Young, C., & Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2023). Well-being as an ecological practice: Supporting students facing housing insecurity in higher education. In J. S. Stephen, G. Kormpas, & C. Coombe (Eds.), Global Perspectives on higher education: From crises to opportunity (pp. 471–484). Springer. Chapter 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing Insecurity in Higher Education Christel Young and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera Abstract Housing insecurity, a problem that crosses ethnic, racial, gender, and religious lines, affects students across grade levels, including higher education. On average, 45% of students experience some form of housing insecurity each year in the United States (Broton KM J Soc Distress Homeless 29(1): 25–38, 2019). Navigating housing insecurity while enrolled in higher education has become so commonplace that the phrase struggling student is synonymous with attending college. The normalization of the term struggling student to describe the realities of college life has desensitized the larger community from the needs of higher education students (Crutchfield RM, Carpena A, McCloyn TN, Maguire J Fam Soc J Contemp Soc Ser 101(3): 409–421, 2020). Supporting students beyond their academic needs is of paramount importance as it affects attrition and graduation rates. However, publications exploring the well-being of students facing housing insecurity in higher education remain sparse. In this chapter, we urge higher education institutions to approach the well-being of students facing housing insecurity from an ecological lens. Keywords Housing insecurity · Higher education · Student well-being · Wellbeing as an ecological practice Introduction Housing insecurity, a problem that crosses ethnic, racial, gender, and religious lines, affects students across grade levels, including higher education. On average, 45% of students experience some form of housing insecurity each year in the United States C. Young (*) East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA L. J. Pentón Herrera Akademia Ekonomiczno-Humanistyczna w Warszawie, Warsaw, Poland © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. S. Stephen et al. (eds.), Global Perspectives on Higher Education, Knowledge Studies in Higher Education 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31646-3_31 471 472 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera (Broton, 2019). For clarity, the terms housing insecurity and homelessness are not interchangeable. Homelessness refers to one’s lack of a fixed shelter (Hallett & Freas, 2018), whereas persons experiencing housing insecurity may have shelter but experience problems with maintaining their housing due to concerns of “affordability, safety, quality, insecurity, and a [temporary] loss of housing” (Bucholtz, 2018, para. 2). Navigating housing insecurity while enrolled in higher education has become so commonplace that the phrase struggling student is synonymous with attending college. The normalization of the term struggling student to describe the realities of college life has desensitized the larger community from the needs of higher education students (Crutchfield et al., 2020). Supporting students beyond their academic needs is of paramount importance as it affects attrition and graduation rates. However, publications exploring the well-being of students facing housing insecurity in higher education remain sparse. In this chapter, we urge higher education institutions to approach the well-being of students facing housing insecurity from an ecological lens. To do this, we divide our manuscript into four sections, namely: (1) the well-being of students facing housing insecurity in higher education, (2) an ecological view of well-being for students facing housing insecurity, (3) supporting the well-being of students facing housing insecurity, and (4) call for action. In the first section, we introduce the concept of well-being, explain what well-being is for students, and explore how housing insecurity influences access to student well-being in higher education. In the second section, we rely on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) work on the ecology of human development to analyze how different systems at the micro, meso, and macro levels act as barriers to the well-being of students who are housing insecure. In the third section, we propose wrap-around services1 higher education institutions must enact at the micro, meso, and macro levels to support the well-being of students facing housing insecurity. We end our chapter with a call to action encouraging higher education institutions to implement initiatives grounded in equity and social justice that promote the well-being of students facing housing insecurity. The Well-being of Students Facing Housing Insecurity in Higher Education Well-being, as a concept and ideal, is difficult to define because of its multilayered, intricate nature. Conversations about well-being are approached from different lenses such as, for example, quality vs. quantity of well-being (e.g., Van den Broeck et al., 2013), factors affecting well-being (e.g., Palacio Sprockel et al., 2020), or even understanding what well-being is and to what extent it is collectively or 1 In our chapter, we use the term wrap-around services to refer to multilayered services that support the different needs of students experiencing housing insecurity, such as social, emotional, and psychological needs, basic food and hygiene needs, to mention a few. 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing… 473 systemically determined (Mercer, 2021). In the literature, well-being has been largely researched from two general perspectives: the hedonic and the eudemonic approach (Ryan & Deci, 2001). The hedonic perspective understands well-being in terms of personal happiness—or pleasure (Kahneman et al., 2003)—and uses the construct of subjective well-being (SWB) to assess individuals’ experiences. In simple terms, hedonic views on well-being hold that maximizing pleasurable/happy experiences—and minimizing experiences that cause suffering or pain—increases the well-being of individuals (Diener et al., 1999). Some popular descriptions or practices that have been associated with hedonic well-being are instant/immediate gratification and procrastination. On the other hand, the eudemonic perspective understands well-being in terms of personal self-actualization and the individual’s ability to realize their true potential (Ryan & Deci, 2001). A construct used to measure happiness in the eudemonic perspective is the psychological well-being (PWB), which comprises six distinct aspects of human actualization: autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, and positive relatedness (see Ryff & Keyes, 1995). In simple terms, eudemonic views on well-being believe that, beyond experiencing happiness and pleasure, developing oneself and realizing one’s potential are necessary for achieving well-being. Some popular descriptions or practices that have been associated with eudemonic well-being are personal growth, the Danish practice of hygge, and the Japanese practice of ikigai. Table 31.1 provides a brief summary of these two perspectives. Although the hedonic vs. eudemonic debate has prevailed in the well-being literature, recent publications are beginning to take a more holistic—and positive— approach to well-being, with researchers asserting that “well-being is not either hedonic or eudemonic, but rather, it is likely…an integration of both ‘feeling good’ and ‘living well’” (Mercer, 2021, p. 15). In the field of education, this conversation has resulted in new multidimensional perspectives that go beyond the simple positive-negative dichotomy (e.g., Seligman et al., 2009; Seligman, 2011). These scholarly works have helped expand definitions and understandings of well-being beyond the traditional, individualistic views by acknowledging that social relationships affect individuals’ wellness. However, in our view, there is a need to continue expanding the understanding of well-being, especially in the context of education, by looking at it from an ecological perspective that pays attention to systemic, contextual, and societal factors (Mercer, 2021). Acknowledging the diverging views on this hard-to-define concept, we approach the topic of well-being in our chapter from an ecological standpoint. As such, we describe well-being as feeling well and experiencing health, happiness, and prosperity in one’s life, which “includes good mental health, life satisfaction, a sense of meaning in life, and how well we cope with stress” (Wood, 2021, p. 4). Further, we agree with Wood (2021) and believe that it is useful to think of well-being “as a state of balance (equilibrium)” (pp. 4–5)—that is, how well our personal resources meet our life challenges in the different domains (e.g., physical, social, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and academic) while acknowledging that well-being is not an individual duty, but the responsibility of society as a whole. 474 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera Table 31.1 Hedonic and Eudemonic Perspectives of Well-Being Description Construct to assess Well-being Common practices Hedonic perspective Well-being is the result of increased positive affect such as pleasures and happiness, and the reduction/absence of negative affect such as pain and suffering. Subjective well-being (SWB) comprises three components: life satisfaction, pleasant affect, and unpleasant affect. Life satisfaction (i.e., happiness, pleasure, and well-being) increases when pleasant affect increases and unpleasant affect decreases (see Diener et al., 1999). Instant/immediate gratification, and procrastination. Eudemonic perspective Well-being is achieved by an individual’s ability to develop one-self and realize their true potential. Psychological well-being (PWB) comprises six distinct aspects of human actualization: autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, and positive relatedness. High indications of these six factors (individually and as a group) indicate higher levels of well-being (see Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Personal growth, the Danish practice of hygge, and the Japanese practice of ikigai. For students, well-being has been identified as a foundational factor affecting participation and success inside and outside the classroom (Baik et al., 2019; Holzer et al., 2021; Houghton & Anderson, 2017; Leshner & Scherer, 2021). However, for students facing housing insecurity, well-being is even more critical because— beyond participation and success—it is more closely connected to life sustenance and basic human needs such as food (insecurity), sleep (deprivation), homelessness, and safety (Haskett et al., 2021). Recent publications are indicating that food and housing insecurity occur at alarming rates in higher education in the U.S. (Haskett et al., 2021; Young & Pentón Herrera, 2021) and, yet, not much progress has been made in recent years to ensure that students have access to basic needs and necessities affecting their well-being. If colleges and universities are truly committed to social justice and equity, then student well-being must be approached from an ecological perspective where higher education institutions acknowledge their responsibility in ensuring that all students have basic human necessities. From this ecological purview, well-being can be thought of as access—ensuring that students have prompt and easy access to the resources needed to be well, which will then result in active participation and success in the classroom and beyond. An Ecological View on Well-being for Students Facing Housing Insecurity To frame our conversation, we rely on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) work on the ecology of human development. More specifically, we analyze how barriers can appear at the micro, meso, and macro levels affecting the well-being of students facing 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing… 475 housing insecurity in higher education. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) work on the ecology of human development is a fitting framework for our discussion because it reaffirms that environmental interconnections inside and outside the different systems (i.e., micro, meso, and macro) have an effect on the forces directly affecting human growth, development, and success. In the context of the United States, these environmental connections (e.g., family nucleus, formal schooling, society, etc.) have traditionally enforced individual, isolating practices of well-being, which “do not account for power, privilege, oppression, or the needs of those with marginalized identities” (Sambile, 2018, p. 32). From this ecological lens, then, we begin to recognize that well-being, when expected as an individualistic duty, diverts responsibility away from society, institutions, and stakeholders, placing additional stress, blame, sole responsibility, and shame on vulnerable populations like students who are facing housing insecurity. In this manuscript, we approach well-being from an ecological perspective because we believe that societies, institutions, and stakeholders at all levels have the responsibility to ensure the well-being of their citizens. In education, more specifically, societies, policy-makers, institutions, and those in positions of power who are truly committed to social justice and equity have the responsibility to ensure that vulnerable student populations, like students facing housing insecurity, are provided with the necessary tools to first take care of their well-being (Maslow, 1954). To accomplish this, students must be viewed as human beings first, and students second, which has implications for how student success is defined, and how support is determined and provided. For example, in schools, student success is commonly defined as achieving high grades, and support is provided to help learners achieve those high grades. However, by viewing students as human beings first, success becomes synonymous with being well (i.e., well-being), which places the responsibility on institutions to provide adequate support to ensure individuals have their (human) needs met. By approaching our conversation from an ecological perspective, we are also able to move away from the ideology that well-being is the result of individuals adopting a lifestyle that prevents any affliction to their wellness (Crawford, 1980). Such conversations placing the individual as the sole and/or primary entity responsible for their well-being reflects elitist, privileged ideologies (Crawford, 1980, 2006) and “risk sliding into victim blaming” (Crawford, 2006, p. 411). We believe that individuals’ well-being is, in fact, more directly connected with dominant political and economic interests within the society than with individual practices. Societies that are concerned about their citizens’ well-being implement policies that ultimately produce healthy individuals. Conversely, societies that prioritize economic and political interests do so at the risk of their citizens, thus producing at-risk individuals and behaviors (Crawford, 1980). In the United States, students facing housing insecurity in higher education are a vulnerable population not because they are unable to engage in healthy lifestyles, but because policies prioritize national economic and political interests, which continue to expand opportunity and social equity gaps among populations. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2015) reported that many 476 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera students facing housing insecurity often come from low socioeconomic backgrounds or foster care and, once they enroll in higher education, the lack of affordable housing, limited access to federal financial aid, and inflated tuition costs prevent them from successfully participating and staying in school. For these students, the physical and emotional toll associated with housing insecurity often results in incredible mental distress, food insecurity, sleep problems or deprivation, and low self-esteem and depression, to name a few (Haskett et al., 2021). What, then, can be done to change this trend? In Table 31.2, we provide an overview of the common barriers that students facing housing insecurity experience at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Also, we share wrap-around services that may be offered at each of these levels, which will be expanded upon in the next section of the chapter. Supporting the Well-being of Students Facing Housing Insecurity Support of students facing housing insecurity should be multifaceted in nature to redirect the future trajectory of the students. Current research advocates for the establishment of supports directly targeted at eliminating the barriers to academic success (Rose et al., 2021). While students entering higher education may face similar obstacles, those without access to basic needs such as housing and sustenance face additional obstacles leading to higher attrition rates (Smith & Knechtel, 2019). Programs must not only provide tangible resources such as personal hygiene items or groceries but also must consciously and explicitly support students’ socialemotional well-being. Hernandez et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of using new experiences and opportunities to counteract the negative life journeys that may be common for students facing housing insecurity. With the combination of strategic student-forward institutional policies and additional positive life experiences within the context of the micro, meso, and macro levels, students can be better supported, and attrition rates are decreased. Micro Level Toxic self-care is defined as finding the easy way to solve (or deal with) life problems by applying a temporary bandage versus finding a sustainable solution. The normalization of the term struggling student in U.S. society as an accepted hardship/rite of passage has contributed to students’ repression of the vocalization of need, leading them to seek solutions from among already strained resources (Crutchfield et al., 2020). Toxic self-care, often used as a way to escape reality, can result in overindulgences that serve as a pacifier for hardships. Although temporary bandages might feel good for the moment, the effects are short-lived. Students facing housing insecurity who engage in toxic self-care practices such as 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing… 477 Table 31.2 Ecological View on Well-being for Students Facing Housing Insecurity Micro Level: “A pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting within particular physical and material characteristics” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). Meso Level: “A mesosystem comprises the interrelations among two or more settings in which the developing person actively participates” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25). Common barriers Lack of sleep Nutritional barriers Stigmatization Personal hygiene insecurity Social-emotional hygiene Toxic self-care Technological health Finding a balance between the worlds of school and work Securing funds to supplement the cost of higher education while supporting self and family Allocating time resources needed to successfully participate in school while working, taking care of personal obligations, and engaging in self-care negotiating definitions of mental Well-being Macro Level: “Consistencies… Idea that the student did that exist, or could exist, at the something wrong to be facing housing insecurity level of the subculture or the The belief/myth that housing culture as a whole, along with any belief systems or ideologies insecurity does not exist in underlying such consistencies” higher education because (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 26). students can live on campus Wrap-around services Expanded access to toiletries and basic personal hygiene items Access to low-cost or free resources to acquire, secure, maintain, and repair technology resources Include in all degree programs a required, free course on student Well-being Professional development for students informing them of resources to support themselves and others they may encounter Mentorship and sponsorship program connecting students facing housing insecurity with community and business partners Revision of policies concerning student enrollment and qualifications Funding transitional living scholarship programs Revising policies on educational harm to include an ecological perspective on student Well-being overindulgence in drinking and illicit drug usage are further isolated from their peers. In turn, policies are written in such a way that when students engage in toxic self-care practices because of the lack of resources, agencies that normally provide support are excused from getting involved in the in-depth healing and stabilization processes. To truly affect student success, support services must be sustained while keeping in mind that practices such as toxic self-care exist because those in vulnerable positions are directly affected by policies designed to punish them rather than support them in their time of need. Allowing students the opportunity to make conscientious choices toward selfactualization breeds a healthy lifestyle which, in turn, affects student well-being and success in school and beyond. Implementation of programming to effectively support students results in conversations between students facing housing insecurity and support organizations about their needs instead of formulating a list of what is thought of as a need. The effect of these collaborative conversations results in 478 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera healthy long-term social, emotional, and mental practices and self-regulation. An additional benefit from these collaborative conversations is that the incidences of toxic self-care are decreased (Atkinson, 2021). While many higher education institutions offer food, clothing, and toiletry resources, the addition of access to resources that are increasingly vital for participation, such as technology, will help students remain connected to the broader educational program (Young, 2021; Young & Pentón Herrera, 2021). The dependence on technology tools which seem to be more efficient as a means to participate in the higher education landscape has left students facing housing insecurity in positions of tension. Students facing housing insecurity often have to make the decision to either secure shelter, pay tuition, eat, or acquire technology hardware and software for educational purposes (Young, 2021). Institutions can help mitigate problems surrounding technology accessibility issues through the negotiation of contracts with vendors to provide free or low-cost repair services for students. Additionally, higher education institutions should include yearly technology tool maintenance services and all required software as part of the student enrollment experience. These (or similar) wrap-around services will bring balance to the students’ socialemotional and financial well-being, positively affecting their experiences in the increasingly digitally-dependent higher education context (Gonzales et al., 2020). Lastly, to target the social-emotional well-being of all students, we recommend that higher education institutions provide in all degree programs a required, free course on student well-being. The course should include information that helps students understand important topics affecting their social-emotional and physical wellness, such as toxic self-care, mental health, adjustment, emotional regulation, emotional intelligence, and conflict resolution, to name a few. The course should be taken within the first semester of enrollment and count towards graduation. The premise for such a radical requirement is that many students enroll in college and are ill-equipped to handle the magnitude of the social-emotional strain that the academy can place upon them (Johnson et al., 2020). We would like to firmly recognize that students’ ill equipment is through no fault of their own. In the United States, formal schooling in K-12 largely ignores social-emotional concerns and well-being (Pentón Herrera & Martínez-Alba, 2021), which affects students’ life habits, practical knowledge, and ability to engage in self-regulatory behavior in higher education and in life. Meso Level Within the meso-ecological sphere, managing the tensions between school, life, and work can present significant challenges. One of the greatest challenges presented in the research is a sense of belonging and a desire to be connected to the broader campus community (Roth & Bongoy, 2020). While programs purport to foster a sense of belonging and community, students facing housing insecurity share that the isolation they experience negatively affects their completion rates (Stidum et al., 2021; Young, 2021). Much of the isolation experienced by students facing housing 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing… 479 insecurity is secondary to the fact that housing insecurity does not often start when students initially enroll in higher education institutions. Research shows that students who experience housing insecurity while in college have faced similar situations throughout the years prior to enrollment because the students come from previous destabilized housing situations, foster care systems, as well as other situations that increase the vulnerability of this population. To bring balance, higher education institutions must acknowledge the reality that the lack of permanent, stable shelter disconnects students—physically, emotionally, and mentally—from the broader community. The lack of stability does not support the deep roots within a community to build a sense of belonging. The practices of higher education institutions associated with the idealized definitions of community and belonging, as defined by individuals in positions of power who are housing secured, fail to capture the experience and hardships of those facing housing insecurity. Thus, while supporting students facing housing insecurity, higher education institutions have an opportunity to grow their definition of community and belonging by looking at these concepts through the students’ purview. Supporting students facing housing insecurity will require professional development for students, faculty, and staff members targeting the specific community needs. The goal of the training would be to bring awareness about housing insecurity, community building, and belonging, as well as to equip participants with the resources and knowledge on how to address and better support individuals facing housing insecurity within the institution. To further connect students to the broader community and provide much-needed support, the development of mentorship and sponsorship programs is critical (Brower et al., 2021). Through the partnering of students with fellow students, faculty, staff, and community partners, mentorship and sponsorship within higher education can provide the catalyst needed to propel them to completion. A word of caution here is that mentorship and sponsorship programs must be implemented with fidelity. Students facing housing insecurity often have acquired the ability to recognize when others (including the institution) do not care about them and their well-being. When mentorship and sponsorship programs are implemented only to promote the institution’s ‘initiatives,’ students facing housing insecurity recognize that their well-being and success are not the priority and thereby disengage. The ultimate goal of implementing mentorship and sponsorship programs must be to recruit and help stabilize students’ lives as they successfully complete their program of study. Macro Level Leaders and influential stakeholders must thoroughly review and consider systemic policies through an empathic lens to truly understand the effects, both positive and negative, that higher education institutions can have on students facing housing insecurity (Hernandez et al., 2021). Developing a strong community of support is 480 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera vital to students’ long-term social, emotional, and physical health. Disconnection among students facing housing insecurity leads to further isolation, which negatively affects their overall wellness and their ability to participate in their schooling and complete their programs. Students enrolled in higher education institutions are required to maintain a minimum number of credit hours to receive financial aid. There are times when the financial aid does not cover expenses beyond the tuition, such as housing or basic personal necessities. When faced with the challenge of securing housing and providing for one’s personal needs while carrying a full-time credit load, the choice to secure employment—often which is full-time—causes tensions with the demands of higher education. As a result, students must reduce their credit hours at school to allow for increased work hours. Because of the reduction of credit hours, students become ineligible for many of the Federal financial aid programs and even some scholarships. Providing a waiver for students with a demonstrated need is vital. Maintaining a full-time course load and full-time work schedule affects students’ well-being and often results in the abandonment of the quest to obtain a degree that would result in greater career opportunities (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al., 2017). Supporting and addressing student housing needs requires an immediate institutional response. Students who struggle to secure adequate housing may engage in behaviors such as couch surfing, staying in their vehicle, shelters, or moving from residence to residence in an effort to afford the cost of tuition (Young, 2021). Mitigating the destabilized housing situations calls for institutional creative programming and support. Transitional living scholarship programs, such as the one at Montgomery College in Maryland, provide much needed support to bridge the gap between concept and reality for students facing housing insecurity (Montgomery College, 2021). With housing programs like the transitional living scholarship program, the specific needs of students are met, and the stigma and shame which presents a barrier to completion are removed. Further, these merit-based programs give students facing housing insecurity the opportunity to retain their dignity and feel a sense of accomplishment in the face of adversity. Traditionally, institutional leadership has developed policies that seem to teeter on the chasm between students and institutions. With the revelation of greater student needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that higher education institutions revise policies on educational harm to include an ecological perspective on student well-being. Many of the established institutional policies in higher education focus on ensuring that quality instruction is provided; however, there is a great need to address the gaps that remain. For example, with the continued dependence on technology to communicate and navigate the higher education landscape, various student groups will continue to be further marginalized. If the mantra of higher education is to prepare and equip students for their careers, the cost cannot be students’ social, emotional, and mental health. Students must find support to complete their programs of study with the support of the leadership through the revision of policies that would ensure no educational harm is experienced by any student due to institutional neglect of their students’ well-being. 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing… 481 Call to Action Shifting the focus of obtaining a degree from a self-involved process or activity to a larger community priority has greater value for society. Without the appropriate resources and supports, students facing housing insecurity are more likely to have greater debt, increased health concerns, and lower lifetime earnings (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Further, students who start school but disenroll soon after see even higher debt and increased rates of default on loans that were secured while enrolled in school (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). We urge institutions, stakeholders in positions of power, and the society at large to consider the effects of policies on the well-being of students pursuing higher education. Shifting our focus from pursuing higher education as a community priority instead of a self-involved process or activity will become the foundation for conversations surrounding student well-being as a vital component of community and society well-being in the present and future. We end this chapter by amplifying the clarion call to action previously issued by scholars in support of students facing housing insecurity, especially after the additional needs and marginalization revealed during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Stidum et al., 2021; Strayhorn, 2021; Toquero, 2020; Young, 2021). Why does student well-being in higher education matter? Because the lack of access to satisfy basic needs leads to a significant decrease in overall grade point average (GPA), higher attrition rates, and greater social, emotional, physical, and mental health concerns (The Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice, 2021). Further, we truly believe that if students fail, society fails, and greater student well-being will result in greater societal well-being. The onus is now on institutions and leaders; looking at the well-being of students from an ecological perspective must become the most pressing (present and future) issue in education. References Atkinson, S. (2021). The toxic effect of subjective wellbeing and potential tonics. Social Science and Medicine, 288, 113098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113098 Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Vitória, A., Silva, C., Carlos, V., Moutinho, V., Moreira, G., & Paiva Dias, G. (2017). Higher education and the problem of abandonment—How can we keep students from leaving? In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martínez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), INTED 2017. 11th international technology, education and development conference: Conference proceedings (pp. 7288–7298) https://library.iated.org/view/AUYONGOLIVEIRA2017HIG Baik, C., Larcombe, W., & Brooker, A. (2019). How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: The student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1576596 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Broton, K. M. (2019). A review of estimates of housing insecurity and homelessness among students in U. S. higher education. Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, 29(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10530789.2020.1677009 482 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera Brower, R. L., Jones, T. B., & Hu, S. (2021). Overcoming the “Trash talk in your head”: Extending an ethic of care to students experiencing intersectional stigma in community college. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211006381 Bucholtz, S. (2018). Measuring housing insecurity in the American housing survey. https://www. huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-111918.html Crawford, R. (1980). Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services, 10(3), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.2190/3H2H-3XJN-3KAY-G9NY Crawford, R. (2006). Health as a meaningful social practice. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 10(4), 401–420. https://doi. org/10.1177/1363459306067310 Crutchfield, R. M., Carpena, A., McCloyn, T. N., & Maguire, J. (2020). The starving student narrative: How normalizing deprivation reinforces basic need insecurity in higher education. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 101(3), 409–421. https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Rashida-Crutchfield-HowNormalizing-Deprivation-Reinforces-Basic-Need-Insecurity-in-Higher-Education.pdf Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Gonzales, A. L., McCrory Calarco, J., & Lynch, T. (2020). Technology problems and student achievement gaps: A validation and extension of the technology maintenance construct. Communication Research, 47(5), 750–770. Hallett, R. E., & Freas, A. (2018). Community college students’ experiences with homelessness and housing insecurity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(10), 724–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066892.2017.1356764 Haskett, M. E., Majumder, S., Kotter-Grühn, D., & Gutierrez, I. (2021). Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, 30(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10530789.2020.1733815 Hernandez, R., Radoff, S., Moya, E., Mora, Á., & Covarrubias, R. (2021). Cultivating belonging for underserved students: The critical need for campus support programs. Collaborative Research for Equity in Action (CREA) Research Brief. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.ucsc.edu/ dist/0/245/files/2021/07/Cultivating-Belonging-CREA-Research-Brief-July-2021-1.pdf Holzer, J., Lüftenegger, M., Korlat, S., Pelikan, E., Salmela-Aro, K., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2021). Higher education in times of COVID-19: University students’ basic need satisfaction, self-regulated learning, and well-being. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1177/23328584211003164 Houghton, A.-M., & Anderson, J. (2017). Embedding mental wellbeing in the curriculum: Maximising success in higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advancehe.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/embedding-mental-wellbeing-curriculum-maximising-successhigher-education Johnson, K. F., Brookover, D. L., & Bradbrook, K. (2020). Social health needs and promotive health factors scale for college students: Scale development and initial validation. Journal of American College Health, 68, 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1725021 Kahneman, D., Diener, W., & Schwarz, N. (Eds). (2003). Well-being: The foundations of Hedonic psychology. Russell-Sage Foundation. Leshner, A. I., & Scherer, L. A. (Eds.). (2021). Mental health, substance use, and wellbeing in higher education: Supporting the whole student. The National Academies Press. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper and Row. Mercer, S. (2021). An agenda for well-being in ELT: An ecological perspective. ELT Journal, 75(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa062 Montgomery College. (2021). Transitional living scholarship. https://montgomerycollege.academicworks.com/opportunities/14879 Palacio Sprockel, L. E., Vargas Babilonia, J. D., & Monroy Toro, S. L. (2020). Análisis bibliométrico de estudios sobre factores socioeconómicos en estudiantes universitarios. Educación y Educadores, 23(3), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2020.23.3.1 31 Well-being as an Ecological Practice: Supporting Students Facing Housing… 483 Pentón Herrera, L. J., & Martínez-Alba, G. (2021). Social-emotional learning in the English language classroom: Fostering growth, self-care, and independence. TESOL Press. Rose, B. A., Henneberger, A. K., Mushonga, D. R., Uretsky, M. C., & Preston, A. M. (2021). Distinguishing the roles of poverty and homelessness in long-term academic and workforce outcomes. MLDS Center Maryland Longitudinal Data System. https://mldscenter.maryland.gov/egov/Publications/ResearchReports/ HomelessnessandPovertyMLDSResearchReportFINAL.pdf Roth, S., & Bongoy, B. M. (2020). Homeless students’ lived experiences in postsecondary institutions and academe: A hermeneutic-phenomenological study. Critical Questions in Education, 11(2), 147–166. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Sambile, A. F. (2018). Energy exchange: The urgency to move from self-care to community-care in student affairs. The Vermont Connection, 39(7), 32–39. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=tvc Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press. Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563 Smith, R., & Knechtel, L. (2019). When student housing is a car: In college and homeless. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1949659 1.2019.1671854 Stidum, M., Olsen, C., Sitjar, J., Tiller, L., McDaniel, J., Mangin, E., & Desai, L. (2021). Recommendation for higher educational supports for students experiencing homelessness in the Southeastern United States. Kennesaw State University. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=careresources Strayhorn, T. (2021). Investigating the impact of COVID-19 on basic needs security among vulnerable college students: An exploratory study. Academia Letters, 2, 1786. https://doi. org/10.20935/AL1786 The Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice. (2021). #RealCollege 2021: Basic needs insecurity during the ongoing pandemic. PA. https://hope4college.com/wp-content/ uploads/2021/03/RCReport2021.pdf Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 1–5. https://doi. org/10.29333/pr/7947 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). College affordability and completion: Ensuring a pathway to opportunity. https://www.ed.gov/college U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2015). Barriers to success: Housing insecurity for U.S. college students. Office of Policy Development and Research. https://www. huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_2.pdf Van den Broeck, A., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Van Coillie, H. (2013). Unraveling the importance of the quantity and the quality of workers’ motivation for well-being: A person-centered perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.11.005 Wood, G. W. (2021). The psychology of wellbeing. Routledge. Young, C. (2021). Influences of housing insecurity on postsecondary participation: A digital connectivity qualitative study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. American College of Education. Young, C., & Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2021). Disconnected connections: A reflection on maintaining digital accessibility and connectivity for housing insecure students in higher education during COVID-19. Dialogues in Social Justice: An Adult Education Journal, 6(2), 1–7. https://journals.charlotte.edu/dsj/article/view/1137 484 C. Young and L. J. Pentón Herrera Christel Young, Ed.D. is the Director of Using Information Technology and an instructor at East Tennessee State University (ETSU). Her research interests focus on the multi-dimensional impact of housing insecurity on higher education student success. She is also interested in the promotion of equitable educational access among vulnerable populations at the secondary and post-secondary levels. She serves as co-president of the ETSU Black Faculty and Staff Association. Luis Javier Pentón Herrera, Ph.D. is Full Professor at Akademia Ekonomiczno-Humanistyczna w Warszawie, Poland, the Coordinator of the Graduate TESOL Certificate at The George Washington University, United States, and Co-Editor of Tapestry: A Multimedia Journal for Teachers and English Learners. In addition, he is a Fulbright Specialist and an English Language Specialist with the U.S. Department of State.