Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) guidance for specific institutional audiences to limit community spread. Audiences include: business, clinical, public health, education, community, and state/local government. The swift, severe, and global nature of COVID-19 offers an opportunity to systematically obtain a national view of how larger institutions of higher education adopted NPI guidance at the onset of the pandemic. Method An original database of COVID-19-related university NPI policy changes was compiled. Survey team members manually combed university websites and official statements capturing implementation decisions and dates for five NPI variables from 575 U.S. universities, across 50 states and the District of Columbia, during March of 2020. The universities included in this study were selected from the Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which provides a set of university explanatory variables. Using IPEDS as the basis for the organizational data allows consistent mapping to event-time and institutional characteristic variables including public health announcements, geospatial, census, and political affiliation. Results The dataset enables event-time analysis and offers a variety of variables to support institutional level study and identification of underlying biases like educational attainment. A descriptive analysis of the dataset reveals that there was substantial heterogeneity in the decisions that were made and the timing of these decisions as they temporally related to

Background During March of 2020 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) guidance as the primary mitigation strategy against growing COVID-19 community spread due to the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment at that time. CDC guidance states that NPIs are most effective when instituted in an early, targeted, and layered fashion. NPIs are effective in slowing spread, and measures should be custom-tailored to each population. This study examines factors associated with implementation and timing of NPI interventions across large public and private U.S. universities at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods NPI decisions of interest include when U.S. universities canceled international travel, shifted to online learning, moved faculty/staff to remote work, limited campus housing, and closed campus for all non-essential personnel. Cox proportional hazard analyses of retrospective data were conducted to assess the time to NPI events. Hazard ratios were calculated for university governance, campus setting, religious affiliation, health infrastructure, faculty diversity, and student demographics. The methods control for variance inflation factors, COVID case prevalence, and time varying covariates of spring break and states’ state of emergency (SOE) orders. This study captures NPI decisions at 575 U.S. universities during spring of 2020 which affected the movement of seven million students and two million employees. Results Universities located in districts represented by Democratic party congressional members reported earlier NPI implementation than Republican (Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) range 0.61–0.80). University religious affiliation was not associated with the timing any of the NPI decisions. Universities with more diverse faculty showed an association with earlier NPI implementation (HR range 0.65–0.76). The existence of university-affiliated health infrastructure was not associated with NPI timing. Conclusion University NPI implementation was largely driven by local COVID-19 epidemiology, culture and political concerns. The timing of university NPI decisions varied by regional politics, faculty demographics, university governance, campus setting, and foreign student prevalence adjusting for COVID-19 state case prevalence and spring break timing. Religious affiliation and presence of university health infrastructure were not associated with timing.

The timing of the pandemic response decision can affect the national mass migration of millions of students back to campus thus limiting community spread. During the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities across the United States were faced with making difficult decisions often without explicit or uniform guidance from state and national leadership. This study examines how and when public universities responded to the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak, regarding decisions to cancel international travel, switch to online learning, transition faculty and staff to remote work, limiting on-campus housing, and implementing campus closures. Data was collected on university timing and decision making for medium to large public universities with more than 5,000 enrolled students, representing 412 institutions, 7M people, and all 50 states and Puerto Rico, between February 27 and March 31st, 2020. Substantial heterogeneity in decision making and the timing of those decisions as they relate to key state, national, and global emergency announcements were observed. The WHO pandemic declaration coincided with announcements to move away from on-campus learning. Universities decisions were made largely at the university level and not coordinated by government agencies, leading to staggered announcements and major variations in university timelines between states and within states. The importance of synchronizing university decisions in a national emergency scenario cannot be understated. Dissonant university decisions and announcement dates may potentially lead to mixed messaging and a reduction of the effectiveness of early interventions. Clear guidance is needed moving forward regarding university operations for fall and summer.