Re-Entry to Fall 2021: Considerations for Practice

Re-Entry to Fall 2021: Considerations for Practice created by the ACUHO-I Re-Entry to Fall 2021 Workgrouppublished July 2021

this page purposely left blank

2021 ACUHO-I Executive Board

PresidentPeter Galloway, West Chester University of Pennsylvania

President-ElectPam Schreiber, University of Washington

Vice PresidentLeon McClinton, Oklahoma State University

Finance and Corporate Records OfficerOlan Garrett, Temple University

Business Practices and Enhancements DirectorKenny Mauk, University of Houston

Facilities and Physical Environment DirectorJosh Gana, University of Washington

Globalization DirectorMatthew Nelson, Qatar Foundation

Inclusion and Equity DirectorLisa Freeman, American University

Knowledge Enhancement DirectorSuzanne Price, Clemson University

Residence Education DirectorFrankie Minor, University of Rhode Island

Regional Affiliations DirectorJulie Leos, University of South Florida-Tampa

Workforce Development DirectorKawanna Leggett, Washington University in St. Louis

Small College/University Director (ex officio)Andrew Peterson, Presbyterian College

Anti-Racism Initiatives Director (ex officio)Luis Inoa, Vassar College

ACUHO-I CEOMary DeNiro

Re-Entry for Fall 2021 WorkgroupCore Leaders and Subgroup Participants

Workgroup ChairDan Pedersen, Northern Illinois University

Home Office LiaisonHolly Stapleton, ACUHO-I Senior Director of Business Operations & Chief of Staff

Capacity and OccupancyJosh Gana University of Washington-Seattle April Barnes University of South Carolina - ColumbiaKate Fitzgerald University of South DakotaJosh Hartman Tufts UniversityMatthew Perry University of Houston - Clear LakeDr. Jean Chin University of Georgia (ACHA)Sandy Mitchell Massachusetts Institute of Technology (URMIA)

Staffing and Human ResourcesKendra Skinner Southeast Missouri State University Craig Allen Texas Christian UniversityDebbie Kolstad Lewis-Clark State CollegeSally Zheng University of San DiegoMolly Burrows Schumacher Loras CollegeRob Schomaker College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR)Teresa Michaelson Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (AUCCCO)

Residential Engagement

Christina Lowery University of Southern Maine Robin Gore Pepperdine UniversityDenise Nelson University of New EnglandJohn Fox University of Maryland – Baltimore CountyJill Jenkins Kent State UniversityJustin Camputaro University of Washington (ACUI)

Operations and ProcessesStephen Apanel Bucknell University Alan Wendell La Salle UniversityGina Vanacore University of North TexasSarah English Marist CollegeNick Sweeton Colorado State UniversityTena Bennett Southern Illinois University-Carbondale (ACUI)

Advocacy for Care and Safety of StudentsVicka Bell-Robinson Miami University-Oxford Alfredo Oliveira New York UniversityKorrin Fagenstrom Montana State University-BozemanAmanda Robbins University of New OrleansMalik Ismail California State University, San MarcosMelinda Carlson Southern Methodist UniversityNarketta M. Sparkman-Key Old Dominion University (NADOHE)T. Sha Duncan Smith Santa Clara University (NADOHE)

Case Management: Vaccination

Gay Perez University of VirginiaPeter Trentacoste Louisiana State UniversitySean Grube Virginia TechNick Lander Kansas State UniversityNicole McGrath University of New HavenClaudia Trevor-Wright American College Health Association (ACHA)

Case Management: TestingMichelle Saldaña Mount Saint Mary’s University Michele Gunkelman Saginaw Valley State UniversityGeorge P. Holman University of Nebraska at KearneyAnne Lahoda Robert Morris UniversityCasey Kreger Oklahoma City UniversityAnita Barkin American College Health Association (ACHA)

Case Management: Student ComplianceFrankie Minor University of Rhode IslandAlma Sealine University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignAllison Clark Voorhees CollegeRian Rabideau University of WyomingMegan FinCannon University of Puget SoundKeith James Dickinson State UniversityAnn James Miami University-OxfordHeather Zesiger American College Health Association (ACHA)

*Bold denotes group leader.

RE-ENTRY TO FALL 2021: CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRACTICE

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY HOUSING OFFICERS-INTERNATIONAL

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CAPACITY AND OCCUPANCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STAFFING AND HUMAN RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

RESIDENTIAL ENGAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ADVOCACY FOR CARE AND SAFETY OF STUDENTS . . . . . . 18 CASE MANAGEMENT: VACCINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 CASE MANAGEMENT: TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CASE MANAGEMENT: STUDENT COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . 25

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30RESOURCESSTRAW POLL DATAPOINTSCRITICAL PARTNERS & COLLABORATION POINTS

Contents



1

Much like it was in 2020, COVID-19 has been the primary driver for all institutional decision-making as the

profession continues to evaluate operations, programs, and services for 2021. Campuses have navigated and calibrated accordingly for the upcoming academic year. However, course correction is still the norm as we continue to progress as a nation and world with the distri-bution of vaccinations that impact planning for the Re-Entry to Fall 2021.

In April 2021, ACUHO-I President, Peter Galloway, re-assembled the core leadership team from the Future of Housing (FOH) Work-group and created the Re-Entry to Fall 2021 Workgroup. The workgroup was asked to ex-plore these considerations:

• To what level of occupancy can we return to, given a continued need for quarantine and isolation space?

• What kinds of rooms/buildings should we offer/bring back online?

• What will staffing look like given the antic-ipated increased need for student services and ongoing budgetary constraints?

• What mitigation strategies will we keep, and which will fall away?

• How will we manage a population of res-idents composed of both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals?

• How will we orient and engage two cohorts of residents who have not been able to ex-perience typical collegiate life and/or who had the traditional milestones of their high school experience canceled or significantly modified?

• How do we re-focus on what we do best -- offering a true residential experience that supports and enhances the academic mis-sion of the institution?

The core group of leaders was assembled rapidly in mid-April to begin the work of de-termining subgroup areas and populating these subgroups with volunteers. The core leaders and subgroup members are listed in the ap-pendix section of the document. Along with ACUHO-I volunteer leaders, the subgroups had the added benefit of colleagues from the following professional associations.

• American College Health Association (ACHA)

• Association of College Unions – Interna-tional (ACUI)

• Association for University and College Counseling Center Outreach (AUCCCO)

• College and University Professional Asso-ciation for Human Resources (CUPA-HR)

• National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE)

• University Risk Management and Insur-ance Association (URMIA)

The following pages represent the culmi-nation of the group’s considerations and best thinking for campuses that will be welcoming back a much more vibrant and populated resi-dence hall and apartment communities for fall 2021. As you review the document, please take into consideration the rapidly changing recom-mendations coming from health professionals regarding COVID-19. Some of the references and hyperlinks in this document may have al-ready been updated and replaced by new infor-mation.

Introduction

DAN PEDERSEN

Northern Illinois University



2

JOSH GANAUniversity of

Washington-Seattle

Throughout the pandemic, housing capacity varied throughout campus-es, including housing programs that

maintained full capacity, those that limited to no more than 2 residents per bedroom, use of singles only, closure of communal restroom fa-cilities, and other derivatives of these strategies. Reduced housing capacity was often based on public health guidance suggesting that reduced density in congregate living environments was an effective COVID-19 mitigation strategy; ACHA guidance indicated that one student per room and/or providing individual bathrooms was deemed the lowest risk approach in an unvaccinated population. Capacity decisions were often made locally and were additionally informed by the institution’s ability to reduce density while still meeting housing demand, with a recognition of the variety of impacts of not being able to meet housing demand in-cluding the possibility that students would seek more risky housing off-campus if residence hall space was not available.

Housing occupancy scenarios were equally variable, often influenced by capacity limita-tions, the status of in-person classes, building configurations, and demand. Some institutions experienced very low occupancy, and others re-mained stable from pre-pandemic conditions. Occupancy management professionals navigat-ed over-demand situations by prioritizing cer-tain populations for on-campus housing. Low demand and restricted housing capacity created significant financial challenges for housing de-partments. The inclusion of isolation and quar-antine housing created unique considerations in managing occupancy during the pandemic, although many campuses were able to dedicate entire facilities for isolation and/or quarantine due to low occupancy. Some campuses man-aged housing assignments in a pod or cohort model to limit the number of individuals that a resident would have close contact with.

As of July 1, 2021, approximately 67% of adults have received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and cases of COVID-19 continue to decline across the nation. Increasing vaccine uptake will be the predominant focus for insti-

tutions of higher education (IHEs) moving into fall 2021. The vaccination status of the campus community has significant ramifications for housing capacity and occupancy. Many IHEs are already planning a return to in-person learning and a fully occupied campus, chal-lenging housing professionals to meet the de-mand, provide adequate isolation and quaran-tine spaces, and develop assignment strategies while maximizing the health and safety of the residents and staff.

CHALLENGES• Guidance around what constitutes “safe”

or acceptable practices continues to evolve with increasing vaccine coverage, includ-ing a varied range of state and local guide-lines and expectations. The timing of guid-ance changes can conflict with housing assignments timelines.

• The CDC recommends different mitiga-tion measures based on the vaccination status of a campus or its residents. Unless the campus requires vaccination or the IHE is able to distinguish between the vac-cinated and unvaccinated cohort, masking and physical distancing requirements will be challenging to implement and enforce.

• There remains great variability around en-rollment and housing demand based on institutional context and status.

• There are a variety of housing types and designs, including private/shared bed-rooms and bathrooms, and each presents its own considerations.

• The availability of private, off-campus housing or alternative housing options dif-fers based on college/university location and institutional resources.

• Expectations from institutional leaders, students, parents/family, and/or other con-stituents can be quite divergent.

Capacity and Occupancy



3

CONCERNSKey questions regarding capacity and occupan-cy include:

• What factors will determine optimal and/or appropriate housing capacity?

• What factors will determine how students will be assigned or reassigned for safety or reduced/limited capacity levels (i.e., who is accommodated and how)?

• How will housing leadership determine the appropriate spaces for isolation and quarantine use and when to expand or contract that number?

• What is the correct number of spaces to reserve for isolation and quarantine? And for how long?

Additional areas of concern include:

• There is significant variability in local con-ditions, housing configurations, residential populations, institutional culture, and ex-ternal influences. Therefore, one solution/option will not fit all as on-campus activity increases.

• The CDC’s revised guidance for institu-tions of higher education (updated June 4, 2021), recommends different housing strategies for a “fully vaccinated popula-tion” and a “mixed population.” The dis-tinction between the “fully vaccinated” and “mixed population” is unclear, and it may be difficult for a campus to discern its status. Additionally, implementation of the mixed population guidelines may be infea-sible, compromise individual rights and privacy, or create other community, priva-cy, or compliance impacts.

• Housing departments must balance mul-tiple priorities of maximizing housing availability to support the full student ex-perience, the IHE’s mission, and housing’s budget all while ensuring the health and safety of students.

• The continuation of density restrictions and space allocation for isolation and quarantine may limit the ability to house full demand.

• Varying expectations of residents and par-ents are already emerging, including re-quests for housing assignments based on vaccination status.

COMMON OR PROMISING PRACTICESHousing Capacity and Density

• Many campuses are returning to pre-pan-demic capacity and many of the state and local restrictions on housing density are being lifted.

• The American College Health Association’s (ACHA), “Considerations for Reopening Institutions of Higher Education” (issued May 25, 2021) identifies vaccination as the key strategy to returning to pre-pandem-ic occupancy levels, no longer relying on density restrictions or reducing the num-ber of residents who share a room.

• CDC does not recommend limits on hous-ing capacity for fully vaccinated campuses, which may include any campus that has a vaccination requirement for students and employees (despite allowing exemptions for medical or other reasons).

• There may be circumstances where it is appropriate to maintain some level of housing density modification, based on consideration of the level of community transmission of COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccination coverage, and implementation of a SARS-CoV2 screening program (per CDC).

◆ The CDC suggests in mixed vaccina-tion campus environments, campuses should consider housing unvaccinat-ed students in single rooms when fea-sible.

◆ Housing assignments based on vacci-nation status may be problematic (see the assignments section for further discussion of this topic)

◆ Assignment and density decisions remain tied to geography (local and state instructions) and institutional capacity (buildings and beds available)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/colleges-universities/considerations.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/colleges-universities/considerations.html

https://www.acha.org/documents/resources/guidelines/ACHA_Considerations_for_Reopening_IHEs_for_Fall_2021_5.25.21.pdf




4

• Campuses that are considering maintain-ing capacity restrictions should evaluate the impact of such restrictions in the con-text of a holistic layered prevention strate-gy, in conjunction with local public health officials, including:

◆ Threshold of vaccination in the com-munity

◆ Face covering requirements

◆ Physical distancing

◆ Level of cleaning

◆ Contact tracing, isolation, and quar-antine

◆ Testing program

Other factors that should be considered in de-termining a campus’s ideal or appropriate ca-pacity include:

• The ability to accommodate students who need on-campus housing, including con-siderations such as university expectations, impact on enrollment, live-on require-ments, and the broader community impact of not being able to house students.

• The importance and necessity of an on-campus living experience for students, including unintended consequences of limited housing capacity and the presump-tion that institutions of higher education are positioned to effectively manage the public health implications of COVID-19 in a student housing environment.

• Financial impacts of limited capacity.

• The campus’s experience dealing with COVID-19 in the previous year.

• Liability and risk considerations. Outside insurance protection will be limited or un-available, increasing the potential financial risk to the individual institution.

Housing Assignments

• The CDC currently recommends that in-stitutions consider establishing cohorts of people who are not fully vaccinated (in mixed vaccination campus environments). ACHA does not recommend housing all unvaccinated residents together on a desig-nated floor or separate building. The more unvaccinated individuals assigned togeth-er in a congregate living setting, the higher the odds of an outbreak if one individual becomes infected with SARS-CoV-2 and transmits the virus to the other non-im-mune residents. Dispersing an unvaccinat-ed student among vaccinated students is a safer approach, though not foolproof

• A housing assignment process based on vaccination status may not be feasible.

• In a June 2021 ACUHO-I Straw Poll, ap-proximately 4% of respondents anticipated segregating residents in the fall based on vaccination status.

• Institutions that are considering an indi-vidual’s vaccination status in making hous-ing assignments should consult with ap-propriate campus partners to ensure that legal and privacy concerns are addressed.

• Campuses should plan for a possible in-crease in medical and other accommoda-tion requests.

Isolation and Quarantine Space

• The need to isolate and quarantine resi-dents is expected to continue through at least fall 2021, if not for the entire academ-ic year.

• Prior to the broad availability of the COVID-19 vaccines, 2-7% was a common range of isolation/quarantine space. The higher the vaccination rate in the campus community, fewer dedicated quarantine and isolation spaces are needed. Converse-ly, the lower the vaccination rate, more dedicated isolation and quarantine spaces should be established in anticipation of in-creased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is reasonable to expect a decreased need for isolation and quarantine space in the com-ing year, considering the balance of factors:

https://www.wbur.org/edify/2020/06/05/college-plan-contagious-students

https://www.wbur.org/edify/2020/06/05/college-plan-contagious-students



5

◆ In a heavily unvaccinated popula-tion, an increase in housing occu-pancy would increase both isolation (positive cases) and quarantine needs (close contacts)

◆ A high level of vaccination in the cam-pus community will reduce isolation and quarantine needs due to reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

◆ The CDC recommendations regard-ing quarantine and isolation for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individ-uals should be reviewed as a part of the space allocation process.

• There is no commonly agreed-upon met-ric to determine how much isolation and quarantine space is needed. Consider-ations should include:

◆ The community’s vaccination level

◆ Other mitigation efforts in place

◆ Availability of backup options (such as hotels)

◆ The campus experience with isolation and quarantine over the previous year (such as an evaluation of the peak uti-lization and how many students chose to isolate/quarantine off-campus).

• In the June, 2021 ACUHO-I Straw Poll, 86% of respondents indicated that they were holding isolation/quarantine space for the fall. The vast majority of those in-stitutions are holding an average of 1.7% of their fall capacity.

• CDC outlines who needs to isolate and quarantine and the respective timeline. ACHA presents protocol and operational considerations for isolation and quaran-tine in the campus environment.

• In the student housing environment, best practices in isolation and quarantine in-clude:

◆ Ensuring that individuals in isolation do not share ventilation or commons space with individuals in quarantine or the general community

◆ Establishing an individual room with a private bathroom as the ideal con-figuration for isolation and quarantine

Individuals in isolation may isolate to-gether in certain cases.

■ Individuals in quarantine may share a bathroom with a private bedroom in certain cases.

■ Local public health officials may inform isolation and quarantine facility requirements based on lo-cal conditions.

◆ Dedicating buildings (ideally), floors, or other separate areas of a building (such as a wing, or apartments with exterior entries) for isolation/quaran-tine use when possible.

◆ Consulting with local public health officials.

◆ Remaining current with CDC, tribal, territorial, local, state, federal quaran-tine requirements.

• It is expected that isolation and quarantine guidelines will continue to evolve as more of the population becomes vaccinated.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS• No standardized formula has been devel-

oped to determine the optimal number of dedicated quarantine/isolation spaces.

• It is unknown how public health guidance will evolve over the summer as the vaccine penetration rate grows. This is impactful in a number of areas, including:

◆ Isolation and quarantine requirements

◆ Domestic and international trav-el guidance, particularly quarantine guidelines for unvaccinated individ-uals

• How influenza and other respiratory illnesses will impact operations in the winter (some symptoms are similar to COVID-19).

• The likelihood and potential impact of a COVID-19 resurgence is unknown.

• The duration of immunity from vaccina-tion and past infection is unknown.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/isolation.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/quarantine.html





6

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD• To the extent possible, maintain flexibility

within the housing assignments process to accommodate evolving guidance and con-ditions.

• Coordinate a plan with the IHE’s central communications team to manage the po-tential public relations and communica-tions challenges associated with varied res-ident, parent, and institution expectations regarding capacity and occupancy.

• Develop a process to plan for and respond to an uptick in cases or an outbreak.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONSAs a result of the pandemic, for many cam-puses the value proposition and impact of the on-campus living experience has become more prominent. The ability to maintain an occu-pancy management strategy that provides the maximum available capacity with appropriate COVID-19 mitigation elements in place will be critical in moving through recovery from

the pandemic and maximizing student impact. Institutions should explore all available op-tions to offer as much housing space as possible while meeting isolation and quarantine needs. Housing professionals should develop or revise metrics to monitor the status of isolation and quarantine housing utilization and maintain the ability to make adjustments throughout the year to the extent possible.

As has been the case throughout the pan-demic, close partnership with campus and local health officials will be paramount in planning for the coming year. Given that there is signif-icant regional variation in conditions, housing departments may find value in consulting with other campuses that align regionally, from a size perspective, or based on public/private sta-tus.

Special care should be taken when consid-ering any program modifications or strategies (including those related to assignments and occupancy) that identify or segregate students based on vaccination status to ensure that all students are supported and risks of targeting are mitigated.



7

From a staffing and human resource per-spective, 2020 was not an easy year. Some campuses opened and attempted

to provide experiences as close to normal as possible. Other campuses closed their housing to all but only a handful of students. Yet others opened but then had to close their housing as COVID-19 cases quickly rose on their campus. Through it all, staff members had to navigate ever-changing expectations

Along with normal job expectations, “oth-er duties as assigned” took on new meaning as staff lived and worked with students while possibly putting their health and well-being in jeopardy. Others found themselves furloughed or were among the more than 570,000 mem-bers of higher education who were permanent-ly released from their positions. And many more blazed a new trail working from home, something we never thought would (or could) happen which meant learning to balance work and home demands from one location as re-strictions were enacted across the country and world.

COVID-19 has not been the only pandem-ic staff members have had to navigate this past year. They have witnessed, weathered, and con-fronted racial injustices on and off their cam-puses. They have seen first-hand an increase in the mental health concerns of their students, their staff, and themselves. And they have be-gun to wonder if this profession is their calling any longer or if there are greener pastures else-where.

CHALLENGESCampuses will be entering fall 2021 from dif-ferent points. On one extreme are the campuses that held in-person classes and had students living in their residence halls and plan to oper-ate a bit close to normal this fall. On the other are those who were mostly virtual and allowed few students to live on campus and hope to have a normal fall even if they are unsure what that will look like. Regardless, all will be facing a variety of staffing challenges.

• COVID-19 has highlighted that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for successful operations. Institutional differences, loca-tions within the country, and vaccination requirements and rates all play a part.

• Local, state, and federal guidelines and ex-pectations are still changing or being de-veloped.

• There continues to be confusion about safety requirements and how the political climate and hesitancy towards vaccination will impact campuses.

• Institutions are still making decisions on occupancy levels (i.e., singles, doubles, etc.), which is delaying decisions on staff-ing needs.

• Hiring freezes may still be in place. Open positions may not be filled. Some em-ployees are deciding to leave the field for remote, online, or more flexible work en-vironments.

◆ In a June 2021 ACUHO-I straw poll, 56 out of 189 reporting institutions indicated they eliminated a total of 1,071 positions in their department. This represents an average reduction of 20.25% of their full-time staff.

• Institutional guidelines are still being developed around physical distancing, face-coverings, quarantine and isolation housing, etc. Once established, they will need to be included in training plans.

• Hiring and onboarding processes for staff will be completed virtually, in-person, or some combination of the two and will re-quire additional efforts to help candidates get acquainted with the institution to make informed hiring decisions.

◆ How do we help candidates determine whether the position, department, or institution are a good fit when they have not stepped foot on campus?

• Campus expectations are still being devel-oped around how people will work (i.e., in the office, from home, meeting virtually or

Staffing and Human Resources

KENDRA SKINNER

Southeast Missouri State University

https://www.chronicle.com/article/heres-who-was-hit-hardest-by-higher-eds-pandemic-driven-job-losses?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in#:~:text=Since%20the%20World%20Health%20Organization%20declared%20a%20pandemic,seasonally%20adjusted%20figures%20from%20the%20U.S.%20Labor%20Department.






8

in-person, etc.) and creating confusion as decisions change.

◆ Difficult conversations can occur with colleagues about work environments and expectations in office settings as people make decisions to vaccinate (or not) and whether they feel com-fortable being around others without face coverings.

◆ Many staff members are apprehen-sive about returning to campus while many unanswered questions remain.

• “Other duties as assigned” continues to be a catch-all for increasing responsibilities or requests from other departments and is overburdening live-in/-on staff.

• Personnel are leaving the field due to the amount of work they are required to do, the hours it takes to complete this work, and—particularly given the level of their pay—the personal risks that many were asked to take as campus housing respond-ed to a pandemic informed by evolving guidance and many unknowns.

CONCERNS• Staff who have been furloughed or who

may experience furloughs in the future.

• Reductions in force due to budget con-straints.

• Open positions that may not be filled im-mediately and are at risk of elimination

◆ 10 of the 47 (21%) senior housing offi-cers in attendance for the 2021 Re-En-try to Fall Workgroup presentation during the 2021 ACUHO-I Confer-ence & Expo reported they are con-sidering the elimination of additional full-time positions during or after the 2021-22 academic year.

• Mental health concerns, low morale, and physical/emotional fatigue of staff who have been working through the pandemic.

• Limited ability for staff to schedule much-needed vacation time before stu-dents return due to ongoing changes and development of fall plans.

• An assessment of roles/positions at all levels may need to be completed to deter-mine the most appropriate positions and services needed to work with current and future students.

◆ Institutions, departments, and office cultures are all different. Each will need to determine what work is im-portant to continue and what changes need to be made to the basic expecta-tions/foundations of each role.

◆ Live-in/-on staff cannot continue to have responsibilities added or defined as “other duties as assigned” with-out discussing how their roles have changed and what expectations need to be removed.

◆ Refocusing work should be consid-ered to ensure hall staff and depart-ments are meeting the needs of stu-dents on their campus.

◆ CUPA-HR has developed resources and toolkits that may assist depart-ments with this process https://www.cupahr.org/acuho-i/

• There also are concerns related to the re-tention of employees.

◆ Addressing salary concerns of en-try-level (including compression of mid-level) staff will be necessary to fill and maintain staff in positions. Ben-efits like free housing and meal plans cannot continue to be used to justify lower salaries.

◆ Developing flexible work options will be an important equitable option for those staff whose work requires them to be on campus in student-facing po-sitions.

• Developing guidelines for reviewing posi-tions to determine the viability of hybrid or remote work options.

◆ Options should be identified based on the position level and not personal requests post-pandemic. Can the po-sition be productive and achieve goals in a hybrid or remote capacity?



9

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICES• Hybrid and remote work options are be-

ing considered for positions that are not student-facing or those that support stu-dent-facing employees.

• Flexible work options (like flex time, changes in work days/hours, etc.) are be-ing discussed for student-facing positions that cannot work in a hybrid or remote ca-pacity.

• Expanding online training for staff during the summer or pre-August training weeks to decrease hours spent in face-to-face training in August.

• Reviewing training schedules to ensure they are efficient, allow more time for breaks, or are shorter each day to allow staff time to relax.

• Conducting virtual search processes that decrease time and costs for departments and candidates.

• Reviews of positions to ensure they are meeting the needs of students and the mis-sion/vision of the department.

• Identification of office efficiencies (i.e., online training, electronic forms, virtual meetings, etc.) that can/should be main-tained to provide greater flexibility and improved services to students.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS• Size of groups that will be able to meet to-

gether for training in the fall and identifi-cation of available campus training spaces.

• Campus decisions regarding physical dis-tancing, visitation and guests, housing oc-cupancy, usage of common areas (lounges, kitchens, etc.), and shared bathroom facili-ties to incorporate into training.

• Expectations about the enforcement of campus and housing policies and COVID-19 guidelines and the appropriate levels of response by housing staff.

• Services and staffing levels that are need-ed for quarantine and isolation housing.

◆ How will students relocate to the des-ignated quarantine or isolation hous-ing? Are shuttles available that would not require housing staff to drive stu-dents to the identified housing area?

◆ How will meals be provided to stu-dents? Can the campus dining pro-vider drop meals off directly to the location so housing staff do not have to deliver them?

◆ What level of staffing is needed to support students in quarantine/iso-lation housing? Can a dedicated Hall Director be identified or hired with COVID-19 relief funds to manage the movement into and out of the space? Are other academic or mental health support roles or services needed for these students?

◆ How will cleaning and maintenance within the spaces occur? Who will prepare the rooms for the next occu-pant? Are items such as linens, towels, etc. being provided or will students need to bring their own? If they are provided, how will they be collected and laundered?

◆ What communication efforts with students will be developed? How will they be contacted (email, text, phone call, etc.) and how frequently during their stay? How will they be instructed to contact staff with questions?

• Determining what roles are student-facing and need to be on campus versus those that support the student-facing roles and may not need to be on campus as much or at all.

◆ Developing options for hybrid or re-mote work for the non-student-facing staff.

◆ Options for flexible schedules or com-pressed workweeks for student-facing staff.

◆ CUPA-HR has resources and tools that may assist departments with this process available at https://www.cupahr.org/acuho-i/.

https://www.cupahr.org/acuho-i/



◆ An ACUHO-I/CUPA-HR webinar, “Leading in the Future of Flexible Work,” is available at https://www.cupahr.org/events/webinars/leading-into-the-future-of-flexible-work/.

• Navigating temporary or permanent re-ductions to staff by identifying core func-tions and those items that can be scaled back or eliminated as work is shifted to others.

• Salary expectations for entry-level staff and compression concerns for mid-level staff.

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD• Encouraging “back-to-basics” training to

ensure staff at all levels understand how to build community, have conversations with others, mediate roommate conflicts, and offer in-person programming and events.

• The number of people who can meet in groups will affect individual and entire staff teams’ abilities to meet and form working relationships. New/different team bonding opportunities may need to be identified and incorporated into training to allow for this to happen.

◆ Offer hybrid experiences or programs where people can decide if they want to attend in person or virtually.

• Continuing the use of virtual meeting op-tions, use of technology, and development of electronic methods (i.e., forms, process-es, etc.) to enhance the student and staff experience.

• COVID-19 has increased anxiety for many individuals. Departments need to pay at-tention to staff to ensure they are manag-

ing all the changes and expectations and be prepared to assist them when needed.

• Roles and responsibilities of nearly every position within residence life may change and staff members may need to take time to evaluate whether the new position is something they are interested in remain-ing in.

◆ Fluid and dynamic job descriptions may be developed to allow for greater flexibility as needs change.

• Developing flexible work options for staff members who are exhausted or burning out due to the stress of the past 15 months.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS• Continue use of video/virtual meetings

(Zoom, Skype, etc) to meet with students for brief, low-level items (i.e., room change questions, low-level conduct meetings, etc.).

• Bring staff back to campus slowly to ease anxiety about returning to campus. A ro-tating hybrid schedule can provide office coverage and still allow staff to work from home for a portion of the week until every-one has reintegrated to the office.

• Create hybrid or remote work opportuni-ties for non-student-facing staff and flex-ible work options for student-facing staff.

• Back to normal does not mean all opera-tions or methods need to return. Begin a review of essential job functions to deter-mine what the new normal will look like at your institution.

10

https://www.cupahr.org/events/webinars/leading-into-the-future-of-flexible-work/





Last year, at a time when gathering togeth-er was one of the riskiest things we could be doing, engagement with our students

became difficult, and yet critically important. We strove to get creative, maintain connec-tions, and give our students the tools to make it through.

As we shift towards more normalcy in the fall, we come with hope and excitement, pos-sibly some trepidation, many new tools in our tool belts, and some challenges as well. All our students will need additional supports to ramp up their physical presence on campus and their social energy, but particularly our incoming first years and rising second years who may not have gotten traditional supports and exposure resources on campus.

CHALLENGES• Funding when many housing programs

have taken a financial hit

• Trauma from experiences of the past 1.5 years will show up for 2-3 years and be-yond.

• Many students are returning with a greater need for support after learning fully or par-tially from a distance.

• Many students coming back may need to process the social unrest of the last year and a half.

• More staff on campus may be fully or par-tially remote this coming year, meaning students may turn to residential life staff more frequently with acute needs.

• There are likely to be more demands and high expectations of what a return looks like from students and families.

• There are likely to be more demands and high expectations of what a return looks like from the administration and differ-ent constituents on campus. Students are independent actors and staff members are influencers.

CONCERNS• Trauma from experiences of the past 1.5

years will show up in our interactions with students that year, and for 2-3 years and beyond. What is our role in managing this?

• Community health education related to COVID-19 and other viruses/communi-cable health issues will still be necessary.

• Ensuring support for new students/FYs into the community - students who per-haps missed many milestones for their se-nior year.

• Ensuring support for second-year stu-dents who learned from home, and those who may have been present on campus but had a much different experience than this coming year. Those students may be more resistant to outreach as second-year students.

• Rebuilding student engagement when many of the activities that would typically ensure the continuation of leadership did not occur last year.

• General wellness and mental health as there is more social activity, and we return to the demands of a robust social environ-ment.

• How will the residential experience help develop and enhance skills that may have been impacted due to student isolation (i.e. conflict management, time manage-ment, dialogue with diverse communities, interpersonal skills, social responsibility, reliance on parental support/intervention, etc.)?

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICES• Opportunity to recreate campus culture,

campus tradition programs. This is a great time to sunset programs that were not ide-al parts of the campus community, and set up some new traditions that add to the campus culture in a positive way.

Residential Engagement

CHRISTINA LOWERY University of

Southern Maine

11



• Virtual platforms for community build-ing are a new tool we are proficient with. Virtual meeting fatigue is real, but we have tools that may be beneficial and allow us to connect folks that may not have been able to before, meet students before they arrive on campus, etc.

• In the past year we’ve been given the oppor-tunity to showcase the value proposition of the residential experience. Residential living impacts institutions in a myriad of ways (increased retention, grade-point-av-erage, persistence, general satisfaction with the institution), and this year is an oppor-tunity to really display the best in our resi-dential communities. Residence halls were one of the few places that stayed open on many campuses.

• COVID-19 acted as a mirror to show us which processes create inequity, and we have the opportunity to address those.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS• Will students be interested in the use of

virtual platforms for community building in the future?

• Are there still good uses for online plat-forms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams?

• Should we continue to use virtual plat-forms for student conduct issues?

• Are virtual meet-and-greets for new room-mates valuable?

• Can we return to large gatherings (hall meetings, for example) that may have been constrained by space before?

• The role of housing programs and their role in retaining students and dictating so much of the flow of campuses has come to the forefront. Will that change how they are viewed or resourced?

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD• Consider carefully the tone being set for

live-in staff, student staff, and returning residential students. Do you want to lead with hope? Focus on resilience and mov-ing forward? Now is a time to set a theme

or tone for the year that balances contin-ued COVID-19 logistics with a return to the work we love, and a return to the trans-formative experience of living on campus for our student staff and students.

• When thinking about the engagement work you do with campus partners, go back to basics. Meet, go over checklists of programs, basics logistics, learning out-comes, etc. It’s been two years since some of the content for fall opening and creating a robust, engaged community was relevant.

• Continuously and explicitly explain as-pects of living on campus (what program-ming is, processes, supports, how to reach people). Some institutional knowledge is gone from our student population.

• Being attentive to rising second-year stu-dents. Even those who have been on cam-pus likely had a very different experience and may need additional support and guid-ance. Consider either offering for them to attend first-year orientation, or creating a new program specifically for second-year students.

• Students will have a lot to process, and it will be important to consider the follow-ing:

◆ Programmatic supports encouraging students to tell their COVID-19 story, and process in healthy ways.

◆ One idea was making a time capsule and using clean, disposable masks to write down stories from COVID-19, and putting them all together to be opened in a few years.

◆ Skill-building workshops on how to have discourse on topics that may be contentious, specifically vaccinations, mask-wearing, etc. Focus on listening to others with respect and seeing mul-tiple perspectives.

◆ In terms of professional development, there’s a great opportunity to do some events with your career center on how to talk about your COVID-19 year. It gets students to process and make meaning of their experience, and is a good hook to generally get students thinking about resume building.

12



• Think critically about how to rebuild stu-dent organizations. Some of the more or-ganic means of recruiting students may not work. Create pathways to student leader-ship positions that may not be currently filled (i.e., hall council, residential student association, etc).

• Additionally, some knowledge of how those groups run may have been lost. Con-sider additional, explicit training programs on how to function as a student leader in these roles. Luckily this work could be a good basis for a continuing leadership in-stitute or a manual for organizations mov-ing forward.

• After a year of reduced contact with others, there’s a possibility of more interpersonal conflicts. Additionally, there’s a greater chance that roommates won’t have been prior friends or acquaintances. Now is the time to renew and revamp training on con-flict mediation processes, and make sure it’s a visible part of all room change consid-erations. Consider roommate agreements during the welcome week.

• Time management may be a challenge this year. Last year a student with an 8 a.m. class just had to roll over at 7:58 a.m. and click a button to start Zoom. Helping students with the logistics of being some-where physically on time this year (get up, shower, go to the dining hall, possibly have to navigate transit) will be important.

• Consider specific processes with students that have a difference in opinion regarding vaccination status.

• Create a FAQ guide for anyone answering questions on the phone or on tours during the summer.

• Consider joint or cross-functional area staff training (i.e., central office staff, move-in helpers, RAs). Keep answers based in science. Vaccines work!

• Make sure you have a list of other protec-tive measures as well, including quarantine and isolation precautions, to help folks feel more comfortable with multiple layers of protection.

• Don’t forget that there will be hold-overs from the pandemic:

◆ This will still be a year where public health education will still be critical.

◆ Education around video conference etiquette may still need to be provid-ed.

◆ Education on modalities so students understand synchronous, asynchro-nous, hybrid, etc.

◆ Students in quarantine or isolation housing will need developmental touchpoints as well.

◆ Social distancing at programs may not be required, but helping people understand how contact tracing may work. Check the CDC guidelines for the current practice.

◆ Contingency plan in the event of a change in guidance, resurgence, etc. Fight the urge to put away the con-tingency plans, including for building community, if the campus is in quar-antine for a few days.

• Students with more remote classes and with residential rooms at higher occupan-cy may require that there are alternative spaces in the halls or on campus for stu-dents to engage in classes.

◆ Consider adding headphones to the student packing list, or have some as giveaways at move-in.

• Work with your health center to create a campaign for students to keep themselves healthy in a year when cold, flu, RSV, and other illnesses are likely to be much more acute. Add a couple of items to the packing list, like a thermometer.

• Our students, their families, our staff will need kindness and patience with such a big transition. Weave that throughout communications, floor meetings, etc. Let’s make sure we keep expectation setting at the forefront of what we are doing.

• Setting expectations for the students that they need to give themselves grace. In a very different way, this year will be a learn-ing year. 13



SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS• Use a survey to get data from your students

to assist with planning. See sample ques-tions and items here.

• Consider a summer toolkit series to en-gage students over the summer.

• There’s an opportunity with increased comfort and familiarity with electronic fo-rums to have enhanced interactions run-ning up to a campus’s opening. Building relationships early will increase retention and make move-in more smooth.

• Recognize the need to manage up. Start setting expectations about what’s reason-able to expect from our staff and our stu-dent staff. They are also coming out of a tough couple of years.

• Engage student staff in these processes. As you rethink and re-build, engage them in this work to get continuous feedback and meet students where they are.

14

https://www.acuho-i.org/Portals/0/doc/re-entry_things-to-ask-to-better-understand-student-needs.pdf




Over the past year, we have engaged in a critical examination of the many op-erational processes on campus. The

result has been the development of new meth-ods to complete tasks and responsibilities. As guidelines changed, evolved, or were modified, the field followed suit as best they could with the resources they had. Many of our long-held processes were changed to address challenges around creating community in an environment where mitigation strategies (e.g., physical dis-tancing, mask-wearing, and constant reminders about hand-washing) had to take precedence.

Move-in processes were evaluated to de-termine the safest way to bring students back to campus while maintaining physical distancing, masking, and the involvement of fewer guests. Additionally, changes to guest policies in resi-dential spaces were evaluated as was how to ac-commodate more stringent cleaning protocols for every corner of campus housing.

Collaboration was essential when deter-mining how to feed students and solutions of food delivery, grab-n-go, and pre-ordering op-tions were established. When creating quaran-tine and isolation housing, operational plans were developed to transport students, provide meals, and provide support as their academics went from in-person to remote learning.

The financial resources utilized to remain open for the 2020-2021 academic year have led to greater budgetary constraints and the risk of re-allocations for the upcoming academ-ic year, in an attempt to recover some of the funds which were depleted during the height of COVID-19.

CHALLENGESSeveral operational challenges present when planning for fall 2021. Some colleges and uni-versities are not requiring students to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. This poses poten-tial challenges for roommate assignments. For example, should vaccinated roommates be housed with unvaccinated roommates? Should there be entire floors or communities for those

who have been vaccinated and others for those who are not? Or, should vaccinated and un-vaccinated populations be housed together to reduce the risk of significant outbreaks in the campus community? Further, what if students or their parents/guardians only want their stu-dents to be housed with students of a similar vaccination status?

Recovery from the financial impacts of the pandemic is another challenge. Many housing programs exhausted reserve monies when re-funds were issued in Spring 2020, and/or to cover fiscal gaps resulting from lower occupan-cy during 2020-2021. Difficult decisions may have to be made in 2021-2022 and beyond in order to both meet operational expenses and recover to pre-pandemic fiscal levels. Many housing programs will need to navigate poten-tially challenging decisions that may impact staffing levels, service levels, and service quality as fiscal recovery strategies are developed.

For many housing programs, staffing levels going into 2021-2022 may also pose a challenge. There is no model for what a pandemic recov-ery looks like. Will factors such as summer enrollment, the number of no-shows during move-in week, and the number of students who leave in the first weeks of the fall semester be similar to what they were pre-pandemic? What does this mean for staffing levels, and especial-ly given the need to maintain stricter financial controls? Combined with rising labor and sup-ply costs, getting staffing levels right while also recovering may be a tricky proposition.

Responding to the pandemic meant that housing programs had to recalibrate operations to perform functions they were not designed to do. Conducting move-in processes while social distancing and wearing masks; moving community programming to a virtual format; increased disinfection of surfaces; and manag-ing quarantine and isolation are but a few of the tasks that housing programs took on in the past year for which there was no precedent. All of these changes had to be made quickly and by staff who were also dealing with the personal impacts of a global pandemic. On top of this,

Operations and Processes

STEPHEN APANEL

Bucknell University

15



at many schools, staff had to do all of this while taking pay cuts and/or furlough days. This had a significant impact on staff morale that still linger. Staff morale will likely continue to be a theme in many housing programs.

The impact on students has been similar-ly profound. Traditionally-aged students, who comprise the majority of the residents in many housing programs, had to limit social interac-tions during the crucial phase of life between childhood and adulthood. They experienced less traditional in-person engagement and minimal school-provided opportunities for socializing. Guest policies were made stricter or a “no-guests” policy was instituted, loung-es may have been closed, and dining shifted to grab-and-go formats, and these were just a few modifications in the experience that stu-dents encountered during the past year. For some students, the impact on their social lives has been profound and will have a lingering impact. First-year students, who did not enjoy a traditional first year of college, will, in some ways, have a “first-year” experience in fall 2021 as most campuses return to something closer to a pre-pandemic operation. It is unknown what impact this will have, but it may be the case that some portion of these students will try to “make up for lost time” and this may impact the social landscape at some schools. Because our field has never experienced a pandemic, it is impossible to predict what this will mean, but we should be prepared to pay closer attention to our second-year students than we might other-wise during a typical academic year.

Communication also remains a challenge as we navigate the end-game of the pandemic. At many schools, while operations may return to something close to a pre-pandemic “nor-mal,” there may still be lingering pandemic im-pacts to operations. Communicating policies such as mask-wearing and other lingering miti-gation strategies may be a challenge in the com-ing year as public health guidance continues to evolve, and, potentially, as new COVID-19 variants emerge. This may especially be the case if a variant emerges to which the vaccine is less effective, and operations change to incorporate different variations of the mitigation strategies that we have incorporated over the past year.

CONCERNSThe health of our students and staff must be of primary concern for the field. Financial recov-ery is another area of significant concern. Many housing programs exhausted financial reserves and made difficult financial choices in order to get through the pandemic. These financial im-pacts exacerbated existing challenges at many schools, such as deferred maintenance, renova-tion and renewal programs, and investments in new facilities. It may take many years for some housing programs to financially recover. This may lead to increasing reliance on arrange-ments such as public-private partnerships (P3s) or other creative fiscal solutions. Our field will need to educate leaders of housing programs on the pros and cons of P3s, other financial mod-els, and potentially cultivate new fiscal philoso-phies and strategies as a result.

Many regions of the country already were preparing for challenges related to lower en-rollment – starting in the mid-2020s – due to lower birth rates in the aftermath of the 2008 recession and other societal factors. The pan-demic may have exacerbated the trend of fewer students going to college and living on campus. Restoring occupancy to pre-pandemic levels may be a challenge at some schools, and cre-ative thinking may be necessary to mitigate the financial impacts. This may lead to strategies such as offering more doubles-as-singles, tem-porarily or permanently closing some residen-tial facilities, or offering year-round guest or conference housing to generate more revenue.

When assigning students, many colleges and universities are not taking vaccination re-cords into account as it has not occurred pri-or to COVID-19. If a room change is desired, many have room change processes already in place that would be utilized by students to change their housing assignment.

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICESDuring the pandemic, some common practic-es arose which received positive feedback from students and stakeholders. Given their success, in some cases, many of these processes may stay on campus post-COVID-19. Below are some common examples:

17



• When creating move-in processes, many colleges/universities relied on students making appointments and expanding move-in by adding more days to the pro-cess. The result was move-ins that were less crowded and easier to navigate for students. A poll conducted during a 2021 ACUHO-I Conference & Expo session re-vealed that 59% of those in attendance were reverting to their 2019 move-in model and 35% planned a hybrid of what was done in 2019 and what was in place for 2020.

• College and university campuses had to rely on very different methods to provide food for the residential population. While trying to avoid large populations in dining halls, pre-ordering food and picking it up became a popular option which will con-tinue in the fall 2021 semester.

• Cleaning procedures produced some more efficient and detailed methods to cleaning different areas of campus.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONSWhile it looks and feels like campuses are re-turning for a closer-to-normal arrangement, several unknown facts and unanswered ques-tions are still being evaluated. These questions and concerns include:

• The amount of space needed to provide adequate quarantine and isolation rooms has a direct financial impact. If too many rooms are left unused or there becomes a need to utilize hotels there will be a bud-getary impact.

• Some staff and students are waiting for full FDA approval of the vaccine. If campuses are requiring vaccination this will raise op-erational concerns.

• Several colleges and universities are still working remotely and are unsure of their return-to-work plan.

• While it is unclear what will be required for students and vaccines for some col-leges and universities, roommate conflict around vaccines could become an issue.

• Student expectations will likely be vast, divergent, and in some cases impossible to meet. Conversations centered around

making up for lost time in terms of the student experience will be common. How institutions will navigate this expectation will need to be thoughtfully considered.

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD• When evaluating processes, propose oth-

er ideas even though the current idea is working. Being effective does not always mean it is efficient.

• Many adjustments and new workloads have created lower staff morale. Consider methods to boost morale.

• Develop an alternative in the event of go-ing back to efforts executed during the 2020-2021 academic year.

• Apply prudence and responsibility when making fiscal decisions. The loss of reve-nue and reserve funds occurred at many levels at most colleges and universities.

• If vaccination records are shared with housing and residence life professionals, consider how this information should, or if it can be used.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS• Gearing back up for a “normal year” will

have the potential to wear on staff as they are still reeling from the constant chang-es, constant pivoting, and working beyond the scope of their position. Finding ways to support staff through various means, including encouraging time off, will show staff how important they are to the over-all campus picture. Finding ways to keep campus morale up will be key to the start of a successful year.

• Staff members are asked to continue to work with limited resources and reduced staff numbers while unsure of what the future truly looks like. Developing staff expectations to recognize when good is good enough, and that we are continuing to provide the best experiences we can for students will be key to staff morale.

16



VICKA BELL- ROBINSON

Miami University-Oxford

Over the course of the last year, hous-ing and residence life professionals have been called to focus on a variety

of different topics in order to persist through the COVID-19 pandemic. Advocacy for the care and safety of our students has been pres-ent throughout the handling of COVID-19. It is not an exaggeration to say that institutional senior leadership took action and made deci-sions designed to prioritize the care and safety of our students.

It is also true that decision making which guided the actions of departments and institu-tions generally focused on the most good for the most students. Decisions related to sudden-ly closing campus, refunding (or not) semester fees, and whether to re-open in-person, were based on assumptions and biases regarding the student experience.

Frequently missing from the conversation was the student perspective as well as a student services perspective. There were campuses that were able to include and involve students in the conversations about plans, but it is far more common for students to articulate a lack of transparency about the ongoing and evolving situation. Likewise, student services staff, in-cluding professionals in housing and residence life, yielded their expertise regarding students and the student experience to health profes-sionals and other decision-makers on campus.

The result of the unshared expertise by housing and residence life professionals about students and their experience impacted our ability to work towards holistic student devel-opment and care, albeit unintentionally. The misalignment between how institutions com-municated care and how students perceived care from their institution, left some students feeling unheard. As professionals who have the privilege of living and working with students and witnessing their real-life experiences inside and outside of the classroom, it is our respon-sibility to advocate for students and translate the student experience for other professionals engaged in COVID-19 response.

CHALLENGESWe are still in the midst of the COVID-19 pan-demic. The physical health of our students and communities must continue to be paramount. Campuses should obviously continue to mon-itor, adapt, and evolve distance, cleaning, and masking guidelines. At the same time, there must be a plan to help students and staff effec-tively live with the threat of the virus. With the presence and availability of the vaccination, COVID-19 is not wholly unlike other illnesses on campus. It might be helpful to remind cam-pus leaders, particularly health professionals who might not be as nuanced in their under-standing of student campus life, of mitigation strategies for other illnesses.

CONCERNSIn addition to broadly advocating for a more measured and nuanced approach to student life in the upcoming school year, residence life professionals must also take care to advo-cate for student populations who are likely to be unfairly disadvantaged because of their identities. Students who are unable to be vac-cinated, students with international status, and students from rural or lower socio-economic backgrounds may all be differently impacted by campus policies than their majority peers. As schools create compliance protocols, they must be careful to not create a second-class citizenry on campuses made up of students who cannot or will not be vaccinated. Educators, with the support of the dominant scientific theory, have identified the pathway to normal is through the COVID-19 vaccination. The desire to have as many students become vaccinated as possible has come with a willingness to usurp privacy and agency.

One cannot discuss vaccine hesitancy without acknowledging the historical abuse by the medical establishment of Black people. Ex-amples of medical abuse on the bodies of wom-en, people of color, and other minority groups abound, not limited to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and the work of James Marion

Advocacy for Care and Safety of Students

18

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29311536/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29311536/

https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves



Sims who is credited with founding modern gynecology through his abuse of enslaved peo-ple. While the trauma associated with these medical practices has not been directly expe-rienced by today’s college students, the collec-tive cultural memory makes trusting medical advice from people holding majority privilege identities challenging. Add on top of that, the recent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, as well as social media campaigns generated by students about their experiences on their cam-puses, and it is not hard to understand why stu-dents may be averse to following administrative requirements to stick an experimental medica-tion into their bodies.

In some instances, the focus on COVID-19 response has diminished understanding of the student life cycle. The concept of the student lifecycle, while interrupted by COVID-19 is un-likely to be significantly altered due to the virus. This means that many of the issues and topics that students were facing prior to the pandem-ic continue to exist through the pandemic. Homesickness, roommate conflicts, and gener-al adjustment issues, both to and from college, will continue to be present on campuses. As such, housing and residence life professionals must continue to advocate for resources, both human and material, that will assist students in successfully navigating and completing the student life cycle. Schools cannot become so fo-cused on managing the virus that they neglect their primary responsibility of producing grad-uates and productive alumni.

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICESThere are many complexities related to ad-vocating and caring for students in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important for campus leaders to lean into the complexi-ties that exist and not oversimplify responses. Oversimplification in the decision-making process almost always harms students because oversimplified decisions fail to reflect the nu-ance required to appropriately meet the needs of our diverse student body. Housing and res-idence life professionals can advocate for the care of all students by challenging the oversim-plification of decision-making processes. Here are some promising practices that can produce

less harmful outcomes for students:

• Allow for all students, including interna-tional students, and resident assistants, to move in early so they can complete their vaccine schedule before RA training or 1st day of classes for no cost. This will en-able students who want to be vaccinated to complete the protocol prior to an in-creased population on campus or the first day of classes.

• Create a web of support for marginalized students. Partnering with offices that focus on particular student populations may be especially beneficial during this time. The offices include multicultural affairs, inter-national student services, and financial aid or other offices that work with student financial need. Advocate for students to receive appropriate dining, facilities, and human contact.

• Strategically utilize communication strate-gies to get information to students. Some campuses have started sending more fre-quent shorter emails, instead of less fre-quent longer emails. Students also gain information from social media outlets in-cluding Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, and Snapchat. Schools may also want to wisely (but infrequently) utilize a text message system to inform students of important messages in their email. Schools should be directive in their communication and avoid unnecessary context or flowery in-formation.

• Recognize that the entire student popula-tion may be coming to campus with height-ened stress, heightened needs, and less re-silience. Formulate an intentional plan to outreach to students in at-risk populations. At-risk populations are those students who have a lower retention and graduation rate than other campus populations.

• Assess the student experience by develop-ing mechanisms to regularly seek student feedback related to their experience on campus. Take an agile stance in order to be able to productively respond to feedback with actions designed to enhance the stu-dent experience. When necessary, provide additional resources to enhance collective students’ experience.

19

https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves



UNANSWERED QUESTIONSPart of the student development experience is helping students learn how to advocate for themselves. Given the dramatic disruption to the educational experience in the last two years, it will be interesting to see how comfortable and willing students are with advocating for themselves. Moreover, the older adults in their lives, including their parents, coaches, faculty members, and administrators have spent the COVID-19 period directing student behavior and advocating on their behalf. Sometimes this advocacy happened in spaces where stu-dents would have normally been advocating for themselves.

• How do housing and residence life profes-sionals move from a space of student crisis management to student co-authorship? Additionally, how do we help the older adults in their lives release their grip in order to provide space for student devel-opment?

• After over a year of permitting students to not participate in experiences like living with roommates, eating in a dining hall, attending in-person classes, and extracur-ricular activities, how do we encourage them to take reasonable risks in order to enhance their own development?

• How will campuses ensure that they are not enacting xenophobic COVID-19 pol-icies and procedures for international and out-of-state students?

• What privacy issues need to be addressed with regard to guidance and mandates?

• What are the considerations for private in-stitutions vs. public institutions?

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD COVID-19 continues to be a dynamic and ev-er-changing situation. It will be important for housing and residence life professionals to be educated about the latest developments in or-der to be able to effectively and appropriately advocate for the care of our students beyond attempting to reduce the spread of the virus.

• When considering compliance measures, schools should be careful not to punish stu-dents in a way that will prevent their move-ment toward completing their educational requirements. Permanently removing stu-dents from housing, restricting their access to educational support services, and/or lab experiences may hinder their ability to graduate. Institutions should strongly con-sider not taking a zero-tolerance approach to the creation and enforcement of policies related to COVID-19.

• Students who test positive for COVID-19 or who otherwise need to be isolated should continue to be treated with dignity and respect. This does not mean that stu-dents should be waited on, but they should have access to as many resources, both hu-man and otherwise, as they would if they were not in quarantine or isolation. This access could be by telephone, computer, text messaging, or other means that pro-vide the resource, without exposing the re-source provider to unnecessary risks.

• COVID-19 is just but one of the many stressors that students will be navigating when they return to campus in the fall. Racial unrest, unemployment or under-employment, local and global political dynamics, as well as general adult adjust-ment transitional issues, are all topics stu-dents will be grappling with this year. Most schools will need to consider the resources necessary for appropriate management of the myriad concerns generated by a likely larger student population than was man-aged last year.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS• Schools may temporarily broaden the

definition of at-risk to include students who did not have a traditional end of high school experience or first year of college and complete intentional student outreach to those populations as well.

20



With the rollout of vaccines with EUA status in the spring of 2021, the focus for institutions of high-

er education (IHEs) has been around those schools that have made the decision to mandate vaccinations for all students to return to cam-pus in the fall and how to support that decision. Currently more than 500 IHEs have chosen this path (Chronicle of Higher Education). On the other side of the vaccination debate are those IHE that have decided via state mandate or Board level guidance that they will not mandate vaccinations for students to return to campus in the fall. Many of these institutions have taken the added steps of removing mitigation strate-gies including masking and physical distancing requirements.

CHALLENGES• Vaccine decisions are extremely political.

Overwhelmingly, IHEs want students to get a COVID-19 vaccine but are divided on mandating it. Guidance around what constitutes “safe” or acceptable practices continues to evolve with increasing vac-cine coverage, including a varied range of state and local guidelines.

• Communication around vaccinations is much more challenging without require-ments and mandates. Is it a campaign for personal choice and responsibility, a cam-paign based on convenience and educa-tion, or wait and see when the vaccines are no longer on emergency use status?

• There remains great variability around plans for reopening in the fall related to vaccine management.

• Expectations from institutional leaders, students, parents/family, and/or other con-stituents will influence institution-level decision-making as it relates to reopening our residence halls.

CONCERNS• How to navigate political mandates while

addressing fiscal realities.

• Vaccine efficacy has been proven, but de-termining how to address unvaccinated students remains elusive for many IHEs.

• How do IHEs who are unable to even in-quire about vaccination status manage a return to the residence halls?

• There are emerging trends of an increase in new COVID-19 cases in unvaccinated ar-eas. What will the impact be for IHEs that have high percentages of unvaccinated in-dividuals should an outbreak occur in the first few weeks of the fall semester?

• There is a strong desire that housing and residence life staff have little, if any, in-volvement in vaccination compliance or tracking responsibility.

• Treat live-in staff as front-line employ-ees similar to health care and emergency workers and mandate, where possible, that these staff members receive the vaccina-tion.

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICES• The American College Health Association’s

(ACHA), “Considerations for Reopening Institutions of Higher Education” (issued May 25, 2021) identifies vaccination as the key strategy to returning IHEs to pre-pan-demic operations.

• For those IHEs that have mandated proof of COVID-19 vaccination for students to return in the fall, with the ability to request an exception (typically medical or reli-gious grounds) -- have established a viable tracking mechanism by which to monitor compliance.

• Pop-up vaccine sites whether in residence halls or elsewhere on campuses have emerged as a high-impact practice to in-crease vaccination rates at IHEs once stu-

Case Management: Vaccination

GAY PEREZ University of

Virginia

21

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/live-coronavirus-updates/heres-a-list-of-colleges-that-will-require-students-to-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19







dents return. This is especially desirable for our international students who will return to the U.S. in the fall.

• For those IHEs that will not require proof of vaccinations, a myriad of incentives and disincentives have emerged to encourage students to get vaccinated. A few examples include:

◆ In-state tuition scholarship lottery

◆ Football ticket raffles

◆ COVID-19 fee assessed to cover test-ing and isolation/quarantine

◆ Eliminating isolation and quarantine housing. No refunds if students must vacate to isolate or quarantine

◆ Joining The White House challenge for 70% vaccination

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS• The pandemic is not over but IHEs are

moving towards a full in-person residen-tial and classroom instruction experience regardless of vaccination status. What will this mean?

• The current thought is that immunity from vaccination is effective against the Delta variant and may last multiple years, but this is still not known for sure.

• The evolution of vaccinations continues and IHEs must remain vigilant and pivot accordingly. Will they be able to do so?

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARD• To the extent possible, advocate for what

housing and residence life staff and oper-ations need to provide a safe, welcoming, and inclusive residential environment for students.

• Communication plans start now and will be critical for a successful reopening of res-idential communities.

• For those IHEs with a high number of unvaccinated populations, they will need practices that can be implemented should an outbreak occur in the fall. The impact on IHEs will be more pronounced for these schools than for those IHEs who have mandated proof of COVID-19 vacci-nations.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONSBe patient and nimble. Every institution is unique in its planning efforts, but we need to reach out to our colleagues and compare notes. There are many new and creative ideas out there and housing and residence life programs need to take advantage of these resources. In addition, look to your colleagues in student health to partner with vaccine tracking and ac-cessibility.

22



In May 2020, ACHA, provided “Consider-ations for Reopening Institutions of Higher Education in the COVID-19 Era.” As the

pandemic continued to evolve many institu-tions navigated support and wellness services to maintain their campus communities safe and healthy. This led institutions to plan for robust testing protocols to support students, staff, fac-ulty on their campuses. Residential or institu-tions with congregate living were faced with an additional layer of procedures and protocols to keep their communities safe. Testing was broad and diverse for many institutions, as they were navigating new approaches to their work and implementing protocols for testing while bal-ancing differing guidance and protocols at the national, state, and local levels.

CHALLENGESAs we enter a new academic year, our testing capacities are changing, and each institution will be identifying the best approach to contin-ue (or not) testing protocols and procedures on their campuses. The information included be-low provides an overview of current consider-ations from ACHA, the CDC, and recommend-ed areas of inquiry that individual institutions should review as they finalize their fall re-entry plans.

CONCERNSA number of concerns remain for campuses as they plan for re-entry:

• Will testing continue?

• If so, in what capacity?

• If not, how are campuses mitigating risk?

• If testing continues, when will testing oc-cur (upon arrival, monthly, weekly, sur-veillance, etc.)?

• What are the costs associated with testing

• What is the turnaround time of test results/outcomes?

There also are a number of ethical consider-ations and questions around equity:

• If testing continues, what populations will be tested and what is the rationale for it?

• Will ethical and equitable testing require-ments be placed on unvaccinated student populations?

• Will ethical and equitable testing costs potentially be placed on unvaccinated stu-dent populations that are unable to receive the vaccine for medical reasons?

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICESValuable guidance on promising practices has been provided by the American College Health Association (ACHA) in their reports. Among their suggestions:

• Entry testing remains a valuable testing strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

• The level of immunity on individual cam-puses may assist in determining the testing strategy for asymptomatic students.

• Diagnostic testing should remain available for symptomatic persons and those who have been exposed to an individual who is positive for COVID-19.

• Review current CDC recommendations for testing for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, in addition to ACHA consid-erations.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONSBoth the Center for Disease Control and Pre-vention (CDC) and the American College Health Association (ACHA) have substantial considerations and guidance to support insti-tutions as they review their testing plans for the upcoming academic year.

Case Management: Testing

MICHELLE SALDAÑA

Mount Saint Mary’s University

23



CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARDPer the CDC, as the COVID-19 virus chang-es and mutates, and new variants of the virus are expected to occur, some variations will al-low the virus to spread more easily and make it resistant to treatments or vaccines. Campuses may need to be ready to update their testing protocols and capacity to maintain their com-munity’s safety. Campuses will need to contin-ue to follow guidance and considerations from the CDC, ACHA, and state and local health officials to determine appropriate solutions or responses.

SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS• Determine the capacity of your testing on

campus for residents and non-resident stu-dents.

• Provide transparency of protocols and plans for all populations on campus.

• Regular review of testing protocols throughout the academic term to deter-mine if changes or modifications may be needed.

• Keep equity and access in mind in testing protocols (i.e., who has access and for what reasons or purposes).

24



Perhaps the single most complicated, and least popular, aspect of COVID-19 for housing staff was ensuring student com-

pliance with institutional/governmental health and safety policies (i.e. masking, distancing, student interactions, etc.). Staff at all levels were thrust into very different roles for which they were both uncomfortable and ill-prepared but expected to both encourage and enforce fre-quently vague and evolving policies. Particular-ly challenging was that these restrictions were directly counter to the fundamental mission of residential life (i.e., to promote interaction among residents towards the formation of com-munity). Moving forward, with still evolving policies, there is significant interest in ensuring both an integrated institutional effort for com-pliance that does not rely overly on residential staff, and that emphasizes incentives, commu-nity expectations, and institutional values for compliance over enforcement.

CHALLENGESThe widely varying size, mission, governance, and many other institutional characteristics that shape institutional policy and practice, combined with differing international, na-tional, state, and local government regulations make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop a consistent set of guidelines or recommenda-tions for all housing and residential life opera-tions. Therefore, we seek to identify some of the key questions, partnerships, and some general recommendations that each institution must assess for relevance or applicability to their sit-uation.

Additionally, the evolving set of national, state, and local health policies pose additional challenges. Initially, the emphasis was on pol-icies on masking, testing, and social distanc-ing. However, the evolution and availability of vaccines have shifted most of this conversation to compliance (or exceptions to) vaccination policies. Masking and social distancing policies may still be relevant for some campuses, but with the shift towards required vaccinations, these policies and strategies will most likely be

dictated by international, national, state, or lo-cal policies. Key questions include:

• Who are our critical partners?

• What resources are needed to assist in forming relationships (e.g., common goals)

• Who determines which policies are en-forced on campus and how?

• What are our options for informal adjudi-cation vs. formal conduct process?

• What incentive-based programs or pol-icies should be considered? What are the implications/drawbacks of this?

• How does “social norming,” connection with institutional identity, or use of peer education assist in this effort?

• How do we avoid the “othering” of non-vaccinated members?

• What are the limitations(legal, ethical, etc.) on enforcement?

• Who manages compliance with policies? Health? Conduct? Deans of Students? Housing?

CONSIDERATIONS• In response to the first two questions

posed above, the sub-group developed a list of critical campus partners (see appen-dix) in providing a comprehensive institu-tional strategy for ensuring student (and staff) compliance with policies and guide-lines, and at least one starting point for a discussion on collaboration. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, may be updated, and recognizes that many items may not be relevant due to institutional differences.

• A realistic analysis of institutional deci-sion-making should consider at what level HRL professionals can have either a “seat at the table” or a representative “voice in the room where it happens.” While stu-dent conduct policies and procedures may be clearly articulated, a recognition of the past pandemic year’s challenges on student conduct enforcement and the institutional

Case Management: Student Compliance

FRANKIE MINOR

University of Rhode Island

25



preference and/or tolerance for strict en-forcement or informal resolution needs to be practically considered in planning for compliance strategies that may rely on the student conduct code.

• While the adoption or implementation of new procedures is likely not feasible in the time remaining before the start of the fall semester, a review of existing alternatives to the formal student conduct processes (e.g., informal dispute resolution, restor-ative justice, community standards, honor codes, etc.) should be reviewed and con-sidered as alternatives. Coordination with colleagues in academic affairs is encour-aged to ensure consistent communication of expectations/standards as well as any compliance enforcement efforts.

• Some institutions are implementing in-centive-based programs that enter stu-dents into drawings or opportunities for free or reduced housing, parking privileg-es, bookstore or meal plan discounts, etc. who choose to voluntarily comply with vaccination requirements. However, giv-en common exceptions for health or reli-gious reasons, the implementation of these programs should consider how to accom-modate those with exceptions so as not to exclude them from a real or perceived ben-efit. Likewise, considerations for how these programs may impact financial aid awards, tax implications, or other unintended con-sequences should be considered.

• Utilize existing social-norming programs that identify core values, aspects, or behav-iors for a particular institution (frequently tied to the institutional mission or link-ing to institutional mascots or image), or frequently tied into orientation and insti-tutional integration efforts. Existing and emerging student leaders and/or leader-ship development programs can take these on as projects.

• If social norming and/or institutional policy leads to the majority of students being vaccinated, institutions are advised to be attentive to the experience of those students who are not vaccinated due to exemptions approved by the institution. Given the evolving nature of the variants

of COVID-19, as well as medical and sci-entific understanding of transmission and protective measures, issues of fear, misun-derstanding, and potential bias should be considered. Sensitivity to “othering” the non-vaccinated through policy and prac-tice, as well as in consideration to campus bias policies should be considered.

• Institutional differences (e.g., public, pri-vate, religiously affiliated, community college, international, etc.) will significant-ly influence the legal requirements and limitations available to each institution. Therefore, close coordination with the institutional general counsel or legal rep-resentative is critically important. These discussions should also involve both the institutional student health leadership and marketing/communications units. It is strongly recommended that any insti-tutional guidelines/policies/practices on compliance be accompanied by a brief statement on the rationale for that policy/practice.

• Again, based on institutional differenc-es, along with varying state, national and professional accreditation standards, the issue of which campus entity (or entities) are responsible for enforcement, compli-ance, and even reporting of incidents of non-compliance is complex. Minimally, discussions among institutional profes-sionals (or advisors) in the areas of HRL, health services, student conduct, general counsel/legal services and risk manage-ment should be conducted with the en-dorsement and support of institutional se-nior leadership, if possible, but minimally within Student Affairs.

CONCERNSAs noted previously, the widely varying institu-tional characteristics and policies, as influenced by evolving and different state, affiliation, na-tional, or international standards, create chal-lenges in identifying which policies with which we seek to require/encourage compliance. That said, there are some clear areas in which clari-ty at the institutional or divisional level would ideally be discussed and determined by the ap-propriate departments, including but not limit-

26



ed to HRL, health, student life/conduct, public safety, and general counsel. These areas for dis-cussion and determination of institutional pol-icy and practice include, but are not limited to:

• Who determines policies, including com-pliance regulations, and how can HRL and/or SA actively participate in those dis-cussions?

• What aspects of the institutional mission, values, or statement of principles will in-fluence these discussions, in accordance or conflict, with governmental or “better practices” policies?

• What roles for HRL staff, professional and paraprofessional, are reasonable for them to assume in compliance efforts, whether through enforcement or encouragement? What additional review on job descrip-tions, selection, training, and evaluation does this warrant?

• What alternatives to enforcement (i.e. in-centives, informal standards, etc.) are or can be made available?

COMMON AND PROMISING PRACTICES• An increasing number of institutions are

looking at incentive-based or social-norm-ing programs to positively reinforce com-pliance with institutional health and safety guidelines. The American College Health Association will be launching in mid-July an online resource guide and workshop to develop a campus-based, peer health edu-cation model. Ideally, these peer education programs can be developed or adapted to existing institutional peer mentor pro-grams.

• Additionally, the recent straw poll con-ducted as part of the “Return to Work” solicited respondents to indicate if they had some sort of incentive-based or so-cial-norming plan for compliance. Results from that straw poll of senior housing officers indicated that the majority of re-spondents are not currently offering in-centives to students for compliance with COVID-19 expectations for fall. Of those IHE offering incentives, the most common

response was drawing for gift cards of var-ious amounts, and drawings for different levels of financial aid/scholarships/hous-ing fees. There was also a significant num-ber of respondents who were using in-per-son program participation as the incentive for students to submit vaccination records.

• Given the wide variety of institutional differences and influencing factors, insti-tutions are recommended to utilize state-based, institutional-type, or regionally- and internationally-based networks that may exist (or that can be created) to dis-cuss similar or “better practices.”

UNANSWERED QUESTIONSThe evolution of the COVID-19 variants and public health responses will continue to influ-ence, and to some degree, dictate institutional responses to enforcement and compliance. Giv-en both the unpredictable nature of current and future pandemic and subsequent responses, it is impossible to predict what policies might be established, and concurrently, the compliance and enforcement requirements, expectations, or strategies. Close and ongoing communica-tion with campus and regional public health officials, along with key student and academic affairs officials is strongly recommended.

CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FORWARDAs noted previously, close and frequent com-munication with critical campus (and some-times community) partners is critical to an effective response to the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as we are seen to be turning the corner on management. Each in-stitution is encouraged to examine the existing, sometimes ad hoc COVID-19 Response Team, that developed on their campus. In retrospect, who were the most critical partners? What “les-sons learned” particularly in terms of commu-nication, coordination, and collaboration (the three Cs of effective crisis management) during the past year, may be applied to ongoing efforts at an integrated institutional planning and re-sponse effort?

Additionally, in terms of compliance, the 27



exploration of the full range of alternatives from incentives to social norming to alternative resolutions to formal conduct processes (both student conduct and academic standards) is strongly encouraged. Institutions are well-served to explore the balance between institu-tional policy and practice along with the rein-forcement of key educational values consistent with the institutional mission.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONSPreviously noted, but in summary, a list of things to do before or shortly after the start of the fall 2021 semester include (but is not lim-ited to):

• Meet with student conduct, public safety/police, health services, and general coun-sel/risk management to determine con-sistent understanding and education of expectations, options, and limitations on compliance enforcement.

• Exploration or utilization of alternative forms of compliance “enforcement” out-side of the student conduct process. This may include alternative dispute resolution, restorative justice, community standards, or other methods.

• Consider the use of existing student lead-ership or peer mentor/education models to promote and encourage voluntary compli-ance with policies, frequently tapping into “school pride.”

• Work with appropriate campus support groups to educate staff on appropriate ex-emptions to campus policies to prevent misunderstanding, stereotyping, or bias. Review campus policies and practices to avoid unintentional bias against students with legitimate exemptions to policies.

• Utilize or establish relationships with rele-vant campus partners (see appendix) before the start of the fall semester. If a “fall plan-ning meeting” among multiple campus partners is not an existing event on mem-ber campuses, they are strongly encour-aged to convene this as soon as possible and on a recurring basis. The list of critical partners (see appendix) provides a starting point, but each institution is encouraged to reduce that list initially by 50% for initial planning meetings, based on institutional characteristics and priorities.

• Review institutional decision-making pro-cesses and inclusion of institutional mis-sion and values to determine what is with-in HRL departmental control and what is not. Identify what resources and opportu-nities for key issues, ideas, concerns, and opportunities for them to be presented or advocated at the institutional level where decisions are made. Utilize key partner-ships (e.g., health services, risk manage-ment, general counsel, etc.) to provide col-lective and collaborative advocacy.

28



29

The campus housing and residence life professions (not to mention much of higher education and society as a

whole) are likely to have been forever changed by the COVID-19 pandemic experience. The changes we have made, and the resulting les-sons, will reverberate for years to come. Some of these new practices and policies will become entrenched while others may be updated fur-ther. For now, though, we can only make the best decisions we can with the available infor-mation. That is what we have attempted to pro-vide with this document.

As we (hopefully) put the worst of the pan-demic behind us and move forward, the fol-lowing are some of the primary considerations the campus housing profession can take for the near future.

• Review dates and plans for possible out-breaks in fall, and early checkouts or in-creased campus restrictions.

• Monitor and plan for variant strains that may change positivity rates within campus testing plans.

• Begin developing plans for possible vac-cine booster shots, and how your campus

can partner to offer booster shots if made available.

• Review short-term policies for COVID-19 and determine if you need communicable disease policy language in your contracts, handbooks, manuals, etc.

• Consider when your communities will welcome in guests and visitors that are not a part of your university pandemic man-agement plan.

• Consider how you can and should make adjustments to traditional hall staff roles (i.e., RA, HD, etc.) due to changing needs of students and/or campus expectations.

• Take time to review your bargain unit lan-guage (where applicable) and assess how the pandemic may have changed defini-tions for essential employees, and consider how to review with your campus partners for future negotiations.

• Spend some time considering the feasibili-ty of remote and flexible work options de-signed to provide better service to students and meet the needs of employees.

Considerations for the Profession

DAN PEDERSEN

Northern Illinois University



30

• ACHA (May 25, 2021). ACHA guidelines: Considerations for reopening institutions of higher education for the fall semester 2021: https://www.acha.org/documents/resources/guidelines/ACHA_Consid-erations_for_Reopening_IHEs_for_Fall_2021_5.25.21.pdf

• About Variants of the Virus that Causes COVID-19 | CDC https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant.html

• Chronicle of Higher Education (n.d.). Here’s the list of colleges that will require students or employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19: https://www.chroni-cle.com/blogs/live-coronavirus-updates/heres-a-list-of-colleges-that-will-re-quire-students-to-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19

• Chronicle of Higher Education (April 19, 2021). Here’s who was hit hardest by high-er ed’s pandemic-driven job losses: https://www.chronicle.com/article/heres-who-was-hit-hardest-by-higher-eds-pandemic-driven-job-losses

• InsideHigherEd.com (February 19, 2021). 650,000 colleagues have lost their jobs: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/leadership-higher-education/650000-col-leagues-have-lost-their-jobs

• Center for Disease Control (updated June 14, 2021). Using Antigen Tests https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antigen-tests-guidelines.html#-general-guidance

• Center for Disease Control (updated June 28, 2021). Variants of the Virus https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant.html

• “Things to Ask to Better Understand Student Needs.” A document prepared by the Re-Entry to Fall 2021 Workgroup providing a series of suggested questions and topics for consideration. https://www.acuho-i.org/Portals/0/doc/re-en-try_things-to-ask-to-better-understand-student-needs.pdf

Appendix: Resources





https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant.html








https://www.chronicle.com/article/heres-who-was-hit-hardest-by-higher-eds-pandemic-driven-job-losses




https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/leadership-higher-education/650000-colleagues-have-lost-their-jobs



https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antigen-tests-guidelines.html#general-guidance













31

Appendix: Straw Poll Datapoints

On June 16, 2021, a COVID-19 straw poll was administered to ~2,200 senior housing offi-cers (SHO) at college and university campuses in the United States. The survey closed on June 18, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. ET. A total of 187 SHOs responded to the survey, though not

all campus representatives answered every question. This data was collected to inform the work of the Re-Entry to Fall 2021 Workgroup and was not designed to be prescriptive or to provide recom-mendations for best practices. Rather, it was designed to provide information about how campuses were thinking about re-opening at a moment in time. Provided below are select data points that were particularly informative for the workgroup.

BED COUNT # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTSUp to 3,000 Beds 121 65%

3,001-5,000 Beds 27 14%

5,001-7,500 Beds 26 14%

More than 7,500 Beds 13 7%

UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT

# OF CAMPUSES % OF ALL RESPONDENTS

Up to 5,000 Students 148 79%

5,001-10,000 Students 32 17%

10,001-15,000 Students 5 3%

15,001-20,000 Students 2 1%

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTS

Private 82 44%

Public 105 56%

REGIONAL ASSOCIATION # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTS

AIMHO 14 7%

GLACUHO 20 11%

MACUHO 20 11%

NEACUHO 25 13%

NWACUHO 13 7%

SEAHO 33 18%

SWACUHO 20 11%

UMR-ACUHO 31 17%

WACUHO 11 6%

SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE



32

19%

33%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Higher than our pre-pandemic capacity

The same as our pre-pandemic capacity

Lower than our pre-pandemic capacity

WWhhiicchh ooff tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg iiss mmoosstt lliikkeellyy ttrruuee aabboouutt yyoouurr ffaallll ccaappaacciittyy?? (all)

47%53%

38%

62%

51% 49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Private Public Private Public Private Public

Higher than our pre-pandemic

capacity

Lower than our pre-pandemic

capacity

The same as our pre-pandemic

capacity

WWhhiicchh ooff tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg iiss mmoosstt lliikkeellyy ttrruuee aabboouutt yyoouurr ffaallll ccaappaacciittyy?? (by control)

SELECT DATA POINTS

96%

4%

WWhhiicchh ooff tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg iiss mmoosstt lliikkeellyy ttrruuee aabboouutt yyoouurr ffaallll aassssiiggnnmmeennttss??

Housing vaccinated andunvaccinated students together.

Segregating unvaccinated studentsfrom vaccinated students.



33

RESPONSE # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTS

Extremely likely/decided 59 45%

Likely 44 34%

Neutral 16 12%

Unlikely 5 4%

Extremely unlikely 7 5%

At this point, how likely is your campus to accept COVID-19 vaccines from outside the United States?



Likely 11 6%

Neutral 7 4%

Unlikely 26 14%


At this point, how likely is your campus to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for students living on campus? (All)

64%

36%

55%45%

29%

71%

50% 50%

19%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public

Extremely likely/decided Likely Neutral Unlikely Extremely unlikely

AAtt tthhiiss ppooiinntt,, hhooww lliikkeellyy iiss yyoouurr ccaammppuuss ttoo mmaannddaattee tthhee CCOOVVIIDD--1199 vvaacccciinnee ffoorr ssttuuddeennttss lliivviinngg oonn ccaammppuuss?? (by control)





Likely 11 6%

Neutral 5 3%

Unlikely 35 20%


At this point, how likely is it that you will mandate vaccinations for live-in staff?

FACTORS # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTS

State mandates 151 81%

University decision-making 120 64%

CDC 112 60%

Local health officials 106 57%

Board of Regents/Trustees 28 15%

Campus tolerance for local/regional politics

16 9%

Faculty influence 8 4%

Other 6 3%

Student/Family influence 4 2%

Staff influence 4 2%

Which three factors have the largest influence on your institution’s decisions around COVID-19 safety measures? (e.g., mask vs. no masks; vaccinations; etc.)

34

16%

10%

3% 3% 1% 2%

11%9%

11%

35%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public

Extremelylikely/decided

Likely Neutral Unlikely Extremely unlikely

AAtt tthhiiss ppooiinntt,, hhooww lliikkeellyy iiss iitt tthhaatt yyoouu wwiillll mmaannddaattee vvaacccciinnaattiioonnss ffoorr lliivvee--iinn ssttaaffff?? (by control)



PROTOCOLS # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTS

We will test students who are symptomatic

73 39%

We will test students exposed to individuals

diagnosed with COVID-1958 31%

We will test students on arrival

37 20%

We will test students who live on-campus

35 19%

We are not testing students for COVID-19

33 18%

We will test students who are asymptomatic

27 14%

We will test random samples of students

25 13%

We will test students who live off-campus

20 11%

Student/Family influence 4 2%

Staff influence 4 2%

Which of the following are most likely true regarding your testing protocol plans when students return to campus this fall?

GROUP # OF CAMPUSES % OF RESPONDENTS

We do not plan to do testing at arrival

82 44%

Unvaccinated students 35 19%

All students 23 12%

Students who have not shared their vaccination

status17 9%

International students 11 6%

Other 3 2%

Students from geographic hot spots

2 1%

If you plan on doing testing at arrival, which of the following student groups do you plan to test?

35



Residence Life and Housing

• Keeping students and staff healthy and informed; identifying and managing isolation or quarantine space as needed.

Living-Learning programs/academic partners (if applicable)

• Promoting student academic success; applying compliance strategies to LLC theme, e.g. health education, marketing, leadership.

Health Services

• Health education/promotion; ensuring (with Risk Management, General Counsel, etc.) poli-cies and practices are consistent with current applicable regulatory standards and practices.

Risk Management

• Assessing risks of various enforcement strategies, I/Q space.

Student Conduct

• Enforcement of student conduct code; identify appropriate expedited processes within con-duct code/housing contract.

Behavioral Intervention Team

• Student issues around compliance, non-compliant peers, “othering” due to required/volun-tary non-compliance with vaccination policies.

Bias Response Teams

• Discuss and identify strategies for responding to incidents related to real or perceived “non-compliant” students or “institutional overreach/intervention.”

Facility Operations -

• May vary whether “in-house” in HRL, campus-provided or outsourced.

• Maintenance: issues related to accessing non-vaccinated students rooms.

• Custodial: similar but related to sanitizing and exposure concerns; additional consideration is recommended given this critical staff is frequently from under-represented, lower socio-economic, and otherwise at-risk backgrounds.

Dean of Students

• Working with student government/leadership/organizations to promote compliance.

Student Activities/Leadership programs

• Create positive incentive/peer mentor programs.

Disability Student Services

• Ensure that students with special needs which may exempt them from vaccination require-ments have those needs met and are not “othered.”

Student Welfare/Crisis Management

• Students living with non-vaccinated students may encounter housing or other challenges if their roommate tests positive.

Dining Services

• Anticipating that meal service will be needed for isolation and quarantine space.

Appendix: Critical Partners and Collaboration Points

36



Athletics

• Planning for early-arrival vs. check-in compliance policies; interim housing needs.

International Programs

• Planning for early-arrival and varying stages of arriving vaccination compliance based on home-country vaccination situation, plan for relevant isolation and quarantine space.

Campus Recreation

• Coordination with residence hall intramural teams regarding competition compliance guidelines.

VP Student Affairs

• Providing both advocacy at, and information from senior leadership; promoting and sup-porting interdepartmental and interdivisional collaboration.

Academic Affairs

• Coordinating on the setting, educating, and reinforcing behavioral expectations in classes/labs; close coordination with formal or informal student conduct procedures.

General Counsel

• Ensuring that any policies, practices, and guidelines are consistent with all appropriate legal, health, and safety policies/laws.

Campus Police/Public Safety

• Prior to the start of the fall semester, discuss, in conjunction with student conduct staff, procedures for dealing with various potential incidents of non-compliance.

Fraternity and Sorority Life

• Depending on role/relationship of HRL with Greek Life, discuss common practices/proce-dures; determine their responsibility for isolation and quarantine space.

Religious Life

• Will vary widely, particularly for religiously affiliated institutions.

• Communication and coordination with appropriate religious advisors/affiliates, particularly regarding understanding different religious objections/concerns about vaccination.

Communications/Marketing

• Coordinate all external and relevant internal communications, including emails, website contact, social media postings, etc, with relevant institutional staff to ensure consistent mes-saging and appropriate context for any media or external response/interest.

• Utilizing either internal (HRL/SA) marketing resources (or campus/academic), develop and implement a positive, community-building, and/or incentive marketing program.

Parent Programs

• Similar to Communications/Marketing, utilize existing resources or identify a manageable parent communication strategy, particularly given the strong feelings from some families around vaccinations and campus policies.

COVID-19 Response Coordinating Body (if existing)

• Advocate for an institutional strategy and clear guidelines on compliance. This would in-clude relevant institutional policies (e.g. code of conduct, collective-bargaining agreements, community standards/honor code, etc.).

37

Re-Entry to Fall 2021: Considerations for Practice Additional information and resources available at acuho-i.org

© 2021

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Re-Entry to Fall 2021: Considerations for Practice

Documents