Group Title: services provided to students in residence halls as a function of the organizational structure of housing /
Title: The Services provided to students in residence halls as a function of the organizational structure of housing
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098098/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Services provided to students in residence halls as a function of the organizational structure of housing
Physical Description: x, 109 leaves; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Holbrook, Raymond Lawrence, 1945-
Publication Date: 1977
Copyright Date: 1977
 Subjects
Subject: Dormitories -- United States   ( lcsh )
Residence counselors   ( lcsh )
Student activities -- United States   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 99-108.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Raymond Holbrook.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098098
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000084880
oclc - 05295306
notis - AAK0226

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text











THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTS
IN RESIDENCE HALLS AS A FUNCTION OF
THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF HOUSING










By

RAYMOND LAWRENCE HOLBROOK


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA























1o my wife, Decki,
drd 'my sons,
David,
John,

Andy















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Grateful acknowledgment and appreciation is given to the many

administrative officers of the Division of Housing, University of

Florida, and especially to Mr. Ken Feet, Associate Director of

Housing, whose assistance helped make this study possible. My sincere

thanks also go to the Association of College and University Housing

Officers for its help and support, through the Research and Informa-

tion Committee, and to the 340 ACUHO member institutions who so freely

participalod in Ihis sludy. I am als m -l grateful Io my m li staff

in the Graham residence area at the University of Florida for their

inspiration, understanding, and support over the past five years.

A particular debt is due my Doctoral Committee Chairman, Dr. Joe

Wittmer, for his time and attention over an eight-year span. To the

other members of my committee, Dr. Harold Riker, Dr. E. L. Tolbert,

and Dr. Kern Alexander, goes my most sincere appreciation. Additional

special mention is made of Dr. Harold Riker, under whose watchful eye

my regard for residence halls, as a vehicle for educational growth and

development, was sharpened and refined. A word of appreciation is also

due Mr. Al Kozal, my immediate supervisor during the past five years,

who has been most supportive and encouraging, as well as a friend and

professional associate.

The support and understanding of my wife, Bocki, has simply been

beyond measure. Our partnership has only deepened and taken on new

and additional meaning as we walked through this adventure together.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................ i

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... vi

ABSTRACT........................................................ viii

CHAPTER I IITRODUCTION .... ................................... I

Rationale. ..................................... .......... 2
Statement of the Problem. .................................... 4
Research Ouestions........................................... 4
Defin Iion of Terms.......................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LI ERATURE ............................ 6

History of Residence Hall Services ........................... 6
Research Concerning Residence Hall Services.................. 10
House Systems............................................. 12
Cooperative Living Arrangements ............ ............. 13
Counsel ing.................................. .............. 14
Living/Learning........................................... 14
Leadership Training................................... 15
Assignment ................................................ 16
Visi iat ion ................. ....... ........ ............ 17
Coeducational Living...................................... 18
Other Programs .................. ...... ...... ............. 20
History of Residence Hall Organization ....................... 21
Research Studies in Residence Hall Organization .............. 23
Some Descriptive Models.................................. 27
Three ACUHO Surveys....................................... 31

CHAPTER 3 METHOD AND PROCEDURE................................. 34

Hypotheses................................................... 35
Samp le ....................................................... 37
Measurement.................................................. 37
Procedure.................................... ............ 38
Analysis of Data............................................. 39
Limitations of Study......................................... 40


I









Page

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA................................... 42

Introduction................................................... 42
Demographics.................................................. 42
Data Analysis................................... .............. 43
Nul l Hypothesis I ............................................ 43
Nu I Hypothesis 2...................... .................... 50
Null Hypothesis 3 ............................................ 56
Null Hypothesis 4....................................... ... 59
Null Hypothesis 5..................... ....................... 70

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .............................. 79

Subjects and Design........................................... 80
Analysis and Results .................... ......... .......... 80
Conclusions ........................................... ....... 83
Null Hypotheses I, 2, 3, 4, and 5............................. 83
Implications............................... .... ........... 85
Recommendations for Further Research.......................... 86

APPENDICES

A COVER LETTER TO ACUHO MEMBER ................ ................. 88

B SURVEY OF HOUSING SERVICES AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES...... 89

C SAMPLE ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS.................... .. .......... ... 95

D GENERAL PURPOSE ANSWER SHEET .................................... 98

REFERENCES ...................................................... 99

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................... 109
















LI I Or IABLES


Table Page

I An l ys is of Chief lousin1 Offic r Reporting
Channel by Full-Time Institutional Enrolmerint........ 45

2 Analysis of Chief I ousig Officir Reporting
Channel by Total Design Capacily of Single
Sludent Housing ...................................... 47

3 Analysis of Chief Inusing Officer Reporting
Channel by ACUHO Region ............................. 48

4 Analysis of Chief Housing Officer Reporting
Channel by Institutional Nalure...................... 49

5 Analysis of Chief Housing Officer Reporting
Channel by Type of Institution ....................... 51

6 Analysis of Lowest Level Full-Time Professional
Staff Member Reporting Channel by Full-Time
Institutional Enrollment............................. 52

7 Analysis of Lowesl Level Iull-Time Professional
Staff Member Reporting Channel by Total
Design Capacity of Single Student Housing............. 54

8 Analysis of Lowest Level Full-Time Professional
Staff Member Reporting Channel by ACUHO Region....... 55

9 Analysis of Lowest Level Full-Time Professional
Staff Member Reporting Channel by
Institutional Nature............................... 57

10 Analysis of Lowest Level Full-Time Professional
Staff Member Reporting Channel by Type
of Institution ....................................... 58

II Analysis of Academic Programming by ACUHO Region......... 60

12 Analysis of Accredited Course Instruction by
Total Design Capacity of Single Student
Housing............................................ 61

13 Analysis of Accredited Course Instruction by
Institutional Nature................................. 62

vi









Table Page

14 Analysis of Student Government Advising by
ACUHO Region...................... .................. 63

15 Analysis of Special Ini c sf Ilouses by Total
Design Capacily of Single Student Housing............ 64

16 Analysis of Special Interest Houses by ACUHO
Re ion ............. ................................ 65

17 Analysis of Living/Learning Section/Houses by
Total Design Capacity of Single Student Housing...... 66

18 Services/i-i, ...- for Which Nor ;i gnificani
Di fferences Were Found as Reliled to the
V.ar ious Col lege nild Univeri i y Housing Divisions
by Compari son ol I ac lor S ir nifica.-nce ................. 67

19 Ilean Ilumber of Services/Progr.ms Offered to
StudenIs as a Function of the Reporting
C'hinni ,l of the Chief IH using i Officer................. 71

20 Classification Matrix of Reporting Channel for
Chief Housing Officer by Predicted Group
Membership.......................................... 73

21 Mean Number of Services/Programs Offered to
Students as a Function of the Reporting Channel
of the Lowest Level Full-Time Professional
Staff Member......................................... 75

22 Classification Matrix of Reporting Channel for
Lowest Level Full-Time Professional Staff
Member by Predicted Group Membership ................ 78















Abstracr of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Parlial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Docfor of Philosophy


THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTS
IN RESIDENCE HALLS AS A FUNCTION OF
THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF HOUSING

By

Raymond Lawrence Holbrook

December, 1977

Chairman: Dr. Joe Witlmer
Major Department: Counselor Eduction


The purpose of this investigation was to identify differences

among the services offered to students in residence halls as a function

of the organizational structure of housing. The population studied

consisted of those colleges and universities which are listed on the

Association of College and University Housing Officers (ACUHO) mailing

list. A questionnaire was the instrument used to survey the institu-

tions listed by the ACUHO organization, and it attempted to gather four

types of data: reporting channels for the chief housing officer,

reporting channels for the lowest level full-time professional staff

member within housing, services/programs offered to students in resi-

dence halls, and demographic. Questionnaires were field tested and

then mailed to 617 chief housing officers listed on the ACUIO newsletter

mailing list. The total return rate was 55.1% or 340 questionnaires.

Reporting channels for chief housing officers, reporting channels

for lowest level full-time professional staff members, and each of 17








specific services/programs offered to students in residence halls

were analyzed by chi-square in relation to full-time institutional

enrollment, total design capacity for single student housing, ACUHO

region, institutional nature (public or private), and type of institu-

tion (two-year or four-year). No statistically significant results

were founc in relation to reporting channels for the chief housing

officer. However, significant results were obtained for reporting

channels for heo lowest love l full-l Inme professional slaff member

within housing and 5 of the 17 specific services/programs offered to

students in residence halls. Discriminant function analysis between

ihe services/programs and reporting channels for both the chief

housing officer and the lowest level full-time professional staff

member within housing also yielded significant results.

The research demonstrates that there are differences as well as

similarities among the housing organizations studied with regard to

services/programs offered to students in residence halls. Those chief

housing officers who report directly to the university chief business

officer rather than to the chief student affairs officer scored consis-

tently lower on most of the service/programming variables included in

the study. Also, higher service/programming scores were consistently

recorded in those instances where the lowest level full-time profes-

sional staff member reported to an assistant housing officer for

programming. Those services/programs receiving the greatest perceived

emphasis among the respondents included staff selection, student staff

development, and personal/social counseling. Those services/programs

receiving the least perceived emphasis among the respondents included

cooperative student housing, accredited course instruction by









professional and paraprofessional staff, and service to the local

community. These data indicate that the delivery of services/programs

to students in residence halls is clearly enhanced by the inclusion of

an assistant housing officer for programming within a housing organi-

zation whose chief officer has a reporting channel to the institutional

chief student affairs officer.















CHAPTER I

INFRODUCIION


Throughout the twentieth century within higher education in the

United States the idea that residence hall living experiences can add

substantial value to the student's collegiate learning experiences has

surfaced frequently (Riker, 1965; Mueller, 1961; Adams, 196B;

Chickering, 1969). This postulate, which continues to arise toddy,

has been evidenced in a variety of ways around the country, beginning

with the early programs of William Rainey Harper of the University of

Chicago, Jacob Schuman of Cornell, Andrew West of Princeton, and Abbot

Lawrence Lowell of Harvard (Powell, Plyler, Dickson, & McClellan, 1969).

The residence hall living experiences which college officials

spoke of during the early 1900's collectively contributed to what was

then called a "total educational experience." This idea has been

maintained over the years and still includes such concepts as enriched

living and study conditions, greater opportunities for student refine-

ment of social skills, and even an increased level of democratization

of the schools themselves. In a residence hail milieu which encom-

passed such an expanded view of residence hall purposes, students

learned more effective personal, social, and societal skills as well

as the technical or academic skills already stressed in the curriculum

of the day. This point of view, which emerged in the early 1900's,

has now spread and flourishes widely throughout the country.









Today "residence hall programs" are discussed rather than the more

austere "dormil-ory life" of the past.

A look at ihe various organizational structures found in the

college housing operations of the past reveals two distinctly different

approaches (Powell, Plyler, Dickson, & McClellan, 1969):

a. Tnose which were primarily oriented toward housekeeping

b. Those which were more oriented toward providing service to
students in addition lo busic housekeeping tasks

While traditional line organizations were sufficient enough to provide

for the housekeeping oriented dormitories, new and more complex line

and staff organizations were developed for the more student service

oriented residence halls which evolved under the "total educational

experience" banner. Do such distinctly different organizational struc-

tures for housing exist today? This study will address this question

along with the resultant services provided or not provided for students

under each type of structure.


Rationale

For students from diverse backgrounds and with varied skills and

interests io live in close physical proximity in residence halls is

an educational value in and of itself. The residence hall is indeed

an intensified human relations laboratory and can be a valuable

learning experience as well (Riker, 1965).

In the fall of 1930 Harvard opened the first two of seven

"enriched" dormitories (Lowell, 1930) and thereby inaugurated the

"Harvard House System" (Lowell, 1931). In 1969 Harvard opened its

eighth such "house" while soliciting funds for two more. It is widely

believed at Harvard (Sanford, 1967; Vreeland, 1970) that students at








all academic levels and faculty members associating together in these

residential units can do much to educate each other in positive ways

that are not included in the formal college curriculum. With such an

expanded view o' the "total educational experience" being put forth

at Harvard and other universities, one expects to see such feelings

as student dissatisfaction, loneliness, and ambivalence decrease dras-

tically as students strive to make progress in their search for enhanced

self and identity (Sanford, 1967). While extracurricular activities

have traditionally been thought of as auxiliary, in reality they have

been of primary significance for many s udonts (Katz, 1968). In the

light of this information, the implication is that structured residence

hall experiences can provide an exciting and varied vehicle for new

learning opportunities for college students.

In order to carry out a sound "educational program" in residence

halls, an effective and facilitating staff would seem necessary. While

backers of a "hotel" type of administration of residence halls may view

student services staffs as ancillary, a "total learning" approach to

administration would call for specially trained personnel with varied

teaching, counseling, and administrative skills needed to meet the

needs of college students today.

What staffing patterns or organizational structures are then most

frequently found when "total education" is the goal? Within the

pyramidal, hierarchical organizational structure of a division of

housing, which staff (and what kind, and how many) provide what types

of services for students? By researching these questions the writer

hopes to determine whether certain organizational structures stand

out as being more effective in meeting certain organizational goals.









If a programming emphasis of service to students is emphasized by a

division of housing in addition to the housekeeping approach, certain

organizational structures may be pinpointed as being a more effective

delivery vehicle for such service.


Statement of the Problem

Although there exist significant amounts of data relating to the

services provided to students in residence halls (Chickering, 1969;

Chickering, 1974; Katz, 1968; DeCoster & Mable, 1974; Sanford, 1967;

Leyden, 1966) and to the various organizational structures of housing

(Hallenbeck, 1976; Riker, 1966; Ililletl, 1962; Riker, 1965) no studies

have apparently been conducted which consider these variables together

in detail. This sludy, therefore, has as i 1s principal purpose the

investigation of the relationship between the various organizational

structures found in housing throughout the United States and the resul-

tant services subsequently provided to the students residing under

those different structures.


Research Questions

The present study has attempted to answer the following questions:

1. What types of general organizational relationships exist
today between housing divisions and the central college admin-
istration? More specifically, is it a business affairs
relationship, a student affairs relationship, both, or some
other type of relationship?

2. What types of internal organizational structures are present
within college housing divisions today?

3. What services or programs do various housing division personnel
perceive they provide for their students?

4. Does a particular pattern of student services or programs
distinguish among either the internal or general types of
housing organizations?









Definition of Terms

Services provided to students in residence halls are defined as

that collection of supervised and coordinated student programs which

housing staff members support within their particular residence hall

system.

General organizational structure of housing is defined as that

set of administrative relationships which are formally prescribed for

the interactions between the housing division and the college or univer-

sity hierarchy external to housing.

Internal organizational structure of housing is similarly defined

as that sel of administrative relationships which are formally pre-

scribed for the interactions within the housing division itself.















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF TIE LITERATURE


The present chapter is divided into four sections: (1) History

of Residence Hall Services, (2) Research Studies Concerning Residence

Hall Services, (3) History of Residence Ha ll Organization, and (4)

Research Sludies in Residence Hall Organization.


History of Residence Hall Services

The colonial history of college housing in the Uniled States was

marked by early adventures which modeled American university housing

on the British systems at Oxford and Cambridge. The residence halls

of those early days were often barren "dormitories" which provided

students with room and board and live-in tutors--little else. Thus,

the American system did deviate somewhat from the British model which,

on the other hand, espoused the idea that a student's place of residence

was a "vital part of his college experience" (Powell, Plyler, Dickson,

& McClellan, 1969).

The colleges of the colonial period were also rather isolated,

located away from large towns and private housing so consequently most

students enjoyed the rather Spartan austerity of the "collegiate living

experience." Dormitory services for students at this time generally

consisted of religious programs, close conduct supervision, and live-in

tutors in addition to food and lodging.








Later, in the mid 1800's with -he growth of cities and an increase

of private housing closer to the college campus, more students began on

their own to leave the much maligned dormitories and turn to more

comfortable quarters with fewer restrictions. By this time also there

was a diminished attention lo regulation of students' religious and

moral activities on the part of faculties. There then arose a number

of organized, secular programs which provided students an acceptable

(and nondestructive) way to expend their energy. Perhaps the fact

that many administrators of this lime had studied at German universi-

ties, rather than British ones, helped foster the turn away from college

dormitories. As a consequence, with fewer occupants (some halls were

actually refitted for academic use), the dormitories of the 1850's

continued to offer only the primary services of room and board in

contrast to the higher quality environment of room, board, and programs.

One major exception to the above situation did exist at the

colleges for women. Because of the prevailing view that refined ladies

in the mid 1800's ought to be protected, college housing did just that.

Restrictions on social as well as academic life were plentiful and

closely resembled those imposed on the men of the colonial era. Services

for these women were perhaps best characterized by the dormitory house-

mother who gave approval to a gentleman caller only after close attention

to both his appearance and his moral background.

A sharp turn toward college housing again took place in the

early 1900's. Noted educators such as Andrew West and William Rainey

Harper began to express concern for the "total education" of the

student (Powell, Plyler, Dickson, & McClellan, 1969). In addition to

the more comprehensive consideration given the student's "total








education," a practical answer to -he problem of student rowdyism in

the community was also needed. Thus, colleges again turned to resi-

dence halls as a means of exercising greater control on student behav-

iors, but also injected their housing systems with the new spark of

concern for a student's "total educational experience". The result

then was c system of physically improved residence halls, in contrast

to what had become substandard private housing, and a vehicle to

teach national democratic ideals in the college as well.

The increased intellectual concerns apparent in the 1920's were

reflected by exionsive discussions in the residence halls regarding

socialism, communism, and academic freedom, in addition tio e ever

popular topics of sex and drinking. Wii h IhI- collegiate residence

halls now intended to function as places where extra-class life might

find more wholesome expression, a whole new vista of opportunities

opened for the college student of the day.

Possibly the most notable of the early twentieth century programs

was the Harvard house system. These houses were a series of residence

hall units whose students benefitted from a purposefully enriched

educational environment. The Harvard house was unusually lavish when

first opened in 1930. Each resident usually had a private bedroom

and shared a bath and living room (usually with a fireplace) with up

to three roommates. Each student had the benefit of such community

rooms as the music room, the dark room, the pool room, a 10,000 to

15,000 volume house library, and the dining hall. Here a student

could profit from the sage counsel of the master (who administered the

house), the senior tutor (local dean of students since 1952), and

approximately one dozen resident tutors. These scholars were also











joined by other nonresident tutors and a dozen or more senior associ-

ates or faculty members. So successful was this program that in 1959,

Harvard opened its 8th such residential house, and at the same time

sought funding for numbers 9 and 10 (Brownell, 1952; Sanford, 1962).

The Harvard houses provided the American collegiate scene with its

first bold attempt to foster greater intellectual community rather

than a continuance of what had become simply a collection of profes-

sional scholars and preprofessional hopeful scholars.

Other programs, some similar to the Harvard house plans and

others building on the expanded intellectual opportunity concept put

forth at Harvard University, began to appear across the country.

Residential experiments were tried at Antioch College, Iowa State

University, Michigan State University, and Stephens College (Brouwer,

1949; Leyden, 1966). In addition, residence hall programs and services

provided the basis for improving the living conditions of new students

at Ohio State University (Wrigley, 1945) and for a House Fellow program

at the University of Wisconsin (Williamson, 1949).

The educational values of residence halls, program organization,

academic classes in the residence halls, and staff personnel were

discussed and implemented from 1900 to 1930 (Clarke, 1925; Lloyd-

Jones & Smith, 1938). These programming concepts were expanded during

the years 1930 to 1950 to include counseling (Orme, 1950: Hardee, 1955;

Siffel I, 19)0) and a nir I ii I r 7n I.ii of ucd iltionnl opportunities

for tho student. At the residential colleges and universities the

primary vehicle for this expansion of services for the student was

the university residence hall. Residence halls were achieving greater

recognition as an untapped collegiate resource for educational purposes.











Their potential for enriching the educational experiences of students

seemed limitless; and academic, social, and recreational programs

sponsored by residence hall systems began to appear complementing what

was already being offered in the classrooms of the academy (Riker,

1965).

Not only did the 1950's usher in an era where social activities

could be sponsored by and provided for residence hall students, but

these years also provided a time when some residence hall administrators

were prompted to look at their halls as intellectual as well as social

and disciplinary instruments. This administrative orientation spawned

the beginning of a whole new array of expanded residence hall programs

and services for students.


Research Concerning Residence Hall Services

Although much has been written about residence hall programs and

the impact which these programs have upon college students, there have

been relatively few empirical studies but several descriptive ones.

II was already recognized that the residence halls provided a

fertile ground for leadership developmenT and human growth (Klopf,

Felsted, & Hawley, 1952), but the next decade brought both new complex-

ity and additional refinement. In 1962, a call was made (Hardee, 1962)

for improved research data to help foster the development of new

student affairs programs including those conducted in the residence

halls. Perhaps this call for research, and others like it in large

and small universities across the country, led to the mushrooming

literature which developed around residence hall programs in the 1960's

and 1970's.











The 1960's seemed to provide "no time for youth," and Katz and

Chickering appeared to bring the problem of this point of view into

much sharper focus. In one study, greater opportunities for social

and intellectual development seemed necessary (Katz, 1968) and in

another study, alternatives for the creation of residential environ-

ments to maximize student growth and development were described

(Chickering, 1969). These ideas led to closer study of residence hall

learning environments.

In a four-year study which traced freshmen to their senior year,

it was demonstrated (Rago, 1969) that residence hall programs do have

a positive and significant impact on the undergraduate's personal

development. Further support for this point of view was provided by

an additional longitudinal study (Astin, 1973) which suggested that:

Campus living, as opposed to living at home with parents,
produces significant positive benefits in five major
areas: educational progress, plans and aspirations,
personal behavior, aHcitudes and values, and satisfaction
with the college experience. (pp. 206-207)

More recenTly, extensive studies have been undertaken (Chickering,

1974; Welty, 1976) to compare commuting and residence hall students.

Chickering found that commuters and on-campus residents begin their

college careers at essentially unequal points. Later, as the resident

students further develop, the gap between them and the commuters grows.

The diversity of experiences and the access to college personnel in

the residence hall setting, Chickering felt made personal growth more

likely for the residence hall student. In addition, Wel y (1976)

found that not only did residence hall students differ from commuter

students initially, but that "they also grow on selected measures of

intellectual and personal growth in their freshman year to a greater

degree than do their commuting counterparts" (p. 467).











The basis for any opinion about the impact of residence hall

services on students must ultimately be the programs or services

offered within the hall. Consequently, case studies have resulted in

much more specific programmatic data. Such studies have included

the Harvard house system, student cooperatives, groups and group

counseling, living/learning sections, leadership development programs,

assignment programs, visitation programs, coeducational programs, and

a variety of additional programs.


House Systems

The first program studied was the Harvard house system and

included an in-depth discussion of this system. Specific attention

was given house goals and objectives, the history of house organization,

and the activities planned within the houses (Lowell, 1930). Later

studies included a discussion of the plan as conceptualized by the

president of the institution (Lowell, 1931). Methods which hopefully

could provide a true higher education community brought further atten-

lion to the house system at Harvard University (Brownell, 1959) and

also to Stephens College (Leyden, 1966). At Stephens College a house

plan similar to that instituted at Harvard University provided an

example of interdisciplinary sludy and flexibility in the development

of a totally integrated living/learning program. Included in a favor-

able study of this system was a year-by-year development of the house

plan including summary and appraisal comments by Lewis Mayhew.

Another study, however, seems to dispute the claims made in

behalf of the total educational impact of residence hall programs

(Vreeland, 1970). Vreeland conducted a longitudinal and comprehensive











study of the Harvard house system taking particular notice of the

Harvard house student's values and attitudes. Her analysis included:

1. Study of house records

2. Interviews with house masters, tutors, and formal and informal
leaders

3. Attitude and value measures administered

Vreeland concluded that the attitudes and values of the students

were not affected by the house structure (tutors, masters, activities,

and other student residents), but that freshman attitudes and values

nevertheless did change with time. Her results also indicated that

more active students changed no more than those students who were less

involved in residence hall activities and that the academic sector of

the university exerts a more powerful influence on student attitude

and value change than do even a student's closest friends.


Cooperative Living Arrangements

Cooperative living arrangements have existed throughout the contem-

porary history of residence halls (Nielson, 1937). Designed to minimize

cost and to effect less expensive housing for those students willing

to share the chores necessary for day-to-day grcup living, the co-op

has found a place on many campuses.

A cooperative program for home economics students at lowa State

University (Sheldon, 1938) was one of the first such programs studied.

About that same time a historical view of college cooperatives was

also presented (Nielson, 1937). Ilielson paid particular attention to

a discussion of the Idaho University plan in which he felt were some

basic principles of administration for a cooperative residence hall.

Favorable experiences within a cooperative house at the University of











Iowa were also studied (Berger, 1939) along with other descriptive

studies of the programs al the University of Washington (Albrecht,

1937) and Boslon University (Franklin, 1933).


Counseling

The addition of counseling services to residence hall programs

was yet another significant event in the collegiate housing scene.

In one article, Lind (1946), a faculty member, discussed the degree

of impact a residence hall may have on the social and learning environ-

ment of a student. He then went further to urge the improvement of

counseling services offered students through the use of residence hail

counselors. Later (Ohlsen, 1951) a rating scale was developed by

residence hall staff and students to assist in the evaluation of

counseling services offered through residence hall counselors. As

group counseling developed on the college campus, Depauw University

initiated discussion groups in the residence halls in order to deal

with issues of critical concern to the students there (Brown, 1971).

Further development of the group movement in counseling resulted in a

proliferation of growth groups, sensitivity groups, T-groups, and

others established for one purpose or another. More recently, one

empirical study (Brown, 1971) revealed that using student to student

(peer) counselors in the residence hall setting did have a positive

impact on the academic adjustment of potential college dropouts.


Living/Learning

In the early 1960's the literature began to reflect some theoret-

ical positions which proposed that life in student housing had direct

and positive effects on a student's educational outcomes. The effect











of residence hall life on academics was explored (Ferber, 1962), a

"total education experience" was proposed at Stephens College

(Leyden, 1962) and eventually full-fledged "living/learning" units

were discussed as they existed at Michigan State University (Olson,

1964).

Later, at the University of Texas, a living/learning honors

seminar approach was developed for application to collegiate residence

halls (Blanton, Peck, & Greer, 1964). In this study, an experimental

residence hall was compared to a conventional hall. Blanton's results

indicated that a "significant number" of students in the living/

learning honors program showed higher academic grades than students in

the conventional hall.

At Michigan State University, Blackman (1965) did a descriptive

commentary on the first living/learning residence hall there and gave

additional information aboul the effects of combining academic and

living environments. Oilier sludiu s on this subject wire conducted

at Michigan State University (Olson, 19o5; Dressel, 1970; Adams, 1967)

as well as at Catholic College (Greeley, 1966) and Centennial College

along with the University of Nebraska (Brown, 1972).


Leadership Training

Another aspect of residence hall life which could be utilized

especially well was the abundance of opportunities for student leader-

ship development. Not only were there leadership positions open for

resident student staff, but also for those interested in student govern-

ment, social and recreational planning, volunteer work, and the broad

area of leadership training itself. In terms of leadership development,











a campus program was designed and applied as an academic course to

explore group leadership in any type of living situation (Onthank,

1936). A leadership training program was described as it existed at

Stephens College (Omer, 1944) as was another, at the University of

Oklahoma, which applied specifically to early involvement of freshmen

in a residence hall leadership training program (Truex, 1952).

An evaluative study of residence hall programs was made in the

1960's using criteria which had been determined representative of

success in the teaching field (MacLean, 1965). This study indicated

that the value of a residence hall program to prospective teachers lay

in the area of human relations rather than in any particular process.

At the University of Florida (Lynch, 1969) the freshman advisor

program was favorably perceived by staff and students as an aid to

freshmen adjustment to student life.

Also al the Universi-ly of Florida, a student volunteer program

for residence halls was developed (McBride, 1973). This program, which

utilized informal helpers lo assist in the student orientation process,

provided for academic cred I for those students enrolled in the program.

The characteristics of those highly effective student volunteers were

explored (Holbrook, 1972) as compared to those who tended to be some-

what ineffective or highly ineffective. Student helper effectiveness

was predicted rather well using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

(Edwards, 1959) scores.


Assignment

Special groupings of students have often been assigned to live

together and subsequently studied to determine what effect such living











arrangements have had on their educational development. One such

study dealt with the pros and cons of housing athletes together in

residence halls (Louchs, 1963) while others dealt with special honors

sections or houses (Kaplan, Mann, & Kaplan, 1964; DeCoster, 1966).

Additionally, at the University of Oregon, the relative educa-

tional and adjustment values of assigning students of all class levels

together in one residential unit were compared to those derived from

separate assignment patterns for freshmen and upper-class students

(Beal & Williams, 1968). At another school, students who had at least

three of their classes together were housed in the same residence

(Larsen & Montgomery, 1969). This study did not reveal any significant

difference between the specially assigned students and other students

with regard to attitude toward the university or student instructor

relationship.

Roommate compatibility was closely studied as well (Lozier, 1970),

bul results failed to substantiate the hypothesis that matching room-

mates according to educational-vocational goals and extracurricular

plans created significantly fewer roommate changes.

Many positive effects upon the educational development of

students were found to be a result of homogeneous groupings (Caple &

Snead, 1971). Homogeneous groupings of engineering students as

compared to randomly assigned and nonresidence hall engineering students

(Taylor & Hanson, 1971) were seen favorably, for instance.


Visitation

Residence hall programs allowing for periodic visits by members

of the opposite sex in student rooms have added another dimension to

residence hall programming. Most data collected on this topic have











been in the form of surveys and have been initiated in an effort either

to establish visitation policies and procedures or to expand already

existing ones. One such survey (Wilson, 1967) collected data about

room visitation, including areas approved for visitation, maximum hours,

frequency of use, and supervisory practices. The Association of College

and University Housing Officers (ACUHO) Research and Information

Committee, in 1969, conducted a survey of the entire ACUHO membership

in regard to visitation policies (Riker, 1969). In that survey, 177

of 262 respondents indicated that their institutions permitted visita-

tion in student rooms within the residence halls.

Later, 24-hour options came under study (Dunn & Rickard, 1977).

In this study, 17 institutions with 24-hour visitation programs were

surveyed. Responses were categorized by sex, class, and residence

hall style. Results indicated that the advisability of 24-hour visita-

tion was less for freshmen, sophomores, and women than for juniors,

seniors, and men.


Coeducational Living

Coeducational residence halls, like coeducational colleges and

universities, were an inevitable reality on the American collegiate

landscape. With coeducational living meaning anything from opposite

sex assignments to alternate rooms, to men and women being assigned

to separate wings on floors of the same residence hall complex, the

literature abounded with studies.

At Michigan State University, a questionnaire was distributed to

residents to assess their feeling about the coeducational experience

(Olson, 1963) and at the University of Illinois a discussion of both











the coeducational program and the physical facilities was reported

(Hornick, 1963). Both studies indicated positive resident attitudes

toward the coeducational living experience.

Ten coeducational residence hall programs were studied in yet

another manner focusing on programs, physical facilities, and student

responses (Imes, 1966). In this study it was concluded that the advan-

tages of coeducational residence halls outweighed the disadvantages.

Administrative and counseling personnel generally were proven to

be positive in their views of coeducational housing at 16 small colleges

(Locher, 1972). In this study it was indicated that student attitudes

toward coeducational housing do not affect admissions, adverse alumni

reactions are few, and incidents of personal counseling have not

increased.

A theoretical rationale for coeducational residence halls in Texas

was discussed (Duncan, 1972) and implic i ions for co-ed halls then in

the planning stages were highlighted (Corbelt & Sommer, 1972), espe-

cially at the University of California at Davis.

Analysis of the educational value of coeducational residence halls

was addressed by other writers. In one effort, it was suggested that

a co-ed a I I can lead to an environments contributing to the total

development of the student (Brown, Winkworth, & Braskamp, 1973). In

another, the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) was us, d to assess

growth toward self-actualization (Schroeder, 1972). In the latter

study, students found to exhibit least growth toward self-actualization

were males living in single sex halls.











Other Programs

A variety of other programs has been offered by residence hall

personnel over the years. Included among these were experiments pro-

viding close proximity housing for French students at Mt. Holyoke

College (Lind, 1946) and academic centers for international education

(Fraser, 1966). Programs utilizing television for lecturing and

programming (Cooke, 1966) have also been tried. Listening centers

with telephone carrels at Ohio State University (Overholt, 1967), and

special housing for vocational or other interest groups (Davison, 1964)

have been undertaken as well.

Student self-governing boards or residence hall governments have

also been developed to provide leadership and learning experiences.

One such program was evaluated at Indiana University and total commit-

ment to the concept of student governance was urged as a result (Cahill,

1967). Another study analyzed possible relationships between self-

governance on the one hand and alienation and student perceptions on

the olher (Laramee, 1972). Results of this study were nol conclusive.

The concept of faculty participation in residence hall activities

was yet another area explored. In reg:ild to such ficully participation,

one study recommended procedures lo increase meaiiin ]fuil student/faculty

interaction (Borland, 1971).

Still another projec'l included an nllempt to bridge the "genera-

tion gap" by sponsorship of an intergenerational coal iion at Syracuse

University (Garrow, 1970). It was felt in this study that perhaps

young and old living in residence halls together could help build

positive inlergenerational relationships.











In addition, special academic advising programs have been initiated

within the residence hall service umbrella at the University of Iowa

(Sander, 1964) and other schools as well.


History of Residence Hall Organization

Residence hall organizational structures have traditionally tended

to reflect the emphasis various university leaders place upon the educa-

tional value of their housing systems. Among some of the earliest

writings found, for example, was one which presented a plan for making

residence halls a truly intellectual experience (Check, 1936). This

plan included the combining of intellectual and social activities, and,

by bringing both faculty and resident fellows into the halls in an

informal setting, it was hoped that this new educational experience

could prosper. This type of approach was a significant departure from

those which provided a staff organization to meet only the basic require-

ments of mintainining order and providing beds and board.

Another article provided yel further insight into developing trends

lowards uti ization of re ideuce ha I Is for education l purposes (Plank,

1937). This report advocated including counseling and educational

services within the residence hal organization at the University of

Minnesota-Minneapolis. Later, C. Gilbert Wrenn (1951) dedicated a

portion of his writing to the description of broad organizational

principles which could be applied to residence hall management based

on the personal development of the individual students.

In subsequent years, attention was devoted to the informal organi-

zation of university residence halls, helping determine that informal

student/staff groups can aid the formal group processes of the organi-

zation (Crafts, 1959).











In 1959, residence hall organization was described as being a

proper subdivision of college student personnel services (Millett, 1962).

This point of view added strength to the arguments of those who believed

in the educational value of residence halls. As residence hall organi-

zations more frequently became subdivisions of college student personnel,

student staff assumed a more important educational role as well (Powell,

Plyler, Dickson, & McClellan, 1969).

Later, a visionary look at the future provided some new insights

for residence hall organization. Here Greenleaf (1969) addressed

herself to a clear overall view:

The roles of residence hall staff will be redefined
to place emphasis upon student self-discipline, self-
responsibility, and educational interaction. Fewer but
better prepared professional staff members will be expected
to facilitate the development of educational programs, to
provide counseling for individual growth, to administer a
program integrating facilities and personnel into a unified
educational sub-syslem of 1he institution io evaluate
results as a basis for educaIiorI ajnd administrative
decisions. (p. 69)

Speaking of particular staff and organizational changes to take

place in the near future, Grcenl-af noted thal:

I. Campuses using houlimi rnothe rs in residence ha I Is wi ll
continue to find Ihern di f icull Io secure.

2. Mature undergraduates are no more available. Campus
pressures have led many Io say "my senior year I want
to live on my own without any responsibilities."
Academic programs are making it more difficult to assume
hall jobs. Student teaching, business internships, and
cooperative programs take seniors off-campus.

3/ The residence hall staff ol the 1970's will not be
counting the minutes girls are late, taking minor
disciplinary action, or serving as judge and jury.
Instead they will have major responsibility to
provide:

a. A climate challenging students to the broadest
possible education.











b. Guidance, counseling and challenges to assist each
student to develop his unique personality and
identity and Io achieve to his fullest capacity.

c. Educational and recreational experiences in the
halls where students spend 60 to 65 percent of
their time.

d. Housing services integrated with the educational
objectives of the college.

e. Research and evaluation of programs as a basis
for allocation of staff and facilities for the
maximum achievement of the institutional objec-
tives. (pp. 70-71)

The approach of Greenleaf, that of housing as a subsystem of the

educational institution, was further advocated from an organizational

standpoint by others (Elliots, 1972; Barak, 1973) as the systems

approach gained credence among America's educators.

From its beginnings, the educational role of housing has grown

and prospered to the point where it is presently an important part

of the higher education system. The single-building Colonial colleges

of early America provided the seed ideas for educational "innovation"

two centuries later. Today, the total education of 1he college student

can bo effectively advanced by the efforts of a responsive residence

hall organization of professional eoucalors.


Research Studies in Residence Hall Organization

According to a profile (Haillenbeck, 1976) of ACUIIO housing

officers, responsibilities for chief housing officers include:

Management 89.70% of institutions reporting
Programming 64.240 of institution, reporting
Maintenance 46.06. of institutions reporting
Custodial 44.85% of institutions reporting
Food Service 32.12% of institutions reporting

These figures indicate that substantial time and attention are

currently being given to administrative responsibilities within the











member institutions of ACUIIO. Today, rather refined organizational

structures, including elaborate student and professional staff per-

sonnel, are a large part of the residence hall scene in our major

colleges and universities. But such large scale organizational struc-

tures with accompanying far reaching responsibilities have not always

been the case.

As universities and their objectives have changed throughout

American history, so have residence hall staffing patterns and the

research supporting these patterns. While some research has dealt

specifically with women's halls (Whiteside, 1957), other types have

dealt with men's residence halls (Crane, 1961), and yet a third type

has taken a more general approach (Dowse, 1960). Other research, more

theoretical in nature, described the organization of residence hall

staffs within the framework of the larger institutional organization

(Ayers & Russel, 1962; Shaffer & Ferber, 1965; Skorpen, 1966; Bacon,

1966) and some were especially aimed at evaluation of specific organi-

zational structures (Fairchild, 1963).

Professional staffing patterns have been discussed in both descrip-

tive and comparative fashion. The slalus and roles of hall staff were

described in some studies (Kilbourn, 1960; Mangus, 1972) while quali-

fications, training, and duties of staff were discussed in others

(Horle & Gazda, 1963; Rowe, 1970).

Student staffing patterns were discussed and compared in other

studies. Graduate student positions in residence hulls were scruti-

nized by a national survey (Erney, 1949) with specific attention given

to their roles and functions at various colleges (Allen, 1953; Sutley,

1967; Howell, 1971; Blake, 1972). Undergraduate student staff received











similar attention as their roles were explored and described at

Michigan State University (Marquardt, 1961), in small private colleges

(Dixon, 1970), and at two major universities in Florida (Greenwood,

1972). More theoretical discussions were also undertaken to describe

optimal utilization of these staff personnel to achieve institutional

objectives in an educational sense (Aceto, 1962; Greenleaf, 1967;

Cloaninger, 1969). Even unpaid student helpers may play a part in

support of paid student staff as evidenced by a program at the Univer-

sity of Florida (Holbrook, 1972; McBride, 1973).

However, there are several in-depth studies which deserve special

attention from both a theoretical and a functional standpoint. Among

the first to write definitively of residence halls as instruments or

vehicles of higher education was Riker (1956). In one of his earlier

major treatments (Riker, 1956) some attention was given to ideas which

could develop more effective organization. During the time leading up

to Riker's discussion, widely diverse organizational structures

abounded, developing apparently out of expediency. The most common

type found then was a divided organization characterized by autonomous

responsibility divided among lhe business office, the dean of men,

and the dean of women. The business office in these organizations

was typically in control ot budgets, finances, housekeeping, and food

services, while the deans supervised room assignments, discipline,

activities, and staff personnel for their assigned areas of responsi-

bility.

A second type of organization discussed by Riker was the single-

line organization. With this type of arrangement either the business

affairs officer or the dean of students maintained control. It was











found that the business officer was more frequently in charge at the

larger institutions, while the dean of students was responsible for

housing at the smaller colleges.

The third type of structure described by Riker was the centralized

organization. With this organization the chief housing officer was

directly responsible for the overall functioning of the residence hall

system. In this instance, the chief housing officer reported to both

the business office and the student personnel office. The larger

institutions (enrolling more than 1,000 students) were more likely to

evidence this type of organization than were the smaller institutions.

A 1953 survey of housing administrations in 238 colleges and univer-

sities revealed that 186 claimed divided organizations, 27 were single-

line organizations, 17 were centralized organizations, and 8 were

others which could not really be categorized.

In this same work, Riker also reviewed four types of housing

staffs. Perhaps the most common type consisted of housemothers, each

in charge of a hall and attending mainly to housekeeping functions

with some attention to student conduct and social functions. The

second was headed by a faculty member (sometimes assisted by additional

student staff) concerned primarily with student life. A third type

consisted of undergraduate or graduate student staff concerned with

conduct and activities. The fourth type, less frequently found prior

to the mid 1950's, was staff which utilized trained student personnel

workers who served as full-time professional administrators in the

halls.

Later, after about a decade of prolific growth in college student

enrollments and widespread residence hall construction, Riker again











devoted some special attention to discussion of residence hall organi-

zations (Riker, 1965). Wherever student housing existed, Riker felt

that housing staff could be categorized as being either "administra-

tive, management, or personnel staff." According to him, these cata-

gories, and the emphasis placed on each, directly influenced the

educational effectiveness of student housing. Of special importance

was the personnel staff which could help enliven prospects for residence

halls as learning centers, as opposed to a less effective arrangement

where minimally trained staffs only served to handle administrative

difficulties.


Some Descriptive Models

Some of the literature clearly pointed to the belief that organi-

zational structures influenced the roles residence educators are able

to play. In reports over the past decade, the COSPA Commission on

Professional Dovolopment (1972) described three models for potential

use in the housing ara of si udenii development. The firs of those

was the Administrative Model, in which the college vice president or

dean of students was responsible for the operation of residence halls.

Secondly, the Consultative Model was described where a director or

consultant headed a housing organization and primarily provided

environmental study services to collegiate administraTive officers

with special focus on the residence hall system. The third model

described was an Academic Model used to integrate the teaching and

student development functions of the college or university.

In another detailed study of large university housing organiza-

tions and their operations (Hakes, 1968), five basic organizational

patterns were described. These patterns were described in terms of











the relationship of the housing officer to the dean of students or the

college business manager:

I. Student personnel office responsible for all aspects of
residence halls

2. Business office responsible for all aspects of residence
ha I Is

3. Dual cooperation between the personnel office and the
business office

4. A centralized program with the chief housing officer respon-
sible to both the business office and the personnel office

5. A general pattern into which phases of all of the above
were used and no particular pattern was apparent

This study attempted to determine how well each organizational

pattern accomplished its philosophical objectives and what strengths

and weaknesses were perceived by its operational staff. Hakes found

that, of the institutions surveyed, 17% fell under the first category,

7% under the second category, 45% under the third category, 22%

under the fourth category, and 9r under 1 he fi fh. In n allempt o

pinpoint the most effective administrative pattern, Iakes used four

criteria:

I. Adequate facilities

2. Student personnel emphasis

3. Effective business operations

4. Future expansion plans

Hakes concluded from his study,

Comparing the four pJltlrns, padl rn 4, with its unified
housing division, comes closest to optimal achievement of
the stated standards. This unified housing approach provides
a unity of action which other patterns do not seem able to
achieve. The answer to effective housing administration
appears to lie in a unified housing program organized into
one office. (p. 44)











At Purdue University, a centralized pattern of residence hall

administration (responsible to Ihe business manager) was established

and called the "Stewart Plan" (Stewart, 1961). This plan called for

the person who was charged with both the financial and programming

functions to have overall responsibility for management of housing.

The rationale was straightforward:

No residence unit on any campus should be operated
solely to produce revenue. It should serve an educational
purpose or it should not be on a college campus. Too
often academicians think that the business office knows
nothing about education and is thoroughly unqualified to
think about any process relating to it. On the other
hand, there are business officers who believe that members
of the faculty know nothing about finance and therefore
should not be consulted on anything that involves a
financial management problem. As a result, many univer-
sity housing operations have two or three managements --
a financial management, a social management and perhaps
an educational or counseling management -- and in most
of such cases the overall program is not successful.

We let it be known at the outset that our Purdue halls
are under the direction of one management and that the
manager has the rtsuponsibilily of mocting Iho i iinci al
program as laid down, along with the responsibility of
giving the maximum educational and social program within
the limits of the residence hall income. (p. 5)

Residence hall educational and management responsibi liies were

also combined under one administration at the University of Wisconsin

(Meyerson, 1966) where five reasons were cited as a basis for doing

so:

1. Effective communications are expedited when clear and
singular lines of organizal ion and responsibility are
established. Problems of communications relating to
simple misunderstandings, the margin of human error and
timeliness are all reduced ds the number of people
responsible for directing communications are well
coordinated and receive direction from one source.

2. There is a positive relationship between sound manage-
ment and successful educational programming. The
student who is satisfied wiih the physical plant, food











services, and rate structure is likely to identity with
and participate in the educational program. One
advantage of fusing educational and management respon-
sibilities is to ensure the development of a total
program with proper balance and attractiveness to the
resident student.

3. Sound management practices, including selection and
assignment of staff, Iraining, delegation, evaluation
and promotion, are all more feasible when responsi-
bilities are clearly delineated and staff personnel
have responsibility for the total residence hall program
in their respective area.

4. The staff with dual responsibilities develops a total
perspective of the housing operation. This perspective
results in a harmonious and coordinated team effort,
an effort characterized by an open exchange of ideas,
understanding of one another's problems, and a realiza-
tion of the need for shared decision making.

5. The ever increasing college housing program demands of
its administrators diverse management and student
personnel skills. Leadership in student housing must
come from personnel who are experienced and trained in
all phases of the operation. At Wisconsin, the staff,
through their training and execution of responsibil-
ities, learn the complete nature of the housing program
and are better prepared to guide human effort and
manage physical plant. (p. 64)

Additional support for dual responsibility to bolh student affairs

and business affairs can be gained from some thoughts on the matter by

Kaie Mueller. She believed th.it while f may seem to some people that

management of students is the only concern of student personnel, housing

costs are so closely related To student personnel services that the

separation of student management and business management in either

theory or practice is never feasibl (Muel ler, 1961).

Another possible answer was offered by E. G. Williamson (1964)

when he concluded that:

If we are to be accepted as relevant in the educational
sciences, we musl have clearly identified intellectual and
professional competence. Otherwise, we will continue to be
thought of as being irrelevant, although necessary, at a
subprofessional level. (p. 144)











The challenge has been clearly described. Residence hall educa-

tors must do a better job of identifying, in the fiscal arena, the

educational scope and value of their programs; and, further, these

educators must determine which organizational structures are the best

vehicles to implement those educational programs.


Three ACUHO Surveys

Three past ACUHO surveys have done much to portray the status

of housing and food service organizations. In 1958, the ACUHO research

committee, headed by Ruth Donnelly, submitted the first report based

on data gathered over a two-year period. Along with the survey

questions and answers which were gathered from 85 of the member insti-

tutions, organizational descriptions and individual job descriptions

were also included (Donnelly, 1958). As a result, three major aspects

of housing operations were described:

1. Size and scope of their existing housing organizations

2. Organization charts

t. Job descriptions of Hie tour or tive lop peop I!n in each
organization plus Ihc slOiary ranges for thesel people, when
supply ed

The trend reported at 1hat time was one which appeared to be

toward some type of joint responsibi lity for the housing program of

both ihe business officer and 1ho student personnel dean. in these

cases, the chief housing officer was responsible to both the dean of

students and the business officer. Other types found frequently

included those in which the housing director reported to the dean of

students and those in which the housing director reported to the

bus i ness officer.











The second ACUHO survey, completed ten years after the first, was

presented in 1968 (Edwards, 1968). Organizations in this study were

similarly classified in three categories:

I. Chief housing officer reports to dean of students or
university vice-president for student affairs

2. Chief housing officer reports to comptroller or business
manager

3. Chief housing officer reports to both the office for student
affairs and business manager

Results indicated a shift away from the patterns described by the

first study. As of 1968, the arrangements of joint responsibility to

both the student personnel dean and the business officer seem to

have lost popularity. Respondents indicated a fairly even distribution

along organizational lines, as approximately 40% were directly under

the dean of students, 40% were directly under the business manager, and

20% were under both. Examples of each of the three organizational

types are presented in Appendix C.

The third study (Hallenbeck, 1976) conducted in 1976, looked at

four organizational types:

1. Chief housing officer reports Io chief student affairs
officer

2. Chief housing officer reports to chief business officer

3. Chief housing officer reports to both the chief student
affairs officer and the chief business officer

4. Chief housing officer reports to some other administrators)
not listed

Of those chief housing officers responding approximately 59%

indicated that they reported to their chief student affairs officer,

14% reported to their chief business affairs officer, 9% reported to

both their chief student affairs officer and their chief business











affairs officer, and 18% reported to some other administrators) not

listed. These results indicate a continued shift toward organizational

patterns which emphasize the student affairs aspect.

Also worth noting is the surprising 18% of organizations which

could not be listed in any of the first three categories. Yet many

of the organizations listed in this category indicated that the

"other" position to which they were accountable fell within the student

affairs or student services area of their institutions. Therefore, it

appears that an overwhelming number of housing departments are currently

a part of the student affairs or student services divisions at their

particular colleges or universities.

Responsibilities of the chief housing officers (reported in

abbreviated form earlier), and hence the span of influence of the

organizations, revealed the following:

I. Management (93.5;') room assignments, faci ity maintenance,
renovations, and custodial supervision

.'. Bud or (83.4,1 ) Iudi iole prepare, lion, payroll aid purchasing

3. Student Life (ioi) social/educa ional programmi ng, student
staff, student governmenI, and discipline

4. Off Campus Housing (65.9%) advising students about housing
not owned by the institution

5. Family Housing (47.5%) assignments, maintenance, and
programming

6. Food Service (24'/1) munu planning, food preparlrtion, and
hiring

















CHAPTER III

METHOD AND PROCEDURE


This descriptive study assessed the nature of college and univer-

sity housing organizations across the country and the subsequent range

of services or programs provided students living within various types

of such organizations. College and university housing division author-

ities who are members of the Association of College and University

Housing Officers (ACUHO) were asked to complete a questionnaire

(Appendix B) and to return it to the researcher. Data from the

questionnaires pertaining to services were related to data from the

various organizational types found in housing divisions in an attempt

to ascertain whether different organizational types offer different

services for students.

While significant data exist relating to the services provided

to students in residence halls (Chickering, 1969; KaLz, 1968; DeCoster

& Mable, 1974; Chickering, 1974; Leyden, 1966; Sanford, 1967) and

to the various organizational palurons of housing divisions (Riker,

1965; Riker, 1966; Mi I le 1962; IH llcnbeck, 1976), no studies have

been conducted which consider these variables together.

More specifically, the purpose of this investigation was to

explore:

I. The current nature of internal housing organizational
structures

2. The current external organizational relationships between
housing divisions and the college structure at large











3. The current nature and variety of services which college
housing divisions provide for their students

4. Whether or not a relationship exists between housing organi-
zations (external or internal) and the nature and variety of
services which are subsequently provided for their respective
student residents


Hypotheses

A review of the professional literature related to the services

offered to students in residence halls has shown great diversity among

colleges and universities as they have attempted to provide students

with enriched living environments (DeCoster & Mable, 1974). The

services provided have included house systems, student cooperatives,

personal and group counseling, living/learning sections, leadership

development programs, visitation programs, coeducational living programs,

career counseling, social programming, and a variety of other programs.

The literature also reveals the existence of three basic organi-

zational types of housing divisions with their differences character-

ized essentially by their respective reporting channels. They are:

1. Those reporting to college business officers

.Those reporting to college student affairs officers

3. Those reporting to both business and student affairs
officers (Hallenbeck, 1976)

The primary aim of this study has been to assess the nature and

scope of residence hall services as a function of the ho sing organi-

zational type. The following null hypotheses were tested:

I. No significant differences of general organizational struc-
ture will exist between college and university housing
divisions as they relale to the college administration at
large.

a. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the chief housing officer (Question 8,
Appendix B) and full time institutional enrollment
(Question I, Appendix B).











b. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the chief housing officer (Question 8,
Appendix B) and the total design capacity of single
student housing (Question 2, Appendix B).

c. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the chief housing officer (Question 8,
Appendix B) and ACUHO region (Question 3, Appendix B).

d. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the chief housing officer (Question 8,
Appendix B) and the nature of the institution (Question
4, Appendix B).

e. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the chief housing officer (Question 8,
Appendix B) and the type of institution (Question 5,
Appendix B).

2. No significant differences of internal organizational struc-
ture will exist among college and university housing divisions.

a. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the lowest level full-time professional
staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and full-time
institutional enrollment (Question I, Appendix B).

b. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the lowest level full-time professional
staff member (Queslion 18, Appendix B) and the total
design capaci ly of single student housing (Queslion 2,
Appendix B).

c. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the lowest level full-time professional
staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and ACUHO region
(Question 3, Appendix B).

d. No significant difference will exist between reporting
channels for the lowest level full-time professional
staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and the type of
institution (Question 5, Appendix B).

3. No significant difference will exist in the number and type
of services provided for students among various college and
university housing divisions.

Eighty-five subnull hypotheses were constructed to analyze this

question. The methodology for construction of each subnull hypothesis

was identical to those stated in Hypotheses I and 2. Consequently,











each of the 17 individual programs (Questions 32 to 48, Appendix B)

was tested for significant differences in comparison to full-time

institutional enrollment (Question I, Appendix B), design capacity of

single student housing (Question 2, Appendix B), ACUHO region (Question

3, Appendix B), institutional nature (Question 4, Appendix B), and

type of institution (Question 5, Appendix B).

4. No significant differences exist between the general organi-
zational structures of housing divisions (Question 8,
Appendix B) and the number or type of services which they
provide for students living within their residence hall
systems (Questions 32 to 50, Appendix B).

5. No significant differences exist between the internal organi-
zational structures of housing divisions (Question 18,
Appendix B) and the number or type of services which they
provide for students living within their residence hall
systems (Questions 32 to 50, Appendix B).


Sample

Participants in the study consisted of the 617 housing directors

whose institutions are listed on the Association of College and

University Housing Officers (ACUHO) newsletter mailing list. The

decision to use the ACUIIO membership group was based upon its recog-

nized professional leadership in the collegiate student housing area

and the fact that this sample group most nearly represents the national

population of collegiate housing organizations. The nine ACUHO regions

include:

I. Northwest (Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, Saskatchewan, Washington)

2. California (California, llawaii)

3. Intermountain (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming)

4. Upper Midwest (lowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin)











5. Southwest (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)

6. Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio)

7. Northeast (ConnecticuT, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Quebec, Rhode Island, Vermont)

8. Mid-Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia)

9. Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia)


Measurement

The Survey of Housing Services and Organizational Structures

(SHSOS Appendix B) was sent to the housing directors of all ACUHO

member institutions. This questionnaire was designed by the researcher

and was based in part upon the 1976 Survey of Housing and Food Service

Organizations questionnaire used by Hallenbeck (1976). In addition

to gaining basic housing organizational information as in Hallenbeck's

survey, the SHSOS also provided d1ita dealing with the emphasis given

to both responsibilities assigned to staff and services provided for

students in residence halls as perceived by ihe ACUHO members.

Content validity of he questionnaire was demonstrated by both

expert opinion and later by a field test. Four members of the Univer-

sity of Florida Counselor Education faculty and one member of the

University of Florida Educational Administration faculty were asked

to judge whether the survey would or would not provide -ufficient and

accurate information regarding both college housing organizational

structures and resultant services provided for stuJents. The

researcher than made some modifications to the originally proposed

survey as a result of suggestions received. These modifications

included clarifying various areas of job rosponsibi I ies and more











precisely stating the services provided for students in residence

hal Is.

Next, a field study was conducted by the researcher. The revised

questionnaires were distributed to housing personnel at Indiana Univer-

sity, Florida Atlantic University, South Georgia College, and the

University of Florida. As a result of the field study, additional

refinements were made to the survey which helped to more precisely

clarify the information desired.


Procedure

During the spring of 1977, surveys, including a self-addressed

stamped envelope, were sent to all ACUHO member institutions included

on the mailing list of the ACUHO Newsletter. After one month, the

return rate was found to be an acceptable 55.1%.

Approximate time required for completion of the survey was 20

to 30 minutes.

Following the return of the surveys to the researcher, responses

obtained wure transferred Io lhe Generul Purpose Answer Sheet

(Appendix D). The information on the answer sheets, based on fall,

1976 data, was then optically scanned by computer and stored on cards.

Narrative data supplied on the surveys were separately compiled.


Analysis of Data

Analysis of Hypotheses I, 2, and 3 was conducted via an IBM 370

computer using the chi-square mathematical function and was tested

at the .05 alpha level of significance.

Analysis of Hypothesis I included five comparisons of the

resulting distribution of responses to Question 8 with the distribu-

tion of responses to Queslions I, 2, 3, 4, and 5.











Analysis of Hypothesis 2 included five comparisons of the result-

ing distribution of responses to Question 18 with the distribution of

responses to Questions I, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Analysis of Hypothesis 3 included 19 comparisons of the resulting

distribution of responses to Questions 32 through 50 with the distri-

bution of responses to Questions I, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Hypotheses 4 and 5 were likewise analyzed on an IBM 370 computer

using a discriminate function subroutine with application of Wilks

lambda and were also tested at the .05 alpha level of significance.

Analysis of Hypothesis 4 included comparisons of the resulting

distribution of responses to Question 8 with the distribution of

responses to Questions 32 through 50.

Analysis of Hypothesis 5 included comparisons of the resulting

distribution of responses to Question 18 with the distribution of

responses to Questions 32 through 50.

In addition, a distribution profit lo was obtained for each of

Qusi ions I through 56.


Limitations of Study

In any evaluation of the results of this study, it should be

recognized that one of its basic liiilations is that it reflects

only the chief housing officers' perceptions of their respective

organizational structure and services to students.

There may also be some differences between stated Iheory and

actual practice among the respondunIs to the questionnaire. For

the purposes of this study, therefore, the perceptions of the respon-

denls should be understood clearly as what each perceives their











organizational structure and services to be. This phenomenon can

perhaps be more clearly understood when one considers that a chief

housing officer with a student affairs orientation may perceive his

program from a reference point different from a chief housing officer

with a business affairs orientation. The student affairs officer

places greatest emphasis on student services while the business affairs

officer places financial stability as his greatest concern.

Another possible limitation of the study is that of 617 surveys

mailed, only 340 were returned to the researcher. Thus, although a

large sample, the responses of those who volunteered to participate

in the study may not represent the situation of the entire 617.

Therefore, the results of this study may not be generalizable to the

ACUHO membership as a whole.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that some respondents may

not have fully understood or completed the survey and the information

gathered from them may then be somewhat limiting.


















CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


Introduction

Results of the investigation are presented in this chapter

according to the methodology described in Chapter III. In general,

the purpose of this study was to identify differences in the services

or programs provided to students in residence halls as a function of

the organizational structure of housing. For this purpose the group

studied was composed of those colleges and universities which are

included on the Association of College and University Housing Officers

(ACUHO) newsletter mailing list.

On Juno 8, 1976, questionnaires were mailed 1o chief housing

officers of all those colleges and universities included on the ACUHO

newsletter mailing list.

Of the 617 questionnaires mailed, 340 were returned between June

15, 1976,and July 21, 1976, resulting in a mail return rare of 55.11%.

All respondents completed ihe questionnaire, omitting only those items

which did not apply to their particular institution.




Of the 340 respondents, 17 (5.2%) were from the Northwestern

Region, 26 (7.9%) were from lie California Region, 19 (5.8%) were

from the Intermountain Region, 43 (13.1%) were from hie Upper Midwest

Region, 27 (8.2%) were from the Southwest Region, 49 (14.9%) were from


*1.~!











the Great Lakes Region, 71 (21.6%) were from the Northeast Region,

31 (9.4%) were from the Mid-Atlanlic Region, and 46 (14.0%) were from

the Southeast Region.

Responses from public institutions numbered 212 (63.7%) and

responses from private institutions numbered 121 (36.3%). Of the 340

respondents, 7 (2.1%) were from two-year institutions and 318 (97.9%)

were from four-year colleges and universities.


Data Analysis

Contingency or cross-tabulation tables were constructed to

examine each of the dependent variables in relation to the independent

variable. Chi-square or discriminant function analysis was calculated

to determine the presence of any statistically significant relation-

ships. For the purpose of this study, a level of significance of .05

or better was considered adequate to reject the null hypothesis. If

a null hypothesis consisted of more than one variable for which a chi

square was calculated, that particular null hypothesis was rejected

when 50% or more of the subnull hypotheses were rejected by signifi-

cant chi-square analysis. If a null hypothesis was rejected by signif-

icanl chi-square analysis, a llgu sample posthoc comparison test was

calculated to explore the source of the effects.


Null Hypothesis I

In general, Null Hypothesis I slated that there would be no

significant difference between college and university housing divisions

as they relate to their respective al-large college administrations

(Question 8, Appendix B). A total of five cross-tabulations were

conducted to test this hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 1(a) indicated











that no significant difference would exist between reporting channels

for the chief housing officer and full-time institutional enrollment

(Question I, Appendix B). The test for independence in this instance

yielded a chi-square of 15.92181 with 9 degrees of freedom, not

significant at the .05 level (see Table I). Although the chi-square

analysis failed to reject the subnull hypothesis at the .05 level, it

should be pointed out that results were significant at the .10 level.

Additionally, some important information was gained. Of the respon-

dents, 194 (58.6%) chief housing officers indicated that they reported

to the chief student affairs officer, 37 (11.2%) indicated that they

reported to the chief business affairs officer, 31 (9.4%) indicated

that they reported to both the chief student affairs officer and the

chief business affairs officer, and 69 (20.8%) indicated that they

reported to some other university officer not listed. These results

indicate relative stability when compared to the study done recently

by Hallenbeck (1976):

Chief housing officer reports to chief student affairs
officer (58.98%)

Chief housing officer reports to chief business affairs
officer (13.82%)

Chief housing officer ropors t-o both chief student affairs
officer and chief business affairs officer (8.75%)

Chief housing officer reports to some other university
officer not listed (18.43%) (p. 6)

Null Hypothesis l(b) indicated that no significant difference

would exist between reporting channels for the chief housing officer

(Question 8, Appendix B) and the total design capacity of single

student housing (Question 2, Appendix B). Of the 330 respondents,

90 (27.3%) were from institutions with a total design capacity of













































S


CO

N N
X 01










+- r








C)
I- c










oU o










0

















Oc
O II
O C


0o













01
0 I-










0 L--
UO
U) (N

U) II
Cl








O



00

+L- U

-- CL
U-


0'


C CO


c1)
0
C


LU

C) C
c )

t- -
_- -
CO







- O
-- *-

C 02

+-
0 C+-



O








In
E
O- 1




0-


0




<


L0
C)






C -
0 C) 0
-A- A-

00 Co 0


t1 C D0 CO












r- 'C '4


LU
m
o
(D 0


-- co
ko --











0 to 999 students, 142 (43.0%) were from institutions with a total

design capacity of 1,000 to 2,999 students, 49 (14.8%) were from

institutions with a total design capacity of 3,000 to 4,999 sTudents,

and 49 (14.8%) were from institutions with a total design capacity of

over 5,000 students. Null Hypothesis l(b) was accepted (see Table 2).

Null Hypothesis I(c) stated that no significant difference would

exist between reporting channels for the chief housing officer

(Question 8, Appendix B) and Ihe ACUIIO region of the reporting insti-

tution (Question 3, Appendix B). Table 3 shows that there were no

significant differences among the groups. Of the 327 respondents

the regional breakdown was as follows:

Northwest Region 12 (5.2%)
California Region 26 (8.0%)
Intermountain Region 19 (5.8%)
Upper Midwest Region 42 (12.8%)
Southwest Region 27 (8.3%)
Great Lakes Region 48 (14.7")
Northeast Reqion 71 (21.7%)
Miid-All H Ii l ']i o[I 31 (9. )"". )
Sou hll,,aIsl Region 46 (14. I%)

Null Hypolhesis l(c) could nol Ie rejected at the .05 level of signif-

icance.

Null Hypothesis l(d) indicated that no significant difference

would exist between reporting channels for the chief housing officer

(Question 8, Appendix B) and the institutional nature (Question 4,

Appendix B). Of the 331 respondents, 212 indicated tha they served

in public institutions and 119 indicdtod that they served in private

institutions. Null HypoThosis l(d) was accepted (see Table 4).

Null Hypothesis I(e) indicated that no significant difference

would exist between reporting channels for the chief housing officer

(Question 8, Appendix B) and the type of institution (Question 5,




















Ln





C,


O O



o o

CM













o
0
F--













C D




0


O
U3




o -
0,















a,



0
0






































O
o



0 01
L C
1
0
Ul
























m ol
L -



0 0
0 -















C)












000-


- ue
ao c
c -

IOD








0 0
U)




CC
C)
-*- U0



Ln3



0-












0
[O 0

S)
1) C







U)

O 0


> -





0







U)


CO O-










L N









I c I
0 +


L 0


ru- Cr 0 -
0< 00 L) 0
o

7 r-0 00











CO 0
N -












o 0 in0 C\




























-) r ID -






r-(0
(N CD 0 0


<03
CO
0

F-






























(D






U2
C








I --
c












































j1) (
- c






















D
C











CO II



























0..
m I










































DO
IL -


















0



U L
-1_
















.- +-
ci (


.4- [C


0 (N "O






3 (' 0o


I- (NJ N -














U-
(i in (
c -- 0>



m 170 L
L 0
+- 3

- --- 4 -- 0 i
0) ( 0 -- :: 0

-(: 2-- J: 0 -O -
0C< 00 0D 0


LCF


C- )
S0 )


TI:
0

C 0


S O







-(3
I .0







M C
O3 (-

(1)
S-C


-c 0
0)lt


ID L3 O03










































































(N r- (i










o ( I
(\i rN -.


I"


















0
CM







o -
+- M
0 II
)- c



















C, )
U N

N -











S4-
(N L

C


0






()00(1)


L

+-
U)O




CD
4- C
0 0










0 .+
C D




-I-
1 0 (








> O-
-C


C))-


U -
H I- r.

(-
C)



>- (N

Ct-
0 0


O)
rJo to


c
)


C U

--
(D )C 0

C0 C 0
(~)C O 0











Appendix B). Included among the 328 responses were 7 from two-year

institutions and 316 from four-year institutions. It is worth noting

that no respondents from two-year institutions indicated that their

reporting channels were to either the chief business affairs officer

or both the chief student affairs officer and the chief business

affairs officer. Hull Hypothesis I(e) was not rejected (see Table 5).

Since none of the five subnull hypotheses for Null Hypothesis I

was rejected, Null Hypothesis I was accepted.


Null Hypothesis 2

In general, Null Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be no

significant differences of internal organizational structure among

college and university housing divisions (Question 18, Appendix B).

Null Hypoihesls 2(a) stated thai no significant difference would

exist between reporting channels for the lowest level full-time

professional staff member (Queslion 1B, Appendix B) and ful -time

institutional enrollment (Question I, Appendix B). Table 6 reveals

a significant chi-square for this subnull hypothesis. Respondents

indicated that a large percentage (49.55) of their lowest level full-

lime professional staff members repor-ed directly io the chief

housing officer. Lowest level full-time professionals who reported

to the assistant housing officer for administration numbered 8 (2.61),

those who reported to both the assistant housing officer for adminis-

tration and the assistant housing officer for programming numbered 18

(5.8%), and those who reported to some other housing officer numbered

109 (35.0%). Null Hypothesis 2(a) was rejected at the .05 level of

sign finance.

























C-)









o
L















I r.
L)
CN m
N





co







C N
CU








1- U









L
















1 L
>- -
i m
L II

O
LL








rC r





i)
C
I-







cU


- a
m L

-



T L-




a. +- U
000


0

L +-

U4-




U)


m
0 c
)- 0
I >










ur
-o C
-- -


'3




O -I-

0
C)
n-'


- 0 0 'U













1 0 rn LO '.

























L

U U)
0 C) 0 )












C) C) N















S4- C
Cc4- ,
Do m


v) u01 CD L



-- 4- .- LC
_C_ C- C O +-
0C< 00 CD 0









































Zr co N co c0












0 (N
N or






N in


E:
.0 4-

0)

4-







OO


-E (
00







( O
- - C






al M
(U I-















,i- c
0
0 4-
LU










C U y

+-
(E
-j-









5-I-


co
(N r-


















CO
I -
o












L c
0
o
















0


o CO

O c
O(




o -
oi









O --




O O
0 N



01 0


0






C
0










> C

--IE *- C

S-t-- LA +-
0 I 0 L-


L(. 0. 0


0n



O (0
I L 0C
Oc


+- (- -
c E

(- 0 ) 10 (U
(U a- C0 L


0 0 0. O


r- NO










N- NO


0


Uo o


0)

-- (
in c
0
O -
I +-
C0

C --
to L (n
*- -) --
(o ( c

n O E
LO( -Z Z
0 0 0











Null Hypothesis 2(b) stated that no significant difference would

exist between reporting channels for the lowest level full-time

professional staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and the total

design capacity of single student housing (Question 2, Appendix B).

Table 7 indicates that the lowest level full-time professionals in

those institutions with less total design capacity for single student

housing tend to have reporting channels directly to the chief housing

officer (76.8%). On the other hand, the lowest level full-time

professionals at those institutions with greater total design capacity

for single student housing tend to have reporting channels to some

other housing officer not listed (61.2%). Null Hypothesis 2(b) was

rejected.

Null Hypothesis 2(c) indicated that no significant difference

would exist between reporting channels for the lowest level full-time

professional staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and the ACUHO

region (Quesiion 3, Appendix B). While Table 8 indicates that no

significant difference exists, it is interesting to note that of the

25 respondents from the California Region, 5 of these (20%) indicated

that the lowest level full-lime professional reported Io the assistant

housing officer for programming. This percentage differs substantially

from the range of 3.7% to 1I.81 found within each of the other eight

ACUHO regions. Null Hypothesis 2(c) was not rejected.

Null Hypothesis 2(d) staeid that no significant difference would

exist between reporting channies for the lowest le;el full-lime

professional staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and the institu-

tional nature (Question 4, Appendix B). Of the 311 respondents

included, 206 indicated that they served in a public institution and




















U) 0
O


U) O








o or
O -



N




co
C C










OC



O

- C


















0) -
01




o ii
o
0

















O- k-
oU
N IC












O-
o C
0







) -o


i I











U) U
0 1
0c
0I -




)a


co G)
o


'0 r- CL o


7)


m


E



U




C)C



0 "--
o)









0-- 00
in





10 )










q)







C) 0
0 I
C




UO



~ -I -
I I


-i-

a)
C- U


a)





C
_I-

).-

10


U)








l C
S 0
0

O
4 L
S1- L )


C 0 --
< O <


0)



Ln
C)

Q) C- U)
O c



m I 0 -- +
w 0 L 0 0
< a_ m 0


0 0 CO


C) N
N























co N
N


m r-
- o


Co
















J N
0











4 N
I II


c











C
S-














< N
CO
C



S11
c













c
C



z 1










c


CO NCI


r-N N CI o D


CT)
C

In C
- 0
D
SL- -


C- -I
ro il
+- L -



<. 0 <


L)



0
O
: L 0,
0 c
-
o E

-1-- C) -


-0 `- 00


0 C
c





0 )
0,
OI





I-
(U




c



---.
00) .








.J)
C C)
co >o


--


1) n)


-I


0 0
E






C -I
< CO


N N C



C) 0 N aN













O o C n 0",
0 0 o (N 0
N





-


E -- c
-.) m0
0 C)0 Cl
> c
a mom
a) C) 0 U)
- r n -



L- 0L
0 > +
_i 1- n











105 indicated that they served in a private institution. In public

institutions, 89 (43.2%) of the lowest level full-time professional

staff members reported directly to the chief housing officer while

in private institutions some 65 (61.9%) did so. Null Hypothesis 2(d)

was rejected at the .05 level of significance (see Table 9).

Null Hypothesis 2(e) stated that no significant difference would

exist between reporting channels for the lowest level full-time

professional staff member (Question 18, Appendix B) and the type of

institution (Question 5, Appendix B). Table 10 does not indicate a

significant chi-square at the .05 level. Yet, of the seven two-year

institutions reporting, five (71.4%) indicated that Their lowest

level full-time professional staff member reported directly to the

chief housing officer. This percentage compared with 144 (48.6%) of

the 296 respondents from four-year institutions who indicated a

reporting channel to some other housing officer not listed. Hull

Hypothesis 2(e) was accepted.

Since three of the five subhypothees (6uOi) to NIill Hypolhesis 2

were clearly rejected, Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected. Tnere were

statistically significant differences between reporting channels for

lowest level ful I-time professional staff members with respect to full-

time institutional enrollment, total design capacity of single student

housing, and institutional nature.


Null Hlypothesis 3

In general, Null Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be no

significant difference in the number and type of services provided

for students among the various college and university housing divisions.












































































CN N
( (













(9


U)
L





4-
-I-
)roV
C Z

oi C

n cn







0.-
I- --

L


- C-


(1)
m c








OL







('-

U.
CU U



-- )





'-C


-)



X -











ro


- C








+- LU
-U 11
-- I.
O L


L












A--
C o
S- o
C-
> c








U)
c



0) ro(
> co
a) U) o C)
E C


LU L
S-- o
--LO_
O =1
_j L| _


r-


c

C)

0 U
L L C)



( L



[ 0o

[- 0 M:


0 C)
CN


C)
- O
UT) 0


0
3 O
O C



8 t
F- *- "
C 4-

F- U-n


mE
-- a) -


< O


























































-


8
O
+-
10 3





--
0 --




0 -




E >-


I x3
2 -
S-

-Q


C





m
a)



F- -











C-







+--


*- 0co 0 r- r-
I O O -
Co
c (N o












I, o o -










I C 0





L o 0 Oc


U -c : -c
-U (U.)- LC- 4
Ci) In (U )4- 0 (
S- -- -- -- ro n .c C)
S <+-" 4- UO <0<

0) 0









O-
0O i



(9) 0


C)




> c
0 (U C C')

- F- a---
a)I ac

a) -- o
0 0-
09 = La)
-J-La n- 0











The services provided for students included 17 specific programs:

social programming, recreational programming, academic programming,

accredited course instruction by professional and paraprofessional

staff, academic advising, career counseling, personal/social counsel-

ing, student government advising, service to the local community,

referrals to other institutional agencies, student leadership training,

staff selection, student staff development, cooperative student

housing, special interest "houses," living/learning sections/houses,

and new student orientation (Questions 32 to 50 respectively, Appendix

B). Of these 17 specific programs, 5 proved to be significantly

different by at least one measure: academic programming (by ACUHO

region), accredited course instruction (by total design capacity of

single student housing and also by institutional nature), student

government advising (by ACUHO region), living/learning sections/

houses (by total design capacity of single student housing), and

special interest houses (by total design capacity of single student

housing and also by ACUHO region). Tables II to 17 may be referred

to for specific data relating to these 5 programs. Table 18 reflects

the data pertaining to the remaining 12 programs which were not found

to be significant. Since only ) of the 17 specific programs (29.4%)

indicated any significant differences at the .05 level, Null Hypothesis

3 was accepted.


Ni I I Hypothesis 4

In general, Null IHypothesis /4 stayed that there would be no

significant difference between the general organizational structures

of housing divisions(Question 8, Appendix B) and the number or type














































C

0

0

0










Za
:



- 0


I-


C













Un


(\


CM









--




LJ <-



C
W ^T








C





w r-
- II
L







c





S(N

c













IO






U 11
C C II



0 II
ii



r-'













02


r- cli

CN





0 10







N


(N '


0 0
Z m>-





















V-o
SO













XN 0
X '0

(N


o Ci
(N ON


O -
Lo 01














0

c
C 3
00
--

SDC
u




S(DO
C -t
- in



L (0







C) c:
C0
LU


(O

0










*a -


















































c


-I-
0


L
mz


t t-
+-

U) Z0





), 0 *-
- tc



- 0 1
U0




L LU
UC
U-


Ao-
0



LU
>-


<


(I
o- r
C 0



I -



















0 G


" -1 0










O C-



U (N
X C
- 0



















( P7
o n






















- I -
- C













(D n
^- s-
U 1 ,
(J, 0


o tM
a












r- Cr











-o


C U
0 C)
Z >-




































U,'
N








i
(I) II














Li C_

















































zU
LJ ['
U) II







SN.







0 II
-~ CC













H -




Li
c







L













4 CN















+-





40 '
U1 > >
aO ^)


CO -
'41 Wi


Li


r11 co







C N
cci











c-c CO
























N '-J
I\1






(U^ L,'l


10 Q
O 0>
-, >-















































cn





In
) ) -
-n c
10




























a,
I- c




Ln -(
4-









(-I



01
-- C
u









o
c


<


S(


(0

SC)
X E

[^


- DM


I- c






0
O


0 =
L c


0










0 0
o I



o K










OCc






+M-y
0 II
o0 U

















L _




tO I


(N rC
- Eq


1 0

0 0)
Z >














































0

U)
a)


0
lu





O
IO
0





00
+-
a)



in




- e
a)




.0 (1
U




0
0I
'0
a) a)

I) -t-
i



o

(a)
Q-)
0




0
a)
a)

a)



ID
C


0s
N
CM


F- rO


c:
\)
1U) II








c





w d









, c


CL :
C




-

() II



















H-
U









0 II
C

















U 0
0+-



U) I


- C\
N N







(n r-
CM


(N


KT M


O CU


,n


0 a



























o
cc












00
nx L

X r






- (N

O- ICI




















O7
I- 0






II












01
ON
c













c)























ro r
L C
Co


























0
(N
C) c
0











0 II
















iCC
c n



C n

0 -


i- t
>U
--2 I


r O0
LN CO











- V


C) rI-
Lm t-


(0

_o
























F- r~ 0C
- F- 9 Q
S^0 0
cc cc cc


C
O






I--
o1-

0 +-







0
CD








C, C










Co 0
:I-_





cm









4-
00




I- C















.- 2-
L +

.-- 0I
0 02
o-




C







S0- I
.- (D C

















L r
)

t
) L
*^C r


0 O
CC

D 0
0 -

L -
Jo 0


in c
0)




L- D-- J
0) C










co 0
aU c
c > --
(0 0














L C L
ccc






0-





t- L











O (D
L- -

- C
0 0I













U 0
-- 0






C IC
>0


14-



C-







('1 0^
0t


N -

co CO


00 Cc
Go co





cc cc

















,-T r--

ICA













0HA
03 c^









Lr- -f
O" C
li 0





r~ ^


0)

c 0) r



S l 03 o 31- 0



L 0 O-

- ) 1 01 i -0 0V 0
I, iZ (9 1 t- 01




10 Cm ( L) S (r) r K o 'S rC

o E uG 0 C 0 ii L C-
O c Qi- "2- ( ci- (-o


cc i Cn









in cN
00 '-0 LC1
rD 0n









CO
0 0
CC)I [13 L-







PI)D







03 Cl l
-i.I c3 oID






ID Un c)
n *)I r-
O^ L^ I P
In (it











68











o-



O- --
0O ( CO N -





















I- -
(U

























-- 0 3 0 D
Su --( o- co
CI- r~ CM F -
o o U- Un C C (









--0- d 0
Lo- :I- o
n -n
(0 _(







0 6D - lo I C
( U (U -






S0- 0 Ori u) I])
3
24









tcc




























D C Q) >
E) o )1- -
0 -00 -2 '+- N 4N (
u LU +I-- L N (N (0
ai >- O o( r.r N (
>- (( E '2 0 o F


-4- 0l E 4E

'- O- O OIU


F-





I t ( cT( L- (N


L- (0









-3 II 0 2 0

01 .) N3 I) (U
i- 10 2 U )
oC I C) ( c a( > 0
F- E ~na)u -J -

( N-- Ui i i-- -- U (r^ IO
(U C- 3 L 13 2,- V( n 2D rQ I
L 13 L U) (U (- 3 o o- 4 ) o r-3


CL 02 DO n C O - c- NC )--'






















C
0



O +-
S4-


0 +-












0) +-
I- -













m+















0) -
00

-I- O)
c )






c

























-- L_
I
D1 0)









0) )- -u



E- 0 )

Un )-
4- C C



O 0
0- 0) 0














L -











CCa









0
l_
rs-


CC
0)



I-
CL 0
I) -
"0 0-I











of services/programs which they provide for students living within

their residence hall systems (Questions 32 to 48, Appendix B). Table

19 reflects the mean scores for each of the four chief housing officer

reporting channels: to the chief student affairs officer, to the

chief business officer, to both the chief student affairs officer and

the chief business officer, and to some other college or university

officer not listed. Seven factors proved of significant worth as

discriminators in combination. The most powerful single discriminating

effects resulted from the service/program of student staff development.

Others which were of significance in combination were (in order of

contribution): staff selection, student government advising, recrea-

tional programming, referrals to other institutional agencies, new

student orientation, and academic programming. Table 20 shows the

best classification matrix which resulted from the use of service/

programming scores as predictors of general organizational type. In

the ideal situation service/programming scores could be used to

accurately predict the general organizational structure of housing

divisions characterized by reporting channels of 1he chief housing

officer. Null Hypothesis 4 was rejected al the .05 level of signifi-

cance.


Null Hypothesis 5

In general, Null Hypoihesis b staled ihat there would be no

significant differences between the internal organizational structures

of housing divisions (Question 18, Appundix D) and the number or type

of programs/services which they provide for students living within

their residence hall systems (Queslions 32 to 48, Appendix D).











71







M oT-, o- NC3'o V N co
00 0C i 0VtG. N O -


F'1c C- N C Vt N o




0 m 00 o -O 0
0 M ON 1-- m c\l 1
L N m \O -1 r- N c co C Ln







0

D to Co rO- >o t0'o o N N

L, C Lc ON in R 'DD OM OT (0 o O
0- C- II 01 CON O l in N
O CC









1-- 0 . . . ..






C L 2 -
0)






L4- IQ
-o i o0











.O i- N N C' V N
. C . -- .- .. .
(1) C-' 1 Nc NN C t t (N Vt






o 0- 0 "
00) -0-- t
O 0





.0 -- 0
c D c -4n
Lo c- c


















L )-- 0 - <
D >- f u 0 E' ) 0 C 0L









E o 8 g C U O
cc c0 O C . . -








> NC i >: N t r

c o- C -- O r > D 4D C -
) E0 -E 0)





















.-I .- a) io =
S0) Q)) + C
F- X
















-E0 tLC(C
)L c) Q L ()a L)-> _
D ini1 c0 0 -
nE cF-







S+- +-) Co + n -
Si ~ v- -, rj lt r ) i i ~o
















2-rj;)n 10 010 0)' o O -
C C cC >C














00 1) 0) 0 0 0 c)0
C - & - O
L L

















0 a) 00 0 oc-c
to D D)0 O
C)C) ( -0 C) 0 (
1- 0 ui (0 '4

Cci + 4 21 c 0 ) 0) 0) 0)
0 00 0 10 Q 0 30 )- 0) 0) 0-
0)1 L -,D O U 22 2 1 ) 2 2, 2 2 fD





1n ) L aj i i- 1- 00' o0o.00' 0- 0 '--














> ~ t 0' 0- f 0 0 0- 0- 0- 0- 0






























F-I
S r-- co r- r-
C r) V) i

FO + o- ro m







So r-- ro- N co O
_mU Ch a N IIN

O
F 1 -\ N N U


N
.0


C OV0F O C0) 0) .0
F) OCON O N N -
o ((' -4) 0 cF 'FF (-
ON OG .-c '
-- rn C- Ir CU F- -r

.0 r mUr N rV N M










F-)
U)
















C3,
C


(D c
---- r- 0
0 '0)00 'CD o L >o








SDL
a)
c 0

Ti 4) O
--) 4- >N r- c 0 -7)

j "1 0D- N .1 ) - Do
CO r [- u [ F-
D [ U) [ 9 (U1 ) '0 0 A


CCL

- m N





fD 3 r4--




N r) .a, O
[.-- U -
4-o U o L)





u) v) -) C C
0D 0 4'1C) D L-- a) --
u4- Ca c r- Ci m -
c c a i FL C [3 C [ ( [ - ID
FF -4- -- -- -- -C [- c c -- U

f) I4- C i- C C [- V- C) -I






>C C C Cr C c C
000 O O C O U-
.0-- .-- .- --- - -- C
S-F-- F- -- -- F +-

L 0 0(C) [ll C 1D [C C)

L C0 [F 0C CF (C 0-






























O il N
L


t_.


ca

UC N O cO cO
00



r-
(1l O 0 c 0 GD L


-E GO L c
0 ) E D -

"0Q- n -


S L U
CU D
.-0 .-0 >
4- D -o r co -

D I cO"- 0 I GDD GDi Gu




O :
S >0 0
x-



.uu
r- -- ,r





c- -0

U --


Li. '-8 '



C *- 0n E
,0 C L D
S -- -a L

2.0 CL CO LC m

U 0
0(4- C- 0+ U 1 t
ui -l) I- Cj (u m -s m 0
10 (D LUL J -
SE 0 0 0 0
u -F L ) L











Table 21 reflects the mean scores for each of the 17 specific programs

listed for each of the five lowest level full-time professional staff

member reporting channels: to the chief housing officer, to the

assistant housing officer for administration, to the assistant housing

officer for programming, to both the assistant housing officer for

administration and the assistant housing officer for programming, and

to some other housing officer not listed. Ten factors proved of

significant worth as discriminators in combination. The most power-

ful single discriminating effects resulted from the service/program of

recreational programming. Others which were of significance in

combination were (in order of contribution): staff selection, academic

advising, special interest houses, accredited course instruction by

professional and paraprofessional staff, student staff development,

service to the local community, referrals to other institutional

agencies, personal/social counseling, and career counseling. Table

22 shows the best classification malrix which resulted from the use

of service/programming scores as predictors of internal organizational

type. In the ideal situation, servi c/programming scores could be

used to accurately predict the ilnernal organizational structure of

housing divisions as characterized by reporting channels of the lowest

level full-time professional staff member. Null Hypothesis 5 was

rejected at the .05 level of significance.












75



co o 'o n -

4-N at 10 a "'
0 l n r co m
I-- c

tO at r c C


,,Co ra t r-N '0
L CDt 0 rO (
) o\ ILn C, co Oo L
09 0t it CUJ CO CU 0

2C I t -I D n

L)
.'- +




g- 0


-+- U '0 NP L 0 0 (N
+- a t ( a
0c 0) I cU CU N 0





1 C
C D


L5 & ....
U L U)
N- 0 C 0L C I o
) 0 E L N Ln N r
'C U IJ)LU ix it o at LC
S0) 4c- D N (i" U CU N
E U L. 0 0 -

H Ur- a c at ( N (N
O I ui O L






S0 CD- C


U '-


'- i 4o 0



CD - .- u n m L L

)L a 1





CL fu CC O'
II I E U -

















7 (1) Q 0 )
LIC -

> 0 o) LL 0u 0
L2 cC at U N 0 ) Li
(. - )- L C) (0\ 1 ( 0


















0 IL '4-' <0 aC < t 2( II U-- rt CU CU O
N- c C C. L
Ur 000 at at (N (N











t (0 0
-1- 0 L +-
L O) ID 0 i- D 0

> C 0 C- C) 2 I I1
Q) Ul uE4- Uj
at u no a rt Q Q- Lat a a-
UU [U i ( L (i L C 2 ) C t 2+ Q) Ln
U .- oIL o- o r) i i L O +- N N-
2 L09 0 0 U 0 U- *- (U -0






0 0 0 0 0




0-0 0- 0' C0

















t N 'T r o 0 N N
Sr N co oN o O 0
4- in co0 0 0 O - r-
0 4 -0 n Z0 V ) -
N 0 N C r , 0 0 -,



L (3 0 0 In 0) 0 0 n m

1'C 0O O c 0 0 0 C'

04
N o ) N O 0 P-



N


4n r- M 'n In y- o cr N


Oc

in




00 C

C 0 0 N ( 0 N C) 0
S0 L E - O O N N N -
CNM 0 - O O 0 0 I OI 0
SI C -. n -
0






I "L -
IN0 0 N )

0 a
*- 4 -(C





,0 0 0 N 0 ) O C n O -











.-- C) iIN - CO
SM 00--















a- Oc > D- 4- -
G0 "
> 0




- 4- ( C C 0 0 ) > 0 C
00 0 C. '4O 0 0 C) C 0 0
0 I-- a) a) 04














0r3' O "- 0 s c


0 4 C 0- o N -0
-Ou- "3 \'C r c
.00 o -+-. . . ,



A>- 41
CD C- o I V)


O3C/) OC O O] 0 E O (D i fD -- O >
0 4 C 0* -- f E L1 0)-- C -

0 0L ) i i ) L I- 0 C 0







0 (O -0 (I- ) 0 (1 0) ll U
OU C: C~l C- i C C
O O O O O O O O O





















o o A


C) C) 0

0N CM Cn
000



SO N )









SN oN C

LN

C E
C cE 0 oL
Sr-n 0














-- o) ( O o C)



C-
0 C









XN- c C 0 C0 -





L U CD C C
C) L




4- C
0-- 0 "











C C 0
-- -L 0


cC Cc) C) o .


CU o 4- +












2" C )> C
0




C CC
L O O
-- C C Cn N Lr' o



+- (NC2C

L- CC- D C




-) ^ C_ 1 UC












C 4- -J- -- C
C c) <1- C






















0 0

1 La -0
- N












- CO 00



















0 0








C(r-- r- o
c{"i -- 4o


(N NN













Lr) -
0 40 C0

A)O o~


CN


L
LW1
0 .0
E:

0



U- E





i-C
cc
.- +- -

















01 -
U. )i







+-F- 0


0 0










(U,
- 0 j



C~ Q

L. Z)

. l 1 L


i. ll


NN
CN rc\




































L
U)


0


(4" CL


'L 4I L.0










U) C U
> o U



0 3
c o *- 0 ) 4i
w i l i L o)
( Q o Uo -a

C-) ) C < < -- U
| > L ( L ]U L



'-4- 4)4- U- 4) '-4-- IU 0

















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION


The purpose of this investigation was to identify differences in

the services offered to students in residence halls as a function of

the organizational structure of housing. The population studied

consisted of those colleges and universities which are listed on the

Association of College and University Housing Officers (ACUHO) news-

letter mailing list. In the opinion of this researcher, knowledge of

which organizational structures most frequently provide specific

services to students is essential for both current and future housing

professionals. Clarification of real service differences among the

various housing organizational types appears necessary so that housing

professionals can make intelligent choices regarding which organiza-

lionil structure to adopt for specific service goals ind objectives.

Both continuing and new chief housing officers concerned with

national organizational and service programming trends should be well

informed concerning the differences in services offered to students

among the various housing divisions. Knowledge of such differences

in service programs may provide Ihe basis for a more effective organi-

zational structure to deliver those services to students which the

housing professional places in high priority. In the opinion of the

researcher, a lack of coordination between some of the goals of housing

divisions (the services offered to students) and the organizational











structure implementing those goals has resulted in a diminished effec-

tiveness of professional housing programs.


Subjects and Design

College and university residence halls have a long and distin-

guished place in the history of the American college. The ACUHO was

selected as the organization to survey because of its stature among

housing professionals and its national membership. A questionnaire

was the instrument used to survey the institutions listed on the ACUHO

newsletter mailing list. The questionnaire attempted to gather four

types of data: reporting channels for the chief housing officer,

reporting channels for the lowest level full-time professional,

services/programs offered to students in residence halls, and demo-

graphic. Questionnaires were field tested and then mailed to 617

chief housing officers at institutions listed on the ACUHO newsletter

mailing list. The total return rate was 55.1% or 340 questionnaires.


Analysis and Results

Each of the dependent variables (full-time instilfuional enroll-

ment, total design capacity of single student housing, ACUIIO region,

institutional nature, and type of institution) was examined in rela-

tion to the independent variables (reporting channel for the chief

housing officer, reporting channel for the lowest level full-time

professional, and each of 17 specific services/programs offered to

students in residence halls). A chi-square was calculated to determine

statistical independence between groups. When appropriate, a large

sample posthoc comparison test was calculated to explore the source

of the effects. Frequencies and percentages for each of the variables

were examined.











No statistically significant differences among general organiza-

tional structures of housing divisions were found with respect to

total design capacity for single student housing, ACUHO region, insti-

tutional nature, or type of institution (Null Hypothesis I).

The areas of internal organizational structure of housing divisions

which were found to have statistically significant differences with

respect to reporting channels for the lowest level full-time profes-

sional staff member (Null Hypothesis 2) were full-time institutional

enrollment, total design capacity of single student housing, and the

institutional nature. Those areas for which no statistical indepen-

dence were found were ACUHO region and the type of institution.

While the data analysis for Hypothesis I did not provide suffi-

cient evidence for rejection of the hypothesis, data analysis for

Hypothesis 2 did provide substantial evidence for its rejection at the

.05 level. The data related to Hypothesis I do, however, closely

relate to the findings of Hallenbeck (1976) and serve to indicate the

stability of the current ACUHO reporting channels of institutional

chief housing officers. Data related to Hypothesis 2, on the other

hand, do indicate that the lowest level full-time professional staff

members in larger public institutions wilh greater design capacity

for single student housing tend to report to a representative of the

chief housing officer rather than to the chief housing officer. In

private institutions, however, the lowest level full-time professional

staff members report more frequently to the chief housing officer.

With regard to the 17 specific programs included in the analysis

of Hypothesis 3, 5 proved to be significantly different on at least

one measure: academic programming (by ACUHO region), accredited











course instruction (by total design capacity of single student housing

and also by institutional nature), student government advising (by

ACUHO region), living/learning sections/houses (by total design capac-

ity of single student housing), and special interest houses (by total

design capacity of single student housing and also by ACUHO region).

Although the data analysis for Hypothesis 3 did not provide sufficient

evidence for rejection at the .05 level, some importance can be

attached to the programming differences among housing organizations

at institutions of varying size and nature, along with those located

in different ACUHO regions.

Discriminant function analysis of the services/programs offered

to students in residence halls as they relate to the general organiza-

tional structure of housing divisions revealed that seven specific

programs taken in combination can serve as predictors of general organ-

izational structure. The seven programs (in order of decreasing

contribution) were student staff development, staff selection,

student government advising, recreational programming, referrals to

other institutional agencies, new studerit orientation, and academic

programming.

Discriminant function analysis of the services/programs offered

to students in residence halls as they relate to the internal organi-

zational structure of housing divisions also revealed significant

differences. In this instance, the 10 factors (in order of decreasing

contribution as predictors) taken in combination were recreational

programming, staff selection, academic advising, special interest

houses, accredited course instruction by professional and paraprofes-

sional staff, student sliff development, service to Ihe local community,











referrals to other institutional agencies, personal/social counseling,

and career counseling,


Conclusions

This study demonstrated that there are differences as well as

similarities among the housing organizations studied with regard to

services/programs offered to students in residence halls. Also, it is

apparent that even when significant differences do exist, no particular

organizational groups) is consistently different from the others.


Null Hypotheses I, 2, 3, 4, and 5

None of the subnull hypotheses for general organizational struc-

ture (Hypothesis I) could be rejected at the .05 level. Yet the data

gained in this study clearly substantiate the findings of Hallenbeck

(1976) obtained over a year ago.

With three of the five (60%) subnull hypotheses for Hypothesis 2

being rejected, some statistically significant data were obtained. In

terms of the variables of full-time institutional enrollment, total

design capacity of single student housing, and institutional nature

(public vs. private), it appears that a single factor--that being

the number of full-time professionals--might be emerging. Greater

numbers of students enrolled in an institution and housed in univer-

sity residence halls (both more likely in the larger public institu-

tions) apparently and obviously result in additional levels of

staffing between the lowest level full-time professional and the

chief housing officer.

Analysis associated with Hypothesis 3 indicates that some

interactions, though not statistically significant, may be existent











primarily between the types of services/programs offered to students

in residence halls and the total design capacity of single student

housing along with ACUHO region and institutional nature. Perhaps

these results, like those associated with Hypothesis 2 are at least

partly reflective of additional numbers and/or levels of housing

professional staff. Those programs which received the greatest

organizational emphasis (on a 5 point scale, 5 indicating the greatest

emphasis) by respondents as a whole were staff selection (4.3173),

student staff development (4.1587), and personal/social counseling

(3.6790), while those which received the least organizational emphasis

included cooperative student housing (1.7638), accredited course

instruction by professional and paraprofessional staff (1.9373), and

service to the local community (2.1402).

Discriminant analysis completed in relation to Hypotheses 4 and

5 reveals several noteworthy points. The first is that some service/

programming factors used ds discriminators for Ilypotheses 4 and 5 are

more effective than others. Of lie 13 specific factors included as

predictors, 9 were used as predictors for only one hypothesis or the

other. In order of contribution, those services/programs which served

as predictors (41.7%) of reporting channels for the chief housing

officer included student staff development, staff selection, student

government advising, recreational programming, referralF to other

institutional agencies, new student orientation, and academic

programming. Each of these services/programs occupies a position of

prominence in a professional viewpoint which places emphasis on student

services and universily-wide issues. On the other hand, those factors

(in order of contribution) which served as predictors (35.66%) of












lowest level full-time professional staff member reporting channels

included a predominance of factors of greater local and individual

concern: recreational programming, staff selection, academic advising,

special interest houses, accredited course instruction by professional

and paraprofessional staff, student staff development, service to the

local community, referrals to other institutional agencies, personal/

social counseling, and career counseling. As with the study done by

Hallenbeck (1976), this researcher found most respondents who wrote

in answers in the "Other" category for chief housing officers'

reporting channel did so naming some other student affairs officer,

such as the dean of students, the dean of student services, or the

dean of student development. Should these responses be included with

those of the chief student affairs officer, the predictability of a

student affairs reporting channel would be enhanced by nearly 57 addi-

tional cases, a substantial percentage of those included in the data

analysis (20.58%).


Implications

Chief housing officers who wish 1o design or redesign their organ-

izational structure to deliver specific services/programs to students

may find it helpful to know which organizational structures currently

do so. Several results of this investigation seem relevant to chief

housing officers. First, hose chief housing officers who report

directly co the chief busiiinss oflicrr rather than Iho chiuf student

affairs officer scored consistently lower on all of the service/

programming variables except for academic advising, student government

advising, and cooperative student housing. Second, higher service/

programming scores were recorded in those instances where the lowest











level full-time professional staff member reported to an assistant

housing officer for programming. Those services/programs which were

emphasized in this instance included: social programming, recreational

programming, academic programming, accredited course instruction by

professional and paraprofessional staff, student government advising,

referrals to other institutional agencies, student leadership training,

special interest houses, and living/learning sections/houses. Third,

these data indicate that the delivery of services/programs to students

in residence halls is clearly enhanced by the inclusion of an assistant

housing officer for programming within a housing organization.

The results of this investigation apparently provide the first

baseline data available relating to the status of services/programs

within the ACUHO organization. While such data for organizational

status have been available in the past and have been useful in deter-

mining organizational trends over the years, similar data have not

been available in the service/programming area. Perhaps this study

will provide the inform ition which can help determine future trends in

this vital area of concern to Ihe professional housing educator.


Recommendations for Further Research

Uniform instruments) or means of gathering data should be

developed and periodically revised by ACUHO to gain organizational and

service/program information which can be useful to the housing educator

in the field. Such information would serve to keep housing profes-

sionals more fully informed regarding both the perceived emphasis

given to student services/programs and the organizational types used

as delivery vehicles for these services. Data from the field should

then be gathered on a regular basis (every 5 to 10 years is suggested)











in order to provide useful up-to-date information. Should special

situations arise, national in scope, perhaps more frequent sampling

would be advisable.

Additional research is also advisable to explore the impact of

various student staff organizations upon the service/program area.

It seems probable that student staff could have a significant impact

upon service/programming efforts conducted within the residence hall

setting.

Further, the area of student perceptions of residence hall services/

programs should be researched. By doing so, the housing educator could

base service/program decision making upon extensive student and staff

Input.

Additional research regarding services/programs offered to students

in the residence halls would prove invaluable to the housing educator

in the years immediately ahead.


















APPENDIX A


COVER LETTER TO ACUHO MEMBER


Dear ACUHO Member:

I would deeply appreciate your taking 15 or 20 minutes from your
schedule today to respond to the accompanying survey. The responses
you make on this survey will enable the researcher to provide the ACUHO
organization with current data not only about our state of organiza-
tional development as has been done in the past, but also about our
level of programming services to students and any correlations which
may exist between organization type and programming services. The
implications of a correlational relationship are of course, considerable,
and results of this study will therefore be published and/or made avail-
able to the ACUHO membership at large.

More specifically, this study will attempil to answer the following
questions:

1. What types of organize tional relationships exist today between
housing divisions and the college administration at large?
2. What types of internal organizational structures are present
wi Ihin col lege hItusing division s today?
3. What services or programs do various housing division
personnel perceive they provide for their sludents?
4. Does a particular pattern of services or programs distinguish
among the housing organization types?

This study has been approved and is sponsored in part by the ACUHO
Research and Information Committee.

Data from each institution will be coded to insure the confiden-
tiality of responses and no atlemai) will be made to compare or evaluate
the program of any college or universe y.

Thank you very much for your help on this project.

Sincerely,


Raymond L. Holbrook
Residence Life Coordinator
Graham Area
West Campus


















APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF HOUSING SERVICES
AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES


Your institution

In supplying this information, please use Fall, 1976 as the
reference point.

Identifying Information

I) Your full-time institutional enrollment:

a) 0 to 999 c) 5,000 to 9,999

b) 1,000 to 4,999 d) Over 10,000

2) Total design capacity of single s udon housing:

a) 0 to 999 c) 3,000 to 4,999

b) 1,000 to 2,999 d) Over 5,000

3) Your ACUHO region:

a) Northwest f) Great Lakes

b) California g) Northeast

c) I ntermounain ill h) Mid-At Iann ic

d) Upper Midwes i) Southeast

e) Southwest

4) Your institutional nature:

a) Public b) Private

5) Type of institution:

a) Two-Year b) Four-Year











Organizational Information

6) Your chief housing officer's title:

a) Director of housing c) Director of residence
life
b) Director of housing
and food services d) Other



7) Housing operations and residence life are separate functions and
report to different college administrative offices.

a) Yes b) No

8) To whom does your chief housing officer report?

a) Chief student affairs officer c) Both I and 2

b) Chief business officer d) Other



Please rank in order of emphasis, those areas for which your chief
housing officer has overall responsibility. (Use numbers from
I to 7, with I being mosi important.)

9) Admini strain overa ll coordi an tion of il.y- o-day activi-
ties, room transfers, ass ignen t, meetings)

10) -lanagement (facility maintenance, renovation, custodial
supervision)

II) Student life (social/recreational/educational programming,
resident assistant sliff, residence hall government,
discipline)

12) Budget (budget preparation, payroll, purchasing)

13) Food (menu planning, food preparation, hiring)

14) Family housing (assignment, maintenance, prog-amming)

15) Off-campus housing (advising students aboul housing not
owned by your institution)




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs