From Pantry to Infrastructure: Scaling Student Basic Needs Support at a Private University

Background and Purpose:
Colleges and universities are increasingly being called to address student housing, food, and economic insecurity, yet less is known about how institutions build coordinated basic-needs infrastructure that can operate at scale over time. Much of the public conversation has focused on isolated services, particularly food pantries, rather than the broader organizational systems needed to support students experiencing material hardship. This study presents a practice-informed institutional case from a private university to examine how one university developed and expanded a multi-service model to support students facing basic-needs insecurity. The purpose of the study is to identify core components of the model, examine conditions that enabled scale, and surface lessons for institutions seeking to strengthen their own basic-needs response.

Methods:
This project uses a qualitative institutional case study design informed by descriptive program and operational data. Data sources include internal program materials, service documentation, strategic planning and assessment records, partnership and operational information, and practitioner-informed reflection on implementation. The analysis focuses on key dimensions of model development, including service scope, staffing structure, partnerships, funding approach, access pathways, and operational constraints. Attention is also given to indicators of growth, coordination, and sustainability across major service areas related to housing, food, and economic insecurity.

Results:
Preliminary findings suggest that scale was supported by a coordinated model that moved beyond a pantry-only approach and integrated multiple forms of assistance, including resource navigation, emergency support, food access, and cross-campus referral pathways. Growth appears to have been strengthened by visible access points, cross-unit collaboration, student staffing and volunteer support, and a mix of institutional and philanthropic resources. At the same time, the case highlights persistent tensions, including rising demand, staffing burden, funding fragility, and the challenge of balancing emergency response with long-term infrastructure building. The model’s strengths and limitations together suggest that scale depends not only on service availability, but also on organizational alignment and sustained institutional investment.

Conclusions and Implications:
This case offers a useful lens for understanding how coordinated basic-needs infrastructure can be built within higher education. Preliminary findings suggest that institutions seeking to expand this work should move beyond isolated emergency services and invest in integrated systems, partnership development, visibility, and sustainable staffing. The case may help inform transferable design principles for colleges and universities seeking to strengthen student support while adapting to their own institutional context.