Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education
(USC Thesis Other)
Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
i
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AGENTS: AN EQUITY FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESSING
HOUSING AND FOOD INSECURITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
by
Queena Hoang
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2020
Copyright 2020 Queena Hoang
ii
DEDICATION
Con dành tấm bằng này cho bố và mẹ. Con cảm ơn bố mẹ vì tất cả đã cho con từ nhỏ.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I have to thank my parents – thank you, bố mẹ, for always believing
in me and reminding me how proud you are. I would not have been able to do this without your
unwavering support and love. Although you will never fully understand why I was in school,
what degree I received, or what I do in my daily work, I know that you are still proud and that is
all I could ask for. To my siblings, Mark, Tania, and Kevin, thank you for grounding me and
humbling me along this academic journey. Thank you for the laughs and debauchery when I
needed a break. To my forever partner, Darren, thank you for allowing me to pursue this dream.
Thank you for your patience, encouragement, and support. Also, if it weren’t for you, I would
not have realized that I did some of my best writing in hockey rinks, volleyball courts, and
convention centers. I dedicate the next chapter in life to the both of us. I love you, boo.
To all my girlfriends from childhood, college, and student affairs: thank you for all your
kind and encouraging words. Thank you to those who remind me how privileged I am to have
earned a doctoral degree and that “not everyone has a doctorate!” May this continue to motivate
and remind those of you who also aspire to be a doctor one day, that you, too, are worthy! Thank
you to my APASS and Student Basic Needs Family, especially Jonathan and Ally. I could not
have asked for more supportive and understanding supervisors!
To my BBIBS: Ally, Dom, Jenell, Soso, and Vanessa – how did I get so lucky to find
such a solid group of bad*ss women to get me through these last three years? Thank you for
carrying me through to the finish line and never letting me give up. You all made every minute
of this time worth it. To my EdD cohort and classmates, especially Sally, Brandon, Danielle,
Branden, Debbie, Cory, thank you for always checking in and holding me accountable. You all
iv
are the most brilliant colleagues and I can’t wait to work for any of you one day when you
become president of a university.
To my Dissertation Committee: Dr. Tracy Tambascia, Dr. Shaun Harper, and Dr. Ronald
Hallett, thank you for serving on my committee, for all your support, guidance, feedback, and
encouragement along this journey. Dr. Tambascia, thank you for always believing in me when I
doubted myself the most. Thank you for challenging me and pushing me because you knew I had
more to give. You helped me grow academically, professionally, and personally, and words can’t
express how grateful I am for your mentorship. Dr. Harper, thank you for asking the challenging
questions and throwing me curveballs when I least expected, even though I probably should
have. I appreciate you keeping me on my toes. Dr. Hallett, thank you for sharing your resources
and content knowledge when I felt lost and hit dead ends. I am honored to have worked with all
of you and this study would not have been what it is without each of your expertise. Thank you.
To my APIDA village; to all the doctors that have come before me; to my role models,
sheroes, and heroes. Thank you for guiding the light, shattering the bamboo ceiling, lifting as
you climb, and carrying the next generations of doctors through with you.
Finally, to all my research participants. To the staff and faculty who dedicate their heart
and soul into this work, thank you. To the students who opened up and vulnerably shared their
stories, thank you. I am forever grateful.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................3
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................4
Limitations and Delimitations ..............................................................................................4
Assumptions .........................................................................................................................5
Definitions ............................................................................................................................5
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .....................................................................................................9
Higher Education and Organizational Change ..................................................................10
Systems of Oppression Within Higher Education .......................................................12
Public Investment and Accountability .........................................................................13
Food Insecurity, Hunger, Housing Insecurity, and Homelessness ....................................14
Data, Demographics, and Definitions ..........................................................................14
Food Insecurity ............................................................................................................15
Housing Insecurity .......................................................................................................16
Student Experiences with Food or Housing Insecurity ......................................................16
vi
Housing Insecurity .......................................................................................................18
Food Insecurity ............................................................................................................18
Impact of Housing and Food Insecurity on Marginalized Student Populations ..........19
(In)visibility of the Issue ..............................................................................................21
State and Federal Assistance for Housing and Food Insecurity ........................................22
Homeless Educational Policy ......................................................................................22
Food Insecurity and Governmental Assistance ............................................................23
Town Gown Relations .......................................................................................................24
The Impact of Capital ........................................................................................................25
Economic Capital .........................................................................................................26
Social Capital ...............................................................................................................27
Cultural Capital ............................................................................................................28
Conceptual Frameworks ....................................................................................................28
Organizational Change Theory ....................................................................................29
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................33
Methodology ......................................................................................................................33
Site Selection .....................................................................................................................34
Population and Sample ......................................................................................................35
Recruitment ..................................................................................................................37
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................37
Individual Interviews ...................................................................................................37
Focus Groups ...............................................................................................................38
Document Analysis ......................................................................................................38
vii
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................39
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................41
Coding ..........................................................................................................................41
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................42
Role of the Researcher and Positionality ...........................................................................42
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................43
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings ..........................................................................44
Participant Summary ..........................................................................................................44
Participant Profiles .......................................................................................................46
Emerging Themes from Data .............................................................................................48
Theme 1: Centering Students’ Voices .........................................................................48
Theme 2: Realigning Priorities and Goals ...................................................................54
Theme 3: Support of the Campus ................................................................................58
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................64
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ..........................................................................65
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................66
Creating Organizational Change ..................................................................................66
Equity Lens ..................................................................................................................69
Contribution to Research and Practice ...............................................................................70
Campus Housing for Housing Insecure Students ........................................................70
Discounts with Local Companies and Businesses .......................................................71
Furthering an Equity-Minded Framework by Asking Deep-Rooted Questions ..........72
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................73
viii
Recommendation 1: Create a Single-Stop Resource ...................................................73
Recommendation 2: Create Streamlined Communication ...........................................74
Recommendation 3: Break Barriers and Build Bridges ...............................................75
Implications ........................................................................................................................77
Racial Justice and Decolonization ...............................................................................77
Future Research .................................................................................................................78
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................79
References ......................................................................................................................................82
Appendix A Recruitment Email .....................................................................................................95
Appendix B Online Survey ............................................................................................................96
Appendix D Interview Protocol ...................................................................................................102
Appendix E Focus Group Protocol ..............................................................................................105
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Participant Overview ........................................................................................................46
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Capital and basic needs inequity, adapted from Abel (2008) ..........................................25
Figure 2 Schein Iceberg Model ......................................................................................................29
Figure 3 Bensimon (2005) Single and Double Loop Learning ......................................................31
Figure 4 Theoretical framework underlying applied critical leadership (Santamaría &
Santamaría, 2013, p. 8) ..................................................................................................................32
xi
ABSTRACT
An emerging body of research and literature around housing and food insecurity has
begun to surface in higher education. However, little is known about how institutions seek
organizational change in addressing the issue of basic needs insecurity. Moreover, the problem
of housing and food insecurity among students in higher education disproportionately impacts
historically marginalized populations. In confronting the issues of housing and food insecurity,
academic leaders must acknowledge the systematic and institutional oppression against
historically marginalized groups that exists on campuses while assessing their own
organizational systems and how they might contribute to these problems. This qualitative case
study provides a narrative exploring ways college and university initiatives and programs
addressing housing and food insecurity result in long-term and organizational change. This study
also explores how organizational change around housing and food insecurity is understood
through an equity-minded lens. The study found that participants believed centering students’
voices, realigning institutional priorities and goals, and receiving support from the campus
community were integral in accomplishing organizational change. This study offers
recommendations to higher education administrators involved with the creation and
implementation of student basic needs programs and initiatives and senior-level administrators
who currently have or are looking to adopt an equity-minded framework in addressing housing
and food insecurity for students on campus.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity affect many people in the general population
of the United States. Although limited, research has shown that the issue of housing and food
insecurity disproportionately impacts college-aged students. These issues have likely existed
among students for decades; however, their struggle has been invisible to policymakers and
educational leadership (Hallett et al., 2019). The assumption is that all students struggle a bit
financially while in college, “but that process builds character and prepares them for future life”
(Hallett et al., 2019, p. 1). In the past few years, the issues of basic needs insecurity have become
more evident for university staff, faculty, and students. According to the Wisconsin HOPE Lab
survey, 36% of students indicated that they do not have enough food to eat, 36% say they are
housing insecure, and 9% report being homeless. For students experiencing food and housing
insecurity, unique barriers related to housing status, such as insufficient housing options and
inadequate financial resources, may impede their ability to fully participate in postsecondary
education (Hallett, 2010).
As microcosms of larger societal issues, universities and colleges are working towards
addressing this issue of hunger and homelessness on their campuses. There are negative
ramifications for students and youth who lack essential needs such as a bed and healthy options
for food. Research has drawn correlations between the negative impacts of food and housing
insecurity and student success and academic achievement (Dudley, 2017; Phillips et al., 2018;
Martinez et al., 2018), behavioral issues (Alaimo et al., 2001; Jyoti et al., 2005), and mental
health (Bruening et al., 2016; Martinez et al., 2018; Patton-López et al., 2014).
Furthermore, the relationship between housing and food insecurity and college and
university organizational change has not been critically explored. This study employed a case
2
study approach, focusing on an in-depth analysis of one institution’s ability to achieve
organizational change around housing and food insecurity on campus. I focused on the social
change process and did not examine specific programs, policies, or practices. Utilizing Schein’s
(1985) cultural change theory and Bensimon’s (2005) equity-minded lens approach, this study
examined ways in which institutions effectively implement organizational and cultural change
around housing and food insecurity through an equity-minded lens.
Statement of the Problem
As student demographics continuously evolve in the areas of race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, gender, and nationality in higher education, basic needs insecurity is
becoming more prevalent on college campuses. The issues of housing and food insecurity
particularly impact racially minoritized and low-income college students (Crutchfield &
Maguire, 2018). College administrators are tasked with addressing this problem by implementing
quick-fix solutions through transactional services like free meal swipes, food pantries, and one-
time emergency aid. However, higher education institutions rarely dedicate the time to change
their organizational culture, values, and beliefs to create systemic and sustainable change for
college students who experience housing and food insecurity. In confronting the issues of
housing and food insecurity, academic leaders must acknowledge the systematic and institutional
oppression against historically marginalized groups that exists within campus structures and
assess their own organizational systems and how they might contribute to these problems. For
example, housing and food insecurity affect a wide range of students, but it disproportionately
impacts minoritized populations, particularly Black, Latinx, Asian American and Pacific
Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, former foster youth, and formerly incarcerated students.
Homeless educational policies such as the McKinney-Vento Act serve as a blanket approach to
3
solving the issue—ignoring specific realities of students of color receiving services under this
policy. Furthermore, failure to engage in an equity framework leaves oppressive structures in
place. As higher education administrators begin to explore intervention programs and policies to
mitigate the issue of housing and food insecurity, campus leaders rarely consider and challenge
how race, racism, and other social inequities manifest in practice and existing structures (Aviles
de Bradley, 2009). Harper and Hurtado’s (2007) study on campus racial climates presented nine
themes for institutional transformation regarding racial climate, including evidence that
institutions practice active negligence in addressing and engaging with race and racism in ways
that support minoritized student populations. This concept of active negligence may apply to
institutional efforts to address student hunger and homelessness.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to provide a narrative exploring ways college and
university initiatives and programs addressing housing and food insecurity result in long-term
and organizational change. I sought to discover key issues that should be considered by faculty,
staff, and students when deciding on major systemic changes. This study also aimed to explore
how organizational change around housing and food insecurity is understood through an equity-
minded lens.
Lastly, I aimed to provide information that would allow college and university
administrators to target and outreach to students at risk of housing or food insecurity to increase
intervention programs and policy efforts that more effectively help this population of students.
Research Questions
The following research question guided this study.
4
1. How are colleges and universities creating organizational change around housing and food
insecurity for the institution?
a. How can organizational change around housing and food insecurity be understood
through an equity-minded lens?
Significance of the Study
The study of change in higher education is a significant contribution to the field of
organizational leadership due to the general difficulty of making sustainable and systemic
organizational change. Additionally, there is limited research regarding housing and food
insecurity in the higher education context. Although initiatives to gather data around housing and
food insecurity are emerging and this issue is becoming increasingly relevant at colleges and
universities, there is little research regarding how institutions seek organizational change and
cultural shifts around these issues. The study also explored how colleges and universities address
housing and food insecurity with an equity-minded lens as the issue particularly impacts students
of historically marginalized backgrounds. Adding to the body of literature on this topic can
positively impact this underrepresented and marginalized student population. This study aimed to
share equitable and social justice driven practices that result in systematic and sustainable
change.
Limitations and Delimitations
There may be limitations that arise in this study. Higher education institutions are newly
addressing the issue of housing and food insecurity and, therefore, finding faculty, staff, and
students who have made strides in this area may be difficult. The limited sample may create
difficulties in drawing generalizations. Additionally, it is important to note that there is no one-
5
size-fits-all model in addressing housing and food insecurity, as there are numerous factors each
institution must consider that best serves its student population.
This study did not include individuals who do not work in a higher education setting,
such as government officials, politicians, or those within nonprofit organizations. Due to the
scope of the study and the population aimed to serve, I focused on interviewing students, staff,
and faculty who have implemented intervention programs or policies at one 2-year college.
Assumptions
This study was guided by three assumptions. The first assumption was that all
participants created significant change on their campuses in addressing housing and food
insecurity through either a policy, program, process, or procedure. Secondly, this study also
assumed that participants understood the unique experiences of housing and food-insecure
students within a higher education context. Lastly, I assume that faculty, staff, and students have
the ability to create institutional change around housing and food insecurity.
Definitions
Change - Isomorphism, adaptation, organizational change, and innovation or reform. Intentional
acts where a particular leader drives or implements a new direction (Kezar, 2014)
Change Agent - Anyone who can create change; multi-level leadership process with changes
emerging throughout the organization at different levels (Sturdy & Grey, 2003)
Equity - Creating systems that address unequal education and resources for students of
color due to institutional discrimination, racism, and bias (Bensimon, 2005); Providing the right
amount of resources that a certain group needs to live a full life, given the historical, material,
and social marginalization they have experienced (Zine, 2001)
6
Food Security – The United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (n.d.)
describes ranges of food security in the following manner:
• High food security: High food security: no reported indications of food-access
problems or limitations.
• Marginal food security: one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over
food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in
diets or food intake.
• Low food security: reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or
no indication of reduced food intake.
• Very low food security: Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns
and reduced food intake. (para. 3)
Homelessness - An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence
(U.S. Department of Education and McKinney-Veto Act)
Housing Insecurity - Unstable residency, including moving multiple times a year or living with
friends and family temporarily due to financial constraints (Cutts et al., 2011).
Low-Income – The terms low-income and low-SES are used interchangeably. Families are
designated as “low-income” when their taxable earnings are 1.5 times the poverty level or lower
(U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2014).
Low-Socioeconomic Status (SES) – Families are designated as “low-SES” when their access to
education, social class resources, or employment is limited (American Psychological
Association, 2014). While low-SES is defined and designated through a social class lens, and
low-income has a more monetary characterization, low-SES and low-income are used
interchangeably.
7
Minoritized Student Population - In this study, I intentionally chose to use the word
“minoritized” versus “minority.” Groups who are different in race, religious creed, nation of
origin, sexuality, and gender and as a result of social constructs have less power or representation
compared to other members or groups in society are considered minoritized (Smith, 2016).
Organizational Change - Bringing about positive outcomes for the overall organization (Kezar,
2014).
Social Justice - Focusing on social structures, processes, and institutional contexts that
dismantles structures of oppression (Osei-Kofi et al., 2010)
Students of Color - Refers to those who identify as Black/African American, Latinx, Native
American/Indigenous, or Asian American.
Underrepresented Student Population: A community of students that is insufficiently or
inadequately represented
Conclusion
In conclusion, research on housing and food insecurity is an emerging area of study in
higher education. With limited federal and state policies to address this issue, college students
are left navigating the issue on their own. These resources and support efforts are necessary to
assist with the success and retention of students experiencing basic needs insecurity. By
highlighting high-impact practices around creating organizational change by faculty, staff, and
students, I aimed to help colleges and universities address students’ housing, food, and economic
insecurity. This study provides additional qualitative research on how staff, faculty, and students
navigate campus politics and resistance to cultural and organizational change. The study focused
on the consideration of equity-minded when making these decisions.
8
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The following chapter will provide a
review of relevant literature on the topic of housing and food insecurity within a higher
education context. Chapter Two will also explore foundational definitions and policies that have
been implemented. Chapter Two will conclude with the framework in which this study will be
contextualized. Chapter Three will outline the methodology and data collection process that was
utilized to conduct this research study. Chapter Four will present the data collected and themes
that emerge. Chapter Five will provide an analysis of the findings and recommendations for
future practice.
9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Seeking and earning a higher education degree is one of the few ways for upward
mobility for students from low-income backgrounds (Broton & Goldrick-Rab, 2017; King,
2017). The financial strain associated with the cost of higher education may lead students to
make difficult decisions related to spending on housing and food. As the price of tuition
continues to rise, college students are increasingly relying on loans, taking on multiple jobs, and
sacrificing basic needs to pay for an education. There are negative ramifications for students and
youth who lack essential needs such as a bed and healthy options for food. Research has found
negative correlations between food and housing insecurity and student success and academic
achievement (Camelo, 2017; Dudley, 2017; Martinez et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2018;),
behavioral issues (Alaimo et al., 2001; Jyoti et al., 2005), and mental health (Bruening et al.,
2016; Martinez et al., 2018; Patton-López et al., 2014). However, there is a gap in research and
practice when it comes to addressing the larger problem of food and housing insecurity on
college campuses.
Many factors may cause a student’s inability to afford college. Not only are tuition costs
rising, but there are also social and economic policies that exacerbate the issues of basic needs
insecurity for college students. Declining state support is a main contributor to increasing costs
for California students enrolled in public universities (Martinez et al., 2018). In 1990, 78% of the
total cost of education per student was state-funded, compared with 40% in 2018–2019
(University of California, 2020). Urban areas are increasingly expensive, and the top
metropolitan areas in the country have seen rent, real estate, and cost of living rising at the fastest
rates in the last 10 years (DePietro, 2018; Wise, 2018). When the cost of living rises this rapidly,
many different parts of society and the economy are impacted, including college students. These
10
urban metropolitan areas house many of the largest 4-year institutions. To address this issue of
hunger and homelessness on campus, higher education institutions are asked to achieve more
with less and to serve a broader and more diverse student population with limited or fewer
resources (Shugart, 2013). These are large concerns that often require an organizational or
cultural change within the institutions to better align priorities with these emerging needs.
This study aimed to understand how college and university staff, faculty, and students
tackle the issue of housing and food insecurity on campus within an organizational change
framework. I explored how change agents shift culture regarding the issue of basic needs
insecurity through programs, policies, and practice. Through an equity-minded lens, the study
explored how institutions move forward in reducing hunger and homelessness among students.
This chapter will provide the historical context of housing and food insecurity in higher
education while defining and illustrating the college student experience through data. The
importance of economic, social, and cultural capital as a potential barrier or impact on students
who experience housing and food insecurity will also be examined. This chapter concludes with
a review of Schein’s (1985) organizational change model and Bensimon’s (2005) single and
double-loop learning as the conceptual frameworks that guided this study.
Higher Education and Organizational Change
As the landscape of higher education becomes more diverse in terms of race, ethnicity,
SES, gender, and nationality, colleges and university must adjust their structures to support and
embrace these populations. Research indicates that higher education still has poor retention and
graduation rates among historically marginalized groups, particularly for low-income and
racially minoritized students (Kezar, 2014). Adding basic needs insecurity into the equation for
these communities increases the level of complexity and requisite support on university
11
campuses. Housing and food insecurity can be detrimental to students’ mental health, well-being,
and academic success (Martinez et al., 2018). Students experiencing housing and food insecurity
often feel added burden and stress, affecting mental and physical well-being, leading to more
missed days of work or school (Hallett, et al., 2019). Increasing resources to address housing and
food insecurity may improve the student experience and, ultimately, academic success.
Historically, higher education has faced many crises and had to respond to meet the needs
of its community. For example, college campuses have seen an extraordinary increase in serious
mental health illnesses (Kadison & DiGeronimo, 2005). Kadison and DiGeronimo (2005)
indicate that 81% of college and university counseling center directors report seeing more
students with serious psychological problems than 5 years ago, and 63% report a growing
demand for services without an appropriate increase in resources (National Survey of Counseling
Center Directors, 2003). In light of the mental health crisis, university and college administrators
have made an increasing effort to prioritize mental health on campus by dedicating resources to
counseling center outreach, consultations, and preventative programs (Kitzrow, 2003). In a
similar manner, campuses are beginning to mobilize resources to addresses the growing
population of students facing hunger and homelessness.
According to the Journal of Change Management (2011), nearly 70% of organizational
change efforts fail due to overly simplistic and linear approaches to change. Sometimes, change
agents create changes meant to influence the institution internally: implementing a strategic plan,
restructuring curriculum, or creating new initiatives or programs. However, more often than not,
these changes are implemented to meet the changing climate of external factors, such as
enrollment declining due to birth date trends or financial and economic stress (Kezar, 2014).
Higher education leaders often ignore these external pressures, “largely not responding to
12
changes in the public policy environment around public funding and support” (Kezar, 2014,
p. 5).
Universities and colleges also play a significant role in shaping regional, social, and
economic development (Massey et al., 2014). Higher education not only provides students with
tangible skills for future careers, but it also presents enables them to connect issues occurring in
the larger society to their fields, producing critical thinkers and lifelong learners. By studying
larger societal issues, students, faculty, and staff are working collaboratively towards finding
solutions in mitigating hunger and homelessness on their campuses.
Systems of Oppression Within Higher Education
To significantly create organizational change, institutional leaders are encouraged to
examine pre-existing culture, values, and history (Shugart, 2013). In confronting the issues of
housing and food insecurity, academic leaders must acknowledge the systematic and institutional
oppression against historically marginalized groups that exists within campus structures. “To
ignore the influence of history on our work almost guarantees failure in our efforts to change
culture and the systems it supports” (Shugart, 2013, p. 9). Rather than focusing on individual
forms of oppression, whether it be a single act of racism, sexism, classism, ableism, or
homophobia against a marginalized population, structural oppression recognizes that these issues
are embedded and rooted in centuries of historical oppression (Aviles de Bradley, 2009).
Oppression expressed on campus can be overt, actively and openly creating hostile
environments for individuals or groups or can be subtler and more indirect (Tambascia, 2007).
When addressing such issues, Cole and Harper (2017) emphasized acknowledging these
systematic and institutional barriers in response to acts of discrimination or bias, as they are not
isolated incidents but a larger issue of systematic oppression. Applying the framework of
13
systematic or structural oppression to homelessness and hunger further highlights the disparities
Black, Latinx, Asian American Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, and other
marginalized communities experience compared to majority groups. Through an equity-minded
lens, it becomes clear that neutrality or a one-size-fits-all mentality enables inequitable treatment
and outcomes of those experiencing hunger and homelessness (Fulbright-Anderson et al., 2005).
Public Investment and Accountability
The Morrill Act of 1862 changed higher education in two significant ways. The bill
provided each state with public institutions of higher learning (Hamilton, 2004; Herren &
Hillison, 1996). It was the first time the government became directly involved in funding higher
education. Prior to this law, higher education primarily focused on the classical arts. The land
grants provided practical and applied studies that would prepare students for a career post-higher
education. The act funded institutions to focus on agriculture and mechanics. This new
government funding provided opportunities for those in the poorer, working class a chance to
earn a higher education, where they would not have had access otherwise. The Second Morrill
Act of 1890 made a further contribution by prohibiting racial discrimination in admissions at
colleges receiving federal funding, thus establishing 17 historically Black college and university
land grant institutions (Mutakabbir, 2011). Through institutional and systematic change, the
Morrill Act allowed for separate facilities for Whites and Blacks, but the institutions had to be of
equal maintenance and comply with the provisions of the Land Grant Act (Mutakabbir, 2011;
Neyland & Fahm, 1990).
Although federal and state government funding has declined over the past few decades,
government entities are still invested in equitable student learning outcomes, including how
students will become productive change agents in society and the economy after graduation. As
14
such, college administrators need to consider governmental stakeholders’ priorities in addition to
their own when making decisions on strategic plans that affect broader city and state
communities.
Food Insecurity, Hunger, Housing Insecurity, and Homelessness
Data, Demographics, and Definitions
According to the United Nation’s (2015) State of Food Insecurity in the World report,
795 million people worldwide suffer from hunger and food insecurity. In the United States, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated that 15.8 million U.S. households, 12.7% of
the population, were food-insecure in 2015 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2016). Although accurate
numbers of those experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness are difficult to determine
due to fluctuating statuses in transition and mobility, there were approximately 553,000
individuals experiencing homelessness in the United States, according to the 2018 point-in-time
count (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2018). Even though the United
States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, food and housing insecurity remains a
serious concern that is only being addressed in pockets. While this issue is being addressed
through various measures around the country, higher education institutions are beginning to
recognize these needs on campus.
Research regarding housing and food insecurity for students attending higher education is
slowly growing, yet still minimal. There is no national mandate to collect this information in
post-secondary education, but colleges and universities are beginning to gather information
through surveys such as the Household Food Security Survey Module and the #RealCollege
survey through the Wisconsin HOPE Center (Acevas, 2018).
15
According to the HOPE Lab’s (2018) national survey, 36% of university students
indicated that they were food and housing insecure, and 9% were homeless in the last year. Food
insecurity and hunger are complex and multifaceted concepts. Higher education institutions
typically rely on the USDA’s food security scale as a form of measurement (Bickel, Nord, Price,
Hamilton & Cook, 2000; Broton & Goldrick-Rab, 2017).
Food Insecurity
The USDA defines food insecurity as a lack of consistent access to enough food for an
active, healthy life, and differentiates the concepts of hunger and food insecurity. Hunger refers
to “discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain” and food insecurity refers to a household’s lack of
available financial resources to consistently secure food (United States Department of
Agriculture Economic Research service, n.d., para 7). The food security scale categorizes
respondents into four categories:
• High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access
problems or limitations.
• Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications—
typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no
indication of changes in diets or food intake.
• Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced
quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
• Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple
indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake. (United States
Department of Agriculture Economic Research service, n.d., para 3)
16
Housing Insecurity
Similarly, defining housing insecurity and homelessness is also widely debated (Broton
& Goldrick-Rab, 2017). According to section 330 of the Public Health Service Act,
homelessness is defined as the following:
An individual who lacks housing (without regard to whether the individual is a member
of a family), including an individual whose primary residence during the night is a
supervised public or private facility (e.g., shelters) that provides temporary living
accommodations, and an individual without permanent housing who may live on the
streets; stay in a shelter, mission, single room occupancy facilities, abandoned building or
vehicle; or in any other unstable or non-permanent situation. [Section 330 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C., 254b)]
Housing insecurity exists on a continuum; at the one extreme is homelessness, where
individuals lack consistent and fixed nighttime residence (Broton & Goldrick-Rab, 2017). Other
forms of housing insecurity include unaffordability, where individuals are unable to pay the full
amount for rent. Additionally, housing insecurity includes unstable residency, including moving
multiple times a year or living with friends and family temporarily due to financial constraints
(Cutts et al., 2011). Housing insecure individuals can be found sleeping in their vehicles or couch
surfing with friends (Hallett & Tierney, 2012) .
Student Experiences with Food or Housing Insecurity
The conversation around housing and food insecurity is largely centered on students who
struggle to meet their basic needs (Hallett & Crutchfield, 2017). For the general population,
homelessness and food insecurity can be driven by poverty, limited work opportunities, and lack
of affordable housing (National Coalition for Homeless, 2013; Paden, 2012). However, college
17
students are not typically housing or food-insecure upon arrival to campus. Some evidence
suggests that middle-income college students experience financial struggles once enrolled in
college due to the cost of higher education (Goldrick-Rab, 2016). Students may be ineligible for
financial aid or need-based scholarships because their reported family income suggests they
should be able to cover college costs with the assistance of their parents or guardians (Hallett &
Crutchfield, 2017). Other students may have come from steady, supportive families and had
received scholarships and financial aid allowing them to decide to pursue a college degree
(Paden, 2012). Once enrolled, several factors could cause financial hardship, including an
increase in tuition, a change in income from parents losing a job, or other situations. The student
may choose alternative ways to make ends meet to reduce the burden on their families, such as
taking on additional jobs, forgoing meals, or moving out of their residence halls or shared
apartments. Even though low-income college students may receive Pell Grants, they still face
difficulty covering the cost of food, housing, and other educational expenses (Cochrane &
Szabo-Kubitz, 2016; Hallett & Crutchfield, 2017). Furthermore, students of marginalized
backgrounds are further harmed by and even more vulnerable to the issues of housing and food
insecurity due to their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, or citizenship status.
As previously noted, colleges and universities are not required by federal or state
governments to gather data on the number of students experiencing housing or food insecurity.
Therefore, capturing the exact size and scope of the issue may vary depending on survey
instruments and the definition of homelessness or hunger used by each institution collecting this
information.
18
Housing Insecurity
College students can identify their housing status on the FAFSA when they apply for
financial aid. In the 2016–2017 FAFSA application cycle, 32,739 individuals indicated that their
housing status was “unaccompanied homeless” (National Center for Homeless Education
[NCHE], 2017). The phrase “unaccompanied homeless” refers to those “not in physical custody
of a parent or guardian.” Although this information offers some insight into the number of
individuals experiencing homelessness, researchers and advocates argue that the definition for
this category remains too narrow and significantly underestimates how many college students
experience housing insecurity (Hallett, et al., 2019). Additionally, due to federal regulations,
financial aid representatives are unable to use FAFSA data to offer financial assistance or other
resources until a student personally self-discloses their status as homeless or housing insecure
(Bonner, 2018). Lastly, beyond the multiple variables of verifying their housing insecurity status,
students who identify as “independent” on the FAFSA (e.g., veteran or marital status) are also
not included in this number (Hallett et al., 2019).
Food Insecurity
Similar to housing insecurity, only a few studies have been conducted on the issue of
food insecurity among college and university students. Prior to 2011, two studies were
administered to survey food insecurity amongst postsecondary institutions (Goldrick-Rab et al.,
2018). The majority of basic need surveys at 4-year institutions focus on single sites, with the
exception of recent studies from the University of California system, the California State
University system, and the City University of New York. Depending on the institution type, food
insecurity among college students can range from 36% to 56% (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018).
19
Impact of Housing and Food Insecurity on Marginalized Student Populations
Whether public or private, higher education institutions reflect the same systematic
inequities found in other American institutions (Griffith et al., 2007). For example, there is
evidence that Black, Latinx, Asian American Pacific Islander, and other people of color face
inequities when accessing basic services, such as medical care or public programs (Abel, 2008;
Trubek & Das, 2003) The public health issue of housing and food insecurity affects a wide range
of students; however, it has disproportionate effects on minoritized populations.
According to the California State University Study of Basic Needs (Crutchfield &
Maguire, 2018, 2019), students who identified as Black/African American and first-generation
college students (18%) experienced homelessness at much higher rates than students of other
ethnicities or races and those who are not first-generation (9.6%-12.6%). Policymakers and
change agents must engage the issue of housing and food insecurity through an equity lens, and
specifically consider Black and Latinx population, as these students are the most affected by
policy decisions regarding poverty, homelessness, and hunger (Aviles De Bradley, 2009). There
are also formal and informal organizational, systematic, and historical structures that contribute
to the disparities among marginalized students of color (Fulbright-Anderson et al., 2005).
Institutional racism is a set of systematic patterns, procedures, practices, and policies that
penalize, disadvantage, and exploit people of color (Griffeth et al., 2007). In examining the K-12
educational systems across the country, studies found that Black and Latinx students are more
segregated than before Brown v. Board of Education; the schools they attend are under-resourced
and understaffed, and they receive more punitive consequences than their White counterparts
(Fulbright-Anderson et al., 2005). Heybach (2005) examined the role of race/racism in policy
implementation. Heybach highlighted the effects of schools’ racial dynamics on students of color
20
experiencing homelessness. In an example, Heybach quotes a superintendent: “if we let scums
like these into our schools, then pretty soon the whole area will be ghetto” (Heybach, 2005, p. 6).
Higher education can serve as a resource for students who are seeking basic needs support;
however, some administrators can impede on this community’s power, agency, and access to
such resources based on their implementation of governmental mandates, funding and budget
allocations, and practices as well as through the actions of individuals at the institution (Trubek
& Das, 2003). To effectively make organizational and cultural change, institutions should
examine structures of racism that can lead to basic needs insecurity for students (Hallett &
Crutchfield, 2017).
The Wisconsin HOPE Lab (2018) recently collected additional data on vulnerable
populations to gain a fuller picture of the intersectionality of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and basic needs. The study found that women were at greater risk than men of food
and housing insecurity, but students who indicated that their gender was not male or female, non-
binary or gender non-conforming, were at even greater risk (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018).
Similarly, lesbian and gay students were at much greater risk of basic needs insecurity than
heterosexual students, and bisexual and transgender students were at the highest risk (Goldrick-
Rab et al. 2018). Although LGBTQ+ individuals identify as 3% to 5% of the United States
population, they accounted for 20% 40% of the youth experiencing homelessness (Snyder et al.,
2016). A reason for this may be their being displaced or forced out of their families’ homes for
identifying as LGBTQ+ (Hallett & Crutchfield, 2017).
Consequently, organizations, often unintentionally, function as tools of oppression,
reproducing and reinforcing the very marginalization that some are committed to undoing
(Adams & Balfour, 2004, Griffith et. al, 2007, p. 1). Campuses must examine the needs of their
21
specific populations, disaggregate student data, and identify ways in which cultural or
organizational change is needed to better support the needs of their unique student populations,
especially those from minoritized communities.
Invisibility of the Issue
Goldrick-Rab et al. (2018) stated that “the people closest to the problem are closest to the
solution” (p. 34). Although students who are directly affected can be the catalyst to solutions to
housing and food insecurity, students experiencing these barriers are not easily identified, often
due to the negative perceptions of their situation and a reluctance to disclose it (Miller et al.,
2015). Students may hide this identity out of fear of being stigmatized by peers and
administrators. As a result of their lack of visibility, providing resources and services for this
population can be difficult. Therefore, college and university administrators often overlook the
academic, counseling, social, and health needs of housing and food-insecure students (Bonner,
2018). To provide adequate support for this population, staff, faculty, and campus administrators
need to have a comprehensive understanding of their needs. Through education and raising
awareness of the issue, the campus community can address the concerns early on through the
various interactions they have with this vulnerable and marginalized student population
(Ambrose, 2016).
Being homeless does not necessarily mean a person is living on the streets. Individuals
may be going from friend to friend, sleeping in their vehicles, or sleeping in campus buildings,
such as student unions and libraries (Paden, 2012). According to Tierney and Hallett (2012a),
couch surfers sleep on different friends’ or family member’s couch or floor from night to night.
Most homeless youth avoid being labeled homeless because of the term’s negative connotation
(Hallett, 2010), and, in one study, 67% of homeless youth indicated a level of discomfort in
22
discussing their situation (Ingram et al., 2016), resulting in a decreased likelihood of seeking
help and further perpetuating the lack of visibility on campus. Tierney and Hallett (2012b)
emphasized that “the difficulty involved in reaching this population underscores yet again the
challenges associated with providing services to a population that is frequently invisible and
underserved” (p.49). As an already marginalized population, housing and food-insecure students
maintain a level of invisibility to avoid shame and stigma (Bonner, 2018). Since housing and
food-insecure students are unlikely to disclose their struggle to university administrators, they
may also be unaware of possible resources and support services available to them on campus.
State and Federal Assistance for Housing and Food Insecurity
Homeless Educational Policy
Institutional support for housing insecure college students can vary by campus. This is
largely because postsecondary institutions are not required to meet the same mandates as those in
the K-12 system (Julianelle, 2007; Tierney & Hallett; 2012). In its original form, the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act outlined educational rights and protections for students in
primary and secondary schools (Hallett et al., 2019). The act mandated that each state review and
revise the residency requirements for homeless youth to increase access to school sites (Tierney
& Hallett, 2012). Additionally, funding was provided through this act to hire a homeless
coordinator to oversee homeless program initiatives and its progress. The McKinney-Vento Act
was later expanded to ensure all K-12 students, specifically those who were homeless or housing
insecure, had adequate access to schools in their areas by means of transportation, financial
access, and admission. Instead of viewing homelessness as a choice, this policy reframed
housing insecurity as a social problem that could be collectively addressed by various
stakeholders (Tierney & Hallett, 2012). Although the McKinney-Vento Act addresses barriers
23
and issues that homeless youth and children face in the K-12 context, the act does not go beyond
that and, therefore, students in postsecondary education are not accounted for. Furthermore, the
broad approach of this policy does not consider social identity disparities, specifically the
realities for students of color, LGBTQ students, former foster youth, veterans, or students from
other marginalized identities (Aviles de Bradley, 2009). As the number of students experiencing
basic need insecurities rises within higher education, it is important to understand how
homelessness and race shape the student experience so that institutions can be responsive to
student needs.
Food Insecurity and Governmental Assistance
Educational institutions and systems have surveyed thousands of students, faculty, and
staff to gain an understanding of the issue of college students’ inability to meet their basic
housing and food needs (Broton & Goldrick-Rab, 2014; Crutchfield et al., 2016). In an attempt
to provide food assistance to those with basic need insecurities, institutions recommend students
apply for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP, formerly known as
the Food Stamp Program, was originally introduced by President Kennedy’s administration in
1963 (Bartfeld et al., 2015). Today, SNAP is one of the most far-reaching social food benefits
programs in the United States, benefiting 42 million and costing $63 billion in FY2017 (USDA,
2018b). While many students experience food insecurity, they often do not qualify for
emergency food assistance or government programs like SNAP (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016) in
some states if they do not have dependents and cannot prove their need (Goldrick-Rab et al.,
2016). For college and university students to be eligible for SNAP benefits, they must work at
least 20 hours a week, participate in the Federal Work Study Program, and/or have children
(Lower-Basch & Lee, 2014; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2016).
24
Town-Gown Relations
Town-gown relations are a priority for both city governments and university
administrators (Massey et. al, 2014). Local government and higher education institutions often
work together, as it is mutually beneficial to build such rapport. Kemp (2012) identified leading
practices in which cities and universities can work together in joint processes, addressing issues
and problems, and in mutual town-gown projects. These leading practices can be applied to
address food and housing insecurity both in the local community as well as on college campuses.
Together with students, communities and colleges can develop a joint neighborhood action plan
(Kemp, 2012). Considering that many college students will eventually live off-campus in the
nearby neighborhoods in their upper-class years, as well as after they graduate, surrounding
communities may work with colleges to understand various issues students face.
Communities and universities can work together to increase awareness of homelessness
and meet students’ needs (Paden, 2012). For example, UC Berkeley redeveloped and revitalized
its People’s Park as a comprehensive effort to address challenges facing the campus and its
neighbors (Berkeley News, 2018). People’s Park is a university-owned property open to the
public and surrounding Berkeley community. Over the years, the recreational facility had been
poorly kept, resulting in safety issues and upwards of 10,000 recorded crimes in the past 5 years
(UC Berkeley, 2018). To restore People’s Park’s long history and legacy of a safe and inclusive
space, UC Berkeley, along with various city, county, and state government entities, provided
funding to build supportive housing units for homeless Berkeley residents, specifically veterans,
families with young children, and transitional age youth (UC Berkeley, 2018). At the same time,
1,000 beds will be added for university housing, meeting the chancellor’s goal of doubling UC
Berkeley’s residential capacity. Chancellor Christ stated, “I believe the university has a
25
responsibility for the park, a responsibility to collaborate with the city in support of its homeless
population and a responsibility to address our student’s need for housing,” (UC Berkeley, 2018).
Having a cooperative mindset can lead to generations of positive interactions and developments
that are mutually advantageous (Kemp, 2012).
The Impact of Capital
Economic and social resources contribute to the unequal treatment of marginalized
student populations (Abel, 2007). These resources are often referred to as capital. Drawing from
Bourdieu (1986), economic capital, in its basic form, is money and financial resources; cultural
capital is knowledge, and social capital refers to one’s networks or memberships. Whether a
student holds this specific capital largely influences their success in college. By recognizing the
economic, social, and cultural gaps students who experience basic needs insecurity have,
institutions can proactively fill those gaps at their organization through resources and support.
Figure 1
Capital and basic needs inequity, adapted from Abel (2008)
26
Economic Capital
Income, a key resource and indicator of economic capital, can determine college
students’ housing and food stability. Economic capital provides students with options, many of
which shape their student experience. by paying for room and board students can live in a steady
and safe environment or have money to buy healthy and nutritious foods (Abel, 2008). However,
financial strain is one reason students experience housing and food insecurity (Camelo, 2017).
As previously mentioned, there are many unaccounted costs beyond tuition that students are
unable to predict before coming to college, including textbooks and added fees for co-curricular
activities as well as room and board. These added financial burdens can result in students’
experiencing food or housing insecurity.
Many students who have significant financial need have limited access to financial aid, or
none at all (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018). Students who complete the FAFSA may choose to file
independently, with hopes of establishing independence from their parents or guardians.
Additionally, some students do this because some financial information may not be available to
them, such as parental income or revenue, and this could unfairly determine their aid eligibility
(Goldrick-Rab et al., 2018). However, in order for homeless students to be considered
independent, they must complete paperwork, documentation, bureaucratic interviews, and
meetings. LGBTQ students who have been forced from their homes have difficulty producing
required paperwork.
Financial Literacy
In addition to economic capital, students who experience housing and food insecurity
often are not exposed to resources that contribute to their financial literacy. Financial literacy is
defined as “the ability to use knowledge and skills to manage one’s financial resources
27
effectively for lifetime financial security” (Hastings et al., 2013, p. 349). Student loan debt and
credit card use have increased significantly over the years (Gaines et al., 2014). Credit cards
present advantages and disadvantages for food or housing insecurity (Gaines et al., 2014).
Hughes et al. (2011) reported that nearly 22% of college students borrowed money to purchase
food. Having a credit card can help students in unexpected financial emergencies. However, if
credit card spending is not properly balanced with income, inability to meet payment obligations
may create adverse consequences on future finance, increasing the risk for housing or food
insecurity. Higher education organizations can help mitigate these issues by providing life skills
workshops or programs that educate students on financial decision making.
Social Capital
For students experiencing housing and food insecurity, holding social capital can be of
benefit in finding resources and support on campus. Social capital refers to one’s ability to
convert social relationships into needed resources (Bourdieu 1986). Stanton-Salazar (2004) and
Yosso (2005) described social capital as having connections to networks and key institutional
agents who can provide access to support and resources that lead to goal achievement. Coleman
(1988) defined social capital by its structure and the individuals as part of those structures. The
consensus is that individuals and communities with high levels of social capital, meaning robust
networks, can recover from challenging situations compared to those with lower social capital.
(Aldrich 2012; Dynes 2006; Tierney & Venegas 2006). Social capital can increase students’
chances of accumulating relevant cultural and economic capital. Particularly for students
experiencing housing and food insecurity, the ability or inability to access pre-existing networks
to navigate financial barriers or inconsistent and turbulent living situations can shape a student’s
experience. Through formal or informal interactions, faculty, staff, and students who come into
28
contact with students experiencing basic needs insecurity can intentionally connect them with the
proper resources and channels that may not typically be obvious to them.
Cultural Capital
Cultural capital refers to one’s ability to operate within the dominant cultural paradigm
(Bourdieu 1986). This means that individuals can interact with others and institutions consistent
with the norms and values of a society. Within the context of social capital in the United States,
race, social class, gender, or other marginalized social identities are important in determining
one’s ability to activate social capital in times of crisis (Portes 1998; Yosso 2005). Yosso (2005)
argued that “a traditional view of cultural capital is narrowly defined by White, middle-class
values, and is more limited than wealth” (p. 10). Specifically, poor and racial and ethnic
minoritized individuals may struggle to utilize social capital compared with more affluent whites
(Elliot et al., 2010; Tierney, 2006). Considering the population of students experiencing housing
and food insecurity on college and university campuses, economic, social, and cultural capital
are important to consider when creating equitable resources for students, ensuring that the
processes and accessibility of each program or policy lead to organizational change.
Conceptual Frameworks
Organizational change theory and Bensimon’s (2005) single-loop and double-loop
learning framework were used to study the ways change agents approach housing and food
insecurity on their campuses. I also used components of applied critical leadership theory
(Santamaría & Santamaría, 2013) to highlight key aspects of transformational leadership that
affect institutional cultural change. Using Schein’s cultural change theory, Dugan’s (2017)
critical leadership theory in tandem with Santamaría and Santamaría’s (2013) applied critical
29
leadership framework, this study aimed to identify ways in which colleges and universities create
systematic change to solve hunger and homelessness through an equity-minded lens.
Organizational Change Theory
College and university staff, students, and faculty must be willing to dedicate substantial
time and effort if they are interested in cultural change, as the process tends to be long-term and
slow (Kezar, 2014). Cultural change entails a shift in values, beliefs, myths, and rituals (Schein,
1985; Shaw & Lee, 1997, as cited in Kezar 2014) but understanding an organization’s history
and context is significant in cultural change. Change agents are encouraged to utilize existing
symbolic infrastructures, rituals, traditions, and values as they represent the collection of change
processes over time (Kezar, 2014). Schein (1985) described change theory as a collective and
shared phenomenon; change occurs symbolically when managers instill a shared meaning among
the organization’s members.
Figure 2
Schein Iceberg Model
30
Similar to Schein’s iceberg model of only seeing things that are visible and tangible,
single-loop learners tend to focus on finding surface-level solutions while ignoring deep-rooted
issues. Single-loop learners aim to establish normalcy and stability by producing solutions that
correct or eliminate the issue or error. This type of learner fails to see how their personal
attitudes, beliefs, and practices could perpetuate the problem (Bensimon, 2005). Double-loop
learning focuses on the root causes of the problem, including attitudes, values, beliefs, and
practices that must be modified to bring about change. It requires reflection on how practices and
institutional history may unintentionally marginalize and oppress people of color. Double-loop
learning goes beyond recognizing the need for diversity and emphasizes an equity lens when
creating organizational change. Bensimon (2005) proposes that theory and processes of
organizational learning can help practitioners and researchers address structural and cultural
obstacles that prevent colleges and universities from producing equitable educational outcomes
(p.99). Bensimon’s (2005) equity-minded framework, along with Schein’s (1985) cultural
change model, has relevance to the study by encouraging faculty, staff, and students to consider
root causes and systemic issues to the problem of housing and food insecurity on their campuses
and to seek organizational changes to solve these problems.
31
Figure 3
Bensimon (2005) Single- and Double-Loop Learning
Applied Critical Leadership
Applied critical leadership has interdisciplinary theoretical foundations, including
transformative leadership, critical pedagogy, and critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 1999;
May & Sleeter, 2010; Shields, 2010). According to Santamaría and Santamaría (2015), applied
critical leadership is “grounded in practices that are framed by social justice and educational
equity wherein leadership results from both professional practice and leaders’ embodied lived
experiences” (p. 26). Additionally,
applied critical leadership is the emancipatory practice of choosing to address educational
issues and challenges using a critical race perspective to enact context-specific change in
response to power, domination, access, and achievement imbalances, resulting in
improved academic achievement for learners. (Santamaría & Santamaría, 2013, p. 7)
As a component of applied critical leadership, transformational leaders prioritize transparency,
approach leadership in inspiring, collaborative, and supportive ways, and focus on the
32
redistribution of power (Aho & Quaye, 2018). The principles of critical race theory also emerge
out of applied critical leadership in that the importance of storytelling and centering historically
marginalized voices are significant practices. Critical race theory also rejects ahistorical practices
and critiques liberalism and colorblind practices (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1998;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). CRT has been used in educational settings to advance social justice
and equity agendas within organizations.
Figure 4
Theoretical Framework Underlying Applied Critical Leadership (Santamaría & Santamaría,
2013, p. 8)
Conclusion
This review of the literature provided an overview of students’ experience with housing
and food insecurity while in college. It also provided insight into how change agents may create
systematic level changes on campus by focusing on an equity and social justice framework. It
also reviewed the importance of university town-gown relations with the local community. The
following chapter will detail the population and methodology that were used for this study.
33
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how university programs and
initiatives around housing and food insecurity result in long-term and organizational culture
shifts at Urban Community College (UCC). As research on food and housing insecurity rises in
literature and scholarship, it is important to identify how colleges and universities institutionalize
programs and policies to mitigate barriers to the personal and academic success of students
experiencing hunger and homelessness. While colleges and universities are implementing
programs to address these needs, it is not clear that such efforts are made through the lens of
organizational change and equity with the intent to change culture, values, and beliefs. Through
an equity-minded framework, this study explored how change agents at UCC centered values of
social justice and equity within their programs, policies, and practices to change institutional
culture regarding the issues of housing and food insecurity. The following research question
guided this study.
1. How are college and university initiatives and programs addressing housing and food
insecurity resulting in long-term, organizational change?
a. How can organizational change around housing and food insecurity be understood
through an equity-minded lens?
Methodology
This study was designed to understand the unique experiences of students, staff, and
faculty who witnessed organizational change around basic needs insecurity at UCC. Therefore, a
qualitative case study was the most appropriate method for this research. According to Merriam
and Tisdell (2016), “qualitative research is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed by
people in an ongoing fashion as they engage in and make meaning of an activity, experience, or
34
phenomenon,” (p. 23). In qualitative research, the goal is to interpret participants’ experiences,
understand context and process, while focusing on meaning-making (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative research allowed me to gain insight into the participants’ experiences (Creswell,
2007) and is inductive because qualitative research guides what is learned (Merriam, 2009).
Qualitative research allowed me to also understand the participants’ worldview and perspective.
Even though a survey could have brought to light the program, policies, and practices that
participants enacted at their institution, the case study methodology was utilized to complete in-
depth interviews that offered insights into these experiences. In comparison to quantitative
research methods, interviews provide greater flexibility in questioning the participants (Merriam,
2009). For this type of study, it was important to further explore and ask probing questions to
gain more understanding regarding each participant’s experiences. Fontana and Frey (2000)
noted that rapport established between the interviewer and interviewee have great influence on a
study’s findings. Because this study was geared towards enacting sustainable and long-term
policies, practices, and programs for a vulnerable and minoritized population, qualitative inquiry
is the most effective framework and methodology for data collection and analysis.
Site Selection
The study was conducted at UCC (a pseudonym), located in Southern California. Urban
Community College was selected for this study because of its student demographics, but also for
its unique history and leadership. This community college district serves nearly 300,000
residents with a mission to provide a welcoming and inclusive environment where diverse
students are supported to pursue and attain student success. However, at one point in UCC’s
history, it had its accreditation revoked due to corruption and overall financial instability (Smith,
2018). Operations were taken over by another college to provide educational support services for
35
the community college district residents while classes continued to be taught by UCC faculty.
Through new institutional leadership and president, the college regained its accreditation by
receiving approval for a $100 million facilities referendum to improve is buildings and start new
programs for students (Smith, 2018). The new campus president also tackled the issue of poverty
among the student and community population, as 1 in every 5 of the district’s students is
homeless and nearly two-thirds are food-insecure (Smith, 2018).
In 2017, the college enrolled 7,422 total students, 63% of whom identified as Latino,
25% African American, 5% Asian, 3% multiracial, and 3% White (College Website, 2019). This
study will examine ways in which college administrators enacted and embodied values of equity
and social justice to achieve organizational change to address housing and food insecurity.
Population and Sample
The target population for this study was faculty, staff, and students from UCC who have
advocated for transformational cultural change to address the issues of housing and food
insecurity. These changes may have been achieved by implementing a program, sought policy
change, challenged institutional practice and procedures, or otherwise took actions that resulted
in systemic, cultural, and organizational change within their institution. As change agents, these
individuals enacted organizational change through an equity-minded framework to support
students who experience housing and food insecurity. A diverse population of participants was
selected, purposefully sampling for experiences, positional leadership roles, and institutional
power to demonstrate that change can be implemented at all levels of leadership.
The sample was nonrandom, purposeful, convenient, and small. This approach was
selected to provide information that is relevant to the focus of the study and answer the research
questions (Maxwell, 2013). I purposefully recruited participants who developed, facilitated, led,
36
or received support from programs or policy development that addressed student hunger or
homelessness at UCC. Their selection was based on distinct examples of how they enacted
organizational change in advocating and supporting students who experience housing and food
insecurity on their campus. Purposeful sampling was used to gain insight into and understanding
of participants’ experiences in mitigating these barriers for students. Maxwell (2013) defined
five goals of purposive sampling that were used to define the population of this study. The first
goal is to find the appropriate participants who fit the characteristics of the population, and the
second goal is to ensure the number and type of selected participants are broad enough to share
multiple perspectives.
Considering that the population was fairly broad for this study in that any individual can
enact change, I aimed to interview 15 to 20 participants who had a range of experiences in
creating change around hunger and homelessness, with or without positional leadership roles.
The final number was dependent on the ability to reach data saturation and identified when the
information became repetitive (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The third goal was to select
participants who could answer the research questions. The participants had to be familiar with
the issue of housing and food insecurity on their own campus while understanding the larger
social justice and equity implications of creating intervention programs and policies. The fourth
goal of purposive sampling was that the research could be applicable and modified within
multiple settings. The issue of housing and food insecurity occurs across the country and
therefore findings were applicable within different settings and frameworks. The fifth goal of
purposive sampling was to establish a relationship with the participants. I accomplished this by
building trust and rapport with each participant.
37
Recruitment
I distributed a recruitment email including study information, goals, and purpose of the
study to individuals at UCC who support students experiencing housing and food insecurity. The
recruitment email included a link to a pre-screening survey. The pre-screening survey included
questions on demographic information (race, ethnicity, gender, positionality), interview
preference (individual or focus group), and availability. To protect the privacy and
confidentiality of the participants, the survey did not request any personal information other than
an email address. Participants contacted and selected for the study were asked to provide a
pseudonym that was utilized for the study.
Recruitment heavily relied on snowball sampling. I utilized a few key connections to find
the first participants, with the intention that these participants brought with them others who fit
the selection criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015).
Instrumentation
This study sought to understand the process of achieving organizational change regarding
addressing housing and food insecurity within an equity-minded framework at UCC. To achieve
this, the study used instrumentation that supported the collection of descriptive narratives
provided by study participants. There were three sources of data collected in this study,
individual interviews, focus groups, and document analysis.
Individual Interviews
The primary tool for collecting data in this study were individual interviews. Interviews
were useful in bringing to light information that was not easily observed (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton 2002; Weiss, 1994), including how participants enact values of
social justice and equity in their organizational change process. I framed questions that guided
38
the conversation but allow for authentic response and reflection on their experiences. Participants
were also asked to focus on the specific details of their experience in creating and implementing
intervention programs and policies for housing and insecure students. Lastly, the interviewer
asked participants to reflect and make meaning of their experience and how cultural and systemic
change was integral to reducing hunger and homelessness on their campus. The interviews
followed a semi-structured approach, allowing for follow-up questions or more free-flowing
questions at various points in the interview. This allowed me to ask both follow-up and probing
questions to gain more insight or understanding of the participants’ responses. Interviews were
conducted in-person and through web-based video conferencing.
Focus Groups
In addition to individual interviews, a focus group was conducted with a select group of
participants. This group included participants who were also interviewed. The focus group was
socially constructed and produced information that could not be obtained through individual
interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, the focus group allowed time for discussion
and refinement of views from participants based on information heard in the larger setting
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The focus group protocol included questions on participants’
perceptions regarding cultural change at UCC. Additionally, questions examined the
participants’ feelings about organizational change and how the values of equity and social justice
were central to this cultural shift.
Document Analysis
Lastly, I used documents to analyze UCC’s pathway towards creating systematic changes
with an equitable and justice lens. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), there are six
different types of documents and artifacts: public records (e.g., government documents,
39
statistical database, meeting minutes), personal documents (e.g., diaries, letters, photo albums),
popular culture documents (e.g., television, newspaper, internet), visual documents (e.g.,
nonverbal behavior or physical reaction observed through film or photography), physical
material and artifacts (e.g., physical artifacts, written text), and researcher-generated documents
and artifacts (e.g., notes written by participants during an interview or focus group). I examined
three documents to help uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insight relevant
to UCC’s intervention programs addressing housing and food insecurity (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Because organizational change and equity are not easily observable, I decided that
document analysis could tell a different story and shared a perspective not given by the interview
participants. Case study research often includes thorough, detailed, in-depth data collection
involving multiple sources of information, including documents and reports.
Data Collection
As soon as I received approval from the USC Institutional Review Board, I contacted the
president of UCC to begin enlisting participants for the study. I also went through UCC’s
institutional research department for approval. In addition to demographic information, interview
preference, and availability, the screening survey included the nature of the study and the
compensation that would be provided to all interview participants. Participants had the option to
submit their name and contact information for a drawing of a $50 gift card. A reminder email
was sent a week before the survey closed.
I contacted the participants who expressed interest in individual interviews through email
to schedule interviews. The email included the information sheet and a brief overview of the
study, along with some potential times for the interview. At that time, I requested the participants
provide a pseudonym. This served to protect their anonymity (Creswell, 2014). A date, time, and
40
location were established based on the participant’s convenience and schedule. In-person
interviews were conducted in either a private conference room or a space of the participant’s
choosing. If participants were unable to meet physically, virtual interviews took place using web-
based video conferencing. A confirmation email was sent to participants before the interview to
confirm the date, time, and location of the interview and included the information sheet.
Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 60 minutes. I began by asking for consent to
audio record the interview. Audio-recording allowed me to focus on the interaction with each
participant without having to capture all the data through note-taking. Memos were used to
capture the interviewer’s reflections. Following each interview, each participant received a thank
you email including a link to submit their name for a chance to win a $50 gift card as
compensation for their participation. Due to the specificity of the units of analysis, pseudonyms
were used for each participant. All interviews were recorded on a password protected device. All
notes and audio recordings from the interview were kept securely on my laptop.
Focus group interviews took a similar format as individual interviews. At the beginning
of the focus group, participants were asked to share their preferred pseudonym. The focus group
ranged between one and two hours, depending on participants’ responses. All questions were
addressed to the entire group, but participants were able to choose to not answer questions, as the
focus group was voluntary. The focus group was recorded on a cell phone as well as another
recording device for back up. Interview recordings were transcribed after the conclusion.
I used different strategies to make sure every participant felt comfortable. Types
of questions that were asked included experience and behavior, feelings, opinion and values, and
knowledge questions (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). I dressed casually to increase the comfort of
the participant and allowed for a casual and conversational environment.
41
Data Analysis
Before interviewing participants, I reflected on and explored my own experiences and
positionality in order to become aware of personal bias, prejudice, and assumptions, also known
as the epoche or bracketing process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition to assessing
positionality, I horizontalized all data for examination, treating each interview and data as having
equal weight and value towards the data analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The act of data analysis involved a multi-step approach that included working to
understand the data, organizing the data points, forming data into manageable units, coding the
data, synthesizing the codes, and searching for meaning (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The first step
of data analysis was to create a way to prepare and organize the transcripts, memos, documents,
and artifacts (Creswell, 2017). Data analysis was ongoing throughout the study and took place as
data were being collected. As each interview was conducted and transcribed, the interviews were
reviewed and compared alongside the field notes that were taken along the margins during the
interviews reflecting on my thoughts, ideas, and themes (Creswell, 2017). Once all interviews
were transcribed, I coded data from the interviews, documents, and field notes.
Coding
Coding refers to assigning a “code” or labeling parts of the data for easy retrieval
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Coding was useful in categorizing important themes that emerged
from the data (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The first step in coding was to identify
open codes. Open codes are tags of any piece of data that I deemed important (Merriam, 2009). I
identified key terms or statements that were repeatedly used, assigning themes or codes to each
section (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The second step of axial coding is to find relationships
between these categories and “refining a category scheme” or grouping each theme (Merriam,
42
2009, p. 200). Lastly, I theorized and developed overarching categories that tied the data together
and made key concepts from the information gathered.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To support validity and access to the study, three techniques were used to triangulate the
data: individual interviews, a focus group, and document analysis. Merriam (2009) explained
triangulation ensures the study’s reliability and the researcher’s credibility. Using multiple data
sources ensured that the outcomes were valid. In other words, validity was achieved when results
remained consistent regardless of the research method (Maxwell, 2013).
Member checking was also utilized by allowing participants the option to review their
interview transcripts for accuracy and ensure information was interpreted correctly. Another
strategy to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of my findings was reflexivity and
positionality. Through this strategy, the researcher and author is “articulating and clarify[ing]
assumptions, experiences, and worldview to the study at hand” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
249). Lastly, through peer examination or peer review, I shared the manuscript, certain raw data,
and findings with peers who were knowledgeable and familiar with the research topic. By doing
so, I gauged feedback regarding the plausibility and reliability of the data analysis.
Role of the Researcher and Positionality
By descriptively articulating my positionality, I allowed the research participants and the
intended audience to gain an understanding of why this research was important and why this
study focused on this topic (Patel, 2015). My interest in this topic revolved around professional
experience working at a basic needs center and a cultural advocacy center at a university. In the
capacity and role as a practitioner on campus, I directly worked with students experiencing
housing and food insecurity, while also serving on various committees advocating for basic
43
needs resources, such as the food pantry and affordable campus housing. However, as someone
who has not personally experienced housing or food insecurity, I recognized the limitations this
held in regards to fully understanding or conceptualizing particular experiences participants may
describe. From an advocate’s standpoint, having worked in higher education for almost 10 years,
I had witnessed the evolving and growing demands around addressing basic needs issues for
students on campus. As a result, I was invested in sharing knowledge around how administrators
can help foster a more inclusive and equitable campus for this population of students.
This study required approval from the institutional review board. I upheld the necessary
values and ethics of “do no harm” and informed consent (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Prior to the
interviews, I ensured the protection of subjects from harm and the right to privacy by utilizing
pseudonyms and securing interview notes and recordings. According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2015) “relational ethic means being aware of one’s own role and impact on relationships and
treating participants as whole people rather than just as subjects from which to wrench a good
story” (p. 245). As participants shared their views and understanding of social justice change
around housing and food insecurity, it was important for me to manage emotion, responses, and
reactions in order to maintain the relationship nature of the study.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter provided the purpose of the study, an overview of the
methodology, site selection, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection and
analysis, validity and credibility, and role of the researcher. I used interviews, focus groups, and
document analysis to capture data from participants. The following chapter will present findings,
implications for practice, limitations, and recommendations for future practice.
44
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this case study was to provide a narrative exploring ways in which
college and university initiatives addressing housing and food insecurity may result in long-term
and organizational change. Furthermore, this study aimed to explore how organizational change
around housing and food insecurity is understood through an equity-minded lens. This chapter
presents data about the participants and their involvement in addressing housing and food
insecurity at UCC. Themes from in-person interviews, focus groups, and document analysis will
also be discussed. Urban Community College, a 2-year college, was selected for this case study
based on its commitment from higher administration leaders and reputation for being at the
forefront of addressing basic needs insecurity. The research questions that guided this study were
as follows:
1. How are colleges and universities creating organizational change around housing and
food insecurity for the institution?
a. How can organizational change around housing and food insecurity be understood
through an equity-minded lens?
Participant Summary
Four staff members, the college president, and one student engaged in separate individual
interviews, and 11 students joined the focus group. One student participated in both the focus
group and a follow-up individual interview. Although the goal was to also interview faculty, I
had difficulty connecting with any who were willing to participate in the interviews within the
limited timeframe of data collection. However, after the focus group and individual interviews, I
believed that data saturation was met, and, therefore, additional participants were not necessary.
Document analysis for this study included an examination of the college mission statement from
45
the campus website, the 2018 #RealCollege Survey School Report, presentation slides from the
student residential hall study with Gensler Research, and the 2024 Comprehensive Master Plan.
Pseudonyms were chosen by all participants to protect their identities and responses.
Generic titles and names of offices and departments were used to further maintain the
confidentiality of individuals and the college. The criteria to participate in the study required
individuals to be at least 18 years old, have received support from, or have implemented
intervention programs and practices regarding housing and food insecurity at UCC.
After receiving approval from UCC’s president to conduct the study, I was introduced to
the director of institutional research to assist with the call for participants. This offered
participants the reassurance that the study was approved by the college and that participation was
both voluntary and encouraged. The director of institutional research at UCC sent out an email to
the Basic Needs Support Network on my behalf to solicit prospective interview participants. The
Basic Needs Support Network was an effort to institutionalize programs and initiatives in an
intentional way through which UCC brought together stakeholders from across campus to
address housing and food insecurity.
Individuals who were interested in participating were asked to complete a pre-screening
survey that requested demographic information. The director for student equity at UCC sent out
the call for participants information to multiple campus department directors to recruit students
to participate in the focus group. Because a campus representative sent the call for participant
email, I did not know the actual size of the population who received the recruitment email and
survey for either individual interviews or the focus group. I also requested students to RSVP to
the focus group and received two responses; however, 11 showed up. Table 1 is an overview of
the interview participants.
46
Table 1
Participant Overview
Name Interview Type Sex Race/Ethnicity Role on Campus
Junior Individual Male Hispanic/Latinx/a/o Student
Activities
Coordinator
KL Individual Female Black/African
American
Program
Technician
Daisy Individual Female Hispanic/Latinx/a/o Research
Fellow
Jane Individual Female White/Caucasian Director Student
Equity
President Jones Individual Male Black/African
American
President
Alexia Individual & Focus
Group
Female Hispanic/Latinx/a/o Student
MB Focus Group Male Black/African
American
Student
Willie Focus Group Male Hispanic/Latinx/a/o Student
John Focus Group Male American
Indian/Alaska
Native/Native
Hawaiian
Student
Jessica Focus Group Female Black/African
American
Student
Sean Focus Group Male Black/African
American
Student
Laura Focus Group Female White/Caucasian Student
Claire Focus Group Female Hispanic/Latinx/a/o
& White/Caucasian
Student
Lolita Focus Group Female Hispanic/Latinx/a/o Student
Rosalie Focus Group Female Hispanic/Latinx/a/o Student
Sally Focus Group Female Prefer not to
answer
Student
Participant Profiles
Junior was the student activities coordinator at UCC. He has worked at the institution for
approximately 3 years. Junior primarily served as the advisor to the student government,
overseeing events and programs for the campus community. In this capacity, Junior also took on
the operations of the campus food pantry where he managed staff, volunteers, and operational
47
procedures. Junior was identified by many other participants as one of the key individuals on
campus who has taken part in addressing issues of housing and food insecurity at UCC.
KL has worked at UCC for four years in the student support services department
managing budgets and general operations. KL volunteered to serve on the Basic Needs Support
Network after seeing UCC’s results from the 2018 #RealCollege survey report.
Daisy served as a research fellow at UCC for approximately five months. Although
relatively new to UCC, Daisy held a large role in managing UCC’s housing project, which aimed
to provide 100 beds at UCC for on-campus housing by 2024 and 540 beds by 2028. The goal of
UCC’s housing project was to provide affordable housing to students within the district who are
housing- and food-insecure. Daisy was responsible for researching funding opportunities,
conducting implementation meetings with campus and community stakeholders, and
coordinating student forums to gauge feedback regarding the housing master plan.
Jane served as the director for student equity at UCC since 2016. Prior to her position at
UCC, she was an administrator in higher education at both universities and community colleges
for 18 years. As director for student equity, Jane’s role included working with special
populations such as former foster youth, formerly incarcerated students, and students who are
struggling with meeting their basic needs. Jane chaired the Basic Needs Support Network at
UCC and was a part of the committee since its inception. Jane was identified by staff and
students as the individual who primarily oversaw equity programs, such as student basic needs,
at UCC.
President Jones served as the president of UCC. He started at UCC as dean of student
services and became CEO in 2011 and president CEO in 2017 when UCC received its
reaccreditation. President Jones was an advocate for addressing housing and food insecurity at
48
UCC as well as throughout the community college system. Through an equity lens, President
Jones recognized the racial and socioeconomic disparities that directly impact students’ basic
needs. Known nationally as an “equity avenger,” President Jones saw equity as the primary focus
in making an impact on the overall organization and operations of UCC.
A total of 11 students participated in the focus group: Alexia, MB, Willie, John, Jessica,
Sean, Laura, Claire, Lolita, Rosalie, and Sally. Alexia also participated in an individual interview
after the focus group.
Emerging Themes from Data
Data from participant interviews, focus groups, and document analysis were analyzed to
answer the research question and sub-question. Themes emerged from participants’ responses
and were categorized into three areas: centering students’ voices, realigning priorities and goals,
and support from the campus community to address basic needs insecurity.
Theme 1: Centering Students’ Voices
There were several responses from participants emphasizing students as the catalyst for
UCC addressing the issue of housing and food insecurity. UCC brought critical counter-
narratives to the forefront of conversations to dispel specific stereotypes or assumptions and to
dismantle dominant ideologies around race and racism (Iverson, 2007; Solórzano, 1997).
Alternatively, by not doing so, external stakeholders such as donors, architects, and the board of
trustees may have skewed perspectives of why UCC students needed these specific resources.
The campus provided space and an inviting culture for students’ narratives, and students shared
their personal experiences regarding how their basic needs were not met, specifically how racial
disparities and inequity were a result of housing and food insecurity in their communities. Alexia
explained how people of color in her city are most affected by systemic inequities:
49
People of color are most impacted by hunger and homelessness. We live in a pretty low-
income area and [this city] is way more impacted by homelessness compared to [that
city] down the street over, where there’s more White people. There’s people out here who
have either drug addictions, or just like have mental issues that can’t hold the job. So,
they either go into substance abuse or they just, you know, homeless on the street.
In the act of “centering” students’ voices, the Basic Needs Support Network deliberately gave
space for students experiencing housing and food insecurity the opportunity to share their stories
because they were the true experts living this reality. According to Daisy, the architects on the
housing project were impressed by the students’ stories. Daisy said,
We just had a programming workshop with the architects that are working on the housing
project and they found the students’ input so valuable. There was an assumption from the
architects that the students didn’t understand why we were doing this housing project. So,
we brought students in to share their housing insecurity stories. We wanted to share that
students weren’t considering the dorms as a luxury, but that it was a basic need for
students to achieve academic success. After the meeting, the architects said that we
should always have students at future meetings so that the administration can see first-
hand that these students really need affordable housing.
KL, a staff member serving on the Basic Needs Support Network, also emphasized the
importance of centering students in decision making:
For the housing discussion, this has been the only time, and I’ve been at UCC now 4,
going on 5 years, that students have ever been a part of planning and implementation. I
have never sat on any other committee or task force, where students are actively
[involved]. It’s not like, okay once every month or once a year, we solicit two or three
50
people, but they’re really opening the doors. Because this is a college campus, and we are
all here for the students. We have a saying here that everyone should be helping every
student because they all have the potential of being a success story.
Jane, the director of student equity, also said that students were involved with the conversation
and discussion of offering on-campus student housing, specifically targeted to students
experiencing housing instability:
We have had students involved from the beginning with our discussions on on-campus
housing and building residential housing on campus. They’ve been involved in the very
beginning with the design process with the planning process. And then we just recently
had a community student forum where we had about 45 students or so that had a lot of
really great ideas and feedback and questions for the architects that were there. So much
so that the architect said “when you do your community forum, bring some students with
you because the community can see the level of students that you have here, any myths
they might have about, “oh, it’s going to turn into a fraternity party” will be instantly
dispelled by the students who are so serious and very committed to, like, keeping housing
as a privilege and not just something where everybody just goes into regardless, and they
really communicated just a high expectation for people that would be in residential
housing. And so, we take their [the students’] opinions very seriously.
When students were at the center of the conversation, administrators, staff, and faculty
were able to focus on specific student populations who may experience basic needs insecurity
and have a more targeted approach. Should these narratives be ignored, students’ voices could be
further marginalized and practices and policies can further oppress and criminalize basic needs
insecurity, especially for students of color, formerly incarcerated students, and LGBT-identified
51
students (Foscarinis, 1996; González, 2014). KL emphasized how this issue affected many
different populations and how UCC considered diverse student populations in their intervention
strategies and task forces:
There are task forces for equity populations that are underrepresented or underserved.
Those include homeless and food-insecure students, LGBTQ+, men of color, such as
foster youth, such as undocumented students. We have task forces and committees that
meet bi-weekly to address the concerns, and how to develop programs to help better
serve our students.
In focusing on specific student populations, staff, faculty, and students were able to advocate for
resources and support for the populations that needed it most.
Advocacy
In addition to centering students’ voices, the leadership at UCC advocated for their
students in different ways. In this study, advocacy was described as administrators, staff, and
faculty using their role and influence and utilizing students’ narratives and experiences to
address the barriers to basic needs security. In another sense, advocacy was the act of supporting
a cause. In many situations, students were unable to physically have a seat at the table, but UCC
staff members continued to be advocates for their students by lifting their stories and narratives.
For example, after students approached the UCC president regarding the issue of basic need
insecurity, a survey was administered to gather data on how many students were affected by
basic needs insecurity. From there, administrators such as President Jones continued to advocate
and center students’ voices at meetings. Daisy said,
When President Jones comes into board meetings, he brings the students’ comments and
makes sure that we listened to them, and I appreciate that because most of the time,
52
people feel that administration makes decisions without student input, and at least here,
our president makes sure we listen to it, whether it’s five or 10 minutes, we sit there and
listen. If there were complaints, if there were reasonable questions, if there’s something
going on, he lets us know. So, definitely, I believe that student input here is very
valuable.
This excerpt about the college president was stated in other ways, including how he reminded
people that UCC’s basic needs initiatives were a student-driven demand. Jane explained,
Dr. Jones, our president CEO, always lets people know about this, is that it was really our
ASB, it was our associated student body, that got a few students coming to them saying,
hey, how can the campus help us. You know, we’re homeless, or we’re living in our cars
and we don’t have a place to stay, and we’re really struggling with just getting a meal
every day. And so, the ASB officer that was talking to the students took all the students
over to the president’s office and said, “these students need to talk to you.” And that was
pretty much it, like Dr. Jones just said, “our students are struggling we need to do
something about it” and, bam, we got started.
Similarly, when asked why he began addressing the issues of housing and food insecurity,
President Jones responded,
Because the students came to me a couple years ago and had concerns about housing and
food insecurity and it became a priority of the campus. It’s not just the student
population. The whole campus is behind this movement in regards to basic needs on our
campus. And so we’re always looking for creative ways to support our students.
When asked how students are continuing to be involved with addressing the issues, Jane
said,
53
Well, like I said, it started as a student, student-driven kind of thing. And then we’ve had
certain students who’ve been, again, really big advocates for accessing services. So, at
first when the food pantry opened, you know, it was kind of a “I don’t know about this,”
“is it a new thing,” “can I come here?” “Is it free for real,” you know, I got that kind of
reaction. But we had a couple of students who are now involved with ASB who would
just pull their friends and say, “you can get a little bit of food here,” you know, “just get
some and show me your ID,” like they really took the, I think, any students stigma, they
took it out of it completely. So, we’ve had some great student advocates too.
John, a student from the focus group, discussed his involvement with the board of trustees and
the district board. He said he advocated for students’ needs as well:
Yeah, I had a meeting with the district board in Sacramento for our district to build low-
income housing for students and families. I work for the board. You can find me and tell
me. Tell me. Tell me what you need, you just got to let me know. I can turn in
information to the board and touch the board for y’all. If y’all want to go to board. Like,
I’m here for the students. That’s why they gave me this role of the student trustee. I’m the
voice of the other students.
Participants in the study emphasized the importance of centering students’ voices and
approaching programmatic efforts with a student-centered philosophy. UCC intentionally
provided space for students to share their personal narratives as a way to steer programs,
policies, and procedures. By doing so, students were viewed as the experts of the issue in which
the institution is aiming to address. The data found in this study indicated that students’ voices
and narratives were critical when developing intervention programs around basic needs
insecurity.
54
Theme 2: Realigning Priorities and Goals
The second theme that emerged from individual interviews, document analysis, and the
focus group was the realignment of priorities and goals for the institution. Through analyzing
UCC’s #RealCollege Survey in 2018, students at UCC had a higher rate of food insecurity, a
higher rate of housing insecurity, and a similar rate of homelessness in comparison to students
attending other 2-year colleges in 2018. UCC incorporated this data into the 2024
Comprehensive Master Plan and further reported 17% of the student population was living below
the poverty line in their metropolitan county, and the largest demographic group living in
poverty were females aged 25 to 34. The largest race or ethnic group living in poverty was
Hispanic or Latino, with 37.89% of the total population living in poverty. The second-largest
racial/ethnic group living in poverty was White, with 29.1% of the total population living in
poverty. With this information, UCC realigned its priorities and goals to include housing and
food security as part of its 2017–2024 strategic initiatives. Interview participants shared two
ways in which UCC realigned its institutional priorities to address basic needs including
appointing an individual to oversee basic needs programs and committing to financially fund
such programs.
Need for Dedicated Staff
The findings from the interview data demonstrated that having a dedicated staff member
to spearhead basic needs initiatives was necessary to voice student issues and concerns at the
university. When I asked interview participants if there was a dedicated individual on campus
whose sole position was to oversee basic needs initiatives, the responses varied. Four out of six
participants replied that UCC did not have one specific person whose sole responsibility was to
55
oversee basic needs, and there were multiple individuals who have been tasked with the
responsibility. Daisy said,
At the moment, that’s a bit of a complex question. We don’t have student housing on
campus, but someone who has been very proactive on that is the president of the college.
But other than that, for students who need referrals for housing, I guess it’s the director
for student equity and the Basic Needs Support Network. We are supposed to hire a basic
needs coordinator in the future though, but right now, it’s definitely the student activities
coordinator and the director for student equity.
Junior also said,
I am the student activities coordinator, but I’ve also taken on the role of the, even though
it’s not official as far as the title, basically being like the food pantry kind of coordinator,
which I basically will help with staffing coverage, kind of operational procedures and
kind of any other tasks or things that are needed for my pantry. I’ve kind of become the
face of the food pantry because of the relationships I’ve built with the students. But this
also falls under student equity, so the director there does a lot too, like lead the Basic
Needs Support Network.
KL agreed by sharing that many departments on campus were responsible for basic needs
support. She said that students would gravitate towards those that they feel most comfortable
with to share these intimate and confidential stories and experiences.
Everyone is responsible. We have resources like EOPS, student resource center, guardian
scholars, equity programs, there are people like that on campus, but nothing of like, there
is no official person. Students will gravitate towards different types of people here, so if
you’re that one person that a student is willing to share, if they’re facing some type of
56
insecurity. Even if you don’t work in an equity program, you should be able to direct
them to services that will help meet their needs.
Alexia, a student in the focus group, identified another individual on campus who helped her
navigate her experience with housing insecurity:
Ms. Joy from EOPS! She goes above and beyond to share like the resources and to try to,
like, help us out in like getting jobs and with housing, because she knows a lot of people.
When I was homeless, she pulled out a binder and she found me a church nearby so that I
could stay there. She also got me gift cards to Walmart and Food for Less.
Similarly, students in the focus group identified a variety of staff members on campus who have
helped them navigate food and housing insecurity, including Jane, Junior, and Ms. Joy. It was
not surprising, though, that students identified several different individuals on campus with
whom they most frequently interacted, including staff and faculty they trusted most to help them
with their situation.
Notably, every staff member interviewed identified Jane as one of the leaders for student
basic needs at UCC, even though it was only one aspect of her job responsibilities. Positionally,
Jane spearheaded and chaired the Basic Needs Support Network, which offered her the capacity
to engage in meetings and conversations of basic needs, while incorporating intersections of
equity and justice. When I asked Jane and President Jones if there was a dedicated staff member
on campus to oversee basic needs initiatives, they both identified Jane as that individual. It was
significant that the campus viewed Jane in this capacity because she had access to senior-level
administrators and faculty that other stakeholders such as students or staff did not. Additionally,
Jane built meaningful connections with students and staff, allowing them to trust her to advocate
on their behalf. Students in the focus group affirmatively provided examples of how Jane went
57
out of her way to provide them with the appropriate resources and never judged their situations.
President Jones proudly confirmed that he appointed Jane for this role based on her equity-
minded decision making and commitment to the students.
John, the board of trustees’ student representative, was a frequent presence in Jane’s
office and was familiar with the basic needs initiatives at UCC. He trusted President Jones’ and
Jane’s intentions when it came to providing space for students to share feedback and even shared
in the focus group that students could always stop by Jane’s office for food or just to talk because
she cared about the students at UCC. Daisy also shared how Jane positively impacted students’
experience on campus:
The director of student equity, she’s very much involved in the process of helping
students obtain educational success. She works tirelessly. She does work very hard to
find these external resources when students kind of don’t know where else to turn. She
has many stories of how one day the student is fine, and the next day they’ve been
evicted and need assistance with housing. She’s at least a point of contact here on this
campus and students feel comfortable approaching her.
Data from the interviews and focus group show that Jane consistently served as an advocate for
student equity issues and concerns. Although her title and job responsibilities are beyond the
scope of solely student basic needs, Jane was identified as one of many points of contact and
dedicated individual for these initiatives.
Financial Investment and Resource Allocation
With the support of the community college chancellors’ office, all campuses received
funds to implement basic needs initiatives addressing food and housing insecurity. Along with
the funding, the campuses were required to provide data associated with their initiatives.
58
President Jones shared that the student equity fund provided by the chancellor would eventually
end; however, he was dedicated to reallocating operational funds to maintain support services
such as the food pantry for students, because it was important to him to lower the number of
students who were hungry and homeless on his campus. President Jones said,
So, the first couple years, we’re just doing stuff to do it, right? Now, I’m also looking at
the organization so that we can sustain it and that’s critical to me right now. Who’s
responsible, who’s going to do this. Every piece of it, and also the funding. So right now,
we’re using a lot of our student equity achievement dollars to support our basic needs
work and making sure that we having ongoing dollars to support the work.
In addition to dedicating space and financial resources for a food pantry, UCC approved a
large capital campaign to build student residential housing. Based on a study conducted by
Gensler Research, amenities such as residential housing at 2-year colleges can be integral in the
student college experience. Through document analysis, UCC’s student housing report (2018)
indicated that over 30% of their students reported struggling with stable places to live and that
housing in 4-year colleges are often rites of passage. However, community college students often
miss out on this opportunity. In collaboration with Gensler Research, UCC dedicated resources
to conducting focus groups, open forums, think-tanks, and surveys to accurately determine how
this housing project can best serve UCC students.
Theme 3: Support of the Campus
The third theme that emerged from the data pertained to the support from senior
leadership, faculty, staff, and students of basic needs initiatives. The success of these programs
and resources was in part credited to the dedication of the campus community. The interview
participants discussed the importance of having campus-wide support such as dedicated focus
59
from senior administrators, collaborative efforts with campus stakeholders, and individual
grassroots efforts by students, faculty, and staff. Additionally, every staff participant lauded the
Basic Needs Support Network as a campus initiative that offered campus stakeholders the
opportunity to foster deeper examination into the root causes of inequities around basic needs
and to seek steps to increase equity for students at UCC.
Grassroots Efforts
Although institutional support was central to overall organizational change, it is also
important to highlight the individual efforts that served as the catalyst of a social movement.
Before the UCC implemented basic needs intervention programs on campus, four out of the five
staff interview participants said that students brought the issue to light through campus activism.
In hopes of creating a more equitable and safe space for students experiencing basic needs
insecurities, staff and faculty members organized grassroots efforts to address housing and food
insecurity at UCC, including purchasing grocery gift cards for students and building their own
snack pantry in offices. Daisy spoke about how faculty contributed to the efforts of addressing
food insecurity at UCC. She said,
Faculty. They’re definitely a resource on campus for students, and I see them sometimes
with their little tables, offering snacks, especially during finals and midterms before it
became an institutional thing.
Junior also added that he created a mini pantry in his office:
I do have a couple of food items, mostly small little bit like the granola bars, the cup of
noodles just something really quick something that add water, you know, microwave, you
know, kind of a one-step kind of prep. So, my specific office serves as kind of a smaller
food pantry. Before we had a delivery system, it would be myself, one of the faculty
60
members, and then one of the administrators, we would basically take turns going to and
from grocery stores. We’d actually go drive, select the food, and then bring it back to
campus.
Interview participants shared that basic needs initiatives were born out of student
demands and out of the need for students to be supported academically as well as personally at
their institution. The initiatives were rooted in a grassroots, bottom-up approach to address
neglected aspects of basic needs security for students at UCC. Students voiced their concerns and
demanded something be done about hunger and homelessness.
Partnerships with Campus Departments
As basic needs became an institutionalized program under Student Equity Programs at
UCC, partnerships with campus stakeholders were instrumental in the success of their initiatives.
Stakeholders included professional staff, faculty, senior administrators, and extended UCC
community members in the surrounding area. Partnerships included campus recreational
facilities offering locker rooms and showers for students, the associated student body partnering
with local restaurants, autobody shops, and metro and bus companies to provide subsidized
student discounts for students who demonstrate basic needs insecurities. Lolita, a student in the
focus group shared,
I work in the student life office as a student worker there, and I’ve been calling vendors
to give us discounts for students who specifically have the ASB stickers. We’re trying to
target local shops in Urban City so that we can help the community, too.
Some students in the focus group said that they were not aware of these resources but felt
fortunate to be at a college that offered students with this type of support. As important as it is
for campus departments to have a streamlined communication strategy to disseminate
61
information about basic needs initiatives at UCC, the students in the focus group demonstrated
the importance of peer-to-peer education as well. Laura and John engaged in the following
exchange during the focus group. Laura shared,
Sometimes, we need a shower. Sometimes, we need to change our clothes. You know,
sometimes we need some sleep. You know, even if you have a car, we need a place to
park, so it’s nice that campus opens up early and it closes late, so, if we have a car, we
can get a little rest on. It would be nice to have a place to shower if there’s a gym, you
know, a change of clothes if there’s somewhere where there’s extra clothes here maybe
we can just swap out, you know.
John, the student trustee, replied,
You can shower at the gym! We have that here now at UCC college. You can come early
in the morning before anybody else and come shower. You can get soap and shampoo at
the pantry.
Laura admitted that she was unaware of this resource and was glad that it was available for
students. Other students were surprised by this information and were excited to share the
resource with others.
Other forms of collaboration included intentional partnerships with departments that
supported those most vulnerable and affected by basic needs insecurities. Staff who worked in
support services such as Formerly Incarcerated Student Transition (FIRST), EOPS/CARE,
Student Equity, and Foster and Kinship Care Education Program were aware of basic need
offerings on campus and in the community. All focus group participants alluded to the
importance of these partnerships in order to increase visibility and awareness for students. For
example, MB said,
62
And then on top of that, EOPS and the rest of these programs you can go to like meetings
like this, and they would award you like $50, $20, like a food voucher to where you can
go in and cafeteria and you don’t have to spend your money. You learn about resources at
these kinds of meetings and then you get something out of it too.
Lastly, participation in committees and task forces, such as the Basic Needs Support Network,
was another form of campus-wide partnership. These committees offered campus stakeholders
the opportunity to share resources, information, and ideas that otherwise would not have been
possible considering the natural silos higher education often operates under. Jane shared,
They started the Basic Needs Support Network in 2016 so I wasn’t really part of those
efforts until the following year when they opened the food pantry, at which point I started
co-chairing the group. So, I was part of three people, really, who coordinated the group
and we started with the food pantry, which was slow to catch on the first year, but then
exploded over the next couple of years.
Daisy added,
I was introduced to the Basic Needs Support Network through my immediate supervisor.
She kind of said, hey you know we touch upon the topic of food insecurity, you have
research in food insecurity, one and one you’re also doing the housing project that’s kind
of how I got introduced to the committee. From my understanding, I have been attending
their meetings about three months now, and they do a lot.
Through the basic needs survey and the data collected, members of the Basic Needs
Support Network tackled campus-wide initiatives, including a campus food pantry, partnerships
with local shelters and community organizations, and a campus masterplan to provide affordable
residential housing for students enrolled at UCC.
63
Positional Power of the President
As a component of applied critical leadership, transformational leaders prioritize the
value of transparency and approach leadership in inspiring, collaborative, and supportive ways,
and focuses on a redistribution of power (Aho & Quaye, 2018). When President Jones joined
UCC in 2007, the campus community rallied around his ability to motivate and influence
organizational change. President Jones said,
I think it’s just my leadership style. They’re following my lead. But, I’m pushing,
because I see what’s next. So through that lens, we try even harder for our students.
We’ve built an infrastructure, right? And so by having an infrastructure working through
our director of student equity regards to basic needs, and then we have a student service
advisor who was responsible for basic needs. We were one of the first to open up a
pantry, we were first ones to do showers on campus. We are the first college to look at
prefab housing for students on our campus. So, we’re really, from my perspective, we’re
leading that conversation. Because we understand as a college, how important housing
and food security affects our students’ student success.
Data from the individual interviews strongly indicated that transformative leadership was
essential for UCC to rebuild and regain its accreditation as a college. Daisy provided some
details about President Jones’ leadership style, stating,
He is kind of the poster president of advocating for student equity. I admire him. I don’t
think I’ve ever worked with, or at least witnessed an open door policy between the
president and students like he does it. Before he became the CEO here, he was in student
services. That’s where he got his knowledge and passion for student resources and
supporting students. He is very much involved.
64
As a result of Dr. Jones’ empathetic and engaged leadership, initiatives around student well-
being and success, including basic needs, were areas that he prioritized and supported.
Conclusion
As colleges and universities continue to address societal and systemic barriers faced by
historically marginalized student populations, it is critical to identify strategies for reducing rates
of hunger and homelessness for college students through an equity lens. As a strategy for
addressing basic needs insecurity and implementing intervention programs, many institutions
such as UCC are committed to organizational and cultural change.
The three themes that emerged in this chapter included centering students’ voices,
aligning priorities and goals, and the significance of campus-wide support for basic needs
initiatives. This study gathered data from individual interviews, a focus group with students, and
documents from the UCC website, survey reports, and presentation slides. The evidence
presented in the study answered the research questions regarding implementing organizational
change around housing and food insecurity within an equity-minded framework.
Chapter Five will discuss findings from the study, address the research questions in
relation to the data and conceptual framework, discuss recommendations for practice, and,
finally, present implications for future practice and research.
65
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case study explored ways college and university initiatives and programs addressing
housing and food insecurity may result in long-term organizational change. The narratives of
students and staff are important to better understand how intervention programs and policies
affect this unique student population. It also provided insight into the realities of front-line staff
and students who experience this barrier in their daily lives. This study also examined how
organizational change around housing and food insecurity could be understood through an
equity-minded lens and how transformational and applied critical leadership are important
components of creating culture change around basic needs insecurity.
The issue of poverty and basic needs insecurity has long existed before conversations
emerged in the higher education sector and is a problem faced for decades with more diverse
student populations entering college, including students of color, undocumented students, former
foster youth, veteran students, formerly incarcerated students, and students with families.
College and universities are tasked with finding solutions to address student basic needs.
Although initiatives to gather data on housing and food insecurity are emerging and this issue is
increasingly relevant within colleges and universities in 2020 during the global coronavirus
pandemic, there is little research regarding how institutions are actively engaging in
organizational change and cultural shifts around the issue of housing and food insecurity.
Furthermore, the direct testimonies captured by student participants speak to the significance of
the study. Data from interviews, focus groups, and document analysis find that UCC is
dedicating significant efforts in providing sustainable and organizational change around housing
and food insecurity.
66
The purpose of Chapter Five is to address the issues outlined in Chapter One and respond
to the research questions. The data received and analyzed will answer the research questions
through the use of organizational change theory and applied critical leadership framework.
Finally, implications for practice, limitations, and recommendations for practice and future
research will be discussed.
Discussion of Findings
This section focuses on responding to the research questions that guided this study. Using
three conceptual frameworks, the study examined how one college in a metropolitan area created
organizational change around housing and food insecurity at the institution through an equity-
minded lens. Findings included the importance of centering students’ voices and narratives,
realigning priorities and goals, and the importance of campus buy-in and support.
Creating Organizational Change
The primary research question for this study examined “How are colleges and
universities creating organizational change around housing and food insecurity for the
institution?” The individual and focus group interviews indicated that, in order to make
significant change in policies, programs, and campus culture, administrators needed data to
develop an intervention strategy. By collecting the appropriate and much-needed data, the
institution was able to target populations with the highest need, create programs that addressed
particular issues students faced and was able to tell an accurate narrative that did not depend
solely on anecdotes or hypotheticals. The institution relied on and used the data strategically to
implement the most needed services. This intentional step represented a change in organizational
practices and constitutes a practice that became highly valuable in an environment where
resources were limited.
67
College and university staff, students, and faculty must be willing to dedicate substantial
time and effort if they are interested in cultural change, as the process tends to be long-term and
slow (Kezar, 2014). Now in its third year of addressing housing and food insecurity, UCC is
beginning to shift the campus culture towards destigmatizing hunger and homelessness and
providing more institutionalized support and resources. According to Schein’s (1985) iceberg
model, change occurs symbolically when managers instill a shared meaning among the
organization’s members. The model illustrates an image in which deep organizational change
occurs below the surface where deep-rooted values, attitudes, and assumptions are challenged
and critiqued. In accordance with this model, many study participants discussed the importance
of having a culture of campus-wide support and commitment from senior leadership around
equity initiatives such as basic needs security. Not only did President Jones visibly engage in
organizational change through establishing an institutionalized basic needs support network with
staff, students, and faculty leading an action-oriented group of colleagues to address
homelessness and hunger, the committee was intentionally centered in values of providing
equitable and justice outcomes for students. In addition to the task force, visible artifacts such as
the institution’s mission statements and annual reports reflected UCC’s commitment to
organizational and cultural change around basic needs. With President Jones’ leadership, not
only is basic needs a key value within their mission and purpose, but there are also strategies and
goals set in place by the Basic Needs Support Network to dismantle systematic barriers faced by
students.
More importantly, President Jones and the UCC leadership continue working towards
double-loop learning and Schein’s foundational levels of change in values, attitudes, and
assumptions that are not easily visible as those artifacts on the surface. For example, staff and
68
administrators at UCC have created a norm and culture around centering students’ voices. A key
example of this is UCC’s commitment to building affordable housing for its students and
gathering students’ feedback and input throughout the construction process. Centered around
student voices, the construction project included external stakeholders that came in with
preconceived notions and assumptions about students using these residence halls to party;
however, administrators prepared architects, funders, and trustee members with the
understanding of how this housing project would impact students positively and help them build
relationships and community. By doing so, President Jones and the Basic Needs Support
Network altered the negative attitudes, and assumptions of outside stakeholders and focused on a
more holistic and inclusive way to reframe the narrative on why on-campus housing would be
instrumental towards organizational and cultural change within the community college system.
Other ways in which institutions can create organizational change around housing and
food insecurity is through the intentional collaboration of the campus community. By
recognizing the economic, social, and cultural gaps students experiencing basic needs insecurity
face, institutions can proactively fill those gaps within their organization through their resources
and support. Stanton-Salazar (2004) and Yosso (2005) described social capital as having
connections to networks and key institutional agents that can provide access to support and
resources that lead to goal achievement. As UCC institutionalizes a basic needs department and
appoints staff to address housing and food insecurity, UCC intentionally categorized this area
under student equity programs considering the students most impacted by basic needs insecurity
are students of color, former foster youth, LGBTQ, and other underrepresented and historically
marginalized populations.
69
Equity Lens
Another question guiding this study sought to answer asked, “How can organizational
change around housing and food insecurity be understood through an equity-minded lens?” The
core foundation of the United States of America is White supremacy (Omi & Winant,
2014). Colonization has made it so that Whiteness is seen as the default authority, the norm, and
the standard to which all others must adhere (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). In terms of higher
education, universities were designed to represent privilege and serve White, male, Christian,
cisgender, heterosexual/heteronormative, upper/middle-class, able-bodied persons (Accapadi,
2007; Anzaldúa & Keating, 2013; hooks, 2014; Lorde, 1984; Moraga & Anzaldúa, 1981).
Therefore, attending an institution that is inherently not meant to serve those outside of the
dominant identities, and historically placed on the margins, can be deemed challenging.
According to Bensimon (2005), double-loop learning moves beyond the examination of
solutions, and includes examination of root causes of problems, including attitudes, values,
beliefs, and practices that must be addressed to bring about organizational change. Double-loop
learning requires reflection on how practices and institutional history may systematically
marginalize and further oppress those on the margins including people of color, non-binary
individuals, and those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Double-loop learning goes beyond
recognizing the need for diversity and emphasizes an equity lens when creating organizational
change. President Jones and members of the Basic Needs Support Network recognized that the
students who attend UCC have multiple identities and intersections of marginalization, hence
their programs in addressing housing and food insecurity are not colorblind programs, but rather,
are targeted, intentional, and purposeful. When speaking on the issue, students, staff, and faculty
identified homelessness and hunger intersecting with identities of “Black, single mothers,”
70
“LGBT and queer students of color,” or “formerly incarcerated youth.” To create organizational
change at UCC, it was significant that the program area was placed under the director for student
equity, as their pre-existing portfolio allowed them to interact with this population of students
already. Hence, hunger and homelessness were seen and understood as an equity issue at UCC
due to where it was placed on the organization chart.
Additionally, institutions such as UCC are unable to avoid the diverse student population
it serves. The demographics of this community college and the opportunity that it presents for
basic needs demonstrates that the reality is that this is a socioeconomically, historically
marginalized, low-income community. Institutions such as UCC are pressed to engage in basic
needs because this is a need for the majority of their students. To ignore these facts would
essentially dismiss students’ identities and lived realities and ultimately view students purely as
atomistic. This case study demonstrates that colleges in urban areas are unable to ignore basic
needs concerns even if they wanted to.
Contribution to Research and Practice
This study is significant in its contribution to the study of organizational change and
leadership around the issue of housing and food insecurity. In particular, this study examined
how one community college addressed housing and food insecurity with an equity-minded lens,
and how social justice can drive practices that result in fundamental and systemic organizational
change. The following section examines the findings and how the data can inform new or
improved practices at other campuses.
Campus Housing for Housing Insecure Students
This study found that using data on student needs can help resolve housing issues.
Through student listening sessions, UCC leadership identified housing as an essential need for
71
their most economically vulnerable students. This data gave UCC leaders the information needed
to determine specific support services and human resources needed by those living in these
residential communities. Initially, community members believed that residential communities
and dormitories were a luxury; however, UCC shifted that narrative by demonstrating that
housing for community college students is a basic need.
While using data is not uncommon on college and university campuses, this study found
that it is essential in gaining support for large-scale and ambitious projects, such as building and
providing housing. The Basic Needs Support Network at UCC analyzed the basic needs data to
gain awareness of educational inequities on their campus. Without this data, team members
would rely on anecdotes or personal experiences. The data helped to garner campus support and
advocacy around building affordable housing for students who were most economically
vulnerable.
Discounts with Local Companies and Businesses
In interviews, students at UCC noted resources available for students with basic needs
insecurity that were unique to their campus, including collaborations included discounts with
local companies. UCC’s associated student body collaborated with a local auto parts store to
provide discounts for students. The intention behind this collaboration was to support students
who were homeless and living in their cars. Additionally, for students who lacked transportation,
President Jones discussed a collaboration with a ridesharing company to provide free or
discounted codes for students to get to and from campus as well as to local food banks. Along
with the discount codes, UCC partnered with a food delivery company to deliver meals to
students during the COVID-19 pandemic.
72
Lastly, UCC worked with another local food delivery store to provide healthy and
affordable meals for its students. This company has storefront locations in food deserts, which
are underserved communities with little to no access to healthy food as well as in affluent areas.
To ensure that everyone can afford a meal, the company prices meals according to the cost of
living in neighborhoods they serve, and its meals range from $5 to $8. Seeing that the urban area
in which UCC is located is filled with fast-food restaurants that often serve unhealthy items,
UCC partnered with this company to provide salads in the quad during evening hours and during
weekends when campus facilities are closed to students. This ensured that students had access to
affordable and healthy meals on campus. These types of local partnerships supported community
resources while providing UCC students access to basic needs and services.
Furthering an Equity-Minded Framework by Asking Deep-Rooted Questions
This study found that the process of addressing housing and food insecurity on campus
can be proactive and intentional. In operationalizing and implementing a department-specific
focus around equity, UCC engaged in double-loop learning by focusing on the root causes of the
problem. In basic needs work, this can include campus stakeholders’ attitudes, values, beliefs,
and practices that must be addressed to bring about change. This process requires reflection on
how practices and institutional history have unintentionally marginalized and oppressed people
of color. Double-loop learning goes beyond recognizing the need for diversity and emphasizes an
equity lens when creating organizational change. With this standpoint, the creation of a resource
center fills in the gaps of the institution and not through a deficit mindset of what the student
may be perceived to be lacking.
73
Recommendations for Practice
This section offers recommendations for higher education administrators involved with
the creation and implementation of basic needs support services on college campuses. These
recommendations will help better serve students from historically marginalized backgrounds and
in changing the organization’s culture around basic needs security for students on campus.
Recommendation 1: Create a Single-Stop Resource
As found from both the individual interviews and focus groups, students and staff
highlighted the importance of having knowledgeable and accessible staff to serve as a single
point of contact regarding barriers to basic needs. This individual or collective group would need
to understand the importance of centering equity and justice in their work. This includes being
able to identify and target specific populations who disproportionately experience housing, food,
and financial insecurity. Students who need support often have difficulty identifying support and
resources on campus (Hallett et al., 2019). Identifying a centralized and coordinated effort can
increase awareness around the issue, have greater access to emerging policy and promising
practices, and can more easily be publicized in a way where students and staff can all benefit
(Hallett et al., 2019).
Providing dedicated staff and a designated department on campus can streamline efforts
to address housing and food insecurity. This department would identify, support, and link
students to on- and off-campus resources while closing the gap between complicated and
convoluted processes such as financial aid and provide appropriate referrals to other campus
support services (Crutchfield, 2016; Crutchfield & Maguire, 2018; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015;
Hallett et al., 2019). By providing the appropriate human and financial resource to this area, the
74
institution is demonstrating a dedication to addressing the issue through a holistic and strategic
approach.
Recommendation 2: Create Streamlined Communication
The staff members who were interviewed at UCC stated that success in addressing
housing and food insecurity stemmed from collaboration and partnership with various
departments and stakeholders on campus. Members of the Basic Needs Support Network
included representatives from student activities, the office of equity and diversity, student
support services, health services, and a number of academic programs. Several participants
shared the importance of decompartmentalizing offices and efforts to break down silos at the
institution to better communicate information regarding basic needs support. The philosophy
around this model was to disseminate and share knowledge around resources so that there were
multiple touchpoints when students sought support.
However, student participants in the focus group interview discussed the need for better
communication regarding these resources. As some students shared examples of resources that
they have taken advantage of, such as early morning showers on campus, meal vouchers on
campus, free salads in the quad, other students had no knowledge of these programs and
offerings. The conclusion was that they learned about these programs through word of mouth
and if they were not a part of specific circles, they would have never learned about the programs.
Developing a coordinated strategy for communication increases accessibility for students,
staff, and faculty to distribute information regarding programs, policies, and practices. Examples
of printed materials can be distributed amongst all student affairs departments and academic
units. Financial aid can distribute information about emergency grant programs as well as SNAP
benefits and the campus food pantry. New staff and faculty orientation can include an
75
informational session in identifying early signs of concern and/or trauma due to housing and
food insecurity and how to best intervene and support students. In addition to having tangible
materials, creating a coordinated communication plan allows the campus community to
understand the institution’s philosophy and mission from an organizational standpoint, making
clear the priorities and values of addressing this issue on campus.
Recommendation 3: Break Barriers and Build Bridges
The barriers around housing and food insecurity disproportionately affect students of
color, students from low-income backgrounds, former foster youth, and LGBTQ students
(Crutchfield & Maguire, 2018). By coordinating efforts with services and departments that
support these populations, institutions can ensure that these are safe spaces for students to
disclose and discuss their experiences with basic needs insecurity and find the support needed
(Hallett, et al., 2019). Participants also highlighted populations such as formerly incarcerated
students and students with children, which is an area that not many institutions have yet
explored. Targeted outreach to these populations can demonstrate an intentional and proactive
approach for support that they may have not otherwise received. By breaking down institutional
barriers, universities and colleges can build bridges and partnerships with existing departments
and organizations that help both the students and the institution to achieve equitable outcomes
around basic needs security.
Community Partnerships
Higher education institutions should collaborate with local community partners to create
streamlined and sustainable solutions around housing and food insecurity. Most educational
institutions are not equipped to provide the comprehensive and holistic support needed to tackle
the issues of housing insecurity on their own (Broton & Goldrick-Rab 2016; Hallett et al., 2019).
76
By communicating with community organizations, both higher education institutions and
community organizations can disseminate and reciprocate information regarding processes,
existing resources, and demographics regarding students who may benefit from community
support services. Having an inclusive and complete list of the resources available in the
community can help colleges and universities to point students experiencing basic needs
insecurity toward proper care and support (Au & Hyatt, 2017; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2015; Hallett
et al., 2019). By collaborating with local and state organizations, higher education institutions
can fill in the gaps within larger contexts of basic needs insecurity, such as students who are
often ignored in conversations around hunger and homelessness (Emerson et. al., 2012). Lastly,
by nurturing relationships with external organizations, higher education institutions can rely on
potential external funding support or general information on receiving monetary or tangible
donations such as food, hygiene products, and more.
Connecting with University Advancement and Foundation
Institutional funding can be a common barrier to implementing new programs such as a
food pantry, emergency grants, and transitional student housing. Because this issue is a newly
emerging area in higher education, many institutions may face difficulties in securing a
designated budget to implement programs or to hire designated staff. However, by connecting
with university foundations and advancement teams, ample opportunities exist to raise funds and
accept donations from university donors, particularly alumni who have an investment in giving
back to their alma mater. Although donors may be unaware of basic needs insecurity or have
misconceptions around the extent of the issue on campus, by collaborating with advancement
officers, departments can determine the narrative and stories presented to prospective donors
who may be inclined to support these efforts.
77
Implications
The findings of this study have implications for higher education administrators, campus
communities, and policy and practice, and for any institution that seeks to improve the
sustainability and institutional culture around housing and food insecurity. Although some
institutions are working towards implementing prevention and intervention programs for students
experiencing basic needs insecurity, it is evident that more could be done to provide sustainable
and systematic outcomes. In addition to high-impact and promising practices, data and
assessment must also be collected to understand the complexities of collegiate homelessness and
hunger.
Racial Justice and Decolonization
To work towards an equitable approach to addressing hunger and homelessness,
institutions must first consider the root causes and history of this type of poverty and
inaccessibility of food and housing. Those in the food justice movement have recognized the
racist and oppressive forces that are at play in taking opportunities and access away from people
and communities of color (Bradley & Herrera 2016). In 1996, the Community Food Security
Coalition (CSFC) was formed by a group of academics and activists as a response to race and
class disparities in access to healthy, culturally appropriate, and affordable food in the United
States (Bradley & Herrera, 2016). In this effort, food justice was more than just one individual’s
condition of hunger, but rather, it was a community need to secure culturally acceptable and
nutritional foods at all times.
In decolonizing research around food justice, Bradley and Herrera (2016) highlighted the
importance of understanding the world through “our own perspectives for our own purposes, and
based on our own stories and theories to explain them,” (p. 105). When the authors referred to
78
“our own,” they were referring to indigenous peoples, people of color, allies, and all
marginalized and oppressed peoples. By centering the voices of those historically oppressed,
decolonization provides healing, transformation, and the beginning of regaining land, language,
culture, human and civil rights (Bradley & Herrera, 2016). Therefore, the definitions, the
practice, and the research around food, housing, and financial justice must “center and privilege
the indigenous knowledge, values, beliefs, interests, hopes, and dreams” (Bradley & Herrera,
2016, p. 106). To best achieve equity in organizational change, racial justice and decolonization
are significant to consider before implementing university and college policies and programs.
Participants spoke highly of how UCC administrators were nonhierarchical, inviting, and
benefited their student experiences. The data supported the idea that transformative leadership
for this institution was essential. The campus also fostered grassroots efforts from both the
campus and off campus to address housing and food insecurity. Beyond the analysis of the
students’ narratives, administrators can dismantle and deconstruct racialized policies, practices,
and culture that negatively impact students’ experiences, development, and success. When racist
and classist policies are perpetuated within institutional policies, students who experience
housing and food insecurity are further marginalized and oppressed. By reevaluating policies and
programs that specifically serve students’ lived realities, students will have greater access to
resources and support services that meet their needs.
Future Research
A central limitation of this study was the sample size of 16. Methodologically, the
number of participants was not inherently the problem, as I was able to produce thoughtful,
critical, and in-depth insight. However, recruitment for this study was limited to a small number
of staff and students currently engaged in basic needs work. An opportunity for future research
79
would be to include a more diverse population of interview participants from the community,
including faculty, staff, and students with additional perspectives. Future research should include
additional stakeholders such as faculty and senior-level administrators or other university staff
and students who can provide additional insight into their understanding of basic needs
initiatives on campus. Future research should also include students who were not already actively
engaged with the program.
Future research might also include institutions from a different geographical location.
UCC was located in a large metropolitan area in California, so there could be differences in
experiences compared with other community colleges in other locations. Basic needs programs
in other community colleges or universities may vary in their design and allocation of resources
based on the student population. Based on its location and the community and city it served,
there was a larger percentage of Black and Latinx students who enrolled at UCC. Additionally,
UCC had a relatively high population of food and housing insecure students (59% and 68% of
the student population respectively) compared to the national average, which might serve as a
limitation to the study. Future research could include other types of institutions, like 4-year
private colleges and universities, as there are unique differences and perspectives between urban
two-year community colleges and elite, private institutions.
Conclusion
The pervasiveness of poverty and basic needs insecurity has been an issue in our country
for centuries, but it is now becoming a topic of concern for higher education institutions as
student populations continue to diversify. These stories of impoverishment and struggle are
becoming a harsh reality of nearly 30% of college students in the U.S., asking them to make
unrealistic sacrifices between food and housing or completing their degree for a chance of social
80
and economic mobility. Acknowledging and accepting the challenges that college students face
can have significant implications for their academic and personal success. By providing
resources and support that actively deconstruct oppressive systems, higher education institutions
can actively create systemic and organizational change that is transformational and equitable for
future generations.
The process of writing this dissertation was revealing and humbling for me. When I
began this journey, this area of study was a topic of interest and I knew deep down that it was
important. Many California institutions, such as the community college district, California State
Universities, and the University of California system, had already implemented 10 years’ worth
of data gathering, research, and program implementation. However, private institutions had just
started the conversation. When I started at the University of Southern California, I was working
in a cultural center, but, towards the middle of my dissertation writing, I began working in the
inaugural basic needs department, directly serving students with housing, food, and financial
insecurities. At that point, as a scholar-practitioner studying and directly working in this area at
an elite, private university, I knew that there were gaps in our system that needed to be addressed
around housing and food insecurity.
In the data collection process, I was impressed by the staff’s commitment and dedication
to serving their students with basic needs insecurity. I was also impressed, but not surprised, by
how resourceful and knowledgeable the students were when it came to accessing support
services on campus. I immediately saw the differences between the UCC’s students I met and the
USC students I worked with daily. There were differences surrounding stigma and help-seeking
between the two student populations – but I also saw the stark similarities in their stories,
narratives, and experiences around food and housing insecurity.
81
The writing and research process created many moments of cognitive dissonance for me.
I fully believed the importance of my research in creating sustainable and organizational change
at the systems level. However, as a practitioner in the basic needs field, I also understood why
institutional change was so difficult. As a scholar, I saw the theoretical frameworks and literature
that outlined what practitioners needed to do to address the problem, but, as a practitioner, I also
understood how unrealistic it was to accomplish systematic change without institutional support
from those with the positional power to implement that vision. My hope is that this study
provides a roadmap for researchers, practitioners, and senior administrators on how to implement
organizational change through an equity-minded framework.
82
REFERENCES
Abel, T. (2008). Cultural capital and social inequality in health. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 62(7), e13–e13. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.066159
Accapadi, M. M. (2007). When white women cry: How white women’s tears oppress women of
color. The College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 208–215.
https://doi.org/10.1117/2.5200406.0012
Aceves, E. M. (2018). Food is a right: Student perceptions of college food access programming
at a California State University. California State University.
Adams, G., & Balfour, D. (2004). Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate
and Public Sector Organisations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2361-8_12
Aho, R. E., & Quaye, S. J. (2018). Applied critical leadership: Centering racial justice and
decolonization in professional associations. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher
Education and Student Affairs, 3(3), 2.
Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Food insufficiency and American school-
aged children’s cognitive, academic, and psychosocial development. Pediatrics, 108(1),
44–53.
Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of
Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226012896.001.0001
Ambrose, V. K. (2016). “It’s like a mountain”: The lived experience of homeless college
students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Tennessee.
Anzaldúa, G., & Keating, A. (2013). This bridge we call home: Radical visions for
transformation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203952962
83
Au, N., & Hyatt, S. (2017). Resources supporting homeless students at California’s public
universities and colleges. California Homeless Youth Project.
Aviles de Bradley, A. M. (2009). Educational rights of homeless youth: Exploring racial
dimensions of homeless educational policy (Publication No. 3364584) [doctoral
dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Aviles de Bradley, A. M. (2015). From charity to equity: Race, homelessness, & urban schools.
Teachers College Press.
Bartfeld, J., Gundersen, C., Smeeding, T., & Ziliak, J. P. (Eds.). (2015). SNAP matters: how food
stamps affect health and well-being. Stanford University Press.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W., & Cook, J. (2000). Guide to measuring household
food security. United States Department of Agriculture.
Bonner, T. B. (2018). Invisible on college campuses: A qualitative study of the experiences of
college and university administrators with homeless students (Publication No. 10929597)
[Doctoral dissertation]. California Lutheran University.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Bradley, K., & Herrera, H. (2016). Decolonizing food justice: Naming, resisting, and researching
colonizing forces in the movement. Antipode, 48(1), 97–114.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12165
84
Broton, K. M., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2017). Going without: An exploration of food and housing
insecurity among undergraduates. Educational Researcher. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17741303
Bruening, M., Brennhofer, S., van Woerden, I., Todd, M., & Laska, M. (2016). Factors related to
the high rates of food insecurity among diverse, urban college freshmen. Journal of the
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(9), 1450–1457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.04.004
Camelo, K. (2017). Predictors of food insecurity and their relationship to academic achievement
of college students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Nevada, Reno.
Cochrane, D., & Szabo-Kubitz, L. (2016). On the verge: Costs and tradeoffs facing community
college students. Institute for College Access and Success.,
http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/on_the_verge.pdf
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://about.jstor.org/terms https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., & Rabbitt, M. (2016). USDA key statistics and graphics.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-
statistics-graphics/
Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbitt, M. P., Gregory, C. A., & Singh, A. (2016). USDA: household food
insecurity in the United States. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/
79761/err215_summary.pdf?v=42636
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1995). Critical race theory: The Key
writings that formed the movement. The New Press.
85
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research
designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
SAGE.
Crutchfield, R. M., & Maguire, J. (2018). California State University Office of the Chancellor
study of student basic needs. http://www.trfgrants.org/district/pdf/doc2890-13555.pdf
Cutts, D. B., Meyers, A. F., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Chilton, M., Cook, J. T., Geppert, J.,
Ettinger de Cuba, S., Heeren, T., Coleman, S., Rose-Jacobs, R., & Frank, D. A. (2011).
U.S. housing insecurity and the health of very young children. American Journal of
Public Health, 101, 1508–1514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300139
Danielson, A. (2011, July 6) Homelessness is a Growing issue on Some Campuses. Community
College Times. http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Campus-
Issues/homelessness
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
DePietro, A. (2018, October 12). These 20 cities’ cost of living rose the fastest in 2018. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2018/10/12/2018-cities-cost-of-living-
rising-fastest/#43315b8b3d40
Dudley, B. (2017). The relationship between food insecurity and academic performance among
San José State University Students. [Unpublished master’s thesis] San Jose State
University. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.j5ma-4wr4
Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. John Wiley & Sons.
86
Dynes, R. (2006). Social capital: Dealing with community emergencies. Homeland Security
Affairs, 2(2).
Elliott, J., Haney, T., & Sams-Abiodun, P. (2016). Limits to social capital: Comparing network
assistance in two New Orleans neighborhoods devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
Sociological Quarterly, 51(4), 624–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-
8525.2010.01186.x
Emerson, J., Duffield, B., Salazar, A., & Unrau, Y. (2012). The path to success: Creating campus
support systems for foster and homeless students. NASPA Leadership Exchange, 10(2),
8–14.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text.
Handbook of qualitative research, 2(6), 645–672.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). The state of food insecurity in
the world 2015. In Proceedings of a Meeting of the 2015 International Hunger Targets:
Taking stock of uneven progress. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf
Foscarinis, M. (1996). Downward spiral: Homelessness and its criminalization. Yale Law &
Policy Review, 14, 1.
Fulbright-Anderson, K., Lawrence, K., Sutton, S., Susi, G., & Kubisch, A. (2005). Structural
racism and youth development: Issues, challenges, and implications. The Aspen Institute.
Gaines, A., Robb, C. A., Knol, L. L., & Sickler, S. (2014). Examining the role of financial
factors, resources and skills in predicting food security status among college students.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(4), 374–384.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12110
87
Gallagher, R. P. (2004). National survey of counseling center directors 2003. The International
Association of Counseling Services, Inc.
Goldrick-Rab, S. Richardson, J., Schneider, J., Hernandez, A., & Cady, C. (2018). Still hungry
and homeless in college. Wisconsin HOPE Lab.
http://wihopelab.com/publications/Wisconsin-HOPE-Lab-Still-Hungry-and-
Homeless.pdf
Goldrick-Rab, S., Richardson, J., & Hernandez, A. (2017). Hungry and homeless in college:
Results from a national study of basic needs insecurity in higher education. Wisconsin
HOPE Lab.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the
American dream. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226404486.001.0001
González, M. T. (2014). Hunger, poverty, and the criminalization of food sharing in the New
Gilded Age. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 23, 231.
Griffith, D. M., Childs, E. L., Eng, E., & Jeffries, V. (2007). Racism in organizations: The case
of a county public health department. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3), 287–302.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20149
Hallett, R. E. (2010). Homeless: How residential instability complicates students’ lives. About
Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 15(3), 11–16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20023
Hallett, R. E., & Crutchfield, R. (2017). Homelessness and housing insecurity in higher
education: A trauma-informed approach to research, policy, and practice: ASHE Higher
Education Report. Jossey-Bass.
88
Hallett, R. E., Crutchfield, R. M., & Maguire, J. J. (2019). Addressing homelessness and housing
insecurity in higher education. Strategies for Educational Leaders. Teachers College
Press.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.254
Hastings, J. S., Madrian, B. C., & Skimmyhorn, W. L. (2013). Financial literacy, financial
education, and economic outcomes. Annual Review of Economics, 5(1), 347–373.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-082312-125807
Herren, R. V., & Hillison, J. (1996). Agricultural education and the 1862 land-grant institutions:
The rest of the story. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37, 26–32.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.03026
Heybach, L. (2005). Addressing the school segregation of children experiencing homelessness.
Illinois Pro Bono.
hooks, b. (2014). Ain’t I a Woman: Black women and feminism (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Hughes, R., Serebryanikova, I., Donaldson, K., & Leveritt, M. (2011). Student food insecurity:
The skeleton in the university closet. Nutrition & Dietetics: the Journal of the Dietitians
Association of Australia, 68(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2010.01496.x
Ingram, E. S., Bridgeland, J. M., Reed, B., & Atwell, M. (2016). Hidden in plain sight: Homeless
students in America’s public schools. America’s Promise Alliance.
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2006). Living–learning programs and
first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in
Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9031-6
89
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586–611.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07307794
Julianelle, P. F. (2007). The educational success of homeless youth in California: Challenges
and solutions. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/314/
Jyoti, D. F., Frongillo, E. A., & Jones, S. J. (2005). Food insecurity affects school children’s
academic performance, weight gain, and social skills. The Journal of Nutrition, 135(12),
2831–2839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/135.12.2831
Kadison, R., & DiGeronimo, T. F. (2004). College of the overwhelmed: The campus mental
health crisis and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass.
Kemp, R. (2012). The Case of Domestic Violence Fatality Review, 27–33.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr
Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: understanding, leading, and enacting change. Routledge.
King, J. A. (2017). Food Insecurity Among College Students-Exploring the Predictors of Food
Assistance Resource Use.
Kitzrow, M. A. (2003). The mental health needs of today’s college students: Challenges and
recommendations. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-
6014.1310
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education : QSE, 11(1),
7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. The Crossing Press.
90
Lower-Basch, E., & Lee, H. (2014). SNAP policy brief: College student eligibility. The Center
for Law and Social Policy.
Martinez, S. M., Frongillo, E. A., Leung, C., & Ritchie, L. (2018). No food for thought: Food
insecurity is related to poor mental health and lower academic performance among
students in California’s public university system. Journal of Health Psychology. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318783028
Massey, J., Field, S., & Chan, Y. (2014). Partnering for economic development: How town-gown
relations impact local economic development in small and medium cities. Chan
Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue Canadienne, 44(2), 152–169.
Massey, J., & Gouthro, K. (2011). Community outreach: Assessment and program planning for
off-campus students. Assessment Update, 23(1), 6.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
May, S., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858059
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, P. M., Pavlakis, A., Samartino, L., & Bourgeois, A. (2015). Brokering educational
opportunity for homeless students and their families. International Journal of 95.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education : QSE, 28(6), 730–749.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1017860
Moon Johnson, E. D. (2015). Back to the basic: Meeting the needs of marginalized populations
On campus. The Vermont Connection, 35(18), 137–142.
91
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (Eds.) (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical
women of color (2nd ed.). Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press.
Mullin, J. R., Kotval-K, Z., & Cooper, J. G. (2012). The university and local economic
development. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 8(S1), 126–136.
Murphy, J., & Tobin, K. (2011). Homelessness comes to school. Corwin.
Mutakabbir, Y. (2011). Beneficial, yet bittersweet: Historically Black land-grant institutions.
Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity, 12(2), 35–41.
Neyland, L. W. (1990). Historically Black land-grant institutions and the development of
agriculture and home economics, 1890-1990. Economic Research Service.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial formation in the United States. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076804
Osei-Kofi, N., Shahjahan, R. A., & Patton, L. D. (2010). Centering social justice in the study of
higher education: The challenges and possibilities for institutional change. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 43(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2010.483639
Paden, N. (2012). Homeless students? Not at my university: The reality of homeless college
students. SBBS Proceedings, 19(1), 669–673.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Patton-López, M. M., López-Cevallos, D. F., Cancel-Tirado, D. I., & Vazquez, L. (2014).
Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity among students attending a midsize rural
university in Oregon. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(3), 209–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2013.10.007
92
Phillips, E., McDaniel, A., & Croft, A. (2018). Food Insecurity and Academic Disruption Among
College Students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(4), 353–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1470003
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Resnikoff, N. (2014, August 18). The hunger crisis in America’s universities. MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-hunger-crisis-americas-universities
Santamaría, L. J., & Santamaría, A. P. (2013). Applied critical leadership in education: Choosing
change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818688
Santamaría, L. J., & Santamaría, A. P. (2015). Counteracting educational injustice with applied
critical leadership: Culturally responsive practices promoting sustainable change.
International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 22-42.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Defining organizational culture. Classics of Organization Theory, 3(1),
490–502.
Schön, D., & Argyris, C. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice.
Addison-Wesley.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609
Shugart, S. (2013). The challenge to deep change: A brief cultural history of higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 41(2), 7–18.
Smith, I. E. (2016). Minority vs. minoritized: Why the noun just doesn’t cut it. In The Odyssey
(Vol. 16).
93
Smith, A. (2018). Comeback in Compton. Inside Higher Education.
Snyder, S. M., Hartinger-Saunders, R., Brezina, T., Beck, E., Wright, E. R., Forge, N., & Bride,
B. E. (2016). Homeless youth, strain, and justice system involvement: An application of
general strain theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 62, 90–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.002
Solórzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping,
and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5–19.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. In M. A>
Gibson, P. Gandara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: US Mexican youth,
peers, and school achievement (pp. 18–38). Teachers College Press.
Sturdy, A., & Grey, C. (2003). Beneath and beyond organizational change management:
Exploring alternatives. Organization, 10(4), 651–662.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084030104006
Tierney, K. (2006). Social inequality, hazards, and disasters. In R. Daniels, D. Kettl, & H.
Kenreuther (Eds.), On risk and disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina (pp. 110–128).
University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812205473.109
Tierney, W. G., & Hallett, R. E. (2012a). Homeless youth and educational policy: A case study
of urban youth in a metropolitan area. Advances in Education in Diverse Communities:
Research. Policy and Praxis, 8, 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
358X(2012)0000008008
94
Tierney, W. G., & Hallett, R. E. (2012b). Social capital and homeless youth: Influence of
residential instability on college access. Metropolitan Universities Journal, 21(3), 46–62.
Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2006). Fictive kin and social capital: The role of peer groups
in applying and paying for college. The American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1687–
1702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764206289145
Trubek, L. G., & Das, M. (2003). Achieving equality: Healthcare governance in transition.
American Journal of Law & Medicine, 29, 395.
Weinfeld, N., Mills, G., Borger, C., Gearing, M., Macaluso, T., Montaquila, J., & Zedlewski, S.
(2014). Hunger in America 2014. Feeding America Wisconsin.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview. Free
Press.
Wise, J. (2018). Cost of living rises at fastest rate in decade. The Hill.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/401321-cost-of-living-rises-at
Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies (with illustrations from 20 exemplary case
studies). In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social
research methods (2nd ed.), pp. 254–282). SAGE
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Zine, J. (2001). ‘Negotiating Equity’: The dynamics of minority community engagement in
constructing inclusive educational policy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(2), 239–
269. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764012006164
95
APPENDIX A
Recruitment Email
Dear [INSERT TITLE/GROUP/ NAME HERE],
My name is Queena Hoang and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a case study that captures
the unique experiences of those who have implemented intervention programs, policies, or practices
around housing and food insecurity on their campuses, resulting in organizational and systemic changes.
The study will include individual interviews and focus groups.
To participate in the interview or online survey, individuals must meet the following criteria:
1. Be 18 years of age or older;
2. Identify as a faculty, staff, administrator or student at Xxxxxxxx
3. Have had experience working with students experiencing housing and/or food insecurity in
college, and/or
4. Have implemented programs, policies, or practices to mitigate the issues of housing and/or food
insecurity on their campuses resulting in organizational change.
If you are interested in participating in this study, please complete the survey link below to complete a
brief 2-3 minute questionnaire that will help me determine if you qualify to participate. If you meet the
participant criteria, I may contact you to participate in either the individual interview or focus group. The
interview will be approximately 45-60 minutes in length and the focus group will take approximately 60-
75 minutes to complete.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study.
If you are selected to participate in the study, you will have the opportunity to submit your contact
information into a drawing for a chance to win a $50 Amazon.com gift card.
Survey Link: http://bit.ly/equityorgchange
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at quhoang@usc.edu.
Thank you for your consideration,
Queena Hoang
Doctoral Candidate – Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
96
APPENDIX B
Online Survey
Thank you for showing interest in this research project. This study examines the experiences of
students, staff, and faculty who have implemented change within their institution by
implementing a program, policy, or procedure to support students experiencing housing and/or
food insecurity.
You are invited to respond to the questions below, as well as provide some demographic
information. Please note that you do not need to reply to any of these prompts or questions, and
by submitting responses, you are providing consent to participate in this study.
Remember that by submitting any responses below, you confirm that you:
● Are 18 years of age or older;
● Identify as a faculty, staff, or student of Xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx
● Have had experience working with, or you yourself are, students experiencing housing
and/or food insecurity in college, and/or
● Have implemented programs, policies, or practices to mitigate the issues of housing
and/or food insecurity on their campuses
● and you have not participated in an interview for this study already.
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to reach out to the principal
investigator, Queena Hoang, at quhoang@usc.edu.
General Information
1. Please select your affiliation:
a. Student
b. Staff/Administrator
c. Faculty
2. If selected staff or faculty,
a. Title:
3. How long have you been at this institution?
4. E-mail address:
Demographic Questions
Please be as thorough as you are comfortable with, as this information will help us analyze
responses across different demographics.
97
IDENTITY
Race/Ethnicity
❏ Prefer not to answer
❏ American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian
❏ Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander/Desi American
❏ Black/African American
❏ Hispanic and/or Latinx/a/o
❏ Multiracial/Multiethnic
❏ White/Caucasian
❏ My race/ethnicity is not listed; please specify below in the other box.
❏ Other:
Gender Identity
❏ Prefer not to answer
❏ Gender Queer, Gender Non-Conforming, or Non-Binary
❏ Man
❏ Transgender
❏ Woman
❏ My gender identity is not listed; please specify below in the other box.
❏ Other:
Gender Pronouns
❏ Prefer not to answer
❏ He/Him/His
❏ She/Her/Hers
❏ They/Them/Theirs
❏ Ze/Hir/Hirs
❏ I do not use a pronoun
❏ My gender pronouns are not listed; please specify below in the other box.
❏ Other:
98
Additional Identities
❏ Prefer not to answer
❏ N/A
❏ Adopted
❏ First-Generation College Student/Graduate
❏ Foster Youth/Former Foster Youth
❏ Parent
❏ Religious Minority
❏ Undocumented/DACAmented
❏ Veteran Status
❏ My additional salient identity is not listed; please specify below in the other box.
❏ Other:
5. Would you be willing to participate in a 60-minute individual interview that seeks to
understand your experiences proving housing and food insecurity intervention initiatives
at Xxxxxxxx?
a. Yes
b. No
6. Please identify your availability for the interview
a. Morning
b. Afternoon
c. Evening
7. Would you be willing to participate in a 60-minute focus group that seeks to understand
your experiences proving housing and food insecurity intervention initiatives Xxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxx
a. Yes
b. No
8. Please identify your availability for the interview
a. Morning
b. Afternoon
c. Evening
9.
99
Thank you for completing this survey. If you are selected to participate in the study you will be
contacted through email to schedule an appointment.
100
Appendix C
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4033
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AGENTS: AN EQUITY FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESSING
HOUSING AND FOOD INSECURITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Queena Hoang under the
supervision of Dr. Tracy Tambascia, at the University of Southern California. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. Please read through this form and ask any questions that may arise.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this case study is to provide a narrative exploring ways college and university
initiatives and programs addressing housing and food insecurity result in long-term and
organizational change. The researcher will discover key issues that should be considered by
faculty, staff, and students when deciding upon major systemic changes. This study also aims to
explore how organizational change around housing and food insecurity is understood through an
equity-minded lens. Lastly, the researcher aims to provide information that would allow college
and university administrators to target and outreach to students at risk of housing or food
insecurity in order to increase intervention programs and policies efforts that more effectively
helps this population of students.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a 5-minute survey and a 45-
60-minute audio-recorded in-person interview or focus group. After the interview, you will have
the opportunity to review a transcript of the interview and follow up with any changes that need
to be made. You are free to stop the interview at any time or decide not to answer any question
you not feel comfortable answering.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will have the opportunity to submit your contact information for a chance to win a $50 gift
card to Amazon.com.
101
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Participant responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately in
a password protected computer. The audio recordings will be destroyed once they have been
transcribed and the interview transcriptions will be shredded once the study is completed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published, or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
following Queena Hoang via email quhoang@usc.edu or phone at (XXX)XXXXXX or Faculty
Advisor Dr. Tracy Tambascia at tpoon@rossier.usc.edu or (213) 740-9747.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
102
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol
Introduction:
Before we begin, I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with and allowing me the
opportunity to learn from you.
Explanation of Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to provide a narrative exploring ways XXXX XXXX initiatives and
programs addressing housing and food insecurity have resulted in long-term and organizational
change. This study also aims to explore how organizational change around housing and food
insecurity is understood through an equity-minded lens
Explanation of Confidentiality:
I am interviewing you and other individuals to learn about their experiences as well. I will be
sharing what I have learned from these interviews; however, your identity will be kept
confidential anytime I share data from this study. All of your data will be linked to a pseudonym
(fake name) of your choosing. What would you like to be called?
Request to Record:
In order to make this interview as interactive as possible, will you allow me to record our
conversation? I will use the recording to write down what we have discussed in the interview
later, and then I will delete the recording.
Freedom not to answer:
If there are any questions you do not want to answer or if you would like to end the interview at
any time, please feel free to stop me and let me know. Your participation is voluntary.
Timeframe for Interview and other logistics
The interview will take about an hour. Does that timeframe work for you?
Is this space comfortable for you? Would you like water or a beverage before we begin?
Ok, if you have any questions or need me to clarify any of the questions stop me at any time.
Let’s begin the interview.
Research Questions
1. How are colleges and universities creating organizational change around housing and food
insecurity for the institution?
a. How can organizational change around housing and food insecurity be understood
through an equity-minded lens?
103
Background (5 minutes)
1. I would like to start by learning a little bit about you. Please start by telling me about
your role on campus.
Housing and Food Insecurity Background (10 minutes)
2. How have you taken part in addressing housing and food insecurity on your campus?
a. Tell me about your experiences working with this student population.
3. In your role as ______, what have you observed to be factors causing students to
experience food or housing insecurity?
4. What types of support or resources are available for housing and/or food insecure
students at your institution?
Organizational Change (10 minutes)
5. In the context of housing and food insecurity on your campus, who is responsible for
addressing this issue? [Single Loop, Double Loop Learning]
a. How are those efforts perceived by students, staff, and faculty (and senior
administrators)?
6. What is your philosophy in addressing the issues of housing and food insecurity? How
does this philosophy frame your efforts in implementing intervention programs, policies,
procedures? [Organizational Change and Single Loop Double Loop]
7. So, we will now go more in depth with your particular experiences with creating
organizational and cultural change at your institution. Please tell me about the program,
policy, or procedure that you have implemented to help mitigate the issues of housing
and food insecurity on your campus. [Organizational Change Theory]
a. What was your role?
b. Who was involved?
c. Why was it created?
Social Justice, Equity, and Inclusion (15 minutes)
8. What would you say are some of the barriers that may prevent students experiencing
housing and food insecurity from succeeding in college?
9. As research suggests, the issue of housing and food insecurity affect a wide range of
students; however, it disproportionately impacts minoritized populations, particularly
Black and Latinx, LGBTQ, former foster youth, and students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds. How might this impact the policies, programs, and initiatives that you have
helped implement?
Organizational Change pt. 2 (10 minutes)
10. As a college [administrator/faculty/staff], how might you encourage other individuals
working on campus to create initiatives that address the issue of housing and food
insecurity on campus? [ Organizational/Cultural Change/Single Loop, Double Loop
Learning]
11. Who or what do you think helps and supports students experiencing basic needs
insecurity to succeed in college?
104
12. What sort of institutional support would you need in order to create cultural change
around addressing food and housing insecurity on your campus?
Snowball
13. Do you know of anyone who has implemented intervention strategies for students
experiencing housing and food insecurity who might be interested in participating in this
study? Would you be willing to provide them with my contact information?
Conclusion (5 minutes)
14. Do you have any questions for me?
15. Is there anything else you’d like to share on this topic that I haven’t asked?
105
APPENDIX E
Focus Group Protocol
Introduction:
Hello. My name is Queena Hoang. I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California (USC)
in the Doctor of Educational Leadership: Higher Education Administration program. Thank you for your
willingness to participate in this study. I certainly appreciate your time and the opportunity to learn from
you.
Explanation of purpose of interview:
The purpose of this focus group is to understand ways XXX XXX initiatives and programs addressing
housing and food insecurity have resulted in long-term and organizational change. Particularly, I am
interested in learning about how organizational change around housing and food insecurity was achieved
with an equity-minded lens.
Information Sheet
I would like to include what I learn from this focus as part of a larger study I am conducting. I will be
sharing what I learn from various interviews and this focus group; however, your identity will be kept
confidential anytime I share data from this study. All of your data will be linked to a pseudonym (fake
name) of your choosing. What would you each like to be called?
Request to Record:
In order to make this interview as interactive as possible, will you allow me to record our conversation? I
will use the recording to write down what we have discussed in the interview later, and then I will delete
the recording.
Freedom not to answer:
If there are any questions you do not want to answer or if you would like to terminate your participation at
any time, please feel free to stop me and let me know. Your participation is voluntary.
Timeframe for interview and other logistical considerations:
This focus group will take approximately an hour. Does this timeframe work for everyone?
Is this space comfortable for everyone? Do you have any questions for me before we begin? Ok, if you
have any questions or need me to clarify any of the questions stop me at any time. Let’s begin.
Research Questions
1. How are colleges and universities creating organizational change around housing and food
insecurity for the institution?
b. How can organizational change around housing and food insecurity be understood
through an equity-minded lens?
106
Background (15 minutes)
1. Tell me about your decisions to enroll at XXX XXX (background)
2. What was the most appealing part of attending Xxxxxxxx?
Housing and Food Insecurity
3. What are your understandings of housing and food insecurity here at Xxxxxxxx?
4. What types of support or resources are available for housing and/or food insecure
students at your institution?
5. Do you know any students at Xxxxxxxx who are currently or have experienced housing
or food instability?
Social Justice, Equity, and Inclusion (15 minutes)
6. What does equity mean to you?
7. How have you seen Xxxxxxxx make equitable decisions that impact students?
8. The research suggests that housing and food insecurity impacts minoritized populations,
particularly Black, Latinx, Asian American, Native Indigenous students, LGBTQ
students, former foster youth, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
a. Do you think Xxxxxxxx has taken these student populations into consideration
when implementing programs to address the issue?
b. How can Xxxxxxxx make sure that its programs and policies best serve these
student populations?
9. Do you think it is important to take these sub-populations into consideration?
Organizational Change (15 minutes)
10. What is the culture around housing and food insecurity on campus? What are people
saying? What do people think?
11. What do you think is the campus’ philosophy for addressing the issue? [Organizational
Change and Single Loop Double Loop]
a. For example, do they want to do what is easiest so that there are quick results? Or
do they want to carefully provide resources that address the root of the problem?
12. In the context of housing and food insecurity on your campus, who do you think is
responsible for addressing this issue? [Single Loop, Double Loop Learning]
13. How are programs and initiatives communicated to students? Do you think students know
about the resources?
14. What are your perceptions of these programs?
a. Do you think they’re making a difference? How so?
b. What are the most sustainable, or programs with the biggest impact?
Conclusion (5 minutes)
15. Do you have any questions for me?
16. Is there anything else you’d like to share on this topic that I haven’t asked?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Exploring the practices and experiences of food resource manager in managing food resource rooms to address food insecurity at two-year community colleges
PDF
Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates
PDF
Food is medicine: the intersection of food insecurity and chronic disease management
PDF
Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education
PDF
Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study
PDF
Belonging: interplay of race and sexuality with Black gay undergraduate male students
PDF
Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis
PDF
Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation
PDF
Efficacy of non-formal education programs in educational outcomes of marginalized Filipino children: an evaluation study
PDF
Dream deferred? Understanding the effects of educational debt on marginalized college professionals
PDF
A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
Cultivating culturally competent educators
PDF
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
PDF
Human resources and equity: the influence of HR on addressing the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership
PDF
Improving the representation of women in the independent school headship
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hoang, Queena
(author)
Core Title
Organizational change agents: an equity framework to addressing housing and food insecurity in higher education
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/29/2020
Defense Date
07/28/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
basic needs,equity,food insecurity,Homelessness,housing insecurity,Hunger,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy (
committee chair
), Hallett, Ronald (
committee member
), Harper, Shaun (
committee member
)
Creator Email
qhoang1230@gmail.com,quhoang@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-349262
Unique identifier
UC11663571
Identifier
etd-HoangQueen-8812.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-349262 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HoangQueen-8812.pdf
Dmrecord
349262
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hoang, Queena
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 a...
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
Tags
basic needs
equity
food insecurity
housing insecurity
organizational change