The field of student affairs and higher education is facing a crisis. Staff members are leaving roles at an alarming rate. Staff members in student affairs across the breadth of campuses of higher learning in the United States are increasingly being tasked with intervention, risk identification and management, and harm reduction. These staff members have been woefully undersupported by institutions who expect their staff to step in with little training on helping students, and no training to help themselves. The lack of care coupled with vicarious trauma or directly traumatizing experiences within their role leads to negative mental health outcomes for individuals in these roles. This study posits that institutions can change the tide of staff departures through concerted and dedicated efforts towards staff wellness and support. The ultimate goal of this work is to improve the workplace experience, reduce staff turnover, reduce negative mental health outcomes, and increase staff retention at American institutions of higher learning.

As such, this literature review is an analysis of scholarly research and persistent social experiences reflecting the need for such a study, and in support of the direction of development this research has taken. The literature review is divided into three strands each representing separate but connected central themes. The first strand offers the broadest information, identifying what the field of student affairs encompasses, the students that they care for, and how the demands of the roles have changed over the course of the profession. The second strand focuses on impacts of the workplace experience on the mental health of student affairs, and other higher education professionals. The third strand recommends best practices and strategies to reduce further negative mental health outcomes and perpetuate better workplace practices in the student affairs profession.

The material explored in this literature review were sourced from ProQuest, GoogleScholar, OneSearch, ERIC, ScienceDirect, and ProjectMuse. Scholarly articles were complimented by information, briefs, memos, data, and editorials provided by various government agencies, professional organizations, and other research groups. Student Affairs and higher education textbooks were also used to reinforce themes and explorations.

Setting Up the Case

The field of student affairs is not one that most individuals naturally think of as a career path. It is only upon arrival to institutions of higher learning, or during the admissions process that students are first exposed to this field (Richard & Sherman, 1991). Historically, student affairs professionals began as a role of “in loco parentis”, or in lieu of parents, as these professionals served as guidance, support, and legal representative in place of parents as colleges and universities were often residential in nature (Schuh et al., 2016). Upon the voting age becoming 18, the role became less of a legal value in making decisions for the students on behalf of the parents, but rather serving as a tool of the student’s personal and professional development (Schuh et al., 2016). This field has developed over the past 100 years into the profession that it is today, with a majority of staff in these roles possessing a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and often having masters credentials (Schuh et al., 2016). By the 1970s, the field of student affairs as we know it today was firmly established (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018). This section introduces the students who attend institutions of higher learning in the United States, the field of student affairs, the demands and responsibilities of those within this field, and how these demands and requirements have changed over the years, and finally the training involved in becoming a student affairs professional.

Students of Higher Education

This section references numbers from the 2021-2022 academic school year in the United States. 15.44 million students are enrolled in undergraduate programs at institutions of higher learning, and roughly three-million enroll as graduate students (Hanson, 2024). 11.51 million, or 61% are enrolled as students (undergraduate and graduate) designated as full-time status for their respective institution. Roughly three million students live on collegiate campuses in housing provided by the institution (ACUHO-I, 2021). Individuals identifying as women are roughly 60% of the higher education student population (Belkin, 2021). 61.8% of the 51.44 million individuals are students attending post-secondary learning for the first time after the completion of high school (Hanson, 2024). 53.4% of all enrolled students at higher education institutions are white. Students, traditionally, enter college during unique phases in their development and rely on this time period, roughly 18-22 to develop their own perspectives, values, and space within the world (Baxter Magolda, 2001; Baxter Magolda, 2008; Perry, 1986; Belenky et al., 1986). What is commonly considered the “traditional age” of college students, the aforementioned 18-22, coincides with the age of presentation for several mental health issues, or with more severe and long term impacts of mental health issues as compared to those diagnosed in other stages of life (Arnett et al., 2014; Auerbach et al., 2016; Majury et al., 2023).

Student Affairs

For the purposes of this study, student affairs practitioners will be defined as individuals serving in roles related to student advising, basic needs, residential living, student programming, admission, tutoring services, disability/accommodation services, student conduct, financial services, study abroad, Title IX, and those supporting students outside of the academic classroom. In 2014 one of the main professional bodies for student affairs, NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA), identified 39 functional areas of student affairs and student services (NASPA, 2015). For the purposes of this paper, offices or initiatives of basic needs will be housed under the functional area “student wellness”. Though the exact number of student affairs practitioners is not known, a 2018 report from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources states that 71% of student affairs practitioners identify as women and of that percentage 51% identify as white. It should also be noted that 71% of individuals working in student affairs capacities are identified as frontline workers (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018). While student affairs practitioners have always been at the forefront of student care and support since its advent, a persistent change has occurred with not only a higher demand of excellence in performance and service, especially tied to tuition rate (Tan et al., 2021), but also a higher level of ask to act as campus whistleblowers with a focus on identifying threats, highlighting and working closely with students on concern, and intervention in student mental health concerns with a significant focus on crisis management (Dungy, 2018). Crisis management to be defined in Strand 2, Crisis and Trauma.

Current Training for Student Affairs Professional

 Though material was unable to be sourced, it is a common understanding that a majority of student affairs roles strongly prefer or require a masters degree from an accredited program. Student affairs programs frequently have the following names: Higher Education Student Affairs, Student Development, and Higher Education Administration. These programs typically contain coursework related to student development theory, the history and socialization of higher education and student affairs, and higher education law. Note that there is a lesser amount of counseling based programs in the student affairs profession leading to individuals entering the field lacking in basic counseling training and understanding, when this is a basic requirement of their role (ACPA & NASPA, 2015; Schmid & Wagstaff. 2019). 

In 2019 senior student affairs professionals were surveyed and interviewed to develop a study on the perception and abilities of individuals leaving higher education and student affairs masters programs. The study found that despite staff being ill-equipped in many ways, overall senior officials prefer hiring entry-level staff who have graduated from higher education masters programs (Ardoin et al., 2019). Overall, the consensus was that the state of student affairs and the higher education industry was suffering due to lack of appropriate job training, but the spark and desire of individuals who wanted to work with students and develop campuses as communities gave hope (Ardoin et al., 2019). Despite the desire, the workplace needs and conditions have changed such that the traditional student affairs pathway and programs were insufficient and no longer meets the requirements of a well-skilled workforce (Schmid & Wagstaff, 2019).

Conclusion

In conclusion, student affairs practitioners serve in a variety of roles on collegiate campuses. They are tasked with the care, development, and upkeep of the student population and are responsible for nearly all experiences outside of the academic classroom. Though armed with the knowledge of student developmental theory, and with a robust scholarly practitioner history, very little has been done to support the worker in their role. An overwhelming majority of research found has focused on the central covenant of these student affairs profession: supporting the student. It appears that very little research has been done regarding the practitioner experience and how to best support the practitioner within their workplace during normal experiences, and even less on how to support and process experiences in times of high stress or trauma.

Crisis, Trauma, and Staff Retention

Student affairs practitioners are often put into the position of being a first responder on higher education campuses (Lynch & Glass, 2018). For the purposes of this study, individuals may be referred to as “education first responders”. These situations encompass not only issues directly relating to students and the student experience, such as mental health and student crisis - but also experiences of natural disasters. There have been over 10,000 mild to severe disasters over the past century (Patel et al., 2020) and student affairs practitioners are often among the on-call or frontline in mitigating these circumstances and their fallout on campuses and in communities of higher learning (Lynch & Glass, 2018). Beyond natural disasters, staff have been tasked with various forms of health management during pandemics, and during possible epidemics such as the H1N1 virus affecting collegiate campuses in the early to mid 2000s (Treadwell & O’Grady, 2019). Student affairs practitioners are asked to respond to these items with little to no support from their administration. This section demonstrates the demands asked of this profession, and the effects and fallout of these experiences on their mental health.

Education First Responder

71% of student affairs workers are considered frontline. Student affairs practitioners have been asked to step into a space previously foreign to them, that of being a first responder (Treadwell & O’Grady, 2019). Lynch et al. (2018) highlights the fact that student affairs professionals are increasingly asked and expected to act as first responders to student and community crises. Seen as a helping profession, these individuals face traumatic events such as severe mental health episodes, campus violence, and the actions and results of discrimination. . Individuals in a first-responder or crisis care position go beyond the traditional residential life and on-call set up. Academic Advisors residing on smaller campuses and those campuses without counseling centers must be prepared to take an active approach in crisis intervention and management (Bates, 2009). As such, and to designate them in a differing category than traditional first responders (i.e., EMT, paramedic, police, fire and rescue, etc.), student affairs practitioners in these roles will be referred to education first responder.

Trauma

Staff members, both paraprofessional, meaning student workers, and professional staff are being asked to step into increasingly volatile situations in the parallel manner of first responders especially when in roles related to student affairs such as Residential Life and Housing (Lynch & Glass, 2018).  individuals working in these roles experience negative effects of constant and repetitive exposure to traumatic events and experiences. Further, those in student affairs who are not classed as first responders are still at risk of developing secondary trauma through the counseling, coaching, and attentive relationship-building with students who have suffered traumatic episodes. Trauma is being defined as negative event or experience which could be a terrible event, a dangerous situation, or other similar experiences that result in feelings of numbness, anger, denial, flashbacks, irritation, anxiety, strained relationships, unpredictable behavior, and other negative mental health outcome (American Psychological Association, 2013). Individuals working within student affairs and other education professionals can experience a variety of invisible injuries at the hands of the trauma of their profession: first-hand trauma, vicarious trauma (alternatively compassion fatigue), burn-out, and moral injury. Individuals in these roles, especially on the younger end of the professional spectrum are often in places of development such as establishing their identity free from their hometown or parental influence or developing their own moral model of existence (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Rest & Narváez, 1994). Individuals, as previously noted, face increasing difficulty with cognitive functions such as critical thinking and further personal care as they face increasing exposure to traumatic events Thus, both student and staff could be at risk of erratic behaviors, limitations in assessment and contextualization of material and events, and the ability to make positive associations with activities unless they are properly trained before and cared for after these volatile or traumatic work events (Levy-Gigi & Levin, 2014; Lynch & Glass, 2018; Kilgyte et al., 2013; Burke et al., 2016).

Student Mental Health

In the 2021 academic year, out of a national survey of college students encompassing 96,000 responses 14,400 of those responded that they had seriously considered suicide over the course of that academic year– the highest ever reported in the 15-year history of the survey (National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, 2023). 44%, or 42,240 reported symptoms of depression and 37% or 35,520 reported anxiety. By comparison, the reported rate of mental health issues in the general adult population of the U.S., is 22.8% (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2021). The rates of mental health issues in 2021-2022 for college students was nearly double the rate of the general population.The Center for Collegiate Mental Health (2022) noted that the 2021-2022 academic year represented the largest 10-year increase in reports of students with histories of trauma, including childhood emotional abuse and sexual violence. 

Student Affairs and Workplace Retention

Tull (2006) notes that between 50-70% of student affairs practitioners leave the field within their first five-years of work after finishing their degree program with a majority of those leaving coming from the field subset, Residential Life.  During the termed, “great resignation” (Kaplan, 2021), education and healthcare professionals had the highest percentage of resignations in 2019 - the year of highest resignations as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021), which began studying these rates in 2000. 84% of the 1,005 respondents of NASPA’s Compass Report indicated that the level of stress they experienced and the overall requirement of crisis management and the need for responsiveness were a major contributing factor to leaving the field. Despite risk of resignation being higher with this group and stress, risk, and crisis management being a direct factor, 43% anticipated an increase over the next five years in responsibilities or daily activities related to risk management and another 35% indicated an anticipated increase in sexual and interpersonal violence prevention. Overall, 49% of respondents believed that operational crisis management would increase for their role in the next five years. Only 30% reported that they felt their workload was appropriate to their level, pay, and hours available. A 2022 study stated that nearly 40% of student affairs staff members are actively job searching at any given time, with 30% looking to leave higher education entirely (Macmillan Education, 2022).

Supervisor/Supervisee Relationships

When staff feel alone and that they are not only unsupported but uncared for by individuals who are in charge, their mental health can greatly suffer (Wild et al. 2020; Nurunnabi et al., 2021). In a 2022 study, only 31% of respondents stated that they felt supported and mentored by their supervisor (MacMillian Education, 2022). Within the context of frontline student affairs staff members, the supervisor/supervisee relationship of professional staff usually suspends itself within the responsibility of mid-level managers. The actions, behaviors, and experiences  of mid-level managers within student affairs serves as an indicator of the culture of the institution as well as a representation of the field of student affairs as a whole (Anicich & Hirsh, 2017, Greenwood et al., 2002, Tyrell, 2014). 

Conclusion

In conclusion, student affairs practitioners and other higher education personnel are facing an enormous demand and devastating task in the face of student mental health and overwhelmed supplemental services. Student affairs practitioners often serve as the first point of contact for students facing crisis (Lynch & Glass, 2018). This stands true regardless of their functional role within an institution, but rather the placement of their role and relationship in the pocket of the student experience and the student community. Student affairs practitioners become trusted members of a community and become the place of trust and vulnerability that leads to diviluging of damaging thoughts or experiences.  Because of their place within their community, student affairs practitioners are often asked to intervene in these moments and serve as conduits of safety and healing while receiving none themselves. 

The support of supervisors and of the institution are invaluable to the resistance to mental harm and the resilience of staff against the overwhelming odds and devastating information. Staff members experience not only instances and exposures to vicarious trauma through second hand experiences, but to first-hand experiences. It is without question that these experiences both first-hand and secondary cause true harm that may be severe and is a known byproduct of working in student affairs (Lynch & Glass, 2019). A recent NACADA (2018) study found 88% of individuals interviewed were considering leaving the field should workplace conditions such as pay, supervisory experience, and environment not improve. This staggering number combined with the negative effects of poor supervision (Setti et al., 2016; Szeto et al., 2019) and of mismanagement of the effects of trauma (Wild et al. 2020, Lynch & Glass, 2018) define urgency within the student affairs and higher education community. The rapid attrition that is seen in education, and in primarily student affairs can be partially stemmed if the field of higher education and student affairs took the needs and realities of these education first responders and frontline workers more seriously and with not only corporate social responsibility, but care. We see a particular need within Residential Life, as it has been noted that this is both the highest source of attrition, but also the most common entry point for student affairs practitioners (Tull, 2006; Belch & Mueller, 2003)

Trainings and Solutions

The third strand of the literature review is a synthesis and understanding of the trainings, policies, procedures, and structural change needed by frontline staff, their supervisors, and their supervising organizations. Additional training is needed in how to codify supporting practices into policies and procedures that managers and practitioners earlier in their careers may not have training or exposure to. Workplace learning and establishing policies and practices that focus and surround improved staff care and staff preparation, training, talent management, and retention seek to address Imperatives IV: Approach the need for greater staff care systemically and V: Align student affairs preparation and talent management approaching with the evolving needs of the profession from the seminal Compass Report: Charting the Future of Student Affairs (NASPA, 2022) These actions and activities of change must be guided by organizational theory, as such this section will also identify and define a change management theory suitable for guiding this work. Together, these aspects will define and support the change needed in the field of higher education and student affairs.

Workplace Learning

Workplace learning becomes powerful when it directly relates and draws from real life experiences within the field (Easton, 2008). Workplace learning is defined as learning through and for work, generally paid, and should reflect authentic practices that individuals should learn and apply within the workplace (Billett, 2001). The Kirkpatrick theory of adult and workplace learning puts forth four levels of learning as a part of talent management: Individuals will learn best when the material is deemed favorable to the learner as it will improve their work life (reaction); the learning that learners will actual be able to acquire within the structure of activity or programming as well as whether or not the topics are relevant to the improvement or change desired (learning); the degree, amount, or implicit use the material is then utilized by the learner within the workplace in the time after the training(s) (behavior); and finally, the results- the level to which the desired changes have been achieved, how long have they been achieved, and if there has been any backsliding of activity or application (results) (Nouraey, 2020). 

Training Needs in Student Affairs

Individuals joining these roles as students and further as adults need training on mental health, resilience, holistic and general wellness, and overall mindfulness practices (Nurunnabi et al., 2021; Kaplan et al., 2017;  Burke et al., 2016; Kleim & Westphal, 2012; Szeto et al., 2019). These trainings have been shown to demonstrate cross-industrial improvement in mental health outcomes of first responders when trained in these methods appropriately and with proper time and gravity given to their learning outcomes (Nurunnabi et al., 2021; Kaplan et al., 2017; Burke et al., 2016; Kleim & Westphal, 2012; Szeto et al., 2019). First responders with exposure to trauma can demonstrate issues with timely decision making, follow through on actions and documentation, absences of follow-up that could affect community and programmatic outcomes, and issues related to their personal well-being (Izumi, Sukhwani, Surjan, & Shaw, 2020; Nurunnabi et al., 2021; Kaplan et al., 2017; Kleim & Westphal, 2012; Szeto et al., 2019). Training must be given to frontline and managerial staff on how best to process the experiences they experience within their roles. Mid-level managers should be trained and coached on how to craft and implement successful policies and programs that reflect the needs of their staff and their students, rather than allowing a potentially detached approach to policies often implemented by a top-down mentality (Rice, 2012; Bazner, 2023).

Institutional Policy and Mid-level Managers

Policy development and implementation is often a top-down experience with little input from those directly in the line of application (Bazner, 2022; Khan, 2016). Top down policy making lacks in equity as it pertains to individuals in mid-level and entry-level positions (Gonzalez et al., 2021). Mid-level managers are required to bridge the gap between those in senior positions creating the policies and the frontline workers who must implement and uphold institutional policies and practices (Mather et al., 2009; Khan, 2016). Mid-level managers are uniquely placed within an institution having an understanding of institutional policies and requirements, as well as close perspective on the lived-experience of the frontline staff that they support (Mather et al., 2009; Khan, 2016) Thus, mid-level managers may provide a tactical solution as to why policies fail (Bazner, 2022). Whereas if mid-level managers and entry level, or frontline employees were to be the first line in creating policy rather than the last to be consulted, policy would more accurately reflect the current happenings and cultural climate where the policy would be enacted (Rice, 2012). Policies fail less in part because of poor policy writing, but rather due to lack of buy-in from constituents, lack of understanding of cultural and context within which the policy must work, the entrenched history of the work being completed and the lack of understanding of the complexities of the task being asked due to the lack of directly impacted personnel input (Rosenberg, 2023).

Policies Related to Risk and Crisis Management

Supportive measures and in-moment response protocols must either be short and simple in measure or done with sufficient job aids to ensure successful outcomes during emergency responses (Izumi et al., 2020; Wild et al., 2020; Phelps & Hase, 2002). Job aids such as read-do checklists have been demonstrated with great success in transferrable situations of gravity such as routine aviation. aviation emergencies, and surgical operations (Gawande, 2011). Where a checklist is successful, it highlights small items that ensure the successful outcome of a procedure that may otherwise be overlooked (Gawande, 2011; Phelps & Hase, 2002). Ineffective policies and procedures for response and for after event activities are also sources of anxiety and other poor mental health outcomes for these individuals (Wild et al., 2020; Nurunnabi et al., 2021). Quick and efficient policies for both response in the moment, and after-care would enable institutions to provide greater and more consistent levels of student care as well as staff care (Wild et al., 2020; Nurunnabi et al., 2021; Gawande, 2011; Phelps & Hase, 2002; Izumi et al., 2020). Policies should be implemented to reduce negative mental outcomes via post-crisis professional support and care from the responder’s supervisor and supervising organization (Wild et al., Lynch & Glass, 2018).

Kotter Change Model

The Kotter Change Model, also called the Kotter Change Management Model, developed by Dr John Kotter (1996), focuses on change as a cycle that can increase over multiple iterations with the same basic principles followed through each time the sequence is activated. The Kotter Change Model begins with the concept of crafting the understanding of urgency (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2008). The second step identifies the need to build a coalition around this issue: a group of individuals educated and motivated on the subject who are willing to support this change and effort (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2008). Participatory Action Research demands the necessity of individuals joining in scholarly practice with the person directing the study or work so that the community based research is happening with a group rather than on a group (Stringer & Aragón, 2021).  Forming a Strategic Vision is the next step in the model (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2008). Individuals can do this in solo work, however it is more successful when crafted in the company of their coalition and their other stakeholders (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2008). Once the strategic plan has been crafted and is ready to be actioned, the practitioner needs to once again engage their community of practice by seeking volunteer participants, Kotter explains.  The actionable content or plan would then be activated, this effort would fall under the category of Enable, where barriers to action are removed. In relation to the workplace training for mid-level managers, staff would be enabled by reducing lack of information, giving them support through training and workplace learning, and also giving them the benefit of dedicated time by which to develop their policies and skills. Short-Term Goals are identified (Kotter, 1996; Kotter, 2008), to ensure that progress is being made and is able to be measured. Short-term goals indicate steps being taken in the direction of resolution towards the problem or series of problems seeking to be addressed. Sustaining an effort relies on the person or group enacting Kotter’s model to continue to push for excitement, interest, and urgency for the solution of this issue. Finally, should these previous steps be handled successfully, the Institutional Change. There should be a change in language, behaviors, and other prescribed outcomes defined earlier in the strategic plan and that are maintained over an elongated period of time.

Conclusion

Student affairs requires an additional model of workplace learning focused on staff wellness, mental-health, and the workplace environment. This can be achieved through direct mid-level manager training on care and mental-health first-aid for crisis aftermath and helping their staff process their workplace experiences and through training mid-level managers on the process to craft and implement successful workplace policies and procedures that are sustainable and systematic. These actionable tasks require theory to guide and shape them both during the development of educational and training content as well as in the overarching implementation of the policies and practice of focused staff welfare.

Summary

The pandemic exacerbated an already over-stressed, overworked, and distressed population to heights and levels not previously measured (Shah and Slater, 2021). Student affairs practitioners have reached their maximum of what they can foreseeably handle in regards to emotionally supporting students during crisis (Aparicio, 2019). Secondary forms of trauma such as vicarious, compassion fatigue, burn out, and moral injury can go beyond the invisible and enter in the scope of physical distress and degrade- it is only then that employers take notice (Hu et al., 2017). It stands to reason that individuals whose service to their students and their community require them to be in the emotional and “physical” blast radius otherwise known as trauma radius, and they deserve the same level of support and care as the students who often stand at the center. Colleges and universities nationwide have reported increased amounts and increased severity in mental health conditions each year and student affairs staff members are asked in increasing amounts to be the emergency response, social work, or other care professional in these circumstances (NAMI, 2012; Lynch, 2018). It is considered a basic competency of the student affairs profession that practitioners are able to triage and intervene in situations of crisis (ACPA & NASPA, 2015). Policies and training to craft a safe and supportive workplace must be implemented to help stem the rapid attrition from the field of education, its own form of crisis. These matters extend beyond the field of student affairs, and all other educators can benefit from the production of policies built with staff wellness and workplace wellness in mind. If staff are expected to intervene in crisis on behalf of the institution, than the institution must be ready and prepared to intervene in turn when staff are facing a crisis of their own.

The workplace learning required to turn the tides and provide appropriate support relies on the mid-level managers who cross the boundaries between senior leadership and the frontline workers. Mid-level managers should receive workplace training to 1. Care for their staff in the immediate aftermath of crisis as well as 2. Craft policies that support and improve the staff experience. Workplace learning should be examined in varying levels to ensure that it meets the needs of the learner and of the workplace situation that served as the impetus to the need for training. Overarchingly, as a mid-level manager, the grassroots effort of policy change and workplace development must then further be guided by theory and practice. Kotter’s Change Model serves as this guide in order to enact sustainable systems change. Student affairs practitioners need the care of the caring profession before no staff remain to do the work.

References

ACPA—College Educators International & NASPA—Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (ACPA & NASPA). (2015). Professional competencies rubrics. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Competency_ Rubrics_Full.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2013). Recovering emotionally from disaster. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/disasters-response/recovering

Anicich, E. M., &  Hirsh, J. B.  (2017). Academy of Management Review.

Aparicio, A.J. (2019). Are you an emotional first responder? How to care for yourself when you're everyone's go to person. Axis Counseling. https://www.axiscounseling.com/blog/emotional‐first‐ responder# 

Ardoin, S., Crandall, R. E., & Shinn, J. (2019). Senior Student Affairs Officers’ Perspectives on Professional Preparation in Student Affairs Programs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1614938

Arnett, J. J., Žukauskienė, R., & Sugimura, K. (2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29 years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(7), 569-576.

Auerbach, R. P., Alonso, J., Axinn, W. G., Bruffaerts, R., Cujipers, D. D., Ebert, J. G., Green, I., Hwang, R. C., Kessler, H., Lius, P., Mortier, M. K., Nock, S., Pinder-Amker, N. A., Sampson, S., Aguilar-Gaxiola, A., Al-Hamzawi, L. H., Benjet, J. M., Caldas-de-Almeida, K., Demyttenaere, S., … & Zarkov, Z. (2016). Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization world mental health surveys. Psychological medicine, 46(14), 2955-2970.

Bates, S. D. (2009). Counseling Skills for Academic Adviser. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 11. https://doi.org/10.26209/mj1161537

Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Baxter Magolda, M. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 269-284.

Bazner, K. J. (2022). Views from the middle: Racialized experiences of midlevel student affairs administrators. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(5), 572-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000384

Belenky, M. F., McVicker Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986) Women’s way of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic books.

Belkin, D. (2021, September 7). A generation of american men give up on college: ‘I just feel lost’. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233.

Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Burke, M.G., Dye, L., & Hughey, A.W. (2016). Teaching mindfulness for the self-care and well-being of student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(3), 93-107.

Center for Collegiate Mental Health (January 2023). 2022 Annual Report.

Chickering A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dungy, G. J. (2018). Students and student affairs: Facing perennial challenges in ever-changing contexts. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3–4), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509600

Easton, L. B. (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning. National Staff Development Council.

Gawande, A. (2011). The Checklist Manifesto. Profile Books Ltd.

Gonyea, R. M., Graham, P. A., Fassett, K. T., & Fosnacht, K. (2021). (issue brief). The Case for Campus Housing: Results from a National Study. https://www.acuho-i.org/Portals/0/doc/Case-Campus-Housing_SHO-VPSA.pdf.

Gonzalez, Á. de J., Burgos-López, L., Felix, E. R., & Nienhusser, H. K. (2021). Policy implementation as a tool for advancing equity in community college. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(January-July), 25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6689

Greenwood, R.,  Suddaby, R., &  Hinings, C. R.  (2002). Academy of Management Journal.

Hanson, M. (2024, January 10). College enrollment statistics [2023]: Total + by demographic. Education Data Initiative. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#:~:text=Among%20new%20high%20school%20graduates%2C%2018.5%25%20enroll%20in%202%2D,secondary%20students%20attend%20public%20institutions.

Hu, W. C., Flynn, E., Mann, R., & Woodward‐Kron, R. (2017). From paperwork to parenting: Experiences of professional staff in student support. Med Educ, 51(3), 290‐301. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13143 

Izumi, T., Sukhwani, V., Surjan, A., & Shaw, R. (2020). Managing and responding to pandemics in higher educational institutions: Initial learning from COVID-19. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 12(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijdrbe-06-2020-0054

Kaplan, J. (2021). The Psychologist Who Coined the Phrase “Great Resignation” Reveals How He Saw It Coming and Where He Sees It Going. Business Insider, 14-17.

Kaplan, J. B., Bergman, A. L., Christopher, M., Bowen, S., & Hunsinger, M. (2017). Role of resilience in mindfulness training for first responders. Mindfulness, 8(5), 1373–1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0713-2

Khan, A. R. (2016). Policy implementation: Some aspects and issues. Journal of Community Positive Practices, (3), 3-12. http://catalactica.com/jppc/index.php/jppc/article/view/316

Kligyte, V., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Devenport, L. (2013). The influence of anger, fear, and emotion regulation on ethical decision making. Human Performance, 26(4), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.814655

Levy-Gigi, E., & Richter-Levin, G. (2014). The hidden price of repeated traumatic exposure. Stress, 17(4), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2014.923397

Kleim, B., & Westphal, M. (2012). Mental health in first responders: A review and recommendation for prevention and intervention strategies. Traumatology, 17(4), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765611429079

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. 

Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Harvard Business Press. 

Lynch, R. J., & Glass, C. R. (2018). The development of the secondary trauma in Student Affairs Professionals Scale (STSAP). Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1474757

Macmillan Education. (2022, November 17). Nearly One Third of Student Affairs Professionals Seeking to Leave Higher Education. Business Wire. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221117005138/en/Nearly-One-Third-of-Student-Affairs-Professionals-Seeking-to-Leave-Higher-Education

Majuri, T., Haapea, M., Nordström, T., Säynäjäkangas, V., Moilanen, K., Tolonen, J., Ala-Mursula, L., Miettunen, J., & Jääskeläinen, E. (2023). Effect of onset age on the long-term outcome of early-onset psychoses and other mental disorders: a register-based Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1986 study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1-13.

Mather, P. C.,  Bryan, S. P., &  Faulkner, W. O.  (2009). The College Student Affairs Journal.

National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2023, April). Mental health by the numbers. NAMI. https://www.nami.org/mhstats#:~:text=Millions%20of%20people%20are%20affected,represents%201%20in%205%

NASPA. (2015, September 10). Functional Area Profiles. NASPA Vice President for Student Affairs Census. https://census.naspa.org/functional-areas 

NASPA (March 2022) The compass report: Charting the future of student affairs. https://5721802.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/5721802/Download%20Files/The_Compass_Report_2022_Web.pdf

Nouraey, P., Al-Badi, A., Riasati, M.J., Maata, R.L. (2020). Educational program and curriculum evaluation models; A mini systematic review of the recent trends. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(9), 4048-4055.

Nurunnabi, M., Almusharraf, N., & Aldeghaither, D. (2021). Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Higher Education: Evidence from G20 countries. Journal of Public Health Research, 9(s1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.2010

Perry, William G., Jr. (1981), "Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning", in Arthur W. Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass): 76-116.

Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connections. Educational Action Research, 10(3), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198

Pritchard, A., & McChesney, J. (October 2018). Focus on student affairs, 2018: Understanding key challenges using CUPA-HR data. (research report). CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/.

Rest, J. R., & Narváez, D. (1994) Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601162

Rice, D. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9), 1038-1062. 

Richmond, J., & Sherman, K. J. (1991). Student-development preparation and placement: A longitudinal study of graduate students’ and new professionals’ experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 8-16.

Rosenberg, B. (2023). "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It": Resistance to Change in Higher Education. Harvard Education Press.

Schmid, D., & Wagstaff, J. (2019). Are they ready? Senior housing officers' perceptions of entry‐level housing professionals' proficiency with helping skills. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 45(2), 68‐89. 

Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., & Torres, V. (Eds.). (2016). Student services : A handbook for the profession. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Setti, I., Lourel, M., & Argentero, P. (2016). The role of affective commitment and perceived social support in protecting emergency workers against burnout and vicarious traumatization. Traumatolog, 22(4), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000072

Shen, P., & Slater, P. (2021). The effect of occupational stress and coping strategies on mental health and emotional well‐being among university academic staff during the COVID‐19  outbreak. International Education Studies, 14(3), 82‐95. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n3p82 

Stringer, E. T., & Aragón, A. O. (2021). An Introduction to Action Research. SAGE Publications Inc.

Szeto, A., Dobson, K.S., & Knaak, S. (2019). The road to mental readiness for first responders: A meta-analysis of program outcomes. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64(1_suppl), 18s–29s. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743719842562

Tan, P. S. H., Choong, Y. O., & Chen, I. C. (2021). The effect of service quality on behavioural intention: The mediating role of student satisfaction and switching barriers in private universities. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe‐03‐2021‐0122

Treadwell, K. L., & O'Grady, M. R. (Eds.). (2019). Crisis, Compassion, and Resiliency in Student Affairs: Using Triage Practices to Foster Well-being. NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic Supervision, Job Satisfaction, and Intention to Turnover of New Professionals in Student Affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0053

Tyrell, S.  (2014). New Directions for Community Colleges.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, November 12). Job openings and labor turnover summary–2021 M09 results. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm.

Wild, J., Greenberg, N., Moulds, N.L., Sharp, M., Fear, N., Harvey, S., Wessely, S., & Bryant, R.A. (2020) Pre-incident training to build resilience in first responders: Recommendations on what to and what not to do. Psychiatry, 83(2), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2020.1750215