Talking Stick - November/December 2010 - 17

as rental discounts, priority housing, and responses to student behavior. The institution tends to have a low level of involvement and holds little responsibility for policies and procedures practiced by the developer/ manager with the actual community. A structured partnership, a far more detailed model, is formed when a not-for-profit entity issues

to an off-campus community as if it were part of the campus’ inventory of housing. The agreement outlines the responsibilities of the owner and of the institution, identifying the institution’s level of participation with students and staff within the community. This model usually allows full access to the student body by the developer for marketing and for recruitment of residents. The community functions as a private entity, utilizing landlordtenant leasing and local fair housing criteria. The institution can have a low to medium level of participation in the community itself depending upon the goals of the campus. While it is impossible to say which of these models is the best or even the most popular, the flexibility of the affiliation model certainly makes it valuable. In some ways, this flexibility grew from the realization that, regardless of whether there is a PPP relationship or not, off-campus student communities influence campus climate and student success just as they directly compete with the on-campus housing inventory. Developing a PPP may allow the institution to have more control over residential communities for students; however, there are also challenges associated with any level of relationship in a PPP. Rather than consider these off-campus options as a threat or leave this influence to chance, campus housing can take the lead, affiliate themselves with the housing providers, and supply the strengths and services at which it excels. This often means including coordinating campus services such as counseling, career development, and student activities directly on site. In other cases, the agreement will restrict student groups living in the community (i.e., no first-year freshmen) or offer opportunities for the formation of themed housing

areas within the community (Greek organizations or recognized student groups). The benefits are extended when one considers the likelihood that parents, students, and the local community are going to hold the institution accountable when concerns about housing arise. This risk is one that the institution must be willing to accept and include in the relationship plan as it attempts to head-off – rather than simply respond to – problems that may arise. In the affiliation model, the relationship is definitely a matter of give-and-take. Just as the institution’s housing department is offering its input and experience, the private developer’s management team may participate in campus housing plans, learning communities, and student leadership programs as well as other campus-related initiatives that would help bridge campus and community. At the University of Louisville in Kentucky, affiliation agreements were struck in 2007 with two private developers that had property located on or near the edge of campus. After issuing a request-for-proposal, deals were struck that allowed the university to advise on the construction and security of the community, restrict the communities from first-year freshmen, and create more developmental programming on site. The apartmentstyle student housing, primarily for upperclass and graduate students, freed on-campus beds to accommodate an anticipated first-year student live-on mandate. It also filled a gap in housing that would appeal to students ready for more independent living while remaining connected to campus. Since those two initial agreements, negotiations have begun with four additional developers to strike affiliation agreements. Despite all agreements going through the
november + december 2010

tax-exempt debt to finance the project, and the majority of its board doesn’t have to represent the institution or the developer. This model is typically used when the community is built on university property or foundationowned land that has been leased to the developer. Involvement of the institution in the community is usually higher than that found in either of the other two models and could include administrative issues such as occupancy guarantees, financial support, university resources, and intervention in student behavior issues. The financial and reputational risk in this type of partnership is greater as well. The affiliation model, which strikes a middle-ground, is applied when a formal agreement is used in which the school directs students

Tom FouGerouSSe

Talking Stick - November/December 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - November/December 2010