University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Wellbeing by design: creating a health promoting campus through a student wellbeing index survey and campus master plan

(USC Thesis Other)

Wellbeing by design: creating a health promoting campus through a student wellbeing index survey and campus master plan

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: WELLBEING BY DESIGN
Wellbeing by Design: Creating a Health Promoting Campus through a
Student Wellbeing Index Survey and Campus Master Plan
Chris Oliver Tacto, MSW, MPH
Doctor of Social Work Capstone Project
Capstone Defense Committee:
Annalisa Enrile, Ph.D
Rebekah Blonshine, Ed.D
William Feuerborn, DSW, LCSW
University of Southern California | USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
May 2020
______________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this capstone project is to provide an innovative solution to address major public
health and social problems known on college campuses in relation to “Ensuring Healthy
Development for All Youth,” one of the 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work. This project uses
conceptual socioecological frameworks of prevention and health promotion, campus master
planning, and restorative environmental design to create a comprehensive Campus Master Plan
for Student Wellbeing. Through executive-level partnerships, community collaboration, data-
collection and an active Student Wellbeing Index Survey, the innovation will provide institutions
of higher education with a Student Wellbeing Index Score, recommendations, and an actionable
list of items that can be implemented to increase the wellbeing of students on their campuses.
These actionable items will be categorized in 4 key areas: 1) Systems, 2) Settings 3) Programs
and 4) Policies along with recommendations on how to utilize biophilic, restorative
environmental, and systems-level interventions as an innovative tool and resource to achieve an
equitable, inclusive, and health-promoting college campus driven by student wellbeing.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 7
Background and Problem Statement 7
Relevance to the Grand Challenge of Ensuring Healthy Development for All Youth 8
Literature, Practice, and Innovation Review 9
Social Significance 13
Conceptual Framework and Theory of Change 17
PROBLEMS OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION 19
Proposed Solution and Innovation 19
Contribution to Ensuring Healthy Development for All Youth 21
Perspectives from Multiple Stakeholders 22
Building on Existing Evidence of Practice and Public Discourse 24
Consideration of Existing Opportunities for Innovation 24
Linking to Logic Model and Theory of Change 26
Likelihood of Success 27
PROJECT STRUCTURE, METHODOLOGY, AND ACTION COMPONENTS 28
Project Inquiry and How the Innovation Will Work 28
Analysis of the Market and Alternative Options 28
Implementation Plan, Obstacles, and Leadership Strategies 29
Financial Plan and Implementation Strategy 32
Methods for Assessment of Impact 34
Relevant Stakeholder Involvement 36
Communication Products and Strategies 37
CONCLUSIONS, ACTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 39
Informing Future Decisions and Actions 39
Consideration to the Fields of Public Health and Health Promotion 39
Limitations and Risks 40
Sharing with External Constituencies 41
Advancing Next Steps 41
REFERENCES 43
APPENDICES 49
APPENDIX A: Experiences and Attributes of Biophilic Design 49
APPENDIX B: SWIS and Campus Master Plan Logic Model 50
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 3
APPENDIX C: SWIS Score and Health Promoting Campus Certification Levels 51
APPENDIX D: Student Wellbeing Index Survey Key Performance Indicators 52
APPENDIX E: Inventory of Active Survey Measurement Tools 53
APPENDIX F: Key Stakeholders and Decision-Makers (Example) 54
APPENDIX G: Description of Project’s Phases of Implementation 55
APPENDIX H: Wellbeing by Design Implementation Plan Gantt Chart (pilot) 56
APPENDIX I: Project Barriers and Facilitators (EPIS Framework) 56
APPENDIX J: 2020 - 2023 Projected Revenue by Project Program/Function 57
APPENDIX K: Revenue Source Description 58
APPENDIX L: Staff Roles and Description 59
APPENDIX M: Marketing Plan for Student Wellbeing Index Survey (pilot) 61
APPENDIX N: Marketing and Communication Recruitment Materials (pilot) 61
APPENDIX O: Approved Letter to Students (pilot) 62

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Colleges and universities across the country have been the grounds where emerging
adults are introduced to an environment where intersections of academic and life-long learning,
development of relationships, professional collegiality, and human development co-exist.
Subsequently, such institutions may experience multifaceted issues where students’ mental,
emotional and social wellbeing are hindered, thus, impeding their academic success and ability
to thrive. The current project places primary focus on ‘Ensuring healthy development for all
youth,’ one of the 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work, and aims to: 1) reduce the incidence and
prevalence of behavioral health problems in the population from current levels over the next
decade; and 2) reduce racial and economic disparities in behavioral health problems by 20% over
the next decade (Fong et al., 2018).
Today, there is an international movement towards the direct measurement and
improvement of wellbeing. Moreover, measurements of “Best Colleges and Universities” have
for too long focused on academic rankings, donations and endowments, and institutions with the
best value - higher quality and lower costs - but such measures don’t describe the actual student
experience, let alone, student wellbeing. Wellbeing, in this context, is a concept that captures the
important aspects of how students feel about and experience their daily lives - encompassing
more than just physical health or economic indicators.
The proposed project is to create a measuring tool that is standardized across colleges and
universities across the country to assess the wellbeing of college students. In the form of a
campus survey, this tool will be used as a byproduct to support the development of a systems-
level Campus Master Plan for Student Wellbeing, a comprehensive guide that effectively
integrates ideas, processes, and strategies to create an equitable, sustainable, and health
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 5
promoting campus. The Campus Master Plan for Student Wellbeing is created to support the
following five conditions:
● Create environmental conditions that engage and connects students with elements and
designs of nature,
● Promote positive health outcomes through built-environment and systems-level
interventions,
● Support student well-being from a “whole is greater than the sum of its parts”
philosophy,
● Build community and collaboration through interactively-designed social spaces, and
● Develop human capacity and creativity through multi-sensory experiences
The process of measuring wellbeing on institutions of higher education fundamentally
improves the way colleges and universities gauge their prosperity and progress. When
universities shift their priorities to include elements of wellbeing, administrators can better
understand the conditions affecting students, especially impediments to their academic success,
and develop more targeted reforms (e.g. policy changes) that really make a difference.
The aim of this prototype is to build on the existing literature to bring new evidence in
two areas. First, the prototype assesses the relative importance of applying a subjective
measurement tool that captures information on how students experience their lives while enrolled
in college. Second, the prototype attempts a new innovation of higher education by estimating
the impact of subjectively measuring the relationship of a student’s immediate natural
environment (place) to their wellbeing.
The Student Wellbeing Index Survey (SWIS) has been approved by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at the first partnering institution and will be administered at the University
of Southern California during the 2020 spring semester. The survey will include 30,000
undergraduate and graduate students to participate where results will be shared with key
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 6
university leaders to inform strategic, policy, environmental, and budgetary decisions, for the
betterment of their students.
The current project, Wellbeing by Design: Creating a Health Promoting Campus through
a Student Wellbeing Index Survey and Campus Master Plan, ensures that participating colleges
and universities apply an evidence-based framework as a gold standard for assessing the health
and wellbeing of students and act upon data gathered to create a comprehensive campus master
plan for student wellbeing.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 7
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Background and Problem Statement
Universities across the country are experiencing multifaceted issues among college
students relating to their physical, mental, emotional and social well-being, thus, resulting in
significant impediments of academic performance and quality of life. Setting of colleges and
universities alike, are a place with identifiers of large-scale social work and public health issues
among college students concern their: 1) equity and inclusion; 2) physical health and mental
illness; 3) overconsumption of alcohol and other substances; and 4) sexual assault and safety, as
well as other factors that may impede student success. These areas lead to issues of barriers in
academic performance, attrition, and/or an overall institutional fiscal loss (Eisenberg,
Goldberstein & Hunt, 2009; O’Keeffe, 2013). This is an important and pressing problem in
higher education because a university’s operational systems, policies, and physical built
environments all have a stake in the health and wellbeing of students and in order to enhance a
culture of wellbeing, it is important to address this at a larger, macro level of change and
innovation.
As it is key to highlight and investigate the causes of these issues, the current literature
does not identify any single predetermined factor or study with representative samples on how
the health and wellbeing of students relates to other characteristics of the academic setting, such
as enrollment size, selectivity, competitiveness, supportiveness of academic personnel, and/or
field of study. However, resolving these issues goes beyond programmatic efforts, and instead,
can be effectively addressed by applying interventions at the systems, environment, and policy-
levels using a health promotion framework and campus designing approach (Dooris, 2006;
Frieden, 2010). With the support from concepts, assumptions, and frameworks of the Socio
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 8
Ecological Model, Restorative Environmental Design and various social determinants of health,
universities must develop organizational leverage points and intermediaries to design a health
promoting campus (Golden, McLeroy, Green, Earp, & Lieberman, 2015).
Relevance to the Grand Challenge of Ensuring Healthy Development for All Youth
The USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work has joined an international effort
to help solve some of the globe’s wicked social problems through the Doctor of Social Work
(DSW) program. According to Fong, Lubben and Barth (2018), some of these Grand Challenges
include ending homelessness, closing the health gap, and eradicating social isolation to name a
few. The proposed innovation places primary focus on the Social Work Grand Challenge of
‘Ensuring healthy development for all youth’ (birth through age 24 years). And has two goals: 1)
reduce the incidence and prevalence of behavioral health problems in the population from
current levels over the next decade; and 2) reduce racial and economic disparities in behavioral
health problems by 20% over the next decade (Fong et al., 2018).
The aforementioned four major social work and public health challenges place a strong
significance upon the Grand Challenges of Social Work as these components impact the overall
health and wellbeing of college students during a time of transition for these young adults as they
shift from living at home with their families to living independently, often far away from home.
These behavioral outcomes typically involves greater financial concerns, the tensions of new
social relationships, increased pressure to excel, and a heightened demand for academic
autonomy and self-reliance (Perry, Hall, & Ruthig, 2005). At an institutional level, these actions
can also lead to high financial costs to the student, college or university in which the students are
enrolled in, or high related costs for treatment services (Kupchella, 2009).
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 9
Literature, Practice, and Innovation Review
Traditionally, addressing these challenges fell under the responsibility and charge of
university Student Affairs or Student Life. These professionals react to these challenges by
creating student programs and services aimed to develop higher levels of student learning and
development by knowledge and skill-building, increased student engagement, and the promotion
student participation in awareness activities through student trainings and invited guest lectures
(Kilgo, Mollet, & Pascarella, 2016).
Okanagan Charter for Health Promotion in Colleges and Universities. In recent years,
health promotion professionals of higher education have convened to deliberately discuss the
future of health outcomes on colleges and universities. The Okanagan Charter (2015) was built
upon the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, which emphasized that health promotion requires
moving beyond a sole focus on individual behavior, and instead, enact a wide range of social and
environmental interventions to enhance health in all systems of society. Building on old ideas
and incorporating the latest concepts, processes, and principles of health promotion, the
Okanagan Charter strives to advance health promotion internationally by challenging universities
and colleges to transform the health and sustainability of our current and future societies. This
direction appears to hold immense promise, as universities play a central role in the development
of individual citizens, societies, and cultures, both at a local and international scale. The charter
proceeds to provide an action framework for higher education institutions with two key calls to
action: 1) To embed health into all aspects of campus culture, across the administration,
operations, and academic mandates, and; 2) To lead health promotion action and collaboration
locally and globally.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 10
The charter was an outcome of the 2015 International Conference on Health Promoting
Universities and Colleges, in which researchers, practitioners, administrators, students, and
policy makers from 45 countries collaborated in its development. With all the expert input and
review that the Okanagan Charter received, it is no surprise that it is an innovative, well-thought
out, and capable framework for international health promotion, taking advantage of colleges and
universities as a vector for education, research, and novel creation.
University Urbanization. Since the turn of the millennium, there have been significant
increases in students enrolling in colleges and universities (National Center for Education
Statistics, n.d.). This shift has resulted in universities experiencing rapid urbanization, resulting
in heavily populated built environments where new buildings and parking structures were once
known to be havens for green open spaces. One of the negative outcomes to changes in
university urbanization is that students were becoming less connected with their natural
counterparts, otherwise known as living elements. This has led to negative effects upon their
wellbeing and health which can seemingly impede their academic standings and overall college
experiences (Srivastava, 2009). Although students may acknowledge this problem, the inclusion
and development of modern buildings and contemporary designs have led people to believe that
humans and nature do not need a living system relationship (Seymour, 2016). This belief stems
from the problems of modern buildings and engineered products fostering the perception that
humans do not need ‘nature’ and living systems. Supported by Roös (2016), the problem can
lead to long-term micro and macro-level negative consequences such as unsustainable energy,
unhealthy indoor and outdoor environments, and the decline of student wellbeing.
Campus Design Planning. The traditional processes of college campus master planning
involve major areas in building development, transportation, and considerations of student
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 11
learning. Lately, pundits of campus master planners and designers are shifting these traditional
techniques by considering policies and practices that go beyond these experiences and
‘programs’. Most colleges and universities have developed policies and practices to address
issues such as improving graduation rates, increasing diversity, protecting personal safety,
improving students’ accountability for their behavior, and providing cyber security. However,
professionals in this field don’t account for the physical environment being a factor when
addressing these social interactions. In recent literature, professionals are linking the connection
between environmental design and campus planning when ensuring a restorative and supportive
physical environment (Ardiles, Hutchinson, Stanton, & Dhaliwal, 2017; Hajrasouliha, 2017).
Larkin and Willis (2015) supports the importance of designing college campuses where
students can ‘experience’ college in a sensory and meaningful way. One example is the
connection of students with nature. Their research suggests that people with access to natural
environments show higher levels of attention than those without access. When considering the
design, layout, and overall plan of college campuses, institutions of higher education must
account for the way in which their campus is landscaped, building a presence of nature and
environmental presence. A second example suggests these experiences engage the sight, smell,
sound, touch and taste with students’ wellbeing and how they may impact their emotional
response. In context, the large effect of environmental noise and how planning around the sense
of hearing is significantly important and can lead to causes of adverse health effects.
Biophilic Design and Restorative Environments. In recent years, biophilic design and
the lens of restorative environments have been receiving increasing attention as philosophies that
both support empirical evidence for positive effects of nature on a human’s health, wellbeing,
and overall quality of life. The term Biophilia was introduced in 1984 by E.O. Wilson and refers
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 12
to the instinctive bond between human beings and other living organisms (Wilson, 1984). While
biophilia is the theory, biophilic design as advocated by Kellert et al. (2008) and Beatley (2010)
and involves a process that offers a restorative and sustainable design strategy that incorporates
reconnecting people with the natural environment.
The evolution of biophilic design includes five key overarching principles that represent
fundamental conditions for effective practice:
1. Biophilic design requires repeated and sustained engagement with nature.
2. Biophilic design focuses on human adaptations to the natural world that over
evolutionary time have advanced people’s health and fitness.
3. Biophilic design emphasizes an emotional attachment to particular settings
and places.
4. Biophilic design promotes positive interactions between people and nature that
expand our understanding of community to include both humans and nature.
5. Biophilic design encourages ecologically connected, mutual reinforcing, and
integrated design solutions.
In addition, characteristics of biophilic design is detailed through three experiences and 24
attributes listed in Appendix A (Kellert, 2015).
Consequently, biophilic design proposes that the exposure to the natural world is
necessary for human well-being (Wilson, 1984). This theory has been researched, presented and
exemplified in previous settings. For example, original theorists claim outdoor visual
environments have shown positive outcomes for American and European patients who are in
recovery for postoperative procedures (Ulrich, 1984). The findings from this study have
supported that views of nature (i.e. vegetation, water, etc.) appear to sustain interest and attention
more effectively compared to urban views and generated feelings of positivity, reduced fear, and
fostered restoration from anxiety and stress. Soderlund and Newman (2015) concludes that
biophilic design is emerging as a social movement and should be applied to the built
environment as ‘biophilic architecture’. However, human interaction and connection with nature
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 13
is not prioritized in modern day societies due to various societal trends including urbanization,
building design, and lifestyle (Kellert, 2005). This impactful effort in higher education calls for
an action to incorporate natural features and systems into the built environment in colleges and
universities to provide students with much needed exposure to nature. Currently, there are two
building rating systems that promote biophilic and restorative environmental design directly;
these are the Living Building Challenge and the WELL Building Standard. Notable consulting
firms, such as Terrapin Bright Green, have also joined the effort to incorporate biophilia into
their building designs.
Social Significance
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (n.d.), there are 20.4
million students enrolled in a college or university, the highest it has been than any time in
American history. The current project focuses on four-year residential college students compared
to two-year community/junior college students as four-year residential colleges are in a setting
where they are transitioning from being dependent on their parents to learning how to be
independent as young adults (NCES, 2014).
Generation Z. Traditional four-year colleges and universities are growing with a cohort
of students representing “Generation Z”. Individuals who fall under the “Gen Z” cohort were
born between 1995 and 2012, numbering approximately 64.4 million or 20% of the United States
today. By 2030, 20% of the workforce will be of the Gen Z population and will significantly
differ from other cohort groups (i.e. Millennials, Generation z, Baby Boomers, etc.) through their
social, cultural, educational and living experiences. Through time, they will be the most
entrepreneurial, diverse and educated generation indicating that their college experiences must be
transformed in a way that meets their needs. Considering their learning capabilities and
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 14
environmental adaptabilities, college students of this generation experience adversity to succeed
while living in a college setting (United Nations Statistics Division, 2017).
Unique to each university, students attending four-year institutions experience facets of
four common threads that may impact their overall wellbeing. These social work and public
health challenges include initiatives that consider students’: 1) equity and inclusion, 2) mental
illness and physical health, 3) alcohol and other at-risk substance use, and 4) sexual assault and
safety. Each of these areas, although unique to its subject matter, can be interdependent and not
only affect the experience of students in higher education, but also their health and wellbeing.
Equity and Inclusion. Historically, colleges were known to be destined for students who
come from high social statuses; however, in today’s growing scene of students entering higher
education, many of these individuals are no longer composed of white, male students. As various
marginalized and non-traditional students are entering the college setting, diversity, inclusion
and social equity have become more of a central concern (Brown, 2004). Non-traditional
individuals include part-time students, students of higher age, and/or students from historically
underrepresented social/cultural groups (Stoessel, Ihme, Barbarino, Fissler, & Sturmer, 2015).
On an institutional level, administrators of universities are interested in increasing student
diversity and equity to have fair representation of admission and acceptance rates, however may
fall short by not providing a setting where students feel safe to celebrate their differences or have
a sense of belonging. For instance, Stebleton, Soria, and Huesman (2014) disaggregated their
data into certain demographic characteristics and discovered that first-generation students felt a
lower sense of belonging, higher levels of depression/stress, and needing, but not using, services
at a higher rate when compared to non-first generation students. On the tail end, institutions
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 15
place strong emphasis in student attrition and retention rates, in hopes that students of color are
not falling behind in their academic endeavors, when compared to their white-identified students.
Mental Illness and Physical Health. According to the World Health Organization World
Mental Health Surveys, the prevalence of college students diagnosed with a mental illness is
20.3% (Auerbach et al, 2016). This figure implies that almost a quarter of students enrolled in a
4-year institution have a history of a mental illness and/or disorder. Furthermore, mental health
concerns that are not diagnosed formally by a clinician is also high for this particular young adult
population. According to the American College Health Association - National College Health
Assessment II (ACHA-NCHA II) (2016), a nationally recognized research survey that collects
data about students’ health habits, behaviors and perceptions, the three top academic
impediments of undergraduate students are stress (33.5%) and anxiety (26.2%), followed by
sleep difficulties (22.9%). Similar data is reflected in graduate students; 22.4% stress, 19.1%
anxiety, and 13.2% sleep difficulties.
Food choices and eating patterns have also significantly been associated with
considerable weight gain occurring at the college/university setting. This is due to students’
limited accessibility, peer influence and busy schedules (Ali, Jarrar, Abo-El-Enen, Al Shamsi, &
Al Ashqar, 2015). College students are finding themselves to rely on commercially prepared
food options purchased through limited options, such as campus vending machines, take-away
and pre-prepared meals. Finally, physical activity among college students is also showing as
sedentary. The prevalence of achieving physical activity recommendations declines rapidly
between the ages of 18 and 24 and nearly half of all university students in the US are not
achieving recommended levels of physical activity (Weinstock, 2010). These measures support
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 16
that there is a need on college campuses to not just treat mental health concerns, but to create
systematic and environmental changes.
Alcohol and other At-risk Substance Use. Alcohol and binge drinking is nothing new to
the college and university scene. According to the World Health Organization (2014), 9% of
deaths among young people between the ages of 15 and 29 are due to alcohol-related events. In a
university and college setting, administrators are concerned about how the social environment
directly influences alcohol consumption. Extensive data suggests that students overestimate
alcohol and drug use among their peers use, especially when abstinence or very low-risk is the
campus norm (Perkins, H.W., Meilman, P.W., Leichliter, J.S., Cashin, J.R., & Presley, C.A.,
1999). In addition, policies around alcohol and other drugs use can be well-receptive in some
institutions, while others students continue to challenge alcohol policies on their campuses. In a
study where researchers explored students’ perceptions of introducing alcohol policies on
campus, it was discovered that alcohol is part of the social development of college students and
is a catalyst to being social and making new friends. This creates the question if alcohol policies,
especially in American culture where some geographic regions consume greater amounts of
alcohol than others, would not be sufficient alone in order to the culture of drinking alcohol in
college (Larsen, Smorawski, Kragbak, & Stock, 2016). Drug use among college students is also
associated with adverse academic and health outcomes, creating additional risks to personal
safety. According to Arria, Caldeira, Allen, Bugbee, Vincent, and O’Grady (2017), marijuana
tops the ranks as the most commonly used drug.
Sexual Assault and Safety. There has been recent growth of highly publicized cases
where sexual assaults are accounted for in American college campuses. According to the
Campus Sexual Assault Study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, 19% of
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 17
undergraduate women have experienced attempted or completed sexual assault since entering
college (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009). Given the unique nature of these
assaults occurring on college campuses, it is necessary to address the direct ties to the public
health issues described above. For example, the rise in sexual assault due to gender differences
results of communication differences among students (Jozkowski, Peterson, Sanders, Dennis, &
Reece, 2014). Furthermore, alcohol overconsumption is also linked to the rise in sexual assaults
as college men, for example, who consume alcohol at higher levels were more likely to
perpetrate sexual assault over the first five semesters of college (Testa & Cleveland, 2016).
Conceptual Framework and Theory of Change
The conceptual framework of creating an innovative measurement tool for student
wellbeing using a restorative environmental approach stems from the existence and guiding
principles of the Okanagan Charter and processes of campus design planning, as mentioned
earlier. According to the Student Wellbeing Index Survey and Campus Master Plan for Student
Wellbeing Logic Model (Appendix B), the project is guided by interpersonal processes that are
driven by institutional/organizational factors that lead immediate, intermediate and long-term
outcomes. The project uses a systems-thinking and a healthy settings framework with an end
goal to achieve an equitable, inclusive and health-promoting college campus driven by student
well-being. It is actionable in ways that it provides administrators and key stakeholders of a
university institution, the appropriate tools to redesign their environments to build capacity
through positive health, social, mental, emotional, and spiritual outcomes; all components of
student and community wellbeing. The proposed project is designed to use valid measurement
scales to assess various facets of student wellbeing. After developing a comprehensive and
standardized student wellbeing scorecard and student wellbeing campus master plan, the
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 18
program aims to certify the institution as one that applies evidence-based and healthy-setting
interventions, along with recommendations for long-term sustainability.
Social Ecological Model. The proposed project is strongly supported by the concepts of
the Socio-Ecological Model and theory in that it serves as a framework for understanding the
multi-faceted and interactive effects of personal and environmental factors that determine
behaviors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The holistic theory also sets an opportunity to identify
behavioral and organizational leverage points and intermediaries for health promotion. The
initial theory illustrated by nesting circles that place the individual in the center surrounded by
various systems (Kilanowski, 2017). The Socio-Ecological Model includes five hierarchical
levels that illustrates the complex processes of health-enhancing structural changes. Kickbusch
(1996) suggests that the socio ecological model of health led to the settings approach becoming
the starting point for WHO to lead health promotion programs, by ‘shifting the focus from the
deficit model of disease to the health potentials inherent in the social and institutional settings of
everyday life and pioneering strategies that strengthened both sense of place and sense of self’.
The rationale for the settings approach is based on an appreciation and acknowledgement that
health is determined not only by individual lifestyles, services and programs, but by wider social,
economic, environmental, organizational and cultural circumstances. The socio-ecological
framework centralizes elements of public health and health promotion by fostering an
environment supported by healthy policy and community-based action (Golden et al., 2015).
More specifically, the socio-ecological model serves a campus by 1) conveying the health and
social relevance of policy and environmental change initiatives; 2) build campus collaborations
and partnerships to support them, and 3) promote more equitable distributions of health-
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 19
promoting resources necessary for students to meet their daily need, control their lives, and
freely engage themselves in a curious, diverse, and scholarly environment.
PROBLEMS OF PRACTICE AND INNOVATION
Proposed Solution and Innovation
College and university campuses have always been the breeding grounds for change; a
place where new ideas are evolved and explored. The proposed solution is to create a
standardized survey instrument that subjectively measures the wellbeing of students for colleges
and universities across the nation. The proposed Student Wellbeing Index Survey (SWIS) uses a
quantitative method, serving as an innovative tool to advance strategic opportunities for
university departments, academic units, and administrators to improve the health outcomes of the
students and communities they serve. More importantly, the component of the innovation in
which is new to the field of social work in a higher education setting is introducing a tool to
assess how a university’s restorative environment serves as a key driving factor for student
wellbeing. The outcome of the project aims to integrate ideas, processes, and strategies using
elements of biophilic design while creating engaging, inclusive, and multi-sensory experiences
for college students on their campus. It is guided by the following principles:
1. Create environmental conditions that engage and connect students with elements and
designs of nature.
2. Promote positive health outcomes through built-environment and systems-level
interventions.
3. Support student wellbeing from a “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” philosophy.
4. Build community and collaboration through interactive-designed social spaces.
5. Develop human capacity and creativity through multi-sensory experiences and biophilic
design.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 20
With these 5 core guiding principles in place, colleges and universities will be best-equipped
with a health promoting and supportive environment that further enhances the wellbeing of
students and the entire campus community.
The project’s vision and universal goal is to create an equitable, sustainable, and health
promoting campus using a socioecological, healthy-settings, and systems-level framework. In
order to successfully carry this out, there are 5 key goal areas that the project aims to achieve.
Project Goals:
1. Increase healthy habits and behaviors by creating active physical, social,
emotional and spiritual spaces and programs on college campuses.
2. Increase student engagement, social connectedness, and sense of belonging by
developing intentional high impact and creative learning communal spaces.
3. Increase the number and quality of green spaces on college campuses using
biophilic design methodologies.
4. Secure partnerships with university campus planners and key stakeholders at
partnering institutions to investigate how a student wellbeing campus master plan
can be standardized and implemented at a national level.
5. Create and identify a metric system and/or measurement tool(s) to assess 7
Student Wellbeing Key Performance Indicators (see Appendix D).

Key Performance Indicators. The Student Wellbeing Index Survey (SWIS) serves to
measure college students' perceptions of their lives and their daily experiences through seven
Student Wellbeing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (Appendix D).
Research Questions Presented. The Student Wellbeing Index Survey is created to
approach the following research questions: 1) What is the wellbeing of college students in the
United States?; 2) How does it vary day by day, location, and across various institutions?; and 3)
Will the wellbeing of US college students change in the next decade, year, month, or day?
Stakeholders for Consideration, The project will be marketed to executives and key
decision-makers in colleges across the country who foresee opportunities using systems-
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 21
thinking, healthy-settings and built-environment approaches as strategic solutions to address
these major public health problems on their campuses. By formulating a Student Wellbeing
Campus Index Scoring system and Wellbeing Certified process, colleges and universities will
capture areas of opportunity and act upon creating systems-level and environmental interventions
to advance student wellbeing on their campuses. Finally, the project will offer numerous
resources and services and provide constant feedback and potential recommendations for
generating a high impact campus wellbeing master plan.
Contribution to Ensuring Healthy Development for All Youth
The innovation of creating a standard measuring tool for student health and wellbeing
aligns with the Social Work Grand Challenge of Ensuring Healthy Development for All Youth
by serving as a strategy, and in essence, a primary intervention that uses the systems and built-
environments of colleges and universities to prevent behavioral health problems in young and
emerging adults (enrolled in a college and university setting). The innovation addresses large
scale issues of social equity by considering how certain determinants of health and wellbeing
negatively impact marginalized and disenfranchised students. Marrying the goals, processes, and
outcomes of the innovation as seen in the Student Wellbeing Index Survey and Campus Master
Plan for Student Well-being Logic Model (Appendix B), the innovation aligns with the goals of
Unleashing the Power of Prevention (Fong et al., 2018):
● Reduce the incidence and prevalence of behavioral health problems in the population of
young people from birth through age 24 years by 20 from current levels over the next
decade and;
● Reduce racial and economic disparities in behavioral health problems by 20% over the
next decade.
Promoting the health and wellbeing of youth through schools has been an important goal
of the World Health Organization (WHO) for many years (Moon et al., 1999). This innovative
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 22
project aims to contribute to high-level prevention efforts to address various health and equity
issues on college campuses. To be able to craft an effective prevention strategy through systemic
and environmental interventions, college campuses across the country will notice students
building their capacities to become resilient, inclusive and overall, thrive.
Perspectives from Multiple Stakeholders
Internal Partners. At this point in time, individuals in the participating (pilot) institution
are the primary stakeholders involved with this project. For example, the project’s pilot
institution, the University of Southern California, will require participation and involvement of
various levels of leadership as well as the students. The project administrator (self) will work
with groups of people throughout the preparation, activation, and analysis of survey results.
These leaders include various key figures across campus (Appendix F).
External Partners. In addition, the project administrator aims to include a working
relationship with external partners to assist with designing and planning efforts. These
partnerships include Dennis Swinford, ASLA, of Goody Clancy, an external architect, planning,
and preservation consulting firm, and Bill Browning, of Terrapin Bright Green. Their careers as
long-serving architects have influenced the direction of the project and have also worked very
closely with several universities by observing environmental designs and creating campus master
plans at Yale and Harvard University. Establishing the foundation of building this multi-
disciplinary team is crucial in order to advance collaborative efforts as well as the fundamentals
of building trust across sectors.
National Organizations. On an external and macro contextual level, there are a few
national organizations that are connected with the problem and may be of useful resources. First,
NASPA (Student Affairs Professional in Higher Education) provides support for students and
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 23
drives student learning outside of the classroom using evidence-based programming and best
practices for health promotion strategy and initiatives. EverFi is another national organization
and the nation’s leading education technology innovator, providing scalable learning solutions
focused on critical topics in the classroom, office and communities. EverFi has worked with
numerous colleges and universities across the country collecting and reporting results of topical
surveys that are aligned with the projects’ outcomes including data in equity and inclusion,
alcohol consumption, sexual assault and bystander training, and many more. The data that they
share can guide the project’s mission and vision as well as serve as the multi-disciplinary team
with information that can impact strategic decision-making and campus master planning for
student wellbeing. The Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) is a community of
higher education leaders responsible for the integration of planning on their campuses and for
professionals who support them. SCUP’s involvement with the project can provide guidance for
strategic planning and provide best practices for creating an optimal campus master plan that
includes student wellbeing as a high priority.
Students. The most important group acting as stakeholders to the problem are the
students, themselves. College students are the driving force for why this problem is important
and relevant. They are faced with various challenges that can impact their academic
achievement, personal and professional growth, interpersonal relationships, and overall,
wellbeing (ACHA, 2016). Being able to have the students involved and informed of systems and
environmental interventions to further enhance their wellbeing is quite crucial. The students will
part-take in being fully active in the data-gathering process by participating in the Student
Wellbeing Index Survey can help inform key areas of opportunities and confirm pressing issues
relating to their social, physical, emotional, and spiritual health and wellbeing.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 24
Building on Existing Evidence of Practice and Public Discourse
The traditional processes of college survey design and campus master planning typically
involves building development, transportation, and considerations of student learning. Lately,
pundits of campus master planners are shifting these traditional techniques by considering
policies and practices that go beyond these experiences and ‘programs’. Most colleges and
universities have developed policies and practices to address issues such as improving graduation
rates, increasing diversity, protecting personal safety, improving students’ accountability for
their behavior, and providing cyber security. Professionals in this field don’t account for the
physical environment as a factor when addressing these social issues. However, recent literature
notes professionals acknowledging the relationship between restorative environmental design
and campus planning when ensuring a supportive physical environment (Hajrasouliha, 2017).
Health promotion and student affairs professionals are in the infancy stages of creating
opportunities for colleges and universities across the country to assess the wellbeing of their
students using a large-scale systematic and settings approach. It is through creating a
standardized measuring tool for universities that not only measures student wellbeing, but also
encourages restorative environmental interventions that have long-term positive health
behavioral outcomes and sustainable health promoting practices.
Consideration of Existing Opportunities for Innovation
There are various types of solutions that can be considered to address these major public
health and social problems on college campuses. However, most solutions on college campuses
tend to place a higher focus on post-intervention and treatment practices.
Biophilic design. Browning’s (2014) work in wellbeing through biophilic design is a
comparative example on how creating a campus master plan can be partnered in influencing
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 25
student wellbeing on college campuses. Biophilic design can reduce stress, enhance creativity
and clarity of thought, improve wellbeing and expedite healing. Using elements and patterns of
biophilic design as a strategy when creating a campus master plan for student wellbeing is an
opportunity where the two concepts are mutual in the promotion of student health. While one
focuses on generating systemic change to current university processes and climate, the other
contextually looks at the evolution of biophilic design in the institution’s architecture and
planning and presents a framework for relating and connecting students to science and nature
(Kellert & Calabrese, 2015).
Collective Impact. A second opportunity that the project considers for innovation is the
applicability of the collective impact framework when building collaborative partnerships within
the institution. Man units and departments in higher education work in silos, with limited
opportunities to create effective institutional change in policies, planning, programs, etc. The
collective impact framework is an innovative solution to bring people together, in a structured
way, to achieve social change (Kania & Kramer, 2015). Since a major part of the project’s input
requires senior administrative support, multidisciplinary teams and collaborations across a
college campus, one of the infrastructures that makes this project unique and innovative is
applying the collective impact framework to build these collaborative relationships. By requiring
the multidisciplinary team to involve the existence of a “backbone” administrative support team,
the work of the Campus Master Plan process will be highly effective and efficient. This is greatly
important as the project will encourage universities to have an identifiable goal and common
agenda, ensure consistent communication with the college community, an alignment of activities
and programs towards the long-term goal, have valuable measurement processes, and a
supportive group to advance the work of the planning process.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 26
Linking to Logic Model and Theory of Change
The innovation serves as a product based upon the components of the Student Wellbeing
Index Survey and Campus Master Plan for Student Wellbeing Logic Model (Appendix B). The
logic model functions as a useful guide to identify the immediate, intermediate and long-term
outcomes and is committed to enhance an environment driven by student wellbeing.
Methodology. The project administrator (self) will initiate the project by developing
relationships with campus leaders at the pilot university (University of Southern California) and
formulate a human subjects proposal to the USC Institutional Review Board to approve the
project. Once complete, the administrator will build a multi-disciplinary team to work on the
initiative with support and involvement from senior leadership.
Inputs. There are two primary inputs (resources) that serve as the foundation of the
innovation: 1) development of a multi-disciplinary team of campus stakeholders, and 2)
Implementation of the Student Well-being Index Survey. The assessment serves as the primary
tool to measure the 7 key performance indicators of student well-being.
Outcomes. The program plans to use a systems-thinking and a healthy settings
framework with an end goal to build a creative, innovative, loving, and sustainable health-
promoting environment that encourages college campus communities to live well and thrive. The
program is actionable in ways that it provides administrators and key stakeholders of a university
institution, the appropriate tools to redesign their environments to build capacity through positive
health, social, mental, emotional, and spiritual outcomes; all components of student and
community wellbeing. The program plans to use components of valid assessment tools from pre-
existing surveys (i.e. Healthy Minds Study, ACHA National Assessment of College Campus
Climate, etc.) to assess various facets of student wellbeing with the exception of the proposed
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 27
Restorative Environment, SWIS’ seventh module. After developing a comprehensive student
wellbeing scorecard and student wellbeing campus master plan, the project aims to certify the
institution as one that applies evidence-based and healthy-setting interventions. In essence, the
goal of the innovation is to guide universities to achieve an equitable, inclusive, and health-
promoting college campus driven by student wellbeing.
Likelihood of Success
Based on the project’s methodology and components of the Student Wellbeing Index
Survey and Campus Master Plan for Student Well-being Logic Model, the success of the project
is determined to be strongly supported by prominent public health, higher education, and campus
planning professionals. The project has a very feasible infrastructure to capitalize on resources
across universities as well as the involvement of well-reputable university stakeholders that are
passionate about student wellbeing. Embedding elements of biophilic and restorative
environmental frameworks for healthy settings learning spaces, the project is well supported by
both the literature and practice.
Piloting from an institution with its large size and world-class reputation, the University
of Southern California represents an institution publically known for its top-ranked academic and
athletic programs. Meanwhile, the institution recently publicly faced various scandals in the
areas of sexual misconduct, student equity, and community safety, thus, creating a landscape
where student wellbeing may have been disrupted. By creating an innovative measuring tool that
can measure and analytically observe these issues, the success of the program can be
documented and be scalable to colleges and universities across the country.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 28
PROJECT STRUCTURE, METHODOLOGY, AND ACTION COMPONENTS
Project Inquiry and How the Innovation Will Work
To fulfill the requirements of the USC Doctor of Social Work program, the project
inquiry format in which the prototype will be submitted is the Student Wellbeing Index Survey,
including the innovative Restorative Environment Design module. The prototype will include all
questions from each of the 7 Student Wellbeing Key Performance Indicators, as well as all the
approved letters, applications, and formal documents submitted to the pilot institution’s
Institutional Review Board. Finally, the prototype includes communication and marketing
materials that will assist with promoting the survey for student participation. The prototype will
be presented as a byproduct to support the development of a Campus Master Plan for student
wellbeing.
Analysis of the Market and Alternative Options
The current landscape to measure health and behavioral outcomes for students on college
campuses is not new. However, there is a gap in the current market for a comprehensive survey
instrument that measures the wellbeing of students at individual, communal and environmental
levels. Zhang and Renshaw (2020) demonstrated that various surveys have been in use since the
turn of the 21st century, but are limited by solely focusing on respective covitality or ‘subject
areas’ including utilization of health care delivery services and/or accounts of physical and
mental health experiences (See Appendix E - Inventory of Survey Measurement Tools for
Institutions of Higher Education).
This project serves as a new innovation and addition to current assessments by being
structured with seven subjective key performance indicators of wellbeing, as earlier defined. In
addition, the practice of measuring the restorative natural learning environment is substantial and
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 29
necessary in the fields of social work and public health. The following two examples are widely
used surveys and identifies existing limitations and considerations for why the proposed
innovation is demanded for further development.
ACHA National College Health Assessment. While the ACHA-NCHA I & II is used by
many universities across the US, the instrument itself solely focuses on frequency and not actual
higher level data analyses such as ANOVA and/or significant values. For example, the data
findings indicate percentages of students experiencing specific health behaviors by answering
questions related to ‘experiences in the last 12 months’ as compared to using valid scales.
Depression in the study, for example, asks students “feelings of depression” versus using the
PHQ-9 scale of clinically diagnosing depression, a threat to the internal validity of
instrumentation. An opportunity for innovation is to create a survey instrument that is valid and
reliable in nature and tested with the college student population.
Healthy Minds Survey. The Healthy Minds Survey (HMS) is a more recent approach to
measure and collect population data of mental health and conditions among college students.
The survey has a strong internal validity of instrumentation in that it uses valid measurement
scales such as the PHQ-9 for depression, GAD-7 to screen for anxiety, and SCOFF to screen for
eating disorders. An opportunity for innovation is to consider the impact of the setting and
learning and living environment in which the students are in. The survey also places higher
priority in the individual student, as compared to their relationship and connection with their
natural surroundings, as supported in the previously mentioned literature review.
Implementation Plan, Obstacles, and Leadership Strategies
Overview. Wellbeing by Design is a 4-phase program to partner with colleges and
universities towards an end goal to build a creative, innovative, loving, sustainable, health
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 30
promoting environment, which encourages students to live well and thrive. The program is
actionable in ways that it provides university administrators appropriate tools to design their
environments and enable positive health outcomes for its members. The program uses valid
measurement tools to assess aspects of student wellbeing, including the restorative biophilic
relationship with their natural environment. Using a comprehensive recommendation report, the
program plans to guide university strategic and campus master planners to redesign their built-
environment and implement evidence-based healthy-setting interventions as well provide the
organizations with recommendations for sustainability.
Procedure Timeline and Pilot Institution. When partnering with a university, the
project’s implementation is divided into four phases over the course of one year (Appendix G).
Each phase is dedicated to a specific function in which the involvement and description of
activities varies based on the development towards the overall outcome. For the purpose of
piloting this project at a single university, the project administrator plans to specify its reach and
build capacity at USC located in Los Angeles, California during the 2019-2020 year. Refer to
Appendix G for description of phase implementation and Appendix H for program Gantt Chart.
For example, Phase II of the project is dedicated to the assessment and data collection
period of the partnering university. The primary activity includes conducting the Student
Wellbeing Index Survey. This stage of the implementation plan is crucial as the next phase,
Phase III, focuses on analyzing the data collected to create a campus master plan for student
wellbeing and scoring the institution with a Campus Wellbeing Index Score. Finally, Phase IV is
dedicated to providing the partnering university with a Campus Well-being Index Score, based
on the results from the Campus Master Plan and the survey results. Depending on the score, the
university will undergo and be certified as a Health Promoting University® (Appendix C). This
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 31
declares the last process of the implementation plan. Further advancement of the partnership will
be included with a general sustainability plan that ensures the partnering university receives
continuous support, including a health promotion toolkit consisting of resources, best practices,
and a shared database with other partnering universities.
Obstacles and Alternative Pathways. When applying the EPIS Framework to the
implementation of the capstone project, various key phases describe the implementation process
supported in recent literature (Moulin, Dickson, Stadnick, Rabin, & Aarons, 2019). The
framework helps to systematically analyze and describe anticipated barriers and facilitators when
implementing the proposed innovation. For example, before implementing the proposed
innovation, it is important to consider what barriers and facilitators exist. At USC, current
executive leaders and shareholders are either unaware or at infancy when learning about the
project and the project’s goal. This serves as a barrier since high-level decisions and financial
resources at the University are made at the executive leadership and institutional level. A second
barrier in the inner context of preparation is the current relationship dynamics between campus
partners. Considering that the university houses over 4,000 students at any given academic year,
the number of services, programs, and activities offered to students are countless. These units
and departments spend many hours and resources by ensuring that they serve their specialized
student populations (e.g. LGBTQ+, international students, fraternity/sorority, etc.). However,
when it comes to establishing cross-campus collaboration efforts, there is a limited opportunity
as these units function and are resourced in silos. See Appendix I “Application of EPIS
Framework” for full EPIS Framework Barriers and Facilitators.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 32
Financial Plan and Implementation Strategy
Revenue Strategy. The project is presented with an opportunity to generate revenue and
an effective business model. The program administrator will not charge the pilot university,
however, a flat fee of $10,000 (this amount will increase through time as additional colleges and
universities contract and join the partnership) will be due for subsequent university partnerships.
It is inclusive of all costs associated with the partnership between the program administrator and
the partnering institution, including payment for the Student Wellbeing Index Survey,
Recommendation Report, and Student Wellbeing Campus Index Score.
Although there will be no additional revenue during the first four phases of a university
partnership (a flat fee has been administered as previously mentioned), the magnitude of the
revenue will also increase as other university partnerships develop. Most of the revenue will be
generated through college and university partnerships; working together to create and
standardize a campus master plan for student well-being. The marketing, publicity and usage of
the Student Wellbeing Campus Index Survey and Wellbeing Score will be the supplemental tools
to generate additional revenue. Once other universities learn and understand the value and
benefits of having an official campus well-being score, other universities can partner with the
organization to ready their campus with a campus well-being plan and generate a campus well-
being score. In addition, if universities would like to conduct a campus climate survey, but not
request for a recommendation report or Student Wellbeing Campus Index Score, a one-time
charge will be applied for adopting the survey(s).
Looking forward to the future, a long term revenue strategy will include publication in
the US News Report of National College Rankings. The goal will be to create a published annual
list of universities ranked based on their student well-being campus index score and serve as a
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 33
national tool for university administrators, parents, and most importantly, prospective students
when making decisions for college applications and commitments.
Budget Format and Cycle. The current project plans on utilizing the line item budget
format to discover and identify the expenses and objects/activities needed for the program and
fundamentally highlight all expenditures (people, commodities, facilities to rent, equipment,
contracts, and consulting arrangements) and revenue transactions. A major purpose of this
document is essential for financial control and will help the accounting and auditing processes.
The other asset that this format serves is being able to line objects for the entire program
innovation as compared to approaching the budget process based on units of service for each
function of the program (functional budgeting). The project will be applying the fiscal year using
12-months as the annual cycle and will begin each year in the month of July. This aligns with
fiscal year structures of most colleges and universities. The fiscal year structure will assist to
govern the start of the program, and help determine if any reduction, increase, or expansion is
necessary for any of the implemented programs/activities of the project. The steps of the fiscal
year will be the following four basic components: 1) Prepare and submit a budget proposal; 2)
Board of Directors and CEO approval; 3) Budget execution; and 4) Budget audit.
Revenue Projections. The project’s revenue comprises the fair value of the consideration
received or receivable for the sale of goods, services, and partnerships. The Project
Administrator (self) will recognize revenue when the university client obtains control of the
related service, goods, or contracted partnership. The most important revenue sources for the
project’s operations are through university partnerships, survey use purchases, contributions, and
fundraisers (Appendix J).
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 34
Sources of Revenue. The project has several opportunities of revenue. These avenues
range from university partnerships, survey-use sales and purchases, fundraisers, contributions,
and external professional organization grants, scholarships and stipends. See “Appendix K -
Revenue Source Description” for a full description of each revenue source.
Methods for Assessment of Impact
Process Measures. In order to evaluate if the partnering university is effectively and
efficiently following the project’s implementation plan, the program administrator aims to use a
summative evaluation approach. The project requires continuous communication with the
partnering university, as well as guideship to assist the university to act upon implementing
changes listed in the feedback report. For example, one of the key process outcome measures is
to determine the number of campus-wide policies that promote a safe, equitable, and health-
promoting environment. If the university actualizes the recommendation and policies have been
created, it is indicated that the program administrator’s support is effective and efficient. A
second example is determining the number of students participating in the Student Wellbeing
Index Survey. The higher the survey response rate is, the greater the indication that the program
administrator and team have worked to support the partnering university. The following lists
process outcome measure examples:
● # of campus partners actively aligning activities/programs/services towards student
wellbeing
● # of campus-wide policies created that promote a safe, equitable, and health-promoting
environment
● # of students participating in the Student Wellbeing Index Survey
Outcome Measures. The innovation project will be modeled using a One-group Pretest-
Posttest research design. Throughout the course of four phases, the institution will be resampled
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 35
in a linear ordering and will require the implementation of a baseline survey (pre-test) and a
follow-up survey (post-test).
During Phase 1, the administrator will gather quantitative outcome measures of the 7
Wellbeing Key Performance Indicators, including the innovative Restorative Environment
module. Results from this survey will be used to catalog the university of current, active, and
recurring programming initiatives that impact, drive, or hinder the wellbeing of students.
Furthermore, results will help to:
1. Identify key systems-level policies affecting the health and wellbeing of students (e.g.
alcohol policies, academic schedule, etc.).
2. Identify environmental-level factors affecting the health and wellbeing of students (e.g.
green space, social/creative, multi-sensory spaces, etc.)
3. Understand student health and behavior outcomes
4. Understand student services/program utilization
Intervention and Campus Score. During Phases 2 and 3, the pilot institution will consult
with Goody Clancy and Terrapin Bright Green to provide a detailed Feedback and
Recommendation Report and Student Well-being Campus Score. The Feedback Report and 5-
point scoring system will both serve as the intervention, providing data outcomes,
recommendations and an actionable list of items that can be implemented to increase the
wellbeing of students on their campus. The campus master plan for student wellbeing supports
research presented by Larkin and Willis (2015) where creating and designing a college campus
where students can ‘experience’ college in a sensory and meaningful way. The report will be
shared and organized based on the following recommendation sections:
1. Enhance Connection to Nature
2. Promote Active Lifestyles
3. Environments that Foster
Community

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 36
4. Reinforce Safety on Campus
5. Improve Inclusivity and
Accessibility of Spaces
6. Embrace Shared Governance
Post-test and Sustainability Plan. At Phase 4, the pilot institution will implement the
Student Wellbeing Index Survey for the second time (Post-test) and will be used to compare the
wellbeing of students from Phase 1 of the 4-phase project. Results of this assessment should
indicate an increased wellbeing score and should be used to continue sustainable action by the
infrastructure in which the project was created. By creating an innovative campus master plan
that can address all facets of student wellbeing using a prevention lens, the success of the
program can be documented and hopefully, be applied to institutions across the country.
Relevant Stakeholder Involvement
The project’s team of professional staff will include the following: 1) Program
Director/Administrator, 2) Financial Analyst, 3) Data Specialist, 4) Director, Communication, 5)
Campus Advisor, 6) Executive Assistant and 7) Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer. The
professional team will also be supported by two Community Outreach interns. During the four-
phase partnership with the university institution, the team will be working closely with university
administrators and campus leaders and guide them throughout the journey to becoming a
certified health promoting campus. At every level of the program, this team will advise campus
leaders using best-practices to provide the most health promoting setting, programs and services
for its students.
In addition to the professional team, external consultants will be also part of the
professional staffing plan. Two outside consulting firms, Goody Clancy and Terrapin Bright
Green, will act to be responsible for providing a Campus Master Plan for Student Wellbeing
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 37
feedback report with recommendations and a detailed strategy to create a campus master plan
based on the Student Wellbeing Campus Index Score (See Appendix L for full list of staff roles).
Communication Products and Strategies
Most of the expenses during the pilot year will be invested into the marketing,
communication, and promotion of the new and innovative project. The plan during the pilot year
is to promote and communicate the project’s purpose and overall goal to administrators and
campus partners at USC. The coordination efforts, including the marketing and promotion of the
Student Wellbeing Index Survey is a major part of marketing expenses. Creating survey
promotional posters, digital advertisements, radio ads, etc. is an important underlying factor in
order to receive the highest survey response rate. The total annual estimated budget for all
marketing and communication costs is $15,000. To increase these participant response rates, a
substantial incentive plan is also considered in the programming costs. In future partnerships, all
incentive expenses will be under the fiscal responsibility of the university institution (See
Appendix M for full marketing and communication details for USC, the initial pilot institution).
Invitation and Recruitment Materials. The program administrator created a marketing
and communications plan to assist with the recruitment of SWIS. The initial promotion and
invitation for students to participate in the survey comes from the university’s Chief Health
Officer, Dr. Sarah Van Orman, explains the purpose and process of the survey (Appendix O).
Finally, digital marketing will be the primary means of communication and promotion of the
survey. This is due to the unprecedented time during the 2020 coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic crisis where all university classes have been transitioned to be hosted online and
remotely for the remainder of the academic year. See Appendix N for approved SWIS Logo, and
Recruitment Postcard.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 38
External Communication. In order to promote Wellbeing by Design as a product to other
colleges and universities, the program administrator plans to create constant and consistent
engagement with national organizations by attending national conferences as a sponsor to further
promote the innovative SWIS measurement tool and the process of developing a comprehensive
campus master plan. This communication effort will be shared through national webinar
meetings, presentations and relationship-building with university constituents and stakeholders.
Once the project retains enough publicity to support its mission and vision, external
communication will be shared through other avenues including the Higher Education Chronicles,
a respected media source for institutions of higher education.
Addressing the Problems of Practice and Ethical Considerations
The submission of the Student Wellbeing Index Survey as a prototype for the current
capstone paper addresses the current public health and social work issues in colleges and
universities as a vehicle measure and improves the wellbeing of students. Considering that there
is no standard measurement tool in universities across the nation, the hope is to create a tool that
distinguishes itself as one that is comprehensive in design, considers systems-level processes,
and utilizes restorative environment and biophilic frameworks for future campus planning. As a
collection, the long-term solution will be met once a significant amount of universities undergo
the process of creating a campus master plan for student wellbeing and scored from results of the
Student Wellbeing Index Survey. Being able to share subjective data with university
stakeholders will give the project the clout it needs to not only become sustainable, but
necessary, for future college student generations.
The project carefully considers ethical concerns primarily through the partnering
university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is dedicated and charged with the
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 39
responsibility of reviewing the research content, welfare, rights, and privacy of human subjects.
Considering that this project collects subjective information about student experiences, the IRB
has the authority to approve such information, which implies the confidential nature of the
project. Moreover, this project has no immediate ethical issues and uses research best practices
for all recruitment, data collecting, and incentive procedures. Concerning potential risks and
negative consequences, the project acknowledges that some questions may make students feel
uneasy or embarrassed, thus, all participants are reminded of their ability to choose to skip or
answer any questions as necessary and that the participation is completely voluntary.
CONCLUSIONS, ACTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Informing Future Decisions and Actions
The project serves as a byproduct to formulate and assist the strategic process of creating
a campus master plan for student wellbeing. Once data has been collected at a partnering
university, the results will determine how the institution can improve the systems, policies, and
overall natural-built environment to achieve an equitable, inclusive and health-promoting college
campus driven by student wellbeing. The project is designed to serve as a tool that universities
can refer to for advancing wellbeing based on the 7 Wellbeing Key Performance Indicators.
More importantly, creating a campus master plan for student wellbeing will encourage key
decision-makers to include elements of biophilic design as an effective approach to develop
human capacity and promote positive healthy outcomes.
Consideration to the Fields of Public Health and Health Promotion
There is a national and global need to solve major public health issues in institutions of
higher education, more specifically, issues concerning the health and wellbeing of emerging
adults enrolled in college. Using a health promotion and healthy settings lens, the Wellbeing by
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 40
Design® program aims to provide colleges and universities across the country with a framework
that can guide university leaders and campus master planners to shift the way they currently
design and build their campus setting. The Okanagan Charter is the cornerstone of this
movement, using the whole-systems and built-environment approach, along with concepts of
biophilia and restorative environments, to create college campuses that support student wellbeing
(Okanagan Charter, 2015). The Wellbeing by Design prototype will serve as the golden standard
and will hope to lead the fields of strategic planning, campus master planning, and health
promotion in creating environments where students can live and learn on a campus designed for
student wellbeing.
Limitations and Risks
There are a few institutional, programmatic, and financial constraints that can cause
developmental complications for the project’s implementation. First, at an institutional level, the
pilot university leadership climate has been undergoing major changes due to recent historical
events. The transition of a new president and provost can impact decisions and disbursement of
financial resources for the project to move forward. In addition, the time it took for the previous
leadership to understand and engage with the project's goals and outcomes, may be needing
additional time and effort.
A second constraint of the project’s development at a programmatic level is the
development of the Student Wellbeing Campus Index Score. As stated earlier, there is no current
practice of scoring universities based on a wellbeing or health promotion scale. The program
director plans to work with fellow data and metrics professionals to see how to move forward
with creating a standard index for student well-being. This mini-project may also cause a delay
in the project’s grand timeline.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 41
The third constraint is related to the project’s financial plan. It is challenging to project a
true revenue and program costs report since the project is being performed at a pilot institution
where the work to move the project forward is tasked by professional staff working at the
university. The program administrator based most of the financial figures in a hypothetical, yet
realistic, perspective based on what is known about the project at its current status of
development. It is possible that more/less resources will be needed or utilized in reality which
indicates the bottom line figures can fluctuate.
The last constraint relates to the expansion and capacity of the project. Considering that
the vision of the project is to create equitable and inclusive health-promoting campuses driven by
student wellbeing, it would take great will and compassion to advance the project into fruition.
Numerous amounts of time, commitment, and dedication must be solid in order for these
activities to take place, especially if the project will expand as new partnerships develop.
Sharing with External Constituencies
Currently, the project will be shared only with the partnering pilot institution’s leadership
and key stakeholders. No formal distribution plan has been decided and future plans to share
with external constituencies, including other colleges and universities, will be determined after
the data collection and analysis process from the pilot institution. After considerations of survey
limitations and opportunities for improvement, a comprehensive plan to share and conduct the
survey at other institutions will be created.
Advancing Next Steps
The Student Wellbeing Index Survey has officially been approved to be conducted at the
University of Southern California during the spring 2020 semester (April 2 - April 30, 2020).
The survey will invite 30,000 undergraduate and graduate randomly selected students across the
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 42
University Park, Health Sciences, and Online (distant learning) campuses. The program
administrator will work closely with university leadership to ensure that the incentives will be
distributed accordingly, and that results will be shared with the USC community. Furthermore,
an extensive analysis of the data gathered will determine the institution's Student Wellbeing
Index Score and guide the campus master plan for USC to become the first Certified Health
Promoting University in the United States.

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 43
REFERENCES
Ali, H.I., Jarrar, A.H., Abo-El-Enen, M., Al Shamsi, M., & Al Ashqar, H. (2015). Students’
perspectives on promoting healthful food choices from campus vending machines: a
qualitative interview study. BMC public health, 15(1), 512.
American College Health Association. (2016). Graduate/Professional student reference group.
Executive summar fall 2017. American College Health Association National College
Health Assessment II. Retrieved from http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/NCHA-
II_FALL_2017_REFERENCE_GROUP_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_GRADUATE_ST
UDENTS_ONLY.pdf
American College Health Association. (2016). Undergraduate student reference group. Executive
summary fall 2017. American College Health Association National College Health
Assessment II. Retrieved from
http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/NCHA-
II_FALL_2017_REFERENCE_GROUP_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_UNDERGRADS_
ONLY.pdf
Ardiles, P., Hutchinson, C., Stanton, A., & Dhaliwal, R. (2017). Health Promoting Universities:
Shifting. Health Promotion in Canada: New Perspectives on Theory, Practice, Policy,
and Research, 268.
Arria, A.M., Caldeira, K.M., Allen, H.K., Bugbee, B.A., Vincent, K.B., & O’Grady, K.E. (2017).
Prevalence and incidence of drug use among college students: An 8-year longitudinal
analysis. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 43(6), 711-718.
Auerbach, R.P., Alonso, J., Axinn, W.G., Cujipers, P., Ebert, D.D., Green, J.G., … & Nock,
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 44
M.K. (2016). Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization
World Mental Health Surveys. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2955-2970.
Beatley, T. (2010). Biophilic Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Brown, L.I. (2004). Diversity: The challenge for higher education. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 7(1), 21-34.
Browning, B. (2014). The economics of biophilia: Why designing with nature in mind makes
sense.
Dooris, M. (2006). Healthy settings; challenges to generating evidence of effectiveness. Health
Promotion International, 21(1), 55-65.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J.B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in
college. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1).
Fong, R., Lubben, J.E., & Barth, R.P. (2018). Grand challenges for social work and society.
New York, NY: Oxford University.
Frieden, T.R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid.
American Journal of Public Health, 100, 590-595.
Golden, S.D., McLeroy, K.R., Green, L.W., Earp, J.A., & Lieberman, L.D. (2015). Upending the
social ecological model to guide health promotion efforts toward policy and
environmental change.
Hajrasouliha, A. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 166-176.
Hawkins, J.D., Jenson, J.M., Catalano, R.F., Fraser, M.W., Botvin, G.J., Shapiro, V., … Stone,
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 45
S. (2015). Unleashing the power of prevention [Discussion paper]. Washington, DC:
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
JED Campus. (2018). JED Campus. JED’s Comprehensive Approach. Retrieved from
https://www.jedcampus.org/our-approach/
Jozkowski, K.N., Peterson, Z.D., Sanders, S.A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014). Gender
differences in hetersexual college students’ conceptualization and indicators of sexual
consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. The Journal
of Sex Research, 51(8), 904-916.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2015). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses
complexity.
Kellert, S.R. (2005). Buildings for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature
Connection; Island Press: Washington, DC.
Kellert, S.R. (2008). Dimensions, elements, and attributes of biophilic design. In Biophilic
Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; Heerwagen, J.,
Mador, M., Eds.: Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.
Kellert, S.R. (2015). Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design. Retrieved from
https://blog.interface.com/nature-by-design-the-practice-of-biophilic-design/
Kellert, S.R., & Calabrese, E. (2015). The practice of biophillic design. London: Terrapin Bright
LLC.
Kellert, S.R, Heerwagen, J.H., & Mador, M.L. (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science &
practices of bringing buildings to life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kickbusch, I. (1996). Tribute to Aaron Antonovsky – “what creates health”? Health Promotion
International, 11: 5-6.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 46
Kilanowski, J.F. Breadth of the socio-ecological model. Journal of Agromedicine, 4(22), 295-
297.
Kilgo, C.A., Mollet, A., & Pascarella, E.T. (2016). The estimated effects of college student
involvement on psychological well-being. Journal of College Student Development,
67(8), 1043-1049.
Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2009). College
women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-
facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College
Health, 57, 639-649.
Kupchella, C.E. (2009). Colleges and universities should give more broad-based attention to
health and wellness – at all levels. Journal of American College Health, 58(2), 185-186.
Larkin, C. & Willis, D. (2015). Planning for wellness on college campuses. Campus
Design. School Construction News, 14-17.
Larsen, E.L., Smorawski, G.A., Kragbak, K.L., & Stock, C. (2016). Students’ drinking behavior
and perceptions towards introducing alcohol policies on university campus in Denmark: a
focus group study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 11(1), 17.
Moon, A., Mullee, M., Rogers, L., Thompson, R., Speller, V., and Roderick, P. (1999). ‘Helping
schools become health promoting: an evaluation of the Wessex Healthy Schools Award’,
Health Promotion International, 14: 111-22.
Moulin, J.C., Dickson, K.S., Stadnick, N.A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G.A. (2019). Systematic
review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework.
Implementation Science, 14(1), 1.
National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Back to school statistics [Fact sheet]. National
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 47
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education, 2014. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.nces.gov.
O’Keefe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal,
47(4), 605-613.
Okanagan Charter. (2015). Okanagan Charter: An international charter for health
promoting universities and colleges.
Perry, R.P., Hall, N.C., & Ruthig, J.C. (2005). Perceived (academic) control and scholastic
attainment in higher education. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research (Vol. 20, pp. 363-436). The Netherlands: Springer.
Roös, P.B. (2016). Regenerative-adaptive to future resilience. (unpublished PhD Thesis), School
of Architecture & Built Environment, Geelong: Deakin University.
Sallis, J.F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. Health
behavior: Theory, research, and practice, 5, 43-64.
Seymour, V. (2016). The human-nature relationship and its impact on health: A critical review.
Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 260.
Soderlund, J. & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: A review of the rationale and
outcome. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4), 950-969.
Stebleton, M.J., Soria, K.M., & Huesman, R.L. (2014). First-generation students’ sense of
belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities.
Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 6-20.
Srivastava, K. (2009). Urbanization and mental health. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 18(2), 75-
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 48
76.
Stoessel, K., Ihme, T.A., Barbarino, M.L., Fisseler, B., & Sturmer, S. (2015). Sociodemographic
diversity and distance education: Who drops out from academic programs and why?
Research in Higher Education, 56(3), 228-246.
Testa, M., & Cleveland, M.J. (2016). Does alcohol contribute to college men’s sexual assault
perpetration? Between-and-within person effects over five semesters. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 78(1). 5-13.
Ulrich. R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 224(4647), 420-421.
United Nations Statistics Division. 2017. UN Data [Internet]. United Nations Statistics Division.
Available from https://unstats.un.org
University of Southern California. (2019). About USC. Retrieved from https://about.usc.edu/
Weinstock, J. (2010). A review of exercise as intervention for sedentary hazardous drinking
college students: rationale and issues. Journal of American College Health, 58, 539-544.
Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MS.
World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on alcohol and health. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/112736/9789240692763_eng.pdf;jsession
id=AD6E63CAC902EC9943DDA82D9333CF28?sequence=1
Zhang, D.C. & Renshaw, T.L. (2020). Personality and college student subjective wellbeing: A
domain-specific approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 997-1014.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 49
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Experiences and Attributes of Biophilic Design
Direct Experience
of Nature
Indirect Experience of Nature Experience of Space and Place
Light
Air
Water
Plants
Animals

Weather

Natural landscapes and
ecosystems
Fire

Images of Nature
Natural Materials
Natural colors
Simulating natural light and air
Naturalistic shapes and forms

Evoking nature

Information richness
Age, change and the patina of time
Natural geometries
Biomimicry
Prospect and refuge
Organized complexity
Integration of parts to wholes
Transitional spaces
Mobility and wayfinding
Cultural and ecological attachment to
place
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 50
APPENDIX B: SWIS and Campus Master Plan Logic Model

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 51
APPENDIX C: SWIS Score and Health Promoting Campus Certification Levels

Student Well-being Campus Index Score and Health Promoting Campus Certified Grade Level
Student Well-being Index Score Range Health Promoting Campus Certified Grade Level
<70 Not Certified as a Health Promoting Campus
71-80 Bronze Certified Health Promoting Campus
81-90 Silver Certified Health Promoting Campus
91-100 Green Certified Health Promoting Campus
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 52
APPENDIX D: Student Wellbeing Index Survey Key Performance Indicators
No Key Performance Indicators Description
1 Sense of Belonging How much students feel valued as a member of the campus community
2 Fairness and Equity How much students feel treated fairly in classroom and out-of-
classroom settings.
3 Positive Mental Health How satisfied students feel about their lives and motivated to achieve
their goals.
4 At-risk Drinking How much alcohol students consume during a particular time period.
5 Sexual Assault and Sexual
Misconduct
How often students experience unwanted sexual contact.
6 Upstanding Behaviors How often students intervene for others in at-risk situations.
7 Restorative Environment How students feel connected to nature within their campus
environment.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 53
APPENDIX E: Inventory of Active Survey Measurement Tools

The following describes current health-related measurement tools used by institutions of higher
education, and considerations for why the proposed innovation is demanded for development.

Survey Instrument Source Description Subject Areas
AAU Campus Climate for Sexual
Assault
and Sexual Misconduct
To help participating universities
better understand the attitudes and
experiences of their students with
respect to sexual assault and sexual
misconduct.
● Campus Climate
● Perceptions of Risk
● Knowledge of Resources
● Sexual Harassment
● Bystander Behavior
American College Health
Association -
National College Health
Assessment (I, II, & III)
A nationally recognized research
survey designed to assist schools in
collecting precise data about their
students’ health habits, behaviors,
and perceptions.
● Alcohol, smoking, and
Substance Involvement
Screening Test
● Suicide Behaviors
● Mental Illness
EverFi AlcoholEdu
for College
An interactive, online program to
inform college students about how
alcohol affects the body, mind,
perceptions, and behaviors.
● Overview of key
definitions
● Myths and misperceptions
● Alcohol motivation
● Blood Alcohol
Concentration
Healthy Minds Survey Provides a detailed picture of
mental health and related issues in
college student populations.
● Patient Health
Questionnaire-9
● Anxiety Screener
● Eating Disorder Screener
● Attitudes and Beliefs about
Mental Health Services

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 54
APPENDIX F: Key Stakeholders and Decision-Makers (Example)

Stakeholder Title Role/Input
Board of Trustees Approves University-wide Decisions and Proposals
President/Chancellor University Executive Decision-maker
Chief Finance Officer Funding Resources
Chief Operations Officer Organization Resources and Processes
Director of Campus Master Planning Leads Campus Master Plan and Initiatives
University Architect Strategic Designer of Campus Master Plan
Vice President of Student Affairs and Student Life Executive decision-maker of all student activities,
programs, and services
Chief Health Officer Executive decision maker of student health, community
health services, and prevention programs
Director of Health Promotion and Wellness Programs Content Expert in Student Well-being
Associate Vice Provost (Student Engagement) Head of Student Activities, Cultural Centers, and
Student Engagement
Director of Residential Education Student Live-in Experiences in University Housing
Academic Senate Decision-makers of all academic department initiatives
Director of Disability Services Leads all initiatives relating to students with disabilities
Director, Department of Public Safety Enforce university policies, protects the safety of
students, staff, and faculty
Director, Environmental Health and Safety Enforces all environmental health policies, standards
and practices
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 55
APPENDIX G: Description of Project’s Phases of Implementation

Phase Time
Frame
Stage Description of Activities
Phase I Year 1 Partnership and
Integrated Planning
● Build university partnership
● Create Campus Master Plan for Student Well-being
Task Force
● Internal planning
Phase
II
Year 1 Assessment and
Data Collection
● Advanced planning
● Conduct Campus Well-being Environmental Scan
survey
● Implement Student Health and Well-being Survey
Phase
III
Years 2
+ 3
Design and Deliver ● Consult data results with Goody Clancy and
Terrapin Green
● Provide detailed List of Recommendation Report
● Design development
● Implement delivery of recommendations
Phase
IV
Year 4 Certification and
Sustainability
● Provide university with Student Well-being Campus
Index Score
● Certify university as a ‘Health Promoting Campus’
● Continue partnership with university for sustaining
health promotion best-practices

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 56
APPENDIX H: Wellbeing by Design Implementation Plan Gantt Chart (pilot)

APPENDIX I: Project Barriers and Facilitators (EPIS Framework)

Exploration Preparation Implementation Sustainment
Inner (F) - Key Performance
Indicators include
valid and reliable
measure tools.
(B) - USC organizational
leadership

(B) - Campus
departments and units
working in silos
(F) - Involvement of
external partners not
affiliated with the
partnering university.

(B) - Restorative
Environment Module
is in pilot; not valid
measuring instrument
(F) - Application of
Collective Impact
framework for
systemic change
Outer (F) - Application of
the Okanagan Charter
(2015) and Biophilic
Design Frameworks
(B) - Universities focus
on placing resources on
treatment practices
versus prevention and
health promotion
(F) - Professional
Organizations that
support the work of
health promotion and
campus master
planning (NASPA
and SCUP)
(F) - Campus Well-
being Index Score

(B) - Barrier (F) - Facilitator
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 57
APPENDIX J: 2020 - 2023 Projected Revenue by Project Program/Function

2020-2023 Projected Revenue by Project Program/Function
Program/Activity Projected Revenue
2020-21 (pilot) 2021-22 2022-23
University Partnership $10,000 (per
partnership)
$15,000 (per
partnership) x 5
$20,000 (per
partnership)
Survey-Use Sales & Purchases $3,000 (per
survey)
$6,000 (per survey) x
10
$9,000 (per
survey)
Fundraisers $5,000 $15,000 $25,000
Contributions $25,000 $50,000 $100,000
Professional Organization Grants,
Scholarships, and Stipends
$15,000 $30,000 $60,000
World News Report Health Promoting
Campus Rankings
N/A N/A $50,000
Total $58,000 $230,000 $264,000
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 58
APPENDIX K: Revenue Source Description
Wellbeing by Design aims to generate revenue through multiple avenues by the following
avenues:
University Partnerships
The highest projected revenue is expected to consist
of sales through contracting with partnered
universities and colleges. Any university who agrees
to partner and proceed with the four-phase Student
Wellbeing Index Survey and campus master planning
process for student wellbeing, will submit a one-time
fee (fee will be determined upon contract agreement).
The one-time payment will acknowledge the
university’s special interest to undergo the phase
process of implementing the Student Wellbeing
Index Survey, receive a recommendations report, and
receive an official Student Well-being Campus Index
Score. All programs will certify the university as a
“Health Promoting Campus” and will be assigned in
one of three well-being levels (Bronze, Silver, or
Green), depending on the Well-being Campus Index
Score.
Survey-Use Sales & Purchases
As the program matures and becomes noticed at a
national level, administrators from colleges and
universities may be interested in administering the
Student Wellbeing Index Survey on their college
campus and not receive a formal recommendation
report or student well-being campus score. This is a
supplemental opportunity and an additional revenue
strategy for the program. If a college or university is
invested to learn and assess their current campus
environment and/or student health and well-being
behaviors, knowledge, attitudes, and measure the
restorative environment, the institution may request
and pay for each respective survey. Each survey tool
is available for adoption and usage for $9,000.
Fundraisers
During the first phase of the program implementation
at the pilot institution, the program administrator also
plans to increase awareness of the project to
administrators of higher education by hosting a few
fundraising events. The purpose of the fundraising
events is to create dialogue, promote the program’s
vision and mission, and build professional
relationships with university stakeholders for possible
prospective partnerships. These events will act as a
roadshow and also serve as formal fundraising
events. The projected goal amount for the first year is
$10,000 which will primarily come from event ticket
sales and promotional items.
Contributions
Contributions are recognized as revenue when they
are received or unconditionally pledged and are
recorded as financial support. Contributions can be
provided by donors who are personally and/or
professionally invested in the project. These funds,
according to donor stipulations, may have a limit of
usage due to time or purpose. For example, a donor
may limit utilization of their funds for institutions
who may need to request for financial aid to
implement the program at their respective university
campus. When a donor restriction expires,
temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to
unrestricted net assets and reported in the statements
of activities and changes in net assets as satisfaction
of time and purpose restrictions. If contribution is
received and the restriction is met within the same
fiscal year, the contribution is reported as
unrestricted. The annual goal for contributions is
projected for $100,000.
Professional Organization Grants, Scholarships
and Stipends
The Administrator of the program will continue to be
an active member of professional organizations
associated with the project. These national
professional organizations include 1) NASPA -
National Association for Student Affairs
Professionals, 2) American College Health
Association (ACHA), and 3) Society for College and
University Planning (SCUP). These three
organizations are nationally known to be leading
associations for the advancement of health,
sustainability, and well-being for all students of
higher education. Through grants, scholarships and
stipends, the program administrator plans to submit
proposals for available funds to assist in
implementing and scaling the project at a national
level. By affiliating with these professional
organizations, the project aims to also be presented to
health promotion, student affairs, and campus
planning professionals for further advancement. A
goal of $50,000 (or $20,000 each organization) is
projected for the first year of the project
implementation.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 59
APPENDIX L: Staff Roles and Description

Staffing Plan, Roles, and Costs
Professional
Staff
Primary Responsibility Minimum Education Level Project
Activity
Program
Director/Admini
strator
Supervise staff and monitor all program, budget, and
administrative operations
Master’s in Public Health, Social
Work or related; preferred:
professional Doctoral degree
Phase 1-4
Financial
Analyst
Manage all financial operations, produce financial
reports, and develop financial strategies
Master’s in Business
Administration
Phase 3
Data
Biostatistician
Analyze data and statistics; contribute to design and
execution of research methods
Master’s Degree (statistics);
Preferred: Ph.D.
Phase 2
Director,
Communication
Manage and direct all internal and external
communications, create communication strategies for
university partners
Master’s Degree (Communication) Phase 3
IT
Specialist/Softw
are Engineer
Support the day-to-day operations and ensure network
systems for survey input flow smoothly; secure data
warehouse
Bachelor's Degree Phase 3
Campus Advisor Primary liaison to university partners; collects all data
and survey information; serve as advocate and key-
informant
Master’s Degree (Social Work,
Psychology, Public Health)
Phase2
Executive
Assistant
Manage day-to-day operations, organize and maintain
all partnership file
Bachelor's Degree; Preferred:
Master’s degree
Phase 3
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 60
Chief Diversity
and Inclusion
Officer
Cultivate and approach all partnerships using an
equity framework; encourages and supports diversity
strategies
Master’s Degree (Education, Social
Work, related field); Preferred:
Doctoral degree
Phase 3
Architect
(external
consultant)
Contribute to the creation and process of Campus
Master Plans for university partners
Master’s Degree (Architecture);
Credentials: AIA
Phase 2
Environmental
Strategist
(external
consultant)
Provides professional and strategic implementation
plan for university built-environments; creating
sustainable health promoting environmental
interventions; ensures biophilic design for
environment interventions
Master’s Degree (Environmental
Science, Real Estate Development,
Urban Planning, or related field)
Phase 2
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 61
APPENDIX M: Marketing Plan for Student Wellbeing Index Survey (pilot)

APPENDIX N: Marketing and Communication Recruitment Materials (pilot)

Logo:

Digital Flyer (postcard):

WELLBEING BY DESIGN 62
APPENDIX O: Approved Letter to Students (pilot)

To: USC Students
From: USC Student Health, Office for Health Promotion Strategy
Date: April 2, 2020
Subject: Help Us Plan for the Future – Take the USC Student Well-being Index Survey
Dear USC Students,
Over the past few weeks, our USC community has been challenged with a global pandemic, and consequently,
impacted our everyday norms, way of life, and overall well-being.
Our dedication to the health and well-being of our staff, faculty, and most importantly, our students is paramount
during this crisis. We are at a unique time and place to learn how this event is affecting us as individuals and as a
university community.
I am writing to announce the introduction of the USC Student Well-being Index Survey (SWIS), a
comprehensive instrument that will help our university community better understand your attitudes, thoughts and
experiences with respect to well-being at USC.
Questions will help estimate the current status of well-being on our campuses, on-ground and online, and collect
information on students’ experiences and attitudes towards the following subject areas:
● COVID-19 and emergency preparedness,
● Sense of belonging,
● Fairness and equity,
● Positive mental health,
● At-risk drinking,

● Sexual assault,
● Upstanding behaviors,
● Financial burden,
● Hazing,
● Restorative environment
You are one of 30,000 students who were selected to take part in the survey where results will be used to advocate
for resources and plan for services and programs to encourage a healthy, safe and nondiscriminatory environment at
the University of Southern California.
You must be 18 years old and above and are currently enrolled as a USC student to participate in this online
survey study. Participation in this survey study is voluntary and will take approximately 10-15 minutes to
complete.
We will use our best efforts to keep the findings in this study as confidential as possible. You can choose to skip or
stop answering any questions that make you uncomfortable. Data will be coded and identity stored separate from the
data file.
As a way of thanking you for your time, you will be entered into a lottery to win a $20 Amazon Gift Card by
completing the survey.
WELLBEING BY DESIGN 63
If you are interested to participate in this study, please click on the link below to go to the survey. The deadline to
complete this survey is April 30, 2020.
________________________________
These are unparalleled times, and together, we can plan for a safe and healthy future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the Office for Health Promotion Strategy, USC Student
Health at hpstrategy@usc.edu.
Sincerely

Sarah Van Orman, M.D., MMM, FACHA
Chief Health Officer, USC Student Health
Associate Vice Provost for Student Health
Clinical Professor of Family Medicine

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this capstone project is to provide an innovative solution to address major public health and social problems known on college campuses in relation to “Ensuring Healthy Development for All Youth,” one of the 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work. This project uses conceptual socioecological frameworks of prevention and health promotion, campus master planning, and restorative environmental design to create a comprehensive Campus Master Plan for Student Wellbeing. Through executive-level partnerships, community collaboration, data-collection and an active Student Wellbeing Index Survey, the innovation will provide institutions of higher education with a Student Wellbeing Index Score, recommendations, and an actionable list of items that can be implemented to increase the wellbeing of students on their campuses. These actionable items will be categorized in 4 key areas: 1) Systems, 2) Settings 3) Programs and 4) Policies along with recommendations on how to utilize biophilic, restorative environmental, and systems-level interventions as an innovative tool and resource to achieve an equitable, inclusive, and health-promoting college campus driven by student wellbeing.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Connecting students to wellness: student parents empowering parents)

PDF

Transitions to health a cost savings impact new pilot prototype dual acute hospital homeless response team social healthcare through housing...

PDF

Collaboration across systems: a program design to address the reoccurrence of domestic violence

PDF

Promoting emotional intelligence and resiliency in youth: S.U.P.E.R. peer counseling program ©

PDF

Strength-Based Reporting: a trauma-informed practice for mandated reporters, to address behavioral health concerns in children at risk of child welfare involvement

PDF

Ensuring the healthy development of all youth by focusing on the psychosocial well-being of early childhood professionals

PDF

Assessment and analysis of direct care community worker training: addressing social determinants of health in the home care setting

PDF

Reducing the prevalence of missed primary care appointments in community health centers

PDF

The Medicine Blanket Project

PDF

The road less traveled: personal development for school-aged youth

PDF

Catalysts redefining resilient communities and leadership excellence: an executive leadership program for social service managers

PDF

Institute on social practice integration research and education (INSPIRE): a workforce development solution to close the health gap

PDF

Operation hope

PDF

COACH: Connecting Older Adults to Community for Health - an evidence-based program to address older adult social isolation and loneliness

PDF

The Behavior Correction Unit (BCU)

PDF

Increasing access to mental health counseling for homeless youth: Peer2Peer Counseling Supports

PDF

From “soul calling” to calling a therapist: meeting the mental health needs of Hmong youth through the integration of spiritual healing, culturally responsive practice and technology

PDF

Governance Excellence through Consumer Voice

PDF

Integration of behavioral health outcomes into electric health records to improve patient care

PDF

Paved with good intentions: auditing higher education’s commitment to race and gender inclusion

Asset Metadata

Creator Tacto, Chris Oliver (author)

Core Title Wellbeing by design: creating a health promoting campus through a student wellbeing index survey and campus master plan

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Social Work

Degree Program Social Work

Degree Conferral Date 2020-05

Publication Date 09/16/2021

Defense Date 04/17/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag biophilic design,campus master plan,College,college and university,environmental design,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,research,survey,well-being

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Enrile, Annalise (committee chair), Blonshine, Rebekah (committee member), Feuerborn, William (committee member)

Creator Email olivertacto@gmail.com,tacto@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15918122

Unique identifier UC15918122

Legacy Identifier etd-TactoChris-10069

Document Type Capstone project

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Tacto, Chris Oliver

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu