Chapter 7:
BENCHMARKING
IN STUDENT AFFAIRS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
STUDENT
HOUSING
Gary Schwarzmueller, Executive Director,
Association of College and University Housing Officers-International
Robert Mosier, Director of
INTRODUCTION
Factors Influencing The Need for Benchmarking in Higher Education, Student Affairs, and Student Housing
Because
of the rapid changes caused by technology, the fluctuating economy, a reduction
in support from states and the federal government, changing demographics, and
the reaction of potential students to higher education as customers with new
needs and changing demands, many higher education institutions are experiencing
the uncertainties that businesses are presently dealing with.
With
this uncertainty and period of rapid change, there has been a strong emphasis
in higher education, Student Affairs, and Student Housing on efficiency,
effectiveness, accountability, and adding value to the education that students
receive at colleges and universities.
This focus has occurred as a result of involvement and oversight by
state legislatures, regional accrediting agencies, boards of trustees, and
other groups. Ewell (1993) points out that in the 1990s, state legislatures and
other governing groups have increasingly called upon higher education
institutions to demonstrate how they are having a positive impact on students
that can be measured. Regional accrediting agencies have asked colleges and
universities to:
1) Develop clear goals stated in terms of
outcomes;
2) Develop measures to demonstrate goal
achievement; and
3) Demonstrate that the results of the
measures have been used to guide improvements.
Implied
in this assessment process is the need to demonstrate effectiveness through
best practices and that value has been added to the students’ education, as
shown through outcomes measurement.
Another
significant influence on the educational and administrative policies and
procedures of colleges and universities has been the adaptation of corporate
and business practices. Management by
Objectives (MBO), Total Quality Management (TQM), Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI), Strategic Planning, Environmental Scanning, Quality Circles,
and benchmarking have had varying degrees of success in higher education.
Examples of concepts that have received fairly widespread acceptance and common
usage include program reviews, market profiling and segmentation, and
enrollment management. Ewell (1999)
suggests that there are three reasons why higher education institutions might
want to explore the use of some of these business practices. First,
institutional boards are increasingly made up of corporate executives, who are
comfortable with these approaches. Their oversight and influence on higher
education is increasing. Second, these techniques can be helpful in addressing
concerns of specific areas of the institution. Practices in areas such as
Financial Aids, Admissions, Recycling, Housing, or the Physical Plant may
improve with application of one of these approaches. Third, the examination of practices can lead
to thinking carefully about what an institution values and looking at them from
new perspectives.
The Benchmarking Process
With
the advent of multiple business approaches for adoption in higher education,
the question becomes how to select a process that can be most beneficial.
Benchmarking is gaining increasing support in higher education generally, and
Student Affairs and Student Housing specifically, as a result of it’s positive
impact on practices to improve the students’ educational experiences. With
respect to defining benchmarking, it is “a continuous, systematic process for
evaluating the products, services, and work processes of organizations that are
recognized as representing best practices for the purpose of educational
improvement” (Spendolini, 1992, p.9).
Epper (1999) views benchmarking as involving three key components: 1)
examining and understanding one’s own internal work procedures; 2) searching
for best practices in other organizations that match with one’s own program;
and 3) adapting those practices to improve performance. In higher education, it
is a process of learning from others and improving the students’ educational
experience.
The
benchmarking practitioner needs to focus on development of two benchmarking
areas: performance benchmarking (looking
at comparable outcome data with other schools) and process benchmarking
(examining one’s own internal processes that impact on outcomes). According to
Epper (1999), one of the most useful tools for dealing with the current
competition and uncertainty in higher education is that of process
benchmarking. Focusing inwardly on one’s own processes can lead to major
changes.
With
respect to approaches to benchmarking, Alstete (1995) describes four types of
benchmarking: 1) internal benchmarking; 2) competitive benchmarking; 3)
functional benchmarking; and 4) generic benchmarking. Internal benchmarking
involves making comparisons within an organization, while competitive
benchmarking examines performance against peer or competitor organizations.
Within competitive benchmarking, it is common for a third party or outside
organization to conduct the research. Examples of this would be studies
conducted by associations such as the National Association of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO), or private consulting firms, such as
Educational Benchmarking, Incorporated (EBI). Functional, or industry
benchmarking, involves looking at high performing processes from an
industry-wide basis. Lastly, generic, or best-in-class benchmarking, looks at
organizations outside of one’s field or industry, making comparisons at times
between very different organizations. An
example would be within the area of marketing, a student housing organization
comparing themselves to the practices of Disney world.
In
addition, Epper sees the following benefits from applying the principles of
benchmarking to the higher education setting, and hence to Student Affairs and
Housing:
§
Benchmarking
provides a model for action
§
Benchmarking
distinguishes between real innovation and simple reputation
§
Benchmarking
encourages “out-of-the-box” thinking
§
Benchmarking
encourages a great deal of learning to take place
§
Benchmarking
encourages greater self-study, while comparing one’s practices to others
§
Benchmarking
encourages networking and opportunities for collaboration
Steps In the Benchmarking Process
When
beginning to engage in benchmarking,
Alstete (1995) has identified five steps to follow:
1) Decide what to benchmark;
2) Decide whom to benchmark;
3) Collect the data;
4) Analyze the benchmark data; and
5) Implement changes.
With
respect to deciding what to benchmark, Alstete recommends examining critical
success factors, such as cost reduction, problem reduction, customer
satisfaction, continuous improvement, and marketplace superiority. If a specific area is not apparent, and the
institution is not working with a professional association’s benchmarking
process (NACUBO, ACUHO-I, etc.), the recommendation is to begin at a high
strategic level, involving the mission statement and working down to a more
specific problem area.
In
deciding whom to benchmark, and again when not working with a professional
association’s benchmarking process, a place to start would be to research
potential benchmarking partners using personal contacts, journals, professional
associations, benchmarking consultants, the internet, or other sources of
information. The data collection is simplified if participating in an existing
benchmarking process. If not, one can look to publications of professional
associations, consultants, seminars, networks, and other means. In analysis of
the data, the goal is to examine current performance gaps between one’s program
and organizations that are being compared against, and to discover the
practices and procedures that need to be changed to be more successful.
Finally, when implementing changes, care needs to be taken to include the
persons directly involved in the changes to participate in the process.
Previously agreed upon standards and goals need to be reviewed, as well as the
cost/benefits of the changes in performance.
Monitoring needs to take place to make sure that positive results are
occurring as a result of the changes.
BENCHMARKING WITHIN STUDENT AFFAIRS
As
with other areas within higher education, benchmarking practices in Student
Affairs developed primarily during the 1990s. The predominate efforts have
occurred primarily through the coordination of professional associations such
as the National Association of College and University Business Officers
(NACUBO), the National Association of College and University Food Services (NACUFS), and the Association of College and
University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). While some institutions
such as
The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Benchmarking Project
NACUBO
began its most recent benchmarking efforts in 1991, developing a pilot study
involving over 1,600 individuals on 40 campuses. Over 600 benchmarks were
designed, in 40 areas. Based on
feedback, the number of benchmarks has been cut back. There were 26 core functional areas
involved, including such areas as Admissions, Bookstores, Financial Aids, Food
Services, Registration and Records, Student Health Services, and Student
Housing. NACUBO received assistance from
the Higher Education Consulting Group of Coopers and Lybrand, and three other
consulting firms. As an example of the
type of data that would be received from the benchmarking survey in the area of
Admissions, an institution could gain benchmarks about the median offers as a
percentage of applicants, the average number of secondary school graduates as a
percentage of acceptances, and the average number of calendar days required to
process an application. According to Massey and Myerson (1994), the NACUBO
Benchmarking Project seeks to use the data to cut costs and improve
performances, with greater quality of service.
A
comprehensive study involving all 20 campuses of the
Presently,
NACUBO has developed and maintains an Effective Practices Database. The
database contains information about effective practices and cost saving
measures from various colleges and universities across the country. In
addition, NACUBO develops forums to address issues of continuous quality
improvement on campuses.
The National Association of College and University Food
Services (NACUFS) Benchmarking Project
NACUFS
has developed and maintains the Operating Performance Benchmarking Survey for
food services and dining operations across the country. Designed to complement this survey is the
Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey. This instrument allows food service
programs to survey students who use residential dining halls and retail
facilities. The results of the survey can be used to compare customer
satisfaction with national benchmarks. The instrument measures satisfaction
with food, service, and the dining environment.
Another benchmarking survey provided by NACUFS is the Commodity Basket Service. This instrument provides a quarterly measurement of prices paid for 36 of the most commonly purchased foods for colleges and universities. The results indicate whether the prices being paid by the colleges’ food service program are between the 25th and 75th percentiles. This helps food service directors and others see how competitive their prices are with other institutions. The comparative data helps in determining how effective food purchasing is and can improve buying efficiency. Yearly comparisons aid in explaining budgeted food cost percent increases.
Individual Institution’s Benchmarking Projects in Student Affairs
Institutions
representing an international perspective have also been involved in the
benchmarking process. Alstete (1995)
reported that Queensland University of Technology in
BENCHMARKING
WITHIN THE STUDENT HOUSING FIELD
Housing Professionals Need for Benchmarking
Housing
programs have always been very visible on campus due to the ongoing
responsibilities of supporting the academic mission, providing clean, safe,
affordable accommodations, being financially self-supporting, and meeting ever
increasing needs and wants of parents and students. There is a current pressing
need for construction of new housing at many institutions and for substantial
renovation of existing housing at most institutions. Beyond meeting increased demand for
additional housing capacity, the additions and upgrades are needed to support
the latest in communication technologies, to meet all new safety and
accessibility codes, and to offer market grade amenities. Students, parents, faculty, and various
campus staff members are all stakeholders in the housing program. Housing issues and concerns literally “hit
people where they live.” The large
stakeholder group provides extra motivation for housing professionals to have
continuous improvement and customer service programs in place. Obtaining quality information on effective
practices in the housing field becomes a very high priority for housing
professionals as they plan for improvements in their services and facilities.
The Association of College and University Housing Officers – International (ACUHO-I) Leadership in the Development of Benchmarking for Student Housing
One
of the primary responsibilities of the ACUHO-I Executive Board is to regularly
listen to the membership, identify member needs, and provide products and
services that meet those needs. Members
have often expressed needs for comparative information with other housing
programs in higher education and for the identification of effective practices
in residential programs. In the middle
1990s the Executive Board reviewed some benchmarking studies conducted by other
higher education associations and concluded that ACUHO-I did not have the
expertise or other resources required to properly conduct benchmarking studies
for its members at that time. This was a
very uncomfortable position for the Board but an accurate reflection of reality
at that time.
In
the spring of 1997, representatives from a company that specializes in higher
education benchmarking proposed a partnership with ACUHO-I to provide
benchmarking studies for housing professionals.
The proposal was promising enough to the Board that focus groups were
conducted at the summer 1997 ACUHO-I annual conference to ascertain if there
was member interest. Members were
enthusiastic about the prospect of having benchmarking services specifically
designed for housing and residence life operations.
Several
points were made clear during the focus groups.
Most participants said they would participate in an ACUHO-I benchmarking
program. It was acceptable if ACUHO-I
was in a partnership with a for-profit company but it was critical that housing
practitioners identify studies that were needed, define terms and play the
major role in content development. They
also wanted to enroll in studies through ACUHO-I with payments made to the
association. In short, they wanted
assurance that this was an ACUHO-I program with significant practitioner
involvement.
The
Executive Board reviewed the results of the focus groups and decided to enter
into a formal partnership with the company.
A group of members was identified to begin working with the company to
plan for the initial studies. Four task
forces had been formed as part of the association’s strategic planning
process. This benchmarking group became
the fifth strategic planning task force.
The
Executive Board and the five strategic planning task force chairs met with
consultant Don Norris in
After
the October 1997 meeting, work proceeded on two fronts. The executive director and principals in the
company negotiated a contract that was signed in January 1998. Simultaneously, the PDT began working with
the company to decide which studies were needed and in what order to offer them. Two types of studies were planned:
satisfaction studies and studies of administrative practices. Given the emphasis on getting products to the
members quickly, it was decided that the satisfaction studies would be done
first since that type of study was familiar to most on the PDT and to the
company.
A
resident satisfaction study was the first developed and it was offered during
winter and spring 1998. Results were
available just prior to the annual conference July 1998. The goal of getting this service in members’
hands quickly was met. It took less than
a year to get from the initial concept discussion with the Board to program
enrollment. From focus groups ascertaining
probable program value to analysis of first year survey results took one year. The Benchmarking PDT accomplished their
mission of assisting in bringing this first study into being. It was clear that continual input from a
similar group would be required to develop other studies. A Benchmarking Services Team was charged with
the ongoing responsibility of working with the company and developing new
studies.
The
resident satisfaction study was very well received by members. It differed from the satisfaction studies
most housing programs had been regularly conducting in that the individual
campus results could be compared with all others completing the survey as well
as with a self-identified six-institution peer group. The company’s expertise in data analysis and
report writing resulted in final reports that were used by many participants to
identify areas of strength and weakness within their housing program. Many program improvements have been
implemented as a result of the comparative data.
A
study of resident assistant satisfaction was added the second year. This too was well received by members. Many improvements in structuring the resident
assistant experience have resulted.
During
the first and second years of offering the resident satisfaction studies,
members requested a wide variety of additional types of reports and
analyses. Many new types of reports,
analyses and other program enhancements were offered based on input from
users. One strength of the program is
the continuing interaction among those using the services, the Benchmarking
Services Team and the company.
As
the program grew and additional studies were envisioned, the company and
ACUHO-I jointly made the decision to hire a consultant to provide assistance
with three critical services: 1) listening to current and potential users and
identifying their needs, 2) marketing all the studies to potential users, and
3) helping participants in the studies use the results to make improvements in
their housing programs. The first chair
of the ACUHO-I Benchmarking Services Team retired from his housing position and
became the first consultant to fill this position.
In
the third year, a satisfaction study for apartments was offered. User feedback had revealed that the living
experience of residence hall and apartment residents was different enough to
warrant separate studies for each. This
third study was well received by members.
As
the initial contract neared completion, the ACUHO-I executive director and
principals from the company evaluated the experience and identified several
areas in which the contract could be improved.
A new three-year contract was signed effective
The
need for a study of administrative practices was identified early in the
planning process. It was clear from the
start that this study would be more complex and challenging than the
satisfaction studies. After about two
years of preparation, an administrative study was offered in 2000. The study was very comprehensive and included
well defined terms. Several significant
problems were experienced with the administrative study. The shear volume of information requested and
the fact that information was requested about areas often not under the direct
control of survey respondents were the biggest problems encountered by
participants. After having received the
survey data, the company was challenged to present the large volume of
information in ways that were both meaningful and easy to comprehend and
use. The conclusion reached after
evaluating the first administrative study was that too much information was
requested and that the results were too extensive and complex to be used easily
by participants. After extensive review,
the decision was made to concentrate on a much smaller list of items critical
to housing personnel and to correlate these administrative practices with
resident satisfaction.
Information
from the studies has been shared with the membership through sessions at the
ACUHO-I annual conference and at regional conferences, through articles in the
ACUHO-I newsmagazine, the Talking Stick,
and on the ACUHO-I and company Web sites.
A workshop was also held that helped participants understand and use the
results.
Some Lessons
Several
lessons are evident after reviewing the evolution of ACUHO-I’s benchmarking
program: 1) The availability of a
for-profit partner with economic incentives to invest in instrument and
report development was necessary for the project to
move quickly from the “discovery of need” stage to the “delivery of product”
stage.
2) A key to the program’s success has been
continual listening to and responding to user
feedback.
3) Having college housing practitioners fully
involved in product design and review ensured
that the products would meet member needs and also
that members would be comfortable enrolling in the studies.
4) New and improved products would not have
been available in as timely a fashion if the
Executive Board had not authorized the executive
director and a few volunteer leaders to make decisions and move the project
forward.
5) The relationship between the association and
the company is dynamic and requires regular
attention.
Failure to do so will result in minor differences of opinion becoming
major problems.
Regular
communication between the executive director and company principals and among
the executive director, benchmarking services team chair and the consultant
have resulted in positive relationships and an on-going commitment to providing
quality benchmarking services to housing professionals.
APPLICATIONS OF THE BENCHMARKING PROCESS IN STUDENT HOUSING
Marquette
University
Marquette University has participated in the
ACUHO-I/EBI Resident Study since its inception in 1998. They have had an excellent return rate each
year, with the lowest being 65% and their highest reaching 77%. The data that they have collected during this
time has been invaluable to their department's goal setting, problem solving
and allocation of resources. They have
found many uses for the Resident Study:
Staff development
Each summer they devote a significant portion of
their professional staff retreat to interpreting the resident student
data. They always celebrate the good
news that they find in the data and discuss ways to congratulate others (RA's,
custodians, public safety officers, desk receptionists) for the work they do
that enhances student satisfaction. Then they look at the results that don't
measure up as well. They dissect this
data by building a variety of demographic segments to get a more informed sense
of sub population satisfaction. They
then identify a series of goals to address these factors, both at the
departmental level and hall level.
This has been especially helpful in establishing a
quiet environment in some of their halls.
Students' satisfaction suggests that several of their halls are too
noisy. This is powerful information to
the hall staff as they establish and enforce quiet hours.
Communicating with other departments:
Several of the factors that are reported on the
study reflect on the work performed by staff in other departments. The Dean of Residence Life writes to the
directors of public safety, dining services, and facilities services, providing
an overview of the study and a summary of the results that pertain to their
department. This is typically followed
by a discussion including the Dean and senior level staff from those
departments to help problem solve with areas where they don't measure up
against their select six or against their previous results.
Articles in the faculty staff newsletter "News
and Views" and the student newspaper "The Marquette Tribune":
The Dean of Residence Life contacts the editors for
these two publications and encourages them to feature a story about the study
and what the results say about their students' residence hall experience. This provides a lot of positive, yet
balanced, press about their department, particularly when they can tie
increased satisfaction with new programs or services.
Sharing results with the Residence Life Advisory
Board:
This board is always interested in seeing their
study results and, since it is comprised
of several students, the dean of admissions, the
food service director, and a parent, they often get important qualitative
information about these results. They
also share the results with RHA members, with hall councils and with students
who attend open forums with residence life staff.
These students add helpful insights into why some
factors may be low and what they can do to improve them. These are also excellent opportunities to
discuss why some things, (particular policies or amenities) may not be feasible
and to examine alternative measures to increase
satisfaction.
Analyzing building specific results:
They use the study results as one indicator of
performance in evaluating hall staff.
They typically find that the study results reinforce, rather than
contradict, other performance indicators, and that staff respond well to the
concrete data.
Sharing pertinent data with work
groups to assist them in making decisions or recommendations: A work group of faculty and
student affairs staff is in the early stages of developing a plan to create
multicultural living/learning floors in one of their residence halls. There is considerable debate about the need
for this and about which hall might be best suited for the program if they
offer it. Using hall specific and
ethnicity data from the study has helped move the discussion
from simply sharing opinions and anecdotal stories
to examining concrete data and has proven invaluable in their planning process.
They have also administered the RA study for the
past three years and have made significant changes in their program as the
result of the data collected. The first
year they administered the RA study they were quite surprised at the level of
dissatisfaction with three areas:
1) compensation, 2) training, and 3) policies
imposed upon RA's. To learn more about
specific concerns, 5 central staff members in their department each lead a
focus group with 6-10 randomly selected RA's.
The feedback from these focus groups was consistent. While the RA's appreciated the free room and
board they were provided, they didn't view it as tangible.
Rather, they viewed the small monthly stipend as an
indication of their worth to the university.
They reported that this contributed to lowering morale and the central
staff concluded that this had a negative impact on their ability to recruit
appropriate numbers of high quality students to apply for positions.
The training concerns all focused on their 3-credit
education class that was required of all first semester classes. The RA's in the focus groups were of one mind
that the class took up too much time and required too much work. For many, taking the class resulted in a
course
overload and for some, the credits did not count
toward graduation. They also complained
at the amount of work the class required, particularly at the end of the
semester when they were having to attend to the stress experienced by their
residents.
At the same time, the RA's were able to articulate
a number of advantages that they enjoyed about the class, so didn't necessarily
want to simply scrap it. They offered a
number of recommendations some workable, some not.
Lastly, the RA's pointed to what they described as
restrictive policies regarding the number of weekends they could be away, and a
cumbersome, didactic policy about consuming or being in the presence of
alcohol, even when off campus. When we
suggested that we wanted this policy to cover all possibilities and be as black
and white as possible, one RA responded that if central staff trusted them to
make difficult decisions in emergency situations and critical incidents, they
ought to trust their judgment with their behavior regarding alcohol. They also cited these
as the primary reasons so many RA's would leave the
position after just one year.
The central staff then created a series of
recommendations to address these concerns and floated these to a second round
of focus groups, made up of another random selection of RA's, being careful not
to include any of those involved in the first round. Based on their feedback, they made the
following changes:
§
They reallocated resources within the department to
double the amount of the monthly stipend offered to RA's.
§
They cut the required education class from three
credits to one credit and reduced
§
The workload accordingly.
§
They also had the class meet for two hours per week
for eight weeks, thus enabling them to delay the start of the class until the
second week of the semester and finishing before
§
Thanksgiving.
This was done to give the RA's more breathing room during
§
The times of the semester when their jobs were most
demanding.
§
They eased up on the restrictions about being away
on weekends and laid out a simple statement of expectations regarding
alcohol.
§
Lastly, they created an RA advisory committee to
advise us on issues of importance to RA's.
The results of these changes have been
remarkable. Their recruitment of new
RA's rose dramatically the next year and has remained high. Morale is at an all time high and their retention
rate has increased substantially. The RA
advisory committee is highly respected and will continue to serve their
department well as they seek to stay current with the issues that are important
to all RA's.
The
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has been
participating in the resident study since its inception in 1998. Benchmarking
data is shared with Housing & Residential Life and University Dining
Service staff to both measure satisfaction and progress and to plan for
change.
Examples of their use of the data are as follows:
§
University Dining Service
§
The University entered into a management agreement
with Aramark in January 1998.
§
Quality of dining hall food
It has increased (in 2001) by 23% as University
Dining Services has begun enhanced menus, pan Geos (cooking in front of
students at a themed station), enhanced salad bars, among other things. Next fall, plans include introducing a new
pizza concept, and standardization of minimal menu expectations in all six
residential dining locations.
Satisfaction with dining facility hours:
A 30% increase has occurred from 1998. The
department has made considerable strides by increasing service hours in all
locations for dinner and most locations for lunch. As well, last year they began a continuous
dining concept (
Food plan options:
There has been a 26% gain from 1998. In 1998, the department had very basic
plans (21, 19, 14 and 10 meals per
week). In 2001, meal plans include a
flex dine (food dollar) component, block plan (X number of meals per semester
instead of per week, so students, who do not readily know about the missed meal
factor in pricing a meal plan, don't feel like they are "losing"
meals each week), and, for the fall 0f 2001, they've introduced an
"unlimited plan" - eat as many times as students want and as much as
they want any day.
There were a number of questions which they
addressed through changes in staffing patterns:
Computing Facilities in the Residence Halls:
The department took the leadership of the computer
labs out of their residential life programming person's job description and
created a Coordinator of Residence hall Technology position. The person in this new position lobbied for
more improvements in the computer labs. Student satisfaction is up in 2001 by
16% from 1998.
Feeling of safety in one’s room:
In 1998, students hired by Housing &
Residential Life (Night Managers) patrolled the halls during the evening
hours. They eliminated the Housing
positions and now pay the
They also believe the use of security monitors as
well as an increase in the number of community advisors has had an impact on
the increased student satisfaction they have seen in other areas of safety and
security.
The University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Students
at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point are very concerned about the
quality of their residential living experience.
They are very interested in providing feedback on the hall environment,
as well as finding out that their feedback is having an impact in terms of
changes in their halls. The ACUHO-I
Benchmarking Surveys serve a very valuable function in providing students a
positive vehicle for expression, as well as the possibility of comparing
students’ responses with those at other campuses. The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point has
participated in the ACUHO-I Resident Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey since its
inception four years ago. Although
decisions related to the housing program are not made based solely on the
results of the Benchmarking Survey, this instrument has been very beneficial in
evaluating the department’s performance and suggesting improvements that lead
to higher student satisfaction.
The
results of the surveys have led to a number of positive changes in the
More
specifically, the data from the surveys has directly aided in the evaluation of
a number of specific practices in our program.
In terms of programming efforts, after receiving feedback on the
surveys, a number of focus groups were formed to follow up on the concerns
expressed by students about the current programmatic offerings. It was decided that the following changes in
this area needed to be made:
§
“Less is more”
theme: offered fewer programs, with
greater attention to their development and marketing; emphasized to staff that
program presentations need to be shorter in duration.
§
Better
understanding that residents want to be entertained when attending a
presentation.
§
A push towards
passive programming and informational bulletin boards has taken place.
With
respect to room changes, the students indicated a need for more
flexibility. As a result, the following
change occurred: a new room change
policy was incorporated that gives residents more options. As opposed to being only able to change rooms
once a semester, students have three opportunities to do so.
Community
development and involvement is one of our central goals. As part of the on- campus experience,
residents need to feel that they are contributing to the larger group, as well
as feeling included and respected. As a
result of the students’ feedback, more emphasis was placed on community
involvement:
§
A continued
appreciation for diversity occurred. A
task force was developed to focus on specific areas for growth. In addition,
there has been an increased emphasis in our training on diversity issues
§
Residents are
assisted to feel a part of their community
§
A revision of
the First Six Weeks programs has occurred.
In
terms of support for academic initiatives, the surveys provided ideas on areas
that could be improved to provide increased chances for students to be
successful in their studies.
Continuation
of upgrades to computer labs and services has taken place. Feedback was solicited from additional
studies on how to better plan the physical environment in hall basements with
respect to study areas.
While
continuing to view the campus as a safe and secure place to live, safety issues
are an on-going concern of students and parents. The residents saw safety as an important and
positive issue. To build on this,
The
feedback from the surveys has emphasized that students are continuing to become
more consumer-oriented. To work
successfully with the residents, the staff has listened to resident concerns,
provided information about future planning, and involved residents in
decision-making.
§
The department
presents the annual budget to the Residence Hall Association each year;
students are educated about where their housing dollars are spent.
§
There have been
increasing efforts to keep annual room and board fee increases at an acceptable
level (example: 2-4 percent maximum increase)
§
Letters have
been sent to parents, informing them of changes, and getting them involved in
their student’s campus experience.
§
The department
web page design has been added to and additional information has been provided.
§
Greater emphasis
has been placed on environmental comfort levels within halls, i.e. temperature
levels, hall cleanliness.
§
Increased
communication has occurred between residents and the facilities area by a
newsletter from the facilities office; the RHA co-advisor is from the Building
Services area; notes have been left on the residents' doors once work orders
have been completed; random follow-up calls to residents that had maintenance
concerns have been carried out to check on the level of satisfaction of the
students with the service they received.
§
Finally, with
respect to facilities/building services, survey feedback has led to changes
that resulted in greater physical comfort for students in the halls.
The
ACUHO-I Benchmarking Surveys have provided valuable feedback that has been the
catalyst for important changes within
The University
of Northern Iowa
The
housing department at the
Benchmarking
through EBI/ACUHO-I has provided important supplemental data to the other
assessment activity of their department and campus. Combined with a variety of anecdotal and
market study results, the benchmarking information has helped them with long
range planning, has provided positive feedback which is affirmative for staff,
has revealed weaknesses which needed to be addressed and has demonstrated to
the campus a commitment to quality improvement.
Benchmarking
their progress with other institutions has assisted them in gauging improvement
and in discussions with others at the university. In addition to looking carefully at their
own operation for improvement, having a comparative base with other
institutions has been helpful in establishing a context and priority for making
decisions.
The
results are reviewed by all department leadership staff, who review the data
for strengths and weaknesses. The information is then shared with all
department staff, who then engage in discussions about future planning. In this planning process, the results are
used in conjunction with other assessment processes. Priorities are established
by departmental leadership and at other levels. The results are used to target
resources and explain decision, as well as question assumptions and programs.
Strategic
actions taken as a result of the benchmarking results include:
§
Placing more
emphasis on relationships in RA training
§
Moving the assignments
process on-line
§
Partnering with
the Student Union to increase activities on campus
§
Installing
weekend custodial service
§
Providing
greater customer service to students
§
Placing greater
emphasis and investment in the food service
The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
At
the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, student satisfaction surveys are
a vital part of providing service to residents. Over the years they’ve
instituted surveys and focus groups on the ‘Quality of Life’, theme housing,
staff satisfaction, and so forth. The challenge was in compiling questions,
disseminating, and analyzing data, and, most important, doing something with
the data.
UNC
Chapel Hill partnered with ACUHO-I in using the EBI survey document, and has
currently completed its fourth cycle. It’s ease of use, and compilation of
results permits their staff to do what they do best, and that is student
education and facilities. Time is spent in translating desired outcomes into
actions. There are two major areas in which they concentrate: student
education/support/community, and facility renewal. Both have received critical
attention over the past several years, and results are readily apparent in the
responses from students.
PROCESS
Residential
Education
§
Data are reviewed
with staff
§
Desired outcomes
are established
§
Community Action
Plans (CAPS) are developed
o This includes staff programming initiatives, goals,
and activities for all resident staff.
o CAPS are part of the resident staff work plan, and
evaluative criteria
§
Education grant
criteria are set
§
Progress reviews
and expectations are carried out
§
Satisfaction
surveys/feedback are utilized to improve programs and services
Facility
Improvements
§
Data are
reviewed by staff
§
Short and long
term goals are established
§
Budgets and
schedules are developed
§
Staffing
expectations are established
§
Satisfaction
surveys/feedback are utilized to improve facilities and services
Rochester Institute of Technology
At
Rochester Institute of Technology, they have participated in the benchmarking
surveys since 1998, including the Resident Survey, the RA Survey, the Apartment
Survey (twice), and the Administrative Survey (once). After results are obtained, they are shared
with the Vice President of Student Affairs, the Residence Life Management team,
as well as other staff members.
With
respect to implementing changes as a result of information from the surveys,
one of the main areas of concern was the retention of RAs. Utilizing the results of the survey led to a
revamping of RA training and compensation. These changes have caused a positive
increase in retention and the caliber of RAs. The emphasis in RA training is
focused on a grounding in Student Development theory and preparation for
functional areas. Professional staff
training has also been reviewed, with a strong emphasis being placed on current
issues in Student Affairs and Student Development theory.
Future
plans include working with the data to engage in original research and writing
articles, as well as presenting information to academic deans and academic
program advisors on information from the benchmarking research.
University
of Arkansas-Fayetteville
They have used the resident satisfaction survey as
a tool to:
§
Evaluate job descriptions of RAs and professional
staff
§
Change the RA role to focus on interpersonal
relationships, connecting residents to campus
§
Monitor perception of safety
§
Evaluate communication with residents
§
Assist in designing new housing
§
Provide feedback to all staff on our program
§
To better articulate their purpose in housing
They have also used articles in the Talking
Stick on the RA Study even though they had not participated to initiate
discussions with their RAs about their position. (They did participate this year.) One thing
they would like people to recognize is that even if they can't participate in
the studies they can still gain valuable information and start dialogues in
their own departments resulting in improvements.
SUMMARY
Benchmarking
has proven to be a very effective way to improve services and programs within
Student Affairs and Student Housing. The
process of engaging in benchmarking can assist in dealing with uncertainty and
rapid change through the discovery of best practices, greater efficiencies, and
a clearer understanding of what works most effectively. Benchmarking practices
have been of significant benefit to Student Affairs and Student Housing
programs that have applied the results of their studies to improve the
educational experience of students. Several professional associations,
including NACUBO, NACUFS, and ACUHO-I have provided leadership to their
membership through the development and implementation of benchmarking projects.
While individual institutions have also carried out benchmarking surveys, the
larger scale benchmarking projects have been carried out through the
coordination of professional associations, the assistance of consulting firms
such Educational Benchmarking, Incorporated.
The
ultimate benefactors of the improved programs and practices within Student
Affairs and Student Housing are the students in higher educational
institutions. These students have gained added value to their education through
the more effective delivery of programs and services as a result of
participation in benchmarking surveys.
REFERENCES
Alsete, J.W. (1995).
Benchmarking in higher education: Adapting best practices to improve
quality.
ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 5.
Epper, R.M. (1999). Applying
benchmarking to higher education. Change
(November/December),
24-31.
Ewell, P.T. (1993). The role of states and accreditors in shaping
assessment practice.
In
T. Banta (Ed.), Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in
higher education (pp. 339-356).
Ewell, P.T. (1999).
Imitation as art: Borrowed management techniques in higher education.
Change
(November/December, 11-15.
Massey, W.F., & Myerson,
J. (Eds.). (1994). Measuring institutional performance in higher
education.
Spendolini, M.J. (1992). The
benchmarking book.