The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 2 - 49

Chris Heasley * Katie Boone * Denise L. Davidson

Students' Sense of Community

construction and management (see Table 1). As
many partnership arrangement types exist, institutional influence in P3 building design, staffing structure, and property oversight also varies
(McClure, Ryder, & DeVita, 2017). University
and P3 contractual arrangements may include
stipulations for ancillary revenue-generating
ventures such as retail space, guidance on floor
plan design/type, advice for community space
allocation, restrictions outlining the student
population to be housed, housing staff structure, caps on annual room cost increases, and
establishment of a governing entity for the part-

. . . P3s provide the opportunity
to reduce financial and human
resource burdens on universities
and are an appealing option for
many institutions.
nership (Bayless et al., 2013). Though residents
and families may not clearly grasp the operating and employment differences between privatized and campus housing (Sanseviro, 2010),

Table 1
Public-Private Partnership Models

University land lease

Non-profit private
foundation

Equity financing

Land acquisition

Institution rents land
to private developer
(i.e., P3) for extended
period of time (e.g.,
usually in excess of 25
years).

Institution rents land
to non-profit private
foundation or affiliated
non-profit entity for
extended period of time
(e.g., usually in excess
of 25 years).

Institution leases land or an existing
facility to P3 developer in exchange for
equity in the venture.

Property financing

P3 finances
construction of the
facility.

Tax exempt bonds are
issued to the private
entity. These funds are
then used to finance
project construction.

P3 finances any remaining construction
costs and assumes all risk associated
with construction.

Revenue stream
for P3 or non-profit
foundation

P3 generates revenue
through student fees
(i.e., rent).

Student fees (i.e., rent)
are first used to pay
debt service.

P3 generates revenue through student
fees (i.e., rent).

Institutional revenue
stream

Institution collects
lease revenue
from the P3 for the
duration of the lease
term.

Rent monies in excess
of the debt service are
given to the institution.

Institution receives a percentage of
student fees collected based on its
equity share.

P3 manages the
facility.

Institution manages the
facility.

Property management can vary
depending on the contractual agreement
between the institution and the P3.

Property management

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

Despite the advantages of a campus partnership, housing professionals and other college
and university officials sometimes express
concern about arrangements with P3s regarding loss of control, cultural conflicts between
university housing and the P3 corporation, and
student confusion over university-owned and
operated residences (McClure et al., 2017). Such
concerns may validate the belief that building
ownership and oversight are relevant to community development. Anecdotally, the presence
of a P3 may evoke fear among housing and
residence life personnel based on a transfer of
power and oversight of student housing. Supporting this belief, campus administrators may
experience less influence over student-to-staff
ratios, sense greater focus on facility profitability, and encounter diminished emphasis on
programmatic initiatives and community development efforts in P3 facilities. Community development is a key feature of the competencies
and standards for the student housing profes-

Success as a result of a sense of
community arises from increased
faculty-student contact, collaborative

Note. This information is based on literature on P3 models in college student housing (e.g., Bayless et al., 2013; McClure et al., 2017).
48

P3s provide the opportunity to reduce financial
and human resource burdens on universities
and are an appealing option for many institutions (Bayless et al., 2013).

learning environments, and a
campus climate that supports
student academic achievement
and can result in student retention,
persistence, and graduation.

sion (ACUHO-I, 2012, 2017; ACUHO-I, 2017;
Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education, 2015) and contributes to a
mission that provides for "a living environment
that promotes learning and development in the
broadest sense and an emphasis on supporting
the academic mission of the institution" (CAS,
2015, p. 6). Simply put, community development is a targeted housing and residence life
program outcome, making the potential loss
of community a particular concern for student
housing professionals.

SENSE OF COMMUNITY
Scholars link student success to enhanced
community development both on college campuses generally and specifically in student
housing (Dittoe & Porter, 2007; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1982, 2005). Success as a result of
a sense of community (SOC) arises from increased faculty-student contact, collaborative
learning environments, and a campus climate
that supports student academic achievement
(Dittoe & Porter, 2007) and can result in
student retention (Jacobs & Archie, 2008), persistence, and graduation (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Acting as a catalyst for student
success, SOC is often a feature of the college
experience (Devlin, Donovan, Nicolov, Nold, &
Zandan, 2008; Heasley, 2013). Linking student
success outcomes and sense of community
undergirds conversations in professional
gatherings and within offices, where campus
housing professionals speak of the importance
of community as a means to promote student
learning, success, and retention (Heasley, Lengowski, Haapala, & Dunkel, 2015).
Despite a desire for student accommodations that intentionally promote academic and
V O L U M E 4 6 , NO. 2 * 2 0 2 0

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 2