Katharine M. Broton showed that college student housing insecurity is associated with lower GPA, higher probability of being a part-time student, and a significant reduction in the probability that a student will graduate.
In response to this crisis, federal and state funds have supported strategies to address the basic needs challenges faced by college students, including housing insecurity and homelessness. Most such efforts undertaken by U.S. college campuses center on one-time interventions such as on- and off-campus emergency housing, emergency grants, and hotel vouchers. While these approaches may bring housing stability to some students, approaches that link campuses to community housing resources that can offer longer-term housing may provide more sustainable solutions for the most vulnerable students.
For instance, from 2014 to 2022 in Washington State, the College Housing Assistance Program brought together the Tacoma Housing Authority and Tacoma Community College in a partnership that provided students facing homelessness and housing insecurity with housing choice vouchers to reduce their rent and provide access to more affordable community-based housing. In New York City, the Neighborhood Coalition for Shelter’s Scholars Program provides year-round housing and supportive services to unhoused City University of New York students.
College-Focused Rapid Rehousing (CFRR)
California has launched the country’s largest campus-community strategy to address student homelessness with its commitment of $31.1 million annually to college-focused rapid rehousing (CFRR) programs in the University of California, California State University, and California Community College systems. CFRR is an adaptation of the long-standing rapid rehousing (RRH) model, which aims to get people quickly into permanent housing. RRH provides assistance with finding housing and with move-in costs, and typically offers a rental subsidy for a limited time. It also includes case management focused on employment and support services, with the goal of stabilizing housing.
CFRR builds on the RRH model and is intended to help students experiencing homelessness complete college. According to campus leaders interviewed for an evaluation of the program, students eligible for CFRR typically require long-term assistance, in-depth intervention, and wraparound services. One campus program staffer recounted that CFRR is rarely serving “students that are experiencing this for the first time. Usually, there is a history of housing insecurity in combination with food insecurity.” These students often struggle with complex trauma as well. The goal of CFRR is that students achieve positive outcomes in not only academic success and housing stability, but also financial security and physical and emotional well-being.
Fundamental to the college-focused rapid rehousing model is a partnership between a campus and a community housing organization that helps students enter permanent housing, offering rental assistance and services to address the causes and consequences of their homelessness. Rental subsidies are provided while a student is enrolled in school and end upon graduation. Services include case management and other supports such as budget planning, job search assistance, mental health referrals, and academic counseling to help students remain in housing while enrolled in college and ensure that they can live independently upon graduation and after the rental subsidy ends.
While much is now understood about the effectiveness of traditional RRH programs, much less is known about the effectiveness of CFRR. Our team at the Center for Equitable Higher Education has undertaken a three-year evaluation of the CFRR programs implemented on eight California State University (CSU) campuses and two California Community College (CCC) campuses, with a final report of our findings to be released in late 2024. Our Interim CFRR Evaluation Report sheds light on the work and early impact of these programs.
California Community Colleges is the largest higher education system in the country, serving 2 million students at 116 campuses each year. California State University is the largest four-year public university system in the country, serving approximately half a million students each year. Given the vast size of these systems, even as a pilot program on a subset of campuses, CFRR is not one uniform program, but rather a model with common components and desired outcomes. Consistent across all CFRR programs is that campuses are the main entry point to the program and provide academic support and connection to campus services. Campuses refer students to a community partner, which connects them to housing, ongoing housing support, and case management services. This partnership is the most foundational aspect of the program design and in our interim evaluation we found that many campus leaders see it as essential to program success. A campus student affairs leader explained, “We at the institution cannot do it ourselves. We don’t have the expertise, the financial resources, the infrastructure—we just can’t.” We found that transparency and clear communication between campuses and community partners are essential to program effectiveness, with an on-campus presence by community partners particularly important. At the same time, staff turnover has also presented a challenge, both to campuses and to their community partners.
Though there are commonalities across programs, campus programs vary significantly in eligibility criteria, services offered, types of housing available, amount and type of program staffing, and processes. A key issue that has arisen in our evaluation is variation in how campuses define “homeless,” “unhoused,” or “housing insecure” and in who is eligible to participate, making program outcomes not fully comparable.
CFRR Program Participants
Despite the differences in implementation across campuses, our CFRR Evaluation Interim Report shows that programs are indeed reaching the most vulnerable, unhoused students. Employing the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, we found that 70 percent of participants reported at least one experience of homelessness while in school. Most students had this experience immediately prior to entering the CFRR program, and their experiences ranged from living in their car to staying in shelters or couch surfing with friends. In addition, 97 percent of students surveyed reported experiencing housing insecurity and financial hardship in the three months before entering the program, such as having to move frequently or being unable to pay rent or mortgage. Furthermore, many program participants have a long history of homelessness and housing instability. One community organization staff member said, “Some of the young people that we serve have had housing instability for a majority of their life, not just when they went to college.”
In our interim evaluation we found that historically marginalized students and first-generation college students are overrepresented among CFRR participants. For example, Black students make up 26 percent of CFRR participants, but represent only 4 percent of the California State University student body and 6 percent of the California Community Colleges student body. First-generation college students are 72 percent of CFRR participants, double the proportion of first-generation students in the CSU (32 percent) and CCC (43 percent) systems. Furthermore, over half of CFRR participants are older than 25, 31 percent report a disability, and 17 percent are former foster youth. These differences highlight college-focused rapid rehousing programs as a key way to support and retain underrepresented students and further promote equity and inclusion across the CSU and CCC systems. One campus program staff member described CFRR students this way, “[Our students are] 18 to early 50s, all places in their academic experience. We serve some folks who are undocumented. We have queer students. We have students of color. We have a range of neurodiverse students. Just a really beautiful collection and representation of our campus.”
CFRR Outcomes
Our interim evaluation results indicate that the CFRR programs are meeting the goal of stably housing students so that they can stay in college. Seventy-three percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their living situation had stabilized upon being housed through CFRR. In addition, over 60 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that CFRR allowed them to spend more time on schoolwork. One campus program staff member said, “We’ve had so many students come back to us and say, ‘You were the reason I was able to graduate…You were the only people who didn’t give up on me.’ That’s been huge. I think that’s the core of why we do these things … to make sure students can be successful and they don’t have to choose.”
In addition to allowing students to focus on their academics, stable housing has improved the overall well-being of many participants. Students feel more financially stable, with twice as many survey respondents reporting having enough money to get by (55 percent) relative to their experience three months prior to starting the program (28 percent). CFRR survey and interview respondents also reported improvements in physical and mental well-being. One community organization staffer said, “A lot of students have been able to use that energy that they were using to just survive to actually be able to go to doctor’s appointments or get connected with mental health services on campus and things like that.”
Students and staff also reported the positive impact of CFRR on interpersonal relationships, with more stable housing allowing for less stress and a sense of social connection and belonging. Students surveyed said the program has allowed them to avoid negative and toxic relationships. In addition, our findings suggest that the relationship between students and case managers is critical in providing support and connectedness. One community organization staffer said, “I think the difference that this program makes for them is it gives them a support system. It creates that connection and that anchor to their community and to their campus that allows them to feel that they have a place to go when they have problems.”
Cautions
Recent evaluation of the CFRR model has illustrated strong outcomes for students while they are enrolled in higher education. However, three major cautions emerge in the implementation of CFRR that diverge from the original rapid rehousing model. First, as noted previously, students who have sought out the CFRR intervention report significant histories of housing insecurity, mental health challenges, and trauma. One student said, “Even before [the CFRR program] I struggled with my mental health. I was diagnosed with anxiety and depression and panic disorder.” These complex mental health issues experienced by CFRR participants may be beyond the scope of services provided by CFRR community partners. Students with significant trauma may require intensive and ongoing mental health services beyond case management, which in turn would require additional investment beyond what is currently allocated for CFRR.
Second, although CFRR has shown some promising outcomes for many students, the program has been largely limited to students who do not have dependents. The HOPE Center found in its 2022–23 survey across 75 U.S. higher education campuses that 68 percent of parenting students surveyed experienced housing insecurity. But many of the CFRR community partners do not traditionally serve individuals with dependents. Campuses would need to add new partnerships in order to provide permanent housing options for families. CFRR campus staff acknowledge that it is urgent to expand services for student parents, as affordable on- and off-campus housing for families is extremely limited. One campus partner said, “We have a huge population of students with dependents … and that really does impact their eligibility to receive services.”
A final note of caution is that it may not be feasible or appropriate for college-focused rapid rehousing programs or higher education institutions to promote long-term housing permanence as the goal of their programs. In practice, the CFRR goal is stable housing until graduation so that students can complete their college degrees, after which the housing assistance ceases. However, a college degree does not translate into upward mobility immediately upon graduation, and that can be a barrier to long-term housing permanence for students without a safety net. Many CFRR students worry about what will happen after graduation, particularly given the tight housing market in California and housing discrimination against students who lack strong credit scores, the ability to pay cash for security deposit and rent up front, and/or family support. As one campus leader said, “Once those conversations come up with the student like, ‘Hey, your time’s running out on the subsidies,’ then they start to have some anxiety and start freaking out.”
For example, being asked “What are your plans when you leave the program?” added to an “already stressful situation” for one CFRR participant. Her response? “I don’t have anywhere to go.”
Making a Difference
Although they don’t solve every problem, college-focused rapid rehousing programs are nonetheless making a significant difference for many college students. One CFRR participant explained that “now that I’m stable and I have a desk and I always have power and always have Wi-Fi,” their experience of college is “a hundred percent different.”
Another said, “Because I got the Rapid Rehousing, I was able to find housing. . . . I got an internship last year and through that internship, I got a job. I’m getting paid. … Thanks to all these programs that really helped me, I’m here right now.”
The research described in this article was supported by the Kresge Foundation, California Wellness Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, Walter S. Johnson Foundation, and Angell Foundation.
About the Author
Tags
Comments
One thought on “How These Schools Worked With Community Groups to Fight College Homelessness”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thank you for this tremendous resource filled with facts and updates on important programs that California’s communities are educating themselves on.