Tag: Housing

  • Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)

    Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)

    Why NLIHC is taking action:

    The Continuum of Care Program exists to house people experiencing homelessness using proven, evidence-based solutions and strong local leadership. Yet, this NOFO introduces structural restrictions that contradict its stated purpose — capping permanent housing resources, weakening local decision-making, and threatening the stability of community response systems nationwide.

    As many as 170,000 more people could be pushed into homelessness if these changes stand — not as an abstract number, but as real individuals, families, veterans, seniors, youth, and neighbors in every state who depend on CoC-funded housing and services to remain stably housed.

    What this lawsuit means for our field and partners:

    We are fighting to:

    • Prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their homes

    • Protect proven permanent housing interventions within CoC funding

    • Defend the ability of local communities to lead response strategies using data and evidence

    • Stand with municipalities and providers working to keep people housed, stabilized, and supported

    Source link

  • Podcast: Public attitudes, housing, employability

    Podcast: Public attitudes, housing, employability

    This week on the podcast we discuss fresh polling on public attitudes to UK universities, which shows how a widening graduate/non-graduate divide and sharper political splits are fuelling worries about degree quality and whether universities are focused on the country’s interests.

    Plus we discuss the housing crunch – the new Renters’ Rights Act, warnings on missed housebuilding targets, and what a forthcoming statement of expectations on student accommodation could require of providers working with local authorities. And we explore employability insights from new research – the language gap between university “attributes” and real job adverts, and how to recognise skills students gain beyond the curriculum.

    With Ben Ward, CEO at the University of Manchester Students’ Union, Johnny Rich, Chief Executive at the Engineering Professors’ Council and Push, Livia Scott, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Student accommodation – a tale of two cities, and 2point4 students

    The Renters’ Rights Act is out of the oven, but the student housing market is still cooked

    Shared Institutions: The public’s view on the role of universities in national and local life / More in Common and UCL Policy Lab

    AGCAS: Uncovering Skills

    Employability: degrees of value / Johnny Rich

    Research Plus

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link

  • Student Preferences in On-Campus Housing

    Student Preferences in On-Campus Housing

    YinYang/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    What do students look for in on-campus housing? According to university staff, students are most satisfied with their space when it’s well furnished and clean.

    A new report from StarRez, a student housing management platform, identified room conditions and a sense of community as top priorities for on-campus housing residents. The survey also found that a majority of institutions see social events and mental health support as key to the student experience in residence halls.

    In addition, the research reveals that today’s students prefer privacy in their living space but are still interested in creating connections and engaging with peers who share their residence hall. They are also open to opportunities to build living-learning communities.

    Methodology

    StarRez’s survey was fielded between Feb. 10 and April 14, 2025. It yielded 459 responses from 418 institutions across the globe, including 360 institutions based in the Americas.

    Setting the stage: An estimated 16 percent of all undergraduates live on campus, including 30 percent of those who attend four-year, public institutions and 43 percent of students at independent colleges, according to an analysis from the American Association of Community Colleges.

    Previous research shows that students who live in residential housing on campus are more likely than their peers who live off campus to persist and complete a degree. This trend may be due in part to the proximity to peer support, academic resources and security in basic needs that living on campus affords.

    In recent years, many colleges have seen a housing crunch impact their students, resulting in less-than-ideal accommodations and residence halls exceeding capacity. StarRez’s survey found that 64 percent of responding institutions had 90 percent or higher occupancy rates; 15 percent had occupancy rates of 99 percent or higher. Yet nearly 57 percent of students do not have access to on-campus housing, according to respondent data.

    But StarRez’s report points to a post-pandemic spike in students interested in living on campus—a trend that has leveled out this year—meaning the exceptionally high demand for on-campus housing may decline.

    Affordability also remains a growing concern in the campus housing market. Student housing prices are rising faster than those of single-family housing, growing 8.8 percent in 2023 compared to multifamily rentals, which rose 4.5 percent in cost over the same period.

    Survey says: When students say they’re satisfied with their housing, approximately one-third are referring to the room conditions and furnishings, their sense of community, or the residence hall’s amenities, according to institutional respondents.

    On the flip side, cost, facility issues and dissatisfaction with food or meal plans were the most commonly reported criticisms of on-campus living. Inside Higher Ed’s Student Voice survey from 2023 found that 48 percent of students believe their dining hall options need improvement and 37 percent said dining facilities need improvement.

    Across room types, apartment-style housing is the most requested option by students (34 percent), followed by suite-style housing (27 percent) and traditional dorms (21 percent), according to StarRez’s survey. The report also found that a greater share of students want their own space; at a majority of institutions (51 percent), students rank single rooms as their top choice on the housing application.

    Not every housing placement turns out to be successful. A majority of colleges said more than 10 percent of their residents requested a room change during the year, with 8 percent saying between 25 and 50 percent of residents asked for a new room.

    Among events offered to residents, 90 percent said social events are the most popular and widely attended, followed by recreational activities (56 percent) and wellness programs (39 percent).

    When asked which health and well-being activities students most often requested of their housing facility, nearly 60 percent of respondents said mental health support programs, and over half (56 percent) wanted social events and community-building activities. Less popular responses included counseling and peer support networks (46 percent), healthy dining options (38 percent), and financial and academic support services (36 percent).

    Living-learning communities continue to grow in popularity, with four out of five colleges offering this type of student housing. Academic-focused communities (23 percent) and honors programs (17 percent) were the most popular LLCs, while career (5 percent) and leadership-focused (6 percent) groups were the least popular.

    National data shows students with disabilities are enrolling in higher education at higher rates, and StarRez’s report points to an increase in emotional support animals making their way to campus as well. One-third of institutions said between 3 and 10 percent of residents have emotional support animals, with 3 percent of respondents saying more than 10 percent of students have them.

    Fewer institutions reported offering gender-inclusive housing in 2025 (69 percent) than in 2024 (73 percent), and there was little difference in the number who said they were considering implementing gender-inclusive housing space.

    Growth in international student enrollment is also pushing an increase in housing demand from international students, with 34 percent of respondents indicating a slight increase and 6 percent reporting a significant increase. A majority of respondents house fewer than 10 percent of their international students on campus. The report data does not reflect recent federal actions this spring that may impede international student enrollment in the fall.

    So what? Based on the report’s findings, authors recommend housing providers consider:

    • Students’ desire for privacy, mental health and belonging, which are core to their experiences on campus.
    • More students want apartment-style and single-room housing options, creating opportunities for institutions to adapt spaces to match this need.
    • Living and learning communities can provide high-impact experiences for residents, leading to greater satisfaction and retention.

    How does your institution promote belonging and well-being in the residence halls? Tell us more.

    Source link

  • Housing Program Increases Student Success in Calif.

    Housing Program Increases Student Success in Calif.

    An estimated 20 percent of college students experience housing insecurity and 14 percent experience homelessness, according to fall 2024 data from Trellis Strategies. Yet many colleges are ill-equipped to address student housing concerns, particularly institutions with nonresidential campuses or those that serve adult learners.

    The state of California created an initiative in 2020 to provide housing and short-term support to students who were experiencing housing insecurity while enrolled at one of the three public systems—the California State Universities, California Community Colleges or the University of California.

    A recently published analysis of the state’s College Focused Rapid Rehousing (CFRR) program identified promising practices and lessons learned from the pilot. The study—authored by the Center for Equitable Higher Education (CEHE) at California State University, Long Beach—found that students who participated were more likely to remain enrolled and graduate compared to their peers, and a majority had established stable housing one year later.

    The background: Passed in July 2019, Assembly Bill 74 allocated funding for college-focused rapid rehousing programs, which give students rental subsidies, moving assistance, wraparound supports, case management and emergency grants. The community college system received $9 million, CSU $6.5 million and UC institutions $3.5 million to invest in long- and short-term initiatives, depending on each system’s unique student needs.

    According to 2023 data included in the report, over half of CSU students and 65 percent of CCC’s who receive financial aid experience housing insecurity. One-quarter of CCC students and 11 percent of CSU students experienced homelessness during the 2022–23 academic year.

    The CEHE study evaluated the program over three years at eight CSU campuses and two community colleges. In total, 639 students participated in CFRR across the 10 institutions, and 3,949 received short-term assistance—often in the form of an emergency grant—from spring 2020 to spring 2024. Approximately 540 students fell into both categories, receiving short-term support before enrolling in CFRR.

    Some historically underserved populations were more likely to participate in CFRR: Black students and former foster youth were heavily overrepresented relative to the general population, and first-generation, transfer and returning students were also overrepresented to a smaller degree.

    Addressing housing insecurity: The program was successful in its goal of mitigating homelessness for enrolled students. After engaging with CFRR, participants experienced substantial housing stability, with an average of nine consecutive months of housing.

    In addition, a majority of students who left the program graduated (27 percent) or reached permanent housing (27 percent), while 15 percent failed to meet academic requirements, which is a common barrier to sustaining housing assistance.

    The greatest share of students (37 percent) were placed in stable housing in less than six months, though one-third took over 12 months to get housing from a community partner. The breakdown highlights the challenges in placing students in viable housing options, according to the report. However, two-thirds of surveyed students (n=181) said they believe they had been housed relatively quickly.

    One year after exiting the program, a majority of participants indicated that they were residing in an apartment or home that they directly leased or owned. Eighteen percent lived with a family member.

    Students credited the program with supporting their long-term success; 71 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their current housing situation was better because of the assistance they received.

    However, many still struggled with financial insecurity. Sixty-two percent said it was difficult to pay increased rent in the first year after exiting the program, and 25 percent underpaid or missed at least one rent payment during this period. Three in 10 said they had to move more than twice due to financial difficulties, and one-quarter of program graduates reported at least one episode of homelessness.

    Impacting student success: In addition to meeting students’ basic needs, the program had a demonstrated effect on persistence and attainment rates.

    Participants were more likely to remain enrolled or graduate (56 percent) compared to students receiving short-term housing assistance (47 percent). At CSU, CFRR students graduated within four years at higher rates than the broader CSU population (43 percent versus 35.5 percent), as well.

    Data also pointed to the impact housing crises can have on students’ academic performance, with housing-insecure students reporting their lowest GPA the semester they engaged in support interventions and the semester following.

    A graph showing the average GPA of CFRR participants compared to their peers who received short-term assistance from their institution.

    Twelve months after receiving assistance, CFRR students were significantly less likely to stop out of school compared to their peers who received just a short-term housing subsidy. Survey data showed students were more likely to engage in school activities, but a majority (70 percent) still held jobs to pay for college, working an average of 25 hours per week. Eighty percent of CFRR participants said they had difficulty balancing school and life responsibilities.

    Program participants were also more likely to be employed six months after entering housing (70 percent) versus three months before entering the program (56 percent).

    Housing insecurity can damage students’ mental health and in turn affect their persistence in higher education. At intake into CFRR, 76 percent of participants said they felt lonely, but that number dropped to 63 percent in follow-up surveys. Just under half of housing-insecure students experienced serious psychological distress at intake, while closer to one-third indicated distress at follow-up. These numbers remain elevated compared to the total student population at CSU, where 20 percent experienced serious psychological distress.

    The program also increased students’ emotional and mental resilience. Students rated their ability to handle personal problems higher after securing housing as well, from 33 percent to 52 percent during follow-up.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • How Housing Support Programs Can Measure Student Development

    How Housing Support Programs Can Measure Student Development

    A large number of college students experience housing insecurity or homelessness, and finding suitable accommodations can be a challenge, particularly for those who attend colleges and universities that do not provide on-campus housing.

    The fall 2024 Student Financial Wellness Survey by Trellis Strategies found that 43 percent of all respondents experienced housing insecurity and 14 percent were homeless during the prior 12 months. Among two-year college respondents, 46 percent were housing insecure and 16 percent experienced homelessness in the previous year.

    Community colleges often lack the resources to directly address housing insecurity, so they rely on outside partnerships or housing assistance programs to accommodate students. For example, LaGuardia Community College partners with Airbnb to offer vouchers for short-term housing support for students. Tacoma Community College and the Tacoma Housing Authority co-created the College Housing Assistance Program, which subsidized housing costs for students experiencing homelessness until 2022.

    These programs often come with red tape that can make it difficult for a student to enroll in the program; for example, GPA or credit requirements can push vulnerable students out if the institution doesn’t think they’re making adequate progress.

    Alena A. Hairston, a professor at Fresno City College and doctoral student at Alliant International University, conducted a qualitative research project that evaluated student experience and engagement with housing assistance programs. Hairston found that while many students did not meet benchmarks for student success in the classroom, the experience contributed to their improved self-actualization, which can be a meaningful metric in student development.

    The background: To ensure students are persisting and making progress toward a degree, college-led assistance programs often require learners to meet baseline educational checkpoints, including being enrolled, achieving a certain GPA or meeting regularly with a staff member. Community partners may institute their own requirements, including drug- and alcohol-free living or payment of a deposit.

    If students don’t meet these requirements, they’re dropped, often without another option to continue their housing, which can be detrimental to their health and well-being. While failing to meet requirements can be a sign of student disinterest or lack of appreciation for the offerings, Hairston views stable housing as a foundational piece in student achievement and tied to the mission of community colleges.

    “If a student shows up to attend [and] to be a part of the collegiate process, that says desire, right?” Hairston said. “And the only requirement for admission [at community colleges] is a desire to learn, so we need to go with that as our mandate [to serve students].”

    Hairston wanted to understand how students accessed resources and the impact it had on their psychosocial development.

    The study: Hairston interviewed nine students who participated in housing assistance programs, led either by the college or an off-campus entity, in 2021. Students were between the ages of 18 and 47 and represented a variety of racial, ethnic and gender categories. All learners were enrolled at least part-time at a community college.

    Most respondents said they learned about housing programs through specific contacts, such as academic counselors for special programs including Extended Opportunity Programs, TRIO and the Puente Project, while others used the internet or other partners.

    While students appreciated the services, they faced logistical challenges that made the experience frustrating, such as a lack of notification or timely communication from staff members. One was in an unsafe area and roomed with an individual who used methamphetamine.

    Students said program requirements to maintain academic standing or health conditions (such as sobriety) were perceived as helpful, but in practice sometimes harmful and led to loss of housing. “As soon as you drop [below] a 2.0 or you drop nine units, they literally evict you,” one student shared. “Then you have an eviction on your record as well.”

    A few students said they gained personal life skills or were motivated to continue working toward academic and career goals. Others felt their citizenship status or racial and ethnic backgrounds impeded their housing placements or ability to access resources.

    In addition to finding secure housing, most participants utilized other campus, public and private services to pay for additional resources, including furniture, phone bills, laptops, bikes and mental health support.

    The COVID-19 pandemic created additional challenges for participants, such as job losses, the decline of support networks, moves, educational disruption and relapses into substance use.

    In conversations, students commented on how housing assistance motivated them to stay enrolled and allowed them to prioritize other elements of their lives, including mental health care and caregiving responsibilities.

    “The program [helped me with] a lot of psychological things like digging into yourself and figuring out the root problems that keep causing me to drink,” a study participant shared. “So I got to unburden a lot of my little demons.”

    Lessons learned: Based on her conversations with students, Hairston recommends policymakers tie self-actualization and personal growth to efficacy metrics to understand the value of these programs and improve students’ self-reflection on their progress and achievement.

    One possibility would be to measure student success on a yearlong basis, rather than term by term. Some learners returning to higher education may need counseling or struggle with the rigor of their coursework, resulting in poor academic performance in their first term back.

    Instead of weighing GPA or credits completed as the most important factors for student eligibility, Hairston advocates for a greater emphasis on self-efficacy and personal growth, perhaps delivered through a self-diagnostic at the start and end of the term or a regular self-study to track learning and the challenging circumstances they encountered. This also creates opportunities for checking in on students during the term to ensure that they’re not falling behind without support, Hairston said.

    Program participants should also be paired with counselors who are trained in trauma-informed care and academic counseling, Hairston said. Ensuring a welcoming atmosphere for services, program information and resources can reduce barriers to access and promote thriving.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • College Offers Free Housing, Meals for Dependents of Students

    College Offers Free Housing, Meals for Dependents of Students

    College students who live on campus are more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their institution and have better educational outcomes, but on-campus housing facilities frequently neglect parenting students, thus limiting their opportunity to be more engaged at their institution.

    Additionally, students with dependents are more likely than their nonparenting peers to experience financial hardships and lack access to basic needs, according to a 2021 survey by Trellis Strategies. Three in five student parents had experienced housing insecurity in the previous 12 months, and one in five had very low food security.

    A January brief by Generation Hope identified housing as a key area for colleges to expand support for parenting students, since a lack of secure housing can impede students’ degree progress as well as negatively impact the socioemotional development of their dependents.

    For decades, Wilson College in Pennsylvania has offered special housing to single parents enrolled at the institution, alleviating financial barriers to on-campus living and providing greater access to educational resources. The Single Parent Scholar Program has helped dozens of single parents persist and opened doors for their children to be exposed to postsecondary education in a unique way.

    “It breaks my heart to think people would ever have to choose between your child and your education, so we’re trying to take that awful choice away,” said Katie Kough, dean of students at Wilson College. “You don’t have to make that choice.”

    Paving new ground: Wilson College was founded as a women’s college in 1869 and in 1996 first started the Single Parent Scholar Program—then called the Women With Children program—as a way to serve single mothers in the area.

    Historical data shows single parents are less likely to enroll and complete a degree, which negatively affects their earning potential over time and can create generational impact on their socioeconomic situation.

    A brief by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that only 28 percent of single mothers who entered college between 2003 and 2009 earned a degree or certificate within six years, compared to 40 percent of married mothers and 57 percent of women without children. Single mothers are also more likely to have higher levels of debt and financial insecurity while enrolled, according to the brief.

    “I’ve always said [supporting single mothers] was the right thing to do, but it was a brave thing to do,” Kough said, noting that Wilson was one of the first colleges to do so. “There’s obviously been growing pains throughout the years, but since that time, the college has made a commitment to this population in helping them earn their degree.”

    How it works: As the name suggest, the Single Parent Scholar Program is open to unmarried students who have a dependent between the ages of 20 months and 10 years old. Wilson College has been coed since 2014, so single fathers are also eligible to participate.

    Program participants and their dependents reside in a modified student housing complex; each unit includes two bedrooms and a bathroom, and residents share a common lounge and kitchen space with their peers. The Single Parent Scholars Program can accommodate up to 12 students per year.

    The college subsidizes childcare in the local community, though the parent is responsible for providing transportation and shuttling their dependents on and off campus.

    Single parent scholars must purchase a meal plan, but their dependents eat for free at on-campus dining facilities. Many opt for the lowest-priced plan to maintain their SNAP eligibility, Kough said.

    Parents are also allowed to stay on campus during academic breaks and summer term, which helps provide some stability.

    The impact: Program eligibility is dependent on the age of the child, not the parent, so the students range in age from teens straight out of high school to those in their 20s or 30s. To date, all participants have been single mothers, which could be due in part to the type of student who seeks out Wilson, Kough said, or the small number of single fathers who enroll in higher education.

    The campus is welcoming to the parents and their dependents, offering various events and activities geared toward families, such as kid-friendly movie screenings and visits to the college farm. Many parents engage in athletics, clubs and other on-campus activities, allowing them to have the full college experience.

    “The kids are a blast—they’re a lot of fun and they bring a lot of joy to this campus,” Kough said. Dependents of program participants are given their own cap and gown to walk at graduation, and some children have returned to Wilson as legacies.

    Wilson College Single Parent Scholars alumnae say the program helped them achieve their dreams through providing housing and community.

    Program alumnae also note the value of living in community with other single parents who are working toward the same goal of earning a bachelor’s degree.

    “I’m proud of the women who have come in, perhaps giving up a lot. In some cases, they gave up houses and apartments and jobs with some immediate gratification of a paycheck, just putting all that aside for a dream that was down the road,” Kough said. “It’s hard to put into words but it certainly makes a lot of the struggle and the work absolutely worth it.”

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Student Housing: A Question of Density

    Student Housing: A Question of Density

    (Or, why students get the halls they want but can’t afford rather than the ones they don’t and can.)

    David Tymms is a strategic advisor at QX Global. He previously held roles at London School of Economics as Director of Residential Services and at iQ Student Accommodation as Commercial Director.

    Student Numbers

    The number of full-time university students has grown rapidly in recent years according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), rising by nearly a quarter in the last half decade to 2.36 million in 2022/23. Figures have risen most for students who are typically the main drivers of purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) demand. ​Since 2014/15, the number of full-time international students has risen 81%. As a result, core demand – first-year UK undergraduates, international undergraduates and all postgraduates – now accounts for 61% of the UK’s full-time student population, adding additional pressure on the sector to deliver purpose-built housing.​

    Unmet core demand (‘000s)

    Source: JLL; HESA

    Changing wealth profiles

    In recent years, there has been a significant increase in participation rates from lower-income households as widening participation strategies begin to bear fruit and tuition fees continue to fall in real terms (the recent inflation uplift notwithstanding). ​Despite considerable noise about access to HE in the UK, data shows the two lowest quintiles of household wealth have seen the highest rates of growth in student numbers over the last five years, with the figure from the most deprived quintile rising an impressive 29% between 2018/19 and 2022/23. In that same period, the number from the least deprived quintile grew by just 2.4%. International patterns are also changing as growth from China slows and lower-income students from the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere come to the fore.

    Full-time domestic students by household wealth, England

    chart visualization

    Source: JLL; HESA

    The Decline in Applications

    Nevertheless, new hurdles seem set to slow several years of unabated growth, particularly for international students. Visa restrictions introduced in January 2023 bar most from bringing their families to the UK while Nigeria, recently the third largest international student cohort in the UK, faces a currency crisis that may continue to impact applications in years to come.​ Sponsored study visa applications from January to October 2024 (350,700) were 16% lower than for the same period in 2023. With the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) also reporting a small fall in undergraduate applications, the various data sets point to a tough period ahead for UK HE.

    New Build PBSA Viability

    PBSA, in common with other real estate sectors, has been heavily squeezed by rising construction, raw material, financing and regulatory costs, including the new Building Safety Act. Today, delivery in all but the highest value markets (min. £200pw+) remains, at best, challenging and in most cases unviable, thereby excluding many university towns and cities.

    University of Bath PBSA Study

    So what does this changing student demography and tightening development viability mean for PBSA, where falling levels of new scheme openings have resulted in a record core demand level of 61%?

    Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) worked with a group of business students at the University of Bath to better understand the PBSA priorities of those studying in the UK. ​

    How would the following affect your decision in choosing student halls?

    chart visualization

    Source: JLL; University of Bath

    The research demonstrates that students still prioritise a single occupancy room with en suite bathroom. Twin rooms scored very poorly and only one third of students actively favoured catered accommodation. The results also confirm that students prefer ‘cluster flat’ accommodation types over studios and smaller apartments (4-6 sharers) over large. However, only 29% are prepared to pay more than £200pw.

    University Partnerships – The Opportunities and Challenges

    So how does the sector square the circle of delivering more viable – and thus affordable – room types given the clear evidence of students’ perceived priorities? ​Twins, non en suites, larger cluster flats and catered accommodation all provide potentially many more beds per land parcel. The Bath survey and other research, including by Student Crowd, is clear that these remain unpopular with students so we should be unsurprised developers and operators of ‘direct let beds’ generally build to these perceived priorities.

    Historically, one approach to increase PBSA density, and thus viability, has been university partnerships. This route sees occupancy either partially or completely de-risked for the accommodation provider. However, developing university partnerships can be challenging given the financial constraints in HE, the balance sheet treatment of such agreements and currently volatile student numbers. The Office for Students (OfS) recently forecast that 72% of institutions could have a deficit in 2025/26. Nevertheless, recent examples such as Unite Group’s deal with University of Newcastle and Urbanest’s with UCL, amongst others, show these challenges can be overcome, although examples are rarer for post-92 institutions. As Martin Blakey concluded in his recent HEPI Blog – Student Accommodation after 2024 and the Need for Strategic Realignment – ‘growth in student numbers no longer necessarily equates with the need for additional PBSA student bed spaces as has been the case over the last 20 years: future needs are changing and future accommodation provision cannot, for a whole variety of reasons, be more of the same’.

    Conclusions​

    The ‘direct let’ operators of PBSA, who dominate the UK market, face a challenging period ahead as they wrestle with development viability in all but a handful of markets and where their standing assets in some locations are becoming overpriced.  If the PBSA sector does not evolve, it risks forcing the fast-growing, lower income, domestic student population into different rental sectors (or to commute) and potentially damaging access to UK universities from emerging middle-income countries.

    This blog could not have been produced without the kind assistance of Marcus Dixon and Karl Tomusk at JLL.

    To download the full report please click here.

    Source link