For community college administrators, the numbers are hard to ignore. Statistics related to mental health tell the story of an undeniable impact on students across the nation.
In the community college context, half of the students reported mental health challenges in a 2023 national survey. Two in three said they felt nervous, anxious or on edge. And a 2024 Community College Research Center study found that mental health challenges play a larger role in student persistence than basic needs insecurity, even as financial hardship remains widespread among community college students. While the latter study did not establish causality, the strength of the association raises implications for student progress and institutional outcomes.
For the 40% of all U.S. undergraduates who begin their academic journey at a community college, well-being investments are not a luxury. They are a lifeline, a path to a brighter future and a means of emancipation from intergenerational poverty. Yet, community colleges have historically been the last sector of higher education to invest in comprehensive, integrated well-being offices, programs and services, and the last to commit to dedicated, senior-level well-being leadership positions. A growing body of research makes the case for a structural solution: the senior well-being officer, or SWO.
A crisis that cuts deeper at two-year schools
Community colleges serve students vulnerable to mental health challenges — low-income learners, first-generation students, underrepresented students, adult learners, parenting students and veterans. Research confirms that the mental health experience documented at four-year universities extends to community colleges in comparable and sometimes more pronounced ways.
First-generation students, heavily represented at two-year institutions, face a unique constellation of barriers. Many experience mental health challenges negatively impacting their academic success, and about a third struggle to understand where to turn for these concerns. These mental health conditions are negatively associated with persistence and credit accumulation, showing a stronger relationship with these outcomes than measures of food and housing insecurity. When mental health needs go unaddressed, students are less likely to persist and accumulate credits — outcomes that place degree completion at risk for community college students.
What a senior well-being officer actually does
The SWO model emerged in higher education in the early 2010s at large research universities like The Ohio State University. The role supervises and coordinates myriad offices (e.g., counseling and psychological services, health services, recreation, prevention programming, sexual and interpersonal violence prevention, Title IX, and health promotion, among others), unified under a single strategic vision. The SWO seeks to improve population health initiatives while enhancing a culture of well-being across the institution. Critically, this leader has direct access and the power to advocate for changes to senior leadership.
That executive access matters. Well-being programs siloed within student services units frequently lack the authority, budgetary or cross-campus influence needed to drive systemic change. An SWO reporting to a president or other senior leader has the authority to convene stakeholders across student support, academic affairs, operations, athletics and financial aid — departments whose policies determine student well-being in ways that counseling alone cannot reach. When an institution establishes and empowers an SWO role with direct presidential reporting and oversight of multiple units and offices, it sends a clear message: “Well-being is a strategic priority, a critical institutional value, and not a superfluous, dispensable concern.”
The community college case is distinct — and urgent
Community college students typically commute, work many hours per week, and, as transactional consumers, infrequently access the touchpoints — dining halls, residence halls, recreation centers — that provide exposure to resources at four-year schools. They are also significantly more likely to be navigating familial responsibilities, parenting, and experiencing housing instability and food insecurity alongside their coursework. They bring a suite of basic needs insecurities that complicate and influence their ability to succeed — considerations that necessitate the type of cross-functional coordination the SWO is uniquely suited to champion.
Mental health is increasingly understood as a foundational need that shapes how students experience and respond to other basic needs challenges. The 2023 Community College Survey of Student Engagement found that 66% of respondents reported feeling nervous, anxious or on edge for at least several days in the two weeks before the survey, and roughly 26% likely met criteria for a depressive disorder. Despite these numbers, community colleges have historically underfunded the mental health and well-being infrastructure. A study of eight community colleges found that limited resources, lack of support from leadership, and challenges identifying and connecting students were among the most consistent barriers to effective well-being programming.The SWO model directly addresses that gap.
Prevention, not just treatment
One of the most compelling arguments for the SWO model is its emphasis on population-level prevention and systems and settings methods, facilitated through a collective impact approach. Counseling centers are often constrained by limited staff and a reliance on students to seek services — students must develop awareness, surmount stigma, navigate buildings and self-identify to access services. Many, particularly those from underrepresented groups, never do.
An SWO can reorient an institution toward upstream interventions — creating a strategic vision, engaging the community in shared goals, aligning and integrating offices, embedding well-being in academic affairs, training faculty and staff in early identification and referral, investing in peer support networks, and funding campus-wide programs that reach students who might never seek traditional therapy. They can leverage strategic convening power to address policies and procedures, galvanizing communities around comprehensive models. They define systems approaches through a range of communication, collaborative and influencing behaviors, supporting student success. This impact influences mental health and well-being (e.g., physical health, belongingness, financial security, basic needs security, sexual and reproductive health).
Return on investment
Increasingly, campus leaders and administrators must justify every budgetary line item and dollar. Supporting the argument for institutional investment is the fact that the economics (i.e., return on investment) of well-being are increasingly well-documented. Emotional stress, mental health and tuition cost were identified as the three primary reasons students drop out in a 2023 Gallup poll of more than 14,000 students.
At two-year colleges, where retention rates are low compared to four-year institutions, even modest improvements driven by well-being investments amplify revenue. A student who withdraws due to unaddressed mental health concerns represents a significant personal loss. But strategically, withdrawals associated with mental health challenges often carry downstream financial consequences, reduced state funding tied to enrollment metrics, impacted viability and a diminished case for public support.
A model whose time has come
A recent EAB report identified the roles and responsibilities of the SWO, emphasizing the value of providing a campus-wide strategy to improve student health and well-being, offering visionary leadership and management for key units, and assessing services to improve outcomes. It includes a call to action to enhance student well-being through expertise in support of change. Community colleges — which serve as the primary entry point into postsecondary education for millions of historically underserved Americans — are uniquely positioned and obligated to answer that call.
Establishing a SWO does not require a Research 1 (R1) university budget, and implementation will — and should — vary based on institutional size, governance structure and available resources. However, it requires treating well-being as a strategic and essential function, not as a funding afterthought. Investing in a leader with the seasoned expertise, authority, collaborative skills, political acumen and public health orientation to build a culture of well-being that reaches all students is critical. Finding the institutional initiative to address holistic well-being is no longer a luxury: it is a financial and ethical imperative.
