Basic Needs, Real Costs: Pantries to Policy
By Cristian Ulisses Reyes, NASFAA Policy Staff
This blog is the second in a three-part series led by our 2025 DME Policy Intern, Cristian Reyes, focused on basic needs insecurity in higher education. In this post, we’ll explore the current policy landscape and evaluate campus-level interventions.
Across the nation, colleges and universities are grappling with a growing crisis: basic needs insecurity among students is widespread and deeply tied to academic persistence. The Hope Center’s most recent survey found that 59% of students experienced at least one form of basic needs insecurity, most commonly food or housing insecurity. These numbers are more than statistics; they are daily realities threatening educational attainment. Among students who had stopped out or considered leaving school, a staggering 79% cited basic needs insecurity or financial strain as a primary reason. Yet, even with resources available, many students don’t access them: 65% reported not knowing where to turn for help, 51% never accessed public benefits, and 48% didn’t use their school’s on-campus supports.
Given the impact of unmet basic needs, many colleges have stepped in to provide direct support, often launching creative interventions to meet student needs where federal policy has fallen short. For example, Georgia State University’s Panther’s Pantry served nearly 1,900 unique students through over 6,300 visits in 2024, an increase of nearly 2,000 visits from the previous year. At Eastern Michigan University, daily visits to the on-campus pantry jumped from around 50 in 2022 to roughly 74 in 2024.
Some of the most robust interventions have emerged in California, where state policy has invested heavily in campus basic needs infrastructure. All public colleges in the state now host basic needs centers, thanks to annual funding allocations: $15 million each for the CSU and UC systems, and $30 million for the California Community Colleges. These resources have enabled campuses to reimagine traditional support models. Contra Costa College, for example, operates refrigerated food lockers that allow students to pre-order groceries for pickup during flexible hours. In 2024, that center served over 5,000 students and nearly 15,000 family members. Cal Poly Humboldt’s “Oh SNAP!” initiative combines food recovery efforts, fresh produce distribution, cooking workshops, and pop-up thrift shops, resulting in more than 30,000 pantry visits last year. Other institutions have adopted incentive-based programs: Antelope Valley College’s “Fresh Success” gives students points for enrolling in courses, which they can redeem for essentials like groceries, toiletries, and laundry detergent. At Cerro Coso Community College, undocumented students ineligible for SNAP receive $291 monthly gift cards through the “WileyFresh” initiative, alongside weekly workshops and community support. Since the program launched, pantry use rose from about 350 visits per month to over 500 per week.
Campuses are also addressing housing insecurity in innovative ways. Fort Lewis College in Colorado launched a rapid rehousing program in 2022 that provides emergency shelter, rent support, and case management to students at risk of homelessness. In its first year, the program housed 108 students—85% of whom transitioned into permanent housing. Those who didn’t were sheltered temporarily for no more than 20 days. Meanwhile, Long Beach City College has introduced a “Safe Parking” program that allows students living in their vehicles to park overnight on campus and access restrooms, showers, Wi-Fi, and support services. These models, while localized, offer glimpses into what’s possible when colleges are given resources and flexibility to support the whole student.
Still, many of these efforts remain under-resourced or vulnerable to funding cuts. Most food pantries rely heavily on donations, student volunteers, or short-term grants. Few have dedicated staff or permanent institutional budgets. Housing interventions are similarly inconsistent across the country, with many schools lacking the partnerships or infrastructure needed to provide sustained support. The result is a patchwork of solutions. Some highly effective, others barely surviving, which leaves too many students unsure where to turn in times of crisis.
Federal policy has a critical role to play, yet it has not kept pace with student needs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for instance, remains one of the most powerful tools available to fight food insecurity, but its eligibility rules for college students are unnecessarily complex. Students must typically work at least 20 hours per week, participate in federal or state work-study, or meet other narrow criteria. These are requirements that disproportionately exclude full-time students, caregivers, and undocumented students. Awareness is also low, and bureaucratic hurdles make enrollment difficult. Although temporary eligibility expansions during COVID-19 helped broaden access, those provisions expired in 2023, and Congress has yet to pass legislation like the EATS Act and more that would make reforms permanent. As a result, millions of food-insecure students remain locked out of federal assistance, even as recent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) have modified the broader eligibility landscape. For example, OBRA Section 10102 alters work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), which may complicate access for some student populations. At the same time, the re-evaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan under Section 10101 has led to a modest increase in benefit levels, yet these improvements do little to address the structural barriers that continue to exclude many students from qualifying in the first place.
Another vital federal initiative, Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS), is at risk of elimination. The program provides grants to institutions to subsidize child care for low-income student parents, allowing them to remain enrolled and persist toward graduation. Programs supported by CCAMPIS often cover 40% to 90% of child care costs and offer holistic support like mentoring, case management, and academic coaching. At Indiana University of Pennsylvania, a $605,000 grant has supported dozens of student parents. At UC Davis, CCAMPIS subsidies enable access to high-quality early childhood education through the on-campus laboratory school. In Oregon, the program covers almost the full cost of care for some families. Despite its proven value, the White House budget request for fiscal year 2026 recommends eliminating CCAMPIS entirely. Without access to critical support, such as the resources provided through the CCAMPIS program, many student parents could be forced to drop out, an outcome that would undermine both equity and national college completion goals. Student parents represent roughly one in five college students, and while not all rely on CCAMPIS, those who do often face significant barriers to staying enrolled without it. For these students, the loss of affordable, accessible child care could make the difference between graduating and leaving school prematurely.
Taken together, the gaps between student need, campus intervention, and federal support are clear. While colleges are stepping up with innovative, compassionate solutions, from food lockers and meal swipe donation programs to emergency housing and incentive-based support, many efforts remain unsustainable. Federal programs, meanwhile, are often underfunded, underutilized, or under threat. Bridging these gaps requires not only more funding but also systemic alignment between policy and practice. Colleges need permanent infrastructure, dedicated staffing, and clear assessment measures to ensure support services are comprehensive, accessible, and stigma-free. Equally important is federal legislation that recognizes the changing realities of today’s students and removes outdated barriers to public benefits.
As this blog series continues, the final post will explore a critical piece of the puzzle: collaboration between financial aid practitioners and basic needs initiatives. Financial aid offices are often a student’s first point of contact for support, yet many operate in silos separate from campus basic needs programs. The next blog will highlight how cross-departmental partnerships can help institutions better identify students in crisis, streamline support referrals, and deliver more coordinated, holistic care. From integrated intake forms to shared data systems and co-located services, we’ll look at the tools and practices that can break down barriers and build bridges, ensuring students don’t fall through the cracks.
Publication Date: 9/29/2025
Armand R | 9/30/2025 3:24:40 PM
Colleges exist to educate, not to feed, house, and clothe individuals. Government exists to protect its people and provide for infrastructure, not to support those who choose not to work or who are in the country illegally.
The financial difficulties addressed in the article are not just those of students; they exist for most Americans. Until the Marxist movement in the U.S. (currently called Democratic Socialism) is abandoned, we will continue to see inflated costs, necessity insecurity, and third-world style riots and violence in our streets. Stop asking the government for more of other people's money and start spending wisely and responsibly, by cutting unneeded costs (fueled by ideological projects) and concentrating on teaching students what they need to know to become a productive member of society.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.