Thursday, January 3, 2013

Greek Village Update - Southeast Missouri State University



January 2, 2013


Southeast Missouri State University Greek Community

Dear students, alumni, and friends:

Over the past year, I have been fortunate to work with many of our Greek students and alumni on the future of Greek Housing at Southeast. It has been great to hear countless stories about people’s connection to their Greek organization and how living in the fraternity or sorority house positively impacted their Greek experience. It was the strength of Greek Life at Southeast that sparked my desire to explore the feasibility of changes in Greek housing. 

As some of you are aware, there have been discussions about this in the past, most recently when Merick Hall was being considered in 2007, but there had not been a systematic examination of Greek housing, including the demand for this kind of housing, financing options, and the possible locations for a Greek Village. With the support of the University’s Board of Regents, the Office of Residence Life contracted with Brailsford and Dunleavy (B & D), one of the premier housing master planning firms in the United States, to examine an on campus Greek Village housing concept. 

This letter is meant to provide you with a great deal of detail on the project. We are sharing this level of detail to help our students and alumni understand the factors that influenced this decision. I promised at the beginning of this process, both in person at multiple meetings and again in various correspondences with students and alumni, that the University was committed to sharing the details of our process and the factors that impact any decision involving a new Greek Village. The following pages include information on the methods used, the results gathered from those different methods, details on the financial model used, and the information weighed by the Board of Regents in their decision not to move forward with a new Greek Village. As someone vested in this effort I want to share that I did recommend the Board, based upon the information collected and limited commitment from across the Greek system, not to move forward with a new Greek Village at this time.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In the spring of 2012, Southeast Missouri State University engaged B & D and Treanor Architects (Treanor) to complete a Housing and Greek Village Master Plan that would determine the feasibility for developing a Greek Village on the Cape Girardeau campus. The research and program development for the Greek Village consisted of the following tasks:
·         Campus-wide focus group interviews
·          Student survey and housing demand analysis
·         Individual Greek chapter meetings
·          Greek Alumni meetings
·         Discussions with Greek National Organizations
·          Financial modeling
·         Peer school competitive context analysis
·          Off-campus housing market review
·         Program feasibility review
·          Architectural concept development

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Focus Group Interviews
B & D conducted on-campus focus groups with more than 50 students and staff members over the course of 10 sessions. In general, students were strongly supportive of the current location of Greek Hill and its proximity to the Towers dining complex. This was an area of major concern to current Greek students, who felt the location was critical for recruitment and provided a high-level of visibility for all Greek organizations. Most students, particularly members of sororities, felt that the present Greek Area is currently meeting their housing needs. Sororities and some fraternities were not supportive of moving to a new area of campus. The most common concern of the current buildings noted by students was the size of bedrooms and the “institutional” feel of the buildings.

In general, focus group participants were excited about the prospect of a new Greek Village. However, many groups expressed concern over the increased cost of new housing, as well as any chapter financial obligations. There was support for new housing, however, the room rate cost needed to be close to current room rates and the majority of the members at the focus group did not believe they would be able to be a financial partner in the project. Students felt that both proposed locations for Greek Village (behind the Student Recreation Center and at the intersection of Sprigg and Bertling) were far from the center of campus and would hurt each organization’s ability to recruit new members.

Student Survey
An on-line student survey was sent to all current students at Southeast, including all active members of Greek organizations. In total, 310 Greek students responded to the survey, representing a 30% response rate. The responses demonstrate that students believe housing is an integral part of the Greek experience, as 73% indicated that the availability of on-campus housing for fraternities and sororities played an important or very important role in their decision to join an organization.                                                                      

Students were asked to indicate their preference for the proposed location of the Greek Village. A large majority of students (71%) selected Option 2, the “Pig Lot/Student Recreation Center” site as their preferred choice. Only 21% of students chose Option 1, located along Sprigg Street, just south of Bertling Street. Please note, we did not ask students if they preferred to remain in the current Greek Area. The support for Option 2 is a change from the discussions on a Greek Village concept when the new residence hall (now Merick Hall) was being discussed a little more than five years ago. At that time students and alumni were opposed to this area as being too far from the center of campus.  

Individual Chapter Meetings
B & D conducted individual chapter meetings with all of the recognized sororities and fraternities, and two of the NPHC chapters. (One IFC and two NPHC organizations elected not to participate). Meeting with each chapter individually was important to understand their capacity and potential needs in a new Greek Village. Each chapter was given a set of questions to address before meeting with the consultants, which included membership data, housing preferences, alumni involvement, housing corporation capacity, National Organization involvement, and potential for commitment to a new Greek Village.

The overall consensus was that a few of the IFC fraternities had an interest in and possible capacity to finance the construction of their own chapter house, while the remaining IFC fraternities and all of the Panhellenic sororities did not have the alumni base or fundraising capacity to operate and fund any part a new chapter house. The NPHC groups self-determined that they could not support even a small house in the new Greek Village because their membership numbers are low and fluctuate from year to year. They were very interested in meeting/chapter and lounge space that could be contained in a Greek Village community center.

Greek Alumni Meetings
Greek alumni were asked to participate in focus group meetings on campus in Cape Girardeau and in St. Louis. More than 30 alumni participated in these meetings. The majority of attendees were from four IFC fraternities. These four chapters were the same chapters that expressed the strongest interest in financing all or part the construction of their own chapter houses. In general, alumni were supportive of the idea of a new Greek Village, but were concerned about the proposed Village locations as being too far from central campus. The sorority representatives expressed concern regarding the capacity of the sororities to take part in a new Greek Village, stating that cost would be a major burden chapters and may deter recruitment. The common theme emerging from the alumni groups were a few IFC chapters were interested in moving forward with a new Village, whereas the Panhellenic sororities and remaining IFC chapters were content to remain in the current Greek Area housing rather than be financially committed to a new Greek Village development.

Discussions with Greek National Organizations
The University requested B & D contact each chapter’s national headquarters after the individual meetings to determine the level of support the chapters at Southeast could expect from their nationals. In the Fall of 2012, each chapter’s national organization was contacted to determine their preferences and potential involvement.  It quickly became clear that many national organizations no longer support financing for university-sponsored, on-campus development and prefer to only fund limited upgrades and/or furnishings or are limited to building off campus. The Panhellenic chapters’ reported their decisions are made on a national level and similar housing for all chapters is required. The IFC chapters offered a wide range of responses, with some organizations offering no support for housing development and others offering financial assistance and legal entities for ownership. No IFC national organization offered strong support for being financially involved in an on-campus Greek Village, however, most IFC organizations defer to the local chapter and alumni to determine their capacity to fund and operate a chapter house.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Greek Village Program
Based on the data gathered and the membership of Greek organizations over the past 18 semesters, B & D identified the following program would be necessary to house the Greek population in a new on-campus Greek Village:
·         14 chapter houses with 3 configurations
o    32-bed configuration – 7 houses, 24-bed configuration – 3 houses, 18-bed configuration – 4 houses
Working with the University, B & D developed a financial model to determine the financial performance of the Greek Village program. The following elements were included in the financial model analysis:
·         Construction of 368 beds
·         Construction of 5,000 square foot Greek Village Community Center
·         Total project cost: $35,302,000
o    Cost range for each type of chapter house: $2,804,000 - $1,817,000
o    Community Center – $1,717,000
We based the design on the same design and construction standards we would for our residence halls. This included sprinkler systems, fully addressable fire alarm systems, elevator (required by code), HVAC with individual controls, and comparable construction methods to what we throughout the rest of campus. Throughout this process students expressed interest in chapter rooms and lounges large enough to hold a majority, or all, of the chapter. For example, a chapter room in each house large enough for a 50 person meeting. Providing these in each house adds approximately $2,000,000 to the total project cost.

Upon completing the financial assessment, and with only four IFC chapters expressing any support for being involved in the financial commitment for new a new Greek Village, the proposed Greek Village does not meet Southeast’s financial targets. The model demonstrates the housing would lose more than $500,000 in its first year at current room rates.  In order to financially support the Greek Village, the project would require either $12,100,000 in capital contributions from the Greek chapters, or room rates in Greek will need to be increased by $3,250 a year to a new room rate of $8,200 per year. This new room rate would be $2,400 higher than the most expensive housing currently at Southeast. Even with changes to the scope of work and value engineering of the project, the significantly increased room rates or level of financial commitment that would be needed from chapters is beyond what I believe the Greek system at Southeast can support or room rates I believe are appropriate for our students. Based upon this financial examination and the feedback from more than half of the chapters currently in the Greek Area, I have recommended to the University administration and the Board of Regents that we not pursue the Greek Village at this time. The report from B & D echoes this recommendation by noting “a Greek Village in this form does not appear to be feasible for Southeast at this time” (B & D, Executive Summary).

Greek Hill Renovation Program
As the costs of a new Greek Village were finalized, the University asked B & D and Treanor to consider conceptualizing an option that would address student and chapter needs, while also meeting Southeast’s strategic and financial goals. As a result, the consulting team suggested the possibility of expanding the second floor chapter lounge space in each of the chapter houses. This recommendation calls for a 800+ square foot addition to each chapter’s lounge space. The proposed lounge expansion would result in a larger space for meetings, events, and socialization. In addition, the expansion would dramatically alter the exterior of the buildings on Greek Hill, generating significant opportunities for chapters to express their individual identity and uniqueness. While this is not the same level of change as a new Greek Village, is does addresses Greek students’ dissatisfaction with the “institutional” feel of the Greek Hill building exteriors, as well as provide for social and activity space within their chapter houses.

To support this renovation to the five buildings (ten chapter houses), the University and B & D developed a financial model to fund the recommended changes. The details of this idea included the construction of ten (10) 840 square foot lounge additions for a total project cost of $4,680,000. Revenues for the project would be generated through two sources: rental rate increases and Greek parlor fees. Room rates would increase approximately the same rate as students living in the University’s most expensive housing. Students currently living in Merick/Henderson/Vandiver/North/West pay $5,850 per year to live on campus. A possible second option is for the University and Greek students to jointly adopt parlor fees for chapters with expanded space in the Greek Area. The use of a parlor fee would allow for a smaller room rate increase.

The idea for additions to Greek houses that improve the space for chapters and significantly improves the appearance of each house is a wonderful idea; however, it is completely dependent on the desire of the Greek students and chapters in the Greek Area. I am not advancing this idea to increase room rates or establish place parlor fees to fund these changes until there is an opportunity to discuss these with our Greek students. Any change would only come about because of student support and a desire for these changes from our on campus Greek students and their chapters. This idea has been developed with limited student involvement because it was only asked for B & D and Treanor after the first numbers of the new Greek Village were being considered. This was not an effort to exclude Greeks from this idea, but a desire to try and respond to the concerns about the space in the house and the perceived institutional appearance of each house we received during our initial data collection process.

Future of Greek Housing and Greek Life
I do want to express my appreciation for so many Greek students and alumni who have been part of this process. We are not finished, but we have reached a point where we have to turn from the idea of a new village to other possibilities. I know some chapters may want to move forward with their own plans for off campus housing, while others will want to discuss possible changes to their current space in the Greek Area. This coming year, I will be accepting a new role within the University that will increase my involvement with Greek Life. In addition, the University is increasing our commitment to Greek Life with the expansion of the previous Assistant Director for Fraternities and Sororities to a new Director of Greek Life position. This new position will increase the level of attention to our Greek students and alumni. The Director of Greek Life will report to me in my new role as Assistant Vice President for Student Success. I have long believed one of the best tools the University has to work with our Greek students are their alumni. It is my expectation that the new Director, expected to join the University in spring 2013, will reach out and try to build upon these relationships. I absolutely do not expect us to always agree, however, I also do not think the only time we should be reaching out is when there is a problem.

As an alumnus of Southeast Missouri State University and the Delta Chi fraternity, I know how intertwined one’s college and Greek experiences are. I look forward to your continued involvement in helping us carry on this tradition of recruiting, educating, and graduating Southeast and Greek alumni. I welcome any questions or additional thoughts you would like to share. You can reach me at bskinner@semo.edu or 573-651-2274.


Fraternally,

Dr. Bruce W. Skinner
Assistant Vice President for Student Success and Director of Office of Residence Life
Instructor, University Studies
Southeast Missouri State University

Monday, November 19, 2012

Why Do I Work at Southeast?



Over this semester I have been fortunate to be in a position to hire new people and to be in the less fortunate role to say good bye to talented professionals who leave for positions at another higher education institutions. Throughout this process, both as someone interviewing people and when listening to someone share what they enjoyed (or did not enjoy) about working at Southeast, I often find myself asking the question why do I like working at Southeast? This always comes up when someone is interviewing for a position here so I’ve attempted to try and put in writing my reasons for making Southeast my current employer of First Choice:

  • As a first generation college student myself, I personally relate to the challenges many Southeast have to deal with.
  • Within Residence Life I get to work with multiple other professional staff who have a similar commitment to students and with more than 100 student RAs. It is a unique opportunity (thank you social media) to see these students as RAs and then see what happens to them after they graduate. I get to watch as they move into their careers, travel the world, get married, start families, etc.
  • The education cycle, as I call It, allows you to plan your work and by extension your life around a set number of events/dates. We know when our busy times are; we know when our students are more likely to have issues or when their parents are more likely to have issues. This predictability is a real benefit of working in higher education.
  • I believe the University provides me an opportunity to try some new and some might say crazy things. How many housing offices would be given the latitude to build a Habitat for Humanity House on campus and then haul it away to be lifted by a crane onto it final foundation? We get to put on what is arguably the largest and most well attended cultural exchange program on the Southeast campus, Carpe Diem. This kind of professional freedom to try new things cannot be easily everywhere!
  • Contrary to claims by some, I do think the compensation paid by the University is fair. We can always find an example of where someone has it better, but we need not look too hard and we will see multiple examples of people who have it worse. 
  • I like being part of an institution that is growing. While we may not have every issue perfectly worked out, the growth in students, facilities, and programs is a very positive thing. I prefer the problems of having too many students in the residence halls then having too few.
  • Southeast affords me the opportunity to expand me and my staff member’s professional development. Residence Life is an active part of many areas of campus and this includes having a seat on committees and other areas of campus where decisions are made.
  • I believe my decision making is trusted by the University and while I have been “corrected” on things over my career, I have never found these “corrections” to be an effort to micromanage my efforts. Of course there are cases where I disagree with a decision, but I would never go about writing about them… J
  • I get to step into the classroom. From teaching in UI100, PS103, or PS014 I enjoy the opportunity to move from a staff member to a faculty member for a few hour each week.

I am sure others might claim some of the same things I value about being at Southeast, they either disagree with or they have not experienced.  I am not making any claim about things being the same across campus for everyone. I can only share the view from where I stand/sit. That being said I am one of those who believe you can influence how others impact your life/work. If you wait for something to happen, then you can’t complain about how it impacts you. If you try and influence what is happening then you get the opportunity to impact the environment and the impact it has on you! 

Please note these comments are that of one humble Bruce Skinner and are not endorsed, supported, repudiated, or in any way even know by anyone at Southeast (unless they are blog creeping on me). In which case thank you for trolling my blog posting.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Why Dearmont (because IMHO it is the best hall)



Every year there is a debate of sorts about where is the best place to live. Of course this is a difficult question because factors such as cost, proximity to different areas of campus, preference for dining options, etc. all play into each person’s decision.  In addition to these factors, the simple issue of demand for space in certain buildings must be considered. In many cases no matter how bad someone wants to live in a specific building, sometimes there just is not space. The best example of this is Towers North. Each year we get more than three requests for each bed in Towers North. With approximately 260 beds and almost 1,000 people who request Towers North as one of their top choice, there are hundreds of people who do not get to live in North. I have had people threaten that they will not attend Southeast if they cannot be placed in Towers North (or some other hall). In these cases, I wish the person well at their new school and offer to cancel their housing contact so we can work on the other housing assignments. 
 
After the question (How likely can I get into a certain hall?) the next common question is “what do I consider the myths about Dearmont”.  Now I can speak from two points of view on Dearmont. As a student, I lived in Dearmont room 3110 and my girlfriend (now my wife) lived in 2109. In addition, I served as a Hall Director for Dearmont and now as the Director of Residence Life so I have spent a good amount of time with this mythical building.

If I could make it happen, I would setup all residence halls on the Southeast campus like Dearmont. The first thing I would share is the rooms are setup in a way that really encourages people to engage with one another. In Dearmont you really cannot hide in your room and not become part of your floor and residence hall community.  Students at Southeast, and at schools around the nation, often find the ability to get involved and connected to others a key factor in how well they enjoy and succeed in college. Our own student satisfaction surveys consistently show that students living in Dearmont enjoy their college experience at higher levels than students living in halls that are considered nicer. The reason for this is that community style residence halls provide more social interaction than apartments or suite style residence halls. 

In terms of the facility, Dearmont was built 1958 and opened in 1959. When Dearmont was built it did not have air conditioning in the rooms or other spaces in the building. I often run into students who share information they learned from a Southeast alumnus who still assumes the same Dearmont they had from 1959-2008 will be same residence hall it is today. Yes, the rooms are the same size, and yes the building layout is the same, but changes have been made to improve the residence hall.
Several days ago, I spoke with a parent who commented that she lived in Dearmont and her son could not live there because the hall did not have air conditioning. This was true until 2009. Since this time, we have installed air conditioner units in each room.  This allows the Dearmont residents to have control over their rooms and this does not happen in any other hall on campus. After I explained this mother, she asked if I could place her son into the same room she lived in when she was a student at Southeast.  The mother lived in Dearmont when it was all female hall and now half the building is for males.  It turned out that we were able to place her son into the same room she lived in a few decades ago. 

While there always is a great deal of stress about where they live, a FAR MORE IMPORTATANT issue is their roommate. I encourage each of you to use the Roommate Gateway program through the Office of Residence Life or make an effort over social media to meet people and work on finding a roommate. If you do not find a suitable roommate that is not a problem, as more than half our students let the Office of Residence Life choose their roommate. My point is that if you are going to spend time worrying about where you live next year, you should refocus your energy on considering whom you live with and what kind of roommate you will be. If you want to give a little more thought on the roommate question check out my other entry: How Roommates are like Hell’s Kitchen http://seorl.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-roommates-are-like-hells-kitchen.html