journal_vol49no3 - 31

Investigating the Mental Health of Housing Staff
Custodial staff surprisingly reported almost no impact of COVID-19 on their mental
health based on their mean score (M = 1.10), as well as reporting statistically significant
differences in comparison to all other housing functions/roles. This finding is
surprising since one of the recommended guidelines from the CDC for institutions of
higher education is to require more frequent cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and
objects in facilities, which could translate to an increase in work stress for custodians.
Perhaps the nature of the work that custodial staff perform allows them to shut off after
work and thus feel little work-related stress once they are off the clock. However, due to
this sample size barely meeting this study's threshold, these results may not be generalizable,
indicating that future research should focus on the mental health of custodial
staff and possibly other hourly staff working in university housing.
Differences were also revealed by institution type; for example, 4-year small private
institutions reported a higher statistically significant difference in means when
compared to 4-year large public institutions [Welch's F(2, 82) = 8.150, p = .001]. This
finding calls for additional research and exploration into the mental health of housing
professionals at these smaller private institutions, which may have inconsistent
regulatory practices (Mazumder, 2014) that compromise public health and place additional
stress on all employees. Eldridge and colleagues (2022) found that institutional
decision making was heavily influenced by financial incentives (in the fall of 2020,
in particular); private schools derived a large portion of their revenue from auxiliary
services, making remote classes and distance learning operations too much of a financial
risk. Such institutional decisions could easily add stress to staff, particularly those
working in auxiliary services, such as housing, who had to perform regular operations
while so many other institutions operated remotely or with a hybrid model (Smalley,
2021). While such decisions may be inevitable in an unstable, uncertain financial climate,
decision makers must also be aware of how they impact the well-being of their
employees.
The age group 25-34 reported the highest mean (M = 4.21) in terms of the impact
of the pandemic and their functional role, which was also statistically significantly different
when compared to all other age groups. These findings are not surprising as
the early adults group is considered especially vulnerable; many of them experience
their first episode of a serious mental disorder at this time (Balon et al., 2015). This age
group also likely represents most of the full-time hall directors, which, as results from
this study indicate, was the most impacted functional group. This finding highlights
the need for support structures to already be in place, pandemic or not, to serve a vulnerable
age group that happens to make up approximately half of housing entry-level
positions (49% in this study). The other half (51%) consisted of mid-level managers,
who were the third most impacted group by function (M = 3.72). Housing departments
that employ staff in functional roles should consider creating a healthy support system
in order to prioritize the mental health and overall well-being of these employees.
28 The Journal of College and University Student Housing
journal_vol49no3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no3
