When I talk with students or campus leaders about how wealthy colleges handle student food insecurity, I always point to one must-read: A Private Struggle at a Private Institution by Cara Cliburn Allen and Nathan Alleman. The study is one of the few that explores how institutional culture at affluent colleges can exacerbate the experience of student hunger—and it’s a regular reference point in my work with the Hope Impact Partnerships (HIP) program.
There’s a woefully small footprint of qualitative research within the body of student food insecurity literature and their work—a unique blending of student voices and data—helps campuses see beyond the numbers and make the case for real change.
So when I heard that Allen and Alleman, along with Sarah Madsen, had released a new book—Starving the Dream: Student Hunger and the Hidden Costs of Campus Affluence—I knew I had to learn more. In this Q&A, the authors dive into what student food insecurity looks like behind the manicured quads and donor walls, and what it will take to truly support students.
What motivated each of you to explore the issue of student food insecurity, specifically at affluent institutions or “prestige-seeking institutions” as the book calls them?
Dr. Nathan F. Alleman (NA): A lot of the early lit especially was focused on community colleges and regional state universities. That's where the most pressing needs often were. But naturally, we wanted to know what it was like on our own campuses. At some point we were all at Baylor and began to do some research and interviews and surveys here and found not only of course that there was food insecurity, but we heard a lot about the intertwining of lifestyle and expectations. Partly on the institution's part, but partly just because there are a lot of financially secure students who have the technology, cars, trips, the financial flexibility to do things without having to think about what it costs.
And those things shape the experience in a way that maybe is not the same at a regional, state university, or community college. So the pieces of lifestyle and affluence that went with that—that are part of this larger picture of what the institutions are trying to be—which is the prestige-oriented piece, in attracting students who bring with them resources and maybe parents who can fund buildings and things like that.
In “The Private Struggle at a Private Institution,” one of the things that was really exciting to see was the connections between students’ experiences with food insecurity and the impact that that had on social development and sense of belonging, both in that peer-to-peer sense and also the peer-to-institution sense. What are some of the ways that particular connection manifested for the students that you interviewed in this project?
Dr. Cara Cliburn Allen (CCA): One of the things that we learned as we did our data collection and really dove into analysis is that attending college at these institution types is really a total experience that expects full engagement and the full finance package that goes along with that. One of our data collection forms was participating in official campus tours and then asking the students that we interviewed to take us on alternative campus tours where they reflected on their experiences and in those same spaces—or maybe different spaces than—the official campus tour let us on. Even before they arrive through promotional materials, the campus tour, and then that first year really solidifies and socialized students into what it means to be a good student in the space.
Most campuses required a full residential experience. They came with a full meal plan that was all-you-can-eat buffet, flexible dollars that could be spent on campus to buy sushi or Starbucks or be utilized at the juice bar. And so, students were socialized that there are ways of participating in campus, like you study over coffee in the library, you gather with friends for meals, and those are consumptive in ways that are like all-you-can-eat or some forms of excess. Along with that, students are socialized to engage fully on campus. That a good student is engaged in research opportunities, study abroad, full campus life, student activities, internships—paid or unpaid. This engagement in both social and academic spaces costs time and money for students, and the students in our study had to make choices about the ways in which they would engage, or could engage, on campus because of their lack of financial resources.
Dr. Sara E. Madsen (SM): It does make me think as well, though, that a shorthand response to students struggling to afford food at more affluent institutions is like, “well, why are you going to a school that costs so much?” And so, I think part of our task is really showing how hard the institutions are selling, to students, the opportunity that awaits you if you come here. And so, students told us, “I'm here, I'm not dropping out. I'm not leaving this place. I've been given this opportunity. My family has sacrificed for me. I've made it. I'm going to struggle or navigate or work at this to be able to stay to fully embrace the opportunity.” And so, the simple answer isn't well, just transfer to a less expensive school but how can these institutions create more spaces for belonging, more opportunities to engage, more resources to have the full experience rather than just saying, well, “if you're low income, you shouldn't go to a selective, affluent institution.”
Senior leadership in particular is hesitant to talk about basic needs insecurity. Even if they're doing a student basic survey, they’re hesitant to talk about the results and maybe even more hesitant to buy into the results. They worry that if they're elevating that issue, it will create a negative impact on the institution's image, the institution’s reputation. What advice do you have for folks doing the work on the ground in these basic needs spaces that are facing skepticism and hesitancy at their institutions?
NA: First of all, if you don't have institutional data, you need to create some, and there's an awful lot you can do without institutional permission, which was sort of a lesson that we had here at Baylor, where we started surveying and interviewing and started an informal campus working group and did all kinds of things, without. It’s hard to be shut down if you don't exist kind of thing. At some point, we recognized institutionalization was the goal, and we worked toward that, but I think sometimes creating facts on the ground is the first step to creating change rather than trying to get the institution to acknowledge it and then begin moving things. And often that's how it is. Someone's like, “Oh, I got a closet with some food in it.” It's sort of like the small-scale anecdotal stuff, which is often a good place to start, but then find like-minded people that you can confederate with and begin to think about how do we create more of an impact. Data’s compelling. We just live in a data-oriented society, and I think if you've got some stats, it's a place to start.
If you have student stories, it's very hard to say no to a really compelling student narrative from your institution. We did an early pilot of our campus tour process on our campus and actually turned that into a couple page narrative that we used as a compelling way to show administrators not only that there were needs here, but also how students were finding resources and the people who are really helpful to them. It was a way to kind of "attaboy” to those offices and people that were stepping up and helping, but also to go, “Hey, this is our daily reality for some students who are not having the full experience that you were selling.”
Which I think is part of the pitch, too, that we found is motivating is like if you don't acknowledge this, you're really creating like a 2-tier educational experience. Those who can afford to have the full experience and those who can't. And we don't think that’s really what administrators want. Most administrators want an equitable experience for all students. I think alums who are concerned about how does this look—and I think often PR people who are concerned about how alums are concerned—are often motivated by the idea that you want all students to have the experience you had, which was an immersive experience, an engaged experience. You're going to football games, you're tailgating, you're involved in clubs. You want everyone to have that experience, and this is how we get there. By acknowledging that this is a struggle.
College is much more expensive than it used to be. This is just simply the reality, which I think is the other piece of it is when you look at your peers. They're already down the road on this. They're accepting it. They've got structures in place. I mean, you can point to the UC system. You can point to Berkeley's doing great stuff. You can either be a leader or you can be behind, and most campus leaders want to be leaders on things. And I think that got us some traction here as well. Like, there's an opportunity to lead. Let's look at what best practices are. Let's look at what it looks like to do this well for our institutional identity, and let's lean into it. I think the confluence of those pieces is usually fairly compelling, especially when you look at what peers are doing, what national standards [Author’s note: Such as the CAS Standards for Basic Needs Programs & Services] are for these kinds of practices.
CCA: Those are all really good points, and one of the ongoing conversations that we've had is we want to trouble in some ways the idea of prestige seeking because of the way that it shapes and can potentially negatively impact the students’ lives but also creates a lot of opportunities for students. But to maintain that procedure orientation means, at this moment in time, participating in the ranking system, and some of the ranking systems are now inclusive of Pell-eligible students and increasing the share of low-income students on a campus. And so, to maintain one’s status in the preceding game means supporting the students that are on your campus, who you are inviting to campus, and that includes low-income students and will continue to. And so, institutions will have to face the reality of: “How do we ensure success for our students and full participation for our students?”
Within the food insecurity literature, qualitative research still is relatively less common. What is the value of examining students’ experiences with food insecurity from a more qualitative lens?
SM: I think what we see with a qualitative approach is really a complement to the more quantitative national kind of data collection that's happening. And not to pit our qualitative interviews against national survey data that The Hope Center is doing that I think it's been really helpful in moving the needle for institutions [and] for higher ed as a whole to say “this is prevalent, this is happening” across institutional type. But the qualitative methods re a great vehicle to unpack the nuance and continue the conversation beyond establishing the prevalence of food insecurity.
And so something that we return to often as a research team is just the assumption that food insecurity is not a monolithic experience both in terms of how students are experiencing it, are navigating it, but also the kinds of institutions students are at that make food security and its navigation a kind of particular phenomenon, a particular issue. And so wanting to be committed to playing out that nuance, to pushing towards the diversity of ways students are experiencing and navigating food and food circles on their campuses.
So being able to be creative, then, with methods and being able to put ourselves in the shoes of students and see how they're walking their campuses, navigating their campuses has been really powerful.
NA: We’ve put a big emphasis also on shifting and moving beyond the deficit narratives. It’s an important starting point for administrators to go, “Okay we’ve got a responsibility here,” but then to say, “Okay, what are students doing strategically to manage this? To do the best they can. To pull resources together. To kind of collectivize with other students?” And those are some of the most heartening stories to me of, “Hey, let's get together and cook together.” “There's pizzas in this office I'm calling a bunch of people.” They were really looking out for other students who they knew were struggling. And I think that helps move us beyond this sense of well, “if administrators don't solve their problems, the students can't possibly succeed.” Like yeah, administrators have a responsibility, but students aren't waiting around for administrators to fix things for them. They're pursuing their goals, and even if not in ideal ways always, they're not waiting around, and I think we have to continue to keep that as part of the picture.