A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS GE STUDENTS, PARENTS, FACULTY, STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS. AND APARTMENT OWNERS CONCERNING THE RESPONSI‘IBELSTY 0F THE UNIVERSITY TOWARD THE STUDENT'S OFFeCAMF‘US LIVING $ITUATION Thesis Ior the Dogma OI Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Patrick Byrnes Smith 1968 IIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIII‘ IIIIIIIII 2... 31293 ' LIBRARY I .lxiicIiigan State University F I a rmtmsm ' This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS, PARENTS, FACULTY, STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS, AND APARTMENT OWNERS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY TOWARD THE STUDENT'S OFF-CAMPUS LIVING SITUATION presented by Patrick Byrnes Smith has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctarate degree in Education In Date .A 0-169 N -_ .- g . 2-, f“ I -- - V_ . .-I I ; - . 1" ‘ ‘ ’ 7 an / 0cm, 4 19% .— ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS, PARENTS, FACULTY, STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS, AND APARTMENT OWNERS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY TOWARD THE STUDENT'S OFF-CAMPUS LIVING SITUATION by Patrick Byrnes Smith Problem The purposes of this study were (a) to compare perceptions of students, parents, faculty, apartment owners, and student personnel administrators with respect to the University's responsibility in the area of off-campus housing and (b) to compare perceptions of parents Y and their children (students in the study) with regard to the Univer- sity's responsibility off-campus. The more specific areas of respon- sibility studied were (1) community relations, (2) student personnel services, (3) student-university relations and (4) regulatory and law enforcement. Methods and Procedures A random sample of five groups (parents, students, faculty, apart- ment owners, and student personnel administrators) associated with Michigan State University were chosen for the study. An instrument concerning various aspects of the University's responsibilities off-campus was developed. The instrument contained 65 items which covered four functionally defined areas of responsi- bility. The functionally defined areas were as follows: community Patrick Byrnes Smith relations, parent-university relations, student personnel services, and regulatory and law enforcement. In addition to the instrument, the parent sample was asked to fill out a one-page demographic information sheet. The instrument was submitted to 344 individuals in the fall term of 1968. A total of 320 or 93 per cent was returned. The statistical procedure used for analyzing the data collected was chi square. The .05 level of confidence was used to determine the level of significant differences. Findings The principal findings of the study were: 1. Community Relations: Significant differences among all the sample groups as well as between the parent-student sample group were found in all the items in the Community Relations area. Parents held the greatest expectation for university reSponsibility and involvement in the students' off-campus living situation. Students and faculty held the least expectation for the University in this area. Student personnel administrators and apartment owners' expectations fell mid- way between these two positions with both groups tending to be more in sympathy with the faculty-student position. 2. Parent - University Relations: Significant differences among all the sample groups as well as between the parent-student sample group were found in all the items in the parent-university relations area. A polarization effect seemed to take place with parents and apartment owners taking one extreme and students taking Patrick Byrnes Smith the other. Faculty and student personnel administrators' position fell between these two positions. Faculty tended to support the students' position. Parents and apartment owners expected the greatest amount of parent-university contact. Students expected the least amount of university contact. 3. Student Personnel Services: For the total sample group, significant differences were found on 14 out of the 16 items in the area of student personnel services. For the parent-student sample, 10 items were found to be significantly different out of the entire 16 items covering this area. Parents and students indicated the greatest concern for having the university accept the reSponsibility for providing the student personnel services discussed in this section. Faculty showed the least concern for these services. The position of student personnel administrators and apartment owners fell midway between the position of parents, students, and faculty. The greatest number of no Opinion reSponses was registered in this area and the sample groups were more divided with reSpect to the percentage selecting one particular reSponse or position of agree, disagree, or no Opinion. 4. Regulatory and Law Enforcement: Significant differences among all the sample groups were found on all the items in this area. Significant differences were also found on twenty out of the twenty- one items in this area for the parent-student sample group. The same polarization effect seemed to take place in this area as in the parent- university area. Parents and apartment owners were at one extreme; Patrick Byrnes Smith they maintained the greatest expectations of involvement and respon- sibility on the part of the university. At the other extreme were the students, maintaining the least expectations on the part of the university in this area. The position of student personnel admini- strators and faculty fell between the positions of parents-apartment owners, and students. The faculty's position tended more toward the direction of the students’ position, whereas the student personnel administrators' position tended more towards the stand of the apart- ment owners and parents. Over all, student personnel administrators and faculty tended to support the position of apartment owners and parents more often then they tended to support the position of the students. A COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS, PARENTS, FACULTY, STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS, AND APARTMENT OWNERS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY TOWARD THE STUDENT'S OFF-CAMPUS LIVING SITUATION By Patrick Byrnes Smith A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author of this study wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the members of his Guidance Committee, Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, Chairman, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. Richard L. Featherstone and Dr. J. Allan Beegle for the assistance given during this study. He is especially grateful to Dr. Nonnamaker for his constant encouragement throughout its preparation. Appreciation is also expressed to his parents, Mr. and Mrs. James E. Smith and his aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Mc Avoy for their early direction, continued guidance and encouragement, without whose help this study would not have been made possible. A Special expression of deepest gratitude is due to his wife, Marcia. Her patience, encouragement and understanding throughout the study pro- vided constant inSpiration and incentive, thus this thesis is truly as much hers as the author's. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . The Purpose of the Study . Statement of the Problem . Definition of Terms Hypotheses . Hypothesis I Hypothesis II . Limitations of the Study . Delimitation of the Study Procedures Used in this Study Significance of the Study Organization of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction . Historical Perspective . . Late 1700's - Early 1800's Late 1800's - Early 1900's Early 1960's iii Page 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 18 24 CHAPTER III. IV. Legal Position of the University Off- Campus . . . . . . Review of Related Research . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . The POpulations, Method of Selection and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . The Instrument and Procedures Used in Obtaining the Data . . . Analyzing the Data . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . Null Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . Null Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Significant Items . . . . . . Significant Items . . . . . . . . Community Relations . . . . . . . . . Parent - University Relations . . . . Student Personnel Services Regulatory and Law Enforcement Demographic Information . . . . . . Open Ended ReSponses . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 29 32 42 44 44 44 46 48 49 51 51 52 52 52 54 54 54 56 76 82 96 118 124 148 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . The Problem . . . . . . . . . The Design and Procedure of the Study Findings and Conclusions . Areas of Agreement . . . . . . . Areas of Disagreement . . . . . Community Relations . . . . . Parent - University Relations . Student Personnel Services Regulatory and Law Enforcement Implications for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 150 150 150 151 152 153 153 155 157 160 165 168 173 Table LIST OF TABLES Responses to Questionnaire: The number of reSponses by sample groups. . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Results - Omitting Response 3 £30 Opinion): Items showing differences in results omitting reSponse 3 (no Opinion) for hypothesis I, using all of the sample groups reSpondents; and for hypothesis II, using only parents and students Non Significant Items: A summary of those items on which the sample groups agreed, the most frequently selected reSponses and the percentage of the sample selecting a particular reSponse . . . . . . . . . The University has the reSponsibility to involve students, apartment owners, and parents in the for- mulation of off-campus housing policies . . . . University personnel should be involved as consul- tants in the planning of off-campus apartment buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University personnel should screen and approve managers living in residence in all off-campus Student housing 0 O O I O O O O O O C O O O O O O The University, rather than the apartment owner should hire and pay resident managers in off-campus Student apartments 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The University should establish a council of students, apartment owners, university staff, and city officials to arbitrate off-campus housing problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The University should reguire uniform rental contracts for all off-campus housing. . . vi Page 48 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Table Page 10. The University should provide uniform rental agreements for all off-campus housing. . . . . . 62 11. The University should not be involved in any way in off-campus housing rental contracts between StUdentS and apartment Omers o o o o o o o o o 0 63 12. University personnel should be a third pary and final arbitrator in all rental contracts used by students in off-campus housing . . . . . . . . . . 64 13. The cost of printing the off-campus rental contracts should be the reSponsibility of the University rather than the apartment owner . . . . 65 L/'14' University personnel should inSpect off-campus dwellings and enforce state and city housing codes 15. University personnel should inSpect and approve all off-campus student housing for prOper safety stand- ards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 16. University personnel should inSpect and approve all off-campus student housing for prOper sanita- tion standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 17. University personnel should assess and arbitrate repairs charged to apartment owners by students to determine fairness of charges . . . . . . . . . . 69 18. University personnel should assess and arbitrate damage costs in off-campus housing charged to students by apartment owners to determine fairness charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 19. The University should hold in escrow damage depo- sits and the last month's rent of off-campus students living in apartments. . . . . . . . . . . 71 20. The University should not permit a student to register for a subsequent term until damage claims and/or rental debts submitted by apartment owners are paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 21. The University should not issue grades to students who have off-campus housing debts . . . . . . . . 73 22. The University should break up off-campus student parties when they become disorderly . . . . . . . 74 vii 24. \/25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. \//36. Apartment owners should notify the University when off—campus student parties are causing a public disturbance . The University should notify parents of off- campus students when they are arrested . . . . The University should notify parents of off- campus students under 21 when they are con- victed of a violation of civil law by the civil authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The University should contact parents when stu- dents are known to be using marijuana . . . . . . The University should contact parents when stu- dents are known to be using LSD. . . . . . . . . . The University should inform parents of off- campus students co-habitating . . . . . . . . . When a single female under 21 years of age, living off-campus, is pregnant and withdrawing from the University, the University should notify the stu- dent's parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The University should provide a Special orienta- tion program for off-campus transfer students Physicians from the University health center should make home calls to student residences off- campus 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O The University should publish a list of apartments not meeting established University standards . The University should screen and match possible roommates for vacancies in off-campus apartments The University should offer a formal or informal course in apartment living, money management, food purchasing, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The University should have a home owner's insurance policy covering fire, theft, damage to personal belongings, for off-campus students . . . . . . The University should encourage the development of a formal student governing council for off-campus Students . O C O I O O O O O O O I O O O I C . viii Page 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Table Page 37. The University should provide an advisor from the student personnel staff to advise off-campus student government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 38. Storage lockers on campus should be provided by the University for the off-campus student . . . . 91 39. The University should provide bail bond for students arrested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 40. Luchroom facilities should be provided on campus for off-campus students carrying their lunches . . 93 41. When students are prosecuted for civil offenses, the University should provide legal council for the student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 42. Off-campus students should be permitted to use residence hall facilities (e.g., laundry, study, recreation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 43. A lawyer should be kept on retainer by the University to give off-campus students legal adVice O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 96 44. The University should have no housing regulations for students (first year residence hall require— ment, off-campus approved supervised housing). . . 97 bfl45. Any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice without his parents' consent . . . . . . . . . . . 98 46. The University should have no regulations concern- ing the students' off-campus housing situations . 99 \//47. Any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice with his parents' consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 48. Apartments not meeting established University standards should be placed "off-limits." . . . . . 101 49. The University should have the right to place some off-campus dwellings "off-limits" to students . . 102 50. The University should have the authority to require students to move out of off-campus apartments . . 103 51. The University should declare "off-limits" homes or apartments which discriminate for reasons of race, creed, or color. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 ix Table Page 52. The University should not allow students to rent an apartment for party purposes only . . . . 105 53. The University should not allow members of the Opposite sex in students' living quarters Off- campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 L//54. The University should have no regulations which prohibit the use of alcohol in Off-campus student housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 55. The University should have no regulations which prohibit co-habitation by Off-campus students . . 108 56. The University should discipline Off-campus students for co-habitation (i.e., single members of the Opposite sex living together) . . . . . . 109 L/57. Apartment owners should notify the local law enforcement agency when off-campus student parties are causing a public disturbance . . . . 110 58. The University should contact the prOper law enforcement agency when it is aware of violations of civil law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 »//59. The University should take disciplinary action against an off-campus student when the student is arrested and convicted for a violation of a civil or criminal law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 60. The University should contact the prOper law enforcement agency in cases where residences are known places Of narcotics use . . . . . . . . . 113 61. The University has the reSponsibility to inform students of state laws when the University has reason to believe that LSD is being used Off- campus.....................114 l//62‘ The University has the reSponsibility to inform students of state laws when the University has reason to believe that marijuana is being used , off-campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 63. The University should report the use Of LSD by Off-campus students to the proper law enforcement agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 64. The University should report the use of marijuana by Off-campus students to the proper law enforce- ment agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Table Page 65. Who Filled Out the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 118 66. Total Amount of Money Each Family Contributed to Each Child in College . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 67. Parents' Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 68. Number of Children Each Family Has in College. . 120 69. Family Size - Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 70. POpulation of Home Town . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 71. Total Family Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 72. Parents Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 73. Student ReSponses to the Open End Question: This is a compiling Of the Opinions, additional comments or reactions to any particular question the reSpondents might have had on this study . . 125 74. Parents Responses to the Open End Question: This is a compiling of the Opinions, additional comments or reactions to any particular question the reSpondents might have had on this study . . 131 75. Apartment Owners ReSponses to the Open End Question: This is a compiling of the Opinions, additional comments or reactions to any particu- lar question the reSpondents might have had on this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 76. Facultpresponses to the Open End Question: This is a compiling of the Opinions, additional comments or reactions to any particular question the reSpondents might have had on this study . . 139 77. Student Personnel Administrators Re3ponses to the Open End Question: This is a compiling of the Opinions, additional comments or reactions to any particular question the reSpondents might have had on this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 xi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The housing of students Off campus is not a new idea. Off-campus living arrangements have been a part of higher education since the conception of colleges and universities. During the history of higher education the degree to which colleges and universities have been involved in an Off-campus housing program has fluctuated greatly depend- ing upon the philosophy of the institution, the economics of the times, the number of students enrolled and the number of units available to house students on and off campus. Changes in college and university off-campus housing policies and regulations have'taken place in higher education more rapidly during the last ten years than ever before. Several factors have greatly influenced these changes. The first, is the increased number of students seeking a college education and their ensuing need for housing facilities. In Michigan alone between 1962 and 1965 there has been a 24 per cent increase in the number Of students attending institutions of higher education (10). The Michigan Coordinating Council of Higher Education has predicted that in 1970 higher education in Michigan will experience a 74 per cent increase over the 1962 enrollment (10). This increase is not unique to Michigan. A survey of 152 institutions compiled by the Off Campus Housing Sub-Committee of the Association of College and University Housing Officers indicated that colleges and universities across the country were experiencing a similar growth trend (3). In addition, this survey points out that there has been an increase of 62 per cent in the last five years in the use of Off-campus facilities to satisfy the increased demands for housing (3). The situation at two major Michigan universities provides a very good example of what changes are taking place across the country. The President's Commission on Off-Campus Housing at the University of Michigan (32) indicated that there were more building permits issued for off campus apartments during the 1964 academic year than in the previous five years combined (32). The Off-campus housing program at Michigan State University has also changed considerably in the last few years. In 1955 Michigan State University had approximately 900 students living Off campus. By 1966 this figure jumped to nearly 5,500. Between 1962 and 1966, 3,500 apartment units, designed for students, were built in the East Lansing area (13) Along with this growth in Off-campus apartment housing have come increasing requests by apartment owners and their agents for the university to accept more responsibility for developing student pro- grams and supervising and regulating students' behavior. However, the apartment owners and their agents have refused to initiate or develop programs or supervise student behavior themselves, after the students have moved in. In effect, they seem to want to realize the profits and accept none Of the responsibilities. The second factor influencing the change in the university's regulations and policies in off-campus housing has been the emphasis on group living and residence hall programs. During the last ten years many colleges have initiated massive residence hall building projects on their campuses. Coupled with this building program, universities have placed their major emphasis in providing services, staffing, and research to give those students in residence halls the best possible programs and living environment that higher education can Offer. Colleges have directed their major energies toward the residence hall programs while giving little or no emphasis to Off- campus housing. Robert Shaffer and William Martinson in their book, Student Personnel Services in Higher Education, have pointed out this situation very well. "Commuting students living at home and in private rooming houses present a Special challenge to the student personnel worker. Because Of day-to-day concerns with residence halls and fraternal units, staff time and energy is almost totally consumed in this area to the exclusion Of any creative thinking and planning for the students not in group housing. . . this problem is Often erroneously labeled "lack Of communication." While this may be a contributing factor, in reality it is one of assimilating Off-campus students into the main stream of the campus. It is important to offer these students some Of the benefits attainable through group living." 39:67-68 The third major factor affecting the change in universities regula- tions and policies in off-campus housing has been the change in philo- SOphy Of "in loco parentis." This philOSOphy States that the university will act in place of the parents and would serve as surrogate parents directing and controlling conduct to the same extent that the parents might. The original concept of "in loco parentis" was meant to pre- vail throughout all aSpects of student behavior. The supervision and regulation of fraternity and sorority systems, social affairs, discipline problems, on and off-campus housing, and all extra-curricular life were all or in part entrusted to the university. This concept was extended to the point Of regulating the place a student could eat Off campus, or the place of his residence Off campus. (9,17) Due to recent conflicts between the law and the private rights Of Students, colleges and universities have undergone a change in theory from one of "in loco parentis” toward one of contract theory (23). This theory implies the fact that the students enter into a contractual relationship with the university, and as party to a matriculation contract is bound by the Obligations of said agreement. This change toward contract theory has liberalized and changed the thinking of many administrators and in doing this had a direct effect upon the role Of the university toward the Off-campus student's liv- ing situation. What, in fact, this really has done is change housing regulations to allow more students to move off campus and to allow them more freedom in their living situations. The position univer- sities occupied 15 years ago Of regulating and supervising off-campus behavior has completely reversed itself today.' In Off-campus housing co-habitation, drinking, disorderly conduct, public disturbance, loud parties, delinquent contracts, damage deposit problems, and personnel programming are not viewed as much today as the university's respon- sibility as they once were. But, at the same time students, parents, apartment owners, and, in some cases, faculty are requesting that the university accept this responsibility: The last, and perhaps one of the_more significant factors affect- ing the off-campus living situation has been the lack of research and investigation in the off-campus area. There have been no doctoral dissertation studies since 1950 dealing with the Off-campus Student and his living arrangements other than a few dealing with the student's living situation and his academic achievements. There has only been a scattering of research articles pertaining to various Specific aspects of the student's Off-campus living environment during the past ten years. There has been no investigation of the perceptions of those individuals reSponsible for the formulating of Off-campus housing policies and procedures. Consequently there has been no attempt to determine the Specific reSponsibility the university has today in light of the recent influences which have changed the complexity of the Off-campus area. The preceding four major factors point out a need for student personnel administrators to conscientiously begin a serious investi- gation of the Off campus living environments of students; therefore, it is hoped that this dissertation will begin to add to a necessary body of knowledge in this area so that the universities can effec- tively administer and formulate policies which govern the Off-campus student. The Purpose of the Study There has been a paucity of research which examines the student's behavior Off campus or the university's reSponsibility to the student living Off campus. There have been some attempts made to assess the feelings of parents, administrators, and students on Specific types of behavior (i.e. student visitation to Off-campus private quarters) (15) but there has been no attempt to ascertain the responsibility the university has toward the total living environment. The purpose Of this study is to compare perceptions of students, faculty, apartment owners, parents, and student personnel adminis- trators with respect to the university's responsibility in the area of off-campus housing. Behind the purpose of this study is the desire to gain insight into the perceptions of those individuals most actively involved in the policy formulation regarding off-campus housing. The more specific areas of responsibility to be studied are: 1) community relations, 2) student personnel services, 3) parent-university relations, and 4) regulatory and law enforcement. It is hoped that this study will aid the university in its educa- tional aims in the areas of policy formulation, student personnel programming, and proper administrative staffing in the Off-campus housing area. In addition, this study can help point out the specific areas which the university should or should not emphasize in working with the Off-campus student. Statement of the Problem In this study the perceptions of students, parents of students, faculty, apartment owners, and student personnel administrators will be compared with respect to their Opinions concerning the university's responsibility for the student's Off-campus living situation. An attempt will be made to analyze any differences between students, parents of students, faculty, apartment owners, and student personnel administrators with respect to the types Of responsibility that Mich- igan State University has toward its off-campus students. Definition of Terms Student - A full-time (12 credits or more) single male or female, sophomore, junior or senior, attending Michigan State University, living in Off-campus housing other than a fraternity house, a sorority ‘— house, cooperative living unit, supervised housing, with relatives or _- - —-—___.-_‘ _’_--_",__- _ _,.____ ___ M N at home. Faculty - A member of the academic faculty at Michigan State University holding the rank of assistant professor, associate professor or full professor. Parent — The parents of the students described above. Student Personnel Administrator - Full time professional staff members of the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. Apartment Owner - An individual who owns a student apartment build- ing or his managing agent renting primarily to M.S.U. students. Off-Campus Housing - Those dwellings, primarily apartments that are not part of Michigan State University's organized housing program. These dwellings are unsupervised and unapproved by the University. University's Responsibility - The responsibility entrusted to the judgment of Michigan State University for developing and supervising student programs and for regulating the students' behavior. Hypotheses Hypothesis I This study is concerned with the perceptions of students, parents of students, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel adminis- trators with respect to the Michigan State University's responsibility in the students' Off-campus living situation. The major hypothesis is that there will be a difference between the perceptions Of students, parents of students, faculty, apartment owners, and student personnel administrators as to the responsibility Michigan State University has I, l , toward the student's off-campus living situation. fhe theory pehind this hypothesis is that through the role these groups play, their perceptions as to the types and extent of responsibility the university should have Off campus will differ. The concept of role theory which supports the above hypothesis has been thoroughly reviewed by Gross (18), Sarbin (37), Brookover (7), Nonnamaker (31), Neiman and Hughes (30). The definition of role has been defined in different ways by different researchers. Newcomb describes role in terms of position. He states: "each position carries with it definite perceptions for behaving toward other persons in related position . . Such ways of behaving toward others which are defined for different positions are called roles. (29:298) The ways Of behaving which are expected of any individual who occupies a certain position con- stitutes the role associated with that position. A position . . . is something static; it is a place in the structure recognized by members of the society and accorded by them to one or more individuals. A role, on the other hand, is something dynamic; it refers to the behavior of the occupants Of a position --not all their behavior, as persons, but what they do as occupants of the position." (29:280) Brookover (7) does not describe role in terms of position but rather in terms of status and status in situations. He has divided his concept of role into seven categories: General status -- others' expectations of any actor in a broadly defined position, i.e. teacher. Status in situation -- others' expectations of any actor in a particular situation. Role -- others' expectations of a particular actor in a particular situation. Actor -- the individual as he enters the situation with his previous experience in related situations, personality needs and the meaning Of the Situation for him. Self involvement -- actor's image of the ends antic- ipated from participation in the status as he pro- jected his self image in the role. Definition -- actor's definition of what he thinks others expect of him in the role. Behavior in interaction -- actor's behavior in interaction with others. This is determined by definition and role but also continually redefines them. (7:3) Nonnamaker (31) drawing from Newcomb (29), Brookover (7) and Cross (18) defined role as: "the expectations which others have for any actor in a particular position or the expectations that any actor may have for his own position." (31:21) Gross, Mason and McEachern (18) defined role as: "a set of expec- tations applied to an incumbant of a particular position." They defined position as: "a location of an actor or class of actors in a system of social relationships." (18:60) Gross, Mason and McEachern go on further to explain their theory stating that: "the greater the homogeneity among or between position incumbants the more consensus they will have on the expectations for their own and others' positions.” Although role is defined and interpreted differently by different investigators, for purposes of this study the Gross, Mason and McEachern definition of role will be used. Each of the sample groups involved in this study occupies a dif- ferent position with respect to the university community. It is assumed 10 that there is a certain degree of homogeneity in each of these positions and that persons filling the various positions will vary with respect to their expectations of what the university's role in off-campus housing ought to be. As indicated above, the sample groups consist of parent, student, apartment owners, faculty, and student personnel administrators. The faculty form a homogeneous group involved in teaching and academic pursuits. They have an advanced degree in a specialized area and are personally concerned with pursuing this specialty through teaching and research. The student personnel administrators are involved in administration Of the university and out-of-class education of stu- dents. The apartment owners are not part of the university and are involved in the commercial venture through financial investments. The students are not involved in the teaching and administration of the university. They are all undergraduates pursuing an undergraduate aca- demic degree. In most cases they are younger, less educated, and experienced than the faculty or the Student personnel administrators and they are not primarily involved in a commercial venture as are the apartment owners. Parents form a homogenous group. All are associated with the university due to the fact that they have children in college; they are normally removed from the physical environment Of the university, and usually maintain certain educational and behavioral expectations Of the university and their children. Hypgthesis II The second hypothesis in the study states that there will be signi- ficant differences between the perceptions of parents and their children, ll i.e., the students involved in the research. The basis for this second hypothesis comes not only from role theory but mainly from the exposure of the author to students and their Off- campus problems for the past four years. When interviewing students on Off-campus concerns during this period, the author has repeatedly encountered situations where the student indicates that he is expressing the same Opinions on these concerns as his parents. This research will attempt to clarify any differences which exist between students and their parents with regard to the items used in the study. Limitations of the Study The study is limited by the factors inherent in the use of any questionnaire, namely the difficulties in tabulating, validating, and securing the complete cooperation Of the respondents. A further limitation to the study might be the fact that parents and students discussed the questionnaire jointly before returning it to the author. Delimitation of the Study The principle delimitation Of this study is that it is concerned only with the perceptions of students, faculty, student personnel administrators, parents, and apartment owners associated with Michigan State University. 12 Procedures Used in this Study The populations of this study consists of: 1) all full-time (12 credits or more sophomores, juniors, and seniors) enrolled at M.S.U. fall term, 1967, living Off campus, excluding individuals living in a fraternity house, sorority house, cooperative living unit, supervised housing, living with relatives or at home; 2) the parents of these students; 3) all academic faculty working full time fall term, 1967, at Michigan State University with academic rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor; 4) all student personnel administrators working full time fall term, 1967, in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs; 5) all apartment owners or their managing agents, renting primarily to M.S.U. students. From these populations a random sample of individuals was selected for this study. The sample consists of 100 students, 100 parents, 50 faculty, 50 student personnel administrators, and 50 apartment owners. In order to adequately compare the five groups, a questionnaire covering the four major areas of responsibility related to the univer- sity's responsibility off campus was developed. In answering the questionnaire individuals were asked to select one response for each item using the following scale: Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, no comment. Chi square, a non-parametric statistic, was used to determine significant differences. The .05 level of Signi- ficance was selected to determine the significant differences between the perceptions of the groups. The most important aspect of the study will be to compare the dif- ferent perceptions concerning the responsibility the University has 13 toward the Off-campus living situation. Specifically, the question- naire was developed and designed so that it will be possible to compare the different perceptions in the following areas: 1) community rela- tions, 2) student personnel services, 3) parent-university relations, and 4) regulatory and law enforcement. Significance of the Study Exploring the area of the University's responsibility toward the Off-campus student should prove to be extremely valuable to all those people who are concerned with the problems of the Off-campus student. Specifically, this study should give those university administrators concerned with off-campus housing policies some idea as to how Students, parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators view the responsibility Of the university with regard to the student's Off-campus living environment. In addition, it should also help in the following manner: 1) Provide an impetus for research in the Off-campus housing area which has, for a long time, been an area greatly lacking in investigation and research. 2) Provide a foundation from which future policy formulation can be based to best serve the Off-campus student. 3) Stimulate and aid other institutions in reviewing and for- mulating policies on their campuses. 4) Evaluate for the first time our present position at Michigan State University. It is hoped that this research will help parents, students, faculty, and student personnel administrators understand the responsibility of the university as it relates to the Off-campus student in terms of the changing climate of higher education today. It is only when we under- 14 stand the university's responsibility that we can best utilize our energies and facilities for the betterment of the student in higher education. Organization of the Study For the purpose of convenience and systematic consideration, this study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I presents an introduction of the study, the purpose of the Study, a statement of the problem, the population examined, the limitations and significance of the study. Chapter II includes a review of pertinent literature related to this study. Chapter III consists of a detailed report of the design and methodology used in developing the questionnaire, conducting the study, and analyzing the data. The findings are reported in Chapter IV. A summary Of the findings, along with the conclusions and implications for further study are found in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter is devoted to a review of the literature which has some bearing on this thesis. To put the topic being investigated into proper perspective, an historical development Of Off-campus housing is presented. This is followed by a brief description of the legal posi- tion of universities with regard to Off-campus housing, a review of the pertinent research in this area and last, a brief summary of the chapter. Historical Perspective Late 1700's - Early 1800's The problem of housing students at American Colleges and the utili- zation of off-campus hOusing to help alleviate this problem had its beginnings during the mid 1700's. During this period there was great concern by the university Officials for the welfare of students. (8, ll, 22) This concern was reflected in the regulations placed on stu- dents, restricting their places Of residence and behavior off-campus. Students wishing to live off-campus had to obtain special permission from the university officials. Once a student had received Special per- mission, he could move only into an approved home. Students living 15 l6 off-campus were expected to adhere to the same standards of behavior as those living on campus. (11, 22) Leonard, (22) in describing the development Of the Colonial College states that: After the appointment of the President, one of the first major problems Of the trustees of the Colonial Colleges was housing the students. In several instances, the students had first lived in the house of the President but as their number increased, they were allowed to live in approved homes in the neighborhood Of the President's home or the College Building. This arrangement was found unsatisfactory and great efforts were made to raise funds for fuilding dormitories in order that the students could be under the constant supervision of the President and faculty. As soon as dormitories were built, all students were required to live in the college except by Special permission from the President and/or the trustees . . . each person admitted shall have an inhabitation in the College assigned to him by the President in which he Shall be obliged to lodge (except by Special leave Obtained from the governor or the President) . . . Students living Off-campus were generally subject to the same discipline as other students. This is illustrated by a rule passed by the overseers of Harvard in 1660 requiring Presidential permission to live outside the college. Such students had to be under the same college order and discipline as other residents in the College. (22:24) During the late 1700's and early 1800's college officials continued to be faced with housing problems, Leonard States that: Of all the personnel services for which early college Officials held themselves responsible, the first and most pressing appeared to have been that of providing appropriate living conditions for the Students. Many factors entered into the assumption of this responsibility, but the precedent set by the Colonial College doubtless carried the most weight with the benefactors and legis- latorS who accepted the need for housing the students in their plans for endowing and in chartering the institution. In some cases the granting of charter rested on the evidence of existing facilities or money to purchase or build facilities for housing the students and faculty . . . Groups promoting a college met the problem Of housing the Student in different ways, depending upon the existing facilities in the locality, but in general they either built dormitories or farmed the students out among the faculty or in community homes which were supervised. Most col- leges actually used both methods . . . In the early years some colleges with only a few students housed them in the home of the President. Soon, however, Students overflowed into the homes of faculty and carefully selected Christian homes . . . (22:40) 17 The type of relationship which existed between the college, the student and the community during this period was very closely controlled. In some cases, students were not allowed to go out of sight of the col- lege buildings or hearing range of the college bell without special permission. (22:54-55) Students were forbidden to "attend any sport- ing games, purchase or possess any spiritus liquors, make tumultuous or indecent noises in the town, build fires in the trustees' homes or annoy the townspeople in any way. Shooting at the neighbors' dog or overseer or molesting the townspeople's orchards or gardens, was also forbidden." (22:56) When students violated any of the above, they were disciplined. As these examples show, during this period colleges assumed almost total responsibility for the behavior Of Students on and Off campus. (8,11,22) Between 1800 and 1850 little change took place in the nature of Off-campus housing. However, because of the great increase in enroll- ments during this period it became increasingly difficult tO find proper supervised homes for the off-campus student. (11) As was true during the earlier periods, supervision of Students was done by the faculty and selected respectable persons of the com- munity. The supervisory family was responsible for carrying out the college rules, a copy of which was given, in many cases, to each house- holder. (22) Homeowners were expected to accept the students as part of their families. It was hoped that this practice would cultivate in the Students some of the social and domestic habits of the family. (22) The philosophy behind this practice was reflected in one catalogue in the following way: 18 The young ladies will here be brought under the first moral influence and maternal supervision exerted by those who will act in harmonious concert with the teachers to aid in the thorough education of the mind, manners, and heart. (46:32-33) Late 1800's - Early 1900's As American institutions Of higher education continued to grow in Size during the late 1800's, the number of college dormitories con- structed decreased and the number of fraternities and Off-campus residences increased. (8,11,22) A major contributing factor was the influence Of the German philosophy Of education which was affecting American colleges. (11,48) This German emphasis of "paying no attention to students outside of the classroom and insisting that they find their own social life and boarding and rooming facilities" played a significant part in the move away from dormitory construction during the middle and late 1800's. (11:711) Cowley States that during this time "the German point Of view, in fact, ruled and as it grew in popu- larity, dormitories were frowned upon, occasionally abolished and seldom built at state universities." (11:711) Wrenn noted that: By 1900 many Students in Eastern Colleges had moved out of the few existing dormitories into fraternity houses and private residences and among the universities of the Middle West there was only a handful Of dormitories in operation. (48:294) Cowley, in tracing the history of Student residences went on to say: Dormitories built early in the nineteenth century continued in Operation but many of them had been allowed to fall into semi decay . . . Students irked by the primitive conditions in the residence halls, under which they were expected to live, moved out in large numbers into fraternity houses and private residences. (11:712) Cowley, in pointing out the move away from dormitory construction reports a situation where private individuals constructed a dormitory l9 Off-campus with the idea of making a profit from the fees collected from the Students for room and board. (11:712) He also discusses the growth of fraternity houses on college campuses and the effect this growth had on dormitory construction. The fraternity influence at one institution (Amherst) was so intense that during the late 1800's the institution abandoned the construction of a new dormitory. Fraternities and off-campus living thus supplied the bulk of housing for the great numbers of students seeking residence at colleges between 1850 and 1900. (11,43) The traditional idea Of a student moving in with a faculty member, ' or into an "approved home" decreased in into a "Christian home,’ emphasis between 1850 and the early 1900's. (8,11,22) . There were two major factors affecting this change. This change occurred, for one, because of the great increase in enrollments taking place. Faculty could no longer house all of the Students looking for accommodations, and colleges soon had to expand their "proper" housing programs away from the campus to the local farm areas. (11) In doing this, insti- tutions lost some degree of control over the students' living situation. The second reason was that the President could no longer approve of dwellings himself, and for awhile the responsibility for the approval process shifted aimlessly among the university officials. (11) While colleges continued to require approval of off-campus housing, the tight control once held on the approval process disappeared. AS a result, the conditions of some Of the approved homes began to deterio- rate, 80 that by the late 1800's much Of the Off-campus housing was in the same primitive state as were the dormitories. (11) During the early 1900's there was a return to the English philosophy 20 of education, utilizing the residence unit as the center of the educational life of the Student. (11) Accompanying the return of the English philosophy was the rapid increase construction Of dormitories. (11,22,48) This influence, plus the marked increase in the number of women students at American institutions, greatly influenced future role Off- campus housing would have in higher education. This change in philos- ophy, and the increased enrollments of female students helped change the future role of Off-campus housing to one of supplementing the dormitory program. During this same time off-campus housing came under close scrutiny by university Officials. (11,48) This movement began with an increased concern for women Students and their places Of residence. (11,48) In addition, the responsibility for inspecting and approving Off-campus residences at most campuses was finally stabilized and became the duty of the Student personnel administrator. As Wrenn points out: One Of the earliest responsibilities of the personnel worker was to inspect and supervise boarding houses Off-campus and incorporate these units into the total campus life. (48:295) Deans Of women, responsible traditionally for the female students' wel- fare, began to take a close look at off-campus female student residences. (ll) Cowley points out that few institutions were willing to let female students "shift for themselves." (11:761) Cowley goes on to say: The notion that women were physically unequal to higher education had by no means completely died down and the Victorian morality left no room for anything but strict housing regementation . Some deans Of women charged with the social and physical welfare of their Students gave devoted and continuous attention to housing. (11:761) 21 An interesting illustration of the reason administrators were concerned about off-campus residences is given by Cowley in his report Of a survey compiled on rooming houses at a Middle West institution in 1906. He reports: . . that 18 of the 40 householders admitted both sexes; that approximately 30 householders permitted students to pro- vide and prepare their own food; that cooking, eating, Sleep- ing and Studying were done in the same room; that in these houses girls had no parlors in which to entertain friends or callers; that none of the houses provided single beds; that only Six had bathrooms and inside toilets; that ten had furnace heat; that three still used kerosene lamps. Those doing light housekeeping might wash and iron in their own rooms, where kitchen duties were usually taken care of on kerosene stoves . . . (11:761) As student personnel administrators assumed the responsibility for off-campus residences they became intensely concerned about the physical, social and intellectual condition Of Off-campus dwellings. Administrators attempted to use the social, physical and educational programs in the residence halls as their yardstick to measure the Off- campus facilities. (2,48) The American Council on Education in a special report on the housing of Students supported the idea of using the residence halls as a standard. The minimum physical provisions for students comfort and adequate living should be as closely identical as possible with standards set by the college residence halls . . . In the eyes Of the community and of the parents, the responsi- bilities of the college for life in commercial residences are far different from those in communities with college owned halls. From the educational point of view -- which should be that Of any educational institution -— the responsibilities for all its Students must be the same, no matter where they may live . . . The college Offices Of dean of women, dean of men, or directors of housing should be provided with the necessary budget and personnel to create in private homes conditions which resemble those in its own housing units as closely as possible. (2:62-63) 22 Wrenn went SO far as to describe "the ideal off-campus house as a miniature residence hall." (48:314) However, because of the inherent differences between Off-campus housing and on-campus housing, administrators found it very difficult to make ”miniature residence halls" out of private residences. The difficulty with providing proper shelter for students through the use of private commercial dwellings -- to say nothing of their use for educational purposes -- comes not from the fact that they are private dwellings but from the fact that they are commercial. The use Of this word in designation of such dwellings indicates a fundamental con- flict with the purposes Of an educational institution. In the matter of Shelter, the primary objective of the com- mercial landlord is to get the greatest possible income with the smallest possible expense for maintenance. Some individual landlords may temper this with humanitarian concerns, but in general, the market forces them, even if desire for profit does not, to operate their properties with commercial purposes foremost in mind. Any college program which attempts to bring another major purpose to the foreground, therefore, meets a constant Obstacle in the fact that the people who control the property do not possess an interest or Share in the major purposes of the institution. Such persons may be inspected, trained, and refused approval, but they can never be expected to do more than comply with the rules, the basic premises of which they do not understand. (2:60-61) The fundamental differences which existed between on-campus and off-campus housing made it impossible or extremely difficult to turn Off-campus housing into a "miniature residence hall." Eventually administrators changed their emphasis from trying to duplicate resi- dence halls Off-campus to one of trying to provide adequate off-campus facilities to supplement those on campus. From this time on the bulk of student personnel administrators' energy was centered in the following three areas: (a) the inspection of off-campus dwellings for proper safety and Sanitary conditions; (b) the selection and education of supervisors; and (c) the development of social and educational 23 programs for Off-campus Students. Wrenn, (48) stated that the major responsibility for the director Of residences in dealing with Off-campus housing falls in three areas: (1) (2) (3) To see that the Off-campus houses are carefully inspected. Inspection and selection Of Off-campus houses should be made early in the summer by a committee comprising a dietition, a nurse, members of the home economics and the physical education depart- ments, and representatives from the personnel Office. This com- mittee Should appraise each house in terms of established standards of diet, heating, ventilation, lighting, sanitation, Sleeping facilities, supervision, and social life. Inspection tours should be made at the beginning of the academic year and at intervals during the year, to see that these Standards are being maintained. If the above Steps are carefully taken, the college can avoid some of the common deficiencies of Off-campus housing: small rooms, poorly lighted and ventilated; inadequate toilet facilities -- more than six students to one bathroom; lack of closet Space; lack of desks; double rather than single beds; poor provision for quiet; inadequate recreation facilities; no provision for segregation in case of illness; undesirable location. To see that householders are chosen with discrimination. The householder, landlady, or house mother, as She is variously called, is the key person in the Off-campus situation. That is why it is so important to try to find householders who are willing to cooperate with the college and are interested in the welfare Of the Students; who understand the conditions necessary for effective student life; have social ideals; are reliable, clean and orderly; and who have families that contribute rather than interfere with the Student's development . . . Regular meetings Of the house- holders with the student personnel staff are mutually helpful. Householders bring current problems to the attention of the college staff and together they work out practical solutions with respect to health, diet, social life, and student conduct. In a series of such meetings, householders gain not only suggestions for super- vision but also a feeling of working toward an important common goal -- the education of American youth. To see that a wholesome social life is provided and that the student takes advantage of the educational values available. A living room for students where they can entertain callers and engage in small group activities is essential for social life in Off-campus houses. It Should be considered an intrinsic part Of the personnel program and maintain close contact with the activi- ties Of the institution as a whole. Representatives from off- campuS houses Should be active in the Student Council and serve on 24 committees responsible for campus events. Moreover, these events should be planned at times when Off-campus students can conve- niently attend them. Similarly, dormitory Open-house occasions and other forms Of hospitality to Off-campus students encourage the desired functional unity between campus and Off-campus stu- dents. (48:312-315) The American Council on Education's publication on housing went SO far as to say that the system of inspection and approval of Off-campus dwellings is the only real weapon that colleges can use in controlling Off-campus students' residences. (2) Mueller (25) and Wrenn (48) recommended that off-campus housing be inspected and that the propri- etors be educated to the university's standards and regulations. In the process of educating the home owners, Mueller recommended that an organization of home owners be developed. This organization would be a vehicle to inform home owners what responsibilities are expected Of them by the university. Mueller, believes universities should be more involved in women's Off-campus housing than men's because of society's demands for high standards and good supervision of women. In dis- cussing women's housing she states that: NO young Student may live in a distant area not serviced by public transportation, nor in any area so badly lighted or SO inadequately patrolled that walking home at night is a hazard. (25:197-198) Mueller, (25) Wrenn(48) and the Council on Education's housing report (2) all recommended the enforcement Of university social rules and regulations pertaining tO students' living off-campus. Early 1960's College policies toward off-campus housing during the early 1960's indicate that, basically, student personnel administrators' concerns remained pretty much as they were in the early part of the century. In 25 many cases they were still concerned with and envolved in: (a) the inspection of Off-campus dwellings; (b) the education of Off-campus supervisors; and (c) the supervision of students' social behavior while they are living off-campus. (3,24,25,34,4l,43,47) In addition there was a renewed concern for the inspection of off-campus housing for proper safety and sanitary conditions. Although this concern had its beginning in the mid and late fifties it was not until the 1960's that it was revitalized and began to blossom. A Joint Commission on Student Housing Standards1 feeling that college administrators had hesitated to set standards for their own institution, recommended a set of minimum standards for non-institutional owned housing. (20) These Standards included the following items: "basic construction and exterior, exit routes and interior Stairways and corridors, habitable space requirements, bath and toilet facilities, water requirements, heating and ventilation, electrical facilities, lighting, food service and equipment, pest control, housekeeping, main- tenance, cleanliness, and fire protection." (20:363) Westfall, (47) in an attempt to ascertain how universities felt about Off-campus inspection standards, surveyed sixty-five selected universities. He received responses from ninety-eight per cent of the sample. Ninety-Six per cent of the universities responding were in favor of establishing minimal standards for non-institutional owned housing. Westfall in summarizing his report supported the Joint 1The Committee was composed of members of the American College Health Association, the Campus Safety Association and the Association of College and University Housing Offices. This report can be obtained in monograph form from any one of the three professional organizations. 26 Commission on Student Housing position and made the following recommen- dations: Colleges Should use the Joint Commission on Student Housing recom- mendations as: (a) guidelines and establish their own minimum health and safety requirements, (b) employ the services of a registered public health sanitation official to conduct inspec- tions, (c) conduct inspections at least once a year, (d) main- tain a list Of approved off-campus dwellings. (47:121) Opp, (33) in an article strongly supporting the position of estab- lishing proper safety and sanitation standards for Off-campus housing, went on further to say that, "the institution Should list and refer or recommend only facilities which have been inspected and found accept- able." (33:26) Most of the literature of the 1960's has supported the position of strict inspections and approval standards for off-campus housing. The second important trend in the 1960's has been the rebirth of the German philosophy of education as it relates to off-campus housing. Accepting this philosophy in its purest form, universities should be concerned only with educational pursuits in the classroom and not involved in housing, particularly Off-campus housing. Few institutions adopted the German philosophy Of education toward housing completely, yet many institutions have developed a classification of housing in this direction. (3,24,26,32,38,43,47) What has happened is that institutions have developed two classi- fications (types) of Off-campus housing. The first type usually called "supervised or approved” is molded after the early American philosophy of education which includes the supervision and inspection of off-campus housing. The second type modeled after the German philosophy of education, 27 is usually called "unsupervised” and/or "unapproved." NO responsi- bility is assumed for the students outside of the classroom under this philosophy. The university does not inspect or approve dwellings, or involve itself in the behavior problems Of students living in these dwellings. (41,43) In a survey conducted by Sprunger and Smith (41) on ten randomly selected non-western (Big Ten) conference schools, fifty per cent of the institutions reported "unapproved" and/or "unsupervised" housing programs. In a study conducted by Tombaugh and Smith (43) of colleges in the Western Conference (Big Ten), all ten schools indicated some kind Of "unapproved" and/or "unsupervised" housing program. Smith and Tombaugh note that: Qualifications for living in "unsupervised" housing are easily described. Practices range from no restrictions at Minnesota to a twenty-three year old minimum for undergraduate students at the University of Illinois. Four schools have different regulations for men and women undergraduate Students. Some institutions identify students eligible for "unsupervised housing by age, some by year in school, and some by an either/or criteria" . . . (43:3) Smith and Tombaugh, stated further that there seems to be a commitment to the provision of both "supervised" and "unsupervised” off-campus housing by the majority of the schools included in this Study. (43) In 1965 the ACUHO Off-Campus Housing Commission survey indicated that seventy-two per cent of the 162 universities responding to their questionnaire indicated that their university did not require super- vision in all non-institutionally owned facilities for single Students. (3) This report showed that approximately fifty per cent Of the insti- tutions had adopted the dual system of approved/supervised, unapproved/ unsupervised Off-campus housing philosophy. This was particularly true of the larger institutions. 28 The President of the University of Michigan2 in 1965 established a Special commission of students, faculty, administrators and towns- people charged with the responsibility Of investigating the University's role in off-campus housing. (32) After a year of investigation the commission concluded: . . that in our free enterprise system the university lacks the legal and political authority (if it has the wisdom) to impose new regulations upon privately owned facilities . . . Except for recommendations concerning health, safety and cleanliness the commission does not recommend increased supervision by the univer- sity of the private lives of its students living in off-campus housing. Such problems as there are must largely and necessarily be met by the local authorities. The university Should, Of course, continue to cooperate with the local authorities to keep the problems to a minimum in both number and scope. The commission believes that the university's greatest responsibility to private owners and developers of student housing and to the city Of Ann Arbor as well, is to provide an effective channel of communication between the university and all others whose cooperation and partic- ipation is required in order to assess suitable Student housing facilities in Ann Arbor. Universities should accomplish this means of communications best by offering its services as mediator. (32:30-50) It appears from this study that the University of Michigan's Off-Campus Housing Office will only play the role of mediator and communications agent for all parties concerned with off-campus housing of students. This university has almost completely gone in the direction of having only unapproved/unsupervised housing Off-campus. In 1963 Michigan State University developed a housing policy which moved in the direction of supporting this dual classification of supervised/unsupervised housing philosophy. (1) The following housing regulations were adopted: 2It Should be noted that the University of Michigan has favored the German philosophy of education with regard to housing for some time. In 1853 President Henry Philip Tappan so strongly objected to the dor- mitory system that he converted the only university residence hall into a classroom. 29 Students who will have attained senior status by the last Official day of registration fall term or who will attain the age Of 21 during the academic year will be eligible to live in unsupervised housing beginning with fall term of that year . . . Any eligible student (i.e. a student turning 21 during the academic year or attaining senior status by fall term registration) under the age of 21 must have a parental consent form filed in the Off-Campus Housing Office in order to be eligible to live in unsupervised housing. (1:12) Under this policy Students living in unsupervised housing are responsi- ble only to the laws of the local community. The university nO longer assumes responsibility for (a) the students' behavior off-campus, (b) the selection and education of home owners, (c) the inspection of off-campus dwellings. Conflicts between students and landlords are the concern of those parties and the university assumes no responsibility for this conflict other than acting as a mediator at the request of the parties. The extent to which institutions of higher education move toward this dual classification of housing during the early sixties seems to depend on a number of factors. Among these might be included: (a) the geographic location Of the school; (b) the Size of the community in which the school is located; (c) the Size of the institution; (d) the composition of the student body; (e) the institution's age; and (f) the institution's educational and student personnel philosophies. Legal Position of the University Off-Campus In determining the university's responsibility Off-campus, it is appropriate that consideration be given to the legal position of the university in off-campus housing affairs. University officials should be aware of their legal rights and responsibilities in working with 30 off-campus housing programs in order to insure their regulations, policies and procedures are not in conflict with the law. Titus, (42) in a paper prepared for the Association of College and University Housing Officers, States that: There seems to be no doubt either morally or legally that colleges and universities have the right and authority to control or approve the residence of all students attending their institutions. (37:1) He based this statement on two court cases, Hoyt vs. Trustees (1943) and Castleberry vs. Tyler Commercial College (1920). In the Castleberry vs. Tyler Commercial College law suit of 1920 (9) the Texas court upheld the right of the college to require its students to "board" (meaning lodging) in homes approved by the college. The court went so far as to state the college could ask students to change their lodging if they were not in proper housing. In the Hoyt vs. Trustees case Of 1943 (19) a group of Off-campus rooming house owners challenged the right Of the State university to require Students to live in college buildings. The court upheld the university's right to require Students to live in college buildings or college approved buildings. The right of the university to order students out of Off-campus housing into dormitories was established in another court case. (6) Texas Technological College (1967) in an attempt to keep its dormi- tories filled, ruled in 1967 that students must live in dormitories as long as there is Space. Thirty-four students living in apartments filed suit in circuit court seeking permission to remain in their apart- ments. The court upheld the right of the institution to require all students who were under 25 and unmarried to live in college dormitories. (6) In this case the students were required by the university to move 31 into residence halls. Bakken, (4) in a monograph prepared for the American College Personnel Association, supported and documented this right of the university to require students to live in university owned or approved housing. Bakken states that: The right of a university to require residence in university owned or approved dwellings is not dependent upon age or marital status of the student . . . (4:16) Bakken points out that married Students could not be required to live apart from their spouses. He also stated that: . . . colleges and universities may specify which Off-campus housing is acceptable to the institution and insist that students live in only those places listed as acceptable. This would, however, not apply to students living with relations or at home. He suggests that the institution which uses this method Should, to be safe, set up inspection procedures and standards for Off- campus housing. (4:18) The courts have made it clear that when an institution establishes housing control for its Off-campus students there must be a clear-cut policy Statement covering their position. (16,17) Approval procedures for off-campus housing must be well defined and the approval standards must be reasonable. The standards may cover physical, social and moral issues, but they must be clearly stated. (42) Titus (42) has pointed out three common misunderstandings that often occur when institutions try to interpret the college's right to control students Off-campus. 1.) That institutions of higher learning can justify controlling its Students but it has pp right to control private citizens, especially landlords. 2.) That it might be assumed that since we have the authority to approve the residences Of our students that we also have the right £9 inspect, this is not s9. 32 3.) That the right to control student housing does not affect the law of contracts which applies to the relationship between the institution and the landlord. (42:1-5) Titus (42) feels these three points should be foremost in university officials' minds in administering off-campus housing programs in order to avoid possible embarrassment and legal suits. Institutions usually get around the first two of these points by requiring "approved homes" to be inspected and the landlords be in agreement with the university's housing philosophy before the dwelling can be labeled "approved housing." The relationship between institutions and landlords varies among col- leges from one of much control to one of no control, yet legally, as mentioned above, the law of contracts regulates whatever relationship exists. (42) Review of Related Research Two investigations have been made of the characteristics of the Off-campus student. Prusok's study, (35) conducted at the State University of Iowa in 1959, was aimed at discovering the character- istics of the single, off-campus resident student, his living situation, his reasons for selecting this type of residence, and other factors which would be beneficial in determining if the existing program of personnel services was reaching this segment of the student population. A sample of 201 single freshman men and all 329 single under- graduate women residing Off-campus was selected. The information was gathered by a questionnaire. Sixty per cent of the men and 63.5 per cent Of the women responded. Prusok (35) found that: (a) The average age of the students 33 off-campus was twenty years. They participated in a number of extra- curricular activities in high school but this did not carry over to college. They attended a high school of an average size of six hundred Students. (b) Male students more often live in single rooms than do females. BOth usually reside in facilities which rent to four or more students. (c) The Off-Campus Housing Office and students' friends are the two most frequent sources for finding rooms. (d) The three primary reasons for selecting Off-campus housing are (l) finances; (2) desire for independence; and (3) poor study conditions or dormitory living. (e) In approximately fifty per cent of the cases the Students were working at least seventeen hours per week. (f) Both men and women find their living situations quite satisfactory. (g) Male students most frequently had problems with course work, academic major and finances, whereas the women's problems most Often were academic major, personal and course work. (h) Men most frequently found assistance with problems from other students, instructors and faculty, while females most fre- quently received assistance from faculty advisors, instructors and parents. (i) Most of the activities engaged in by the off-campus stu- dents were characterized by an anonymous qpality (i.e. the student does not have to ”belong" to a group to participate). (10) The majority of both groups had a favorable impression of the university. Prusok (35) drew three major conclusions from his study. He con- cluded that, first, the off-campus student is, in fact, a somewhat marginal member of the university community. Second, that the typical student personnel program does.not reach the Off-campus student because of (a) a great communication barrier between the student and the insti- tution. The main communicative links are impersonal (i.e. student 34 newspaper); (b) the Off-campus student does not seem responsive to the Structured experience normally embodied in a Student Activities program; (c) the Off-campus student appears to have a greater need for indepen- dence than does the typical fraternity and dormitory resident. Finally, he concluded that the off-campus Student, despite his unique character- istics, has the same problems Of adjustment to the educational experi- ence as do other segments of the student population. In reviewing Prusok's Study it is difficult to accept his conclu- sions based on the information gathered in his survey. It is hard to accept the idea that the results of his study merit a conclusion that the off-campus student is a marginal member of the university community. The author also assumed that the lack of responses submitted by the students to Structured activities and experiences of the Student personnel program reflect the need Of greater independence on the part of the off-campus student. The major limitations of this study were pointed out by the author: (a) the Small number of returns; (b) the fact that 150 of the female students in the sample were living at home; and (c) the male sample only represents freshman students and not a cross-section of the Student body. This study is valuable, however, because of the descriptive information collected. Generalizations based on the findings should be restricted and interpreted with caution. Neal, (28) in a study Of single undergraduate females off-campus at the University of Florida, surveyed certain key characteristics; housing, academic performance, activities, dating and advantages and disadvantages of off-campus residence. The sample consisted of all 150 single females under thirty years of age living off-campus. Seventy- three per cent of the sample responded to the questionnaire. 35 The results Of the study indicated that approximately ninety per cent of the respondents were upperclassmen and had been living Off- campus for at least two semesters. The mean age of the group was 21 years. The respondents' parents represented a wide range of occupa- tional classifications. The majority of the respondents were paying for some or all of their educational expenses by means Of part-time and/or vacation employment. Sixty-two per cent Of the respondents were living in an apartment, with sixty-seven per cent of them Sharing it with one or two roommates and twenty-three per cent with three or more roommates. The primary reasons given for choosing apartment living was the availability of cooking facilities and Space. Students gained information about off-campus vacancies from a number Of sources. The primary source was the off-campus housing counselor, but friends and newspaper ads were also helpful.3 Approximately two-thirds of the respondents were enrolled in Arts and Sciences or Education curriculums. Fifty per cent of the respon- dents felt off-campus living had a positive effect on their academic Standing while only six per cent felt it had an adverse effect. The results Show only limited participation in campus activities. Forty-five per cent reported non-membership in any campus activities and only two-fifths of the respondents regularly or frequently attended voluntary extra-curricular events. About two-thirds of the females felt that their dating habits had been unaffected by Off-campus residence. The majority (2/3) were 3All female students seeking Off-campus housing are referred to the Off-campus housing counselor for consultation regarding listed facilities. 36 dating a considerable amount of time with most of it taking place at "home" over coffee or while Studying. The respondents reported that the advantages of living off-campus surpassed disadvantages by a ratio or four to one, the preponderant reason seeming to revolve around a more comfortable homelike atmosphere and an environment that is less ordered in comparison to campus resi- dence halls. More room renter respondents (70%) listed disadvantages than did apartment renters (52%). Distance was the primary disadvantage listed. Neal concludes (27,28) that "there is little doubt that many under- graduate women flee for refuge" to Off-campus residences in order to escape the pressures of campus community living and to establish increased autonomy. Neal also concludes that the university environ- ment on campus can not provide the necessary climate for all students to Obtain a clear sense of self identity and perhaps off-campus housing can provide this climate. This study was worthwhile in that it added to the descriptive information about the Off-campus Student already collected. The con- clusions drawn by Neal were general and easily supported by her survey. The author did not attempt to define or explain the response but rather merely reported the results. Dua (15) surveyed students, parents, and faculty-administrators in an attempt to ascertain who should be responsible for regulating student visitation in Off-campus housing by members of the opposite sex. A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of students, parents, and faculty-administrators associated with the University of Pennsyl- vania, asking whether the responsibility for regulating such visitations 37 should (a) be entrusted to the judgment of parents; (b) continue to be a part of the university's function; or (c) be delegated to the individual student concerned. The results showed that thirty-three per cent of the student and thirty-eight per cent Of the faculty- administration respondents believed parents should have the responsi- bility for regulating visitation. Only twenty per cent of the parents were willing to accept the responsibility. The primary reasons given by parents for not accepting this responsibility is that they are out of touch with university environment and unaware of special needs of youth. Sixty per cent of the Students, twenty-two per cent of the parents and sixteen per cent of the faculty-administrators felt that the respon- sibility for regulating Off-campus visitation should be delegated to the students themselves. Many parents and faculty-administrators felt that students lacked the maturity required for determining their own standards of social behavior. Only seven per cent of the students want the university regulating the Off-campus visitation whereas fifty-seven per cent of the parents and forty-six per cent Of the faculty- administrators felt this was the university's function. The majority of the students felt that each individual student should be responsible for his own Off-campus visits for the following three reasons: (a) morality is and Should be an individual matter; (b) if a Student is of legal age he Or she should have the freedom to determine his or her own moral or social standards; and (c) the univer- sity environment must provide the utmost freedom for exploration and personal experimentation in social life. Dua, (15) concluded from her study that parents do not want to 38 supervise their students behavior while they are at the university. They prefer to have the university assume this responsibility. The purpose of this study was well defined but the reporting and interpretation of the results are questionable. In reporting and interpreting the results, the author failed to make clear (a) the percentage of returns in her sample; (b) the percentage Of male and female Students in her sample; (c) the percentage Of female students living Off-campus; (d) the presence of any statistical analyses for determining Significant differences, and (e) the responses were given in percentage only, (no N's were available). Because Of these limita- tions, any conclusions drawn from this research would be questionable. Crookston (12) directed a study at Colorado State College, Fort Collins investigating the attitudes of parents, students, student leaders, academic faculty, and student personnel faculty with regard to what relationship should exist between the university and its students. The study was undertaken with the idea of gathering and providing information to be used as a basis for further policy formulation in five areas. The five areas investigated were: (1) overall educational philosophy, (2) student academic freedom, (3) type and nature of living regulations, (4) student conduct including attitudes on social activities, (5) to what extent should students be allowed to govern themselves. All undergraduate students, excluding foreign and married students, were included in the population for this study. A random sample of ten per cent was selected to participate. The parents of the random sample of students were used as the parent sample. Over eighty per cent of each Of the sample groups responded to the questionnaire. 39 A summary of the results related to the type and nature of living regulations showed that (a) parents have strongly restrictive attitudes concerning living regulations both on and Off-campus; (b) the adminis- trative faculty tended to agree with parents while students and student leaders expressed more liberal views; (c) Student personnel faculty tended to take a more intermediate position; (d) parents, as a group, consistantly felt very strongly about regulations governing social conduct both on and Off-campus; (e) student leaders tended to be more liberal with regard to housing to housing regulations than did students in general. All five sample groups agreed that college women twenty-one years Of age or more should be allowed to live in housing Of their choice. On the question regarding university supervision of housing being limited only to the campus, parents and academic faculty strongly disagreed, whereas students were Split evenly on this issue. There was an observable tendency for parents' attitudes to become less restric- tive in the category of living regulations as their daughters proceeded from freshman to senior year. This was also somewhat true for social conduct. Parents Of sons tended to be generally more liberal with their attitudes on living regulations then were parents Of daughters. The author points out in summarizing this study that there is a wide discrepancy between (1) the attitudes and expectations of parents about the relationship which should exist between the university and its students; (2) the attitudes of their sons and daughters; (3) the faculty; and (4) student personnel administrators. He indicated that many policies concerning students at Colorado State College were at variance with what the parents expect the relationship between the 40 university and the Students should be. The university permitted more freedom than parents would. This study was extremely well conducted, the objectives, pro- cedures and methodology all clearly defined. The NASPA Division of Research and Publications, (26) in a Special report for the National Association for Student Personnel Administrators, conducted a survey to determine institutional policies with regard to selected controversial topics which are frequently the focus of adminis- trative concern and action. Eighteen topics were identified for this study. A questionnaire designed tO secure data unwritten or written on policies or guidelines which institutions had on the eighteen topics was submitted to 455 NASPA member institutions. Seventy-six per cent of the institutions returned the questionnaire. One of the topics surveyed dealt with policies regarding unaccept- able Off-campus behavior. Eighty-two per cent of the institutions responding had some type of off-campus housing regulations. Thirty- three per cent accepted some responsibility for the students' behavior Off-campus, and used a "general conduct” Statement as their basis for action. Fifteen per cent felt a responsibility for taking action in the event Of off-campus misbehavior even in those instances where civil action was also taken. One-fifth of the respondents relied on civil authorities to enforce laws and showed university concern only when student behavior was detrimental to the welfare of the institution or when asked by civil authorities to act. Less than ten per cent Stated that students off-campus were responsible only to state and local civil Officials as any citizen in the community would be. The majority of institutions responding established Off-campus 41 housing policies for one of two reasons: The first reason was to main- tain campus standards and control all institutional values; the second reason was to encourage adult community responsibility and self disci- pline. Almost seventy per cent of the respondents stated that their policies were systematically communicated to the university community. The policies were most often formulated by student-faculty administra- tive committees, but also they were frequently established by the administrative Counsels or student personnel staff. Student-faculty consultants were infrequently involved. Although a relatively high percentage of the respondents verbalized their policies regarding unacceptable Off-campus behavior, there was a surprising lack Of Speci- ficity in their expectations. The respondents were divided on the action taken on consequences in cases Of violations off-campus, of expected behavior. When institutions were requested to list in order of importance the issues that were of most concern to the colleges and universities, off-campus housing misconduct ranked number two. Yet, as mentioned earlier, the eighty-four per cent of the reSpondentS who had policies, only had a "general conduct" statement. As mentioned by the author, "there was a surprising lack of specificity in institutional expecta- tions and of clear guidelines of processing violations Off—campus." (26:21) Although this research study was not involved in collecting speci- fic procedures and regulations governing Off-campus housing, it would appear from the results of this study that universities are extremely concerned about the off-campus housing area, yet they have not clearly defined or researched their position with regard to what their real 42 responsibility is. SUMMARY In this chapter a brief history of off-campus housing has been presented, together with a summation of the legal relationship involved in this area, and a review of relevant studies. As the history of Off-campus housing indicates universities have utilized this area for the housing of students for over two hundred years. Most institutions have exercised a good deal of control over the approving and supervising Of the Off-campus living environment. Recently, a trend has developed whereby universities appear to be moving away from this position Of controlling the students' Off-campus living situation. Accompanying this trend has been the development of an unsupervised-unapproved, off-campus housing classification at many institutions. There seems to be no doubt that universities have the right to con- trol the residences (including off-campus residences) of students attending their university. This right should not be interpreted as meaning a right to control private citizens (i.e. landlords) off-campus or the right to inspect. In addition, all arrangements involved between the university and the landlords off-campus are bound by the law of contracts. Although there has been a paucity of research in the Off-campus housing area, there has been some investigation into the character- istics of the Off-campus Student and the assignment of where the respon- sibility for regulating off-campus students' behavior should be placed. 43 In the next chapter the description and methodology of the study will be discussed. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction Chapter III is a discussion of the methods and procedures which were followed in conducting the study. The chapter consists of a definition of the populations, and the method of selecting the sample. A description of the instrument and procedures used in Obtaining the data and a review of the procedures used for analyzing the data are included. The Pppulations, Method of Selection and Sample This study consists of several different populations. 1. The student population of this study consisted of all full-time (12 credits or more) sophomores, juniors and seniors attending Michigan State University during fall term, 1967, living Off-campus in unsupervised housing. 2. The faculty population includes all Michigan State University faculty members with the academic rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor. 3. The parent population contains the parents of the above described students. 44 45 4. All student personnel administrators employed full time by the Office Of the Vice President for Student Affairs make up the student personnel administration population. 5. The apartment owners population comprises all apartment owners or their managing agents renting primarily to Michigan State University students.1 The student sample was selected by using the Michigan State University housing card. This card lists every Student's home address, local address, number Of credits being carried, age, sex, major, and parents' name and address. Five thousand students were identified from the housing card as meeting the established criteria. A random pro- cedure was used in selecting 100 individuals for the sample. Of the 100 students selected, 95 or 95 per cent of the individuals returned the questionnaire. The parents of the students selected were chosen as the parent sample. Of the 100 parents selected, 95 or 95 per cent returned the questionnaire. The faculty sample was selected by using a list of all faculty with the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor. One thousand eight hundred and fifty-four were identified. From this group, 50 were selected at random for the sample. Forty-two or 84 per cent of the faculty members responded to the questionnaire. A list of full-time student personnel administrators was obtained from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. One hundred individuals were identified. From this group, 50 were selected at 1Operational definitions are found in Chapter I. 46 random for the sample. All 50 or 100 per cent of the student personnel administrators responded to the questionnaire. The personnel of the Off-Campus Housing Office at Michigan State University identified 44 individuals as apartment owners or managing agents. Because of the small number, the entire population was used. Of the 44 identified, 38 or 86 per cent returned the questionnaire. The Instrument and Procedures Used in Obtaining the Data The final questionnaire of 65 items was developed in the following manner:2 A total of 96 items was originally developed for possible use in the questionnaire by the personnel in the Off-Campus Housing Office at Michigan State University. In addition, selected student personnel administrators, University officials, faculty, and students at Michigan State University were interviewed to Obtain their views and ideas. Seven more items were added to the original list. This brought the list up to 103 items. Since all of the items related to various aspects of the University responsibility off-campus, a definition of University responsibility was formulated to aid the respondents in answering the items. Univer- sity responsibility was defined as "the responsibility entrusted to the judgment Of the University for developing and supervising student pro- grams and for regulating students' behavior." A five-point response scale was then developed in order that each of the respondents could indicate the degree or extent of agreement, 2A COpy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix. 47 disagreement or no comment he or She might have on each item. Using the 103 items, the definition of University responsibility, and the response scale, a questionnaire was developed and presented to a selected group of faculty, students, student personnel administrators, for their criticism as to the content, clarity, and purpose of the questionnaire. Following this, the questionnaire was presented to the Office of Institutional Research at Michigan State University for criticism and refining. In order to further refine the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted. The pilot study was administered to a group of Students, student personnel administrators and individual members of the East Lansing community not associated with the University. Interviews were held with individuals after completion of the questionnaire. After making several Significant changes in the instrument, as a result of the suggestions of the reviewers and the pilot study, the questionnaire was submitted to the Doctoral Guidance Committee for final recommendations. Of the original 103 items developed, 65 were considered appropriate for the final instrument. The Doctoral Guidance Committee felt it would be helpful in interpreting the results of the study if a demographic information Sheet could be developed and given to the parents. A demographic data sheet was developed in cooperation with the thesis chairman, Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, and enclosed with the questionnaire to the parents.3 During the sixth week of fall term, 1967, the questionnaire and a personal cover letter were mailed to the members of each sample group. 3 A copy of the demographic data sheet is found in the Appendix. 48 The questionnaire was coded for purposes of identifying the samples and non-respondents. A Stamped, self-addressed envelope was enclosed to encourage a prompt return. A period of two weeks was allowed for com- pletion and return Of the questionnaire before a follow-up letter and questionnaire were mailed to all non-respondents. The sample groups are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Responses to Questionnaire: The number and percentage of responses by sample groups. Number Number Per Cent Follow-up in Sample Responded Responded Letter Sent Students 100 95 95% Yes Parents 100 95 95% Yes Faculty 50 42 84% Yes Student Personnel Admin. 50 50 100% NO Apartment Owners 44 38 86% No TOTAL 344 320 93% Analyzing the Data The research hypotheses for this study were stated in Chapter I. To facilitate statistical analysis, they were formulated into opera- tional or null hypotheses. The hypotheses are: 1.) There will be no difference in the perceptions of parents, students, faculty, Student personnel administrators, apartment owners as they view the University's responsibility toward Students living Off-campus. 2.) There will be no difference between parents and their 49 children (Students in study) as they view the University's responsi- bility toward Students living off-campus. The statistic used for analyzing the data in this study was the Chi Square. The .05 level of confidence was established to determine statistical Significance. In addition to the testing of the stated 'hypotheses, the responses to all items were reported in frequencies and percentages. This was done to add clarity and meaning to the data. The demographic information collected is presented in Chapter IV in table form using frequencies and percentages. The questionnaire used in this study was designed in such a way that the data were analyzed by an IBM 3600 Computer. The respondents were instructed to circle the appropriate answer to each item. The items contained in the questionnaire called for a response to a five- category (Strongly agree, agree, disagree, Strongly disagree, or no comment) rating scale. For purposes of analysis, the researcher grouped the responses into three categories: agree, disagree, and no commen t . SUMMARY This chapter has presented a definition of the populations, and the sample. A description of the instrument use, in Obtaining the data along with a review of the procedures used for analyzing the data given. The null hypothesis was derived from the purposes of the study and presented. The data was analyzed by computer using the appropriate test statistics. The next part of this study (Chapter 4) will be the analysis of 50 the findings followed by a summary and conclusions in Chapter 5. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction Chapter IV is divided into three major parts. Part One of this chapter contains an analysis of the data concerning the perceptions Of selected students, parents, faculty, student personnel administrators and apartment owners with respect to the University's responsibility toward the student's Off-campus living situation. The section also includes a comparison Of the perceptions of Students and their parents. Part Two is a presentation and analysis Of the demographic infor- mation collected on the parent sample. Part Three is a summary of the Open ended question provided for each of the respondents, in all of the sample groups. In analyzing the data in Part One, items were grouped under four main functionally defined areas: (1) community relations, (2) parent- university relations, (3) student personnel services, and (4) regula- tory and law enforcement. The items that were not statistically significant will be discussed first followed by an examination of those items in which the null hypothesis was rejected. 51 52 Hypotheses In order to test the hypotheses, which were stated in Part One, statistically, they were converted into their null form. Null hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of parents, students, faculty, student personnel admin- istrators, and apartment owners as they view the University's responsibility toward students Off- campus living situation. Null hypothesis II: There will be no difference between parents and their children (students in study) as they view the University's responsibility toward students' Off-campus living situation. The chi Square statistic was employed in determining independence of relationship. The .05 level Of confidence was used to determine statistical significance in interpreting the data. When items were significant at the .01 level, this was reported for the convenience of the reader. In addition, all items are reported in terms of raw scores as well as percentages. One table will be presented for each item. In each table, the degrees Of freedom, the chi square, and the level of significance for the two hypotheses will be presented. As mentioned above, the statistic chi square was used on all 65 items in the study. In order to further test the hypotheses, an addi- tional computation omitting response 3 (no opinion) was completed for all items. This additional computation revealed statistical differences in the responses of four items for hypothesis I and the same number for hypothesis II. Table 2 summarizes the results for those items'where significant differences appeared because Of the omitting of reSponse 3 53 quOHMficwfim uoz mo. um unmuuoacwam .muamwsum you mGOfiumaswmu wcw nmson o: m>ms casosm muwmuo>wca 65H as unmowwwcwwm uoz mo. um uGOOMMchwm .wucmcsum mOaEdonwwo pow afiocsoo wcflcuo>ow m meusoocm vasocm %uwmum>ecs OLE mm unmowm«cwflm uoz mo. um unmowwwcwwm .mEmHnoua wcwmso: msafimo umwo Oumuuwnum Ou mucoumm can one nc3o uaoEuumam .mucovsum mo Hflocsoo m nwwanwumo casonm huwmum>wcs 65H mm mo. um uSOoemwcme osm0flwwawfim uoz .ucopaum unaEmOummo OLu How woww>oua on masonm msmfimo so mmwcsoa mvsum m AOHaEmm mucovSOmumucmummv HH mHmmmaomwm unmowmwcwfim uoz mo. um unmowwwcwwm .mucovsum How mcowumanwmu mew nmnon on m>mn pasosm >uwmuo>flcs spa as acmowwflcwfim uoz mo. um panowmwcwflm .muomuucoo mamEmonmwo mafiOCwua mo umoo Ono uo>oo HHwB.%uwmuo>Hcs Oga qH unmowMflcme uoz mo. um unmowwflcwfim .poummuum muOOOSOO pom econ Hemp Opfi>oua vasonm zuwmuo>wcs OsH NH mo. um unmowwficmfim uddewmacwwm uoz .mmumEEoou wcwxoom mucmvsum mo umHH m ovw>oum wasonm huwmuo>fics OLH w Assess mHaemm Hmuoav H mHmmmeomwm omuwmwflpuoouwm OOHOHQO onuooumewvuomuwm EouH .Oz EOOH .mucmpsum mam mucmuma haco magma .HH mflmmsuoams How can ”mucopcoammu masouw oHaEmm may mo Ham mafia: .H mamOSOOQA: you Acowcwao ocv m Omcoammu weauuflEo muasmmu :H moocoummwflv wcfizonm wEouH "Nmofiawmm.ozv m OmcomwOm wafluuweo n muHSmom Ono mo comwumano < .N oHan 54 (no Opinion). When the additional computation of omitting response 3 (no opinion) was applied to Null Hypothesis II, the chi square with Yates correction was used at the recommendation of Downie and Heath (14). Analysis Non Significant Items Of the 65 items covering the functional defined areas of university responsibility Off-campus listed in the Questionnaire, the responses to two items for Hypothesis 1, and seven items for Hypothesis 11 revealed no statistically significant difference among the groups. The items that were not statistically significant are presented in Table 3. This table is designed to present (a) items which are not statistically dif- ferent, (b) the most frequently selected response and (c) the percentage of the total sample selecting that particular response. An examination of Table 3 shows that seven of the items indicate agreement by the reSpon- dents in the parent-student sample and two items indicate agreement by respondents in the total sample group. Of the nine items, eight are from the student personnel services area and one from the regulatory and law enforcement area. Significant Items Of the 65 items listed in the questionnaire, 62 items were found to be statistically Significant for Hypothesis I and 57 statistically significant for Hypothesis 11. Those items categorized under the head- ing of Community Relations will be discussed first. Table 3. 55 Non Significant Items: A summary Of those items on which the sample groups agreed, the most frequently selected responses and the percentage of the sample selecting a particular response. Item Responsibility Entrusted Most Frequently Per Cent Number to the University For: Selected Response* of Sample HYPOTHESIS I (Total Sample Group) 3 Providing study lounges on campus for the Off-campus student 1 63.8 8 Providing a list Of students seeking roommates 1 69.4 HYPOTHESIS II (Parents-Students Sample) 3 Providing Study lounges on campus for the Off-campus student 1 76.2 8 Providing a list of students seeking roommates 1 71.5 12 Providing bail bond for students arrested 2 76.3 34 Providing legal counsel for students 1 43.9 37 Allowing students after freshman year to live in housing of their choice with parents' consent 1 66.7 46 Keeping a lawyer on retainer for the students 1 67.7 64 Permitting off-campus students to use residence hall facilities 1 62.4 * Response scale: (1) agree (2) disagree (3) no opinion or comment 56 Communitprelations The responses given for item 22, that the university has the respon- sibility for involving students, apartment owners, and parents in off- campus housing policy formulation, are found in Table 4. Table 4. (22) The University has the responsibility to involve students, apartment owners, and parents in the formulation of off-campus housing policies. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample ' Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 37 39.0 46 48.4 12 12.6 95 100 Parents 60 63.8 15 16.0 19 20.2 94 100 Apartment Owners 26 68.4 10 26.3 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 21 50.0 16 38.1 5 11.9 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 41 82.0 8 16.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x; 44.775 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 22.784 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Parents (63%), apartment owners (68%), faculty (50%) and student personnel administrators (82%) agreed that students, apartment owners, and parents should be involved in Off-campus housing policy formulation. Students were divided on the issue with 39 per cent agreeing, 48 per cent disagreeing and 12 per cent taking a "no Opinion" position. It Should be noted that 20 per cent of the parents selected response 3 (no opinion). There was a significant difference at the .01 level of con- fidence, in comparing the reSponseS of the groups. Parents and their students also disagreed significantly (.01 level) 57 on this issue. Parents (63%) most frequently choosing to agree with the statement and their sons and daughters (48%) most frequently choosing to disagree with the statement. In both of these groups a sizeable percentage selected response 3 (no Opinion). Item 43 is concerned with involving university personnel as con- sultants in the planning of off-campus apartments. Table 5 summarized the responses to this item. Sixty-five per cent Of the students, 63 per cent of the apartment owners and 52 per cent of the faculty dis- agreed that university personnel should act as consultants in the planning of off-campus apartments. Fifty-four per cent Of the Student personnel administrators and 56 per cent of the parents most Often chose response 1 (agree). The sample groups differed significantly at the .01 level Of confidence on this question. Table 5. (43) University personnel should be involved as consultants in the planning Of Off-campus apartment buildings. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 22 23.2 62 65.2 11 11.6 95 100 Parents 54 56.9 25 26.3 16 16.8 95 100 Apartment Owners 13 34.2 24 63.2 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 14 35.0 21 52.5 5 12.5 40 100 Student Pers. Admin. 27 54.0 21 42.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 xi 41.302 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 30.135 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Parents and Students also differed Significantly (.01 level) on 58 this item. More parents (56%) felt that the university should act as consultants than did students (23%). Item 51 of the questionnaire stated that university personnel should screen and approve managers living in residence in all off- campus Student housing. The responses to this item are found in Table 6. Students (89%), apartment owners (86%), faculty (73%) and Student personnel administrators (76%) were not in favor Of having university personnel screen and approve managers for student housing off-campus. Parents, on the other hand, most frequently (68%) agreed that the university should screen and approve managers. There was a Significant difference at the .01 level of confidence in comparing these sample groups. Parents and Students differed significantly (.01 level) on this question. Sixty-eight per cent of the parents chose response 1 (agree) most frequently, while only five per cent of the Students chose this response. Table 6. (51) University personnel Should screen and approve managers living in residence in all off-campus student housing. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 5 5.3 85 89.5 5 5.2 95 100 Parents 65 68.4 20 21.1 10 10.5 95 100 Apartment Owners 4 10.5 33 86.9 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 5 11.9 31 73.8 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 8 16.0 38 76.0 4 8.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 132.399 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 93.333 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level 59 A summary of the responses to item 42, that the university rather than the aparUment owner should hire and pay resident managers in Off- campus apartments, are found in Table 7. Students (93%), parents (60%), apartment owners (92%), Student personnel administrators (90%) and faculty (85%) all disagreed that the university should hire and pay resident managers in Off-campus student apartments. Table 7. (42) The University, rather than the apartment owner, Should hire and pay resident managers in off-campus student apartments. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 2 2.1 89 93.7 4 4.2 95 100 Parents 11 11.7 57 60.6 26 27.7 94 100 Apartment Owners 3 7.9 35 92.1 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 2 4.8 36 85.7 4 9.5 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 3 6.0 45 90.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x3 48.007 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 29.373 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Parents differed significantly from students with regard to item 42. Twenty-seven per cent of the parents selected response 3 (no Opinion) whereas students selected this response only four per cent of the time. There was a sizeable difference in the percentage Of parents (60%) and students (93%) disagreeing with this item. There was a Significant difference at the .01 level of confidence in comparing the sample groups. Parents and students differed Significantly at the same level. Table 8 gives the responses to item 23, should the university 6O establish a council of students, apartment owners, university staff, and city officials to arbitrate off-campus housing problems. Table 8. (23) The University should establish a council of students, apartment owners, university staff, and city Officials to arbitrate off-campus housing problems. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 75 79.0 14 14.7 6 6.3 95 100 Parents 73 76.8 7 7.4 15 15.8 95 100 Apartment Owners 23 60.5 13 34.2 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 19 45.2 15 35.7 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 36 72.0 11 22.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 33.682 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 6.218 Parents-Students Significant at .05 level All of the sample groups supported the idea of a council to arbi- trate housing problems. Faculty were more split on this issue than the other sample groups, with 45 per cent of the respondents selecting response 1 (agree), 35 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree), and 19 per cent selecting response 3 (no opinion). All Of the groups differed significantly on item 23, at the .01 level of confidence. The greatest difference appearing between students and their parents was in the no opinion responses. Fifteen per cent of the parents selected response 3 (no opinion), while only Six per cent of the students selected this response. A large number of parents (76%) and students (79%) both agreed on having a council for arbitration. 61 Parents and students differed significantly at the .05 level of con- fidence. The responses to item 29 that the university should require uniform rental contracts, are found in Table 9. Students (76%), apart- ment owners (92%), faculty (64%) and student personnel administrators (74%) all agree that the university should not provide rental contracts. Apartment owners (92%) voiced the strongest disagreement with the university providing this service. Although faculty most frequently selected response 2 (disagree), 26 per cent of this group showed lack of concern on this issue by selecting response 3 (no opinion). Table 9. (29) The University should require uniform rental contracts for all off-campus housing. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 16 17.0 72 76.6 6 6.4 94 100 Parents 56 59.6 26 27.7 12 12.7 94 100 Apartment Owners 3 7.9 35 92.1 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 4 9.5 27 64.3 11 26.2 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 10 20.0 37 74.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 94.617 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 45.814 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Parents most frequently selected response 1 (agree) but were some- what divided on the issue with 27 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree), and 12 per cent selecting response 3 (no Opinion). Students and their parents differed on this issue. Seventy-Six 62 per cent Of the Students selected response 2 (disagree), whereas only 27 per cent Of the parents selected this response. A good percentage of the student sample would rather not see the university require a uniform contract. In comparing all of the sample groups there was a Statistical significant difference at the .01 level of confidence. This was also true with comparing the parent and student sample. Item 4 concerns the responsibility of the university to provide uniform rental agreements for all Off-campus housing. An examination of Table 10 reveals that apartment owners (81%), students (68%), faculty (66%) and student personnel administrators (60%) most fre- quently chose response 2 (disagreeing that the university should pro- vide uniform rental agreements). Parents most frequently (66%) selected response 1 (agree) while Students (68%) most often chose response 2 (disagree). Table 10. (4) The University Should provide uniform rental agreements for all off-campus housing. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 21 22.1 65 68.4 9 9.5 95 100 Parents 63 66.3 29 30.5 3 3.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 7 18.4 31 81.6 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 11 26.2 28 66.7 3 7.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 15 30.0 30 60.0 5 10.0 50 100 DF 8 X3 58.851 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 37.787 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level 63 There was a significant difference (.01 level) on this item between the responses Of all the sample groups as well as the responses of parents and students. All of the sample groups except parents most Often supported the position Of the university providing uniform rental agreements. Table 11. (35) The University should not be involved in any way in Off-campus housing rental contracts between students and apartment owners. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 51 53.7 37 38.9 7 7.4 95 100 Parents 21 22.1 66 69.5 8 8.4 95 100 Apartment Owners 21 55.3 15 39.5 2 5.2 38 100 Faculty 21 50.0 13 30.9 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 19 38.0 29 58.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x3 36.009 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 20.732 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 35, that the university should not be involved in Off-campus rental contracts, are listed in Table 11. Stu- dents (53%), apartment owners (55%) and faculty (50%) most frequently selected response 1 (agreeing that the university should not be involved in rental contracts). Even though this was the most fre- quently selected response a sizeable percentage Of faculty (30%), apartment owners (39%), and students (38%) selected response 2 (dis- agree). Parents (69%) and Student personnel administrators (58%) chose reSponse 2 (disagree) most Often. It Should be noted that a 64 good percentage Of parents (22%) and Student personnel administrators (38%) selected response 1 (agree). The groups differed significantly at a .01 level of confidence on item 35. Students and parents also differed significantly (.01 level) on this issue. Parents more frequently (69%) disagreed with the statement than did the students (38%). The reSponses to item 48 that the university should act as arbi- trator and third party to all rental contracts are found in Table 12. Table 12. (48) University personnel should be a third party and final arbitrator in all rental contracts used by students in off-campus housing. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 14 14.7 69 72.6 12 12.7 95 100 Parents 43 46.2 29 31.2 21 22.6 93 100 Apartment Owners 7 18.4 29 76.3 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 2 4.8 32 76.2 8 19.0 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 6 12.0 38 76.0 6 12.0 50 100 DF 8 X2 61.270 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 x2 33.518 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Nearly all of the sample groups disagreed with the university being involved in off-campus contracts as an arbitrator and third party. Only parents were significantly divided on the issue with 46 per cent agree- ing, 31 per cent disagreeing and 22 per cent having no opinion. There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence in com- paring the sample groups' responses to this item. 65 Students and parents also differed significantly (.01 level) on this item. Seventy-two per cent of the Students disagreed with the university being involved and only 37 per cent of their parents took this position. Table 13 lists the results of item 14. Item 14 states that the university rather than the apartment owners should cover the cost of the rental contracts. Table 13. (14) The cost of printing the Off-campus rental contracts should be the responsibility Of the University rather than the apartment owner. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 2 2.1 82 86.3 11 11.6 95 100 Parents 12 12.8 67 71.3 15 15.9 94 100 Apartment Owners 4 10.5 32 84.2 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 5 11.9 29 69.0 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 4 8.0 45 90.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 xg 18.929 Significant at .05 level *DF 2 X 9.263 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The majority of respondents in all sample groups agreed that the university should not be responsible for the cost of the contracts. Through an inspection of the Table, however, it can be observed that 12 per cent of the parents, 10 per cent of the apartment owners and 11 per cent of the faculty agreed that the cost of the rental contracts should be the university's responsibility. 66 Parents and students most often selected response 2 (disagree), yet a sizeable percentage of both groups selected response 3 (no opinion). A larger percentage of parents, 12 per cent; than students; two per cent, selected response 1 (agree). There was a significant difference (.05 level) in comparing the responses of all the groups as well as the parent-student group (.01 level). Item 24 refers to having university personnel inspect Off-campus dwellings and enforce State and city housing codes. Table 14 lists the responses to item 24. Table 14. (24) University personnel should inspect off-campus dwellings and enforce state and city housing codes. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 37 39.0 52 54.7 6 6.3 95 100 Parents 73 76.8 19 20.0 3 3.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 12 31.5 24 63.2 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 11 26.2 28 66.7 3 7.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 13 26.0 31 62.0 6 12.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 58.035 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 28.120 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Only the parent group most frequently chose response 1 (agree). Seventy-Six per cent Of the parents believe that university personnel should inspect Off-campus dwellings. Fifty-four per cent of the stu- dents, 63 per cent of the apartment owners, 66 per cent of the faculty, and 62 per cent of the student personnel administrators most frequently 67 selected response 2 (disagree). These groups do not favor university personnel inspecting off-campus dwellings. The responses Of the groups differed at the .01 level of significance. Students differ significantly (.01 level) with their parents in responding to this item. Only 39 per cent of the students chose response 1 (agree) while 76 per cent Of their parents chose this response. Table 15 contains the results of item 50 that the university should have personnel inspect and approve all Off-campus student hous- ing for proper safety standards. Parents were the only sample group which felt this necessary. Seventy-four per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree). All of the remaining four sample groups most frequently selected response 2 (disagree). Table 15. (50) University personnel should inSpect and approve all Off-campus student housing for proper safety Standards. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 35 37.2 51 54.3 8 8.5 94 100 Parents 71 74.7 17 17.9 7 7.4 95 100 Apartment Owners 13 34.2 24 63.2 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 10 23.8 24 57.1 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 16 32.0 31 62.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 X2 58.286 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 29.289 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The difference between parents and students was most noticeable in 68 the agree-disagree response rather than the no Opinion response. Seventy-four per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree) whereas only 37 per cent of the students selected this response. In comparing the groups' responses there was a statistical signi- ficant difference at the .01 level. The same level of Significant difference was evident with the parent-student samples. Table 16. (47) University personnel should inspect and approve all Off-campus student housing for proper sanitation standards. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 34 36.2 54 57.4 6 6.4 94 100 Parents 74 77.9 15 15.8 6 6.3 95 100 Apartment Owners 19 50.0 19 50.0 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 11 26.2 27 64.3 4 9.5 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 16 32.0 30 60.0 4 8.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 57.604 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 36.854 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Table 16 lists the responses to item 47, that university personnel should inspect Off-campus dwellings for proper sanitation standards. Apartment owners were evenly divided on this issue with 50 per cent agreeing and 50 per cent disagreeing with the statement. Students (57%), faculty (64%), and student personnel administrators (60%) most frequently disagreed that the university should inspect and approve all Off-campus dwellings for proper sanitation standards. Parents' responses were quite different from those of students, faculty and student personnel 69 administrators. Seventy-seven per cent of the parents sampled agreed with the university making inspections, while only 36 per cent of the students, 26 per cent Of the faculty and 32 per cent Of the student personnel administrators agreed with inspections. In comparing the sample groups there was a Significant difference (.01 level) in their responses. Parents and students differed on this item significantly at the .01 level Of confidence. Table 17. (15) University personnel should assess and arbitrate repairs charged to apartment owners by students to deter- mine fairness Of charges. Scale: Agree . Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 42 44.2 44 46.3 9 9.5 95 100 Parents 63 67.0 24 25.5 7 7.5 94 100 Apartment Owners 7 18.4 29 76.3 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 10 23.8 30 71.4 2 4.8 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 7 14.3 41 83.7 1 2.0 49 100 DF 8 ' x3 65.085 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 10.327 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 15 concerns the responsibility Of university personnel in the assessment Of repairs charged to apartment owners by Students. The responses to item 15 are found in Table 17. The majority Of the apart- ment owners (76%), faculty (71%) and student personnel administrators (83%) do not feel that university personnel Should assess and arbitrate 70 repairs charged by students. On the other hand, students neither strongly agree nor disagree on the item. Forty-four per cent of the students selected response 1 (agree) and 46 per cent selected response 2 (disagree). Parents (67%) most frequently selected response 1 (agree). There is a significant difference (.01 level) in the responses of the sample groups on this item. Students and their parents did not agree on item 15. Parents (67%) more frequently selected 1 (agree) than did Students (44%). Neither group overwhelmingly felt that university personnel should assess or arbitrate repairs, yet there is a significant difference (.01 level) in their responses. Table 18. (2) University personnel should assess and arbitrate damage costs in off-campus housing charged to students by apartment owners to determine fairness Of charges. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 45 47.9 41 43.6 8 8.5 94 100 Parents 69 72.6 25 26.3 1 1.1 95 100 Apartment Owners 6 16.0 32 84.0 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 9 21.4 29 69.1 4 29.5 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 12 24.0 37 74.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x: 73.236 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 14.371 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 2, that university personnel should assess and arbitrate damage costs in Off-campus housing, are listhd in Table 18. Only 16 per cent Of the apartment owners, 21 per cent Of the faculty, 71 24 per cent of the Student personnel administrators and 47 per cent of the students indicated that they believed that the university should assume responsibility in this area. On the other hand, nearly 73 per cent Of the parents believed the university has responsibility in this area. This item was statistically significant at the .01 level of confidence in comparing all groups and in comparing just the Students and their parents. Table 19. (57) The University should hold in escrow damage deposits and the last month's rent of off-campus Students living in apartments. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 14 15.0 73 78.5 6 6.5 93 100 Parents 30 31.9 37 39.4 27 28.7 94 100 Apartment Owners 3 7.8 35 92.2 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 2 4.8 37 88.1 3 7.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 6 12.0 42 84.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 70.153 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 30.959 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 57, that the university Should hold in escrow damage deposits and the last month's rent for Off-campus Students living in apartments, is presented in summary form in Table 19. The majority of the sample groups, students (78%), apartment owners (92%), faculty (88%), student personnel administrators (84%) disagree with the university holding these funds. The parent sample is quite divided on the issue with 31 per cent agreeing, 39 per cent disagreeing and 28 per cent with no 72 opinion. The sample groups differed at the .01 level of confidence. Parents and students differed significantly (.01 level) on the issue. Twice as many students indicated that the university Should not hold damage deposits and the last month's rent in escrow than did their parents. Table 20. (18) The University Should not permit a student to register for a subsequent term until damage claims and/or rental debts submitted by apartment owners are paid. ii Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 7 7.4 85 89.4 3 3.2 95 100 Parents 40 42.1 41 43.2 14 14.7 95 100 Apartment Owners 28 73.7 7 18.4 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 4 9.5 32 76.2 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 7 14.0 42 84.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 104.344 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 45.653 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 18, that the university should not permit a student to register for a subsequent term until damage claims and/or rental debts submitted by apartment owners are paid, are found in Table 20. The Table indicates a variety of Opinions. Students (89%), faculty (76%) and student personnel administrators (84%) agreed that the university should not withhold Students from registration for damage and/or rental debts incurred in Off-campus housing. On the other hand, apartment owners (73%) agree and would like to see the university hold students at registration for damage claims and/or 73 rental debts. Parents have mixed feelings on the issue with 42 per cent agreeing, 43 per cent disagreeing and 14 per cent with no Opinion. The sample group differed at the .01 level of significance with regard to this item. Students were strongly against the issue with 89 per cent of the total student sample selecting response 2 (disagree) as compared to only 43 per cent of their parents selecting this response. There were significant differences at the .01 level of confidence in the responses Of parents and students. Table 21. (5) The University Should not issue grades to students who have off-campus housing debts. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Grogps N % N % N % N % *Students 6 6.3 87 91.6 2 2.1 95 100 Parents 17 17.9 68 71.6 10 10.5 95 100 Apartment Owners 28 73.7 10 26.3 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 3 7.2 35 83.3 4 9.5 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 6 12.0 43 86.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 X2 101.007 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 12.923 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 5 (holding students' grades for off-campus housing debts) are found in Table 21. Seventy-three per cent of the apartment owners indicated that the university should hold the Students grades for Off-campus debts. Whereas parents (71%), students (91%), student personnel administrators (86%) and faculty (83%) do not View 74 this as the university's responsibility. A higher percentage (91%) Of Students recognized the holding of grades as unfavorable than did their parents (71%). This item was statistically significant (.01 level) in comparing all groups and in comparing just the Students and parents. Item 54 in the questionnaire stated, "the university should break up off—campus student parties when they become disorderly." An inspection of Table 22 reveals that students (97%), faculty (87%), student personnel administrators (90%) and apartment owners (60%) favor the position of not having the university disperse disorderly parties off-campus. The responses of the groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this item. Table 22. (54) The University should break up Off-campus student parties when they become disorderly. r — Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 0 0.0 93 97.9 2 2.1 95 100 Parents 55 58.5 26 27.7 13 13.8 94 100 Apartment Owners 13 34.2 23 60.5 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 3 7.3 36 87.8 2 4.9 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 3 6.0 45 90.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 136.027 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 100.787 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The difference between parents and students is quite clear. Fifty- eight per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree), while not 75 one Single Student chose this response. There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence between parents and students. Item 17 of the questionnaire Stated that apartment owners should notify the university when Off-campus students' parties are causing a public disturbance. The responses to this item are found in Table 23. Parents (67%) and apartment owners (59%) agreed that apartment owners Should contact the university in cases when student parties are causing a public disturbance. Students (97%), faculty (78%), and student personnel administrators (80%) all strongly disagreed with this item. There is a statistically significant difference (.01 level) in comparing the responses of the sample groups on item 17. Table 23. (17) Apartment owners should notify the University when off-campus student parties are causing a public disturbance. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 0 0.0 93 97.9 2 2.1 95 100 Parents 64 67.4 25 26.3 6 6.3 95 100 Apartment Owners 22 59.5 12 32.4 3 8.1 37 100 Faculty 8 19.0 33 78.6 1 2.4 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 9 18.0 40 80.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x: 132.710 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 105.186 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Parents and students also disagreed significantly (.01 level) on this issue. Only 26 per cent of the parents selected response 2 (disagree) while 97 per cent of the students selected this response. 76 NO student selected response 1 (agree) while 67 per cent of their parents chose this reSponse. Parent - University Relations The responses to item 32, that parents should be notified by the university when students are arrested, are found in Table 24. Eighty- One per cent of the parents and 73 per cent Of the apartment owners believed that parents should be notified when students are arrested. On the other hand, 87 per cent of the Students, 52 per cent of the faculty and 50 per cent of the student personnel administrators dis- agreed with the statement. The sample groups differed significantly (.01 level) on this issue. Table 24. (32) The University should notify parents of off-campus Students when they are arrested. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 9 9.5 83 87.4 3 3.1 95 100 Parents 77 81.9 12 12.8 5 5.3 94 100 Apartment Owners 28 73.7 9 23.7 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 15 35.7 22 52.4 5 11.9 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 20 40.0 25 50.0 5 10.0 50 100 2 DF 8 X 127.205 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 107.328 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level In testing parents and students, it was also found that these two groups disagreed significantly (.01 level) on this issue. Only nine 77 per cent of the students agreed that parents should be contacted while 81 per cent of their parents thought they should be contacted. Item 28 was a statement that the university should notify parents of off-campus students under 21 when they are convicted of a violation of civil law by the civil authorities. Table 25 lists the responses to item 28. Parents (87%), apartment owners (89%), faculty (43%) and student personnel administrators (56%) most frequently selected response 1 (agreeing that parents Should be notified). Students (80%) most fre- quently disagreed with the item and indicated that parents Should not be notified. Table 25. (28) The University Should notify parents of Off-campus students under 21 when they are convicted of a violation of civil law by the civil authorities. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Samplé Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 15 15.8 76 80.0 4 4.2 95 100 Parents 82 87.2 8 8.5 4 4.3 94 100 Apartment Owners 34 89.5 4 10.5 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 18 43.9 15 36.6 8 19.5 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 28 56.0 21 42.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 X2 143.142 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 101.324 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Although faculty (43%) and student personnel administrators (56%) most frequently chose response 1 (agreeing that parents should be notified), a good percentage of both groups chose response 2 (disagree). In addition, 19 per cent of the faculty selected response 3 (no Opinion). 78 The sample groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this question. Parents and students also differed significantly (.01 level), with 87 per cent of the parents selecting response 1 (agree) and only 15 per cent of the students selecting this response. Table 26. (26) The University should contact parents when students are known to be using marijuana. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 16 17.0 73 77.7 5 5.3 94 100 Parents 90 94.7 5 5.3 O 0.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 35 92.1 2 5.3 l 2.6 38 100 Faculty 19 45.2 15 35.7 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 19 38.0 25 50.0 6 12.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 163.043 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 115.940 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 26 states that "the university should contact parents when students are known to be using marijuana. An inspection of Table 26 reveals a variety of opinions with regard to item 26. The vast majority of parents (94%) and apartment owners (92%) agree that the university should contact parents when students are using marijuana. Thirty-eight per cent Of the Student personnel administrators agree that the university Should contact parents. The sample groups differed at a .01 level of confidence on this item. Seventy-seven per cent of the students felt that the university 79 should not contact the students' parents. Students and parents differed Significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this item. Seventeen per cent of the students indicated that the university should contact parents whereas 94 per cent of the parents indicated that parents should be contacted. Table 27 presents the responses to item 6 (the university should contact parents when students are known to be using LSD). Table 27. (6) The University should contact parents when students are known to be using LSD. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 16 16.9 67 70.5 12 12.6 95 100 Parents 89 93.7 6 6.3 0 0.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 35 92.1 2 5.3 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 21 50.0 14 33.3 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 21 42.9 23 46.9 5 10.2 49 100 DF 8 x2 143.627 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 113.725 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Parents and apartment owners strongly agreed that parents Should be notified when students are known to be using LSD. Ninety-three per cent of the parents and 92 per cent of the apartment owners selected response 1 (agree). Fifty per cent of the faculty also agreed with item 6. Student personnel administrators were split on the item with 42 per cent choosing response 1 (agree) and 46 per cent choosing response 2 (disagree). 80 Students indicated disagreement with having the university contact parents when students are known to be using LSD. Seventy per cent of the Students selected response 2 (disagree). In comparing the groups, there was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence in their responses. Parents and Students strongly disagreed with respect to item 6. Parents feel they should be notified when Students are using LSD. Students, on the other hand, disagree and believe parents should not be notified. There also was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence in comparing parents and students on this item. Table 28. (36) The University should inform parents of off-campus students co-habitating. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 4 4.2 86 90.5 5 5.3 95 100 Parents 75 79.0 14 14.7 6 6.3 95 100 Apartment Owners 19 51.4 16 43.2 2 5.4 37 100 Faculty 10 23.8 25 59.5 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 12 24.0 34 68.0 4 8.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 136.061 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 115.741 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level In Table 28 the responses to item 36, that the university should inform parents of off-campus Students co-habitating, are presented. Ninety per cent of the students, 59 per cent of the faculty and 68 per cent of the student personnel administrators disagree that the 81 university should inform parents of students co-habitating. Apartment owners (51%) and parents (79%) most often selected response 1 (agree). A good percentage of apartment owners (43%) also chose response 2 (disagree). The sample group differed to the .01 level of significance. Parents and Students also differed to the .01 level Of signifi- cance. Only four per cent of the students agreed with informing parents of students co-habitating whereas 79 per cent of the parents agreed that parents should be informed. Table 29. (30) When a single female under 21 years of age, living Off-campus, is pregnant and withdrawing from the University, the University should notify the Student's parents. Scale: Agree Disagree NO Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 22 23.2 69 72.6 4 4.2 95 100 Parents 84 88.4 7 7.4 4 4.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 28 73.7 10 26.3 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 25 59.5 12 28.6 5 11.9 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 36 72.0 12 24.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 xg 105.949 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 86.843 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 30 in the questionnaire stated that when a single female under 21 years of age living Off-campus is pregnant and withdrawing from the university, the university should notify the student's parents. The sample groups' responses are found in Table 29. Parents (88%), apartment owners (73%), student personnel administrators (72%) and 82 faculty (59%) indicated that parents Should be contacted by the univer- sity. At the same time, a sizeable percentage of the faculty (28%), apartment owners (26%) and student personnel administrators' sample (24%), selected response 2 (disagreeing that parents should be con- tacted). Seventy-two per cent of the Student sample agreed that the univer- sity Should not contact the parents of a pregnant single female under 21, when she is leaving school. At the same time, 88 per cent of the parent sample indicated parents should be contacted in such cases. In comparing the sample groups a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence is noted. This same level of confidence is true in comparing the student-parent sample. Student Personnel Services The responses to item 9, that the university Should provide a special orientation program for off-campus transfer students, are found in Table 30. Ninety per cent of the student personnel administrators agreed there should be a Special orientation program. Parents (60%), apartment owners (55%) and faculty (45%) were also in favor of the program, but to a lesser extent than were student personnel adminis- trators. Students (48%) disagreed and most frequently selected response 2 (disagree). It should be noted that a sizeable percentage of students (21%), parents (24%) and faculty (21%) selected response 3 (no opinion). The groups' responses to item 9 differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence. 83 Students and parents viewed the orientation program differently. Sixty per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree), while only 30 per cent of the students selected this response. Parents and students also differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on item 9. Table 30. (9) The University should provide a special orientation program for off-campus transfer students. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 29 30.5 46 48.4 20 21.1 95 100 Parents 57 60.0 15 15.8 23 24.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 21 55.3 10 26.3 7 18.4 38 100 Faculty 19 45.3 14 33.3 9 21.4 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 45 90.0 4 8.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 X 59.574 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 25.080 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level NN Item 1 in the questionnaire dealt with the university's responsi- bility for providing physicians from the University Health Center for home calls to student residents off-campus. An examination of Table 31 reveals that students (59%), apartment owners (44%), faculty (69%) and student personnel administrators (86%) most frequently disagreed with having University Health Center physicians making home calls to student residences Off-campus. Parents (69%) were much more prone to select response 1 (agree), that the university has a responsibility to provide physicians for home calls Off-campus. The groups differed significantly 84 on item 1 at the .01 level of confidence. Parents and Students also differed significantly (.01) in their response to this item. Sixty-nine per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree), while 59 per cent of the students selected response 2 (disagree). Table 31. (1) Physicians from the University health center should make home calls to student residences Off-campus. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N % N % N % N % *Students 29 30.5 56 59.0 10 10.5 95 100 Parents 65 69.2 22 23.4 7 7.4 94 100 Apartment Owners 11 29.0 17 44.7 10 26.3 38 100 Faculty 10 23.8 29 69.1 3 7.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 5 10.0 43 86.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 81.304 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 29.133 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 27, that the university should publish a list of apartments not meeting established university standards, are listed in Table 32. All of the sample groups favored the publication of a list of apartments not meeting established university standards. Parents (86%), faculty (64%), apartment owners (60%), students (57%) and student personnel administrators (57%) indicated that the univer- sity Should publish a list. Thirty-one per cent of the Students, 31 per cent of the apartment owners and 36 per cent of the student personnel administrators selected response 2 (disagree). An 85 investigation of Table 32 reveals a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence for item 27. Parents and students disagreed on the publishing of a list of apartments not meeting established university standards. Nine per cent of the parents chose response 2 (disagree) while 31 per cent of the students chose this response. There also was a significant difference at the .01 level of con- fidence between the response of parents and students on item 27. Table 32. (27) The University should publish a list of apartments not meeting established University standards. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 55 57.9 30 31.6 10 10.5 95 100 Parents 82 86.3 9 9.5 4 4.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 23 60.5 12 31.6 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 27 64.3 8 19.0 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 28 57.2 18 36.7 3 6.1 49 100 DF 8 x2 28.774 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 19.200 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 59, that the university should screen and match possible roommates for vacancies in off-campus apartments are listed in Table 33. An inspection of Table 33 reveals students (76Z), parents (4lZ), apartment owners (57Z), faculty (85Z) and student personnel administrators (92Z) believe the university should not screen and match possible roommates. Parents and apartment owners both show 86 some lack of concern on this issue with 20 per cent of the parents and 21 per cent of the apartment owners selecting response 3 (no opinion). Thirty-eight per cent of the parent sample also selected response 1 (agree). The groups differed significantly on item 59 at the .01 level of confidence. Seventy-six per cent of the students chose response 2 (disagree) while only 41 per cent of their parents selected this fin—@197 response. Parents and students also differed at the .01 level of con- ‘ fidence on item 59. ._ .L-lfl Table 33. (59) The University should screen and match possible room- . mates for vacancies in off-campus apartments. Ll Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 15 15.8 73 76.8 7 7.4 95 100 Parents 37 38.9 39 41.1 19 20.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 8 21.1 22 57.8 8 21.1 38 100 Faculty 2 4.9 35 85.3 4 9.8 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 4 8.0 46 92.0 0 0.0 50 100 DF 8 x% 58.905 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 25.168 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 45 states that the university should provide a special course in apartment living. The responses are listed in Table 34. All of the sample groups were divided in their responses to this question. Parents (58Z), students (41Z), apartment owners (6OZ) and student personnel administrators (61Z) favored the idea of having a special course and most frequently selected response 1 (agree). Faculty (45Z) 87 most frequently selected response 2 (disagree). All of the groups showed some lack of concern on this issue by frequently selecting response 3 (no opinion). The groups differed significantly on this question at the .05 level of confidence. The response differences between parents and students were small, but they were high enough to be significantly different at a .05 level of confidence. Table 34. (45) The University should offer a formal or informal course in apartment living, money management, food purchas- ing, etc. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 39 41.1 36 37.8 20 21.1 95 100 Parents 56 58.9 20 21.1 19 20.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 23 60.5 7 18.4 8 21.1 38 100 Faculty 16 38.1 19 45.2 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 30 61.2 13 26.5 6 12.3 49 100 DF 8 X2 17.386 Significant at .05 level *DF 2 x2 7.639 Parents-Students Significant at .05 level The responses to item 7, that the university should provide a home owner's insurance policy for off-campus students is presented in Table 35. Parents (52Z), apartment owners (73Z), faculty (76Z), student personnel administrators (82Z) all disagreed with providing a home owner's insurance policy for students off-campus. Fifty-one per cent of the students agreed that the university should provide an insurance policy. .2. 88 Parents' and students' responses were exactly reversed in item 7 with 49 students selecting response 1 (agree) and 33 selecting response 2 (disagree). In comparing the groups they differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence. Table 35. (7) The University should have a home owner's insurance policy covering fire, theft, damage to personal belongings, for off-campus students. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 49 51.6 33 34.7 13 13.7 95 100 Parents 33 35.1 49 52.1 12 12.8 94 100 Apartment Owners 7 18.4 28 73.7 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 6 14.3 32 76.2 4 9.5 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 6 12.0 41 82.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 X3 45.494 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 6.279 Parents-Students Significant at .05 level The responses to item 39 regarding encouragement by the university in the development of a formal student governing council for off-campus students, are found in Table 36. The general lack of concern on this issue is perhaps best reflected in the no opinion responses. TWenty- nine per cent of the students, 15 per cent of the parents, 26 per cent of the apartment owners, and 28 per cent of the faculty selected reSponse 3 (no opinion). Students (53Z), parents (74Z), apartment owners (55Z) and student personnel administrators (84Z) most frequently agreed that the university should encourage the development of a formal 89 student governing council. The faculty were divided on the issue with 42 per cent agreeing, 28 per cent disagreeing and 28 per cent selecting no opinion. The sample groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on item 39. Both parents and students most often selected response 1 (agree), yet there was a significant difference (.05 level) in the responses of these groups to this item. Table 36. (39) The University should encourage the development of a formal student governing council for off-campus students. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 51 53.7 16 16.8 28 29.5 95 100 Parents 71 74.7 9 9.5 15 15.8 95 100 Apartment Owners 21 55.3 7 18.4 10 26.3 38 100 Faculty 18 42.8 12 28.6 12 28.6 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 42 84.0 6 12.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 30.434 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 9.169 Parents-Students Significant at .05 level With respect to the university providing an advisor for off-campus student government (item 10), Table 37 reveals a significant difference of opinion among the groups at the .01 level. Student personnel admin- istrators (86Z) see having an advisor as favorable. Students (43Z), parents (64Z), faculty (45Z) and apartment owners (63Z) also all selected response 1 (agree) most frequently, yet a sizeable percentage of this group chose reSponse 3 (no opinion). Twenty-seven per cent of 90 'the students and 31 per cent of the faculty disagree with having the university provide an advisor. Parents and students differ significantly at the .01 level of con- fidence on item 10. Sixty-four per cent of the parents are in favor of having an advisor for off-campus student government while only 43 per cent of the students favor this. TWenty-four per cent of the parents and 29 per cent of the student respondents chose response 3 (no opinion). Table 37. (10) The University should provide an advisor from the student personnel staff to advise off-campus student govern- ment. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 41 43.2 26 27.4 28 29.4 95 100 Parents 61 64.2 11 11.6 23 24.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 24 63.2 5 13.2 9 23.6 38 100 Faculty 19 45.2 13 31.0 10 23.8 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 43 86.0 7 14.0 0 0.0 50 100 DF 8 X3 36.497 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 10.493 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 33 is concerned with the university providing storage lockers on campus for the off-campus student. Table 38 presents the responses to item 33. The sample groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. Apartment owners (63Z), faculty (54Z) and student personnel administrators (54Z) most often selected response 2 (disagreeing that lockers should be provided). A sizeable percentage of these samples also selected response 1 (agree) and response 3 (no 91 opinion). Students and parents were evenly split on the issue. TWenty- eight per cent of the students and 47 per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree), 47 per cent of the students and 29 per cent of the parents selected response 2 (disagree), and 24 per cent of the students and 23 per cent of the parents selected reSponse 3 (no opinion). Although there was a split between the responses given by the parents and students, parents differed significantly at the .05 level of confidence with students on this issue. Table 38. (33) Storage lockers on campus should be provided by the University for the off-campus student. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 27 28.4 45 47.4 23 24.2 95 100 Parents 45 47.4 28 29.5 22 23.1 95 100 Apartment Owners 7 18.4 24 63.2 7 18.4 38 100 Faculty 16 38.1 23 54.8 3 7.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 18 36.0 27 54.0 5 10.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 25.434 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 8.481 Parents-Students Significant at .05 level The responses to item 12 regarding the responsibility for the university to provide bail bond for students who are arrested are listed in Table 39. All of the sample groups selected response 2 (disagree) most frequently. Of the sample groups, apartment owners (92Z) and student personnel administrators (96Z) were the two groups who most frequently disagreed with providing bail bond for students 92 arrested. The groups differed significantly at the .05 level of con- fidence on this question. There was no significant difference between parents and students regarding this issue. Seventy-nine per cent of the students and 73 per cent of the parents selected response 2 (disagree). Table 39 reveals that the null hypothesis is accepted in parent-student sample comparison. Table 39. (12) The University should provide bail bond for students arrested. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 13 13.6 75 79.0 7 7.4 95 100 Parents 10 10.5 70 73.7 15 15.8 95 100 Apartment Owners 2 5.3 35 92.1 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 5 11.9 32 76.2 5 11.9 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 0 0.0 48 96.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x§ 18.677 Significant at .05 level *DF 2 X 3.473 Parents-Students Not Significant Item 49 was concerned with the university providing lunchroom facilities on campus for off—campus students who carry their lunches. Table 40 presents the responses to item 49. Parents (70Z), student personnel administrators (70Z), apartment owners (52Z), faculty (61Z) and students (46Z) agreed that lunchroom facilities should be provided. A closer inspection of the Table will show that a sizeable percentage of students (31Z), student personnel administrators (22Z) and faculty 93 (21Z) are not in favor of providing lunchroom facilities. Students (22Z) and apartment owners (34Z) showed the greatest lack of concern with this issue by frequently selecting response 3 (no opinion). The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this item. Parents and students did differ in regard to this statement. A significant difference (.01 level) also appeared between these two samples in their responses to this item. Table 40. (49) Lunchroom facilities should be provided on campus for off-campus students carrying their lunches. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 44 46.3 30 31.6 21 22.1 95 100 Parents 67 70.6 14 14.7 14 14.7 95 100 Apartment Owners 20 52.6 5 13.2 13 34.2 38 100 Faculty 26 61.9 9 21.4 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 35 70.0 11 22.0 4 8.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 23.197 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 11.984 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 34 of the questionnaire states, "when students are prosecuted for civil offenses, the university should provide legal counsel for the student." Table 41 lists the responses to item 34. Fifty per cent of the students wanted to see the university provide legal counsel while 35 per cent disagreed and 14 per cent had no opinion. Seventy-five per cent of the apartment owners, 78 per cent of the faculty and 86 per cent 94 of the student personnel administrators disagreed with providing legal counsel. Parents were divided on the question with 37 per cent selecting reSponse 1 (agree), 45 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree) and 16 per cent with no opinion. The groups differed significantly on this issue at the .01 level of confidence. There was no significant difference between parents and students on this issue. Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted. Table 41. (34) When students are prosecuted for civil offenses, the University should provide legal counsel for the student. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 47 50.0 33 35.1 14 14.9 94 100 Parents 36 37.9 43 45.3 16 16.8 95 100 Apartment Owners 7 18.9 28 75.7 2 5.4 37 100 Faculty 3 7.1 33 78.6 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 5 10.0 43 86.0 2 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 58.872 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 2.902 Parents-Students Not Significant The responses given for item 64, that off-campus students should be permitted to use residence hall facilities, are listed in Table 42. Faculty members (61Z), and student personnel administrators (96Z) both disagree that off-campus students should be permitted to use residence hall facilities. Students (66Z) and parents (58Z) most frequently selected response 1 (agree). Apartment owners were divided on the 95 issue with 31 per cent agreeing with the item, 39 per cent in disagree- ment and 28 per cent with no opinion. There was no significant differ- ence between parents and students on this issue. There was a signifi- cant difference at the .01 level of confidence in comparing the responses of all the groups. Table 42. (64) Off-campus students should be permitted to use residence hall facilities (e.g., laundry, study, recreation). Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 63 66.3 21 22.1 11 11.6 95 100 Parents 55 58.5 30 31.9 9 9.6 94 100 Apartment Owners 12 31.6 15 39.5 11 28.9 38 100 Faculty 10 23.8 26 61.9 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 2 4.0 48 96.0 0 0.0 50 100 DF 8 x3 102.000 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 2.325 Parents-Students Not Significant Item 46 of the questionnaire stated that the university should keep a lawyer on retainer to give off-campus students legal advice. Table 43 lists the responses to item 46. Parents and students most frequently agreed that a lawyer should be kept on retainer by the university. Seventy-four per cent of the students and 60 per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree). Apartment owners (55Z), faculty (57Z) and student personnel administrators (62Z) most often chose response 2 (disagree). A good percentage of faculty (28Z), apartment owners (36Z), student personnel administrators (26Z) showed 96 agreement with item 46 by selecting reSponse 1 (agree). In comparing the responses of the groups, they differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence. There was no significant difference between students and their parents on this issue. Table 43. (46) A lawyer should be kept on retainer by the University to give off-campus students legal advice. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 71 74.8 16 16.8 8 8.4 95 100 Parents 57 60.6 26 27.7 11 11.7 94 100 Apartment Owners 14 36.8 21 55.3 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 12 28.6 24 57.1 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 13 26.0 31 62.0 6 12.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 53.793 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 4.381 Parents-Students Not Significant Regulatory and Law Enforcement Table 44 contains the results to item 44, that the university should have no housing regulations for students. All of the sample groups most often disagreed with this item. Students (78Z), parents (80Z), student personnel administrators (90Z), faculty (66Z), and apartment owners (67Z), most often chose response 2 (disagree). Eleven per cent of the parents, 24 per cent of the apartment owners, and 14 per cent of the faculty selected a no opinion response on the issue. 97 The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence. Parents and students also differed significantly at the .05 level of confidence on this item. Table 44. (44) The University should have no housing regulations for students (first year residence hall requirement, off-campus approved supervised housing). Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 17 17.9 75 78.9 3 3.2 95 100 Parents 8 8.4 76 80.0 11 11.6 95 100 Apartment Owners 3 8.1 25 67.6 9 24.3 37 100 Faculty 8 19.0 28 66.7 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 3 6.0 45 90.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 24.761 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 7.818 Parents-Students Significant at .05 level Item 20 states that any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice without his parents' consent. Table 45 lists the responses to item 20. All the sample groups most frequently selected response 2 (disagree). However, a closer look at Table 44 reveals a significant difference in the percentage of agreement-disagreement responses by each sample group. Parents (84Z) and apartment owners (71Z) disagreed to the greatest extent. They were followed by student personnel administrators (66Z), students (62Z) and finally faculty (47Z). It should also be pointed out that a sizeable number of student personnel administrators (28Z), apartment owners (23Z), faculty (33Z) and students (34Z) selected 98 response 1 (agree). Faculty were split even further with 19 per cent selecting response 3 (no opinion). The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. Parents more frequently selected response 2 (disagree) than did students. More students felt that students should be allowed off- campus after their freshman year in housing of their choice without parents consent than did their parents. There were significant differ- ences at the .01 level in the reSponses of parents and students on this issue. Table 45. (20) Any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice without his parents' consent. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 33 34.7 59 62.1 3 3.2 95 100 Parents 9 9.5 80 84.2 6 6.3 95 100 Apartment Owners 9 23.7 27 71.1 2 5.2 38 100 Faculty 14 33.3 20 47.6 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 14 28.0 33 66.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 x: 32.257 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 17.887 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 25, that there should be no off-campus hous- ing regulations, are listed in Table 46. An inspection of the Table reveals that parents (81Z), student personnel administrators (81Z), and apartment owners (72Z) disagreed with having no off-campus housing regulations for students living off-campus. Faculty members were evenly 99' divided on the issue with 45 per cent selecting response 1 (agree) and 45 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree). The sample groups differed on this issue at the .01 level of confidence. The majority (SlZ) of students selected reSponse 1 (agree) but at the same time a sizeable percentage (40Z) selected response 2 (disagree). Eighty-one per cent of the parents disagreed with the item while only 40 per cent of the students disagreed. Students and parents differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on the issue of no off- campus housing regulations. Table 46. (25) The University should have no regulations concerning the students' off-campus housing situations. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups, N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 48 51.1 38 40.4 8 8.5 94 100 Parents 10 10.5 77 81.1 8 8.4 95 100 Apartment Owners 8 22.2 26 72.2 2 5.6 36 100 Faculty 19 45.2 19 45.2 4 9.6 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 5 10.4 39 81.3 4 8.3 48 100 DF 8 X3 55.605 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 38.118 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 37 states that any student after his freshman year may live in housing of his choice wi£h_his parents' consent. The responses are given in Table 47. All of the sample groups; parents (63Z), faculty (70Z), apartment owners (84Z), student personnel administrators (54Z) and students (70%) 100 most often agreed that students, after their freshman year, should be allowed with parents' consent to live where they choose. A sizeable percentage of student personnel administrators (42Z), parents (32Z), and students (26Z) selected response 2 (disagree). The sample groups differed significantly at the .05 level-of confidence. Parents and students both agree with the item. The null hypothesis of no difference between the responses of parents and students was accepted. Table 47. (37) Any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice with his parents' consent. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 66 70.2 25 26.6 3 3.2 94 100 Parents 60 63.2 31 32.6 4 4.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 32 84.2 4 10.5 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 29 70.7 7 17.1 5 12.2 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 27 54.0 21 42.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 X2 18.707 Significant at .05 level *DF 2 X 1.066 Parents-Students Not Significant Item 58 states, "apartments not meeting established university standards should be placed "off limits". Responses to item 58 are listed in Table 48. An inspection of this table reveals that students (75Z), apartment owners (47Z), faculty (48Z) and student personnel administrators (52Z) most often disagree with placing apartments "off limits" for not meeting established university standards. Parents (83Z) 101 most often selected response 1 (agree). In responding to this item a good percentage of student personnel administrators (38Z), apartment owners (44Z) and faculty (29Z) selected response 1 (agree). In com- paring the responses, the groups differed at the .01 level of confidence. Eighty-three per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree) whereas only 15 per cent of the students chose this response. The dif- ference between students and their parents was statistically significant at the .01 level of confidence. Table 48. (58) Apartments not meeting established University standards should be placed ”off-limits." Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 15 15.8 72 75.8 8 8.4 95 100 Parents 78 83.9 11 11.8 4 4.3 93 100 Apartment Owners 17 44.7 18 47.7 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 12 29.3 20 48.8 9 21.9 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 19 38.0 26 52.0 5 10.0 50 100 DF 8 x: 104.585 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 88.831 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level In Table 49 the responses to item 16 regarding the placing of off- campus dwellings "off limits" by the university are given. Parents (91Z) felt that the university should have the right to place resi- dences "off limits" to students. Students (86Z) disagreed with parents and strongly favored a position of not giving the university this right. Apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators neither 102 strongly favored a position of agree nor disagree on item 16, although 56 per cent of the student personnel administrators selected response 2 (disagree). The faculty were split further with 14 per cent of the faculty choosing response 3 (no opinion). In comparing the sample groups they differed significantly (.01 level) on this issue. Students and parents also differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. Parents most frequently selected response 1 (agree) while students most frequently chose response 2 (disagree). Table 49. (16) The University should have the right to place some off-campus dwellings "off-limits" to students. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 9 9.5 82 86.3 4 4.2 95 100 Parents 87 91.6 7 7.4 1 1.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 18 47.4 17 44.7 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 20 47.6 16 38.1 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 20 40.0 28 56.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 xi 143.290 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 128.377 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 41 in the questionnaire stated that the university should have the authority to require students to move out of off-campus apart- ments. Table 50 shows the responses to item 41. Students (93Z), faculty (66Z), apartment owners (57Z), and student personnel adminis- trators (51Z) disagreed that the university should have the authority to move students out of off-campus apartments. Parents were quite 103 divided on the issue with (41Z) agreeing, (38Z) disagreeing and (20Z) with no opinion. A good percentage of apartment owners (36Z) and student personnel administrators (26Z) selected response 1 (agree). It should be noted that 22 per cent of the student personnel administrators also selected response 3 (no opinion). In comparing the responses of these groups, they differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on the item. Ninety-three per cent of the students disagree with the statement while only 38 per cent of the parents disagreed. Even though the parents were split on this issue, there was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence between parents and students. Table 50. (41) The University should have the authority to require students to move out of off-campus apartments. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 4 4.2 89 93.7 2 2.1 95 100 Parents 39 41.5 36 38.3 19 20.2 94 100 Apartment Owners 14 36.8 22 57.9 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 8 19.1 28 66.6 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 13 26.5 25 51.0 11 22.5 49 100 DF 8 x2 72.812 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 64.719 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 56 states that the university should declare "off-limits" certain dwellings which discriminate for reasons of race, creed or color. The responses to item 56 are found in Table 51. Student 104 personnel administrators were evenly divided on the question of placing units "off-limits" for discrimination, with 49 per cent selecting response 1 (agree) and 49 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree). Parents (47Z) most frequently selected the agree response (placing units "off-limits"), yet 32 per cent chose disagree and 20 per cent chose no opinion. Apartment owners (65Z) most often favored an "off- limits" policy. Students (65Z) most often selected response 2 (disagree). Faculty, like the student personnel administrators, were divided on the issue with 41 per cent agreeing and 43 per cent dis- agreeing with the question. There was a significant difference (.01 level) in the responses of the sample groups. Parents and students also differed significantly at the .01 level in regard to this question. Table 51. (56) The University should declare "off-limits" homes or apartments which discriminate for reasons of race, creed, or color. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 22 23.2 62 65.2 11 11.6 95 100 Parents 45 47.4 31 32.6 19 20.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 25 65.8 10 26.3 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 17 41.5 18 43.9 6 14.6 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 24 49.0 24 49.0 1 2.0 49 100 DF 8 x; 38.601 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 20.362 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level 105 Item 55 states that the university should not allow students to rent an apartment for party purposes only. Table 52 lists the reSponses to item 55. Parents (75Z) and apartment owners (55Z) both agreed that students should not be allowed to rent apartments for party purposes only. Students (86Z), faculty (71Z), and student personnel adminis- trators (86Z) disagreed with the item. A sizeable percentage (34Z) of student personnel administrators did agree with the item. The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. Parents and students also differed significantly (.01 level) on this item. Only 3 per cent of the students selected response 1 (agree) while 75 per cent of the parents chose this response. Table 52. (55) The University should not allow students to rent an apartment for party purposes only. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 3 3.2 82 86.3 10 10.5 95 100 Parents 71 75.5 11 11.7 12 12.8 94 100 Apartment Owners 21 55.3 15 39.5 2 5.2 38 100 Faculty 5 11.9 30 71.4 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 17 34.0 31 62.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 X3 138.484 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 116.871 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 63 in the questionnaire stated that the university should not allow members of the opposite sex in students' living quarters off- campus. A summary of the responses to this question are found in Table 53. 106 Table 53. (63) The University should not allow members of the opposite sex in students' living quarters off-campus. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 0 0.0 94 98.9 1 1.1 95 100 Parents 20 21.3 55 58.5 19 20.2 94 100 Apartment Owners 4 10.5 32 84.2 2 5.3 38 100 Faculty 2 4.8 34 80.9 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 0 0.0 48 96.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x; 65.386 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 46.404 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Respondents in all the sample groups, parents (58Z), students (98Z), faculty (80Z), apartment owners (84Z) and student personnel adminis- trators (96Z) indicated that the university should allow members of the opposite sex in students' living quarters off-campus. The parents were the only sample group that showed a sizeable division on the issue. Twenty-one per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree) and 20 per cent selected response 3 (no opinion). Students and parents differed significantly (.01 level) on the issue. While no member of the student sample selected response 1 (agree), 21 per cent of their parents did. Parents selected response 3 (no opinion) 20 per cent of the time whereas only one per cent of the students chose this response. The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. A summary of the responses to item 53, that the university should 107 have no regulations which prohibit the use of alcohol in off-campus student housing, is found in Table 54. With the exception of parents, all the sample groups; faculty (69Z), students (96Z), apartment owners (47Z), student personnel administrators (70Z), most frequently agreed with having no regulations regarding alcohol in off-campus student housing. Parents were divided on the issue. Twenty-four per cent selected response 1 (agree), 54 per cent selected response 2 (disagree) and 21 per cent selected response 3 (no opinion). Thirty-six per cent of the apartment owners disagreed with the issue. There was a signifi- cant difference (.01 level) in the responses of the sample groups. Ninety-six per cent of the students selected response 1 (agree), while only 24 per cent of the parents chose this response. There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence in the responses of these two groups. Table 54. (53) The University should have(gaffggnlati6n§)which pro- hibit the use of alcohol in off-campus student housing. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 92 96.8 2 2.1 1 1.1 95 100 Parents 23 24.2 52 54.7 20 21.1 95 100 Apartment Owners 18 47.4 14 36.8 6 15.8 38 100 Faculty . 29 69.0 7 16.7 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 35 70.0 13 26.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 114.707 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 104.887 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level 108 Table 55. (52) The University should have no regulations which pro- hibit co-habitation by off-campus students. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 81 85.3 8 8.4 6 6.3 95 100 Parents 9 9.6 77 81.9 8 9.5 94 100 Apartment Owners 6 15.8 26 68.4 6 15.8 38 100 Faculty 24 57.1 11 26.2 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 20 40.0 28 56.0 2 4.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 140.633 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 113.895 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 52, that the university should have no regu- lations which prohibit co-habitation by off-campus students, are found in Table 55. Only students (85Z) and faculty (57Z) most frequently agreed with having no regulations prohibiting co-habitation. Parents (81Z), apartment owners (68Z), and student personnel administrators (56Z) disagreed with the statement and selected response 2 (disagree) most often. Forty per cent of the student personnel administrators selected response 1 (agree) in answering item 52. In comparing the responses of the groups it was established that a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence existed. Parents differed significantly at the .01 level from students on the issue of having the university prohibit co-habitation. Eighty-five per cent of the students, as compared to nine per cent of the parents, felt that the university should have no regulations against co- habitation. 109 Table 56. (21) The University should discipline off-campus students for co-habitation (i.e., single members of the opposite sex living together). Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 2 2.1 90 94.7 3 3.2 95 100 Parents 70 73.7 18 18.9 7 7.4 95 100 Apartment Owners 18 47.4 13 34.2 7 18.4 38 100 Faculty 8 19.0 29 69.1 5 11.9 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 17 34.0 29 58.0 4 8.0 50 100 DF 8 xi 134.679 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 113.822 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 21 states that the university should discipline off-campus students for co-habitation. The responses to item 21 are listed in Table 56. Students (94Z) overwhelmingly disagreed that the university should discipline students for co-habitating. Faculty members (69Z), and student personnel administrators (58Z), also favored this position. Parents (73Z) thought students should be disciplined for co- habitation. Apartment owners were divided on the issue with 47 per cent selecting response 1 (agree), 34 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree) and 18 per cent selecting response 3 (no opinion). In com- paring the sample groups a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence was established, this was also true for the parent-student sample. Only two per cent of the students agree that students should be disciplined for co-habitation while 73 per cent of their parents felt 110 students should be disciplined. Table 57. (38) Apartment owners should notify the local law enforce- ment agency when off-campus student parties are causing a public disturbance. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 66 69.5 25 26.3 4 4.2 95 100 Parents 88 92.6 4 4.2 3 3.2 95 100 Apartment Owners 36 94.8 1 2.6 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 35 83.3 3 7.1 4 9.5 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 47 94.0 3 6.0 0 0.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 37.853 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 18.493 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 38 in the questionnaire states that apartment owners should notify the local law enforcement agency when off-campus students' parties are causing a public disturbance. The responses to this item are found in Table 57. All of the sample groups, parents (92Z), students (69Z), apartment owners (94Z), faculty (83Z) and student personnel administrators (94Z) supported the position of having the apartment owners notify the law enforcement agencies in cases of parties causing a public disturbance. Twenty-six per cent of the students disagreed with the statement and selected response 2 (disagree). The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence. Although both parents (92Z) and students (69Z) most often selected response 1 (agree), there were significant differences at the .01 level of confidence in their responses to this item. The major difference 111 occurred in the disagree area with only four per cent of the parents disagreeing and 26 per cent of the students disagreeing. Table 58. (61) The University should contact the proper law enforce- ment agency when it is aware of violations of civil law. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 31 32.6 52 54.8 12 12.6 95 100 Parents 82 87.2 6 6.4 6 6.4 94 100 Apartment Owners 37 97.4 1 2.6 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 27 64.3 7 16.7 8 19.0 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 41 82.0 6 12.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 xi 103.696 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 61.497 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Table 58 lists the responses to item 61 that the university should contact the proper law enforcement agency when it is aware of violations of civil law. The majority of parents (87Z), apartment owners (97Z), faculty (64Z) and student personnel administrators (82Z) indicated that the university should notify the proper law enforcement agency when it is aware of violations of civil law. Fifty-four per cent of the stu- dents disagreed with this position. Only 32 per cent of the student sample agreed with contacting law enforcement agencies in such matters. Parents and students disagreed significantly (.01 level) with respect to item 65. Only six per cent of the parents selected response 2 (disagree) whereas 54 per cent of the students chose this response. In comparing the responses of the sample groups they differed at the 112 .01 level of confidence on this issue. Table 59. (13) The University should take disciplinary action against an off-campus student when the student is arrested and con- victed for a violation of a civil or criminal law. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 5 5.3 87 91.6 3 3.1 95 100 Parents 53 56.4 24 25.5 17 18.1 94 100 Apartment Owners 17 44.7 18 47.4 3 7.9 38 100 Faculty 11 26.2 29 69.1 2 4.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 9 18.0 36 72.0 5 10.0 50 100 DF 8 x2 97.334 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X2 85.278 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 13 in the questionnaire stated that the university should take disciplinary action against an off-campus student when the student is arrested and convicted for a violation of a civil or criminal law. An inspection of Table 59 reveals that students (91Z), faculty (69Z) and student personnel administrators (72Z) are not in favor of disci- plining students arrested or convicted of civil or criminal law. Apartment owners appear to be split on the issue with 44 per cent selecting response 1 (agree) and 47 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree). Parents most frequently (56Z) chose response 1 (agree), yet it should be noted that 18 per cent of the parents chose response 3 (no opinion). The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this item. Parents and students also differed significantly at the .01 level 113 of confidence on this issue. Ninety-one per cent of the students selected response 2 (disagree) while only 25 per cent of their parents selected this response. Table 60. (11) The University should contact the proper law enforce- ment agency in cases where residences are known places of narcotics use. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 32 33.7 53 55.8 10 10.5 95 100 Parents 92 96.8 2 2.1 l 1.1 95 100 Apartment Owners 36 94.7 2 5.3 O 0.0 38 100 Faculty. 32 78.1 7 17.1 2 4.8 41 100 Student Pers. Admin. 44 88.0 5 10.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x3 120.318 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 83.687 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responsibility of the university to contact proper law enforce- ment agencies in cases where residences are known places of narcotics use is the question asked in item 11. The responses to item 11 are found in Table 60. Parents (96Z), apartment owners (94Z), faculty (78Z) and student personnel administrators (88%) all agreed that the proper law enforce- ment agency should be contacted. Parents and apartment owners expressed the highest agreement on the question. Only 33 per cent of the students selected response 1 (agree) while 55 per cent selected response 2 (dis- agree). The groups differed significantly on this item at the .01 level of confidence. 114 Students and parents also differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence in their responses to item 11. Students most frequently selected response 2 (disagree) while parents most frequently selected response 1 (agree). Table 61. (40) The University has the responsibility to inform students of state laws when the University has reason to believe that LSD is being used off-campus. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 35 36.8 48 50.6 12 12.6 95 100 Parents 83 87.4 10 10.5 2 2.1 95 100 Apartment Owners 29 76.3 3 7.9 6 15.8 38 100 Faculty 18 42.8 17 40.5 7 16.7 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 38 76.0 11 22.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 x: 73.918 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 51.610 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Table 61 lists the responses to item 40 which states that the university has the responsibility to inform students of state laws when the university has reason to believe that LSD is being used off-campus. Parents (87Z), apartment owners (76Z) and student personnel admin- istrators (76Z) most frequently chose response 1 (agreeing that students should be informed of state laws). Faculty members were split on the issue. Forty-two per cent of the faculty agreed with the statement, 40 per cent disagreed and 16 per cent had no opinion. Students were also divided on the question with 36 per cent agreeing, 50 per cent disagree- ing and 12 per cent selecting no opinion. The sample groups differed 115 significantly at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. Students and parents also differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence in selecting responses to this item. Parents most fre- quently agreed with the item while students most frequently disagreed. Table 62. (31) The University has the responsibility to inform students of state laws when the University has reason to believe that marijuana is being used off-campus. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 33 34.7 48 50.6 14 14.7 95 100 Parents 87 91.6 7 7.4 l 1.0 95 100 Apartment Owners 32 84.2 5 3.2 l 2.6 38 100 Faculty 19 45.2 18 42.9 5 11.9 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 39 78.0 10 20.0 1 2.0 50 100 DF 8 xi 88.196 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 66.130 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Item 31 is concerned with the reSponsibility of the university to inform students of state laws when there is reason to believe that marijuana is being used off-campus. Table 62 lists the results of this question. Faculty members were split on the issue with 45 per cent selecting response 1 (agreeing that the students should be informed), 42 per cent selecting response 2 (disagree) and 11 per cent selecting response 3 (no opinion). Fifty per cent of the students selected response 2 (disagree). The remaining members of the student sample were divided on the question with 34 per cent selecting response 1 (agree) and 14 per cent selecting response 3 (no opinion). 116 Parents (91Z), apartment owners (84Z) and student personnel admin- istrators (78Z) most frequently selected reSponse 1 (agreeing students should be informed). The groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence. There was a significant difference at the .01 level of confidence between parents and students. Parents (91Z) agree with item 31 while students (50Z) disagree with the item. Table 63. (62) The University should report the use of LSD by off- campus students to the proper law enforcement agency. ‘ - Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 37 38.9 51 53.7 7 7.4 95 100 Parents 89 94.7 4 4.3 l 1.0 94 100 Apartment Owners 36 94.7 2 5.3 0 0.0 38 100 Faculty 25 59.5 9 21.4 8 19.1 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 40 80.0 7 14.0 3 6.0 50 100 DF 8 X2 104.478 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 66.121 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level The responses to item 62, that the university should report the use of LSD by off-campus students to the prOper law enforcement agency, are listed in Table 63. Parents (94Z), faculty (59Z) and student personnel administrators (8OZ) most frequently selected response 1 (agreeing that the proper law enforcement agency should be contacted). Students (53Z) most frequently chose response 2 (disagree). A sizeable percentage of students (38Z) did agree with reporting the use of LSD to 117 the proper law enforcement agency. The sample groups differed at the .01 level of confidence on this issue. Students and parents also differed significantly (.01 level) on this issue. Ninety-four per cent of the parents selected response 1 (agree) while only 38 per cent of the students selected this response. Table 64. (60) The University should report the use of marijuana by off-campus students to the proper law enforcement agency. Scale: Agree Disagree No Opinion Total Sample Groups N Z N Z N Z N Z *Students 31 32.6 57 60.0 7 7.4 95 100 Parents 86 91.5 4 4.3 4 4.2 94 100 Apartment Owners 36 94.8 1 2.6 1 2.6 38 100 Faculty 23 54.8 13 30.9 6 14.3 42 100 Student Pers. Admin. 36 72.0 10 20.0 4 8.0 50 100 DF 8 x: 102.979 Significant at .01 level *DF 2 X 72.719 Parents-Students Significant at .01 level Table 64 summarizes the reSponses to item 60. Item 60 states that the university should report the use of marijuana by off-campus students to the proper law enforcement agency. Parents (91Z), apartment owners (94Z), faculty (54Z) and student personnel administrators (72Z) agreed that the university should report the use of marijuana. A sizeable percentage of faculty (3OZ) and student personnel administrators (20Z) disagreed with reporting the use of marijuana. The majority of students (6OZ) disagreed with item 60. The sample groups as well as the student and parent groups differed significantly at the .01 level of confidence 118 on the issue. Thirty-two per cent of the students selected response 1 (agree) while 91 per cent of the parents selected this response. Demographic Information The following demographic information was gathered from the parent sample. Every parent in the sample group received a demographic infor- mation sheet with their questionnaire. The number of parents respond- ing to a particular question found in the demographic information sheet will vary with respect to the nature of the question and the individual parent's reaction to it. It is hoped that this information will be helpful to the reader in interpreting this research. Table 65. Who Filled Out the Questionnaire Questionnaire filled out by: N Z Father 24 26.09 Mother 31 33.70 Both 37 40.22 Guardian 0 0.0 Ninety-two out of the 100 respondents in the parent sample filled out the appropriate Space on the demographic information sheet marked "questionnaire filled out by." The majority (40Z) of the question- naires were filled out by both parents. The remaining percentage was evenly divided with 26 per cent of the fathers and 33 per cent of the Inothers filling out the questionnaire. 119 Table 66. Total Amount of Money Each Family Contributed to Each Child in College The amount of money parents contributed to each child in college N Z $ 0 - $ 500 13 14.61 $ 500 - $1,000 18 20.22 $1,000 - $1,500 19 21.35 $ Over - $1,500 39 43.82 The amount of money each family contributed to each of their children in college is listed in Table 66. A sizeable percentage (43Z) of the parent sample indicated they contributed $1,500 or more to each child in college. The other cate- gories were quite evenly divided with 14 per cent contributing O-$500, 20 per cent contributing $500-$l,000 and 21 per cent contributing $1,000-$1,500. Sixty-four per cent of the parents contributed $1,000 or more to each of their children in college. The highest educational level attained by the respondents in the parent sample is found in Table 67. Ninety-one fathers and 92 mothers filled out the space marked parents' education. Thirty per cent of the fathers and 43 per cent of the mothers attended high school but did not graduate. More fathers (23Z) than mothers (19Z) started college but did not finish. The reverse is true for college graduates with only (14Z) of the fathers graduating while (17Z) of the mothers graduated. Fourteen per cent of the fathers and six per cent of the mothers had graduate or professional degrees. 120 Table 67. Parents' Education Father Mother Parents' Education N Z N Z Completed Eighth Grade 10 10.99 5 5.43 High School but didn't Graduate 28 30.77 40 43.48 High School Graduate 6 6.59 7 7.61 College but didn't Graduate 21 23.08 18 19.57 College Graduate 13 14.29 16 17.39 Graduate or Professional Degree 13 14.29 6 6.52 Table 68 lists the responses to the item asking how many children each family had in college. Ninety-four out of the 95 respondents filled in the proper space in answering the statement. Over half (57Z) of the respondents had only one child in school. Thirty-two per cent of the sample had two children in college. Only nine per cent of the sample had three or more students in college. Table 68. Number of Children Each Family Has in College Number of children in college N Z One 54 57.45 Two 31 32.98 Three 7 7.45 Four 2 2.13 121 Table 69. Family Size - Members Size of family N Z (members) 2 members* 2 2.22 3 members 13 14.44 4 members 28 31.11 5 members 25 27.78 6 members 12 13.33 7 members 4 4.44 8 members 3 3.33 9 members 0 0.0 10 members 1 1.11 11 members 0 0.0 12 members 1 1.11 13 members 0 0.0 14 members 1 1.11 *Fathers of the students were deceased. Table 69 reports the data collected on the size of the family (members) for the parent sample. Of the 95 questionnaires returned, 90 respondents of the parent sample filled out the appropriate Space for family size. The majority (31Z) of the respondents indicated there were four members in their family. Twenty-seven per cent of the sample indicated five members, 13 per cent six members, and 14 per cent three members. The mean family size was 4.89 with a standard deviation of 1.86. Eighty-five per cent of the responses had three, four, five or six members in their family. 122 The data as reported in Table 70 reveals that the largest per- centage (23Z) of the parent-student respondents came from home towns of 25,000-75,000 in population. The distribution of responses was quite evenly divided. Of the parent-student sample ten per cent came from towns with a population of 0-1,000; 11 per cent with a population of 5,000-10,000; 16 per cent with a population of 10,000-20,000; 13 per cent with a population of 75,000-300,000 and 17 per cent with a population of 300,000 or greater. Fifty-seven per cent of the parent sample came from home towns with populations of 25,000 or greater. Table 70. Population of Home Town Population of home town N Z 0 - 1,000 9 10.11 1,000 - 5,000 6 6.74 5,000 - 10,000 10 11.24 10,000 - 25,000 15 16.85 25,000 - 75,000 21 23.60 75,000 - 300,000 12 13.48 Over - 300,000 16 17.98 Table 71 represents the total family income of the parent sample. Ninety out of 95 of the respondents returning the questionnaire answered the question asking for the total family income. Seventy per cent of the total sample had incomes of $10,000 or greater per year. The category receiving the highest percentage (39Z) of responses was for incomes of $10,000-$15,000 per year. TWenty-one 123 per cent of the sample selected the $15,000-$20,000 per year category. Only five per cent of the sample selected the $3,000-$5,000 per year category. Table 71. Total Family Income Total Family Income N Z (per year) $ 3,000 - $ 5,000 5 5.49 $ 5,000 - $10,000 19 20.88 $10,000 - $15,000 36 39.56 $15,000 - $20,000 20 21.98 Over - $20,000 10 10 99 Table 72 lists the responses to the parents occupation question. Of the 95 parents returning the questionnaire, 86 fathers and 71 mothers filled out the appropriate square marked "parents occupation." An inspection of the Table reveals considerable variation in the occupations of the fathers in the parent sample. Twenty per cent of the fathers were engaged in occupations of an executive or managerial nature. Eleven per cent of the fathers were employed as skilled labor and ten per cent were engaged in sales as an occupation. The remainder of the fathers were engaged in a variety of occupations. The majority of mothers (56Z) gave their occupation as housewife. Although 15 per cent of the mothers selected office-clerical and 12 indicated teaching. 124 Table 72. Parents Occupation Father Mother Parents Occupation N Z N Z Manual Worker 8 9.3 2 2.8 Skilled Labor 10 11.6 Business Owner 7 8.1 2 2.8 Farm Owner-Operator 6 6.9 Executive or Managerial 18 20.9 Office, Clerical 6 6.9 11 15.4 Teacher Elementary or Secondary 3 3.4 9 12.2 Professional _ 5 5.8 3 4.2 Service (store clerk, barber) 6 6.9 3 4.2 Engineer 8 9.3 Sales 9 10.4 1 1.4 House Wife 40 56.3 Open Ended Responses The following Tables, 73-77, list by sample group the responses to item 65. The items which were similar have been consolidated for the convenience of the reader. Rather than attempt to summarize the open ended questions and responses, and perhaps lose much of their meaning, they are listed by sample group and by item number as given by the respondents. 125 .momcoamou umHHEHm mo umnasz a .uaomcoo .muamuma usonuwz umm% .msmamo unannouw on» umuwm omooso mono muons nmmo wcw>wa now own wcwawfiuoumv boom m mH Hm Homm H m>HH ou coSOHHm on caaonm muamcdum om .moocmnusumwv UflHnsa wawmsmo mum mofiuuma .muaocsum cons zuwmuo>wcb an .%uHHfinHmaoammu m.%ufimum>wcb onu uoz mnu uomucoo vasonm mumcso ucmfiuumm¢ ma .mvumnsmum muommm mo mmsmomn wcwmsos damp .muaon icoo ou mamwowmmo HmooH onu mo kusv msu on wasosm umnfi usum ou :muflEHH mmo: mwcfiaaman oomHm .muHEHH mmo ..uaw .mmso: m oomHm uossmo hugmuo>flab 059 cu uzwflu osu o>mc vasonm huwmum>wcs 63H 0H .oc cmo muwmum>was ozu nose u.:mw muonu mamEmoummo wcfimn was nufl3 use .mcowu wcwcumz mo uuom mEom co EH: use canoe hmnu mamsuom umHow> 3mH Hmaflawuo no HH>Ho How wouow> usoo mucovsum mamamouwmo umawmwm cowuom .xuumaoua >ufimum>flcp umcflmwm m.ufi mmoHa: uoz mumcwaawomwv oxMu vasosm huwmuo>ws3 onH ma .mucmwnum msmfimoummo How moHHoa mocmusmcw m.umsso mnz .Hmcowuao on wasozm 080; m ovw>oua vasonm >uwmuo>wcb 05H m .nmA mafia: mum mucousum cogs «Nuz .ucmwsum mo own so wcwvcommn mucouma uomucoo vasonm muwmum>wcn may 0 mquEEoo EmuH .oz EouH .huSOm mafia co cm: m>mn uanE mucopcoamou mSu aOflumosv “wasowuuma how on wzofluomou no mucmEEoo Hmcowuwvcm .mGOHCwmo mnu mo wcHHHmEoo m ma mHnH "cowumosd tam cmao msu ou momcoammm unmosum .mN oHQmH 126 .%53 can cowumuflnmcnoo oconcoo no: meow uH 3ocx mucmvsum mm .cowumuwnmcuoo wcwufinwnoua mcowu wcmum howfioa m oxMu vasonm uH .mcoHumHDwou uso mmouo unaswou on m>mn wasonm muwmum>fiCD 03H mm .mwaHHo3v .mo>HmmEo:u mumc3o ucofiuumam £ua3 mDQEmonwwo aw mvumvcmum kHMuwCMm you mEmHnoua mmonu macaw: cu maps on vasonm mucovsum noun pom uooamcw vasonm kuwmum>flc2 03H Na .mcwumuwnmsuoo manmouwmo muaopsum .HN Hows: one mucovSum mmoaca uoz mo mucouma Snows“ vasosm xuwmum>wc3 o:H om .uH mwcmnu nascen ananac>ac3 can can msoqsoHon ma menace mace .mumuuoH :mucmumm noon: wcflucow unnum uoc vasonm .Hoonom Eoum zuwmuo>flcb 0:8 .vmmmsomwv maamaomuoa on wasonm mcH3mucnuH3 mam ucmcwoua mum 0:3 mwm mo mam coaumsuflm uasowmmwu m on waso3 uH .mucmuma no: mums» am Home: mucowsum mHmEmm meCHm Hamu ou muwawnwmcoammu tam unwwu m.Hun can we uH mo mucoumm hmauo: vasonm xuwmuo>wcb osa om .mmcmwum wcfi3ocxas wGH>Ho>cH mo Howsmw ocu mo mmsmomm .mcmsmflume ween: mum mucmnsum conz . an .oc .HN um>o :1 mwm so abdomen mucouma uomuaoo vasonm >uflmuo>wcs 058 cm .mwumucmum woowuomua wcoH m.%uowoom %n o>HH Ou nwsocm manflmcoammu uoc mum 0:3 apex may o>mm vow .wGHuManmnuoo pom musovsum .mmmaflmsn m.%uwmuo>wcs may Mo mam uoz ocwamwomww vasonm wuflmpo>wcb mnH Hm mucoEEoo EouH .oz EmuH cannaecou--na «acne 127 New: as no umou m:u cam: >6 6H0; ou paws :huHmum>Ha5: msu moon Huz .mumumaom chEmu vHsonm muHmum>HcD was .mumm use .AHN nowasv onHHmS uwmsu can mucmvsum onu um>o >uHHHnHmcommmu mEom mm: muHmum>HcD mnu Homm H Huz . .A¢o cOHumosv ..w.ov .moHuHHHomH new mmoH>uom mama msu .msafimoimmo was so mucovsum muH HHm ou oHanHm>m 0x88 cHsocm can .voummndou moss .muamusum muH HHm pom ooH>cm uo\nam va Hmon mm mooH>uom nosm ocH> ioua stonm huwmum>ch onu umnu m>mHHmn ow H .m>HH cHsonm ucmwsum m 30; Ho c653 .oumns mouoow ou uoBoa mnu m>mn stonm HuHmum>Hca ecu umnu o>oHHmn uoa ow H .aHm: Ho msouwmov mucocsum ou mcoHu umvcoEEoomu cam mow>wm ovH>oua uHsosm huwmum>fian onu umnu Homm H .msmfimoummo maH>HH mmonu Ho mocmwumaxmaH can own mnu Ho omsmomn .uo>o3om .%ummmoomc mHomH o: cowuom um£3 oumHuHcH ou tam 38H onu awnuw3 o>HH ou zuHHHnHmsoamou mucovsum onu on vHsonm uH umSu Hoom .COHummsd umHsoHuuma 8 cu o>mn ucwHE mucoucommou moosmuomou H .o>onm mCOHummsv onu mo HHm ou ucoaaoo Hmuocmw 4 no mCOHummsv .mucoEEoo HmcoHunv< mo .Hsmfiumn %HHmHuamuoa msHm BwH onu Ho aoHumHoH> 5H mH uH mmsmoon mum: mouwm H .moaomm ucoEoouomco 38H umaoua .moHuooumc MO was onu ou mucmvsuw msaemoumwo mp awn mo mnu mcHanHaoum BmH m on stonm mumsu xcHsu u.cov H mm: may uuoamu stonm zuHmuw>ch «3H No musmEEoo EouH .oz EouH cmscwucOUIIMN mHan 128 .:n amum hunmno>nss can cHsonm mnoHHmsc ummno mnmnso unmannmam 50:3 mHao ”mnnwmmm :30 nnonu oumston on swsoco oHnHmcoamon on stonm musmvsnm mDQEMUIHHo qnz .coxmnnmvas mHon anomn>noasm on was mmon>nmm scam on wouHEHH on stonm huHHHnHmsommmn mnnmno>wan .moon>nmm hnmncsHo> hHuoHnum wchH>onm on msaamouwwo wannnmon mucouanm suna ucoao>Ho>cn mun nonnummn uHsonm zuflmnm>ncs 6:8 .mmnHHEmH GBO nnmSu :nH3 maoanHo mHnHmcoammn on uHso3 .monuncsaaoo no monuonoom nonuo an .053 .onoma now :nmsnonn wnn: wcnon mo conunmoa man naotm no: vHsonm uH .mconumwano Honoe no wcnumv .wan>nH nnmnu mananoumv no: .mncmunum vnm mam omn>vm on on wHaonm .munEHH Hmon ansunz .mnnmnm>Hcs man Ho omoansa 05H .Eosu now an m>nH uoc .oHHH now mucovsum MMMM nlmm on an non m.munmnm>nca 05H .on HHH3 nm>ma menu .NN no .HN .om um a: asonw u.:onm hozn HH ”ocon mucovsnm can o>mmH . . . mnouMuoHn oEooon anosm mnnmnm>nca man GOmmon on an amp mno>m onumnHmHoom onoE wcHEooon an .m.: can omsmomn umsh .onom ham usmHmnum ao>m no onom waHvHHm m CH vwmm >oaofi vamam on Ho xcnsu cmo H mxms mcncnmmm umoE onu onm meonHo o>mn H m.nm can Ho usmo non Humanz .momoc nnmnu kn vasonm Ewan wcnwmmH swan sonumosvm cm mucovsum mun wcn>nw :uHB wocnoocoo onoE on vHsonm >nnmno>nca mnnH .aoHummsv ansoHunmm m on o>m£ unmna mucovcoammn moocmnomon no muonumosv .mncoEEoo Hmaonnnvu¢ no mudeEoo EmuH .oz EouH enacnaaco--mn anann 129 muz .oocovnmon a: now on kuno 30: m on vm>oa umsn can mam no w: an sto3 0: Oman noncME 954m onu an msaamo co ABmH mnu mo muonumHon> mo ownm nusov mHHH an: oanswon on mHnm on uHsonm uaovsum 4 Huz .owman o>nmmmnwona am: can a« xomnnmm an w on vHsos %unmnm>nas can we unwa men so unsound cm o>mHHon H mam .mnnmmmm Hmcomnoa he oumstmn hunmno>na= onu umH uoa HHH3 hHHmcomnma H .mnomnmucn on mnnnonusm can vmsoHHm on vHsosm hunmnm>ncs oz .unm moon on mm mHHH HmnoE an: nosw nsoo on unwnn HammH m was vHo mnmom HN uaowsum >54 qnz .mmmmmmmmw on On hunmno>ws= can Ho %uHHHnHmcoammn man wonmvacoo mhmsHm o>mn H .on hue 3oH> mHsu mm nonmowumHsaomas mm . . . muHmno>Hcs can Ho zuHHHpHmcoamon can mEoun ommnu Ho wane om noUHmcoo stoo oao%:m umnu vmvcsonmm szumHmEoo Em H .monnmvason nHosu wanaaoum unm>o one hmnu .o>HH on Bo: mucovsum mcHHHmu %n .ome manMUIHHo wcnx hmHm on munaum mnHmno>HnHaz man cons .mucmnma nomuaoo 0n >unmno>Hcs no\ccm ooHHoa mo muHHHn inmcoamon can an nn Aomq .oaouv momma oEom cH .conm umHEnma muconma ..oH .wchson coww>nmmnmcs SH m>HH Ou mucoamnnsvon onmmn on stosm onona .oHon unannoafin cm wanHHH hwmonHm mH munmno>ncs can Hoom H mmmnm oEom SH .connmosu ansoHunma a On m>m£ nswne mucovcoamon mmoaonommn no msownmmsw .muaoEEoo Hmconnwww4 mo mucmEEoo EmuH .oz EmuH eaaaaacco--mn ancnn 130 .mnon wcwumowcnom mam muonvvm meow mo gonzo m HHm no: mnm m3 In szsonan oou .oum .xmm3m3mz .mEHH mxmu u.:oa .mconumH nswmn nuns xnmmnmn ow cHsonm so» Gama u.cmmov moHnm84 mo mnmnm cmuncs mnu Ho nampnmmna on .h.m.H mmsmomn umsh wmmnnanmucm mmnm nuns muon3 m.um53 .hmcoE mnofi mammE nonn3 momnosmmnsn mnoE mammE :mwmmmm >uHmnm>HcD man: manhmm mucmEmumum mmmnu H44 .mmcoE mmumm3 zunm unm>ncs mnsu Bo: Ho mHmmem woow m mn >m>nsm mnsy .COHummsv ansoHunma m cu m>ms ucwnfi mucmwcoammn mmocmnmmmn no mcowummsv .mucmEEoo Hmconquu4 mo mquEEoo EmnH .oz EmuH vmwsHocoolnmm mHan 131 .moHHom nwwuoz .mmmcoammn annEwm wo nmnEDZ « .mmoamnnsumwv oHHnsa wanmsmo mnm mmwnnma .mucmvsum amss >uwmnm>wcb .mucmnma cam mncmvSum anmz mnu numucoo vHsonm mnmc3o unmannma4 NH .mconumwon> 3mH HmaHEHno no HH>Ho now nmuow>aoo muamwsum msafimonwwo umcnmwm cowuom .mmcmwwo mEmm now oBu uoc ti cho numEnmwcsa mco mnmcHHaHomnc mxmu vHsosm mnwmnm>wcb mnH mH .893 new .332 uwmcoammn wo wm>Homnm mn vHsonm xuwmnm>was man mam mncmnma wo cowmmnfinma cmunnn3 nuns no muHsom mm an on zmnn msaEmouwwo m>oE mucmcsum cm£3 .mmwuw>wuom msafimouao mam unamvmom now mHnwmcoammn mn stonm muwmnm>was man m>memn m3 .M.o mw wcwmso: umwnnmz .mmmmmHo an wan>mnsom no m>numnmaooo nos mnm hmnu ww munmnm>nc= man Eonw vmocmamsm tam mm>HmmEmnn now mHnHmcoammn HHmnwucm mp uHsonm >mnn amLH .Hoosom mumsvmnw an meHonam mnm nmsn Hnuc: wawmso: ummw> unmasm nmnno no mmwnOOHEnoc cmzn nmnno an m>wH uHsonm muamnonm mm m>memn m3 .anzmcmwwnmsw .wucmnma on .qu wcwm: mnm mucmvsum cm£3 HOOSom Eonw vmucmamsm mp vHsonm mucmusum m>memn m3 mnemnma nomucoo stonm nuwmnm>wc3 mnH o .mmocmnwmmn ucmwsnm msafimouwwo 0n mHHmo «mnz .mmHUmenmam mEos mxma vHsosm mcmHowmhna Hunmnm>nab H mucmEEoo EmuH .oz EmnH .mcsum mwnn co mm: m>ms unwne mucmucoammn mnn cowummsd ansonunmm ham on muonuommn no mucmEEoo Hmaownwwwm .mCOHCHao msn wo wanHano m mw mHSH ”aoHummsd cam ammo man On mmmcoammm mucmnmm .qn mHQMH 132 .yoamwm ucmEmonowcm BmH nmaonm mnu on muamcsnm msaamouwwo ya amH .cmnwnuo: ma vHsosm mncmnma may wo mm: man nnommn cHsonm yuwmnm>HcD may no .amH HH>Ho wo conanow> .mnamvsnm wo mntm an an amn3 yoammm ncmEmonowcm 3mH .cmnwnnoc mp cHsonm mnamnma may nmmona mnu numuaoo cHsonm ynnmnm>wcs may Ho .yucmwm ncmamonowam SmH nmmonm on mamsnwnme wo .vmnwwuon ma vHsosm mucmnma may mm: man unoamn vHsonm ynwmnm>wca may 00 .cowmn> uanSm uncannz m>nH on nwsocm mnsumfi cam vHo an m: meSmmm ma cHsonm an nmmm :nnsow man no mnmmy mmnnu now vnoomn voow m mm: namusum Hmsvw>nvan am wH .mmn3nmsuo cm>ona Hnuc: umnmsnu mm on zwsocm vHo ma nave mam mncmvsnm zyma: mm yHuoHnnm .yHco mmmoansa mp vHsonm mucmvsum msmfimouwwo unconanswmn Snow zunma now mncmfinnmam ncmn on mncmu alumnsmvnmmn mamEmoiao mnm mnamvsnm wn mama mnny usnm BoHHm nos cHsonm ynnmnm>wc3 may mm .nmmnnm .mnamusum msafimouwwo wo .mncmnmm ya pmnnomasm no\ncm HN nmuc: wH mncmnma ywnnoc stonm ynwmnm>wcb mny mm .mmcoo wanmson monowam cam mwanHm3v Nuz .uHsonm ynnu msafimouwwo nomaman vHsonm >uwmnm>ncb mny qw .ucmmcoo .mnamnma nsoznna nmmy amanmmnw man nmnwm mmoono amen .nmmm mnoEonaom nmnw4 mnms3 m>nH on vm3oHHm mp stosm mnsmvsum om mucmaaoo EmuH .oz amuH coacnucco--an anaan 133 Huz .yccmnyn onEocoom can ynmme noon .conn umnncmm noon Eonw mncmvsnm man nomnona On mvnmvamnm wawmsoa msafimouwwo amHHamnmm OHsoam ynwmnm>ncs may .mnnmnm>was man ya wmnonncoe.mnmEnHO HmnoE HHmnm>o man ann3 mmnnnnoansm Hn>wo man on nme ma vHsoam mnommmnwmcmny .mHmnoE On Onmwmn an mnHOOm mHanmaoammn mm wmnmmnn ma cHsoam mnamvsnm .wan>nH knonwfinou an :Ownomnona wO mnmmy mnoanmom man yHanmmom mam nmnnw man nmnwm nman Hmmw m3 .wchHnsa man nsoawsonan nmwanyo xooH man mwamaonmncn on Oman Ooow m ma OHsos nH hHHmsno4 .mymx 03n wanmmwe man mHnnw man m>mw mam nOmEnnmam man On mEmo ncmcmn mHmE nmEnow m nman mamms 3mw 4 .nsow wo nso mymx 03n amnansw yaco OHOOO cnOchmH may .ymx wcnmmna man ann3 noon man :nan nsa an nmw anwnsa man Ont ymz nmano nmaz .ammo nnman HHm wo Omaaon mnt mHnHw man HHm an wm>oE mncmpsnm Bmc cma3 ..mn .mmmmH nnman wO cam man nm mymx an ansn nos on yman cma3 unmannmam man wan>mmH mncmcsnm so ammanw ma OHsoam mcnw y>mma 4 .Eocmmnw mm HHmB mm mnananmcommmn m>ma mman mnnHmmn mnamvsnm mama mam mncmnma Enowan .man wo nso nmw yman wnuumwcnz nwman mnn Eman an nsa .namEmOnowam 3mH .mvnoHOOmH ann3 mmnsamna an wanxoma m.ynwm unm>ncs man anHB mam conmn>nmasm wo mmnwmv OmnnEHH m m>ma vHsoam AamwnnmEcsv mnampsnm mDQEmouwwO xanan H .aonnmmsv.an:onnnmm m on m>ma nawna mncmvcoammn mmocmnmwmn no mconnmmsu .mnamEEoo Hmsonnnvv4 mo mncmEBOU EmnH .Oz EmnH eaaanncco--en anaan 134 niz .msmH HmooH man Onoyma manmen OHsoam no cmo ynwmnm>was man nman mmm n.aov H .mnwo no ynwcssfioo HmOOH man wo mcowanmen cam mzmH man :wanw3 vaucma ma OHOOam wcwmsoa asaemouwwo mmmanmsa waannsa msaamo :wwo: man Oncn wannmncm no: mam mncmvsnm man wcwnmosum on conncmnnm mnoE yma on mamma ynnmnm>ncs man nman me on mammm nH .mEmHaonm ycmfi m>Hom HHHS mncmasnm ya yannanmaoammn wo mmamm wconnm m mam mmfimm :anou aconnmosvm nnman now ynnmnm>nas man anns mama yman mnomnncoo man wo yam mm mcnvana mm nmsn mnm anomnn uaoo wcwmsoa mDQEmOnwwO nman mumemn nm:E mncmasnm .Eovmmnw mnoE now wcnammnom mnamusnm m>ma HHns mnnmnm>nas man ya Omasmmm ynanaanOammn aoaa ooy .nma no Ena anHB nso In ynnmnm>wcs man wananmen ann3 mocmwnooom an m>mama n.ammoa namwsnm m wH .EmHHmaam> awanmmnm .namammmnma .mHHmO mcoaamHmn mamomao wo mm: .mHamem now .comnmm nmanonm on Hawanma no .ndmomaaw .HmmmHHH mn now>mama mmOaB namusnm mam Hmaxm vasoam ynnmnm>wns may .wcwmsoa msaamonao mm: aHsoam mcownom nwman now mHaHmaomwmn mHHmme noa mnm mam Hm nmna: mnm oa3 mmoay .mmooao yman OHsoam .wanmsoa msaamonwwo mm: OHsoam HN nm>o mncmvsnm nman m>mema H .connmmsv ansownnmm m on m>ma nawnE mnamvcoammn mmocmnmwmn no muonnmmsw .mncmEEoo Hmconnwvv4 mo mncmEEQU EmnH .oz EmnH unaannaoo--an anann 135 .nmanwm an whoa now cowmw>nmasm no aHma on an mnman nincmEnnmam cam anon cmmsnma mocmnmwwnv o: mmm Omo H .mxnme ynonomwmwnmwas nmw On manmma no mamm ma mmmHa: moamvwsm on mnmw ma .mnSnQE n.cmw oa3 moa man aHma sm>mma mam manna HHm anns an asonan an awe nammnw may .mcn>nH Hmcownsnnnmcn on mnoEun:man: On mocmHaEmmmn Os yHmnOHomam an mnmay ”mm>HmmEman On mHanmcoammn yHao Emma mncmvsnm .mEnov mmman oncn ow cam mEOo hue nmnumnmao mHamnnmmOc: mam .aowmw> unmmsm Mflmwflfl om m>ma msaamu no mEnOO mwan may .nmoo HHmEm nm Omnnmmmn cmma m>ma stoo nwmao amwmfimu man an mHoa HHmEm m cma3 nnmao 3mc m wo nmoo man ncmvsnm man mmnmao On nmmmcmfi namEnnmmm now nHchs mm3 nw men mao n4 .aownmmsv anaownnma .mmnnnHHOmw nmo wcnxnma now namoxm mcnw wmxn03 nn m on m>ma nawnE anamccoammn mmoamnmwmn mam manmsoa usaEmouwwo an mnmmy an vm>HH com nso no wconnmmsv .mncmEEOO Hmaonnnav4 no mncmEEoo EmnH .oz EmnH nacancaco--an anann 136 .mmmcoammn anHEnm wo nmafiaz * .cownmnnamauoo mcwnwanaona maown ymconnoEm cam yanmnoE manmen no» cmo 30m umHmen on m>ma stOam ynwmnm>nas may Nm .wcwnmnwamauoo msafimouwwo mnamcsnm wo .mnmmm Hm nmwas wH mncmnma Enowaw vHsoam ynnmnm>wcs may on .nmmnnm .mnnmvsnm msaamouwwo wo “yHco HN nmacs mn namasnm amaz mncmnma ywwno: vHsoam ynwmnm>wcb may mm .mamsnnnma manna mnm mncmasnm Omas Nuz .mnmmy HN nmvcs wH mnamnmm nomnaoo OHOOam ynwmnm>nab may 0N Nuz .mmasnwnnm namEnnmam mwcmao .mawnmnwamauoo now wncmc vHso3 namEmonowam nsa wcnan Hmaomnma m mnm mHmnOz nanm mOHHanomnO vHsoam ynnmnm>wab may HN .mnnas unmaamnmasm wannmnmao yHmson>ao mnm oaB mnmc3o yam wo mnamvsnm man Enowcw on ynsa m.ynnmnm>na5 man ma .mncmwsnm OHsoam nn nman xanan H nsa .mnnEHH wwo mnwcs onwwomam On :mnHEwH wwo: mwanHm3a momHa On mOmHa on nnnmnm>ncs man wo nawnn man connmmsv OHso3 H nawnn man m>ma OHsoam ynnmnm>ncb may 0H .nma wanna mnm mnamvsnm amaz «an .mnmm> HN nmacs wH mncmnmm nomncoo OHsoam ynwmnm>naa may 0 mnOmEEOU EmnH .oz EmnH .nvsnm mnan co uma m>ma nawnE mnamvaoammn man connmmsv ansonnnma yam On muonnommn no mnamEEOO Hmsonnnnwm .maOncnaO man wo wannano m mn away "cownmmad cam ammo man On mmmcommmm mnmaso namEnnmm¢ .my mHamy 137 .50» acmay .mmmnmw m noc cam meoa mnamnmm mna CH wCH>HH mnt ma wH mm ncmEnnmam am an m>HH anoam mm .awna mn mncmvsnm now ncmn yaa wo mnmsm ma OHsoam mm .ynno mam .OnOchmH .Hooaom man On maonnmeHaO mHa wo msafimouwwo ncmpsnw man mnmoscm On ynnmnm>ncs man ya mama naEmnnm mEOm ma uHsoam mnmay .ncmcsnm man now aonsno m no: an Anmano yam nOV ynnmnm>ws= mnay .cownom Hn>no nmwwsm no mcnam on know mHa m.nH .cowammw ynOnmEnowaH am an yHco nsa ..Onm .HoaOOHm .mwsna wcw u>HO>aH m3mH Hn>no man wo mncmusnm man yano: OHsoam ynnmnm>nas man Hmmw H .Eman ya OmnHEHH ma non nsa mnmanmnmmm now ynnmnm>ncs man On anSn On mHam ma OHsoam ncmvsnm may .mmmamwwo mam chHnom HH>HO .mnwwmame namEnnmam anw3 mnmwnmnaH no Hump mHnomnHO nos nsa aosm wcnxmmm mnemosnm mmoan On connomnwa mam aHma nmwwo .nmnmmm amo ynnmnm>ncs may .mamNHHHO mason namnamamOcH wo m>HanHOaH mmnnHHHaHmcoammn man masmmm vHsoam msaEmouwwo mnamusnm man m>mHHma H .ynnmnm>nas man ya amnmnm mm mnm mnmoo Om.mmfi mmmmmm.man mw.mw anO 530 mnw mmHHaasm mnwmnm>was man MN wanmsoa msaEmOuwwo an mmwnmao nnmamn cam mmemO mnmnnnanm mam mmmmmm mmw Hmccomnma ynnmnm>ncb .mmco nmnnma man anHB connnnmano awsonan mOmHa nmxnmfi man an HHmw namEnnmam nonnmwcn man an .mwchHHDa ncmEnnmam 3mc wO wancmmmmH m mmsmo HHH3 :mmwnanmncm mmnw: nHman mam mnmczo ncmEnnmam co mOOHnOHnnmmn ys4 .connmmsv anDOHnnma m on m>ma nawHE mncmacoammn mmocmnmwmn no maoHnmmsu .mncmEEoo Hmconnwoa4 mo mncmEEOO EmnH .Oz EmnH ecaanncco--mn enann 138 .nmanmoaoo HHm wo mnawwn man so wcnwcHnwcH mam musnnnnm Hmanmnma m wanasmmm mnm soy mmmnm maoo cH .mmmcwmsa nnman wo nso mmoa mnn mmma cam mnamasnm mmman now connosnnman wo connoasw mnH HHHstw znwmnm>ncs man an yHHmOHwHommm .msaamo no Eman mmmx no Eman nmsnn nmanwm .anwm cm ma nmsa .OOHnHOmeO ya .ma msaamouwwo m>HH on OmBOHHm an namusnm m mono .OmamnHoam ma ncmannmmmv mnan mamaaoomn OH303 H on mannoam on an mnman ymnoy .mwmnnoam m mmz mnman OmaB manmsoa wcHOH>onm wo mmoansa mnn nm>nmm mma nsmannmamv wanmsoa msaemo uwwo man nman m>mHHma H .cOnnmNHOmwno asaEMO m wo aHma man nsoanns wanmsoa mnmscmom vcnw HHH3 mSQEmO uwwo m>nH on wannnmmc namcsnm man nman mmnnnHHOmw msafimouwwo 3mm wo mmmmnOaH man anns nman Hmmw H an .mmnoamwm Hmnamacnm>ow ansmmn man On ynno man wO ..Onm .maonnomamaw .chnanswmn man m>mmH can msafimo man on mmHnH>HnOm wananswmn cam wcHOHHoa nHman mcnwcoo OHsoam yman nman mam msaEmo man so Eman now nso nso aOn nHman mma mnnm unm>Hcs man nman mH meHma >2 .wcnmsoa mnmamonwwo wcnonHoa cam .ncmvsnm man now mon>nmm Hmme mmnw wanon>ona .mmmmmH wcnzmna .mcmHa wcHaHHOa wanan uawmn no mcnmn>vm wmmanmsa o: m>ma ymay .nnowwm wO conanHHasv m ma anos on OHsoo ynnmnm>ncs man wcnan uyc4 .mmnocmwm AnOanmen nnasoo cam mnmnm .ynno m>ma m3 mnnmcconnmmsv nsoy so Omnm>ou mmmnm nmoE OH .aonnmmsw anOOHnnma m on m>ma nawHE mncmvaoammn mmocmnmwmn no muonnmmsc .mnsmEEOo HmaOHnHOu4 mo mnOmEEoo EmnH .Oz EmnH annancacoi-mn annnn 139 .mmwn vma m mmmsHm .HoaOOHm wo mm: man mcHnHaHaona muonn mnm mHammonowamas yHHmnncmmmm mnm aOHa3 muonanswmm answmn o: m>ma vHsoam ynnmnm>ncp may mm .aoHnmnHamanoo waHnHaHaona mfiOHn .mHan now mHmHOwao nmano mnm mnmay answmn oc m>ma OHsoam ynwmnm>HcD may Nm .Bman OH waH>HH .mwcHHHmza Eonw mncmusnm ncm>mna On nawnn man m>ma mman msaemouwwo an mwnmwcmnm ynmwmm nma acnan n.aOO H nuanumwmmcs .ammHoas mnm yman nman nona now nomamcw cHsoam ynnmnm>HcD may on sonnmfinowan man anwz mncmvsnm mOH>Ona cam wncmfi .mwaHHHmsv unnmam nomamcn nawHE ynnmnm>nas man .mmaoo wanmsoa msaamoawwo an manmwamnm mnmnnnmm nma mnH monowcm no: mmoc wawmamH nmmm wO mnHO man wH nona now nommman vHsoam ynwmnm>wcs may ya .nmysmH Onma ynnmnm>wss m Eonw nuaonnmncmmmnamn Hmme nocauwanmmasoo Hmme nmm .mnamvsnm On mHam ma on Eman now HawaHma ma OHsos nH acnan H mOQEmouwwo on mon>pm Hmme now nmanmnmn nsa Wynnmnm>nas man wo ynHHHaHmcoammn m no: mH mnay so nmy3mH m ammx mHsoam ynwmnm>HOD may on .Hooaom Eonw wan3mnvann3 mam ncmawmna mnm oaB mwm wo mnmmy .Oa mmHBnmano HN nmcas mncmwsnm mHmEmw mech wo Mao .mHmanOanHB nmano now ncmm mn connmonwnnoc wH mncmnma mwwno: OHsoam ynnmnm>ncs may on .ncmmcoo .mncmnma nsoannz nmmm cmEammnw man nmnwm mmooao yman mnmaB .ym3 mna mmma ma wH m>HH on Om3OHHm ma OHsoam mncmvsnm ON mnamEEOU EmnH .Oz EmnH .mvsnm mnan co ama m>ma nawHE mnampcoammn man connmmsv anOOHnnma yam On mconnommn no mncmEEoo Hmconnnvum .mconcnao man wo waHHHaEOO m mH mnay "connmmsd cam ammo man On mmmcoammm yanomm .oy mHamy 140 m>HnmanmnHm am mm wanwsoa msaEmO nco ncmHOwasm mOH>ona on mHam wanma m.%nnmnm>wcs man wO connmasmmm man so Omnonumna mnm mnmama4 .m>nn nmwms man an vmoamHmannm>o mnm Amnonoov .mnmyzmHv Omnmwwo mmOH>nmm m>HnHmoa nmas "wcwwsoa mnmamo awwo an mHon o: m>ma nwsfi ynnmnm>nas man wcnmsom ammo wo nownamoxm man anH3 nman OOHOHQO 5E mw nH .ncmO isnm mnnmnm>nas m wo nsmnma man Em H Ocmuuwawmsoa namOSnm flflm anw3 yuan OO OHso3 H .wsnnnnmyama now nos mam aonmmmmn and wcnaommn now vmvamnnw cam On OmnHEnH mnm ynnmnm>nas man wo mmonsommn may .mmmawmsa nso wo mcos mn nn nsanama yms mman aona3uuamncHHao mnm hman awsoan mm mnamvsnm wannmmnn wo mco mH muHHmsmH> H nman mnsnosnnm may .Eman now mmon>nmm mvn>ona no Eman anH3 mnmwnmnan nmannmc OHOoam sz .yHOO mmmmmmm.on mHaHmaoammn ma vHsoam sz .HN nmano .HN nm>o wnamvsnm wo mm>HH mnm>Hnm Eonw nnmam chEmn vHsoam ynwmnm>ncb anniz .ynnmnm>ncs man ya OmEsmmm ma non nmsa mnmamunwwo namEmonOwam cam .OOHanOH> wo mmmo OH OOHnsommona now ynHHHaHm naoammm .mvoo HmaHEHnO tam HH>HO mEmm man On nomnasm .ynmwoom wo mnmaEmE mnm :mnamusnm: nman me on mammm nH .mmmcoammn anHEHm wo nmaE:z « .aonnmmsw ansonnnma m on m>ma nawnE mnCmvaommmn mmocmnmwmn no mconnmmsv .mnamEEoo Hmaonnnvv4 mo mnamEEOU EmnH .oz EmnH enacnncoo--cn anann 141 .mmman nnoamn vHsoam nH .maonnom nHman now ynHHHaHmcoammn Hst mamn on mnnmv usnm monow anoam mam connmosvm namoxm mmnnH>Hnom HHm wo nso nmw uHsoam ynnmnm>wcs man nman m>mema H .aonanOOm am ammm On mnomHm oa3 hoa m amnamv mnawwn m>ma mam ynOnOmw m an anos cmo >oa m nman aOHan On mE on namnoaam mw nH .amnwnwo nmano Ham mm m>HH on mmmen>Hna Hst m>ma OHsoam mncmvsnm man .m3mH manamnamnn now connmnnwm cam mmwoammm ncmamonowcm smH anHB sown umnmaooo HHOw Aav mam :mnncmnma OOOH an: wawvnmwmn AOHHOQ ynnmnm>nss wo mwumH3oca .mnsmnmm Amv wO nxmncoo man awannz Aq .vmwmnsoocm ma nawns waanMH cam wchOmH nmmm an nonmamn wcnvnmwmn mamH Hmnomam mEOm .a0n man so wcmen ynHmnm>Hcs man swan nmanmn msmH monowam on mmnocmwm ncmfimonowcm 3mH mnmnm cam ynno man ammonan mananoz Am .zmnnamnmm OOOH an: wO namocoo man wo moamono>m Acmmwnnm>am szOHB acmv nonnnm 4 Am .aonansOm mHa wO mmsmo man cam ncmnsnw man On mOH>nmm AH "muonnmnmvnmaoo wan3oHHow man ya Omnomnnv ma stoam yonHoa ynnmnm>was man nman Hmmw H .mnamEmnmnm mmman an mm aosm mmHamem .ow non HHH3 ynHmnm>Hcs man nma3 cam .maownmeHao mam mnaan nnman wo mnnmnma mam mncmOSnm waHEnowcH yHnmmHo mn EmHaona man on ymx man aOHan H .cownmmsv anSOHnnma m on m>ma nawHE mnamvaommmn mmocmnmwmn no muonnmmsw .mnOmEEoo Hmconnwan4 ma mncmEEOO EmnH .oz EmnH acacnncoo--cn anann 142 .mmnnnnoansm nmaona man EnowcH nmsfi ynwmnm>wc5 man Omaona wcnma mH 3mH man wn .yHHmnmamw .anGOEEOO cam ynnmnm>na= man amm3nma nnowwm m>nn umnmmooo m m>ma yHHmmvn OHsoam nH .mHaomm mnman now mmonsommn no mmow>nmm mEom wchH>Ona ma vHsoam mcomaom .mHamnHmmO ma OHsos mnnmnm>ncs man wo nnma man do xuwHom :wwo mncma: wo tuna m nHmw H wcHOOmea man OH .mmmcoammn >5 an mocmnmwmcooan wo mmcmm m wmocmnnmaxm H .mnoaawnm: namGMEnmm mnoe mnw wo nnOwEoo tam mnawnn man On mnmwmn anns mnmo mwmnm>m cman mnoE mmnonmxm nave nm>ocnsn awna m annB sonansaoa man nman mane an wannmma .Omnomnonm ma nude ynnmnm>was man wo mam: voow man nman ANV mmm .ynHHHaHmOoammn ynnmnm>ncs man wO mwcmn man cHanwz mnm mm>HH ma aOHaB nmvc: muonnnvaoo man nman Om .mm>nnommao OHEmOmOm wo nnsmnsa mna annz mnmw unmncH xmfi aonaa mEmHaona an ncmwsnm man m>Ho>OH no: pHsoam ynnmnm>ncs man nmm: waH>HH wO moncmaoma man nman nHv mnsmcm On ma OHsoam 3mn> ynnmnm>wcs man Eonw nxmncoo mnan OH unmoaoo mHmHOaHna may .mocmmnsc OHHasa m mEooma no: mmoa Hmsan>wvan man mm waoH mm Amcmsmwnme .Hoaoon .Nmmv mnmnnma mnm>nna an Om>nmmmna ma nmsfi AHN nm>oV Hmsvn>wccn nHOOm man wo mnawnn may .mcownnmomona mmman wo name wo mmmam>nnomwwm man mcHEnman HHHB Hmasomnma m>Hnomwwm wo wCHaHMnn mam wcwnwa .nmoo wo cownmmsv man mam cnmnnma onnmnHmcnmnma nHwaonnm m an away .connmmsc ansownnma m on m>ma nawHE mncmvcoammn mmoamnmwmn no maonnmmdv .mnamEEoo Hmconnwan4 mo mnamEEOU amnH .oz EmnH ecnancaco--cn anann 143 .mmmaommmn anHEHm wo nmaEsz a .HoaOOHm wo man man wcHnHaHaonm muonn .yHaam uHsoam mconanswmn mnmnm mam ynnu annmmn on m>ma OHsoam ynnmnm>nca may mm .aonnmnwamauoo wannwanaona muonn .mnmnm man wo nman mm mEMm man ma wHOoam cOHanswmm umstmn on m>ma OHsoam ynnmnm>naa may mm .AnOnOmamnH ynHO ann3 sownoasnaoo an mamanmmv amnomamaw .mwcHHHmSc wcnma wanmsoa vnmvamnm onma wo mmocmnmcn OHwHommm mOaEmouwwo an mwnmucmnm ynmnncmm nma now Omwamnnm ma vHOoam OOHmH>Ona mfimm .zHHm: nOz none now nomaman stoam ynHmnm>HOD may yd .mcnnmnnamauoo msaEmouwwo mnamcsnm wo .HN nm>o wH noauuncmwsnm man wo mwm co admmmn OHsoz mncmnma Enowan vHsoam ynnmnm>HaD may om .OOOSHHnmE wcwm: mnm mncmvsnm OmaB .namvsnm wo mwm so muamamo mncmnma nomncoo OHsoam ynnmnm>ncb may ow an .Oonnomc m.namusnm ma .nsmmnoo .mncmnma nOOanHB nmmy vHsoam nn .nampamamvCH yHmanano wnunmocmnmnmmm amfiammnw man nmnwm mmooao yman mnma3 Hmnocmanw now namvsnm wo yocmvcmamv no wanvcmamn m>HH on OmsoHHm ma vHsoam mnsmwsnm ON .maonn «Niz anOH> BmH HmCHEHnO no HH>HO now Omnon> .ynncseaoo ynnmnm>nas man On nmmnan mHamnnchEmv uaoo mncmwsnw msaEmouwwo nmanmwm connom m nammmna ymE mmcmwwo man wo mnSnmc man mmmHGD yanHHmHOmnv mamn OHsoam ynnmnm>wcs may mH mnamEEOU EmnH .oz EmnH .ywsnm mHan so uma m>ma namHE mnamcaommmn man connmmsu ansonnnmm yam on maownommn no mncmEEoo HchHnvam .maoncnao man wo wOanano m mn mnay "connmmmd mam ammo man on mmmaommmm mnOnmnnmncHEv4 Hmcaomnmm ncmvsnm .my mHamy 144 .namnmm mam ncmcsnm man so nonnmowcseaoo wo amwnsa man mOmHa on Emma OHsoz wcwmdoa wsaemouwwo now mowoao man .nm>msoa .mnnnoansm HH>HO man On maOHnm> unmmao HmmeHH ym>noo vHsoam :amnwnnoz mHaHmaoammn mam maHH ynnmnm>nas man Hmmw H .ynmwmm mam mmwmfima .monnoonmc mm mwanan ausm now ynnnoansm Hn>no man an moamwm namamonowcm SmH mnmnnaonamm man mam mnHOOEEOO man wo nmaEmE yam wO mmHnHHHa unmaoammn mam muonnmmnHao mEMm man anamoom omHm ma msaamouwwo m>HH on mmmooao ncmvsnm m cmaB nman m0 .connmmsv anDOHnnma n m>ma nawHE mnamucoammn mmOCmnmwmn wmnHma cam connafismmm man no vmmma mnm mnmzmcm y: no muonnmmsu .mncmEEoo Hmconnnvv4 mo .yoamwm namEmOnowam BmH nma nonm man On mnamcSnm msaEmOuwwo ma awn wo mm: man nnommn mHsoam ynwmnm>nca may we .BmH .mcoHnom ya wo mncmvsnm man anm3 nawnE omHm H HH>HO wo conanon> .mncmwsnm wo mnm3m .vm>Ho>cH mncmcsnm man mam ynwasafioo mnnmnm>ncs man an nH amaB yoammm namEmonowcm 3mH nma wo nmmnmncn nmma man an mm3 nn nHmw H wn mnoesn nona man nomnaoo uHsoam ynnmnm>nca may Ho nnoamn vH503 H .m3mH wo conanOH> no .wo mm: .yocmwm nsoam Anmma H nma3 an nmanv noasn mam Ammm H nmaB ncmEmonowcm 3mH nmmonm on mamamnnme mH nmanv nomw man amm3nma moamnmwwnv m an mnmay wo mm: man nnoamn OHnoam ynwmnm>nca may co Nuz .ynHmnm>Has man nos .mmHnnma ncmmdnm msmemo .mmHnnmm namOSnm msaemouwwo yHnmuno uwwo yHnmwnomHO a: ammna anoam annnoansm HH>HU umHO a: ammna vHsoam ynHmnm>HcD may am mncmafioo EmnH .Oz EmnH enaannaco--nn anann 145 .mmmnm mmman wO mao yam an OOHnHmom wcnamn conmnomv Hmaww m an nan nos nsa ynnasaaoo man and mncmaanm aHma On namwm mon>nmw m mm ynnmnm>ncs man a: wannnmm wo no>mw an ma vHso3 H .aOHm>mv on nmm m>ma m3 aOHaB meanwona wO manna 3m: mHmancm ya cmnomwwm ma amo nH “muonanswmn ya vaHonnaoo ma non amo non>mama .nm>m30m .waH>HH mamEmouwwo On nam>mHmn mn mmsHm> mam non>mama new mnanao unamvmomuaoa wO nomwwm man nsoam Ommn m3 HHm ayHmnOm .wcwmsoa msaamouwwo anns Om>HO>OH ma vHsoam ynnmnm>nas may .cmu nH ym3 ynm>m an ynHHHaHmaoammn nman wanedmmm cnmson Ena mnmosvm nmaa mnnmnm>was man Ocm muonnom mna now ynHHHaHmcoammn HHSw mamn On mama ma nmse manmonwwo waH>HH comnma 4 .ynHOOEEOO man wo mnmaEmE nmano mum ynnasaaoo man cmnmmnan nman nmnxm aona3 mconnnuaoo mnm mnman namnmmam mmEOoma nH OmaB %HGO nsa mOHHoa man on ynwmnm>ncs man ma Omnnoamn ma OHsoam mnamOSnm ya chHanOH> u ..Onm .mwsna cam awn on wancnmnnmm mconnmmsv mmoay .om wanou OH ncmnmaEOO ma onnummmnwmu Omoam>cm nso so mcnxnos mnm m3 ma3 m.nman .HHm nmnw4 .manHm wmnmmnn ma non stoam mmmmo HH4 .mmmo Hmsvn>nvcn .connmmsv ansOHnnma man wO AmHmswn>chH .mnomwv monwwomam man we mEnmn m on m>ma nawHE mncmvcoammn mmoamnmwmn an maoHnmev mmman wo mEom nmzmam on m>ma_wH:o3 H no mOOHnmmsc .mncmEEoo Hmaonnnvv4 no mnOmEEoo EmnH .Oz EmnH emacnnacu--nn anann 146 .OmHnnmm Omma mma :ynmnoom on OonnmeHaO: mna HHnOO ynnmnm>HOO man anHB msnmnm hanoHnmaona O Oo ma OHsoam SOH HH>HO anOO cmnOH>Ooo nOmOOnm >O4 .mHHma moOmOHmmn man OH ma nOO anoam mwman awnoanHm n mnOmOOnm mOaEmouwwo now mmHnHHnomw OOm mmon>nmm mnoE mvn>ona OHsoamuOHso3 ynnmnm>HOO man nman ymm OHsos H A.onm .mmHOOmwm nOmEmonowOm 3mH .nOmEnanmv OonnmnHOmm .nonomOmOH mnww .w.mv ynnOsEEoo man Onanns :mmHoOmmm HmOnmnXm: Oo yHmn OHOOO ynnmnm>HOO man wH .ynHHHaHmOoammn yOm mma mm. MN .mHH mmOO ynHHHaHmOoawmn m.ynnmnm>HOs man mnmaB wo mnOmOO OOO nmmHoOO anoa Em H .wOHmOoa mOOEmO :wwo nnoam :mOoHnOEm OmXHE: yOmE m>ma H .mntmOm yE OH mmnoOmnmanooOn yOmE ma ymE mnman nman mNHHmmn H .nOmOOnm m nOO mnm3 yman wH ynmmmmomO ma OHsos aOHaz anOmE O OH mnmmemE nOmEnanm OOm manoHOOmH ann3 Hmmu on OnmmH anE mOOEmonwwo m>HH On mmooao oa3 mnOmOOnm nman .OOma nmano man Oo .OOm annHOOEEOO mOaEmO ynwmnm>HOO man anH3 nomnOOO nomnnv OH mH nOmOOnm man Omas nsooo aona3 non>mama nOvanm wo mnommmm mmoan .mOaEmO OO m>HH oa3 mnOmvanm mmoan On OmnHEHH ma OHOoam wOHmsoa nOmvsnm OOm mnOmOOnm nm>o ynnnoansm m.ynnmnm>HOO man nman OOHnOEOmmm man mOmE m>ma H .qoiH mOonnmmOv on wOHOOoammn OH .Oownmmsv anOOHnan m On m>ma nawHE mnOmOOOOmmn mmoOmnmwmn no mOOHnmmOO .mnOmEEOO HmOoHnHOO4 mo mnOmEEOQ EmnH .oz EmnH enacnncco-nn annnn 147 .OOnnmsnnm nman on mOOHOO mmnnHHnaanoammn man namoom On wOHHan ma OmHm anE yman mOaEmonwwo m>HH On mmmooao nOmvsnm m wH .nOmwm HmnuOmOHw m mm Om>Ho>On mEooma yman nman nOmnxm man on nOO nsauu HOOOH>HOOH man wo mnmem3 man nomwwm aonaB mnmnnmE On Om>Ho>OH ma OHsoam OOnnOnnanH man nman mmnwm OHsoa H AumnHOmmn man mmm on mOOHxO4v "wwmmmm .mmmnm mmman wo mEom nsoam wOHaOHan mEOm on on Oma yHHmmn m>.H mEHn nmnnw man an away “nmm .amow y: .Oonnmmsv anOOHnnma m on m>ma nawHE mnOmOOommmn mmocmnmwmn no mOoHnmmsv .mnOmEEoo HmOOHnHOO4 mo mnOmEEoo EmnH .oz EmnH OmuOHoOouunny mHamy 148 SUMMARY This chapter has been presented in three parts: Part One is an analysis of the data, Part Two is an analysis of the demographic infor- mation and Part Three is a presentation of the data collected in the open-ended question given to each participant in the study. To enhance the reader's interpretation of the data, the items found in Part One were grouped into four main categories: community relations, parent- university relations, student personnel services, and regulatory and law enforcement. In order to test the hypotheses statistically they were converted into their null form. Null Hypothesis I was intended to determine the differences in perceptions of the sample groups with regard to the university's responsibility toward students' off-campus living situa- tion. In comparing the responses of the sample groups, significant differences at or beyond the .05 level of confidence appeared on sixty- two out of sixty-five items included in the questionnaire. Null Hypothesis II was intended to determine the differences in perceptions of parents and their children (students in study) with regard to the university's responsibility toward students' off-campus living situa- tion. In comparing the responses of the student-parent sample, differ- ences at or beyond the .05 level of confidence appeared on fifty-seven out of the sixty-five items included in the questionnaire. A discus- sion of each item was presented. Part TWO Of this chapter presents the demographic information collected on the parent sample. The items were listed and a discussion on each item was presented. 149 Part Three lists the responses received on the open-ended question given to each participant in the study. A summary of the findings along with the conclusion and implica- tions for further study are found in the next chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Problem The primary purpose of the study was to (a) compare the percep- tions of parents, students, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel administrators with respect to the university's responsi- bility toward the off-campus students' living situation and (b) compare the perceptions of parents and students with respect to the university's responsibility off-campus. Five sample groups were identified for the purpose of determining whether there was any relationship between membership in a group, and the perception of the university's responsi- bility in the off-campus students' living situation. The five sample groups were (1) faculty, (2) parents, (3) apartment owners, (4) student personnel administrators and (5) students. The study was conducted during the fall term of 1967. At that time the instrument which was used to compare perceptions was mailed to the sample populations. Responses from the sample groups ranged from 86 per cent to 100 per cent, with a total sample return of 93 per cent. The Design and Procedure of the Study A 65 item questionnaire, based on the concerns, problems, and responsibilities commonly associated with off-campus housing, was 150 151 designed to obtain individual perceptions. The items were divided into four functionally defined areas: (1) community relations, (2) student. personnel services, (3) parent-university relations, and (4) regulatory XV) and law enforcement. On each item individuals were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the issue presented in the item was the responsibility of the university. Responses were indicated on a six point scale. The statistic chi Square was used in analyzing the data and the .05 level of confidence was used to deter- mine statistical significance. In those instances, however, where significant differences in perceptions among the comparison groups were found at the .01 level of confidence, this difference was reported also. Findings and Conclusions Findings of the study will be reported in the following way: First, those functionally identified areas where there was agreement among the (a) students, parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators' sample and (b) student-parent sample will be discussed. Second, those functionally identified areas in which there was statistical difference among the (a) students, parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators' sample and (b) the student-parent sample will be discussed. The findings will be reported under the following four headings: Community Relations, Parent-University Relations, Student Personnel Services, and Regulatory and Law Enforcement. 152 Areas of General Agreement Based on the responses to the items in Table 3, it may be con- cluded that in a very limited way there was agreement among students, parents, apartment owners, faculty, and student personnel adminis- trators with respect to the university's responsibility toward the students' off-campus living situation. In only two instances (Item 3, providing study lounges on campus for the off-campus student and Item 8, providing a list of students seeking roommates) did all of the sample groups agree. Both of these items came from the functionally defined area of student personnel services. Based on the reSponses to the items in Table 3, it can be seen that the parent-student sample also agreed only in a limited way with respect to the university's responsibility toward the off-campus stu- dent. The most agreement between parents and students were in those items containing student personnel services. For example, parents and students alike believed the university had a responsibility for: (1) providing a list of students seeking roommates, (2) providing bail bond for students arrested, (3) providing legal counsel for students arrested, (4) keeping a lawyer on retainer for students' use, (5) per- mitting off-campus students to use residence hall facilities, and (6) permitting students, after their freshman year to live where they choose. It should be noted that all sample groups were in agreement with more items relating to student personnel services than items in the other areas (ie., community relations, parent-university relations, or regulatory and law enforcement). The above discussion represents 153 the areas of general agreement while the following areas are those where statistical differences appeared. Areas of Difference Community Relations Students, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel adminis- trators, with few exceptions, disagreed with parents with regard to the university's responsibilities off-campus in the area of community rela- tions. Parents, for example, tended to believe that the university has a responsibility for (a) acting as consultants for Off-campus building and approving apartment managers, (b) requiring or providing uniform rental contracts, and (c) acting as arbitrator and an interested third party in all off-campus leasing conflicts. Students, faculty, apart- ment owners and student personnel administrators did not feel that the university should be involved in these areas. It is not surprising that parents believed that the university should be involved in the rental agreements in light of the fact that many apartment owners require parents as co-signers for off—campus students' apartment con- tracts. Perhaps parents feel that the university will protect their interests. The reSponsibility for inspection of Off-campus dwellings for proper safety and sanitary conditions and the assessment of damages to off-campus units by the university was viewed by parents as the univer- sity's responsibility. Apartment owners, students, student personnel administrators and faculty, on the other hand, most often felt that the 154 university should not have responsibility for these areas. Apartment owners did differ from students, faculty, parents and student personnel administrators when it came to the issue of holding students from registration and the distribution of their grades for damages and/or rental debts for off-campus apartments. Apartment owners favored a position of holding students and not distributing their grades whereas the other groups disagreed with this position. This can be seen as an expected position by the apartment owners because if the university withheld students and their grades, the apart- ment owner would have a lever of control over the student and it would guarantee the apartment owners collection of delinquent accounts. All of the sample groups agreed that the university should estab- lish some kind of council of apartment owners, university staff and city officials to arbitrate off-campus housing problems. This was one of the few areas of agreement among the sample groups in the area of community relations. Apartment owners and parents favored a position of informing the university of disorderly parties causing a public disturbance and of having the university disperse such parties. Faculty, students and student personnel administrators strongly believed that this was not the university's responsibility and the university should not be informed of and involved in dispersing dis- orderly parties causing a public disturbance. It can be concluded that parents feel that the university has some responsibility to be involved in (a) the approval of Off-campus apart- ment managers, (b) the rental agreement between apartment owner and students, (c) being informed of and dispersing disorderly parties in the community and (d) the inspection of off-campus dwellings for proper 155 safety and sanitary conditions. The students, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel administrators in the study favored a position of not having the university assume responsibility in these areas. In comparing the parent-student sample it was evident that parents and students differed greatly with regard to the amount of university involvement they felt that the university should assume in a student's off-campus living situation. Parents and students differed in the area of having the university assume responsibility for (a) the selection and hiring of managers, (b) providing or requiring rental agreements, (c) acting as third party and final arbitrator in contract disputes, (d) inspecting off-campus dwellings, (e) assessing damages, (f) with- holding students from registration, and (g) dispersing disorderly parties. For the area of community relations it can be concluded that parents hold the greatest expectations of involvement and responsih bility for the university in the students' off-campus living situation. Students and faculty hold the least expectations for the university in this area. Student personnel administrators' and apartment owners' expectations fell midway between these two positions with both groups tending to be more in sympathy with the faculty-student position. Parent-University Relations In reviewing the results of the parent-university relations items it was immediately apparent that the sample groups differed greatly with respect to their perceptions of the university's responsibility in this area. A polarizing effect seemed to take place, with parents and 156 apartment owners taking one extreme and students taking the other. Faculty and student personnel administrators' responses generally fell somewhere between these two positions. Parents and apartment owners strongly agreed that the university has the responsibility to contact parents when students are (a) using LSD and marijuana, (b) arrested and/or convicted of civil law, (c) co- habitating, and (d) withdrawing from school because of pregnancy. Students, on the-other hand, strongly disagreed in all of these areas and felt that this was not the university's responsibility. Only on one issue did parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators generally agree. This was the issue of the single female student under 21 withdrawing from the university because of pregnancy. In this situation the four groups favored con- tacting parents when the student was withdrawing. Faculty and student personnel administrators tended to agree with students (that parents should not be contacted) in regard to students' arrest and co-habitation. On the other hand, in the areas of a student's conviction of a civil crime and the use of narcotics, faculty and student personnel administrators tended to agree with apartment owners and parents that parents should be contacted. In neither case, however, was there a strong position taken by either group in favor of contacting or not contacting parents. Student personnel administrators and faculty took their strongest position on the item dealing with student co-habitation. Both groups firmly support a position of not contacting parents when students are known to be co-habitating. It can generally be concluded from the responses that parents and apartment owners expect the university to contact parents with regard 157 to the items found in this area. Students strongly oppose this position and feel that parents should not be contacted. Faculty and student personnel administrators fall between these two positions, and agree or disagree more with regard to the individual item. Generally, it can be said that faculty tend to support the position taken by parents on these issues whereas student personnel administrators gener- ally tend to support the students position. Student Personnel Services Of the 14 items in the section defined as Student Personnel Services, students, parents, faculty, student personnel administrators and apartment owners all agreed on four items, and disagreed on two items. The majority of all the sample groups agreed that the univer- sity should (a) provide lunchroom facilities on campus for the Off- campus student, (b) encourage the development of a formal student government, (c) provide an advisor for this group and (d) publish a list of apartments not meeting university standards. On the other hand, the sample groups disagreed that the university has a responsi- bility to (a) screen and match possible roommates for vacancies, and (b) provide bail bond for students arrested. Student personnel admin- istrators and parents were more often in favor of encouraging the development of a student government and providing an advisor than were the students, apartment owners and faculty. Apartment owners, faculty, and student personnel administrators all agreed that the university should not be responsible for providing (a) an attorney to give legal advice to students arrested (b) legal counsel for students arrested and (c) bail bond for students arrested. 158 Students agreed with these groups with respect to providing bail bond and making legal counsel available to students. Parents disagreed that legal counsel and bail bond should be offered. On the other hand, both parents and students agreed with providing legal advice and feel that this should be the university's responsibility. The majority of students, parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators agreed that the university should publish a list of apartments not meeting university standards, yet none of these groups favored a position of having the university screen and match possible roommates for off-campus living. Parents, apartment owners, faculty, and student personnel administrators were in favor or having the university provide home owners insurance for the off-campus student, but not in favor of a special orientation program for incoming transfer students. Students did not see the need for a special orien- tation program or insurance for the off-campus student. Parents were the only group in favor of having the university provide student lockers on campus for the off-campus student. They also were the only group which favored having university physicians available to visit a student's off-campus living quarters. Students and parents agreed that the off-campus student should have access to on campus residence hall facilities. Apartment owners, faculty and student personnel adminis- trators disagreed on this issue. Student personnel administrators indicated strong disagreement with respect to (a) allowing the off-campus student the use of residence hall facilities and (b) having the university physician make visits to the off-campus residences. The majority of students, parents, apartment owners and student personnel administrators were generally in 159 favor of a formal or informal course in apartment living. Faculty were divided on this item with a majority of them disagreeing that such a course was needed. In reviewing the items found in the functionally defined area of student personnel services, two trends immediately came to the attention of the author. First, the greatest number of no opinion responses were registered in this area. Second, the sample groups were more divided with respect to selecting one particular response or position of agree, disagree, or no opinion. Except for a few items, the percentage of a particular sample group selecting a position of agree or disagree was smaller for this area than the other three areas included in this study. In comparing the responses of parents and students, the majority of both groups chose the same response on nine out of the fourteen items. They chose different responses on five items. The majority of parents were in favor of providing (a) a special orientation program for the off-campus transfer student, (b) storage lockers on campus for the off-campus student, and (c) a university physician for home visita- tion. Students did not agree with their parents with respect to these items. Students did favor having the university provide (a) home owner's insurance to cover fire, theft and damage to the personal belongings of the off-campus student, and (b) legal counsel for the off-campus student. The majority of parents disagreed with students with respect to these items. Except for the above differences, parents and students generally were in agreement with regard to the university's responsibility for providing the student personnel services included in this section. In reviewing this area it can be concluded that parents and 160 students generally indicated the greatest concern for having the university accept the responsibility for providing the student personnel services discussed in this section. On the other hand, faculty showed the least concern for these services. The position of student personnel administrators and apartment owners in this section fell between the positions of parents, students, and faculty. Except for some isolated items, generally the samples did not take as firm a stand on the items found in this area as they did in the parent-university relations, com- munity relations, and regulatory and law enforcement areas. Regulatory and Law Enforcement In reviewing the results of the regulatory and law enforcement items, it was immediately apparent that the sample groups differed greatly with respect to their perceptions of the university's responsi- bility in this area. Although the groups differed with respect to their responses in this area they generally agreed on five out of the twenty-one items. Students, parents, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel administrators were inclined to disagree with the idea of the univer- sity having no housing regulations for students. They also disagreed with the idea of allowing students, after their freshman year, to live off-campus in housing of their choice without parents' consent. On the other hand, the majority of these sample groups indicated that after their freshman year, students should be allowed to live in off-campus housing of their choice HELD parents' consent. It would appear from these results that all of the sample groups favor having housing regu- lations for freshman students and allow students, after their freshman 161 year, to make their own housing choice wigh their parents approval. The majority of all of the sample groups disagreed with forbidding members of the opposite sex to enter students' living quarters Off— campus. At the same time they all favored having the apartment owners notify the proper law enforcement agency when student parties are causing a public disturbance. Students tended to disagree with parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators on six out of the twenty- one items found in this area. Parents, apartment owners, faculty and student personnel administrators indicated that the university should (a) contact the proper law enforcement agency when the university is aware of violations of civil law, (b) contact the proper law enforce- ment agency in cases where residences are known places of narcotics use, (c) report the use of LSD by off-campus students to the prOper law enforcement agency, (d) report the use of marijuana to the proper law enforcement agency, and (e) inform students of the state laws with respect to the use of LSD and marijuana. On the other hand, fifty per cent or more of all of the students who responded disagreed with respect to the above items. Faculty members showed an appreciable amount of disagreement on the items pertaining to reporting the use of marijuana and informing students of the state laws with respect to the use of LSD and marijuana. It should be noted that between thirty and forty per cent of all of the students responding indicated agreement with the items. It appears from these results that there is a sizeable percentage of students who disagree with parents, faculty, apartment owners, and student personnel administrators with respect to the violation of civil 162 law and the use of marijuana and LSD, but by no means did an over- whelming majority of students disagree. Apartment owners and parents were inclined to agree that students should be disciplined for co-habitation or for renting apartments for party purposes only. Students, faculty, and student personnel adminis- trators did not seem to be too concerned about these two issues. Stu- dents and faculty were more often in disagreement about disciplining students for co-habitation and not letting students rent apartments for party purposes than were the student personnel administrators. Parents tended to disagree with students, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel administrators on four issues. Parents were inclined to indicate that the university should (a) place apart- ments "off limits” when not meeting university standards, (b) take disciplinary action against students Off-campus, arrested and con- victed, (c) have authority to require students to move out of off- campus apartments, and (d) have some regulations which prohibit the use of alcohol in off-campus student housing. Although apartment owners disagreed with parents on all of these issues, they were fairly divided with regard to their responses. A sizeable percentage of apartment owners sided with parents on most of these issues. It should be noted also that a large percentage of faculty and student personnel adminis- trators sided with parents with respect to the university placing "off limits" those apartments that have not met established university standards. Parents and students tended to disagree with respect to the univer- sity having regulations prohibiting co-habitation Off-campus, placing homes "off limits" for discrimination and giving the university the 163 right to place off-campus dwellings "off limits” to students. Parents were more often in favor of having regulations prohibiting co-habitation and giving the university the right to place some units "off limits" to students. Students, on the other hand, felt the university should have no regulations against co-habitation and should not have the right to place dwellings "off limits". Apartment owners, faculty, and student personnel administrators were quite divided on these issues. Apartment owners tended to be more concerned with respect to placing units "off limits" for cases of discrimination than were parents, student personnel administrators or faculty. Faculty and student personnel administrators tended to be more equally divided (agreement or disagreement) with respect to giving the university the right to place units "off limits" and having units placed ”Off limits” for discrimination. Apartment owners and student personnel administrators more often supported the parents' position regarding regulations which prohibit co-habitation. Faculty most often tended to support the students by agreeing that there should be no regulations which prohibit co-habitation. In comparing the responses of students and parents, the majority of both groups agreed on only four items. Parents and students felt that the university should have some housing regulations and were generally against allowing students, after their freshman year, the option of moving into housing of their choice without parents' consent. At the same time both groups were in favor of allowing students, after their freshman year, to move into housing of their choice, if they had parents' consent. Both groups felt that the responsibility for notify- ing the local law enforcement agency in cases where parties were causing a public disturbance should be entrusted to the apartment owners. 164 The three areas where the greatest amount of disagreement was evident between parents and students was (a) the placing of apartment units "off limits," (b) the co-habitation by off-campus students, and (c) allowing students off-campus to rent apartments for party purposes only. Parents strongly agreed that the university should have the right to place units "off limits" for not meeting established univer- sity standards. Students, however, felt that this was not the univer- sity's responsibility. Parents felt strongly that the university should have regulations which prohibit co-habitation and that students co-habitating should be disciplined. Students felt that the university Should not be concerned and that it has no responsibility with regard to the co-habitation issue. Students firmly believe that the univer- sity should allow students to rent apartments for party purposes only. Their parents, however, firmly disagreed on this matter. In summary, parents and students tended to disagree on the majority of the items found in this section. It can generally be concluded from the responses to the questions found in the regulatory and law enforcement area that the same polari- zation seemed to take place as was true in the parent-university relations area. Parents and apartment owners were at one extreme maintaining the greatest expectations of involvement and responsibility for the univer- sity in the regulatory and law enforcement area. Students, on the other hand, were at the other extreme with the least expectations for the university in this area. The position of student personnel adminis- trators and faculty on this section fell between the positions of parents and students. The faculty's position tended more in the 165 direction of the stand that students held, whereas the student personnel administrators' position tended more toward the stand of the apartment owners and parents. Over all, student personnel administrators and faculty tended to support the position of apartment owners and parents more often then they tended to support the position of the students. Implications for Further Study This study concerned itself with students, parents, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel administrators at Michigan State University. Perceptions of these selected groups with respect to the University's responsibility off-campus at other institutions would be helpful. Differences based on (a) the educational philosophy of the school, (b) the comparison of the student body, (c) the geographical location of the institution, (d) whether it is a public or private institution, and (e) the size of the school might be very apparent. A study utilizing in-depth interviews with these selected groups to gain further insight into the causes for difference in their per- ceptions would be helpful in the further understanding of the opinions these groups have regarding University policy formulation for the off- campus student. It would be helpful if an institution using the same sample groups would carry on a longitudinal study over a period of years and compare the results to see if any changes in perceptions take place. A broader study might be conducted utilizing the total student community (i.e., students living in Residence Halls, Fraternities, Cooperatives, and Supervised Off-Campus Housing). It might also be 166 helpful to isolate the student sample by class standing as well as place of residence. Using the same instrument, a study might be con- ducted where student and parent populations were selected by their socio-economic position and geographic location in the state. All of the above deviations from this present study would be most helpful in furthering the institution's understanding of what expecta- tions parents, students, faculty, apartment owners and student personnel administrators have for the University with respect to regulating the off-campus student's living situation. BIBLIOGRAPHY 10. ll. BIBLIOGRAPHY "A Handbook For Students," Michigan State University, Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs in cooperation with Associated Students of Michigan State University. 1968. American Council on Education. Housing 9f Students. Vol. 14, No. 14, Series 6. Washington D. C.: American Council on Education, July 1950. Association of College and University Housing Officers. 1965 Report 92_Noninstitution-Owned Housing. Report of the Off- Campus Housing Cbmmittee on Student Housing. Ferris State College, Michigan: Association of College and University Housing Officers. 1965. Bakken, Clarence J. "The Legal Basis for College Student Person- nel WOrk" No. 2 in the Student Personnel Series. American Personnel and Guidance Association, Washington, D. C. 1961. Blackwell, Thomas E. College Law -‘A Guide for Administrators. Washington, D. C. American Council on Education. 1961. Brewer, Anita. ”Court Orders Students to Live in Dormitory." The Chronicle pf Higher Education. Vol. II, No. 3 p.1, 1967. Brookover, W. B. "Research in Teacher and Administrator Roles." Journal 2; Educational Sociology. 29:2-13, 1955. Butts, R. Freeman. ‘A History 9f American Education. New York: Henry Holt, 1953. Castleberry v. Tyler Commercial College, 217 S. W. 1112. 1920. Citizens Committee on Higher Education. Remember the "War Babies?" Report of the Michigan Coordinating Council for Public Higher Education. Michigan Citizens Committee on Higher Education. 1963. Cowley, H. W. "The History of Student Residential Housing." School and Society. Vol. 40, No. 1040: 705-712, 758-64, 1934. 168 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 169 Crookston, Burns B. "A Study of Attitudes Concerning University Relationships with Students." The Journal pf the Association pf Deans and Administrators pf Student Affairs. Vol. 5, No. 2: 134-139, Oct. 1967. Division of Student Activities, Vice President for Student Affairs Office. Off Campus Housing Report 23 Student Housing for Fall Term 1966. Report of the Off Campus Housing Office. Michigan State University: Division of Student Activities. Vice President for Student Affairs Office. 1966. Downie, M. N. and R. W. Heath. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Dua, Prem S. "A Survey of Attitudes waard Student Visitation to Off-Campus Private Quarters." National Association pf Women's Deans and Counselors Journal. Vol. 30. No. 1: 17-20. 1966. Everest v. McKenny, 195 Michigan, 649, 1917. Gott v. Berea College 156, Kentucky 376, 161 S. W. 204, 1913. Gross, Neal C., Ward S. Mason and A. W. McEachern. Explanations in Role Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hoyt v. Trustees, 96 California 442, 1943. Joint Commission on Housing Standards. "Student Housing Standards- Recommended Minimum Health and Safety Standards for Noninsti- tutionally Owned Student Housing." Student Medicine. Vol. 10, No. 3: 363-393, 1962. Kerlinger, Fred. Foundations pf Behavioral Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Leonard, Andrews Eugenie. Origins 2f Personnel Services 13 American Higher Education, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1956. McClellan, Stephen D., "An Analysis of How the Role of Law Has Affected Specific Relationships Between Public Universities and Their Students." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967. McCullough, Mabelle G. "Safety in Off Campus Housing for Students." Proceedings of the TWelfth National Conference on Campus Safety. Mount Pleasant, Michigan, 1965. Safepy Monographs for Colleges and Universities. No. 20: 86-89, 1965. Mueller, Hevner Kate, Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 170 National Association of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs. Institutional Policies 93 Controversial Topics. Report of the N.A.S.P.A., Division of Research and Publications. Monograph No. 1 January 1968. N.A.S.P.A. 1968. Neal, Ruth. "Counseling The Off-Campus Woman Student." Personnel and Guidance Journal. 36:342-3, 1958. Neal, Ruth. "Women Off-Campus." Personnel and Guidance Journal. 40: 31-5, September, 1961. Newcomb, T. M. Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Nieman, L. J. and Hughes, J. W. "Problems of the Concept of Role -- a Resurvey of the Literature." Social Forces. 30:141-49, 1951. Nonnamaker, Eldon Roy. The Role of the Enrollment Offices 25 Michigan State University. UFpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michi- gan State University, East Lansing, 1959. Office of the President, University of Michigan. Student Housing, Report of the President's Commission on Off-Campus Housing. The University of Michigan, November 1965: Office of the President, University of Michigan, 1965. Opp, B. Carl. "Colleges Look to Outer Space.‘ College and Universipy Business. 29:23-27, 1960. Pafford, B. C. "Student Housing Survey." The Journal 2f the American College Health Association. 14:182-185, February, 1966. Prusak, E. Ralph. "The Off-Campus Student." Journal 2f College Student Personnel. 2:2-9, 1960. "Room-mates" Esquire September 1967, p. 94-98. Sarbin, T. R. "Role Theory." Handbook.2f Social Ppycholggy. Volume I. G. Lindzey, editor. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1954. pp. 223-258. Scott, Anne F. ”A Perspective On Student Activism." Duke Alumni Register, Vol. 53, No. 5 August 1967. Shaffer, H. Robert and William D. Martinson. Student Personnel Services 13 Higher Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education Inc., 1966. Sindler, Allan-P. "Sindler Commission Report," Cornell Daily Sun, October 4, 1967 p. 7-8. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 171 Sprunger, Ben and Patrick Byrnes Smith. "A Study of Off-Campus Housing Practices at Ten Randomly Selected State Universities' Orient. Vol. 3, No. 2: 1968. Titus, Chester R. Legal Relationships Involved 12 Off Campus Housing. Report to the Off Campus Housing Committee Associa- tion of College and University Housing Officers. 1960. Association of College and University Housing Officers. 1960. Tombaugh, Richard, and Patrick Byrnes Smith. "A Survey of Off- Campus Housing Practices in the Western Conference (Big Ten) Institutions." Orient. Vol. 3, No. 2: 1968. Turabian, Kate L. Students Guide for writing College Papers. "Phoenix Books"; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. "Unstructured Relations,' Newsweek, September 1967, p. 78. Walters, Mary. History gf_Mary Baldwin College. Va. McClure Co. 1942. Westfall, James N. "Off-Campus Housing." The Journal 2; the American Collegg Health Association, 14:118-121, December 1965. Wtenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel Work 13 College. New York: Ronald Press, 1951. APPENDIX 173 November 1, 1967 Dear As off-campus housing advisor and a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University, I am conducting a study of perceptions of the University's reSponsibility for students living off campus. Having worked in the off-campus housing area for four years, and after discussing with students their various problems and the role the University should play in these problems, I believe that such a study would be of great value to both the student and the University. This study will involve perceptions of parents, students, faculty members, apartment owners, and student personnel administrators. In order that the study may be of most assistance to students and the University the data should be collected during the fall term. A tentative deadline has been established for November 22. Your prompt attention to this project, and the return of the questionnaire will be appreciated. Please return your reSponse to this office in the enclosed self-addressed enveIOpe. Thank you for your COOperation. Sincerely, Patrick B. Smith Assistant Director Student Activities Division Off-Campus Housing Office 174 November 22, 1967 Dear Recently I mailed a questionnaire to a random sample of students, parents, apartment owners, and faculty regarding the Opinions of these groups as to the reSponsibility of the University towards the student's off-campus living situation. Since I have not received your reSponse I am enclosing a duplicate questionnaire for you to fill out and forward to me. The date for compiling the results has been extended to December 4, 1967, therefore it would be helpful if you would return the enclosed questionnaire by that date. In order for this research to be of benefit to the student and to the University your response is needed and very important to the success of this research project. The time and effort you take in filling out and returning the questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. If you have already filled out and returned the questionnaire please disregard this letter. Sincerely, Patrick B. Smith Assistant Director Student Activities Division Off-Campus Housing Office 175 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA PARENT'S EDUCATION: Level attained FATHER: Elementary, 1-8 years High School, 4 years Did not finish High School MOTHER: Elementary, 1-8 years High School, 4 years Did not finish High School QUESTIONNAIRE FILLED OUT BY: Father Mother POPULATION OF HOME TOWN: 0-1,000 1,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 TOTAL FAMILY INCOME: $3,000-$5,000 College, 2 years College, 4 years Graduate Degree College, 2 years College, 4 years Graduate Degree Both Guardian 10,000-25,000 25,000-75,000 75,000-300,000 Over 300,000 $10,000-$15,000 (per year) $5,000-$10,000 $15,000-$20,000 Over $20,000 SIZE OF FAMILY: Number of children in College (Members) HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU, AS PARENTS, CONTRIBUTE TO EACH CHILD IN COLLEGE? $0-$500 $500-$1,000 $1,000-$1,500 Over $1,500 FATHER'S OCCUPATION: MOTHER'S OCCUPATION: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Division of Student Activities Office of Student Affairs QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THE STUDENT'S OFF-CAMPUS LIVING SITUATION The purpose of this questionnaire is to gain your Opinion with respect to the University's reSponsibility toward the student's off-campus liv- ing situation. The results of this questionnaire will be confidential and used for research purposes only. At no time will your name ever appear in relation to this study. For purposes of this questionnaire, University reSponsibility is defined as "the responsibility entrusted to the judgment of the University for develOping and supervising student programs and for regulating the stu- dents' behavior." Off-Campus housing is defined as "those dwellings, primarily apartments that are not part of Michigan State University's organized housing program. These dwellings are unsupervised and un- approved by the university." Selected areas related to the off-campus living situation have been chosen and are listed as numbered statements 1 through 65. In answering the questionnaire you should determine the extent to which you think the area in question should be entrusted to the university as its reSponsibility. An Open-ended question will be provided at the end of the questionnaire for additional comments or to help you qualify any particular reSponse you may have. Please number apprOpriately any question on which you wish to comment. PLEASE D_O NOT SIGN THE QUESTIONNAIRE. In answering the questionnaire only one reSponse should be selected and circled from the following scale: Strongly agree Agree Disagree (SA) (A) (D) Strongly disagree No Opinion or comments (SD) (N) SA A D SD N 1) Physicians from the University health center should make home calls to student residences off campus. SA A D SD N 2) University personnel should assess and arbitrate damage costs in off-campus housing charged to students by apartment owners to determine fairness of charges. 176 SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 177 In addition to the Off-campus student apartment study facilities, study lounges on campus should be provided for the off-campus student. The University should provide uniform rental agree- ments for all off-campus housing. The University should not issue grades to students who have off-campus housing debts. The University should contact parents when students are known to be using LSD. The University should have a home owner's insurance policy covering fire, theft, damage to personal belongings, for off-campus students. The University should provide a list of students seeking roommates. The University should provide a special orientation program for off-campus transfer students. The University should provide an advisor from the student personnel staff to advise off-campus student government. The University should contact the prOper law enforce- ment agency in cases where residences are known places of narcotics use. The University should provide bail bond for students arrested. The University should take disciplinary action against an off-campus student when the student is arrested and convicted for a violation of a civil or criminal law. The cost of printing the off-campus rental contracts should be the reSponsibility of the University rather than the apartment owner. University personnel should assess and arbitrate repairs charged to apartment owners by students to determine fairness of charges. The University should have the right to place some off-campus dwellings "off-limits" to students. Apartment owners should notify the University when off-campus student parties are causing a public disturbance. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 178 The University should not permit a student to register for a subsequent term until damage claims and/or rental debts submitted by apartment owners are paid. Off-campus apartment plans should be approved by the University architect before being built. Any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice without his parents' consent. The University should discipline off-campus students for co-habitation (i.e., single members of the opposite sex living together). The University has the responsibility to involve students, apartment owners, and parents in the formulation of off-campus housing policies. The University should establish a council of students, apartment owners, university staff, and city officials to arbitrate off-campus housing problems. University personnel should inSpect off-campus dwellings and enforce state and city housing codes. The University should have no regulations con- cerning the students' off-campus housing situations. The University should contact parents when students are known to be using marijuana. The University should publish a list of apartments not meeting established University standards. The University should notify parents of off-campus students under 21 when they are convicted of a violation of civil law by the civil authorities. The University should require uniform rental con- tracts for all off-campus housing. When a single female under 21 years of age, living off-campus, is pregnant and withdrawing from the University, the University should notify the student's parents. The University has the responsibility to inform students of state laws when the University has reason to believe that marijuana is being used off-campus. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD .SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 32) 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 179 The University should notify parents of off-campus students when they are arrested. Storage lockers on campus should be provided by the University for the off-campus student. When students are prosecuted for civil offenses, the University should provide legal counsel for the student. The University should not be involved in any way in off-campus housing rental contracts between students and apartment owners. The University should inform parents of off-campus students co-habitating. Any student, after the freshman year, should be allowed to live off-campus in housing of his choice with his parents' consent.‘ _ Apartment owners should notify the local law enforcement agency when Off-campus student parties are causing a public disturbance. The University should encourage the develOpment of a formal student governing council for off-campus students. The University has the reSponsibility to inform students of state laws when the University has reason to believe that LSD is being used off- campus. The University should have the authority to require students to move out of off—campus apartments. The University, rather than the apartment owner, should hire and pay resident managers in off- campus student apartments. University personnel should be involved as consul- tants in the planning of off-campus apartment buildings. The University should have no hdusing regulations for students (first year residence hall requirement, off-campus approved supervised housing). The University should offer a formal and/or informal course in apartment living, money manage- ment, food purchasing, etc. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 46) 47) 48) 49) 50) 51) 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) 59) 60) 180 A lawyer should be kept on retainer by the University to give off-campus students legal advice. University personnel should inSpect and approve all off-campus student housing for prOper sanita- tion standards. University personnel should be a third party and final arbitrator in all rental contracts used by students in off-campus housing. Lunchroom facilities Should be provided on campus for off-campus students carrying their lunches. University personnel should inSpect and approve all off-campus student housing for prOper safety standards. University personnel should screen and approve managers living in residence in all off-campus student housing. The University should have no regulations which prohibit co-habitation by off-campus students. The University should have no regulations which prohibit the use of alcohol in off-campus student housing. The University should break up off-campus student parties when they become disorderly. The University Should not allow students to rent an apartment for party purposes only. The University should declare "off-limits" homes or apartments which discriminate for reasons of race, creed, or color. The University should not hold in escrow damage deposits and the last month's rent of off-campus students living in apartments. Apartments not meeting established University standards should be placed "off-limits." The University should screen and match possible roommates for vacancies in off-campus apartments. The University should report the use of marijuana by off-campus students to the proper law enforce- ment agency. SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD 61) 62) 63) 64) 65) 181 The University should contact the prOper law enforcement agency when it is aware of viola- tions of civil law. The University should report the use of LSD by off-campus students to the prOper law enforcement agency. The University should not allow members of the Opposite sex in students' living quarters off- campus. Off-campus students should be permitted to use residence hall facilities (e.g., laundry, study, recreation). If you have any additional comments, questions, or references to a particular question, please feel free to discuss them below. "I11111"11111111111117