Task Force on Health and Well Being: Progress Report
April 2004
In January 2004, the Task Force on Health and Well Being issued a report that described
its progress over its first four months of work. In that report, we proposed a set of principles that
might guide the University in its consideration of issues related to health and well being;
presented background information and some initial findings and recommendations; identified a
number of major needs and challenges; and outlined a work plan for the spring. This report
presents additional findings and recommendations and identifies work that the task force will do
over the summer to refine its proposals and look carefully at costs, priorities, potential sources of
funding, and staffing and space implications in preparation for a final report next fall.
Topics covered in the January report included University Health Services (UHS), the
Student Health Plan (SHP), the employee benefits program, work-life issues, child care, and
issues of particular concern to undergraduates, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, faculty,
staff, and retirees. This report will not repeat the material provided in the January report, but it
does build on that report and interested readers are encouraged to refer to it. It can be found,
along with this report, on the task force website at www.princeton.edu/hwbtf.
Like the January report, this one does not attempt to be all-encompassing. One of the
lessons we have learned is that there are very few University policies, services, or actions that do
not in one way or another have an impact on the health and well being of members of this
community. We also have learned that almost every member of the community has ideas about
how the health and well being of particular individuals—or of the community as a whole—could
be improved. There are a number of topics that we believe are worth further consideration and
attention, but that we will not address in this report.
In some cases this is because the topic falls outside our purview or is already being
addressed by others. One good example is the provision of additional, affordable, and accessible
housing for graduate students and post-docs, as well as for faculty and staff. We are persuaded
that the availability of sufficient affordable and accessible housing plays a significant role in the
health and well being of members of our community who want to live close to campus but whose
financial circumstances make it difficult for them to find such housing. The University has
identified the provision of additional housing as a priority and is already developing plans to
more fully meet these needs, and it has instituted several shuttle systems that connect University
housing (as well as faculty/staff parking locations) to the main campus.
Other good examples are programs and strategies to address issues related to the abuse
and excessive use of alcohol by undergraduates and issues related to sexual harassment and
assault. These areas are being addressed by several offices and initiatives, and the task force
believes that they deserve continuing and high priority attention. Similarly, the University has
made significant progress in recent years in addressing issues related to the wage levels of lower
paid members of the staff. Here too we believe that continuing vigilance is necessary to be sure
that the University is treating all members of the community fairly and with respect.
2
Some of the topics that we will not address in this report will appear in our final report.
One example is recommendations regarding retirees. Other topics may not be addressed in our
reports, but they have received our attention, and in some cases have been referred to others who
are in a better position to pursue them. One overarching recommendation that we will not repeat
in each section below but that has pervaded all of our discussions involves the importance of
better communication so all members of our community are aware of the programs and benefits
that are available to them; so they know how to take full advantage of them; and so there can be
greater synergy in addressing issues that cross office or departmental boundaries (through
collaboration, for example, between University Health Services and the fitness and wellness
programs at Dillon Gym, or between UHS and the residential colleges and eating clubs). One
recommendation that was made to us on several occasions is that the University make an even
greater effort to inform incoming students and their parents of the health, wellness, and fitness
services available to students and that the residential colleges and resident advisers make even
greater efforts to reinforce this message early in the fall term. We are still developing a
recommendation for a work-life office that could provide faculty and staff with information
about a broad range of University and community services and programs that could help them
achieve a better balance between family and work. It has also been suggested that the University
reinforce messages about health and well being whenever possible through the home page and
other means of communication.
This report begins with a brief review of our activities over these past three months. We
then present recommendations in the following areas:
The Provision of Health and Wellness Services: University Health Services (5-9)
The Student Health Plan (9-12)
The Provision of Fitness and Recreation Services: Dillon Gym (12-15)
The Integration of Health, Wellness, and Fitness Services (15-16)
Nutrition (16-18)
Faculty/Staff Issues (18-21)
Post-Docs (21-22)
Child Care (22-23)
In a concluding section we outline our plans for the summer as we move toward a final
report next fall.
Recent Activities
Focus Groups
The most ambitious undertaking of the task force this spring has been focus group
discussions with undergraduates, graduate students, post-docs, faculty, administrative staff, biweekly staff, and retirees. These focus groups were designed both to inform our deliberations
and to shape a survey of all of these groups that is being distributed by the Survey Research
Center. The results of the survey will be available to us as we continue our work this summer.
3
At the risk of oversimplification, the undergraduate focus groups emphasized the
importance of better communication about what is available at UHS and under the SHP; the
importance of expanding and improving mental health services, dental care, and access to fitness
facilities; and the importance of addressing issues related to stress reduction and nutrition.
Undergraduates were interested in an integrated health-wellness-fitness center, especially if it
served to encourage students to make a more significant commitment to healthier living patterns.
Major themes that emerged from the graduate student groups were the importance of
adequate and affordable housing close to campus; concerns about some of the provisions of the
student health plan and the cost for dependents; a desire to improve dining and nutrition; an
interest in providing some decentralization in fitness/wellness programs (e.g., providing some
programs at the Graduate College and incorporating some fitness facilities into graduate housing
areas); and concerns about the status of post-enrolled graduate students.
In the focus groups with administrators and bi-weekly staff, major themes included a
desire for respect and appreciation for what they do; for greater flexibility in hours of work and
in uses of vacation time and sick leave; and for a stronger institutional message that it is
acceptable, even desirable, to take time during the day for exercise or renewal. Stress was
identified as the most pressing employee health issue. There was also considerable interest in
expanding the health care plans to cover preventative care, including incentives for exhibiting
healthy behaviors (exercising, smoking cessation, weight loss); in increasing staff access to
Dillon through expanded hours and reduced fees; and in additional work/life services. Interest in
an integrated wellness center was mixed with caution about too much centralization.
Faculty expressed concern about the needs of graduate students and post-docs; interest in
a more creative flex-time program for staff that would better serve faculty needs; and support for
greater efforts to educate the community about health care, wellness, and health insurance
options. Faculty ranked parking as one of the most vexing quality of life concerns on campus.
Surveys
In addition to conducting its own survey among students, faculty, staff, and retirees on a
range of health and well being issues, the task force recommended that the University contract
with an outside company (Bright Horizons) to help it conduct a comprehensive child care needs
assessment. Bright Horizons is one of the most highly regarded companies in the child care
field, and it has a consulting division that has performed similar assessments for a number of our
peer institutions (including Yale and Duke) and for several major New Jersey companies. As
part of this assessment, Bright Horizons will be conducting a survey about child care needs and
issues among faculty and staff, graduate students, and post-docs. We expect to receive its report
over the summer. The task force conducted a user survey at Dillon Gym in late February to learn
more about who uses Dillon and for what purposes.
Site Visit
A delegation of students and staff visited the University of California at Berkeley and
Stanford in late January. Again at the risk of oversimplifying, the Berkeley visit allowed for
4
inspection of a facility that does link health care and wellness programs; contracts with outside
specialists for onsite visits at a lower cost than outside visits; offers a variety of screening
programs for faculty and staff; has put together an extensive community network of work-life
organizations; and has a standing work-life committee that meets regularly and identifies priority
issues. With respect to child care, Berkeley provides 250 spaces for the children of students and
48 spaces for faculty and staff.
Stanford's work-life office includes 2.5 full time equivalents (FTEs), who devote about
70% of their time to child care, 20% to elder care, and 10% to other services. Stanford provides
565 on-campus day care spaces in 6 facilities. It also provides child care subsidies, up to $5,000
per family, that can be used anywhere, at a total cost of over $1 million a year. Stanford has a
large health promotion staff dedicated to student health issues and 4 FTEs in their employee
assistance program. The EAP program offers counseling, workshops, and support groups for
drugs and alcohol, grief, anger management, skill building, racial issues, writing improvement,
etc. The group found Stanford's health center, and the process by which it was planned, very
appealing. The architect for the center, Curtis Snyder ’68 P’06, specializes in campus health
facilities. While on campus for Alumni Day he met with several members of the task force and
gave a presentation about his work.
Other Activities
Members of the task force discussed their initial report with the CPUC in February and
have continued to receive comments through the task force website. They met with an outside
expert on student health plans, who suggested that the University think about increasing the
premiums for its SHP (which are significantly lower than our peer institutions) and use the
additional revenues to improve mental health and prescription drug coverage (areas in which
Princeton lags behind its peers) and to reduce fees for dependent coverage. He also suggested
that we think about a model that other universities have adopted, under which UHS might
purchase some percentage of time of local physicians to practice on campus as part of the overall
UHS program. (This is a topic we plan to explore further over the summer.) Members of the
task force also have met with providers of employee assistance programs and work-life services,
and with an expert on prescription drug programs. At its February meeting, the task force
reviewed the SHP and met with Stu Orefice, the director of Dining Services, to learn about
initiatives under way in that department to provide nutritional information to students and to
create healthier menus. At its March meeting, the task force reviewed programming at Dillon
gym and devoted several hours to the initial preparation of this report.
Throughout the spring there has been clear evidence of community interest in the work of
the task force. There seems to be wide recognition that both University Health Services (located
at McCosh Health Center) and Dillon gym are straining at the seams, and that this will only
increase when the University adds additional students. There is strong support not only for
enhancing our clinical programs (especially with respect to mental health), but for improving our
fitness, wellness, prevention, and health education programs, expanding opportunities for healthy
eating, improving the Student Health Plan, and significantly expanding access to child care.
5
The Provision of Health and Wellness Services: University Health Services
Our January report documented the significant, growing, and too-often unmet demands
on UHS and on the McCosh Health Center that serves as its primary location. Our continuing
review persuades us that UHS needs enhanced staffing in a number of critical clinical,
administrative, and support positions to meet a demand for services that already is growing, and
is likely to grow even more when the University begins to increase the size of the undergraduate
student body in 2007. (At that time the University will also introduce four-year residential
colleges, and we hope that the planning for those colleges will explore opportunities for UHS to
provide additional health education, disease prevention, and wellness programs in the colleges.)
Our recommendations below focus only on what we believe to be the University’s immediate
and mid-term needs for medical, mental health, health education, and support services. They are
consistent with other recommendations in recent years from the UHS’s outside advisory council
and the Student Health Advisory Board.
We also recommend that UHS strongly consider providing some urgent primary care for
faculty and staff at McCosh Health Center and provide a meaningful program of annual health
screenings for faculty and staff (e.g., cancer prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular health
screening, hypertension, etc.).
Mental Health Services
Like other colleges and universities, Princeton has seen a dramatic increase in recent
years in the demand for mental health services by undergraduates and graduate students and in
the severity of mental health conditions that need to be treated. This academic year alone,
Princeton students have been hospitalized off campus 18 times for serious mental health
disorders, and psychiatry-related admissions to the UHS inpatient service, which increased by
111% between academic years 2001-02 and 2002-03, are up 43% this year. There is also a
growing demand for a full range of mental health services: following a 33% growth over the past
three years, individual therapy sessions are up by 15% this year in the Counseling and
Psychological Services (CPS) unit at UHS; psychiatric consultations, which grew by 80% in the
past three years and are being capped this year for budgetary reasons, are up an additional 8%
this year; and the Crisis Team, a new service instituted this year, is unable to meet the daily
demand for urgent evaluation appointments and at one point this spring the wait for an elective
counseling appointment approached 30 days. UHS is currently providing onsite office space to
two private practice psychiatrists in order to offer additional access to mental health services for
Princeton students, but this is not sufficient to meet the demand. Benchmarking reveals that
Princeton lags behind many of its sister institutions in employing salaried staff psychiatrists in
their mental health units.
Recommendations for Mental Health Services

Provide an emergency infusion of funding to provide more psychiatric consultation hours
in the immediate short term. (Such funding has been approved by the provost for the
remainder of this semester.)
6


Create permanent, full time psychiatry positions within the CPS unit at UHS within the
next 12 months.
Increase CPS staff positions and duty time to provide additional emergency assessment,
crisis intervention, substance abuse services, and group and individual therapy services as
well as positions devoted to education, outreach, screening, and prevention related to
depression, eating disorders, alcohol, and other drug and stress-related disorders.
Medical Services
The total number of outpatient encounters at UHS, which includes urgent care, scheduled
appointments, and after hours care, has increased by 20% in the past three years, and demand for
inpatient care services has increased as well. This year, urgent care encounters are up by 27%,
after hour visits have increased by 54%, and inpatient admissions are 52% higher.
Recommendations for Medical Services at UHS




Provide additional triage nursing and clinical nurse practitioner staff to improve access to
urgent care during regular business hours.
Provide weeknight and weekend triage, clinical nursing, and support staff to improve
access to after hours care for students.
Increase floor nursing and nurses aide staff to improve the quality of care and adequate
coverage of students admitted to the inpatient medical service.
Increase support services staff in appropriate proportion to the additional professional
staff recommended above and in the sections below.
Health Promotion and Wellness Services
Some of the most powerful tools that can be mobilized to improve the health and well
being of all who live and work on campus are programs dedicated to health education, health risk
assessment screening, early intervention, and disease management. These kinds of programs
were strongly supported by all of the focus groups, and we believe that the University should
play a much more active role not only in providing these kinds of programs, but in providing
them at times and in locations that encourage maximum participation. Even at existing staffing
levels, UHS has been able to provide a number of very successful programs, including the
campus–wide FluFest and Cirque de Sante; depression screening days for students and
employees; breast health and mammogram screening; high risk drinking social marketing
campaigns; eating concerns and weight management programs; and stress buster events. (In
addition, Dillon offers screenings each semester in body composition, blood pressure, and
flexibility.) To be able to offer a broader range of programs, Princeton needs to go beyond the
current staffing of one ten-month health promotion/education professional and begin to build a
robust Health Promotion and Wellness Services program. During our site visit to UC Berkeley
and Stanford, we found that both of those universities have much more fully realized health
promotion units. MIT’s health education/promotion services are staffed by 6 FTEs; Columbia’s
and Cornell’s by 7 FTEs. The units at many of our sister institutions are composed of full time
experts in such critical areas as depression and suicidality, alcohol and other drugs, eating and
nutrition concerns, sexual health, and peer health education. For Princeton to move to the ranks
7
of best practices in health education and preventive programming, additional staffing and
funding for expanded programmatic efforts are urgently needed.
Recommendations for Health Promotion, Education, and Wellness Services



Fund additional professional and support staff positions to develop a fully realized health
promotion and education unit.
Provide programmatic support for fully realized health promotion programs dedicated to
* depression awareness and suicide prevention
* eating concerns and healthy nutrition
* health screening programs for students, faculty, and staff focused on weight
management, smoking cessation, alcohol and other drug abuse, hypertension,
and diabetes.
Create a UHS health education and self-care satellite services office in the Frist Campus
Center that would be available to provide advice and assistance whenever Frist is open.
Nutritional Counseling Services
One of the lessons we have learned from other universities is that those who have made
the greatest headway in addressing a broad range of concerns related to nutrition and eating
disorders have done so by employing professional nutritionists on their health services staffs.
Princeton currently provides only six (unfunded) hours a week of clinical nutritional
consultation, directed primarily to students with severe eating disorders.
Recommendation for Clinical Nutritional Consultation

Hire a permanent professional clinical nutritionist to begin building a nutrition counseling
program to address the needs of:
* students with eating disorders
* students with metabolic disorders such as diabetes and obesity
* students, staff, and faculty with weight management concerns
* student athletes with training-related nutrition and weight management concerns
* students, staff, and faculty who want advice on and access to healthier eating.
Physical Therapy Services
A very high percentage of Princeton students engage in vigorous physical activities, such
as varsity, club, and intramural sports and performance arts. A significant number of graduate
students also participate in sports, fitness, and recreational activities. While the University offers
comprehensive physical therapy and rehabilitation services for varsity athletes on a daily basis,
similar services for injuries unrelated to organized athletics (e.g., repetitive stress syndrome from
computer usage, injuries related to dance and musical performance, etc.) are not available and
physical therapy for non-varsity athletic injuries is limited to three four-hour sessions a week in a
crowded and inadequate facility at Dillon gym.
8
Recommendations for Physical Therapy Services


Hire additional permanent physical therapy staff dedicated to:
* injuries resulting from fitness or recreational activities
* non-athletic injury physical therapy services
* physical therapy services for non-varsity athletes
* injury prevention programs for students, staff, and faculty related to repetitive stress,
low back pain and injury, etc.
Upgrade the facilities and equipment dedicated to physical therapy services at Dillon gym
to place them on a more equal par with those available to varsity athletes.
Sexual Harassment and Assault Services (SHARE)
The SHARE program offers confidential counseling, emergency services, support, and
information on legal and disciplinary options to students, faculty, and staff who have been
affected by sexual harassment, sexual assault, or harassment based on sexual orientation.
Currently, the program is staffed by one 10-month clinical psychologist/educator and one 10month part-time program assistant. The needs of the University community for SHARE services
extend over all 12 months and are growing.
Recommendation for SHARE

Hire additional professional and support staff for SHARE to provide more prevention,
training, counseling, and outreach services and make SHARE services available during
June, July, and August.
Summer Coverage for Mental Health, SHARE, and Health Education Programs and Services
A significant number of UHS staff are ten-month employees, and while UHS provides
outpatient services during regular business hours in the summer, there is no inpatient care or after
hours emergency care in the evenings or on weekends. This is especially problematical for
graduate students, who typically remain on campus during the summer and make extensive use
of UHS, but there are also a significant number of undergraduates who remain on campus over
the summer pursuing research or summer employment or training for athletic teams. Mental
health coverage in the summer is provided by one counselor in July and August; there is no
SHARE or athletic training coverage.
Recommendations for Summer Coverage

Provide budgetary support to allow UHS to increase key professional and support staff to
12-month duty time in order to provide additional summer coverage for:
* mental health services
* health promotion
* SHARE
* athletic training.
9
McCosh Health Center Facility
The recommendations presented above address concerns about staffing and program, but
we want to conclude this section with recommendations regarding the McCosh Health Center
facility which, as we noted in our January report, was constructed as an infirmary in 1925.
McCosh is a handsome building that has served the University exceedingly well and it is
lovingly and generously supported by the Auxiliary to the Isabella McCosh Infirmary. (The
“parent’s suite,” which is solely maintained by the Auxiliary, provides accommodations for
parents when their children are hospitalized or in the inpatient unit at UHS.) As wonderful as
this building is, it is increasingly hard pressed to support a contemporary and growing health
services program and an expanding student body. We believe it is time for the University to
assess the capacity of McCosh to meet the health services needs of the years ahead, and to begin
to consider (a) ways in which McCosh could be renovated and expanded; (b) the implications for
UHS if it were to operate from more than one location; and (c) what options might exist to
relocate UHS either to another stand-alone location or to a location in which it would be more
closely integrated with the fitness programs offered at Dillon gym (a topic we return to below).
The Student Health Plan
Our January report identified a number of concerns about the Student Health Plan (SHP),
which provides students with insurance coverage for off-campus health care. These concerns
related to its coverage for mental health care, prescription drugs, and dental and vision care; the
relatively high out-of-pocket costs that students incur under the plan; and the relatively high
premiums for dependent coverage (and for post-enrolled graduate students). We also noted a
number of improvements that had already been made in the plan this year, including the
extension of eligibility to same sex domestic partners and a significant expansion of coverage for
well-baby care. After carefully reviewing the plan and comparing it to our peer institutions, we
believe the SHP should be changed to better meet the needs of students and eligible dependents.
Our recommendations are presented below.
Plan Overview
New Jersey regulations require all students enrolled in an institution of higher education
to maintain health insurance coverage. Institutions are required to verify coverage and to offer
health insurance coverage for purchase by students.
Participation in the Princeton SHP is mandatory for all graduate students. Undergraduate
students may choose to waive out of the plan by providing certification of other health insurance
coverage. This year just under 45% of undergraduates have enrolled, resulting in a total
enrollment of 4,252. The fees for this year are as follows:
-- students, $730 per year;
-- dependents standard plan ($250 deductible), $2,840 per year for 1 dependent, $4,505
for two or more dependents;
-- dependents high deductible plan ($1,000 deductible), $2,630 per year for 1 dependent,
$4,080 for two or more dependents.
10
Post-enrolled Ph.D. candidates with DCC status (Degree Candidacy Continuing) may
elect to continue their SHP coverage and their access to UHS for one additional year and postenrolled master’s degree candidates may extend their coverage for five months by paying a
Student Health Fee. That fee next year will be $842.50 a semester or $1,685 a year. DCC
dependent fees are the same as other dependent fees.
The SHP provides coverage for off-campus medical and hospital services. In-network
office visits require a $10 co-pay, with the balance of the office visit expense being fully
covered. There is a $250 per student and $500 per family deductible each year for all other planeligible expenses with a maximum annual out-of-pocket expense of $5,000. All eligible
expenses are covered at 80% of charges after application of the deductible, with the exception of
outpatient mental health benefits where the plan covers 50% of up to 24 office visits per year.
The SHP is self-administered by the University, with all medical and prescription
expenses and all administrative costs supported by plan fees.
Recommendations
Outpatient Mental Health Expenses
The current plan covers 50% of the cost of outpatient visits for up to 24 visits per year.
In the Princeton area, the cost of a typical office visit ranges from $125 to $250. At $150 an
hour, the out-of-pocket expense to a student for 12 visits would be $900; for 24 visits it would be
$1,800. Statistics both nationally and at Princeton indicate that students are seeking treatment in
increasing numbers for a variety of psychiatric disorders, such as depression, anxiety disorders,
and substance abuse/dependence. In evaluating mental health benefits at our peer institutions,
we found that all of the schools cover at least 80% of the cost of outpatient mental health
expenses and provide higher allowances for the number of annual visits (typically 30 as
compared to our 24). In order to ensure that students are receiving adequate and appropriate
mental health care, we recommend that the design of the outpatient mental health benefit be
reviewed and modified to improve access and affordability. At a minimum, the plan benefit
should be increased from 50% to 80% to be consistent with the other covered benefits under the
plan and to be more in line with our peer institutions. It is also recommended that the University
consider providing more comprehensive mental health care on-site at UHS. Some of our peer
institutions now offer unlimited psychotherapy sessions in their on-campus mental health units
based on medical necessity.
Prescription Drugs
The Medco Health prescription drug plan that was introduced in March 2001 provides
enrolled students with access to drug discounts. The current plan design provides 80% coverage
for the cost of prescription drugs after the satisfaction of deductibles. Students are required to
pay for the prescriptions and then submit their receipts for reimbursement to the third party
claims administrator. This process is both cumbersome and time-consuming. For some students
the initial outlay for required prescriptions may be prohibitive. It is recommended that the
11
current design of the prescription drug benefit be modified to eliminate the cumbersome
reimbursement claims process.
Dependent Fees
Concerns regarding the cost of eligible dependents to participate in the SHP have been
voiced by graduate students for a number of years. For the current plan year, the fee for one
dependent under the standard plan is $2,840; for 2 or more dependents it is $4,505. Next year
the fees will increase to $3,010 and $4,780 respectively. It is the understanding of the task force
that when dependents were first added to the plan, fees were comparable to the rates charged for
dependent care by peer institutions. Our rates for dependents continue to be comparable to our
peer group. However, when we compare our rates to insured student health plans, our rates are
higher. For insured plans, dependent rates are usually 1.5 to 2.5 times the student rate for one
dependent, rather than 3.5 to 4.5 times the student rate as is the case currently at Princeton.
Consistent with the belief that we expressed in our January report that “Princeton should become
a friendlier place for graduate students with children,” we recommend that the dependent rate be
lowered to afford better access to the plan. We understand that since Princeton’s plan is selfinsured, any decrease in dependent rates must be offset either by an increase in the student rate or
a contribution by the University to subsidize dependent costs.
Deductibles/Out-of-Pocket Expenses
The current plan design includes a number of deductible and out-of-pocket expense
components, as follows: $10 office visit co-pay; $250 per student/$500 per family annual
deductible; 20% of cost for all eligible expenses except outpatient mental health, which is 50%
of cost. The maximum annual out-of-pocket expense is $5,000. We recommend that the plan
design be modified and simplified to reduce out-of-pocket expenses. This could be
accomplished by increasing annual fees and/or through the application of standard co-payments
(i.e., $20 for each office visit or eligible expense). Serious consideration should also be given to
lowering the plan’s deductibles, which would also have a beneficial effect on prescription drug
out-of-pocket costs and office visit expenses.
Dental Health
The SHP provides a preventive dental benefit up to $125 per plan year (deductible not
applicable). In addition, beginning in 2001 a separate Dental Health Plan was offered to students
with the University subsidizing 50% of the cost. The plan is limited, however, and students have
difficulty traveling to the participating dentists. We recommend that the University, in
conjunction with the plan sponsor, develop strategies to improve access to quality dental care.
One method might be to bring dentists to UHS on a periodic but regular basis.
Mandatory Enrollment
In the past, all undergraduates as well as all graduate students were required to participate
in the SHP. In the early 1990s this practice was changed so that mandatory participation applied
only to graduate students, with undergraduates being able to waive out of the plan by providing
12
evidence of other health insurance. The task force looked carefully at whether it should
recommend returning to a mandatory program for undergraduates to improve provision and
coordination of off-campus care, reduce administrative costs associated with the waiver process,
and possibly reduce fees by increasing enrollment. Requiring all students to enroll in the SHP
could yield significant improvements in the timeliness and quality of treatment. However, given
the fact that none of our peer institutions requires mandatory participation in their plans, we are
not recommending that undergraduate participation in the SHP be made mandatory at this time.
Reduced Costs for DCCs
Of the 200 or more post-enrolled graduate students each year, only about 100 fail to
qualify for employee health benefits as lecturers, fellows, or pre-doctoral research assistants.
Our understanding is that the Dean of the Graduate School would support a reduction in the
health fee for DCC students for the one year that they are eligible for that status. Therefore, we
recommend that the University consider reducing the SHP fee for DCCs to the same fee that is
charged to other graduate students, which has the effect of not charging DCCs an added amount
for the one year of continued access to UHS.
SHP Fees
As we compared Princeton’s Student Health Program with peer institutions and found it
lagging behind with respect to the areas of coverage and plan design that our recommendations
are intended to improve, we also discovered that Princeton’s fees were well below most of its
peers. For example, Princeton’s student fee of $730 per year compares to $1,142 a year at
Harvard, $1,568 a year at Brown, and $1,708 at Penn. We believe that it would be appropriate to
increase Princeton’s fee to a level more comparable to its peers in order to offset the additional
costs that will be incurred to implement our recommendations for expanded coverage, improved
plan design, and lower costs for dependents.
The Provision of Fitness and Recreation Services:
Dillon Gym
In response to our January report, we received the following message on our website:
“First, thanks to the task force for asking for university-wide suggestions. It would be
great if the Stephens Fitness Room could be enlarged or another area like it created with … a
cleaner and larger stretch area (that black mat is tiny and disgusting, sorry to say); more cardio
equipment, especially treadmills (at least one out of eight machines seems to be out of
commission most days of the week) and the average wait for a machine during primetime is 1215 minutes; possibly a staff-faculty fitness area so that staff—who have the least flexible
schedules in the University community—can have access to fitness equipment at the end of the
day. Of course, many are hoping that with the addition of 500 more students the University will
build a new gym complex with truly useful spaces. The folks running Dillon are doing a great
job with a small resource needed to serve a large population. A new facility designed to serve
students, staff, and faculty would go a long way toward achieving the goal of improving the
health and well being of the community.”
13
Other comments on the website echoed these points and proposed that the pool have
longer hours of operation; the gym open earlier in the morning for those who don’t have mid-day
or end-of-day flexibility; there be more classes aimed primarily at members of the staff; fees be
reduced for staff in lower salary ranges and some courses be offered for free; towels be provided;
and the University encourage more use of outdoor recreation facilities, especially tennis.
From the comments we received, our user survey, our comparisons with peer institutions,
and our extensive discussions with Dillon staff, we conclude that Dillon is a heavily used facility
that offers an impressive array of programs and services, despite the constraints of staffing and
space; that many are frustrated by the design of the building and the difficulty of making use of it
at times that are convenient for them; that many members of the community do not make use of
Dillon either because they are not aware of its offerings, are uncomfortable using it, or because
of difficulties related to schedule or cost; and that Dillon does not compare well to fitness and
recreation facilities at our peer institutions. In our January report we took a first step toward
increasing awareness of the programs available at Dillon1 and shortly thereafter we asked a
member of the task force, Jonathan Baer, the director of Building Services, to arrange for
improvements in the cleanliness of Dillon and a number of long-deferred repairs. A number of
steps have been taken over the past several months, although there is still more to be done.
In the view of the task force, Dillon should serve the entire University community—
students, faculty, staff, and to a lesser extent local alumni. Currently a small number of nonaffiliated community members use the facilities at Dillon, but we believe that the primary focus
should be on the University community. Dillon should provide a full range of fitness and
recreational opportunities and facilities, along with appropriate support services such as child
care facilities either onsite or nearby which would allow parents to use Dillon more easily.
Currently not enough is done to provide ease of use and access for faculty and staff.
We have organized our recommendations into short-term, mid-term, and longer-term:
Short-term Recommendations

Institute Friday night programs at Dillon (say 6-10 p.m.) where parents can drop off their
children to take part in organized athletic/fun activities or to work out.

Communicate Dillon programs and policies better so people know they can take a
physical education class for a week to try it and get their money back if they don’t like it.

Create a fair for physical education classes where members of the University community
can learn about the various classes offered, meet the instructors, ask questions.
As part of Dillon’s physical education program, more than 3,000 members of the campus community participate in
206 classes in 10 core areas: aquatics, dance, fitness programs, group fitness, racquet sports, spinning, self-defense,
special interest (e.g., golf, figure skating), wellness classes (e.g., yoga, tai chi), and wellness programs (e.g., weight
management). In addition to 32 club sports, it has an intramural sports program with 328 teams in 23 team sports, 8
individual sports, and 7 meets and tournaments. Dillon also sponsors a broad range of informal sports, a number of
special events, and a summer day camp that averages 76 children per week for six weeks.
1
14

Encourage the current Dillon staff to be more accessible and proactive in helping users.

Designate certain times during the day when trainers will be available to help users learn
how to use the equipment and give general fitness advice.

Eliminate the permit fee for bi-weekly staff or create a sliding scale based on ability to
pay to encourage greater use of Dillon by lower paid staff.

Continue the recent program to increase cleanliness, improve maintenance, and make
repairs.

Expand the hours of operation at Dillon to 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Current hours during
the week are 7:00 a.m. to 10:45 p.m.
Mid-term Recommendations

Devote areas in Dillon or a new fitness facility for faculty/staff use.

Create private shower and locker room areas.

Create an incentive plan to give frequent users of the fitness facilities certain benefits or
discounts.

Create a prox card system for Dillon, coordinating this project with the new ID cards
being created by OIT, so Dillon can track users more easily and coordinate incentive
plans. This system would also assist with security at Dillon—a large number enter the
facility illegally every day.

Implement a long-term replacement plan for all fitness equipment.

Include a child care center at Dillon or close by, so parents of young children can make
better use of the fitness facilities.
Longer-term Recommendations

2
Significantly renovate and expand Dillon, or construct a replacement facility, perhaps in
concert with a new health care facility. Dillon currently does not provide the fitness and
recreational services that are needed on campus, and these deficiencies will only be
exacerbated by the upcoming increase in the undergraduate student body.2
Among the features of such an expanded or replacement facility could be additional basketball and volleyball
courts, an indoor running track, a climbing wall, an expanded Stephens Fitness Center, additional classroom and
meeting space, more activity rooms and office space, a new spinning room, additional international squash courts,
racquetball courts, additional equipment storage rooms for club sports, a sauna-steam room, a healthy foods snack
bar, better locker/shower/restroom facilities, towel service, better cleaning/custodial service, handicap accessibility,
air conditioning in certain areas, a game room, a computer cluster, and a lounge area.
15

Benchmark not only against other leading universities but also against progressive
corporations offering state-of-the-art policies and facilities.

Through the maintenance and support of such a facility and in the policies that govern it,
send a message that fitness and health are highly valued and encourage students, faculty,
and staff to take full advantage of the new facilities.

Given the high volume of usage at Dillon for non-athletic/recreation/fitness events and
activities, consider building another facility (perhaps a roughly 2,500-seat multi-purpose
performing arts/conference center) that would be able to accommodate many of these
events.
While this section of our report is focused on Dillon, we don’t want to lose sight of the
desirability, at least in some circumstances, of providing opportunities for fitness and recreation
on a more decentralized basis. One of the virtues of concentrating most activity at Dillon is that
it is professionally staffed and maintained and that it is a location on campus that, like Frist,
brings together all of the groups that live and work on campus. But some non-athletes already
meet some of their fitness and recreation needs at DeNunzio Pool or Jadwin Gym and it is
possible that further recreational use of those facilities should be explored. It may make sense to
include modest fitness facilities in some of the graduate student housing areas, not to encourage
graduate students to exercise there instead of at Dillon, but to make it more likely that graduate
students will make time to exercise. We also would support other initiatives, such as the
introduction of yoga classes at the E-Quad, that make it more feasible for members of the faculty
and staff to make time for fitness and recreation without putting a significant demand on space or
staffing. We encourage further discussion of opportunities for fitness and recreation outside of
Dillon as part of an overall University strategy, but we do not believe that these kinds of
initiatives will obviate the need to create a larger, more utilized, and more user-friendly Dillon.
The Integration of Health, Wellness, and Fitness Services
In our survey of members of the University community, we pose the following questions:
“Over the next few years, it is likely that the University will expand both the mental
health and medical services provided by University Health Services, and the fitness and
recreation programs provided by the Department of Athletics. These changes would be made to
accommodate an increase in the undergraduate student body; to respond to changes in the fields
of health, fitness, and well being; and to meet the changing expectations of the University
community. It has been suggested that Princeton take advantage of the opportunity presented by
the need to expand both health services and fitness services to consider creating a combined and
integrated health and wellness facility. A combined facility could provide a more integrated
approach to addressing health and wellness issues and a more comprehensive evaluation of and
response to health and fitness needs. An integrated health and wellness facility could combine
and improve upon the kinds of medical, mental health, and educational services currently offered
by UHS with the wellness, fitness, recreation, and education programs currently offered by the
Department of Athletics. Services might also be expanded to include other wellness and work-
16
life services. In light of the need to evaluate and expand both the health and medical services
provided on campus, and the fitness and recreation opportunities available to the University
community, how supportive are you of the suggestion to consider an integrated health and
wellness center to meet the needs of the University community? If the services of an integrated
health and wellness center were available to you, how likely would you be to use these
services?”
The purpose of these questions is not to suggest a design or even a specific set of
components for an integrated center, but to ascertain the community’s response to the concept of
an integrated center—a concept that was met with enthusiasm in some focus groups, but with
caution and uncertainty in others. We believe that a carefully designed integrated facility could
create useful synergies and send a powerful message about the University’s commitment to
health, fitness, and well-being. On the other hand, we are sensitive to issues of scale and cost;
we understand the reservations of those who worry about whether such a facility would be trying
to serve too many purposes; and we appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by those
who live or work at some distance from where such a facility might be located. The concept of a
new integrated health and wellness center does have the endorsement of the Student Health
Advisory Board. Informed by the focus group discussions and survey results, we will give this
topic our careful attention over the summer and into the fall.
Nutrition
Concerns about nutrition emerged in our discussions with all groups on campus, and in
many cases were expressed with considerable urgency. Many members of our community want
to eat more healthfully, and to do this they believe they need both reliable information and
instruction and easier access to nutritious foods. In our meeting with Dining Services director
Stuart Orefice, we were impressed by his commitment to improving nutrition and by the steps
that he and his department have taken to provide information (now available online), to improve
the quality and nutritional value of food on campus, and to create more flexible dining options.
But we are also keenly aware of the limitations on what can be done within existing staffing and
budgetary constraints. This is an area where despite the best intentions, there seems to be a
widely held view that the University can and should do better.
Fundamentally, there are two main issues: (1) educating the campus community about
nutrition, and (2) the actual dining experience itself. We believe that both can be improved.
Education
Education includes ongoing, community-wide efforts to help the campus community be
better informed about nutrition—online information about menus is one example. Education
also includes helping those with eating disorders (usually students). Suggestions for
improvement follow:
1. The University currently employs only one nutritionist (in Dining Services) who has
other managerial responsibilities in addition to nutrition; it also provides 6 hours per week of
unbudgeted access to a clinical nutritionist in UHS for students with eating disorders. This level
17
of staffing is not sufficient to do everything that should be done to (a) oversee menu planning;
(b) develop and carry out an extensive communications and outreach program to encourage good
nutrition; (c) meet with students (e.g., diabetics) who need one-on-one help in matching dietary
requirements to dining services offerings; (d) work intensively with students engaged in athletics
and other physically demanding programs, such as dance; (e) work in conjunction with the
Eating Disorders Team; and (f) develop accurate, innovative, and creative education programs
targeted at the entire University community. In recommending that the University obtain
additional professional assistance in this area, we note that other universities have found it
beneficial to employ nutritionists in health services as well as in dining services.
2. With the number of students suffering from eating disorders (men as well as women)
apparently large and growing, we believe that there needs to be a more concerted effort to
identify those in need of assistance and encourage them to seek professional help. It is important
that student friends, coaches, and trainers know when and how they can approach students they
believe exhibit signs of an eating disorder and offer help.
3. Students should leave Princeton knowing what good nutrition is, having developed
good nutrition habits, and taking responsibility for their own good nutrition. Faculty and staff
should have opportunities to continue their “education” about nutrition. Possible education
efforts could include:
 Public lectures by food or nutrition experts, including faculty members and nationally
known figures such as Jane Brody, Marian Burros, and Alice Waters. Such lectures
could be coupled with meals in the colleges and Frist whenever possible.
 Mini seminar series on preparing nutritional, quick, affordable meals, perhaps
designed especially for seniors, graduate students, or independents.
 Cooking classes with University chefs open to all in the community, with an
emphasis on healthy eating.
 A Q&A or an FAQ web page with nutrition tips and information.
 Continuing education opportunities for chefs and cooks to increase their awareness of
techniques for cooking and preparing food in healthier ways.
We believe that these education efforts would be enhanced by having a specific location
on campus devoted to education and experience involving good food and good nutrition.
Specifically, we recommend that the Frist Beverage Lab be changed into the Frist Healthy Eating
Lab, featuring juice, salad, and fruit bars, entrees that are high in nutrients and vitamins but low
in fat and empty calories, and frequent demonstrations about eating and preparing healthy meals.
Perhaps someone like the Conscious Eating Chef Neff could offer cooking classes in the
laboratory and it could be used as a taste-testing site for recipes that would be used throughout
the dining services system. The lab should become a “destination” that people go out of their
way to try. The Beverage Lab is currently an underutilized resource; we believe the space could
be put to much better use to promote healthier eating. (One task force member would advocate a
much more aggressive approach to healthy eating by making all of Frist a healthy eating lab and
using the existing Beverage Lab space as the only remaining space to obtain such high fat foods
as hamburgers and pizza.) We have also thought that the Frist food court could be better
organized to encourage healthy eating, through better placement of healthy offerings, signage,
and educational materials.
18
The Dining Experience
At the heart of any commitment to healthier eating is a willingness to invest in better
quality food and the preparation of food in healthier ways. The organization of meal plans is
also important, as is the availability of healthy eating options outside of regular dining hours and
even from vending machines. Independents and graduate students have concerns about access to
healthy food that they can prepare themselves, about the facilities available for food preparation,
and about the availability of food during the summer and over breaks. We recommend that
ongoing discussions about meal plan flexibility, hours of operation, cost of meal plans, and
coverage during summer and breaks continue. A separate committee to consider dining in the
new four-year residential colleges is being formed and we hope that it will contribute in a
positive way to these discussions.
Specific recommendations for enhancing the dining experience on campus follow:
1. The salad bars offered by Dining Services should be improved. The model should be
the downstairs salad bar in Prospect House that Restaurant Associates provides at lower cost than
at Frist. The salads should be fresh and use good-tasting ingredients that are affordably priced.
2. Vegetarian options should be improved across the board. In focus groups and among
task force members, the lack of vegetarian options and the taste of vegetarian options got low
marks. Maybe taste tests with vegans and vegetarians could help.
3. Help the harried student/faculty/staff member eat well on the fly. Offer freshly
prepared, pre-packaged meals, especially in the evening.
4. Improve the quality and nutritional value of food at study breaks.
5. Consider reducing portion size in the interest of better health.
6. Engage more with local restaurants for education sessions, but also for food offerings
and, where feasible, use local farms and providers for produce and food.
Our most important recommendations are: (1) add at least one additional professional
nutritionist to the UHS staff; (2) convert the Frist Beverage Lab into a healthy eating center; (3)
develop a well-publicized eating disorders hotline; (4) create presentations about nutrition,
healthy eating, and other food related matters (perhaps at the converted Beverage Lab); and (5)
expand the availability of food over breaks and the summers (for grad students) and during the
hours not covered by the residential colleges or by Frist late meals.
Faculty/Staff Issues
While we will have more to say about the health and well being of faculty and staff in our
final report after we have had the benefit of reviewing the survey results, we would like to offer
several recommendations at this time.
19
Employee Assistance Program/Work-Life Office
The University currently offers an Employee Assistance Program (EAP). It is housed in
McCosh Health Center and its budget is administered by Human Resources. At this point the
EAP counselor works three days per week. He provides a limited number of sessions for
employees and supervisors and makes referrals as needed. There have been concerns that this
limited commitment does not adequately serve the University’s needs. We recommend that the
University consider a combined system that would provide fulltime EAP services on campus and
follow-up and additional services by telephone (24 hours a day/7 days a week) with an outside
provider and referrals to specialized local or long-distance providers. There are several respected
outside agencies that provide assistance with personal finance, elder care, family counseling, and
other needs; members of the task force have met with two of them. The Priorities Committee has
approved additional funds for next year that should cover these recommended changes.
The EAP could become one component of a more comprehensive Work-Life office that
would assist members of the faculty and staff in balancing work-life issues. This office could
provide information about child care resources on and off-campus and about elder care, develop
programs that make it easier for faculty and staff members to meet their family obligations, and
provide information on a broad range of services in the community. Such an office would have
one or more staff members and an oversight committee composed of a representative group of
faculty and staff to provide guidance for the office and help shape priorities.
Leave Time
Although most employees are satisfied with the total amount of leave they are given, we
have heard a number of concerns about the University’s policies regarding sick leave. Currently,
University employees receive 8 sick days per year. Unused days cannot be saved or rolled over
from year to year. After 8 continuous days of being ill, an employee qualifies for short-term
disability. If an employee has intermittent illnesses or wishes to take time to care for a family
member, the employee must use vacation days, time without pay, etc. There are situations where
this presents a serious hardship for the employee. We also have learned that there are some
employees who mistakenly believe they are entitled to take their 8 sick days as “vacation” if they
do not need them as sick days. We recommend that the University consider:



Putting in place a system that would allow employees to roll over and bank more sick
days. Only a few could be rolled over each year to accumulate up to the 14-16 day range.
Unused sick leave would not be eligible for compensation. (In this respect it would differ
from vacation time; an employee can “bank” up to 30 vacation days and upon leaving the
University will be paid for those unused days.)
Creating a “bank” for those who use all their vacation or sick leave and still need
additional time to address health and related issues. Employees would be able to apply to
this bank for additional days and could be required to pay the days back if they are able.
Expanding the pilot “Paid Time Off” (PTO) program currently being tried in some of the
Facilities units. The program provides time off for hours worked and eliminates the
distinction among different kinds of paid leave (for illness, vacation, compelling reason,
20
etc.), allowing employees maximum flexibility in how they allocate leave time. It has
been very successful and we are told that employees, the union, and supervisors like it.
The program includes incentives for perfect attendance (four additional days off for
perfect attendance) and for no unscheduled absences. Last year in Building Services, 70
out of 240 achieved this goal and 90 had only 1 or 2 unscheduled absences.
Work Schedules
Contrary to what many believe, flexible work schedules (early or late starting times,
telecommuting, 10-hour work days, four-day work weeks, etc.) are permitted under existing
policies and procedures. We believe that the University should reaffirm support for the concept
of flexibility in the workplace as long as the needs of the University and the office are met. We
call upon the Office of Human Resources and the Dean of the Faculty to work with managers to
encourage them to accommodate flexible schedules whenever possible. As noted earlier,
allowing employees to begin early or stay after the usual closing time could increase their ability
to engage in fitness, educational, and other classes or activities during the day. More generally,
we encourage the development of a campus climate that more fully appreciates the benefits of
making it possible for members of the staff, including members of the bi-weekly staff, to take
advantage of opportunities to improve their health, fitness, wellness, and education.
Other Recommendations
We recommend that the University increase its support for employee educational
assistance, employee professional development, and other training programs for members of the
staff, such as the pilot program, “Excelling at Princeton,” that was launched last year to provide
bi-weekly staff members with opportunities to work with an instructor from Mercer County
Community College to develop their skills. The University covered the costs of the program and
paid for released time so members of the staff could participate.
We recommend that the University actively explore corporate memberships at area gyms
and fitness facilities that might provide discounts to employees at nominal or no cost to the
University, and that it explore possible partnership arrangements with the Princeton Medical
Center for the benefit of members of the faculty and staff.
We recommend that the University review its policies regarding 10-month employees to
see whether it can provide greater assistance as they seek to make ends meet over the summer.
Finally, we take seriously the discussion in the focus groups about creating a stronger
culture of respect on campus. Members of our community deserve to work in an environment
where they are valued and respected and have their opinions and needs taken seriously. Toward
this end, the University should:


Put in place a strategy for regular monitoring and improvement of employee
satisfaction, perhaps through an annual survey.
Continue to have events like FluFest where immunizations are subsidized and the
University reaches out to employees; this makes many feel affirmed.
21


Have students meet with the building services employees in their dorms (currently
done on an ad hoc basis).
In performance reviews, measure the extent to which supervisors demonstrate a
commitment to the health and well being of those who report to them.
Post-Docs
Although the total number of postdoctoral fellows/associates at Princeton is relatively
small, postdocs represent a significant population in certain departments and make important
contributions to the research and teaching programs of the University. Many spend more than
three years at Princeton. Currently, the University divides entering postdocs into two categories
(non-employee visiting research fellows and employee research associates) depending on the
source of their funding. Postdocs who have procured fellowships from private foundations or
government agencies (about 30%) are appointed as visiting research fellows and receive limited
benefits. Postdocs who are paid from research project grants are appointed as research associates
and receive full employee benefits.
As employees, research associates from other countries may hold either H1-B or J-1
visas. Because J-1 status is limited to three years, the University normally applies for H1-B
status for research associates who are expected to remain at Princeton for more than three years.
Because they are not employees, visiting research fellows are only eligible for J-1 status.
Research associates can be appointed as lecturers and be compensated for teaching.
While visiting research fellows who have permission from their funding agencies also can be
appointed as lecturers and a small number are appointed each year, these appointments require
an exception to general University policy. We encourage the University to make it possible for
interested and qualified research fellows to teach, thereby allowing them to supplement their
income and gain experience that can help them prepare for future academic positions.
Both groups of post-docs express concern about the cost of, and access to, housing and
child care.
Research associates receive the full range of employee benefits, including some (pension
contributions, supplemental life insurance, long-term disability, educational assistance) that may
not be of great importance at this point in their careers, while visiting research fellows receive
only health care and basic life insurance. (J1 visa holders face especially costly coverage for
dependents.) Despite their limited coverage, visiting research fellows are charged $3,500 for
their benefits. The costs of benefits for research associates are covered by the research grants
that support them.
Because in many cases visiting research fellows and research associates perform at the
same level, we believe they should be eligible for the same benefits. Since the full benefits
package currently provided to research associates is costly and probably more extensive than
necessary, one option would be to develop a special benefits package (with a reduced benefit
rate) tailored specifically to post-docs that would allow all post-docs to receive equal benefits
without incurring significant cost to faculty grants. This package would likely include health
22
insurance, the voluntary contribution portion of retirement benefits, access to vision and dental
plans, and life insurance coverage. Another option would be to increase University funding to
provide full benefit coverage for visiting research fellows whose funding agencies permit this
additional coverage, and to encourage funding agencies to approve this arrangement. The
University Counsel’s office is reviewing these and other options.
More generally, we encourage continuing attention to the full range of issues that are of
concern to post-docs, and stronger lines of communication for discussion of these issues.
Child Care
At our recommendation, the University has signed a contract with a company called
Bright Horizons to conduct a thorough child care needs assessment among all graduate students,
faculty, and staff and to provide advice on the development of a comprehensive long-term child
care strategy. In addition to being one of the most highly regarded companies in the child care
field, Bright Horizons has performed similar assessments for several peer universities (including
Yale and Duke) and New Jersey companies. We expect to receive a report from Bright Horizons
over the summer. Our goal is to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations that could
include the development of an additional University-affiliated center.
Meanwhile, in our work last fall we learned that the funds the University has been
providing to the University League Nursery School for scholarship assistance to University
families have been largely unused because of an understanding that only 20% could be provided
to graduate students (which is where the greatest need has been). This year we removed that
ceiling so there is no limitation on the proportion of available funds that can be allocated to
graduate students in need. We also have modified our instructions so that graduate students and
bi-weekly staff share first priority for scholarship support. In addition, the provost’s office has
purchased one slot next year in each class at the U-Now Nursery School to be reserved for
University families that arrive too late to participate in the regular application process. At our
recommendation the University has identified a coordinator for child care matters in the Office
of Human Resources who is serving as a liaison to U-Now and U-League, coordinating the
Bright Horizons assessment, and collecting other information on child care needs and resources.
While further recommendations regarding child care need to await the assessment and
report by Bright Horizons, we would like to note the following:


While a comprehensive strategy could include one or more University-affiliated child
care programs in addition to the existing U-Now and U-League programs, and perhaps
some modest expansion or modification of those programs, we also have asked Bright
Horizons to evaluate other ways in which the University could assist parents in meeting
child care needs, possibly through financial assistance of one kind or another or discount
arrangements for child care providers in their home communities.
Our recommendations regarding flex-time can potentially help staff members meet their
child care needs. We also want to review the University’s policies regarding leave time
and extension of time to degree or to tenure review when a child is born or adopted, and
compare Princeton’s policies to those of its peer institutions.
23

Beyond regular child care programs, we have asked Bright Horizons to look at needs
during evenings and weekends, over the summer, during holidays and unanticipated
closings, when children are ill, or when other emergency short-term care is needed.
Next Steps
While some of the recommendations in this report have already been acted upon or can
be pursued without further work on our part, there are many other recommendations that either
are awaiting additional information (e.g., from our survey and from the Bright Horizons child
care assessment) or require additional analysis. We recognize that in many areas we need to take
a careful look at costs, at the relationship between costs and benefits, at priorities, at the urgency
with which we would press each recommendation, and at the metrics we would propose to
measure success. This is the work we will do over the summer and when the task force
reconvenes in the fall.
In coming weeks we will meet with the McCosh Auxiliary and seek the guidance of
others on the topics covered in this report, on the challenges that await us this summer, and on
other topics that we might add to our already full agenda. One topic that has come up on several
occasions involves sleep. Is there anything we can or should do to encourage or make it possible
for members of our community to get appropriate amounts of it? Are there proposals that we
should resist (e.g., 24-hour study space) because they would take us in the wrong direction?
Another topic that emerges frequently is stress. We know at least one university has a stress
management room at its counseling center with handouts on relaxation and breathing exercises
and relaxation tapes to provide members of that community with basic guidance and support.
Princeton has recently taken a step in this direction with support from the McCosh Auxiliary in
the Janet C. Morgan library, a health education resource center that provides information on a
variety of topics, including stress reduction. Should we consider even larger steps designed to
change elements of our culture that help to produce excessive stress in the first place? We know
that there are students and others who have been thinking about possible non-credit courses to
provide students with skills in decision making, time management, stress and anger management,
conflict resolution, nutrition, self-esteem building, interpersonal relations, and other areas that
can contribute to healthy lifestyles and relationships. We are confident that there are other ideas
we have not yet heard, and we encourage all members of the community to send their thoughts
and suggestions to our website or contact us directly. Our names are listed below.
Some members of the community have suggested that after we have completed our final
report, the University would be well served by having a group composed as we are of students,
faculty, and staff that would focus continuing attention on issues related to health and well being;
monitor the impact of steps that are taken at our recommendation; identify additional steps that
might be helpful; and serve as a continuing repository for suggestions, questions, and concerns.
We think there is merit in this suggestion, as one way of ensuring that the principles we proposed
in our January report—and try to act on in this report—continue to guide the University in its
consideration of issues related to health and well being.
April 30, 2004
24
Task Force on Health and Well Being
Co-Chairs:
Janet Dickerson, Vice President for Campus Life
Robert Durkee, Vice President and Secretary of the University
Faculty:
Elizabeth Gavis, Associate Professor of Molecular Biology
Uwe Reinhardt, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs; James Madison Professor of
Political Economy
Eldar Shafir, Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs
Staff:
Jonathan Baer, Director of Building Services
Lisa Herschbach, Director of Studies, Mathey College
Joann Mitchell, Vice Provost for Administration
Maureen Nash, Vice President for Human Resources
Daniel Silverman, Chief Medical Officer of Princeton University and Executive Director
of University Health Services
Eric Stein, Associate Director of Athletics
Graduate Students:
Rachel Kimbro, Sociology
Ian Parrish, Astrophysics (Plasma Physics)
Undergraduates:
Adam Castano ’05, Molecular Biology
Scott Grant ’05, Chemistry
Elona Toska ’05, Woodrow Wilson School
Tamara Whitaker ’06, Chemical Engineering
Serving as staff to the task force: Megan Adams, Director of Risk Management; Janet Finnie,
Associate Director, University Health Services; Ann Halliday, Associate Secretary; Karen
Jezierny, Director of Public Affairs; Stephen LeMenager, Director of Planning and
Administration in the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life; Alison Nelson, Manager of
Benefits and Compensation; and Karen Woodbridge, Special Assistant to the Vice President for
Public Affairs.