INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon die quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(8) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo*
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Microfilms
International
3 00 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106
18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4E J, ENGLAND

8112046

Baker ,W endy Lou

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESOURCE TRENDS
A N D STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN COLLEGES A N D
UNIVERSITIES

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. MI 48106

Copyright 1980
by
Baker, Wendy Lou
All Rights Reserved

1980

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
RESOURCE TRENDS AND STUDENT PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES
By
Wendy Lou Baker

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1980

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
RESOURCE TRENDS AND STUDENT PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES
By
Wendy Lou Baker

The Purpose
This study was designed to assess perceptions of
executive level educational administrators about the rela­
tionship between declining resources in the decade of 1980-90
and student personnel programs in the population of fouryear colleges and universities in the State of Michigan.

In

assessing the relationship between declining resources and
institutional student personnel programs, this study focused
on perceptions about funding as well as implementation and
delivery of student personnel programs and services.
The Methodology
The population to be surveyed was defined as execu­
tive level educational administrators at all four-year pub­
lic and private bachelor's degree-granting institutions in
the State of Michigan.

Research hypotheses were developed

from the questions for investigation.

After a thorough

review of the literature, a questionnaire was developed,

Wendy Lou Baker
piloted and administered by mail to the research population.
Of the 152 questionnaires mailed,

120 usable responses

percent) were received and included in the study.

(78.9

Data was

analyzed and hypotheses were tested using programs from the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

All programs

were run on Michigan State University's CDC 750 computer.
The Findings
Institutional decision-makers from Michigan fouryear colleges and universities predicted a slight increase
in enrollments during 1980-85 and a steady state enrollment
situation from 1985-90 for their respective institutions.
A similar, but slightly less favorable, pattern followed
for ten year predictions.

Additionally, the population

anticipated an increase in resources

(constant dollars)

over the next decade (1980-90).
Institutional decision-makers tend to view instruc­
tion as a primary priority in allocation of resources.
Student services, while low on the funding priority list,
wili probably not be eliminated as an entity by most insti­
tutions.

However, cuts in the current level of funding for

student services may be anticipated during periods of
decreased resources for institutions.
The individual student personnel programs which may
be affected by a change in enrollment and resources are
health services, admissions, financial aids, international
student programs, new student orientation, and placement.

Wendy Lou Baker
It appears, but not at a significant level, that health
services and international student programs may be nega­
tively affected while admissions, financial aids, new stu­
dent orientation and placement may be affected in a positive
way.

Further, it was determined that executive level educa­

tional administrators from Michigan public institutions do
not differ significantly in their responses to survey ques­
tions than do administrators at Michigan private schools.
Areas where differences were found are in responses to
resource allocation questions for religious activities and
volunteer programs; in responses to criteria applied in the
evaluation of new student orientation and religious activ­
ities; and in responses to which unit should have primary
responsibility for financial aids, registrar and religious
activities.

It was also determined that executive level

administrators from Michigan institutions of varying sizes
do not differ significantly in their responses to the survey
questions.

Statistically significant differences were found

in responses to resource allocation to religious activities
and international programs; and in responses to criteria
applied in evaluation of health services, placement,
religious activities and residence halls.

Further, it was

found that executive level educational administrators from
Michigan institutions do not significantly differ by posi­
tion in their responses to the survey questions.
Finally, the data revealed, but not at a significant
level, a trend towards funding priorities for service-oriented

Wendy Lou Baker
programs rather than developmental/educational programs.
Moreover, the findings determined, but not at a significant
level, that administrators advocate increased funding
primarily to student services and programs which will insure
for the economic survival of the institution (admissions,
financial aids and placement) in the decade of 1980-90.

Copyright by
WENDY LOU BAKER
1980

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation and thanks is extended to the
members of my doctoral advisory committee: Dr. Louis
Stamatakos, Chair; Dr. Gary North, Dr. Max Raines and
Dr. James Rainey.

Their guidance and support, in addition

to their clarifying questions, analytical commentary and
evaluative remarks, enhanced the educational process.
A special thanks is expressed to Claire and Hugo
Minetti, my parents-in-law, for their support, interest and
encouragement.
I sun grateful to Barbara Baker and Bob Froh, my
sister and brother-in-law, whose questions challenged my
thinking and contributed to the development of the study.
Sincere appreciation is extended to Barb who, by example,
has served as a model for my professional and personal
development.
Very special thanks and gratitude is expressed to
my parents, Marion and Wilbur Baker, for their love, patience
and many sacrifices.

The wisdom of their convictions has

provided a lifetime of learning.

iii

Heartfelt appreciation and very special thanks is
expressed to my best friend and husband, Bob.

His analytical

abilities and professional experience contributed valuable
guidance and expertise; while his love, support and
enthusiasm provided a great source of motivation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................

vii

CHAPTER
I.

II.

III.

IN TRODUCTION..................................

1

Purpose of the S t u d y .....................
Rationale for the S t u d y .................
Summary of Related Literature ...........
Definitions
.............................
Research Questions .......................
Null H y p o t h e s e s .........................
Limitations of the S t u d y .................
Assumptions of Study .....................
M e t h o d o l o g y .............................

3
4
6
8
11
12
13
15
16

Selection of the Population . . . . .
I n s t r u m e n t ...........................
Data C o l l e c t i o n .....................
Data A n a l y s i s .......................

16
17
18
18

Organization of the S t u d y ...............

19

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................

20

Introduction ..............................
Resources in Higher Education
...........
Resources: Declining Enrollments ........
Resources: Governmental, Private and
Tuition Sources .......................
Overview of Student Personnel
L i t e r a t u r e .............................
Student Personnel: Future Directions . . .
Declining Resources and Student
Personnel Programs .....................
C o n c l u s i o n ................................

20
21
22
25
30
39
44
59

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN OF
THE S T U D Y ..................................

61

Testable Hypotheses
.....................
Selection of Population .................

62
63

v

CHAPTER

Page
.........
Development of the Instrument
Data C o l l e c t i o n .......................
Data A n a l y s i s .........................
S u m m a r y ................................

IV.

68
72
73
74

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A .......................

76

Introduction ...............................
76
Data A n a l y s i s .........................
79
Analysis of Respondents
.................
80
Response Rates ........................
Summary of Responses to Questions . . . .
D i s c u s s i o n .............................
Results of Hypotheses Testing . . . . . .

82
85
100
103

Summary of Responses by Program
. . .
Additional Findings
.................
Summary of F i n d i n g s ..................
V.

149

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .

153

Introduction ...............................
Summary of the Development of the
S t u d y ...............................
155
H y p o t h e s e s .............................
156
Conclusions and Discussion ...............
Summary of Conclusions ....................
Interpretation and inferences.............
Recommendations and Implications for
Student A f f a i r s ....................
174
Suggested Areas for Future Research
. . .
C o n c l u s i o n .............................
179
APPENDICES

134
134

.....................................

153

160
165
167
176
181

APPENDIX
A.

Survey I n s t r u m e n t .........................

181

B.

Cover L e t t e r ................................

187

C.

Follow-Up Letter ...............................

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

.................................

188
189

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

3.1.

Composition of Population .....................

69

4.1.

Analysis of P o p u l a t i o n .......................

78

4.2.

Analysis of Population/Number of Respondents

83

4.3.

Composition of Population .....................

4.4.
4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

4.8.

4.9.

Recommendations for Program Allocation
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents)

.

...

84
88

Given a Budget Cut or Resource Allocation
Which Did Not Keep Pace with Inflation,
What Recommendations Would You Anticipate
Making for Each of the Student Services/
Programs (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
...........................

93

Given Services/Programs of High Quality in
All Areas, Which of the Following Should
be the Primary Criteria Applied in the
Evaluation of Each of the Student
Services/Programs (Reported as Percentage
of Responses) ...............................

96

Which of the Following Units Should Have
the Primary Responsibility for Each of
the Student Services/Programs (Reported
as Percentage ofResponses) ..................

98

Place a Check in Column #4 Identifying
Those Services/Programs Implemented
at Your Institution (Reported as Per­
centage of Respondents)......................

101

Relationship Between Change in Resources
(1980-85) and Recommended Allocation to
Instruction (Reported as Percent of
Respondents)
.................................

105

vii

Page

Table
4.10.

4.11.

4.12.

4.13.

4.14.

4.15.

4.16.
4.17.

4.18.

4.19.

Relationship Between Change in Enrollment
(1980-90) and Funding Recommendation for
Health Services (Reported as Percent
of Respondents)..............................

107

Relationship Between Change in Enrollment
(1980-85) and Funding Recommendation for
Admissions (Reported as Percent of
................................
Respondents)

108

Relationship Between Change in Enrollment
(1980-85) and Funding Recommendation for
Financial Aids (Reported as Percent of
Respondents)
................................

109

Relationship Between Change in Resources
(1980-90) and Funding Recommendation for
International Student Programs (Reported
as Percentage of Respondents) ...............

110

Relationship Between Change in Resources
(1980-90) and Funding Recommendation for
New Student Orientation (Reported as
Percentage of Respondents). . . . . . . . .

Ill

Relationship Between Change in Resources
(1980-85) and Funding Recommendation for
Placement (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
................................

112

Significant Chi Square Variable Effects for
Student Services/Programs ...................

113

Given Services/Programs of High Quality in
All Areas, Which of the Following Should
be the Primary Criteria Applied in the
Evaluation of Each of the Student Services/
Programs (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
. . . . . .
................. .

115

Relationship Between Institutional Status
and Funding Recommendation for Religious
Activities (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
................................

118

Relationship Between Institutional Status
and Funding Recommendations for Volunteer
Programs (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
................................

119

viii

Table
4.20.

4.21.

4.22.

4.23.

4.24.

4.25.

4.26.

4.27.

4.28.

4.29.

4.30.

Page
Relationship Between Institutional Status
and Criteria for New Student Orientation
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents) . . .

120

Relationship Between institutional Status
and Criteria for Religious Activities
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents)

121

. . .

Relationship Between Institutional Status
and Unit of Responsibility for Financial
Aids (Reported as Percentage of Respon­
dents)
.......................................

122

Relationship Between Institutional Status
and Unit of Responsibility for Registrar
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents) . . .

123

Relationship Between Institutional Status
and Unit of Responsibility for Religious
Activities (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
................................

124

Relationship of Institutional Size and
Funding Recommendation for Religious
Activities (Reported as Percentage of
................................
Respondents)

126

Relationship of Institutional Size and
Funding Recommendation for International
Program (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
................................

127

Relationship of Institutional Size and
Criteria for Health Services (Reported
at Percentage of Respondents................

129

Relation of Institutional Size and Criteria
for Placement (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
................................

130

Relationship of Institutional Size and
Criteria for Religious Activities
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents)

131

. . .

Relationship of institutional Size and
Criteria for Residence Halls (Reported
as Percentage ofRespondents)
..............

ix

132

Table
4.31.

4.32.

4.33.

4.34.

4.35.

Page
Relationship of Position and Funding
Recommendation for International
Programs (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents)
.................................

135

Relationship of Position and Criteria
for International Programs (Reported
as Percentage of Respondents!)...............

136

Relationship of Position and Unit of
Responsibility for International
Programs (Reported as Percentage
of R e s p o n d e n t s ) ..............................

137

Relationship of Position and Unit of
Responsibility for Volunteer Programs
(Reported as Percentage ofRespondents)

138

...

Significant Chi Square and Variable Effects
for P r o g r a m s .................................

x

139

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The projected decline of resources in higher educa­
tion in the decade of 1980-90 has been well documented by
demographers as well as educators.

Resources, which tradi­

tionally have come from student tuition, federal and state
allocations and private sources, are dwindling and are pre­
dicted to decline further in the coming decade.

Moreover,

the inflationary economy has increased demand for resources
and further exacerbates the problem of declining revenue.
Specifically, the projected decline in the size of
the college-age population and the anticipated decrease in
college enrollment signifies a decrease in income from tui­
tion.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the size of the

traditional college-age population (18-21 years of age)
will decrease by 18 percent in the next decade (Centra,
1979).

Additionally, the 1977 edition of Projections of

Educational Statistics and the 1974 projections from the
Carnegie Council forecast a decline in the rate of attend­
ance at colleges and universities (Centra, 1979).
Coupled with these demographic changes, educators,
politicians and resources analysts predict decreasing

2
revenues for higher education.

In addition to dollars not

keeping pace with inflation, the 1980 federal budget for
higher education calls for reductions in spending below the
1979 allocations (Chronicle of Higher Education, XVII, 20,
1979).

As a result, public institutions will be forced to

rely heavily on state funding.

Although changes in the

level of state funding are difficult to determine on a
national scale, the recent support for tax limitation pro­
posals in ten different states provides an indication of
an uncertain financial future for some public institutions
(Chronicle of Higher Education, XVII, 4, 1979).

Addition­

ally, the private sector of higher education has become
increasingly dependent on federal and state funds.

Private

institutions lacking wealthy alumni, large endowment funds
and upper-middle class students are extremely dependent on
public funds (student aid dollars, research grants)
1979).

(Howe,

In fact in the decade of the seventies, 129 inde­

pendent colleges closed (Howe, 1979).
The effect of these trends on programs in higher
education will be significant and must be anticipated.
More specifically, the relationship between limited resources,
declining enrollments and student personnel programs in
higher education must be analyzed and assessed.

Because

the field of student personnel experienced great expansion
in the fifties and sixties and professional training pro­
grams graduated record numbers of students in the early
seventies, the profession is not philosophically nor

3
practically prepared to deal with the next decade of limited
resources (Ferrari, 1972).
Additionally, within the broader context of the university, student personnel programs are especially vulner­
able in an era of fiscal restraint.

Because student per­

sonnel programs are primarily viewed as support services,
university decision-makers often consider the program as
secondary to the primary academic mission of the university.
As a result, student personnel programs often receive lower
priority in resource allocation.

Further, student services

traditionally have been limited in their capacity to gener­
ate revenue and are supported primarily by dollars from the
general fund.

Finally, historically the importance of the

role of the student personnel educator has been a source of
controversy among faculty (Humphries, 1977).
Thus, analysis of the relationship between limited
resources and declining enrollments on student personnel
programs is necessary to assist professionals in this field
in anticipating, planning for, and managing change.
Purpose of the Study
This study is designed to assess perceptions of
executive level educational administrators about the rela­
tionship between declining resources in the decade of 1980-90
and student personnel programs in the population of fouryear colleges and universities in the State of Michigan.
In assessing the relationship between declining resources

4
and institutional student personnel programs, this study will
focus on perceptions about funding as well as implementation
and delivery of student personnel programs and services.
In a broader and practical sense, it is the inten­
tion of this investigator to provide administrators in higher
education and, specifically student personnel professionals,
with information about the potential impact of declining
enrollments and dwindling resources in higher education.
It is further intended that the information generated from
the study will assist the student personnel educator in
preparing for and managing change.

Finally, although

limited, it is the intention of this investigator to provide
useful information about future trends in the student per­
sonnel profession.

Perceptions relative to the need for

professionals in the field and the type of training neces­
sary in the next decade are useful to educators responsible
for professional preparation programs as well as practi­
tioners in the field.
Rationale for the Study
The profession of student personnel has evolved
from a combination of economic, social, and political trends
and higher education's response to these variables.

In

order for educators to be responsive to change, it is cri­
tical to have accurate and ample information about current
trends.

5
While there is a great deal of quantitative data
and literature about the decline of enrollment and scarce
resources, there is little information about the potential
relationship of these trends to student personnel services/
programs in American colleges and universities.

Zn fact,

much of the literature describes future trends in the field
of student personnel, but it does not consider the possi­
bility of a cause/effect relationship with the factors of
declining enrollments and resources.

In addition to the

dearth of analytical literature, there is limited informa­
tion and research of a prescriptive nature.
Additionally, much of the existing literature about
trends in student personnel programs/services is generated
by professionals and theoreticians within the field.

It

is the intent of this investigator to assess perceptions of
executive level educational administrators.

This group was

selected because of their primary responsibility for insti­
tutional resource decision-making and management; and
because of their knowledge, experience and broad institu­
tional perspective about resource allocation for colleges
and universities (Barzun, 1968).
Therefore, this study will document the factors of
enrollment decline and scarce resources in 1980-90 and
assess the relationship of these variables to student per­
sonnel services/programs in selected Michigan colleges and
universities.

Because of the absence of related literature

in the field, this study is designed to contribute to the

6
body of student personnel literature and to provide assist­
ance to student affairs educators as they plan for the
future.

Finally, this study may provide a perceptual founda­

tion from which student personnel professionals can generate
further analysis as well as prescription for future direc­
tion.
Summary of Related Literature
Literature related to this study includes documenta­
tion of resource trends in the United States as well as the
State of Michigan.

Information about declining enrollments,

decreasing federal and state allocations for higher educa­
tion, and dwindling private funds will serve as a foundation.
While this study provides documentation surrounding the
premise of declining enrollments and scarce resources in the
next decade, it does not present an exhaustive account of
the literature in these areas.

Since the focus of the study

is the relationship of resource trends to the programs of
the student personnel profession, a comprehensive review of
the literature on the evolution of student personnel as well
as future trends is included.
In consideration of the enrollment and resource pre­
dictions, it is necessary for educators and administrators
of educational institutions to analyze the predictions and
act accordingly.

More specifically, the impact of these

trends on the area of student personnel in higher education
must be assessed.

While the decline in enrollment and

7
resources is well documented, there is a relatively small
body of literature related to the impact of these trends on
student personnel.

Moreover, within the existing litera­

ture, there is controversy and polarized opinions.
Some researchers suggest the total elimination of
the student personnel division

(Humphries, 1977).

Addi­

tionally, some campuses have found it necessary to reduce
the amount and diversity of services.

Other schools have

selected to assign the student personnel functions to
faculty.

Lewis calls for the use of peers or paraprofes-

sionals in the functional areas

(Lewis, 1973).

On the

other hand, Balderston sees the crisis of the 80s as an
opportunity for the student personnel administrator to
emerge as a "driving force."

He sees retrenchment and sub­

sequent surplus of faculty as an opportunity for student
personnel educators to integrate academic faculty into their
program.

Further, he sees the student personnel professional

as becoming more involved in general administration because
of the transferability of generalist skills and competencies
(Balderston, 1974).
Another researcher, Harvey, calls for a strong
philosophic stance on the issue of student development in
order to bridge the potential dichotomy of vocational/pro­
fessional training and liberal arts education.

Harvey sug­

gests that the student personnel professional should be a
significant force in helping institutions grope with this
philosophical dilemma

(1976) .

Thus, it is apparent that

8
student personnel is perceived as a vulnerable unit in col­
leges and universities.

While many educators speculate that

this area will fall victim to budget cuts, there is limited
and conflicting knowledge about the nature and magnitude of
such constraints.
Although the student personnel literature related
to a decline in enrollment and resources is limited, there
is a great deal of information about the history and evolu­
tion of student personnel.

To gain perspective on the next

decade, it is important to understand the history of the
profession.

Knowledge about the history of a profession

provides insights as to why the profession exists; what role
it plays in higher education; and what are its philosophic
foundations.

These insights often lead to a greater under­

standing of the present status of the profession and provide
a more credible foundation on which to build predictions.
A complete review of the literature related to this study
includes an historical account of the development of the
student personnel profession as well as research and publi­
cations about future trends in the field.
Definitions
The following terms which appear throughout this
study are defined as follows:
Resources.

A general term to describe revenue which

is derived from tuition, state funding, federal funding and

9
private gifts and grants to support the college and/or uni­
versity.
Student Services.

The college or university non­

academic program(s) which is designed to meet the educa­
tional, social, physical, recreational and emotional needs
of students and is carried out in support of the formal
academic process.
Student Personnel Program/Student Affairs.

The

college or university program which is concerned with both
the educational and personal development of students in pri­
marily nonclassroom activities and the administration of
services which support and complement the formal academic
learning process.
Student Development.

A philosophic statement and/or

operational philosophy which advocates the integration of
affective and cognitive learning.

Founded in the theories

of developmental psychologists, the theory of student devel­
opment suggests that educational activities/programs should
be designed to meet developmental needs of students.
Student Personnel.

A general term defining an

eclectic body of knowledge that seeks to describe the behav­
ior of student populations and related activities and pre­
scribe methodologies to maximize the educational process.
Also used to describe a philosophic position advocating the
treatment of students as individuals and assumption of
partial responsibility to assist in their holistic develop­
ment.

10
Chief Executive Officer/President.1

The principal

administrative official responsible for the direction of
all affairs and operations of an institution of higher edu­
cation.

This position usually reports to a governing

b oard.
Executive Vice President/Vice President for
Operations.

The principal administrative official respon­

sible for all or most major functions and operations of an
institution of higher education under the direction of the
Chief Executive Officer.

Acts in the capacity of Chief

Executive Officer in his absence.
Chief Academic Officer/Provost/Vice President for
Academic Affairs.

The senior administrative official

responsible for the direction of the academic program of
the institution.

Typical functions include academic plan­

ning, teaching, research, extension, admissions, registrar
and coordination of interdepartmental affairs.

Reports to

the Chief Executive Office.
Chief Business Officer/Vice President for Financial
Affairs.

The senior administrative official responsible

for the direction of the business and financial affairs.
Functions supervised typically include accounting, purchas­
ing, physical plant, personnel services, food services and

^Definitions for executive level educational admin­
istrators are taken from: D. P. Jones, "A Manual for Budget­
ing and Accounting for Manpower Resources in Postsecondary
Education.
Technical Report #84." National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems.

11
auxiliary enterprises.

These functions may also include

computer services, investment budgets and security.
Reports to the Chief Executive Office.
Chief Student Personnel Officer/Vice President for
Student Affairs.

The senior administrative official respon­

sible for the direction of the student personnel program.
Functions typically include student counseling and testing,
residence halls, placement, student activities, financial
aids and health services.

Reports to the Chief Executive

Officer.
Research Questions
In more specific terms, this study will attempt to
respond to the following questions as perceived by executive
level educational administrators in Michigan colleges and
universities.
(1) Will student personnel programs and services be
affected by declining resources in the decade of
1980-90?
change?

If so, what will be the nature of the
Which services will be affected?

How will

these services be affected?
(2) What criteria are applied to assess the effective­
ness and economy of student personnel services?
(3) What differences in responses, if any, exist
between respondents from public and private fouryear institutions in the State of Michigan?

12
(4) What differences in responses, if any, exist between
respondents from universities of more than 20,000
students; colleges and universities of 7,500 to
20,000 students; and colleges and universities of
less than 7,500 students in the State of Michigan?
(5) What differences in response, if any, exist between
executive level educational administrators, by
position, in Michigan colleges and universities.
Null Hypotheses
Hypothesis la;
Student personnel programs and services will not be
affected by declining resources in the decade of
1980-90.
Hypothesis lb;
There are no significant differences in the effect
of declining resources on individual student
services.
Hypothesis 2 :
Respondents do not differ significantly in their
responses to what criteria is applied to assess
effectiveness and economy of student services.
Hypothesis 3 ;
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
of public and private four-year institutions in
the State of Michigan.
Hypothesis 4 :
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
of universities of more than 20,000 students; col­
leges and universities of 7,500 to 20,000 students;
and colleges and universities of less than 7,500
students in the State of Michigan.

Hypothesis 5 :
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
in Michigan colleges and universities by position.
Limitations of the Study
This study is limited in scope and interpretation
is bound by the following variables:
(1) The findings in this study are specific to fouryear colleges and universities in the State of
Michigan.

The degree to which these findings can be

generalized to four-year colleges and universities
in other states is influenced by the corresponding
social, educational, demographic and economic
factors.

The vulnerability of the economy of the

State of Michigan relative to being a single indus­
try economy places Michigan in a particularly unique
economic situation.

Though the findings may reflect

trends in the profession, the degree of generalizability is limited.
(2) This study is designed to assess the relationship,
if any, between declining resources and student
services.

While this investigator recognizes that

the field of student personnel encompasses more than
a service orientation, an assessment of the services
is the central focus.

The relationship of declining

resources and student development components of

14
student personnel should be considered in a future
study.
(3) A comprehensive study of declining resources and
dwindling enrollments and their relationship to the
totality of student personnel programs would include
a thorough examination of institutional fiscal policy;
institutional resources; the philosophy and values of
institutional decision-makers; and economic trends.
Information of this nature and magnitude is not
readily available, is highly confidential, and is
beyond the scope of this investigator's resources.
(4) It is important to note that the responses in this
study reflect only the perceptions of the individ­
uals surveyed.

The cumulative data from a single

institution cannot be interpreted as an institutional
decision, policy or direction.

Moreover, the find­

ings represent only perceptions and opinions of
respondents.

It is critical to note that the amount

of experience, the educational level and commitment
to planning of the respondents varies and may affect
their responses.
(5) For purposes of uniformity, this investigator
selected four-year public and private bachelor's
degree-granting institutions in the State of
Michigan with a headcount enrollment of more than
500 students as determined by the 1978-79 Fact Book

15
on Higher Education in Michigan.

By employing this

definition, some Michigan institutions were excluded.
Assumptions of Study
In investigating this problem, the researcher made
the following assumptions.

These assumptions, if violated,

could influence the findings.
(1) Data was gathered through survey technique.

Survey

research is considered an accepted methodology in
social
(2)

science fields (Ostroth, 1979).

It was assumed that the same individuals to whom

the

instrument was sent were the respondents.
(3)

It was assumed that the survey instrument was under­
stood by respondents and that respondents used their
best professional judgement in providing honest
replies.

(4) It was assumed that administrators in selected posi­
tions (President, Vice President of Academic Affairs,
Vice President for Financial Affairs, Vice President
for Student Affairs) have ample information, suf­
ficient professional experience and a broad insti­
tutional perspective to provide responses to the
questions.

16
Methodology
Selection of the Population
The population was defined as executive level edu­
cational administrators at all four-year public and private
bachelor's degree-granting institutions in the State of
Michigan with headcount enrollments of 500 or more students.
The executive level educational administrators include indi­
viduals in the positions of Chief Executive/President, Chief
Academic Officer/Provost, Chief Budget Officer/Vice Presi­
dent for Financial Affairs, and Chief Student Personnel
Officer/Vice President for Student Affairs.

In case of

different titles, individuals with primary responsibility
for the program were included in the study.
These individuals were selected as participants in
the study because of their decision-making responsibility
for institutional programs and resource allocation.
The list of participants was generated from the
Education Directory-Colleges and Universities 1978-79 pub­
lished by the National Center for Educational Statistics.
Because of the small and manageable number of participants,
the entire population was included in the sample.

One

hundred and fifty-two institutional decision-makers from
thirty-eight colleges and universities made up the popula­
tion.

General Motors Institute requested exclusion from

the study because of their unique governance and funding
structure.

17
Instrument
Information was gathered through the administration
of a written questionnaire.
(1)

The instrument was designed to

assess perceptions of the relationship of declining

resources and student personnel programs;

(2) assess per­

ceptions about the relationship of declining resources and
specific student personnel programs/services;

(3) assess the

primary criteria used in program justification; and

(4)

assess unit of ultimate responsibility for implementation
of the program/service.
The survey was composed of seventy-seven forced
answer items with ample opportunity for comment and openended responses.

The primary questions solicited responses

for seventeen student services.

The questions asked for

perceptions relative to resource allocation; primary cri­
teria for having the program/service; primary responsibility
for implementation of the program/service; and availability
of the program/service at the respondent's institution.
The instrument was pilot tested by two academic
administrators at Michigan State University; two management/
budget administrators at Michigan State University; and two
student personnel administrators at the above institution.
A research consultant reviewed the questionnaire.

Changes

were made based on comments from the pilot group and the
survey was rewritten.

Face validity of the questionnaire

was assumed from this process.

18
Data Collection
Data was collected by mailing the questionnaire to
each participant.

The survey, a personally addressed cover

letter and self-addressed stamped envelope was sent to each
participant on January 14, 1980.

A personalized follow-up

letter, questionnaire and self-addressed stamped envelope
was sent to all nonrespondents on February 18, 1980.

Of

the 152 questionnaires mailed, 120 responses were received.
In total, responses were received from 78.9 percent of the
population sampled.
Data Analysis
The information from each questionnaire was coded
and key punched for computer analysis.

Data was analyzed

using programs from the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (Nie, Bent, and Hull, 1970).

All programs were run

on Michigan State University's CDC 750 computer.

Descrip­

tive information was tabulated using the subprogram Fre­
quencies.

Measures of association, chi square and Fisher's

Exact Coefficient, were calculated through the use of the
subprogram Crosstabulation.

A multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was applied to determine if differences
exist between programs of a service nature and programs of
a developmental/educational focus.

The .05 alpha level was

selected as the criterion of significance.

19
Organization of the Study
Chapter I included the introduction to the topic.
It outlined the purpose of the study, rationale for the
study, summary of related literature, definitions and questions for investigation.

Limitations of the study, assump­

tions of the study, research hypotheses and a review of
methodology were also included.
Chapter II provides documentation from the research
and literature about the decline in enrollment and dwindling
resources in the coming decade.

It also includes a detailed

review of the literature and research about the development
and future of the student personnel profession.
Chapter III provides a detailed discussion of the
design of the study, including the selection of the sample,
data collection, and procedures of data analysis.
Chapter IV contains the data analysis and results
of the study.
Chapter V contains a summary discussion and inter­
pretation of the findings and conclusions drawn from these
findings.

This chapter also includes recommendations, impli­

cations, suggested areas for future research and additional
inferences and speculations.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OP RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction
The literature related to the relationship of
declining resources in higher education in the decade of
1980-90 and student personnel programs in higher education
is presented in three parts.

The first part includes

selected research and factual information about resources
for higher education in 1980-90.

The second component pre­

sents an overview of literature detailing the field of stu­
dent personnel.

The third part contains a comprehensive

review of the published research about the relationship of
declining resources and student personnel programs.
The research describing resources in higher educa­
tion includes information about enrollment patterns in post
secondary institutions in the United States and, more spe­
cifically, in Michigan.

Additionally, the resource litera­

ture includes a review of major issues impacting resources
in the decade of 1980-90 at the federal level and in the
State of Michigan,

specific resource issues related to

public and private institutions are included.

Presented as

selected research, this literature review is intended to
20

21
identify the major trends related to resources for higher
education in 1980-90.
The overview of the literature of the field of stu­
dent personnel includes a history of the field; a topical
account of major philosophic positions of the profession;
and a review of current and future trends in student per­
sonnel.
The primary literature review describes research
about the relationship of declining resources and student
personnel programs.

While this body of theory and research

is limited, it falls into the following categories:

(1) the

need for clarification of goals and purposes in the profes­
sion of student personnel;

(2) the need for better management

techniques and more strict accountability systems;

(3) sug­

gestions for reorganization of colleges and universities
as well as student personnel divisions; and (4) general
trends in the field of student personnel that are tangenti­
al ly related to declining resources.
Resources in Higher Education
The history of American higher education is charac­
terized by continuous and rapid growth.

Since 1932, the

number of public institutions has increased at a rate of
twenty-one per year and the number of private institutions
has increased at a rate of fifteen per year (Carnes, 1977).
In fact, not only have the number of institutions increased
at a rapid rate, but so have the size of the institutions,

22
the number of students and employees, and the size of the
institutional budgets.

Between 1949-50 and 1969-70, Avery

reports that revenues of higher education increased more
than six times (Avery, 1978).

This extreme growth mode has

left the industry of higher education poorly prepared to face
current and future economic conditions of steady state and/or
retrenchment.

Predictions range from Leslie's feeling that

there will be continued expansion at a slower rate (Leslie,
1980) to Folder's statement that higher education is in a
"new depression"

(Folder, 1977).

Resources; Declining Enrollments
Enrollment patterns in American colleges and uni­
versities are basically affected by two variables:

(1) the

size of the traditional college-age population, and (2) the
rate of college attendance.

Forecasters predict a general

decline in the next ten years in both of these areas.

The

U.S. Census Bureau predicts that from 1980-85, there will be
1.7 million fewer eighteen to twenty-one year olds in the
United States than during the previous five-year period
(Centra, 1979).

Further, the Bureau indicates that in the

next ten years, there will be an 18 percent decline in the
size of this age group (1979).

The Carnegie Council on

Policy Studies in Higher Education predicts that by 1997,
the traditional college-age population (eighteen to twentyfour) will decline by 23 percent (1980).

Moreover, a recent

issue of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" provides data

23
indicating that the academic year 1976-77 marked a peak in
the number of graduating high school seniors (XVII, 1,
1979).

These demographers predict that the number of gradu­

ating seniors will change from 3,149,000 in 1976-77 to
2,740,000 in 1986-87 (1979).

While predictions vary and

statistics are analyzed in varying formats, the general con­
sensus indicated a clear downward trend in the college-age
population in the next ten year period.
This general trend of decline in student population
is also reflected by forecasters in the State of Michigan.
The Office of Institutional Research at Michigan State Uni­
versity recently prepared a comprehensive study of enroll­
ment patterns in Michigan.

The research endorses two models

which attempt to project enrollments into the decade of 1990.
The Hecker-Ignatovich model (1979) predicts a 28.6 to 34.4
percent decline in the pool of juniors and seniors in high
school from 1975-1990.

They anticipate that two-thirds of

this decline will occur between 1980 and 1985.

Another

researcher, Moor (1979), predicts a 10 to 15 percent decrease
in the eighteen to twenty-one year old group from 1975-1990.
In addition to this anticipated decline in the
number of potential college enrollees, the actual rate of
attendance at American colleges and universities is expected
to decrease.

Although educators and forecasters differ in

their assessment of the magnitude of the decline, they
generally agree on the direction of the change.

The National

Center for Educational Statistics reports that in the past

24
year enough students to fill sixty small private colleges
have disappeared

(Centra, 1979).

prediction is less severe.

The Carnegie Council's

It suggests that higher educa­

tion will experience a peak enrollment of 10.7 million in
1980 with a downward trend to 10.3 million in 1985 (1974).
Of a more dire nature is Cartter's forecast of a 6 percent
decline of full-time equivalent students in the 1980s
(Centra, 1979).

On the other hand, Bowen is quite optimistic

about enrollment.

Because of major social change in the

United States, he sees college population doubling in size
(Centra, 1979).
In concert with Bowen, the final report of the
Carnegie Council, "Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty
Years for Higher Education," describes the changing com­
plexion of student bodies in higher education.

The Council

predicts a 3 percent increase in nontraditional students.
In fact, it reports that enrollment problems will be offset
by older students, women, minorities and international stu­
dents.

By the year 2000, the Carnegie Council predicts that

colleges and universities will enroll more women than men;
as many people over twenty-one as twenty-one and under; and
almost as many part-time as full-time students

(Chronicle

of Higher Education, XVII, 20, 1980).
The varied intensity of predictions by noted author­
ities is related to interpretation of economic and educa­
tional trends.
analysis are:

Some of these issues receiving subjective
(1) the role of private higher education;

25
(2) future direction of government assistance programs;
(3) the impact of part-time students;

(4) geographic

preference and college student migration;

(5) the impact

of older adults, nondegree and nontraditional students;
(6)

analysis of job market and economic trends;

(7) recruit­

ment efforts by the military; and (8) public opinion about
higher education and the value of a college degree.

Thus,

while predictions are skewed, the general trend indicates a
decline in enrollment.
The subjective factors affecting rate of attendance
in post secondary institutions are applicable to populations
in the State of Michigan.

In fact, according to the study

from the Office of Institutional Research at Michigan State
University, the national participation rates in higher edu­
cation would provide the best available source in assessing
Michigan participation rates in higher education (1979).
Additionally, one model included in the study suggests that
total enrollment in Michigan colleges and universities will
decrease by 5.2 percent during 1975-1990.

Another predic­

tion suggests that the decrease in enrollees will be 17.2
percent.

Thus, it appears that enrollment of nontraditional

students will not be large enough to offset the population
decline of eighteen to twenty-one year olds.
Resources: Governmental, Private
and Tuition Sources
The anticipated decline in resources exacerbates the
enrollment problem.

While parameters surrounding economic

26
trends and fiscal policy are not as definable as those of
population statistics, the following perceptions signify
a downward trend in financing higher education.

On the

federal level, the change in the 1980 higher education allo­
cations will not keep pace with inflation.

President

Carter's proposed 1980 fiscal budget calls for a cut total­
ling $500 million less than the previous year (The Chronicle
of Higher Education, XVII, 20, 1979).

Given the govern­

ment's estimated inflation rate of 6 to 7 percent, this cut
back is significant.

Additionally, spending for student

aid was cut by $260 million (The Chronicle of Higher Educa­
tion, XVII, 20, 1979).
While the impact of declining resources at the state
level varies by state, general consensus indicates that the
states with tax limitation legislation will significantly
cut spending for two-year post secondary institutions.
Depending on the state, other four-year institutions may also
feel the effects of a recessionary economy.
More specifically, funding for higher education in
the State of Michigan has dwindled in the past two decades.
According to information from the Michigan Department of
Management and Budget, the percentage of the general fund
allocated to departments and agencies in four-year insti­
tutions of higher education has decreased from a rate of
18.2 percent in fiscal year 1962-63 to 14 percent in 1977-78.
The current estimate for the fiscal year, 1978-7 9, is a 14.2

27
percent allocation (Office of the Budget, Department of
Management and Budget, State of Michigan, 1980).
A similar pattern emerges as educators consider the
program budget for four-year institutions in Michigan.

In

1962-63, 21.9 percent of the general fund was allocated
towards educational programs in higher education.

This

allocation has declined to 17.2 percent in 1977-78.

The

estimate for fiscal year 1978-79 is 18.3 percent (Office of
the Budget, 1980).
According to Change Magazine's Economic Prospect
Report (1980) , the economic indicators show a mixed picture.
They suggest that revenues will remain strong, but rates of
inflation may bring about a decline in constant dollars.
In general, the rate of inflation will erode the purchasing
power of all sources of funding (federal, state, private and
tuition).

Folder points out that in the economic recession

of 1974-75, half of the states showed a decline in constant
dollar appropriation per student.

He believes that higher

education learned that its priority for funding was not as
high as previously indicated

(1977).

Additionally, fixed

costs and plant expenditures are victimized by inflation and
cannot be proportionately reduced to reflect a decline in
population.
Representing a more positive attitude, Leslie
believes that continued expansion of governmental support
will alleviate the problem.

He predicts that income from

tuition fees and voluntary giving will continue to grow.

28
but at a slow rate.

Leslie's predictions take into account

the rate of inflation (1980).
In considering allocation to specific programs in
higher education, information from the Michigan Department
of Management and Budget reveals limited support for stu­
dent services.

The percentages of increase of state expend­

itures by program, from 1975-76 to 1979-80, highlight the
funding priorities of the State of Michigan.

Instruction

.376 percent, Research .436 percent, Public Service .216
percent. Academic Support .308 percent, Student Services
.081 percent, Institutional Support .339 percent, Plant
Operation .585 percent (Department of Management and Budget,
Education Division, 1979).

These percentages indicate a

trend towards declining financial support for four-year insti­
tutions of higher education in Michigan as well as limited
support for student services/programs in four-year institu­
tions in Michigan.
Additionally, the private sector in American higher
education is and will be gravely affected.

Since 1950,

student enrollment in private schools has drastically
declined.

The percentage of total college student enroll­

ment in the private sector was 50 percent in 1950.

In the

twenty subsequent years, that figure dropped to 22 percent
(Howe, 1979) .

This trend marks a significant change in the

direction of tuition dollars.

Thus, it appears that the

private school's ability to attract grants and private fund­
ing is crucial to its survival.

Moreover, according to

29
Howe, the ability of a private school in the 1980s to cut or
consolidate programs without compromising quality is crucial
(1979).
Further complicating the future resource picture
for private education is the role of the federal and state
government.

In recent years, private institutions have

become increasingly dependent on public funds (student aid
and research grants).

According to Howe, "While student

aid from state and federal governments is of considerable
assistance to public colleges, it has become the lifeblood
of much of private undergraduate education"

(1979, p. 29) .

He cites church related and primarily black colleges as
being especially vulnerable.

Thus, the future financial

picture for private education is not only dependent on its
ability to attract students and private sources of funding,
but also on institutional success in the political arena.
Finally, colleges and universities will be partic­
ularly hard hit by the fiscal realities of the 1980s because
(1) higher education is considered to be a lean industry;
(2) colleges and universities are hit harder by inflation
because they cannot pass the cost increase directly to the
consumer;

(3) institutions of higher education cannot easily

reduce expenses in proportion to decreased enrollments;
(4)

there is a general public disillusionment about the

value of a college degree as well as of the college experi­
ence (Howe, 1979).

Further complicating these fiscal issues,

recent federal legislation mandating expanditures for social

30
programs (affirmative action, women's intercollegiate ath­
letics, handicapper students, Occupational Safety and Health
Act (O.S.H.A.), Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(E.R.X.S.A.), environmental legislation) will significantly
impact the resource picture for higher education (Avery,
1978).
In summary, it appears that there is widespread
agreement among demographers, educators and politicians
that the number of traditional college age (eighteen to
twenty-four) students will decline.

Simultaneously, their

rate of college attendance is also predicted to decline.
Opinions and factual evidence vary as to the impact of non­
traditional students on college enrollments.

In general,

resource analysts predict a decline in constant dollars for
higher education.

While resources will continue to rise,

inflation will limit purchasing power.

Analysts differ on

the degree of severity which the resource question will
impact higher education.

Their predictions range from a

period of steady state to full retrenchment.
Overview of Student Personnel Literature
The literature chronicling the past, present and
future directions for the profession of student personnel
is characterized by (1) a changing and evolving conceptual
base;

(2) a lack of congruence over the professions' pur­

poses and goals among members of the profession and between
constituent bodies of the university; and (3) proposals for

31
reorganizing the delivery systems of student affairs in
higher education.

In discussing the history and development

of student personnel, Prior believes that the field has
grown without planning.

In his opinion, the result has

caused definitional problems, role conflict and false
expectations (1973).

Penney writes that the profession has

not achieved adequate recognition within higher education
and that the field has diluted its impact by becoming frag­
mented and overspecialized (1969).

McIntyre supports

Penney's indictment by citing that student personnel educa­
tors have failed to become involved in campus decision­
making or planning.

He further suggests that the past per­

ceptions of the student personnel worker's primary functions
(administration and control) are primarily responsible for
the present peripheral role.

McIntyre concludes that stu­

dent affairs and academic affairs have traditionally been
separate functions (1975).

Therefore, as educators attempt

to anticipate future trends in student personnel, the lack
of unified direction emerges as a critical issue.
More specifically, as educators consider the rela­
tionship between declining resources and dwindling enroll­
ments, the profession of student personnel emerges as a
vulnerable component in higher education.

Although the

student personnel literature reflects much thought about
definitional problems of the field, there is very limited
research on the relationship between fiscal constraints,
enrollment decline in the coming decade and the profession

32
of student personnel.

The research related to this rela­

tionship is confined to broad based themes calling for inte­
gration into the mainstream of the university (Crookston,
1972; Brown, 1972; Lewis, 1973), development of a compre­
hensive definition for the profession (Chandler, 1973;
Cross, 1973), and reorganization of the implementation of
student personnel services (Parker, 1971; Brown, 1972;
Hiller and Prince, 1976; Appleton, Moore and Vinton, 1978).
In fact, there exists very limited research and theory sur­
rounding the specific relationship between declining
resources and student personnel programs.

In summary, the

following literature review includes an evolutionary account
of the major "schools of thought," an assessment of current
thinking in the profession, and a review of future trends.
Literature which reflects the relationship of declining
resources and student personnel will be given special
emphasis.
According to Rudolph, the administration of preCivil War colleges and universities consisted of a presi­
dent, treasurer and a part-time librarian.

However, the

rapid growth era of 1860-1933 dictated new services, and
subsequently, additional administrators to oversee new
services.

The hiring of individuals to serve exclusively

in administrative capacities developed from the need to
free faculty from the responsibility of institutional
management (1962).

The addition of new services brought

about specialization of job responsibilities and functions.

33
By the 1900s, specific people were hired to perforin special­
ized roles.

According to Rudolph, these new administrative

positions emerged according to the following chronology.
First a secretary of the faculty, then a registrar,
then in succession a vice president, a dean, a dean
of women, a chief business officer, an assistant dean,
a dean of men, a director of admissions, and in time
a corps of administrative assistants to the president
who were in charge of anything and everything; public
relations, church relations, civic relations, student
relations and faculty relations <1962, pp. 434-435).
Thus, the field of student personnel began as a service
component meeting an administrative need in higher educa­
tion.
It was not until after World War II that these
functional/service components expanded their administrative
role to include an educational component.

First, counselors

were employed to deal with students' out-of-class problems.
In 1938 the Committee on College Personnel of the American
Council on Education adopted "The student Personnel Point
of View."

This statement posits four assumptions about

students.

(1) The individual must be considered as a whole;

(2)

each student is a unique person and must be treated as

such;

(3) the total environment of the student is educa­

tional and must be used to achieve his or her full develop­
ment;

(4) the major responsibility for a student's personal

and social development rests with the student and his or
her personal resources (Miller and Prince, 1976, p. 4).
Thus, "The Student Personnel Point of View" provided a
philosophic foundation for the profession.

34
In the post World War II growth era of higher edu­
cation, student services were expanded to meet the needs of
a large and more diverse student population.

The Service­

men's Readjustment Act of 1944 had a significant impact on
services such as housing and financial aids.

The founding

of the Veteran's Administration in 1943 provided impetus
for development of placement as a college student personnel
service.

Paralleling the growth mode of these services

was a need for teachers and researchers.

As a result

college and university faculty began narrowing their roles
and no longer saw the diversity of student services as part
of their responsibility (Packwood, 1977).

Thus, the

increase in services, coupled with the need for specialists
to administer the services, spurred the growth of the pro­
fession of student personnel.
Simultaneously, an emerging body of literature pro­
vided further validation for the young field.

Wrenn sug­

gested that student personnel services, in concert with
classroom instruction, should make up the educational pro­
gram of the institution (Wrenn, 1951).

Mueller outlined

the four primary objectives of student personnel.
are:
(2)

They

(1) preserving, transmitting and enriching culture;
developing all aspects of culture;

(3) training for

citizenship; and (4) training for leadership (Mueller,
1970) .

Shaffer and Martinson suggested that it is the

responsibility of student personnel educators to provide

35
an appropriate campus climate as well as deliver services
(Shaffer and Martinson, 1969).
By 1970, student personnel emerged as a profes­
sional field founded in an educational philosophy with the
primary mission of delivery of services to students.

How­

ever, at this time many theorists were in the process of
advocating an expanded role of student personnel adminis­
trators.

In 1972, the Council of the Student Personnel

Associations issued a statement criticizing the service mode
of the profession.

The Council felt that services were

being done to and for students and not with them (1972).
These philosophic trends, coupled with the writings of
Crookston (1972, 1975, 1976), Chandler (1973), and Brown
(1972) gave rise to the emergence of the theory of student
development.

Brown, a proponent of student development,

defines the concept in Student Development in Tomorrow's
Higher Education.

He believes that the intellectual and

personal development of students should be intertwined.
He reconceptualizes student personnel by emphasizing a
student development mode (Brown, 1972).
Crookston, a critic of the traditional "Student
Personnel Point of View" also emerges as a leader in the
construction of student development theory.

He defines

student development as:
The application of the philosophy and principles of
human development in the educational setting. Human
development refers to growth, development, and ful­
fillment of the individual throughout life as a
realized person and effective, productive citizen,

36
and the growth and development of society (Crookston,
1976, p. 26).
Moreover, according to Berry, student development requires
cognitive mastery along with personal development of cul­
tural awareness, value systems, self awareness, interper­
sonal skills and community responsibility (Berry, 1976).
Founded in the human development theories of Bios
(1941), Tryon and Lilienthal (1950), Havighurst (1953),
Erickson (1959, 1963), Blocker (1966), and Chickering
(1969) , the concept of student development has emerged as
the major theoretical position for the student personnel
profession.

Miller feels that the emergence of student

development is a planned response to changes in higher edu­
cation (change from an elitist to an egalitarian enterprise;
development of experiential learning; rise of community
colleges).

He calls for a two-phase implementation:

(1) defining the nature of learning and identifying the
fundamental goals and premises of higher education; and
(2) model building (Miller, 1975).

Jones cites student

development as moving away from the control function into a
new role of caring, education and development.

He calls

for the integration of student personnel with academics.
He sees student development as a primary rather than a
support function (Jones, 1978).
the developmental philosophy.

Hurst and Ivey also support
Chastising student personnel

educators for being crisis oriented and reactive, they call
for future planning and a proactive posture (Hurst and Ivey,

37
1971).

Crookston, further supporting student development,

views the environment as a learning place.

He calls for

the systematic coordination and integration of campus envi­
ronments so that the individual will develop a symbiotic
relationship with the community (Crookston, 1972).

Thus,

the notion of student development is widely accepted among
student personnel educators.
Understanding and general acceptance of student
development is not as widespread outside of the profession.
Cross, a supporter of student development, raises the ques­
tion of implementation on campus.

She suggests that prac­

titioners should be careful not to promise more than that
which can be delivered,

she further questions the roles

which student personnel educators play and calls for better
definition (Cross, 1973).

Other components of the univer­

sity hold a more pragmatic view of student personnel educa­
tors.

In a study of goal congruence for student personnel

programs, Terenzini found that if student development is to
be implemented, college and university presidents must be
more fully convinced of its value.

Further, he found that

college presidents tend to view student personnel educators
as managers of services and not educators (Terenzini, 1972).
In an earlier study by Dutton, Appleton and Birch, the
findings revealed general consistency among college presi­
dents and deans of students on the role of the chief stu­
dent personnel officer.

However, presidents were more

likely to say that the dean's primary responsibility is to

38
students rather than the institution (Dutton, Appleton,
Birch, 1970).

The discrepancy in findings of these two

studies is probably due to the change in philosophic
mission from a service orientation (1970) to student devel­
opment orientation (1972).
Simultaneous to the emergence of the student devel­
opment philosophy, literature advocating an integrationist
philosophy emerged.

Theorists who support a co-curricular

model believe that student personnel educators must collab­
orate with faculty and develop a coordinated curriculum
(Marshall and Sorochty, 1976).

McIntyre calls for goal

congruence between student personnel staff and university
administrators.

Further, he suggests an integral role in

planning and decision-making (McIntyre, 1975).

Harvey sees

student personnel roles as merging with administrative roles
in the university and views an integrated approach as the
result (Harvey, 1976) .

Jones also sees student personnel

administrators merging with general administration.

He

advocates an integrated community where faculty would be
used in student personnel positions.

This model would

create closer ties and foster understanding between faculty
and student personnel educators (Jones, 1978).
Other theorists support a stronger integration con­
cept.

Crookston (1972), Brown (1972) and others call for

student development to be fully integrated into the main­
stream of the university as a primary function.

Abel (1973)

and Lewis (1973) recommend that student personnel educators

39
develop courses; teach skills;' and become part of the cur­
riculum.

Berry (1976) suggests coursework related to human

development and life style planning.

Brooks (1974) calls

for tenure of chief student personnel administrators to add
an academic dimension.

In his study, Brooks found that

44 percent of the student personnel administrators are not
affiliated with a department and are therefore not eligible
for tenure (Brooks, 1974).
On the other hand, Shaffer presents a more pessi­
mistic viewpoint.

He believes that student personnel has

failed to mature as part of the total system.

He states

that for student personnel to remain a significant com­
ponent in higher education, it must contribute to the total
organization (Shaffer, 1973).

Writing five years later,

Blaesser also stresses university-wide acceptance.

He main­

tains that the long term impact of the student development
movement will be dependent on the understanding, support
and acceptance of top level administrators.

He adds that

integration into the mainstream will come only through major
organizational change (Blaesser, 1978).
Student Personnel; Future Directions
In addition to the large body of literature support­
ing the student service mode, advocating student develop­
ment concepts, and calling for integration models, there
is also a great deal of professional writing which calls
for goal congruence, role charity and boundary definitions.

40
Astmann calls student personnel services "a large complex
of operations with a vague ill-defined purpose"
1975, p. 66).

(Astmann,

He states that faculty perceive student

services as a necessary evil and that when under financial
pressure, faculty will emerge with a "survival of the
fittest” attitude.

According to the faculty sampled in his

study, student services are peripheral
cites a terminology problem.

(1975).

Crookston

He states that faculty are

not aware of the philosophy and mission of student develop­
ment; that the student service mode is still popular among
faculty; and that a name change will not correct their per­
ceptions (Crookston, 1974).

Chandler, believing that roles

are not adequately defined, calls for a separation of the
managerial and developmental functions.

Functional distinc­

tions of this nature may eliminate some confusion (Chandler,
1973).

Lewis reports that faculty feel a sense of general

uneasiness about student personnel and its relationship to
faculty and students.

As a result, he calls for formal job

descriptions and regular staff evaluations

(Lewis, 1973).

Cross also calls for better definition of roles.

In react­

ing to the roles of diagnostician, programmer, technologist
and behavioral scientist (Brown, 1972), Cross cautions that
ambiguous roles are difficult to evaluate and may suggest
more than that which can be delivered.

She suggests the

function of research as a critical role for student per­
sonnel educators

(Cross, 1973).

41
Dressel, writing in The Journal of Higher Education,
is most critical of student personnel work.

This writer

accuses student personnel workers of attempting to seize
everything that is nonacademic and taking anything that is
not allocated to the faculty.

Dressel further criticizes

student personnel for its diverse and nebulous goals, such
as:

(1) understanding the college student as a learner and

person;

(2) facilitating communication between students and

others in the institution and community; and (3) interpret­
ing goals, values and objectives.

Dressel calls for a more

restricted concept of student personnel and a clearer state­
ment of benefits.

He feels that student personnel educators

should define their mission by responding to the following
questions: What are the benefits?
accrue?

How can they be measured?

To whom do the benefits
Into what natural sub­

groups do the functions and benefits of student personnel
work fall?

Dressel continues to outline the definitional

problem by suggesting that student personnel educators also
have an evaluation problem.

Quantitative evaluation with

measurable outcomes is fairly straightforward

(number of

students served, kind of records kept, extent to which
services are used).

However, qualitative evaluation

methods pose a measurement problem.

Because of this

dilemma, Dressel accuses student personnel educators of
steering away from using good evaluation techniques.
suggests assessment indices to measure

He

(1) general satis­

faction/dissatisfaction of students, faculty and

42
administrators with student personnel work;

(2) increase

in retention rates due to better selection of programs or
careers; or (3) development of skills by students as a
result of interaction (Dressel, 1973).

Thus, it appears

that while theorists of student personnel/student develop­
ment have attempted to provide a clear conceptual framework,
confusion over goals, priorities and roles is evident in
the literature.
Further review of the literature citing trends in
student personnel reveals repeated suggestion for reorgani­
zation of the university structure and student personnel
areas.

At the macro level, Kramer predicts future

increased interest in redesigning university organizational
structure.

He advocates greater attention to the area of

information dissemination by creating a university affairs
office.

He views this office as a research and service

agency with the task of providing relevant assistance to
promote education and growth.

This office would be assigned

to identify issues, problems and needs, and facilitate
resources to meet these needs.

Reporting to the Provist,

Kramer sees this office staffed by student personnel educa­
tors (Kramer, 1975).

Parker advocates a different type of

student information center.

He suggests that student per­

sonnel educators should accumulate and disseminate knowledge
about students and their development to the wider community.
Moreover, he advocates the provision of consultants to
create educational programs and provide assistance to

43
members of the university community (Parker, 1971).
Appleton, Moore and Vinton propose a model for the integra­
tion of academic units and student affairs.

They suggest

a "hub-spoke" model where the chief student personnel
officer on campus would routinely coordinate meetings with
representatives from each academic area.

In order for stu­

dent personnel to be more closely aligned with academic
affairs, it is critical to provide a mechanism that links
services with administration (Appleton, Moore and Vinton,
1978).
Dressel proposes a realignment of student personnel
functions to better reflect function and focus on compe­
tencies.

His restructure includes:

(1) administrative and

fiduciary functions (admissions, records, registration,
financial aids); managerial and coordination

(residence

halls, student activities); information and therapeutic
areas (orientation, counseling, advising, remedial programs);
law and order functions (student rights and grievances)
(1973).
Other researchers suggest a division of student
personnel functions into managerial activities and educa­
tional/developmental functions.

According to Prior, the

management office would handle areas of responsibility,
such as student rights, discipline, security and mainten­
ance.

The education unit may include advising, counseling

services, orientation, special projects and developmental
programs (Prior, 1973).

Prince and Miller support this

44
model stating that a separation of the developmental func­
tions from crisis management and problems is necessary.
The separation would allow for student affairs adminis­
trators to be perceived in an educational role
Chandler advocates a three-way division:

(1976).

(1) managerial-

service;

(2) student development; and (3) judicial control

(1973).

While Miller and Prince report that 80 percent of

the institutions surveyed by Crookston and Atkynes in 1974
had a traditional centralized line-staff structure, the
current literature suggests movement towards new organiza­
tional models

(1976, p. 157).
Declining Resources and Student
Personnel Programs

Literature which specifically addresses the rela­
tionship of dwindling resources, declining enrollments and
student personnel programs broadly defines some trends and
responses.

Matson suggests that student services are often

an area hit during retrenchment because administrators avoid
cutting academic programs, which are universally viewed as
primary programs.

Moreover, she feels that administrators

believe student personnel programs can absorb cuts without
showing adverse effects

(Matson, 1978).

A general theme seems to surround the need for
clarification of goals and purposes in an era of fiscal
limitations and tight accountability.

Harpel calls for an

end to student affairs program justification based on
idealistic/humanitarian platitudes.

He suggests that

45
student affairs administrators are vulnerable in the area
of management skills.

In addition to the development of a

sound philosophic rationale, he suggests that attention
should be given to planning, budgeting and evaluation
(Harpel, 1976).

Lewis (1973), Shaffer (1973), Fischer

(1973) and others also call for accountability systems,
clarification of roles and development of open relation­
ships with component parts of the institution.

Shaffer

calls for enforcement of budget restrictions; development
of new evaluation procedures; and use of cost/benefit
analysis techniques.

Further, he suggests that institu­

tions should prohibit hiring staff with limited and narrow
perceptions of their roles.

In addition, in an era of

fiscal constraint, he calls for the need to build a real­
istic power base; to use consultants effectively; to
develop their roles through research; and to sensitize per­
sonnel staff to the institutional governance structure.
Shaffer seems to advocate a mainstream role for student
affairs.

He suggests that as a service model, student

personnel is "an expensive luxury with an insatiable
appetite for funds and staff"

(1973, p. 388).

Further, the

service function is a difficult one to evaluate (1973).
Dressel advocates a similar posture of tight accountability
and good evaluation.

He questions whether the benefits

justify the costs and suggests the emergence of an insti­
tutional value conflict.

"Are student personnel programs

46
worth the cost in comparison with other programs?"

(1973,

p. 24) .
Matson also calls for the development of a work­
able system of accountability to be used in decisions regard­
ing allocation of resources.

She criticizes administrators

for a "more of the same" attitude in response to program
increases.

She suggests that in the current era of declin­

ing resources, administrators should evaluate outcomes and
critically analyze programs rather than make across-theboard cuts.

In fact, she advocates a program budget as

opposed to zero-based budgeting (Matson, 1978).
Further literature related to the relationship of
declining resources and student personnel programs calls
for use of sophisticated management techniques to meet the
demands of tight accountability.

In a recent study, Meabon,

Sims, Suddick and Alley surveyed student affairs units
in post secondary education to examine the degree to which
management techniques were used.
implementation of these tools

They concluded that the

(statement of purpose, goal

statement, written objectives, job description, evaluation,
reward) was not universal.

Less than half of the institu­

tions reported involvement in annual reviews of accomplish­
ments.

Half of the population reported implementation of

management by objectives framework (Meabon, Sims, Suddick,
and Alley, 1978).
While Boylan (1973) and others call for applications
from management theory, Shoemer and Snapp suggest the use

47
of N.C.H.E.M.S. models

(National Center for Higher Educa­

tion Management Systems).

Shoemer and Snapp suggest that

unless student personnel administrators develop and use
N.C.H.E.M.S. tools, they will lose the accountability and
funding battles.

The development of accountability systems,

formula budgeting and computer technology demands exact and
consistent communication between decision-makers.
N.C.H.E.M.S. provides for consistency of communication
between administrators and to federal agencies.

Shoemer

and Snapp also make the point that the program classifica­
tion structure defines student personnel as a support func­
tion rather than a primary program

(Shoemer and Snapp, 1977) .

Tucker also advocates a more managerial mode for university
administrators.

He suggests that they develop a better

data base to include trends, ratios and variance in order
to recognize important financial warning signals

(Tucker,

1977) .
In an attempt to build a data base and gain an
understanding of costs of student personnel programs, the
Research and Program Development Division of N.A.S.P.A.
(National Association for student Personnel Administrators)
conducted a cost study.

The purpose of the project was to

provide student affairs administrators with cost data for
planning and budgeting.
participants

Because of a small return from the

(39 percent), the findings are inconclusive.

General trends indicate that expenditures per student
decrease as enrollments increase.

Public institutions

48
spend more dollars per student than private Institutions.
Major research universities spend more per student than
four-year colleges.

Accumulation of this type of data will

become increasingly more important in an era of no growth
and tight budgets (Woodard and Birch, 1977).
In describing future trends in student personnel,
some researchers and theoreticians have speculated about
the impact of declining resources on student personnel
programs and provide prescriptions for action.

Rhatigan

sees a survival mentality for student personnel.

He feels

"a cannibalistic assault will be made on all noninstructional areas."

He suggests that student affairs

administrators give careful thought to the question of
across the board cuts, program cuts or the development of
self-financing programs.

He urges student affairs adminis­

trators to attempt to participate in institutional planning
and the development of "retrenchment contingency" plans
(Rhatigan, 1975).

Knefelkamp also expresses concern over

decline of quality, destructive ways of competing for stu­
dents and the prospect of facing rigid defensive faculties.
She sees the potential for increased fragmentation of
faculty and student affairs (Knefelkamp, 1980).

Wellington

also fears a splintering effect on institutional components
and cautions student personnel administrators to develop
programs that are congruent with institutional purposes.
To do this, he suggests that student personnel educators
become involved at various levels of institutional

49
governance and demand organizational changes leading to
integration of business, academic and student affairs pro­
grams (Wellington, 1976).

Blaesser reinforces this notion

in his statement that " . . .

student development programs

will make minimal progress in higher education without
intentional application of sound approaches to organizational
change"

(1978).

Further, in order to respond to changing

student demands and needs, Biggs calls for long range
planning and not cosmetic changes (1979).
In addition to literature citing prescriptive
actions for student affairs administrators, some researchers
provide a descriptive analysis of current and future impli­
cations.

Hakala states "The resource allocation problem

resulting from a leveling off in college growth is the
appearance of excess capacity, or at least misplaced
resources"

(Hakala, 1974).

Further, he expresses concern

for displaced personnel during a time of retrenchment.
Because higher education and particularly student affairs,
are labor intensive enterprises, budget cuts often mean
personnel cuts.

He fears that very specialized staff,

such as student personnel educators in the service areas,
will not survive reallocation of resource dollars (1974).
Employing a force-field analysis, Harvey looks at
student development and its future.

He views the conse­

quences of fiscal issues as the driving force.

Declining

resources will force student affairs into an accountability
mode.

He suggests that smaller numbers of students will

50
provide the opportunity for development of quality programs.
"As the fiscal stability of higher education begins to rest
more fully on FTE or tuition income, higher education
becomes more attuned to needs of students.

Student centered-

ness is no longer a philosophic imperative, but a fiscal
one"

(Harvey, 1976, p. 94).

He sees the surplus of faculty

as a driving force towards the integration of academic and
student affairs.

Appleton, Moore and Vinton concur with

the view that under increased economic pressure, faculty
are more inclined to participate in advising and recruiting
(1978).

Further, Harvey believes that competition from

vocationally oriented institutions such as business,
churches and proprietary schools as meeting needs in the
vocational education, area and therefore, providing an
opportunity for higher education to deal with developmental
concerns.

Further, the Carnegie Commission reports a 7

percent return on the investment in higher education and
Harvey views this fact as a driving force.
In terms of restraining forces, Harvey cites the
move towards vocationalism;

inadequate models of student

development;

faculty unions; and faculty allegiance to a

discipline.

He calls for student personnel workers to

become "scholarly practitioners" with well developed
skills in evaluation, organizational development, planning,
budgeting and conflict resolution

(1976).

this role for student affairs' educators.

Lewis supports
He calls for

staff in the classroom, formal job descriptions, staff

51
evaluation, establishment of leadership retreats, skill
development workshops and implementations of the recommenda­
tions from the Newman Report and Carnegie Commission (Lewis,
1973).
Examining budget cuts and their impact on services,
Ferrari found that services maintained would be financial
aids, registrar, admission, counseling, minority student
programs and dean of students' activities.

The programs

receiving less support were fraternities and sororities,
international programs, student personnel research and
student activities (Ferrari, 1972).
Looking at student personnel as a service oriented
program, J. W. Humphries addresses the question, "Is there
a future for the student personnel professional in American
higher education?"

He raises the issue of the student per­

sonnel educator as being neither faculty nor administration
and suggests that without tenure, rank and departmental
affiliation, positions and people are expendable.
functions can be reassigned.

The job

He suggests that in tight

fiscal times, it is difficult to defend a student service
function.

In his words, "Fiscal pressures produced and

continue to produce casualties.

Some institutions, in

drastic economic moves, have eliminated student personnel
divisions; others have imposed substantial staff reductions.
A few institutions are experimenting with organizational
patterns that place all student personnel functions in the
hands of the faculty as they were previously"

(Humphries,

52
1977).

He further suggests that the survival of services

rest with an independent fee structure.

Humphries urges

student personnel educators to address the issue of their
roles in higher education (1977).
In considering the relationship of limited resources
and student personnel programs, some literature addresses
the supply/demand issue relative to human resource planning.
Armstrong, Campbell and Ostroth conclude that for several
years, there have been more graduates from student personnel
training programs than available professional positions.
Their analysis of the 1977 N.A.S.P.A.

(National Association

of Student Personnel Administrators) employment market
reveals that the greatest number of positions were entry
level housing jobs (Armstrong, Campbell and Ostroth, 1978).
As early as 1974, Escott found an adverse market condition.
Figures from the 1974 N.A.S.P.A. Placement Service show an
entry level selection ratio of 1:0.9; a middle management
ratio of 1:1.7; and an upper management ratio of 1:3.

In

addition, 10 percent of the available positions required
some special training which is not traditionally part of the
student personnel training and curriculum.

Because the

job market is a barometer for changes in the field, Escott
advocates use of placement data in planning human resource
needs for the profession of student personnel (Escott, 1974).
Ferrari also urges development of comprehensive
human resource planning.

In the 1972 national manpower

study, Ferrari surveyed student personnel educators at

53
1,659 colleges and universities.

Because of a low rate of

return (26 percent), the generalizability of the data is
limited.

However, some interesting trends became evident.

Ferrari reports that only 43 percent of student personnel
staff have formal student personnel training and that the
remaining 57 percent have backgrounds in counseling,
psychology and the behavioral sciences.

His findings indi­

cate that this proportion is likely to continue at the
same level.

Reporting no increases in staff positions from

1972-75, but large increases in the number of student per­
sonnel graduates for the same period, Ferrari concludes
that there will be an imbalance in the supply-demand ratio
(Ferrari, 1972).
Other researchers report a stable student personnel
job market.

Packwood reports that in the 1973-74 survey of

student personnel graduates, 95 percent were employed.
However, 24 percent of the candidates earning master's
degrees accepted positions in residence halls.

Further,

15 percent of the total number of graduates accepted posi­
tions outside of the student personnel field (Packwood,
1976).

Greer, Blaesser, Herron and Harle also report a

stable market.

Their study, supported by A.C.P.A.

(Ameri­

can College Personnel Association), Commission X I I , found
that from 1975 to 1976, there were 191 graduates in student
personnel.

Fifty-nine percent of these graduates were

employed in the field.

Six percent were unable to find

positions in specific geographic areas and 5 percent were

54
not able to find employment in the profession.

These

researchers conclude that the number of graduates of stu­
dent personnel programs finding employment outside of the
profession is partially responsible for the stable market.
In 1976-77, 1,049 graduates from college student personnel
were reported and 59 percent of this group were placed in
the field.

Nineteen percent took positions outside of the

profession (Greer, Blaesser, Herron and Harle, 1978).

While

research indicates conflicting opinion regarding the job
market for student personnel trained professionals, some
general trends emerge.

There is an increase in the number

of students taking entry level housing positions; a devel­
oping trend towards more candidates accepting positions
outside of the profession; and a generally favorable market
condition for employers.
There is evidence in the literature of some research
describing general trends in student personnel that seem to
be related to the anticipation of declining resources.
Kramer reports seven influential factors on the field of
student personnel.
low;

He predicts (1) growth rates will be

(2) ethos of accountability will exert pressure;

(3) increased interest in redesigning university organisa­
tional structure;

(4) students will enjoy more freedom;

(5) as costs rise, there will be an effort to maximize
efficiency and productivity;

(6) age mix will become

more heterogeneous; and (7) interplay between constituent
groups will become more political and less paternalistic

55
(Kramer, 1975).

As a result of these trends, he also makes

some predictions for future programs.

In the housing area,

he sees a shift from educational/developmental functions
towards the business and management areas.

In career plan­

ning and placement, he sees employment trends as playing a
significant role in institutional planning.

Better data

collection and dissemination will be necessary.

He pre­

dicts that academic advising will become the province of
the faculty, which may give rise to peer group advising.
Student activities will be more controlled by students.
Health Services will be taken over by external agencies and
provide health care on a fee structure basis (Kramer, 1975).
Young used a modified delphi technique to assess
perceptions of forty representatives from New England col­
leges and universities on the future of student affairs.
The sample included students, faculty, academic deans, and
deans of students.
critical concern.
sexism;

The conclusion suggested five areas of
They are:

(1) institutional racism and

(2) cost effectiveness and evaluation in programs;

(3) increased student responsibility in the educational
setting;

(4) development of specialists and consultants in

student affairs; and (5) attention to career development
(Young, 1978).
Nelson (1979) recently completed a study designed to
determine the extent to which college and university student
personnel administrators perceive changes that may take
place in student personnel services and programs as a result

56
of enrollment and budget reductions.

Taking a functional

approach rather than organizational, he concludes that
some services and programs would be affected.

However, he

found a lack of congruence among respondents as to which
programs would be affected.

In general, he cited the areas

of operating budgets, professional and administrative staff,
counseling centers, student activities, health centers and
activities of the dean of student's office would be most
likely to be affected.

Those activities least likely to

be impacted are recruitment and admissions, registrar,
orientation, placement, financial aids, residence halls,
academic assistance programs, bookstore, security and food
services.

Based on this data, Nelson also concluded that

there will possibly be an increase in nonprofessional stu­
dent personnel administrators in student affairs programs.
He sees paraprofessionals and students as assuming respon­
sibilities in view of fiscal exigencies.
Another trend in evidence throughout the literature
is the call for responsive action to meet the needs of "new
students"

(Rhatigan, 1975; Cross, 1975).

Cross has

described these new students as nontraditional college stu­
dents who have specialized needs.

They are older; many

are married; they represent minority groups; they may be
returning to higher education.

Cross challenges higher edu­

cation to be more responsive to their unique needs
1975).

(Cross,

In addition to meeting the needs of new learners,

it is also necessary to consider the needs of traditional

57
college students.

Because of declining enrollments in higher

education, researchers predict a "student market" in college
selection and a subsequent consumer orientation
and Skinner, 1979).

(Biggs

Dressel cites that the responsibility

of student personnel educators is to insure that students
develop useful competencies

(Dressel, 1973).

Lewis empha­

sizes establishment of leadership training and skill devel­
opment workshops

(Lewis, 1973).

As the literature points to new needs in higher
education, new roles for student personnel administrators
have emerged.

Student affairs personnel should be respon­

sible for fostering open communications among constituent
groups

(Crookston, 1972) ; for developing an expertise in

group process and conflict management

(Lewis, 1973); for

acting as consultants to constituent groups on human devel­
opment

(Parker, 1971); for collecting and disseminating

data (Kramer, 1975); for research and education on human
development

(Shaffer, 1973; Cross, 1973); for integrating

student affairs and academic areas

(Marshall and Sorochty,

1976; Abel, 1973; Harvey, 1974; Miller and Prince, 1976);
and for the development of efficient and effective manage­
ment systems

(Harpel, 1976; Matson, 1978; Meabon, Sims,

Suddick and Alley, 1978; Shoemer and Snapp, 1977).
In a more general sense, Knefelkamp outlines her
perceptions of "conditions threatening the community."
She is concerned that constituent groups in higher education
will become separated and fragmented when confronted with

58
the reality of an era of limitations.

She predicts compe­

tition for valuable resources as well as power and influ­
ence.

In an era of declining enrollments, she predicts

that institutions may admit numbers of poorly prepared,
undergualified students.

The institution may not prepare

to meet the needs of these new students, and more importantly,
the student may not be prepared for failure (Knefelkamp,
1980).
The Carnegie Commission also attempts to address
these concerns.

They identify "signs of survival" as being

the lowering of admissions standards, the search for nontraditional students, increased emphasis on retention of
nontraditional students, the turn towards vocationalism,
grade inflation to retain students and increased faculty
interest in collective bargaining.

Attempting to guard

against these problems, the latest report from the Carnegie
Commission recommends the following: Educators should
(1)

analyze factors likely to affect future enrollments

(demography, changing population mix, labor market changes,
fiscal trends); (2) insist on institution-wide and systemwide planning;

(3) encourage strong leadership;

priority to maintenance of quality;
tion and flexibility;
resources;

(4) give

(5) encourage innova­

(6) strive for effective use of

(7) seek support from private sources; and

(8) improve programs for recruitment and retention (Chron­
icle of Higher Education, XVII, 20, 1980).

59
Conclusion
The review of the literature includes information
documenting the general trend towards declining resources
for higher education in 1980-90.

Included in the litera­

ture related to resources is information about declining
enrollments in higher education.

Declining enrollments,

which mean fewer tuition dollars, are the result of a
decrease in the size of the traditional college-age popula­
tion and a decrease in the rate of attendance.

Additionally,

information about federal, state and private funding is
included.

Research and literature as to the impact of

declining resources on public and private four-year insti­
tutions is reviewed.
Secondly, an historical review of the major philo­
sophic positions of the student personnel profession was
presented.

The evolution of the field from a primarily

service component (1900-1920) to a field founded in a well
integrated theory of human development (1972-present) was
described.

Research findings by proponents of "The Student

Personnel Point of View" and of student development were
presented.

Writing of future issues and trends, such as a

call for goal congruence, greater integration with the
other components of the university, were also reported.
Finally, literature related to the relationship
between student personnel and declining resources was pre­
sented.

The published research on this topic is limited

60
and existing work presents only general and vague ideas.
Primarily

,researchers

call for better definition of roles

and clarification of purposes in order to justify expendi­
tures for student services in tight fiscal times.

More­

over, researchers suggest implementation of more sophis­
ticated management techniques to aide in acting effectively
in an era of tight accountability.

Some general trends in

higher education which are related to or suggest a rela­
tionship between declining resources and student personnel
programs were reviewed and the dominant theme suggests a
concern for fragmentation of component parts of the univer­
sity in the coming decade of limited resources.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to assess perceptions
of executive level educational administrators about the
relationship between declining resources in the decade of
1980-90 and student personnel programs in a random sample
of four-year colleges and universities in the State of
Michigan,

In order to provide more focus to the study, the

following questions for investigation were developed.
(1) Will student personnel programs and services be
affected by declining resources in the decade of
1980-90?
change?

If so, what will be the nature of the
Which services will be affected?

How

will these services be affected?
(2) What criteria are applied to assess the effective­
ness and economy of student personnel services?
(3) What differences in responses, if any, exist
between public and private four-year institutions
in the State of Michigan?
(4) What differences in responses, if any, exist
between universities of more than 20,0^0 students;

62
colleges and universities of 7,500 to 20,000 stu­
dents; and colleges and universities of less than
7,500 students in the State of Michigan?
(5)

What differences in response, if any, exist between
executive level educational administrators, by
position, in Michigan colleges and universities?
in attempting to provide a thorough investigation

of the primary research questions and offer responses to
the more specific questions for investigation, the investi­
gator included the following components in the design of
the study and research methodology.

Mull hypotheses were

presented based on the five research questions previously
outlined.

The population studied was described and justi­

fication was provided.

The development of the instrument

was detailed and a copy of the final product may be found
in Appendix A.

Finally, the methodology for collection and

analysis of the data was outlined.

A brief summary of the

process concludes the chapter.
Testable Hypotheses
Based on the five questions for investigation, null
hypotheses were developed.

The following hypotheses were

tested through analysis of the responses to the developed
survey questions.
Hypothesis la:
Student personnel programs and services will not
be affected by declining resources in the decade
of 1980-90.

63
Hypothesis lbi
There are no significant differences in the effect
of declining resources on individual student ser­
vices.
Hypothesis 2 ;
Respondents do not differ significantly in their
responses to what criteria is applied to assess
effectiveness and economy of student services.
Hypothesis 3 :
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
of public and private four-year institutions in
the State of Michigan.
Hypothesis 4 ;
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
of universities of more than 20,000 students;
colleges and universities of 7,500 to 20,000 stu­
dents; and colleges and universities of less than
7,500 students in the State of Michigan.
Hypothesis 5 ;
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
in Michigan colleges and universities by position.
Selection of Population
The general purpose of the study was to assess the
relationship between declining resources and student per­
sonnel programs in colleges and universities.

The primary

criteria employed in defining the population were (1) who
are the individuals in Michigan colleges and universities
with the primary responsibility for institutional resource
management and decision-making;

(2) who are the individuals

which seem to have the most experience and knowledge in

64
resource allocation in colleges and universities;

(3) will

this group of people be manageable in terms of accessibility
and interest in participation?

Based upon literature sup­

porting items 1 and 2 of the above criteria, this investi­
gator selected executive level educational decision-makers
as the population to be included in the study (Barzun, 1970).
The executive level educational administrators
include individuals in the positions of Chief Executive/
President, Chief Academic Officer/Provost, Chief Budget
Officer/Vice President for Financial Affairs, and Chief
Student Personnel Officer/Vice President for Student
Affairs.

If institutions used different titles, the

individual with primary responsibility for the area/program
was included.

These specific educational administrators

were selected because the literature on decision-making in
institutions of higher education supports the notion that
the power, authority and influence related to institutional
management is derived from the governing board and is vested
in the position of the president.

According to Barzun,

"the president can do whatever he wishes"

(1968, p. 96).

The Vice President for Academic Affairs was selected since
he dually represents the president as well as the faculty
through the department chairs and the dean.

The Vice

President for Financial Affairs was included since this
position represents the most wholistic view of the fiscal
state of the institution.

The Vice President for Student

Affairs was selected since this position has primary

65
responsibility for the program under study.

Further,

these four executive level positions were consistently
represented in organizational structures at various insti­
tutions.

Other vice presidential positions were not

included because of overly specialized job responsibilities
as well as the fact that such positions were often unique
to a particular campus.

Thus, the four executive level

educational administrators were selected because of their
primary responsibility for institutional resource decision­
making and management, and because of their knowledge,
experience and broad institutional perspective in resource
allocation decisions for colleges and universities.
In addition to defining the population as executive
level educational administrators, the population was
further narrowed to include only administrators from fouryear public and private bachelor's degree-granting insti­
tutions in the State of Michigan with headcount enrollments
of 500 or more students.

The decision to include adminis­

trators from a single state was made because of consistency
of state funding.

Because decisions about programs are made

based on availability of resources, and resources include
state as well as federal appropriations, inclusion of a
population drawn from a single state would increase the
reliability of the data.

Secondly, the selection of

Michigan institutional decision-makers was made because of
the investigator's proximity to the institution, access to

66
information and familiarity with the system of higher edu­
cation.
Further, it was decided to include four-year public
and private institutions.

Both public and private insti­

tutions were included since differences in perceptions of
administrators at public institutions and at private
schools is a question for investigation.

Because four-

year bachelor's degree-granting institutions have similar
educational missions and serve a similar clientele, dif­
ferences in perceptions between public and private fouryear institutional administrators about student personnel
programs are legitimate comparisons and may suggest future
trends.

Two year schools, junior and community colleges,

and nonbachelor degree-granting institutions were not
included in the population for the following reasons.

As

a group of institutions, they often rely heavily on local/
community funding or private sources; they serve a different
clientele; and have a different educational mission.
Because of these differences, the student personnel programs
at two year institutions may have a different educational
thrust than the programs at four year schools.

These dif­

ferences would make comparisons of specific programs impos­
sible and would make general comparison subject to ques­
tions of validity.
Institutions with headcount enrollments of less
than 500 students were eliminated since many of these
schools do not have the resources and/or the student demand

67
to support a comprehensive student personnel program.

In

making this determination, the measure of headcount was
used rather than PTE

(full time equivalent)

since most stu­

dent personnel programs are usually not funded based on FTE.
Part-time students have access to and use student services/
programs as well as full-time students and may use programs/
services to the same extent.
General Motors Institute was included in the ori­
ginal population, but requested exclusion from the study
because of its unique governance and funding structure.
G.M.I. is the only accredited undergraduate college main­
tained by a single industrial corporation.

Secondly, all

students at G.M.I. are required to participate in coopera­
tive education.

Under this plan, students spend alternating

twelve-week periods in academic preparation at G.M.I. and in
work experiences at their sponsoring General Motors division.
This institution-wide involvement in cooperative education
has an impact upon the student affairs program by providing
specialized services/programs and altering the traditional
student affairs programs to meet the needs of co-op students
at this unique institution.

Furthermore, student affairs

programs are supported by allocations from General Motors
Corporation.
Based on the definition, the list of institutions
was generated from the 1978-79 Fact Book on Higher Education
in Michigan.

The population of executive level educational

administrators was determined from the Educational

68
Directory-Colleges and Universities 1978-79, published by
the National Center for Educational Statistics.

An attempt

was made to update this list through informal contacts
with faculty and administrators at Michigan State Univer­
sity and through telephone inquiry to the president's office
at the respective institution.

The final list included the

names, titles and addresses of presidents, vice presidents
for academic affairs, vice presidents for financial affairs
and vice presidents for student affairs at all four-year
bachelor degree-granting institutions with headcount
enrollments of 500 or more students in the State of Michigan.
Because of the small and manageable number of participants,
the entire population was included in the sample.

One

hundred and fifty-two institutional decision-makers from
thirty-eight colleges and universities made up the popu­
lation.

Table 3.1 provides a description of the population.
Development of the Instrument
After an extensive review of the literature and

analysis of the problem, the questionnaire was developed
(see Appendix A ) .

The instrument was designed to solicit

information and perceptions that would provide a data base
for hypotheses testing.

More specifically, the instrument

was designed to (1) assess perceptions about the relation­
ship of decreasing revenues and student personnel programs;
(2) assess perceptions about the relationship of resource
limitations and specific student personnel programs/

Table 3.1.— Composition of Population.

Variable

Number in
Population

Number of
Responses

Percentage
of Responses

Respondents from:
Public Institutions

60

56

93.33

Private Institutions

92

64

69.56

104

84

80.76

Medium Size Institutions

32

23

71.87

Large Institutions

16

13

81.25

President

38

28

78.68

Vice President for Academic Affairs

38

33

86.84

Vice President for Financial Affairs

38

30

78.94

Vice President for Student Affairs

38

29

76.31

Respondents from:
Small institutions

Respondents from:

70
services;

(3) assess the primary criteria used in program

justification;

(4) assess perceptions about the locus of

primary responsibility for administration of programs/
services; and (5) gather information on what programs/
services are offered at each institution.

Thus, it was

expected that responses from the questionnaire would pro­
vide answers to the following general questions: who should
be responsible for various student services; what criteria
should be used for program evaluation; and how should
dollars be allocated in light of declining resources?
The survey was composed of seventy-seven forced
answer items with numerous provisions for open-ended
responses.

The first section solicited information about

the respondents' attitudes about declining enrollments and
resource reductions at their respective institutions.

This

section was included to gain a perspective about the
respondent's frame of reference.

Secondly, the question­

naire addressed the general issue of resource allocation
to university-wide program areas as defined by the Education
Division of the Department of Management and Budget of the
State of Michigan.

The major portion of the instrument

included four questions directed towards seventeen student
services/programs.

The list of the seventeen student

services was generated from a review of the student affairs
literature and informal interviews with student affairs
practitioners at four-year institutions

(Packwood, 1977).

The four primary questions asked for (1) respondent's

71
perceptions relative to resource allocation;
criteria for having the program/service;

(2) primary

(3) primary

responsibility for implementation of the program/service;
and (4) availability of the program/service at the
respondent's institution.

For questions 1, 2 and 3 r

respondents were asked to answer for all services/programs
and to assume that all services/programs are of high
quality.

This qualification, and the use of hypothetical

questions, were employed to solicit opinions based on pro­
fessional expertise and to avoid local institutional bias.
The instrument was pilot tested by two academic
administrators; two management/budget administrators; and
two student personnel administrators at Michigan State
University.

The questionnaire was administered to each

member of the pilot group.

After completing the survey, a

patterned verbal interview was conducted with each partici­
pant.

Additionally, members of the pilot group made

general comments.

These individual sessions were designed

to seek input on question bias, vagueness or confusion;
to assess time and ease of completion of the questionnaire;
to evaluate completeness and intelligibility of directions;
and to determine general attitudes about the degree to
which the questionnaire fits the purpose of the study.
A research consultant reviewed the questionnaire.

Based

on comments from the pilot group and the research con­
sultant, changes were made and the survey was rewritten.
Face validity of the questionnaire was assumed from this

72
process.

The final draft of the instrument, a seventy-

seven item questionnaire, was typed and printed.
Data Collection
Data was collected by direct mailing of the final
questionnaire to each member of the population.
tionnaire, a personally addressed cover letter

The ques­
(see

Appendix B) and self-addressed stamped envelope was sent
to each participant on January 14, 1980.

Participants

were promised that the individual identity of their
responses would be kept confidential.

Instruments were

not coded for individual identification because identity
by position and institution was of primary interest and
was requested in the information section of the question­
naire.
A personalized follow-up (see Appendix C ) , question­
naire and self-addressed stamped envelope was sent to all
nonrespondents on February 18, 1980.

Of the one hundred

and fifty-two questionnaires mailed, one hundred and twenty
completed and usable questionnaires were returned.
Responses received after April 1, 1980 were not included
in the study.

The responses were evenly divided across

position: twenty-eight responses received from chief
executives; thirty-three responses were received from chief
academic officers; thirty responses were received from chief
financial officers; and twenty-nine questionnaires were
received from chief student personnel officers.

In total.

73
responses were received from one hundred and twenty partici­
pants which represents 78.9 percent of the population
sampled.
Data Analysis
The information received from each questionnaire was
coded and key punched for computer analysis.

During the

coding process, it was necessary in some cases for this
investigator to interpret responses.

Responses to open-

ended questions were gathered and will appear in Chapter
IV.
Data was analyzed using computer programs from the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Hull, 1970).

(Nie, Bent and

All programs were entered and run on the CDC

750 computer at Michigan State University.
Because the nature of the data collected was nominal
and ordinal

(as opposed to interval data), the most prac­

tically useful analysis of the data was tabulation of fre­
quencies and percentage frequencies of response.

This type

of descriptive information was tabulated using the SPSS
subprogram Frequencies.

The results supplied data on all

questionnaire items in the following formats: frequencies,
percentage frequencies, and where applicable, means,
standard deviations, and ranges.

To test the research

hypotheses, measures of association, chi square and Fisher*s
Exact Test (used in cases where cell size is less than five)
were calculated using subprogram Crosstabulation (Hays,1973).

74
To determine if responses differed due to service
nature of program or developmental/education focus, addi­
tional analysis was performed.

The list of seventeen

services/programs was divided into two groups.

The division,

as determined through a series of informal interviews with
ten practicing student personnel educators, were (1) those
programs which are considered to be primarily educational/
developmental in their mission and (2) those programs which
are primarily for the purpose of providing a necessary
service to the student body.

Cells were collapsed across

programs into these two groups and a multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was applied.
In determining the rejection or acceptance of the
null hypotheses, the level of significance for each test
was set at the standard .05 level.

The investigator felt

that use of a smaller alpha level, such as .01, would
impose too strict of a test for exploratory research
designed to assess trends and perceptions.

On the other

hand, using a more liberal alpha level, such as .1, would
Increase the risk of making a Type 1 error because of the
use of multiple chi square tests (Hays, 1973).

Thus, the

.05 alpha level was selected as the criterion for accepting
or rejecting the null hypothesis.
Summary
The content of this chapter is a detailed account
of the procedures established and followed by the

75
investigator in carrying out the study.

The original idea

for investigation became a study when the problem was
defined as a clear, concise statement of purpose.

As

previously stated, the purpose of this study is to assess
perceptions of executive level educational administrators
about the relationship between declining resources in the
decade of 1980-90 and student personnel programs in the
population of four-year colleges and universities in the
State of Michigan.

The purpose of the study was reiterated

in this chapter as the guiding principle in the design of
the questions for investigation and formulation of research
hypotheses.

Additionally, the definition of the population

and design of the instrument were developed in accordance
with the original statement of purpose and described in the
chapter.

Moreover, the collection and analysis of the data

followed established and conventional procedures.
IV presents the findings of the study.

Chapter

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction
The findings from the survey of executive level
administrators of four-year colleges and universities in
the State of Michigan are presented in this chapter.

The

findings include data collected from the administration of
the questionnaire by mail; tabulation of the data on the
CDC 750 computer at M.S.U.; and treatment of the data for
the purpose of hypothesis testing.
The study is designed to assess perceptions of exec­
utive level education administrators about the relationship
between declining resources in the decade of 1980-90 and
student personnel programs in the population of four-year
colleges and universities in the State of Michigan.

More

specifically, the study was designed to gain responses to
the following questions as perceived by executive level
educational administrators in Michigan colleges and univer­
sities.
(1) Will student personnel programs and services be
affected by declining resources in the decade of
1980-90?

If so, what will be the nature of the
76

77
change?

Which services will be affected?

How will

these services be affected?
(2) What criteria are applied to assess the effective­
ness and economy of student personnel services?
(3)

What differences

in

responses,if

any, exist

between respondents from public and private fouryear institutions in the State
(4)

What differences

in

of Michigan?

responses,if

any, exist between

respondents from universities of more than 20,000
students; colleges and universities of 7,500 to
20,000 students; and colleges and universities of
less than 7,500 students in the State of Michigan?
(5) What differences in response, if any, exist between
executive level educational administrators by posi­
tion in Michigan colleges and universities.
The instrument was designed to solicit information
and perceptions that would provide responses to the five
research questions, and subsequently, for the purpose of
testing the null hypotheses.

The survey was composed of

seventy-seven forced answer items.

The instrument asked

some general questions to provide the investigator with
demographic data about the respondent's institution (see
Table 4.1).

The next section solicited information about

the respondent's perceptions about declining enrollments
and resource reductions at their respective institutions.
Further, the questionnaire addressed the general issue of
resource allocation to university-wide program area.

The

78
Table 4.1.— Analysis of. Population.
Number of
Responses

Relative Frequency
Percentages

Status
Public

.56

46.7

64

53.3

Up to 7,500

84

70.0

7,500 to 20,000

23

19.2

20,000 or more

13

10.8

President

28

23.3

Vice President for
Academic Affairs

33

27.5

Vice President for
Financial Affairs

30

25.0

Vice President for
Student Affairs

29

24.2

Private
Size

Position

79
major portion of the instrument included four questions
directed towards seventeen student services/programs.

The

four primary questions asked (1) respondent's perceptions
relative to resource allocation;
offering the program/service;

(2) primary criteria for

(3) primary responsibility for

implementation of the program/service; and (4) availability
of the program/service at the respondent's institution.
Data for all questions are presented in this chapter.
Analysis of data was performed to consider differ­
ences in responses from administrators of public and private
institutions; from institutions of varying size; and from
administrators representing different positions at the insti­
tutions.

Data was further analyzed to assess differences

in responses for service-oriented student personnel programs
and educational/developmental focused programs.

The find­

ings are presented in this chapter.
Data Analysis
Returned questionnaires were reviewed and evaluated
for inclusion in the study.

One hundred and twenty (78.9

percent) usable questionnaires were coded and the data was
transferred to data processing cards.

Data analysis tech­

niques were selected based on the questions for investiga­
tion and testable hypotheses.

Computer programs from Sta­

tistical Package for the Social Sciences were used to aid in
data tabulation and analysis.

Programs were entered and run

on the CDC 750 computer at Michigan State University.

80
Several data analysis techniques were used in order
to present the material in a meaningful format and in order
to test the research hypotheses.

The SPSS subprogram fre­

quencies was used to tabulate description information for
all questions.

To determine relationships between responses

and the independent variables of public/private status;
size of institution and position at institution, measures
of association, such as chi square and Fisher's Exact Test,
were calculated by employing the SPSS subprogram Cross­
tabulation.

To determine if responses differed due to ser­

vice nature of program or developmental/educational focus,
a multivariate analysis of variance was applied.

The .05

alpha level was selected as the criteria for accepting or
rejecting the null hypotheses.
Analysis of Respondents
The survey group used in this study included the
total population of presidents, vice presidents for aca­
demic affairs, vice presidents for financial affairs and
vice presidents for student affairs at all four-year bachelor
degree-granting institutions with headcount enrollments of
500 or more students in the State of Michigan.

This

includes 152 institutional decision makers from thirty-eight
colleges and universities.

Since the purpose of the study

is to assess individual perceptions, the unit of analysis
is individual responses and not institutional responses.

81
The survey group was selected based on the following
assumptions made by this investigator.

Individuals with

primary responsibility for major program areas (academic
affairs, student affairs, financial affairs):
1.

should hold an institutional perspective and, there­
fore, respond with a well developed awareness of the
critical issues, philosophies and policies of their
institution.

2.

typically have years of experience in the industry
of higher education and their response should
reflect experience and wisdom.

3.

are promoted and/or hired based on a certain level
of professional competence and, therefore, com­
petence and experience should provide the basis
for response.

4.

have worked in higher education and should have
sophisticated perceptions and well-developed atti­
tudes about trends and issues in higher education.
Finally, the literature supports the notion that

institutional decision-making is usually executed at the
presidential and executive level (Barzun, 1968).

There­

fore, in attempting to study the relationship between declin
ing resources and student personnel programs in colleges and
universities, this investigator determined that individuals
in the positions of chief executive, chief academic officer,

82
chief budget officer and chief student personnel officer
would provide quality responses.

Based on their institu­

tional perspective, sophisticated level of experience, com­
petence and awareness, quality of response was assumed.
Response Rates
Executive level administrators from thirty-eight
colleges and universities were included in the study.

A

total of 120 usable responses were received from a population
of 152.

The overall response rate was 78.9 percent.

In

examining the breakdown of respondents by the variables of
public/private status; size; and position, it is evident
that cell sizes vary greatly.

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 provide

a detailed analysis of the population and percentage of
response.

Further breakdown of the response by two or more

variables would involve empty cells and therefore, would
eliminate valid statistical analysis.

Therefore, responses

were analyzed independently by the three variables of status,
size, and position.
Percentage of responses to total population seem
fairly consistent across levels with the exception of the
public/private category.

Ninety-three percent of the admin­

istrators from public institutions responded as compared
with 70 percent of the administrators from private schools.
There is a small variation in response rate within the
levels of size and position.

83
Table 4.2.— Analysis of Population/Number of Respondents.
Up to 7,500

7,500 to 20,000

20,000 or More

President
Public
Private

4

6

2

16

0

0

Vice President for Academic Affairs
Public
Private

5

6

3

18

1

0

Vice President for Financial Affairs
Public
Private

4

6

4

16

0

0

Vice President for Student Affairs
Public
Private

8

4

4

13

0

0

Table 4.3.— Composition of Population.
Number of
Institutions

Number in
Population

Number of
Responses

Percentage
of Responses

Public Institutions

15

60

56

93.33

Private Institutions

23

92

64

69.56

26

104

84

80.76

7,500 to 20,000

8

32

23

71.87

20,000 or more

4

16

13

81.25

President

38

38

28

78.68

Vice President for
Academic Affairs

38

38

33

86.84

Vice President for
Financial Affairs

38

38

30

78.94

Vice President for
Student Affairs

38

38

29

76.31

Institutional Status

Size
Up to 7,500

Position

85
Summary of Responses to Questions
Do you think that your institution will experience a change
in enrollment in the next five years?
yes 86.7%

no 13.3%

In the next ten years?
yes 87.5%

no

8.3%

What do you anticipate to be the magnitude of the change
in enrollment at your institution in the next five years?
increase 0-10%

33.3%

decrease 0-10%

30.0%

increase 10-20%

19.2%

decrease 10-20%

4.2%

increase 20-30%

1.7%

decrease 20-30%

0.0%

increase 30% or more

1.7%

decrease 30% or more

0.0%

no response

10.0%

the next ten years?
increase 0-10%

25.0%

decrease 0-10%

23.3%

increase 10-20%

13.3%

decrease 10-20%

15.0%

increase 20-30%

5.0%

decrease 20-30%

2.5%

increase 30% or more

2.5%

decrease 30% or more

0.0%

no response

13.3%

86

Anticipating the impact of inflation, do you think that
your institution will experience a change in resources
(i.e., tuition revenue, state appropriations, private gifts)
in the next five years?
yes 91.7%

no 7.5%

no response .8%

In the next ten years?
yes 90.0%

no 4.2%

no response 5.8%

What do you anticipate to be the magnitude of the change
in resources

at your institution in the next five years?

increase

0-10%

26. 7%

decrease

0-10%

11. 7%

increase

10-20%

25.0%

decrease

10-20%

.8%

increase

20-30%

13.3%

decrease

20-30%

1.7%

increase 30%or more

10.8%

decrease 30%or more

0.0%

no response

10.0%

In the next ten years?
increase

0-10%

15.0%

decrease

0-10%

12.5%

increase

10-20%

20.8%

decrease

10-20%

2.5%

increase

20-30%

2.5%

decrease 20-30%

10.8%

increase 30%

20.8%

or more

87
decrease 30% or more
no response

0.0%
15.0%

If your institution were to experience a significant decline
in resources or if resource allocations did not keep up
with inflation, what recommendations would you anticipate
making in the allocation of resources to the following pro­
gram areas?
1 - increase allocation to raise funding level
2 - maintain allocation at current funding level
3 - decrease allocation
4 - eliminate program
Responses are presented in Table 4.4.
Additional Comments
This particular question received a great deal of
attention from respondents in the "Additional Comment" sec­
tion.

Responses ranged from justification of recommendation

to further explanation to comment about confusion over the
question.

It is evident that two respondents interpreted

and answered the question for their particular institution
and did not consider the hypothetical nature of the question.
Their comments were as follows:
"Our current resources are adequate. We have maintained
a balanced budget for the last five years. Without a
fundraising office . . . ."
"Do not anticipate a decline."

Table 4.4.— Recommendations for Program Allocation (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

1 ~Increase
resources to
_ ,.
raise funding

_
2 - Maintain
^
program at current
Z
.
,
funding level

3 - Cut
program
‘ r.
funding

„
_
4 - Eliminate
program

»
No
Response

32.5

44.2

14.2

4.2

5.0

Research

5.0

35.8

34.2

9.2

15.8

Public Service

6.7

21.7

49.2

12.5

10.0

Academic Support

20.0

55.0

19.2

.8

5.0

Student Services

5.8

44.2

44.2

.8

5.0

Plant Operation

10.8

48.3

35.8

5.0

5.0

Instruction

89
It is unclear as to how many respondents interpreted the
question relative to their institution and did not con­
sider the hypothetical nature of the question.
The "no response" rate for this question was quite
high.

It ranged from 5 to 15.8 percent across the cate­

gories.

Some questionnaires carried explanations for "non-

response."

Comments are as follows:

"For a major, complex instructional/research institu­
tion, you cannot categorically determine which programs
would be maintained and which programs would be decreased
or eliminated.
For example, in the instructional area,
some programs would be reduced or eliminated and other
programs may receive additional funding.
It is antici­
pated that all categories would be subject to an adjust­
ment based on the objectives and needs of the University
at the time rather than reflect across-the-board increases
or decreases."
"I anticipate growth, not decline."
"I would assume selective program eliminations in all
components of the budget."
Individuals who responded for this question often pro­
vided rationale and/or further discussion about their
response.

General comments and comments relative to spe­

cific program areas are presented below.
"As a small private institution we would curtail
research and public service; try to maintain instruc­
tion and academic support.
If things got worse, then
student services and plant operation would become 3's
(decrease allocation). I think in any institution
instruction and academic support must remain top prior­
ity."
"Academic/instruction are clear priorities if resources
dwindle.”
"All of the areas are equally important and must be
maintained."

90
"Priorities for General Fund program allocations are
likely to favor mission of instruction and academic sup­
port.
Research programs, which are primarily funded
outside of the General Fund, would be maintained at
current levels as would the necessary plant operations.
In terms of constant dollars, they would be required to
become more efficient, more productive, or less exten­
sive. The reductions for public service and student
services would most likely be tied to increasing selfsupport resources and/or program reductions."
"One would find it necessary to make adjustments in
all areas.
Though the percent amount in each area
would not be the same."
"I expect hard times due to inflation, increased tuition
costs and return to straight instructional activities."
One Vice President for Academic Affairs ranked the program
areas in the following way:
"(1) Instruction, (2) academic support, (3) research,
(4) student services, (5) plant operation, (6) public
service."
"This is a difficult question to answer.
Given the
above condition, we would probably reduce those aca­
demic programs in which enrollment had declined."
Comments relative to specific program areas are
presented below.
Instruction
"Quality of faculty must be maintained."
"An increase would be recommended only if decline in
resources was in areas other than enrollment generated."
Research
"Would consider maintaining at current level adequate;
major research thrusts should be a U. of M. and M.S.U."
"Faculty should continue to seek their own funding for
research."

91
Public Service
"A1locations could be decreased and programs might be
eliminated if available in or through some state or
community agency."
Student Services.
"Presently moving much of this activity to being self
supporting."
"Certain areas could be reduced if, for example, they
would be available in the community.”
"It might be possible to lower the cost for services.
Generally, that means cut or eliminate them."
This individual continues and suggests a cost effective
model for integration of student development with instruc­
tion.

He states that the idea is "not unlike the 'old*

liberal arts notion of learning."
Plant Operation
"Costs would not be met with maintenance at current
levels (fuel). Some reallocation within the area would
have to be made."
"It costs more to maintain. On small campus the build­
ing costs almost determine the program expense. Balanc­
ing the practical needs with the important notion that
the learning/ed. process is central, is the dilemma of
administration."
Responses to questions about student services/
programs.
Given a budget cut or resource allocation which did not
keep pace with inflation, what recommendations would
you anticipate making for each of the student services/
programs?

92
Responses to this question are presented in Table 4.5.
In addition to the seventeen services/programs included in
the list, respondents added three programs.

Each of the

following programs appear once as a suggestion for inclu­
sion in the study: cultural events, campus safety and univer­
sity relations.

Because of the low frequency of response

for each of these suggested programs, they will not be
included in the analysis.
Additional Comments
Open ended comments were limited for this question.
Four respondents suggested that they could not answer the
question because they did not have responsibility for the
program areas.

The following comments provide examples of

the responses.
"Subprogram allocations would be the responsibility
of the Vice President for Student Services."
Other nonrespondents suggested that when taken out of con­
text, it is extremely difficult to respond to resource allo­
cation to programs.

One comment suggests:

"My actions in an actual situation would depend so much
on the options available at the time, the amount of the
cut, and the overall situation both internally and
externally."
Two other voluntary comments suggest the use of external
funding sources for student services/programs.
"Indicating (4) as a response for health services and
volunteer programs does not necessarily mean the elimi­
nation of these programs, but the fact that they should
be funded or supported through other means.
For
example, except for a single staff coordinator the

Table 4.5.— Given a Budget Cut or Resource Allocation Which Did Not Keep Pace with Inflation, What
Recommendations Would You Anticipate Making for Each of the Student Services/Programs
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents)?

1 - Increase
funding above
current level

2 - Maintain
funding at
current level

3 - Decrease
funding to
base level

4 - Eliminate
service or
program

Academic Advising/Career Planning

29.2

58.3

7.5

.8

4.2

Admissions/Recruitment

56.7

35.0

5.0

0.0

3.3

3.3

52.5

34.2

4.2

5.8

.8

49.2

41.7

1.7

6.7

5.0

32.5

40.8

14.2

7.5

27.5

64.2

4.2

0.0

4.2

.8

35.8

42.5

10.8

10.0

International Student Programs

1.7

25.0

43.3

21.7

8.3

Intramural & Recreational Athletics

2.5

45.8

44.2

2.5

5.0

New Student Orientation

9.2

61.7

24.2

.8

4.2

Placement

11.7

64.2

19.2

.8

4.2

Registrar

.8

73.3

21.7

.8

3.3

1.7

31.7

34.2

20.0

12.5

Counseling Center
Dean of Students Office
Field Experience Programs
Financial Aids
Health Services

Religious Activities

Table 4.5.— Continued.

1 - Increase
funding above
current level

2 - Maintain
funding at
current level

Residence Hall Programs

2.5

50.8

33.3

.8

12.5

Student Activities

2.5

46.7

45.0

1.7

4.2

Support Programs for Special Groups
(women, minorities, handicappers)

& ?

49.2

30.8

6.7

6.7

16.7

44.2

28.3

10.0

Volunteer Programs

.8

3 - Decrease
funding to
base level

4 - Eliminate
service or
program

vo

95
volunteer program could be totally voluntary at no cost
to the University.
In the area of health services, it
may be necessary to use other facilities or services
available within the community."
Another comment suggested a similar attitude.
"Funding decreases in most subprograms would probably
be linked to other sources of support."
Given services/programs of high quality in all areas,
which of the following should be the primary criteria
applied in the evaluation of each of the student
services/programs?
Responses to this question are presented in Table
4.6.

There were no additional comments.
Which of the following units should have primary respon­
sibility for each of the student services/programs?
Responses to this question are presented in Table

4.7.
Additional Comments
Some additional comments were made.

One respondent

commented,
"There is a proliferation of counseling on most
campuses, most of which is poor. Thus, I question
both the maintenance and need of such."
The same respondent also added that religious activities
is the responsibility of the church rather than the univer­
sity.

Table 4.6.— Given Services/Programs of High Quality in All Areas, Which of the Following Should be the
Primary Criteria Applied in the Evaluation of Each of the Student Services/Programs
(Reported as Percentage of Responses)?

1 - Economic
. .
survival

2 - Philosophic
.
mission

,
„
.
3 - Morale

4 - Political
_
realities

.
.
is not
necessary

Academic Advising/
Career Planning

33.3

55.0

7.5

0.0

.8

3.3

Admissions/Recruitment

95.0

1.7

.8

0.0

0.0

2.5

Counseling Center

2.5

51.7

35.8

.8

5.8

3.3

Dean of Students
Office

8.3

34.2

43.3

7.5

2.5

4.2

Field Experience
Programs

4.2

55.8

11.7

7.5

15.0

5.8

79.2

15.8

1.7

1.7

0.0

1.7

Health Services

5.0

16.7

45.8

10.0

17.5

5.0

International Student
Programs

2.5

31.7

16.7

12.5

30.8

5.8

.8

14.2

69.2

5.8

6.7

3.3

15.8

47.5

26.7

.8

5.8

3.3

Financial Aids

Intramural & Recrea­
tional Athletics
New Student
Orientation

No
Response

Table 4.6.— Continued.

4 - Political
,...
realities

5 - Service
is not
necessary

15.0

7.5

1.7

3.3

34.2

14.2

5.0

0.0

4.2

.8

40.0

16.7

6.7

29.2

6.7

10.8

20.8

46.7

s 5.8

6.7

9.2

Student Activities

1.7

20.8

66.7

5.0

2.5

3.3

Support Programs for
Special Groups
(women, minorities,
handicappers)

1.7

41.7

10.0

32.5

8.3

5.8

Volunteer Programs

3.3

23.3

16.7

5.8

42.5

8.3

1 - Economic
. ,
survival

2 - Philosophic
. .
mission

Placement

26.7

45.8

Registrar

42.5

Religious Activities
Residence Hall
Programs

u
,
3 - Morale

No
Response

Table 4.7.— Which of the Following Units Should Have the Primary Responsibility for Each of the
Student Services/Programs (Reported as Percentage of Responses)?

1 - Academic
Affairs

2 - Student
Affairs

3 - Business
and Finance

4 - External
Agent

5 - Other

No
Response

Academic Advising/Career
Planning

75.8

19.2

0.0

0.0

2.5

2.5

Admissions/Recruitment

47.5

41.7

1.7

.8

5.8

2.5

Counseling Center

10.0

85.0

0.0

.8

.8

3.3

2.5

93.3

.8

0.0

.8

2.5

Field Experience
Programs

78.3

10.8

.8

1.7

1.7

6.7

Financial Aids

20.0

47.5

30.8

0.0

0.0

1.7

Health Services

0.0

85.8

1.7

8.3

0.0

4.2

International Student
Programs

41.7

50.0

0.0

.8

1.7

5.8

Intramural & Recreational
Athletics

17.5

74.2

0.0

0.0

5.0

3.3

New Student Orientation

28.3

70.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

Placement

23.3

72.5

.8

0.0

.8

2.5

Registrar

75.0

20.8

1.7

0.0

.8

1.7

Dean of Students Office

Table 4.7.--Continued.

1 - Academic
Affairs

2 - Student
Affairs

1.7

74.2

Residence Hall Programs

.8

Student Activities

Religious Activities

Support Programs for
Special Groups
(women, minorities.
handicappers)
Volunteer Programs

3 - Business
and Finance

4 - External
Agent

5 - Other

0.0

10.8

7.5

5.8

86.7

5.8

1.7

0.0

5.0

.8

95.8

.8

0.0

0.0

2.5

23.3

65.8

5.0

.8

0.0

5.0

5.0

75.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

10.0

Ho
Response

100
Place a check in Column #4 identifying those services/
programs implemented at your institution.
Responses to the question are presented in Table
4.8.

No additional comments were made.
Discussion
Based on the tabulation of percentages of responses,

it appears that there are some general trends.

The data

indicated a clear trend (86.7 percent) towards a change in
enrollment in the next five years.

Sixty-two percent of

those respondents indicating a change anticipated an
increase in enrollment in the next five years.

Thirty-

three percent of the respondents indicating a change in
enrollment predicted an increase of 0-10 percent; 30 per­
cent of the respondents anticipated a decrease of 0-10 per­
cent.
87.5

Ten year predictions were more conservative.

While

percent of the population saw a change in enrollment

over the next ten years, only 52.9 percent predicted an
increase.

Twenty-five percent saw an increase of 0-10 per­

cent; and 23 percent anticipated a decrease of 0-10 per­
cent.
The data also indicated a trend towards a change
in resources in the next five years (91.7 percent responded
affirmatively).

Eighty-four percent predicted an increase

in resources at their respective institutions.

In the next

ten years, 90 percent of the population indicated a change
in resources and 79.4 percent suggest an increase.

Some

101
Table 4.8.— Place a Check in Column #4 Identifying Those
Services/Programs implemented at Your Institu­
tion (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Yes

No

No
Response

Academic Advising/Career Planning

95.0

3.3

1.7

Admissions/Recruitment

97.5

.8

1.7

Counseling Center

88.3

10.0

1.7

Dean of Students Office

88.3

10.0

1.7

Field Experience Programs

84.2

14.2

1.7

Financial Aids

97.5

.8

1.7

Health Services

87.5

10.8

1.7

International Student Programs

76.7

21.7

1.7

Intramural & Recreational Athletics

95.8

2.5

1.7

New Student Orientation

96.7

1.7

1.7

Placement

94.2

4.2

1.7

Registrar

98.3

0.0

1.7

Religious Activities

75.8

22.5

1.7

Residence Hall Programs

82.5

15.8

1.7

Student Activities

95.0

3.3

1.7

Support Programs for Special Groups
(women minorities, handicappers)

79.2

19.2

1.7

Volunteer Programs

65.0

33.3

1.7

,

102
confusion and uncertainty related to this question is sug­
gested by a 10 percent and 15 percent "no response" rate.
In the area of resource allocation to primary insti­
tutional program areas, the data indicated a clear priority
for support to Instruction

(80.7 percent favor increasing

or maintaining funding levels) and for Academic Support
(78.9 percent support increasing or maintaining funding
levels).

Support for increasing or maintaining funding for

research seemed to be a lower priority (48 percent).

Sup­

porting comments suggested that academic institutions should
continue to seek external funding for research projects.
The questions related to specific student services/
programs asked four basic questions regarding (1) resource
allocation;

(2) primary criteria for program;

(3) locus of

primary responsibility for program; and (4) whether program
is implemented at respective institution.

Responses to the

resource question revealed strong support for increasing
funding for admissions

(56.7 percent).

The only programs

which no respondents would consider eliminating were admis­
sions and financial aids.

Programs which also received

strong support were academic advising/career planning, regis­
trar, placement and new student orientation.

Programs which

respondents endorsed for decreasing funding were volunteer
programs, student activities, intramural and recreational
athletics, international students programs, health services,
dean of students office and field experience programs.

In

considering the question related to primary criteria applied

103
in the evaluation of programs, those programs receiving
relatively high percentages in the "service is not neces­
sary" category were volunteer programs, religious activ­
ities and intramural/recreational athletics.
The question regarding who should have primary
responsibility showed a fairly even response rate divided
between academic and student affairs.

Additionally the

data indicated that high percentages of the responding
institutions implement the specific service/program.
Results of Hypotheses Testing
The first null hypothesis is divided in two parts
to explore the possible relationship between resources and
student personnel programs/services and between resources
and individual student personnel programs.
Hypothesis la;
Student personnel programs and services will not be
affected by declining resources in the decade of
1980-90.
Hypothesis lb:
There are no significant differences in the effect
of declining resources on individual student ser­
vices/programs .
Each of the subhypotheses was tested using the chisquare statistic to test for an interaction between response
to resource change and program allocation.

In testing

Hypothesis la, resources were defined as (1) enrollment

104
change in the next five years;
next ten years;

(2) enrollment change in the

(3) resource change in the next five years;

and (4) resource change in the next ten years.

The insti­

tutional program areas included (1) instruction;
(3) public service;

(4) academic support;

vices; and (6) plant operation.

(2) research;

(5) student ser­

None of the tests were sig­

nificant at the .05 level with the exception of instruction.
There was a significant relationship (.0154 level) between
resource predictions in the next five years and allocations
to instruction.

Table 4.9 illustrates the findings.

It

appears that the significant relationship is based on per­
ceptions that funding will increase and that the increment
will probably be allocated to raise or at least maintain
the funding level for instructional programs.

The rela­

tionship between anticipated resources and funding alloca­
tions for

student affairs was significant at the .9347 level.

Table 4.4provided a detailed

analysis of responses regard­

ing resource allocation to program areas.
while the

It appears that

studentservice program at each institution may

not experience an increase in funding, it will also probably
not be eliminated.

Responses show a clear funding priority

towards instruction.
In testing Hypothesis lb, resources were defined
in the same mode as for Hypothesis la.

Student services/

programs were defined as (1) academic advising/career
planning;

(2) admissions/recruitment;

(4) dean of students office;

(3) counseling center;

(5) field experience programs;

Table 4.9.— Relationship Between Change in Resources (1980-85) and Recommended
Allocation to Instruction (Reported as Percent of Respondents).
Anticipated Resource
Change in Next
Five Years

1 - Increase to
raise funding
level

Decrease 30% or more

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

2 - Maintain
at current
level

3 - Decrease

4 - Eliminate
program

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

Decrease 10-20%

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

Decrease 0-10%

3.9

5.8

2.9

1.0

Increase 0-10%

10.7

15.5

2.9

1.9

Increase 10-20%

9.7

11.7

2.9

1.0

Increase 20-30%

4.9

5.8

4.9

0.0

Increase 30% or more

6.8

4.9

1.0

0.0

Significant at .0154 level.
Chi square 33.28968 with 18 d.f.

106
(6) financial aids;
student programs;

(7) health services;

(9) intramural and recreational athletics;

(10) new student orientation;
(13) religious activities;
(15) student activities;
groups

(11) placement;

(12) registrar;

(14) residence hall programs;

(16) support programs for special

(women, minorities, handicappers);

programs.

(8) international

(17) volunteer

This test revealed six significant relationships.

There was an interaction between enrollment change in the
next ten years and funding recommendation for health ser­
vices; enrollment change in the next five years and funding
allocation to admissions and financial aids; resource change
in the next ten years and resource recommendations for
international programs and new student orientation; resource
change in the next five years and placement services.

The

findings are presented in Tables 4.10 to 4.15.
Hypothesis 2
Respondents do not differ significantly in their
responses to what criteria is applied to assess
effectiveness and economy of student services.
To test this hypothesis the chi square statistical
test was used to determine if there are significant differ­
ences between respondents of publie-private institutions;
institutions of varying sizes; and respondents in four dif­
ferent positions and their responses to the question of
what criteria is applied to assess the effectiveness and
economy of student services.

Table 4.16 presents

Table 4.10.— Relationship Between Change in Enrollment (1980-90) and Funding
Recommendation for Health Services (Reported as Percent of
Respondents).

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

o•
©

o
•
o

o*
©

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

0.0

1.0

2.1

Decrease 10-20%

©

o

8.2

7.2

2.1

Decrease 0-10%

o.
o

11.3

9.3

5.2

Increase 0-10%

©

16.5

2.1

9.3

Increase 10-20%

o
•
o

5.2

Increase 20-30%

1.0

3.1

2.1

o
a
o

0-0

1.0

2.1

Increase 30% or more

.

o

11.3

o
a
o

«

Decrease 30% or more

o
•
o

2 - Maintain
at current
level

o
•
o

1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

Significant at .0194 level.
Chi square = 32.45927 with 18 d.f.

Table 4.11.— Relationship Between Change in Enrollment (1980-85) and Funding
Recommendation for Admissions (Reported as Percent of Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
at current
level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

Decrease 30% or more

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

0.0

1.9

0.0

0.0

Decrease 10-20%

6.7

9.5

4.8

0.0

Decrease 0-10%

23.8

12.4

1.0

0.0

Increase 0-10%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Increase 10-20%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Increase 20-30%

3.8

1.0

0.0

0.0

23.8

9.5

0.0

0.0

Increase 30% or more

Significant at the .0057 level.
Chi square - 24.83164 with 10 d.f.

Table 4.12.— Relationship Between Change in Enrollment (1980-85) and Funding
Recommendation for Financial Aids (Reported as Percent of
Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
at current
level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

Decrease 30% or more

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

Decrease 10-20%

1.9

16.3

2.9

0.0

Decrease 0-10%

9.6

26.9

0.0

0.0

Increase 0-10%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Increase 10-20%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Increase 20-30%

1.9

2.9

0.0

0.0

14.4

19.2

0.0

0.0

Increase 30% or more

Significant at the .0004 level.
Chi square = 32.27478 with 10 d.f.

Table 4.13.— Relationship Between Change in Resources (1980-90) and Funding
Recommendation for International Student Programs (Reported as
Percentage of Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
at current
level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

Decrease 30% or more

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Decrease 10-20%

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

Decrease 0-10%

0.0

3.1

10.4

2.1

Increase 0-10%

0.0

4.2

10.4

4.2

Increase 10-20%

0.0

6.3

11.5

5.2

Increase 20-30%

0.0

2.1

8.3

2.1

Increase 30% or more

0.0

6.3

8.3

9.4

Significant at the .0033 level.
Chi square = 38.55906 with 18 d.f.

Table 4.14.— Relationship Between Change in Resources (1980-90) and Funding
Recommendation for New Student Orientation (Reported as Percentage
of Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
at current
level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

Decrease 30% or more

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

0.0

3.1

0.0

0.0

Decrease 10-20%

0.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Decrease 0-10%

2.0

10.2

3.1

0.0

Increase 0-10%

0.0

16.3

2.0

0.0

Increase 10-20%

0.0

14.3

9.2

0.0

Increase 20-30%

1.0

9.2

2.0

1.0

Increase 30% or more

7.1

10.2

6.1

0.0

Significant at the .0419 level.
Chi square = 29.56238 with 18 d.f.

Table 4.15.— Relationship Between Change in Resources (1980*85) and Funding
Recommendation for Placement (Reported as Percentage of
Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
at current
level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

Decrease 30% or more

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Decrease 20-30%

0.0

1.9

0.0

0.0

Decrease 10-20%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Decrease 0-10%

1.0

10.6

1.9

0.0

Increase 0-10%

4.8

19.2

6.7

0.0

Increase 10-20%

2.9

17.3

5.8

0.0

Increase 20-30%

2.9

9.6

1.9

0.0

Increase 30% or more

1.9

8.7

1.9

0.0

Significant at the .0000 level.
Chi square = 107.31497 with 18 d.f.

Table 4.16.— Significant Chi Square Variable Effects for Student Services/
Programs.
Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

Significant Variable

Health Services

18.60005

8

.0172

Size

Placement

16.61517

8

.0344

Size

Religious Activities

26.98729

8

.0007

Size

Residence Halls

24.15738

8

.0022

Size

Orientation

14.40363

4

.0061

Public/Private Status

Religious Activities

45.76205

4

International Student Programs

23.66466

12

.0000
.0226

Public/Private Status
Position

114
the data for the chi square scores at the .05 level of sig­
nificance.

Statistical differences were found for health

services, placement, religious activities, residence halls,
orientation and international student programs.
Table 4.17 presents a percentage breakdown of
responses to the question of primary criteria and reveals
that the service receiving highest funding priority
(admissions) is critical for the economic survival of the
institution (95 percent of responses).
Hypothesis 3
There are no significant differences in responses
about student services/programs between executive
level educational administrators of public and pri­
vate four-year institutions in the State of Michigan.
This hypothesis was tested using the chi-square
statistic with institutional status (public or private) as
a variable and responses to questions as the other vari­
able.

The possible responses to the question related to

funding recommendations were 1 - increase funding above the
current level; 2 - maintain funding at current level; 3 decrease funding to base level; 4 - eliminate service or
program.

None of the chi-square values were significant

at the .05 level with two exceptions.

There was a signifi­

cant relationship between institutional status and funding
recommendation for Religious Activities and Volunteer

Table 4.17.— Given Services/Programs of High Quality in All Areas, Which of the Following Should be
the Primary Criteria Applied in the Evaluation of Each of the Student Services/Programs
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents)?

5 - Service
is not
Necessary

1 - Economic
,
Survival

2 - Philosophic
.
Mission

_
,
3 - Morale

4 - Political
_ ,
Realities

Academic Advising/Career
Planning

33.3

55.0

7.5

0.0

.8

3.3

Admissions/Recruitment

95.0

1.7

.8

0.0

0.0

2.5

Counseling Center

2.5

51.7

35.8

.8

5.8

3.3

Dean of Students Office

8.3

34.2

54.4

7.5

2.5

4.2

Field Experience Programs

4.2

55.8

11.7

7.5

15.0

5.8

79.2

15.8

1.7

1.7

0.0

1.7

Health Services

5.0

16.7

45.8

10.0

17.5

5.0

International Student
Programs

2.5

31.7

16.7

12.5

30.8

5.8

.8

14.2

69.2

5.8

6.7

3.3

New Student Orientation

15.8

47.5

26.7

.8

5.8

3.3

Placement

26.7

45.8

15.0

7.5

1.7

3.3

Registrar

42.5

34.2

14.2

5.2

0.0

4.2

Financial Aids

Intramural fi Recreational
Athletics

No
Response

Table 4.17.--Continued.

1 - Economic
„
Survival

2 - Philosophic
.
Mission

_
„
.
3 - Morale

4 - Political
_ ... .
Realities

.8

40.0

16.7

6.7

29.2

6.7

10.8

20.8

46.7

5.8

6.7

9.2

Student Activities

1.7

20.8

66.7

5.0

2.5

3.3

Support Programs for
Special Groups
(women, minorities,
handicappers)

1.7

41.7

10.0

32.5

8.3

5.8

Volunteer Programs

3.3

23.3

16.7

5.8

42.5

8.3

Religious Activities
Residence Hall Programs

.
is not
„
Necessary

No
Response

117
Programs.

Tables <4.18 through 4.19 Illustrate the signifi­

cant relationships.
The possible responses to the question related to
primary criteria applied in the evaluation of each student
service/program were 1 - economic survival; 2 - philosophic
mission; 3 - morale; 4 - political realities; 5 - service
is not necessary.

There was an interaction between the

variables at the .05 level for two programs: New Student
Orientation and Religious Activities.

The values illustrat­

ing the significant relationship can be found in Tables
4.20 and 4.21.
The third question involves the issue of which unit
should have primary responsibility for each student service/
program.

The possible responses were: 1 - Academic Affairs;

2 - Student Affairs; 3 - Business and Finance; 4 - Service
should be contracted/assigned to an external agent; 5 - other
(specify).

None of the chi-square values were significant

at the .05 level with the exception of three relationships.
There was a significant relationship between the variable
of public/private status and attitudes about the unit of
primary responsibilities for the following programs: Finan­
cial Aids, Registrar and Religious Activities.

Tables 4.22

through 4.24 detail the findings.
In testing Hypothesis 3, respondents were divided
into categories of public and private institutional status.
Responses to questions related to resource recommendations,
criteria for implementation; and unit of responsibility for

Table 4.18.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Funding Recommendation
for Religious Activities (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
funding at
current level

Public

1.0

5.7

21.0

20.0

Private

1.0

30.5

18.1

2.9

Significant at the .0000 level.
Chi square = 31.34196 with 3 d.f.

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

Table 4.19.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Funding Recommendations
for Volunteer Programs (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

Public
Private

2 - Maintain
funding at
current level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

.9

4.6

24.1

19.4

0.0

13.9

25.0

12.0

Significant at the .0488 level.
Chi square = 7.86688 with 3 d.f.

Table 4.20.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Criteria for New
Student Orientation (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Morale

10.3

27.6

6.0

21.6

Significant at the .0061 level.
Chi square = 14.40363 with 4 d.f.

3

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

.9

0.0

19.0

o•
o

Private

2
Philosophic
Mission

VO
•

Public

1
Economic
Survival

00

Institutional
Status

6.0

Table 4.21.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Criteria for
Religious Activities (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Private

2
Philosophic
Mission

o
•
o

Public

1
Economic
Survival

5.4

.9

37.5

Significant at the .0000 level.
Chi square = 45.76205 with 4 d.f.

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

13.4

2.7

25.0

4.5

4.5

6.3

3
Morale

28.8

9.3

19.5

Significant at the .0010 level.
Chi square = 13.72912 with 2 d.f.

Other

o
o

11.0

Service Should
Be Contracted
or Assigned

0.0

24.6

0.0

©•
o

Private

Student
Affairs

00

Public

Academic
Affairs

■
V0

Institutional
Status

•

Table 4.22.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Unit of Responsibility
for Financial Aids (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Business and
Finance

Table 4.23.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Unit of Responsibility
for Registrar (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Institutional
Status

Academic
Affairs

Student
Affairs

Business and
Finance

Service Should
Be Contracted
or Assigned

Other

Public

28.8

15.3

1.7

0.0

.8

Private

47.5

5.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

Significant at the .0053 level.
Chi square = 12.73393 with 3 d.f.

Table 4.24.— Relationship Between Institutional Status and Unit of Responsibility
for Religious Activities (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Institutional
Status

Academic
Affairs

Student
Affairs

0.0

37.2

Private

1.8

41.6

Significant at the .0294 level.
Chi square = 8.98863 with 3 d.f.

Services Should
Be Contracted
or Assigned

Other

o•
o

Public

Business and
Finance

8.0

.9

0.0

3.5

7.1

125
seventeen student services/programs were crossed with
institutional status.

Very few of these tests

(seven out

of fifty-one) produced a chi Bquare value significant at
the .05 level.

Relationships were revealed for religious

activities and volunteer programs in the area of funding
recommendations.

Relationships were significant for new

student orientation and religious activities for criteria
applied in evaluation.

Interaction was found for financial

aids, religious activities and registrar for primary unit
of responsibility.
Hypothesis 4
There are no significant differences in responses
about student services/programs between executive
level educational administrators of universities
of more than 20,000 students; colleges and univer­
sities of 7,500 to 20,000 students; and colleges
and universities of less than 7,500 students in
the State of Michigan.
This hypothesis was tested using a chi-square con­
tingency table.

The variables were size of institution and

response to the three fundamental questions of funding recom­
mendation, primary criteria and unit of responsibility for
each of the student services/programs.

The test which

crossed institutional size and funding recommendation pro­
duced two significant relationships at the .05 level.
Tables 4.25 and 4.26 illustrate the interaction for

Table 4.25.— Relationship of Institutional size and Funding Recommendation for
Religious Activities (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

Size

1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

Op to 7 f500

1.9

7,500 - 20,000
20,000 or more

2 - Maintain
funding at
current level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

34.3

26.7

5.7

0.0

1.9

8.6

9.5

0.0

0.0

3.8

7.6

Significant at the .0000 level.
Chi square = 35.71285 with 6 d.f.

Table 4.26.— Relationship of Institutional Size and Funding Recommendation for
International Program (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

1_
funding to
raise level

Size

2 * Maintain
funding at
current level

3 _ Decrease
funding
y

4 _ Eliminate
program
v y

Op to 7,500

0.0

22.7

29.1

16.1

7,500 - 20,000

1.8

.9

11.8

6.4

20,000 or more

0.0

3.6

6.4

.9

Significant at the .0144 level.
Chi square = 15.87530 with 8 d.f.

128
Religious Activities and International Programs.

There were

four significant interactions when institutional size was
crossed with criteria for economy and effectiveness of the
program.

The relationship for Health Services was signifi­

cant at the .0172 level; Placement was significant at .0344
level; Religious Activities were significant at the .0007
level; and the interaction was significant at the .0022 level
for Residence Halls.
None of the chi-square values were significant at
the .05 level for the interaction between size and unit of
responsibility.

Tables 4.27 through 4.30 present the data.

In conclusion, to test Hypothesis 4, respondents
were divided into three groups based on the size of their
respective institutions.

Responses to the fundamental ques­

tions of funding recommendations; criteria for program imple­
mentation; and unit of analysis for seventeen student ser­
vices/programs were crossed with the variable of institu­
tional size.

Significant chi-square values were produced

for five programs: Religious Activities (two interactions),
Health Services, Placement, and Residence Halls.

There were

no significant differences for the remaining forty-six chisquare tests.
Hypothesis 5
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
in Michigan colleges and universities by position.

Table 4.27.— Relationship of Institutional Size and Criteria for Health Services
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
2
Philosophic
Mission

3.5

7,500 - 20,000
20,000 or more

Size

Up to 7,500

Morale

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

14.9

35.1

3.5

12.3

.9

2.6

10.5

2.6

3.5

.9

o•
o

1
Economic
Survival

2.6

4.4

2.6

Significant at the .0172 level.
Chi square = 18.60005 with 8 d.f.

3

Table 4.28.— Relation of Institutional Size and Criteria for Placement (Reported
as Percentage of Respondents).
1
Economic
Survival

2
Philosophic
Mission

20.7

7,500 - 20,000
20,000 or more

Size

Up to 7,500

Morale

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

27.6

14.7

6.0

1.7

6.9

10.3

.9

.9

0.0

0.0

9.5

0.0

.9

0.0

Significant at the .0344 level.
Chi square = 16.61517 with 8 d.f.

3

Table 4.29.— Relationship of Institutional Size and Criteria for Religious Activities
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
1
Economic
Survival

Size

2
Philosophic
Mission

3
Morale

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

.9

39.3

8.9

5.4

14.3

7,500 to 20,000

o•
o

2.7

4.5

1.8

11.6

20,000 or more

0.0

.9

4.5

0.0

5.4

Op to 7,500

131

Significant at the .0007 level.
Chi square = 26.98729 with 8 d.f.

Table 4.30.— Relationship of Institutional Size and Criteria for Residence Halls
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
1
Economic
Survival

Size

2
Philosophic
Mission

3
Morale

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

5.5

12.8

39.4

3.7

6.4

7,500 - 20,000

6.4

5.5

9.2

0.0

0.0

20,000 or more

0.0

4.6

00

2.8

.9

Significant at the .0022 level.
Chi square = 24.15738 with 8 d.f.

•
CM

Up to 7,500

133
In testing this hypothesis, chi-square contingency
tables were used to test for a relationship between the
variable of position and institution and responses to the
survey questions of funding recommendations; criteria for
program implementation; and unit of analysis.

The level of

the position variables were: President, Vice President for
Academic Affairs, Vice President for Financial Affairs,
and Vice President for Student Affairs.

When tested with

the variable of the funding recommendation question, none of
the chi square values were significant at the .05 level
except for a single significant relationship for Inter­
national Programs.

This chi-square test was significant

at the .0133 level.
In testing for a relationship between position at
respective institution and criteria for applied in evalua­
tion, there was a single significant relationship for Inter­
national Programs.

This test showed significance at the

.0226 level.
Responses to the final question asking where the
locus of primary responsibility for each program should be
was also tested for differences between position.

Signifi­

cant chi-square relationships at the .05 level were found
for International Programs and Volunteer Programs.

Inter­

national Programs was significant at the .0077 level and
Volunteer Programs was significant at the .0297 level.
The test for Hypothesis 4 used a series of chisquare contingency tables.

The column variable was

134
position at institution and there were four levels.

The row

variable included responses to three fundamental questions.
The chi-square test at the .05 level of significance
revealed four significant relationships.

These interactions

occurred with International Programs for responses to all
questions and with Volunteer Programs for response to the
question of Primary responsibility for unit.

Tables 4.31

through 4.34 represent the relationship.
Summary of Responses by Program
By testing hypotheses 3, 4 and 5, a few signifi­
cant relationships were revealed.

Table 4.35 provides an

account of the programs/services showing a significant
relationship with the variables of institutional status,
size and position and the responses to the questions.

It

appears that the services/programs likely to be influenced
by one or more variables are Financial Aids, Health Ser­
vices, International Student Programs, New Student Orienta­
tion, Placement, Kegistrar, Religious Activities, Residence
Hall Programs and Volunteer programs.
Additional Findings
As the investigator became familiar with the data,
it appeared that the student personnel programs/services
which received the least support in the response to the
funding allocation question were of a developmental/educa­
tional nature rather than service oriented.

To determine

if there was a relationship between funding recommendations

1 - Increase
funding to
raise level

2 - Maintain
funding at
current level

3 - Decrease
funding

4 - Eliminate
program

1.8

8.2

5.5

6.4

Vice President for
Academic Affairs

o
*
o

7.3

15.5

4.5

Vice President for
Financial Affairs

0.0

1.8

13.6

9.1

o
.
o

Table 4.31.— Relationship of Position and Funding Recommendation for International
Programs (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).

10.0

12.7

3.6

Program

President

Vice President for
Student Affairs

Significant at the .0133 level.
Chi square = 20.84971 with 9 d.f.

Table 4.32.— Relationship of Position and Criteria for International Programs
(Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
1
Economic
Survival

2
Philosophic
Mission

3
Morale

4
Political
Realities

5
Unnecessary
Service

9.7

1.8

1.8

Vice President for
Academic Affairs

0.0

8.8

9.7

3.5

6.2

Vice President for
Financial Affairs

0.0

3.5

2.7

4.4

13.3

Vice President for
Student Affairs

1.8

11.5

3.5

3.5

5.3

President

Significant at the .0226 level.
Chi square = 23.66466 with 12 d.f.

o

.9

GO
»

Position

Table 4.33.— Relationship of Position and Unit of Responsibility for International
Programs (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
5

Academic
Affairs

Student
Affairs

President

12.4

8.0

Vice President for
Academic Affairs

15.9

12.4

Vice President for
Financial Affairs

12.4

10.6

3.5

22.1

0.0

o
.
o

4
Service Should
Be Contracted/
Assigned

•
o

3

o
•
o

Chi square = 22.39726 with 9 d.f.

.9

.9

o
•
o

•
o

Other

0.0

o
.
o

o
*

Significant at the .0077 level.

©

Vice President for
Student Affairs

Business and
Finance

©

Position

2

o

1

.9

Table 4.34.— Relationship of Position and Unit of Responsibility for Volunteer
Programs (Reported as Percentage of Respondents).
1
Position

Academic
Affairs

2

3

Student
Affairs

Business and
Finance

4
Service Should
Be Contracted/
Assigned

5
Other

President

.9

18.5

2.8

0.0

.9

Vice President for
Academic Affairs

.9

25.9

0.0

0.0

1.9

2.8

16.7

.9

0.0

.9

.9

22.2

0.0

3.7

0.0

Vice President for
Financial Affairs
Vice President for
Student Affairs

Significant at the .0297 level.
Chi square = 22.78028 with 12 d.f.

Table 4.35.— Significant Chi Square and Variable Effects for Programs.

Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

SVariable*^

Responses to question, "Given a budget cut or resource allocation which did not
keep pace with inflation, what recommendations would you
anticipate making for each of the student services/
programs?"
3
6
8

.6490
.4264
.7674

4.10680
4.43687
10.31030

2
4
6

.1283
.3501
.1122

1.54266
5.92982
5.02027

3
6
9

.6725
.4311
.8325

Dean of Student
Office

3.19817
10.64233
10.53787

3
6
9

.3621
.1001
.3087

Field Experience
Programs

1.99759
10.04761
10.44433

3
6
9

.5729
.1227
.3157

.12937
3.95290
.91951

2
4
6

.9374
.4124
.9885

Admissions/
Recruitment
Counseling Center

Financial Aids

139

1.79340
6.45169
5.82359

Academic Advising/
Career Planning

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

1262
,1951
,7801

International Student
Programs

4.40612
15.87530
20.84971

,2208
,0144
.0133

Intramural & Recreational
Athletics

5.61911
5.41852
15.48205

m ua o'*

.1317
.4914
,0785

1.39713
9.13010
8.76455

roioat

.7062
.1664
.4593

Placement

3.02661
3.01614
11.25186

ro vo cri

.3875
.8068
.2588

Registrar

1.87649
1.37148
12.18989

rovoo>

.5984
.9676
.2028

Religious Activities

31.34196

New Student Orientation

35.71285
8.44512

.0000
6
9

.0000
.4900

Size
Position

140

5.71819
8.63618
5.59082

Health Services

Significant
Variable

Public/
Private
Status
Size

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

Residence Hall
Programs

3.26012
6.81979
13.33406

3
6
9

.3532
.3378
.1481

Student Activities

3.98326
9.84496
13.42528

3
6
9

.2633
.1313
.1443

Support Programs for
Special Groups

6.51034
5.74768
4.65622

3
6
9

.0893
.4520
.8632

Volunteer Programs

7.86688

3

.0488

5.81156
11.57525

6
9

.4446
.2383

Significant
Variable

Public/
Private
Status

Responses to question, "Given services/programs of high quality in all areas,
which of the following should be the primary criteria
applied in the evaluation of each of the student services/
programs?"
Academic Advising/
Career Planning

1.85522
6.05169
5.92539

3
6
9

.6030
.4174
.7474

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Program

Admissions/Recruitment

Chi Square

df

Significance

2
4
6

.1763
.1016
.1550

Counseling Center

1.81662
6.68523
10.39101

4
8
12

.7694
.5709
.5817

Dean of Students
Office

4.93872
9.45000
11.51523

4
8
12

.2936
.3058
.4854

Field Experience
Programs

5.36024
4.15417
8.46976

4
8
12

.2523
.8430
.7474

Financial Aids

3.72739
8.20590
9.87526

3
6
9

.2924
.2234
.3607

Health Services

8.15107
18.60005
7.60667

4
8
12

.0862
.0172
.8151

2.70801
3.49941
23.66466

4
8
12

.6078
.8992
.0226

International Student
Programs

142

3.47081
7.73909
9.34680

Significant
Variable

Size

Position

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

Intramural & Recreational
Athletics

8.99216
11.80401
15.12975

4
8
12

.0613
.1602
.2344

New Student Orientation

14.40363

4

.0061

15.00836
7.36151

8
12

.0590
.8328

2.47101
16.61517
9.22040

4
8
12

.6498
.0344
.6840

Registrar

2.71122
4.55574
12.21245

3
6
9

.4383
.6019
.2016

Religious Activities

45.76205

4

.0000

26.98729
19.46997

8
12

.0007
.0778

5.92046
24.15738
13.78376

4
8
12

.2052
.0022
.3147

Placement

Residence Hall Programs

Significant
Variable

Public/
Private
Status

Size

Public/
Private
Status
Size

Size

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

Student Activities

3.79314
8.86448
14.89158

4
8
12

.4347
.3539
.2474

Support Programs for
Special Groups

6.24065
11.69884
18.95270

4
8
12

.1819
.1652
.0897

Volunteer Programs

9.40087
14.64894
9.89778

4
8
12

.0518
.0663
.6249

Significant
Variable

Responses to question, "Which of the following units should have primary
responsibility for each of the student services/programs?"
Academic Advising/
Career Planning
Admissions/Recruitment

Counseling Center

1.01611
5.60011
7.43684

2
4
6

.6017
.2311
.2823

6.27262
5.28698
17.84288

4
8
12

.1797
.7265
.1205

4.70224
4.65119
9.39500

3
6
9

.1949
.5893
.4016

Table 4.35.— Continued

Program

Chi Square

df

Significance

2.24399
5.18500
7.09745

3
6
9

.5233
.5203
.6270

Field Experience Programs

2.98042
9.30026
12.14782

4
8
12

.5611
.3176
.4339

Financial Aids

13.72912

2

.0010

7.71567
5.72380

4
6

.1026
.4548

3.86564
3.35795
4.63253

2
4
6

.1447
.4998
.5917

4.26712
8.82070
22.39726

3
6
9

.2340
.1839
.0077

.44558
1.76540
2.38136

2
4
6

.8003
.7788
.8815

Dean of Students
Office

Health Services

International Student
Programs
Intramural & Recreational
Athletics

Significant
Variable

Public/
Private
Status

Position

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Religious Activities

8.98863
4.97820
5.36086

Residence Hall Programs

.70904
11.89681
6.67000

Student Activities

1.80505
11.89681
5.91252

nj
u >m

>
vo^ u

.0053
.1200
.2791
.0294
.5466
.6018
.1944
.0643
.6714
.4055
.0643
.4331

Public/
Private
Status

Public/
Private
Status

146

10.11292
10.95086

>

12.73393

u

Registrar

.2631
.9708
.2461

u? <ri

3.98462
1.31632
11.45065

Significant
Variable

.7903
.3935
.0659

oo

Placement

Significance

voai

.07070
1.86524
7.19659

df

w

New Student Orientation

Chi Square

ato>N>

Program

Table 4.35.— Continued.

Program

Support Programs for
Special Groups
Volunteer Programs

Chi Square

df

Significance

1.44552
1.75604
9.15205

3
6
9

.6949
.9407
.4234

6.92802
6.26206
22.78028

4
8
12

.1397
.6179
.0297

Significant
Variable

Position

147

148
and the educational or services nature of student personnel
programs, a multivariate analysis of variance
applied.

(MANOVA) was

The list of seventeen services/programs was divided

into two groups.

The division, determined through a series

of informal interviews with ten practicing student person­
nel educators, was

(1) those programs which are considered

to be primarily educational/developmental in their mission
(academic advising, counseling center, field experience
programs, international programs, intramural and recrea­
tional athletics, new student orientation, religious activ­
ities, residence hall programs, student activities, support
programs and volunteer programs); and (2) those programs
which are primarily for the purpose of administering a
necessary service to the student body (admissions, dean of
students office, financial aids, health services, placement
and the registrar)•

Cells were collapsed across programs

into these two groups.

A multivariate analysis of variance

was performed to assess the interaction of institutional
status with responses to the question of funding recommenda­
tions with the variable of developmental programs or ser­
vices.

Two additional multivariate analysis of variances

tests were performed replacing the variable of institutional
status with size and position.

None of the tests produced

a significant "f" score at the .05 level.
Additionally, chi square tests were performed to
determine if there was a relationship between responses to
the three questions (resource allocation, criteria applied

149
to program and locus of responsibility)

and the responses

question determining whether or not the institution spon­
sored the specific program.

No significant chi square

statistics at the .05 level were found.

The lack of sig­

nificant findings implies independence between responses
about programs and possible bias based on programs at the
respective institution.
Summary of Findings
This chapter contained an analysis of the data from
the study.

One hundred and twenty responses

(78.9 percent

of the population) were included in the study.

The popula­

tion was evenly distributed across variable levels.

The

rate of return was fairly consistent across institutions
ranging from 69.56 percent of the private schools to 93.33
percent of the public institutions.
While there was overwhelming agreement that insti­
tutions of higher education will experience a change in
enrollment in the next five and ten years, responses about
the direction of the change were evenly distributed between
an increase and decrease.

Moreover, there was strong agree­

ment related to change in resources in the next five and
ten years; however, approximately 75 percent of the respon­
dents anticipated an increase in resources in the next
five years and about 60 percent of the group predicted an
increase in resources in the next ten years.

150
The findings of the study revealed a significant
relationship between resource predictions for the next five
years and responses to the question of resource allocation
for institutional program of instruction (in a budget year
where dollars did not keep pace with inflation).

There

were no other significant relationships between resource
and enrollment predictions and response to the funding
allocation question for programs of research, public ser­
vice, academic support, student services and plant opera­
tion.
In examining responses to funding recommendations
for seventeen student services/programs, six significant
relationships were observed.

There was an interaction

between predicted enrollment change for 1980-90 and funding
recommendation for Health Services; between predicted enroll­
ment change for 1980-85 and funding recommendations for
Admissions and Financial Aids; between predicted resource
change for 1980-90 and funding recommendation for Inter­
national Programs and New Student Orientation; and between
anticipated resource change for 1980-85 and funding alloca­
tion for Placement Services.
The analysis of responses between administrators of
public and private institutions revealed significant differ­
ences for some program areas.

There was a significant rela­

tionship between institutional status and funding recommen­
dation for Religious Activities and Volunteer Programs;
between institutional status and criteria for evaluation

151
for New Student Orientation and Religious Activities; and
between public/private status and locus of responsibility
for programs of Financial Aids, Registrar and Religious
Activities.
In investigating differences in responses between
institutions of varying size, some significant differences
were observed for Student Services/Programs.

There was a

significant interaction between size of institution and
funding recommendation for Religious Activities and Inter­
national Programs; and between size of institution and
criteria for evaluation for Health Services, Placement
Services, Religious Activities and Residence Halls.

There

were no significant relationships between size of institu­
tion and locus of responsibility for individual student
services/programs.
A significant relationship for the variables of
position at institution and recommendation for funding was
found for International Programs.

Additionally there was

also an interaction between position and criteria for
evaluating the effectiveness and economy of International
Programs.

In testing for significant differences between

position at institution and attitudes about locus of
responsibility for program area, International Programs and
Volunteer Programs showed an interaction.
No significant differences were found between atti­
tudes about programs of an educational/developmental nature
and programs of a service orientation.

However, findings

152
indicate a general trend towards more support for service
programs than developmental programs and less of a tendency
to eliminate service programs than developmental/educational
programs during resource reduction periods.
While these findings reveal some significant inter­
actions between variables, a cause/effect relationship can­
not be deduced from the data.

Conclusions, interpretation,

inferences and general trends will be discussed in
Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
The evolution and development of the profession of
student personnel has closely paralleled a period of enor­
mous growth and expanded resources in American higher edu­
cation.

Since 1932, the number of public and private insti­

tutions of higher education have increased at a rate of
twelve per year (Carnes, 1977).

Moreover the size of the

institutions, the number of employees and institutional
budgets have increased.

Between 1949-50 and 1969-70,

revenues for higher education increased more than six times
(Avery, 1978).

This extreme growth period in higher educa­

tion brought the development of new programs and the expan­
sion of existing programs to meet the needs of larger and
more diverse student populations.
In this growth era, the profession of student per­
sonnel emerged from an undefined collection of administra­
tive and support services into a specialized field founded
in educational philosophy and developmental psychology.
The adoption of "The Student Personnel Point of View" in
1938 and expanded implementation of services and programs
153

154
in the forties provided the catalyst for the emerging pro­
fession.

Student personnel programs and services continued

to develop in the fifties and sixties.

By 1970, the growth

mode was evident as practitioners and theorists of student
personnel began to advocate an expanded educational role for
the profession.

This new role, encompassing the concept of

co-curricular education for human development, gave rise to
new services and new programs.
Because the field of student personnel evolved and
developed during this explosive growth mode in higher edu­
cation (1940-75), it is crucial to consider the future of
the profession in view of the projected decline of resources
in higher education in the decade of 1980-90.

It is antici­

pated that resources for higher education, which tradition­
ally have come from tuition, federal and state allocations
and private sources will significantly decline in the next
decade (Centra, 1977; Cartter, 1979; Change Magazine's
Economic Prospect Report, 1980; Howe, 1979).

While demog­

raphers, researchers, and resource analysts differ on their
perceptions of the magnitude of this downward trend, there
is general agreement that higher education must prepare to
face the conditions of steady state and/or retrenchment.
Thus, the great expansion of student personnel programs and
services in the fifties and sixties may be subjected to
more careful administrative scrutiny in the eighties.
Because student personnel programs are primarily viewed as
support services, university decision-makers often

155
consider the program as secondary to the primary academic
mission of the university and, therefore, may receive lower
priority in resource allocation.
T h u s , this study was designed to provide an initial
broad based assessment of the perceptions of executive level
educational administrators about the relationship between
declining resources and student personnel programs.

It was

the intent of this investigator to provide student personnel
professionals with information regarding the attitudes of
institutional decision-makers about allocations to student
personnel programs and to identify potentially vulnerable
program areas for further study.

Analysis of the relation­

ship of declining resources and student personnel programs
may assist professionals in the field in anticipating,
planning for and managing changes as well as provide a foun­
dation for further investigation.
Summary of the Development
of the Study
This study was designed to assess perceptions of
executive level educational administrators about the rela­
tionship between declining resources in the decade of 1980-90
and student personnel programs in the population of fouryear colleges and universities in the State of Michigan
with headcount enrollment of 500 or more students.

In

assessing the relationship between declining resources and
institutional student personnel programs, this study focused
on perceptions about funding as well as implementation and

156
delivery of .student personnel programs and services.
Further, this study was designed to assess differences in
perceptions of administrators in public and private insti­
tutions of varying size.

Differences in perceptions of

administrators, by position, were also studied.
An introduction to and overview of the study was
provided in Chapter I.

Included in the chapter were the

definition of the problem, statement of purpose, supporting
comments about the need for the study and a summary of the
related literature.

The design of the study was outlined;

limitations and assumptions of the study were defined;
research questions and hypotheses were also detailed.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis l a :
Student personnel programs and services will not
be affected by declining resources in the decade
of 1980-90.
Hypothesis lb;
There are no significant differences in the effect
of declining resources on individual student ser­
vices.
Hypothesis 2 :
Respondents do not differ significantly in their
responses to what criteria is applied to assess
effectiveness and economy of student services.
Hypothesis 3 i
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
of public and private four-year institutions in
the State of Michigan.

157
Hypothesis 4 ;
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
of universities of more than 20,000 students; col­
leges and universities of 7,500 to 20,000 students;
and colleges and universities of less than 7,500
students in the State of Michigan.
Hypothesis 5;
There are no significant differences in responses
between executive level educational administrators
in Michigan colleges and universities by position.
The second chapter contained a review of the related
literature pertinent to the purpose of the study.

Included

was selected research and factual information about
resources for higher education in 1980-90; an overview of
the literature detailing the field of student personnel;
and a comprehensive review of the published research about
the relationship of declining resources and student person­
nel programs.
The selected literature describing resources in
higher education included information about enrollment
trends in higher education in the United States and, more
specifically in Michigan.

Included in this section was a

review of the major issues expected to affect resources in
the decade of 1980-90 at both the federal and state levels.
The review of this literature was intended to identify the
major trends related to resources for higher education in
1980-90 and to provide documentation of this current down­
ward trend for resources in higher education.

158
The overview of the literature of the field of stu­
dent personnel included a history of the field; an account
of major philosophic positions of the profession; and a
review of current and future trends in student personnel.
This section also identified the major proponents and
theorists in the profession as well as critics of the
field.
The primary literature review described research
about the relationship of declining resources and student
personnel programs.

This body of literature/ although

limited/ follows four primary themes:

(1) the need for

clarification of goals and purposes in the profession of
student personnel;

(2) the need for better management

techniques and more strict accountability systems;
(3) suggestions for reorganization of colleges and univer­
sities as well as student personnel divisions; and
(4) general trends in the field of student personnel that
are tangentially related to declining resources.
The body of literature investigating and analyzing
resource trends and student personnel programs and services
was found to be scarce and limited in scope.

The survey

of the related and relevant literature demonstrated the
lack of published research related to this study and sup­
ported the need for the study.
Detailed description of the research methodology and
the design of the study was presented in Chapter III.
research design included collection of data through the

The

159
administration of a written questionnaire.

The population

was defined as executive level educational administrators
at all four-year public and private bachelor's degreegranting institutions in the State of Michigan with head­
count enrollments of 500 or more students.

The executive

level educational administrators included individuals in
the positions of Chief Executive/President, Chief Academic
Officer/Provost, Chief Budget Officer/Vice President for
Financial Affairs, and Chief Student Personnel Officer/Vice
President for Student Affairs.

One hundred and fifty-two

institutional decision-makers from thirty-eight colleges
and universities made up the population.
The instrument was developed, pilot tested and sent
by mail to the defined population.

One month later, a

follow-up letter was sent to nonrespondents.

Of the 152

questionnaires mailed, 120 responses were received

(78.9

percent of the population).
Chapter IV included the tabulated data collected
from the administration of the questionnaire and an
analysis of the data for the purpose of hypothesis testing.
Data was tabulated using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences subprogram "Frequencies."

To test the

research hypotheses, measures of association were calcu­
lated using the subprogram "Crosstabulation."

To determine

if responses differed due to service nature of program or
developmental/educational focus, a multivariate analysis
of variance was applied.

160
Chapter V presents the findings and conclusions of
the study; interpretation of the research; and inferences
from research findings.

This chapter also includes recom­

mendations, implications, and suggested areas for future
research.
Conclusions and Discussion
The findings of the study and related interpretative
remarks provide the factual base and documentation from
which the following conclusions are drawn.

Discussion, sup­

porting the conclusions, is also presented.
Institutional decision-makers from Michigan fouryear colleges and universities predicted a slight increase
in enrollments during 1980-85 and a steady state enrollment
situation from 1985-90 for their respective institutions.
In total, 56 percent of the respondents predicted an
increase in enrollment in the next five years, 1980-85.

A

similar, but slightly less favorable, pattern followed for
ten year predictions.
Additionally, the same group of administrators
anticipated an increase in resources (constant dollars) over
the next decade (1980-90).

In total, 75.8 percent of the

respondents anticipate an increase in resources between
1980-85.

Predictions for the total decade were more con­

servative with 59 percent of the respondents reporting an
increase in resources.

Moreover, it is important to note

that respondents were asked to consider the impact of

161
inflation and to report resource changes in terms of con­
stant dollars.
Given the predicted leveling off of enrollments and
tuition dollars and accounting for increased fixed costs
resulting from inflation, college and university adminis­
trators must anticipate greater participation in funding
higher education by the state, federal government and/or
private sources.

Sizeable increases in tuition cost may

also be anticipated.
Additionally, it appears that institutional decision­
makers seem to have a more favorable view of the resource
question for Michigan colleges and universities than that
which is represented in the current literature.

Institu­

tional bias and/or lack of accurate and current management
information systems for resource planning may be responsible
for part of the discrepancy.

On the other hand, the media

may be responsible for reporting isolated facts and/or
exaggerated claims as fact rather than opinion.
A second conclusion reveals that institutional
decision-makers view instruction as a primary priority in
the allocation of resources.

In response to the hypotheti­

cal question, "if your institution were to experience a
decline in resources or if resource allocations did not
keep pace with inflation, what recommendations would you
anticipate making in the allocation of resources to the
following program areas," 33 percent stated that they would
increase resources to raise the funding level for

162
instruction.

Responses indicate the following priority for

program areas: instruction, academic support, plant opera­
tion, student services, research and public service.

The

low priority rating for research may be based on comments
reflecting attitudes that research should be funded by
external agencies.

Public services, a low funding priority,

will most likely experience a decline of activity during
retrenchment.

Student services, while low on the priority

list, will probably not be eliminated as an entity by most
institutions.

However, cuts in the current level of funding

for student services may be anticipated during periods of
decreased resources for institutions.
Further conclusions indicate that the individual
students service programs, which were predicted to be vul­
nerable in the event of a decrease in resource allocations,
are health services, international student programs and
volunteer programs.

Responses for these services suggest

the following priority: admissions/recruitment, financial
aids, academic advising/career planning, placement, new
student orientation, registrar, residence hall programs,
dean of students office, field experience programs, health
services, religious activities, international student pro­
grams, and volunteer programs.
In considering the primary criteria applied in the
evaluation of services/programs, those programs which
respondents believed had a primarily economic mission are:
admissions/recruitment, financial aids, and registrar.

The

163
services which were considered to be evaluated on a philo­
sophic criteria are: academic advising/career planning,
counseling center, field experience programs, new student
orientation, placement, religious activities, and support
programs for special groups.

Programs with a primary cri­

teria of morale are considered to be: dean of students
office, health services, intramural and recreational ath­
letics, residence hall programs, and student activities.
Programs considered to be unnecessary by the respondents
are international student programs and volunteer programs.
Based on these findings, it appears that services with a
primarily administrative function and economic mission will
be maintained and may experience an increase in resources
(admissions, financial aids, placement).

Programs/service

whose activities can be provided by another agency or program
are vulnerable

(health services, international programs,

volunteer programs).
It is further concluded that with the exception of a
few cases, the variables of public/private status, size of
institution, and position at institution did not influence
responses.

In examining the relationship between public and

private status and responses to the questions, only seven
of a possible fifty-one tests
were significant.

(representing 13.7 percent)

Considering the variable of institutional

size as related to responses to the questions, six of fiftyone tests (11.8 percent)

showed significance.

Studying the

relationship between the variable of position at

164
Institution, only four of a possible fifty-one tests (7.8
percent) showed significance.

Thus, it appears that the

variables of institutional status, institutional size and
administrative position at the institution influence per­
ceptions as to how dollars to student services should be
allocated in a period of retrenchment; as to what criteria
should be applied in assessing the effectiveness and economy
of student services; and as to which unit should have
primary responsibility for program implementation.

These

findings and conclusions seem to indicate that decision­
making in institutions is performed by individuals who
hold a cosmopolitan view of higher education and of the
role and mission of student personnel.

The lack of differ­

ences between administrators from various positions suggests
that most institutions employ an operational wholistic
philosophy.
Finally, it was concluded that there is a trend
towards funding priorities for service-oriented programs
rather than developmental/educational programs.

Although

this finding was not determined to be statistically sig­
nificant, the descriptive data supports the trend.

Thus,

it seems that if higher education in the State of Michigan
experiences resource allocations which do not keep pace with
inflation, the profession of student personnel may be forced
into a strong service mode to justify programs.

The com­

ponent of student development is, and will become even more
so, a second priority for educational administrators.

165
Summary of Conclusions
1.

Administrators included in the population of this
study tend to predict a steady state enrollment situ­
ation for their respective institutions over the
next decade.

Additionally, administrators included

in the population of this study anticipate an
increase in resources (constant dollars) over the
next ten years.
2.

Administrators from the population indicated, but
not significantly so, that institutions will not
eliminate the institution-wide student personnel
program; however, there was strong support for the
notion, but not at a significant level, that stu­
dent personnel programs may be cut to decrease fund­
ing level.

Administrators were in strong support

that instructional programs should be a clear prior­
ity in allocation of funds.
3.

The individual student personnel programs which
may be affected by a change in enrollment and
resources are health services, admissions, finan­
cial aids, international student programs, new
student orientation, and placement.

It appears, but

not at a significant level, that health services,
international student programs and volunteer pro­
grams may be negatively affected while admissions,
financial aids, new student orientation and place­
ment may be affected in a positive way.

166
4.

Administrators do not significantly differ in their
responses and attitudes about what criteria should
be applied to assess the effectiveness and economy
of student services.

It appears that programs with

a primarily administrative function and economic
mission will be maintained and may experience an
increase in resources.

Programs/services whose

activities can be provided by another agency are
vulnerable.
5.

Executive level educational administrators from
Michigan public institutions do not differ signifi­
cantly in their responses to survey questions than
do administrators at Michigan private schools.
Areas where differences were found are in responses
to resource allocation questions for religious activ
ities and volunteer programs, in responses to cri­
teria applied in the evaluation of new student ori­
entation, religious activities, and responses to
which unit should have primary responsibility for
financial aids, registrar and religious activities.

6.

Executive level administrators from Michigan
institutions of varying sizes do not differ signifi­
cantly in their responses to the survey questions.
Statistically significant differences were found in
responses to resource allocation to religious
activities and international programs; and in

167
responses to criteria applied in evaluation of
healtb services, placement, religious activities
and residence halls.
7.

Executive level educational administrators from
Michigan institutions do not significantly differ
by position in their responses to the survey ques­
tions.

The only statistically significant differ­

ences were found in responses to the questions of
resource allocation, criteria applied in evaluation
of services, and primary unit of responsibility for
international student programs.

Additionally,

respondents differed significantly in their atti­
tudes about the primary unit of responsibility for
volunteer programs.
8.

There seems to be a trend towards funding priorities
for service oriented programs rather than develop­
mental/educational programs.
Interpretation and Inferences
The summary of responses to institutional enrollment

and resource predictions present findings that differ from
the literature.

According to the population of institu­

tional decision-makers from Michigan, the anticipated
enrollment change will not be the drastic decline predicted
by researchers and demographers.

Fifty-six percent of the

respondents to this study predict an increase of varying
magnitudes in the enrollments at their institutions from

168
1980-1985.

Forty-six percent predict an increase in the

next ten years.

This finding is in conflict with Centra

who reports that according to the United States Census
Bureau, the size of the traditional college-age population
(eighteen to twenty-one years of age) will decrease by 18
percent in the next decade.

Moreover, a decline in the rate

of attendance is also predicted (Centra, 1979).

In the

State of Michigan, predictions indicate a 28.6 to 34.4 per­
cent decline in the pool of junior and senior students in
high school from 1975-1990 (Hecker-Ignatovich, 1979).
Another model anticipates a 10 to 15 percent decrease in
the eighteen to twenty-one age group between 1975-1990
(Moor, 1979).

The anticipated increase of nontraditional

learners (older students, women, minorities and international
students) may change the complexion of student bodies and
may offset the anticipated enrollment decline (Centra, 1979;
"The Chronicle of Higher Education," XVII, 20, 1980).
The responses to the resource question demonstrates
a clear attitude that dollars and resources will increase.
Almost 76 percent of the survey respondents anticipate an
increase of varying intensities in resources over the next
five years and 59 percent anticipate an increase in resources
over the next ten years.

This finding is also in conflict

with reports from the literature.

However, because insti­

tutions have multiple and varied funding sources, and
because the parameters surrounding economic trends are
difficult to accurately define and assess, the comparison

169
between the survey findings and the literature review may
not be valid.

Some general trends which suggest a decline

in resources are:

(1) a five million dollar cut in Presi­

dent Carter's fiscal budget allocation to higher education
in 1980

("The Chronicle of Higher Education, XVII, 20, 1980);

(2) a two hundred and sixty million dollar cut in the stu­
dent aid budget ("The Chronicle of Higher Education," XVII,
20, 1980); and (3) rates of inflation to erode and bring
about a decline in purchasing power

(Change Magazine, 1980).

In the State of Michigan the percentage of the general fund
allocated to higher education has decreased from a rate of
18.2 percent in 1962-63 to 14 percent in 1977-78 (Office
of the Budget, Department of Management and Budget, State
of Michigan, 1980).
Thus, a discrepancy between predictions from the
survey respondents and the literature is evident.

In con­

sidering this finding it is important to note that mathe­
matical models for demographic predictions may be fairly
reliable, but the myriad of intangible, human factors can
often create whimsical change, are subject to varied inter­
pretations, and cannot be totally controlled for in the
experimental setting.

Moreover, predictions related to

funding and resource allocation are often altered in the
political arena, can be controlled by popular vote, or
affected by the dominant societal-cultural values of the
era.

Another factor which may contribute to a more positive

attitude on the part of the survey respondents is the issue

170
of institutional bias.

Although administrators must approach

these issues in a realistic fashion, it is difficult, and
often not prudent, to predict a large decline in enrollment
or resources, and simultaneously, support programs designed
to increase

enrollment and resources.

In addition to the

discrepancy for enrollment and

resource trends, the findings provide an interesting com­
parison of priorities in the allocation of funds to insti­
tutional programs.

The summary of findings from institu­

tional decision-makers suggests a clear funding priority
for instruction.

In fact in terms of priority ordering,

the mean scores suggest allocations to programs in descend­
ing order: Instruction, Academic Support, Plant Operation,
Student Services, Research and Public Service.

The percent

of increase

of allocations to program areas by the State

of Michigan

show different priority rankings. The state

allocated dollars to programs in the following order (from
highest to lowest): Plant Operation, Research, Instruction,
Academic Support, Public Service and Student Services.
Based on comments from the survey, many university adminis­
trators responded to the research question with a low
recommendation for funding research because of their desire
to seek and gain support from external agencies.

Thus,

it appears that the philosophic ideal for the university
administrator (external funding for research, large alloca­
tion of dollars to instruction, and low overhead from

171
physical plant) is often altered by the fiscal demands of
an inflationary economy.
In examining the individual student personnel pro­
grams which may be affected by a change in enrollment and
resources, it is apparent that the service-oriented
administrative functional areas of admissions, financial
aids and placement will probably be influenced in a positive
way.
While the statistically significant relationships
should be further examined, interpretation of the descrip­
tive data reveals some general trends.

The recommendation

was to cut funding for health services in view of antici­
pated decline of enrollments in the next ten years.

The

recommendation for admissions and financial aid was to
increase or maintain funding in spite of a slight increase
in enrollments in the next five years.

This recommendation

may be influenced by the anticipated decline in enrollments
and subsequent need to improve these services.

The descrip­

tive fundings for funding allocation to international pro­
grams showed strong support for decreasing funding and
some support for eliminating programs in spite of predictions
that resources for institutions will experience a small
increase over the next five years.

While the relationship

for new student orientation is difficult to assess, 65 per­
cent of the respondents suggest that funding should be
maintained in the next ten years, in spite of small increases
in resources.

There is also strong support for maintaining

172
funding of placement in light of five year resource pre­
dictions of some increase.

Thus, in the coming era of

consumer orientation towards education and of institutional
marketing to attract students, it seems that administrators
are stating a clear priority towards services that deliver
a tangible, highly desired product.

Allocations to new

student orientation also showed an interaction with the
variables of enrollment and resource change.

This priority

seems to indicate that in addition to recruiting, admitting,
financing and eventually placing students, a student's
adjustment to higher education is important.

Not only is

it critical in an educational/developmental way, but it is
also crucial for retention.
Finally, it is important to note that when responses
were analyzed by institutional public/private status; by
size; and by position, there were very few significant
findings.

The programs which showed the greatest number

of significant differences were health services, inter­
national student programs, religious activities and volun­
teer programs.

It seems that these programs may be par­

ticularly vulnerable if budget reductions are enacted.
Many respondents commented that health services might be
handled by a "pay as you go" mode; by community facilities;
or contracted to an external agency.

The differences in

responses for religious activities seem to be related to
the public/private and institutional size variables.
Because many of the small private schools in Michigan

173
are religiously affiliated, this finding is consistent with
existing data.

The significant relationships related to

international programs and volunteer programs seem to
reflect the attitude that these are expendable "frills"
and unnecessary programs during retrenchment periods.
Both of these programs developed in the sixties and seven­
ties growth era in higher education.

Moreover, they fit

the sixties dominant value of social consciousness,
brotherhood and relevancy.

In some cases, volunteer pro­

grams have attempted to change their "big brother/socially
redeeming" image into a more contemporary student orien­
tation towards career development.

This changing image is

exemplified in a name change from volunteer programs to
service learning centers.

However, in spite of the philo­

sophic and name change, administrators seem to have selected
field experience programs

(espousing a mission similar to

service learning centers) as a priority for funding.

The

findings related to international student programs present
an interesting dichotomy between the responses of executive
level administrators in the population and the literature.
While the data suggests that funding for the program should
be cut (43.3 percent) and, in some cases eliminated

(21.7

percent), the literature calls for more developmental pro­
grams to meet the needs of "new students"
ities, international students)

(women, minor­

(Rhatigan, 1975; Cross, 1975).

Included in the results of the study, but not devel­
oped as an hypothesis, is the finding that there are no

174
significant differences in respondent's attitudes about
greater resource allocation to service-oriented programs
than for developmental/educational programs.

Although this

test did not show a statistically significant relationship,
the descriptive data indicates a priority for funding
service-oriented programs.
Recommendations and Implications for
Student Affairs
The nature of the study is primarily investigative
and designed to serve as a point of departure for further
research.

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to make

specific recommendations based on this preliminary study.
However, the following recommendations present some general
suggestions for practitioners in the field.
(1) It appears that there is strong consensus among
executive level educational administrators that
admissions/recruitment should be a priority in the
decade of 1980-90.

Administrators indicated over­

whelmingly that even if budget allocations did not
keep pace with inflation, resources allocated to
admissions should still be increased.

While

admissions/recruitment programs are becoming
increasingly important as the eighteen to twentyone year old age group drops off, it is the recom­
mendation of this investigator that retention be
considered as an equally important factor.
the responsibility of student personnel

It is

175
professionals to make college and university adminis­
trative decision-makers aware of the role of student
personnel services/programs in retention.

Typically,

students who leave college during their first year
do so because of an inability to adjust.

In higher

education emphasis is placed primarily on "develop­
ing competence," but educators often fail to insure
for the achievement of other developmental compe­
tencies (Chickering, 1969).

Thus, it seems that

student personnel professionals should identify and
articulate their role relative to student retention
as well as admissions, and should work towards
implementation of programs geared towards the devel­
opment of students' emotional, social and intellec­
tual maturity.
(2) The findings of the study and related subjective
comments indicated that very little long or short
term planning is undertaken for student personnel
programs.

The development of a five and ten year

plan for student personnel programs is critical
for the purpose of reiterating goals, defining
objectives and designing activities for the future
as well as insuring that the direction of the stu­
dent personnel program is in concert with the
overall mission of the college or university.
Secondly, it is critical to develop a contingency
plan so that periods of retrenchment do not greatly

176
alter the long term role and mission of the student
affairs program.

A comprehensive self study com­

bined with the utilization of an external consultant
team may be necessary towards this planning effort.
Suggested Areas for Future Research
A secondary purpose of this study was to provide
information on trends in student services in the decade of
1980-90.

Based on findings from this type of investigative

research, it is further intended that the conclusions, in
addition to other implications from the data, may provide
a catalyst for further study.

While the research questions

related to this study were answered, the following recom­
mendations for future research are presented as a result
of this study.
(1) Findings from this study only determine whether or
not there is a significant relationship between any
two variables under investigation.

While the

descriptive data provides a foundation from which
to speculate about a cause/effect relationship,
additional and more detailed analysis is necessary.
For example, the relationship between funding
recommendations and health services may be examined
to consider specific attitudes about the funding
and implementation of health services.
(2) Hany respondents suggest the "pay as you go" model
for implementation of some student services.

177
Because this model seems to be implemented at some
institutions and seriously considered at others,
a thorough cost/benefit analysis of this funding
model for student services should be undertaken.
(3) This study Indicates that executive level adminis­
trators tend to favor program elimination in some
cases rather than percentage cuts "across the
board.11 Further investigation is needed to docu­
ment this general perception.

Additionally, if

services are to be continued, questions about quality
should be addressed.

For example, if institutions

were to experience severe budget cuts, will programs
be maintained with limited personnel as primarily
administrative functions or will programs lose their
educational/developmental component?
(4) An indepth, microscopic study of an institution
that is operating under fiscal constraint and main­
taining student services/programs would provide an
interesting and helpful case study approach to the
problem.

Because many quantitative problems arise

during social science research projects, and
because the scientific method often limits the scope
of research that is nonquantitative, the case study
approach may provide meaningful information.
(5) Further research regarding the relationship of
resource recommendations and criteria applied in
the evaluation of student personnel services/programs

178
is necessary.

Are the programs and services, whose

primary criteria for success is economic survival
for the institution, likely to be strongly endorsed
for funding?

What is the relationship of funding

recommendations for the programs whose primary cri­
teria is founded in the philosophic mission of the
institution.
(6) The Nelson study (1979) considered perceptions of
student personnel professionals about the projected
effects of enrollment and budget reductions on stu­
dent personnel services.

It would be interesting

to investigate the perceptions and attitudes of
practicing student personnel professionals as com­
pared with those of executive level educational
administrators.

When the findings of this study

were analyzed by administrative position, very few
significant differences were produced.

Thus, it

appears that the chief student personnel officer's
perceptions of funding student personnel services
do not differ from other executive level adminis­
trators.

However, how do the perceptions of other

student personnel professionals, who may not hold
an institutional perspective, compare with attitudes
of executive level administrators?
(7) Results of this study seem to indicate that there
is very limited long or short range planning occur­
ring for student services/programs for the decade

179
of 1980-90.

Of the 120 responses, only four adminis­

trators from the same institution volunteered the
information that their school had developed a con­
tingency plan in the event of budget reductions.
An investigation about the amount, quality and time
span of institutional planning for student services
should be undertaken.
(8) The relationship of declining resources, student
personnel programs/services and training programs
for student personnel educators is an area for
further investigation.

Given future trends in

student personnel programs, what skills and compe­
tencies should be considered as priorities for
training programs during the next decade?

Addi­

tionally, it may become important to develop com­
prehensive human resource planning for the profes­
sion.

Questions such as, "is human resource

planning necessary?" and "Who should assume the
responsibility?" must be investigated.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to assess perceptions
of executive level educational administrators about the
relationship between declining resources in the decade of
1980-90 and student personnel programs in the population of
four-year colleges and universities in the State of Michigan.
The most significant findings of this study reveal that

180
perceptions of the population of administrators about
enrollment and resources in the next five to ten years are
in conflict with the literature.

The survey population pre­

dictions range from a steady state situation to increased
enrollment and resources, while the literature predicts a
decrease or steady state.

Further, it was found that exec­

utive level educational administrators tend to share
similar perceptions about student services/programs.
Finally, the study revealed that administrators advocate
increased funding primarily to student services and pro­
grams which will insure for the economic survival of the
institution

(admissions, financial aids and placement)

the decade of 1980-90.

in

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Institutional Data
Institution:
Institutional Status: Public

Private

Institutional Enrollment (headcount): up to 7,500____ 7,500-20,000____ 20,000 or more_
What is the title of your position at your institution?______________________________
Do you think that your institution will experience a change in enrollment in the next
five years? Yes
No
In the next ten years? Yes
No____
What do you anticipate to be the magnitude of the change in enrollment at your institu­
tion in the next five years? ____
In the next ten years? ____
a.
b.
c.
d.

increase 0-10%
decrease 0-10%
increase10-20%
decrease10-20%

e.
f.
g.
h.

increase
decrease
increase
decrease

20-30%
20-30%
30% or more
30% or more

Anticipating the impact of inflation, do you think that your institution will experience
a change in resources (i.e., tuition revenue, state appropriations, private gifts) in
the next five years? Yes
No
In the next ten years? Yes
No____

What do you anticipate to be the magnitude of the change in resources at your institu
tion in the next five years? ____
In the next ten years? ____
a.
b.
c.
d.

increase
decrease
increase
decrease

e.
f.
g.
h.

0-10%
0-10%
10-20%
10-20%

increase
decrease
increase
decrease

20-30%
20-30%
30% or more
30% or more

If your institution were to experience a significant decline in resources or if
resource allocations did not keep up with inflation, what recommendations would you
anticipate making in the allocation of resources to the following program areas?
Please circle appropriate response according to the following recommendations:
(1) increase allocation to raise funding level; (2) maintain allocation at current
funding level; (3) decrease allocation; (4) eliminate program.
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Additional Comments:

1 2
1 2
1 2

3
3
3

4
4
4

Academic Support
Student Services
Plant Operation

1 2
1 2
1 2

3
3
3

4
4
4

PROGRAMS
IN RESPONDING TO ALL QUESTIONS,
ASSUME THAT EACH STUDENT SERVICE/
PROGRAM IS OF HIGH QUALITY.

Academic Advising/Career Planning
Admissions/Recruitment_____________
Counseling Center__________________

Given a budget cut or resource
allocation which did not keep pace
with inflation, what recommendations
would you anticipate making for
each of the student services/pro­
grams?

Place appropriate number

in Column #1.

RESPOND FOR ALL

SERVICES/PROGRAMS.

Dean of Students Office____________
Field Experience Programs__________
Financial Aids_____________________
Health Services____________________
International Student Programs_____
Intramural & Recreational Athletics
New Student Orientation____________
Placement__________________________
Registrar__________________________

1 - Increase funding above the current
level.

Religious Activities_______________
Residence Hall Programs____________

2 - Maintain funding at current level.

Student Activities_________________

3 - Decrease funding to base level.

Support Programs for Special Groups
(women, minorities, handicappers)

4 - Eliminate service or program.

Volunteer Programs_________________
Additional Comments:

Other - please describe

#2
Given services/programs of high
quality in all areas, which of
the following should be the
primary criteria applied in
the evaluation of each of the
student services/programs?
Place appropriate number in
Column #2. RESPOND FOR ALL
SERVICES/PROGRAMS.

#1

PROGRAMS
Academic Advising/Career Planning
Admissions/Recruitment_____________
Counseling Center__________________
Dean of Students Office____________
Field Experience Programs__________
Financial Aids_____________________
Health Services____________________

1 - Service is necessary for the
economic survival of insti­
tution.

International Student Programs_____

2 - Service is necessary to
carry out the philosophic
mission of the institution.

New Student Orientation____________

4 - Service is necessary because
of political realities.
5 - Service is not necessary.

Placement__________________________
Registrar__________________________
Religious Activities_______________
Residence Hall Programs____________
Student Activities_________________
Support Programs for Special Groups
(women, minorities, handicappers)
Volunteer Programs_________________

Additional Comments:

Other - please describe

184

3 - Service is necessary to
maintain the general morale
of students, faculty and
staff of the institution.

Intramural & Recreational Athletics

#3

#2

PROGRAMS

#1

Which of the following

Academic Advising/Career Planning

units should have primary
responsibility for each

Admissions/Recruitment
Counseling Center

of the student services/

Dean of Students Office

programs?

Field Experience Programs

Place number

in Column #3.

RESPOND

Financial Aids

FOR ALL SERVICES/

Health Services

PROGRAMS.

International Student Programs
Intramural & Recreational Athletics

1 - Academic Affairs

New Student Orientation

2 - Student Affairs

Placement

3 - Business and Finance

Registrar

4 - Service should be
contracted/ass igned
to an external agent

Religious Activities

5 - Other - specify

Residence Hall Programs
Student Activities
Support Programs for Special Groups
(women, minorities, handicappers)

Additional Comments:

Volunteer Programs
Other * please describe

#4

#3

#2

#1

PROGRAMS

Place a check in

Academic Advising/Career Planning

Column #4 identify­

Admissions/Recruitment

ing those services/

Counseling Center

programs implemented

Dean of Students Office

at your institution.

Field Experience Programs
Financial Aids

Additional Comments:

Health Services
International Student Programs
Intramural & Recreational Athletics
New Student Orientation
Placement
Registrar
Religious Activities
Residence Hall Programs
Student Activities
Support Programs for Special Groups
(women, minorities, handicappers)
Volunteer Programs
Other - please describe

APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING • COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824

TELEPHONE 517/355-516}

January 14, 1980

I am writing to request your assistance with a research
project supported by the Department of Administration and
Higher Education at Michigan State University.
The pur­
pose of the project is to assess perceptions of executive
level Michigan college and university administrators about
the relationship between declining resources and student
personnel services/programs in the decade of 1980-90.
Your institutional perspective, level of responsibility
and experience in higher education makes your contribution
to this study necessary and valuable.
Please take a few
minutes to complete the enclosed survey and return it in
the self-addressed stamped envelope.
All responses will
be held in strict confidence.
A final copy of the report will be made available to you.
Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation in
helping us complete this study.
Sincerely,

Wendy L . Baker
Acting Director
Engineering Cooperative
Education
Primary Investigator
(517) 355-5163

Louis C. Stamatakos
Professor
Dept, of Administration and
Higher Education
(517) 353-5220

187

APPENDIX C
FOLLOW-UP LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ■ COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824

TELEPHONE 317/355-5163

February 18, 1980

Several weeks ago, Louis Stamatakos and I requested your
assistance by asking you to complete and return a ques­
tionnaire. The questionnaire was part of a study to
assess perceptions of executive level Michigan college
and university administrators about the relationship
between declining resources and student personnel
services/programs in the decade of 1980-90.
To the best of our knowledge, we have not received a
response from you. For your convenience, I have enclosed
an additional questionnaire. Please take a few minutes to
complete the survey and return it in the self-addressed
stamped envelope prior to March 10.
Your time and cooperation with this study is greatly
appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Wendy L. Baker, Acting Director
Engineering Cooperative Education
Primary Investigator
(517) 355-5163

188

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, J.

"Moving Toward the 80'3 in Student Personnel."
Journal of the National Association of Women Deans,
Administrators and Counselors 36 (Summer 1973) :
155-158.

Appleton, James R.; Moore, Paul L.; and Vinton, John C.
"A Model for the Effective Delivery of Student
Services in Academic Schools and Departments."
Journal of Higher Education 49 (1978): 372-381.
Armstrong, Michael R.; Campbell, Thomas J.; and Ostroth,
D. David. "The Employment Situation in College and
University Student Personnel." Journal of National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators
16 #1 (Summer 1978): 51-58.
Astmann, Stephen K. "Faculty Perceptions of the Student
Personnel Staff: implications for Survivors."
Journal of the National Association of Women Deans,
Administrators and Counselors 38 (Winter 1975):
65-72.
Avery, R. Stanton.
"Some Reflections on the Current Position
and Future Outlook of American Higher Education."
National Association of Student Personnel Adminis­
trators Conference Presentation, Kansas City,
April 3, 1978.
Balderston, F. Managing Today's University.
Jossey-Bass, Publisher, 1974.
Barzun, Jacques. The American University.
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970.

San Francisco:

New York:

Berry, Margaret.
"The State of Student Affairs: A Review
of the Literature." Journal of National Association
_of_ Student Personnel Administrators 13 (Winter 1976) :
Biggs, Donald A., and Skinner, Kenneth.
"A Decision-Making
Approach to Planning in Student Personnel." Journal
of College Student Personnel 20 (May 1979): 258-264.
189

190
Blaesser, Willard W.
"Organization Change and Student
Development." Journal of College Student Personnel
19 #2 (March 1978): 109-118.
Blocher, D. H.
1966.
Bios, P.

Developmental Counseling.

New York: Ronald,

The Adolescent Personality: A Study of Individual
Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century, 1941.

Boutwell, W. K. "Formula Budgeting on the Downside." New
Directions for Higher Education 1 (Summer 1973):
41-50.
Bowen, Frank M . , and Glenny, Lyman A. "State Budgeting for
Higher Education: State Fiscal Stringency and Public
Higher Education." ERIC Document. ED 159 978.
Boylan, Hunter R. "Approaching Accountability: Some Steps
Along the Way." Journal of National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators 10 (1973) : 322-327.
Brooks, Gary D., and Avila, Jose F. "The Chief Student
Personnel Administrator and His Staff: A Profile."
Journal of National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators 11 (Spring 1974) : 41-47.
Brown, R. D. Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher
Education: A Return to the Academy. Student
Personnel Series No. 16. Washington: American
College Personnel Association, 1972.
Carnes, Bruce M.
"A Profile of Private Liberal Arts
Colleges." ERIC Document. ED 157 446.
Centra, John A.
"Reading the Enrollment Barometer."
Magazine 11 (April 1970): 50, 51, 62.

Change

Centra, John A.
"College Enrollment in the 1980s."
Journal of Higher Education 51 (1980): 18-39.
Chandler, Everett M.
"Student Affairs Administration in
Transition." Journal of College Student Personnel
14 (September 1973): 392-398.
"Change's Economic Prospect Report for 1980."
zine 11 #8 (November-December 1979).
Chickering, A. W. Education and Identity.
Jossey-Bass, Publisher, 1969.

Change Maga­

San Francisco:

191
"The Chronicle of Higher Education."
January 29, 1979
XVII, 20
September 25, 1979
XVII, 4
September 5, 1979
XVII, 1
January 28, 1980

3, 4, 6
8
1, 12, 13

Crookston, B. B.
"Milieu Management." Journal of National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators 13
(Summer 1975): 45-55.
Crookston, B. B.
"Student Personnel - All Hail and Fairwelll"
Personnel and Guidance Journal 55 (September 1976):
26-29.
Crookston, B. B.
"An Organizational Model for Student
Development." Journal of National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators 10 #1 (July 1972):
3-13.
Cross, K. P.
"Student Personnel Work as a Profession."
Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (1973):
77-81.
Davis, Carolyne K . , and Dougherty, Edward A.
"Program Dis­
continuance: Its Role in Strategies of Resource
Allocation and Planning for Colleges and Univer­
sities." ERIC Document.
ED 153 553.
Dressel, Paul T.
"Measuring the Benefits of Student Per­
sonnel Work." Journal of Higher Education XLIV
(January 1973): 15-26.
Dutton, Thomas B.; Appleton, James R.; and Birch, Edward E.
"Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the
Academic Community." National Association of Stu­
dent Personnel Administrators, Division of Research
and Publications, Monograph No. 3 (April, 1970).
Erikson, E. H. "Identity and the Life Cycle.” In G. S.
Klein (Ed.), Psychological Issues. New York:
International Universities Press, 1959.
Escott, Stanley B.
"Placement Services 1974: A Report and
Analysis." Journal of National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators 12 (Fall 1974):
84-89.
Ferrari, M. R.
"National Study of Student Personnel Man­
power Planning - 1972. Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators
10 (October 1972): 91-100.

192
Fisher, 6. A.
"Accountability of Student Personnel."
Community College Review 1 (1973): 42-48.
Folder, John.
"Prospects for Higher Education Finance in
the Next Decade." Journal of Education Finance
3.3 (Fall 1977): 187-198.
Greer, Richard M . ; Blaesser, Willard W . ; Herron, Ronald D.;
and Horle, Reid F.
"College Student Personnel
Graduate Placement." Journal of College Student
Personnel 19 (July 1978): 342-348.
Hakala, Donald R.
"Resource Allocation Problems of Reduced
Growth in College Enrollment." Journal of the
College and University Personnel Association 25.1
(January 1974): 40-43.
Harpel, Richard L.
"Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation
in Student Affairs Programs: A Manual for Adminis­
trators." Journal of the National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators 14 (Summer 1976).
Harvey, Thomas R.
"Some Future Directions for Student Per­
sonnel Administration." Journal of College Student
Personnel 15 (July 1974): 244-246.
Harvey, Thomas R.
"Student Development and the Future of
Higher Education: A Force Analysis." Journal of
College Student Personnel 17 (March 1976): 90-95.
Havighurst, R. J.
Human Development and Education.
York: Longman's, 1953.

New

Hays, William L. Statistics for the Social Sciences.
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

New

Howe, Howard II.
"What Future for the Private College?"
Change Magazine 11 (May/June 1979): 28-31, 70.
Humphries, Jack W.
"Student Personnel Professionals: Is
There a Future?" Educational Record 58 (Winter
1977): 59-65.
Hurst, James, and Ivey, Allen E.
"Towards a Radicalization
of Student Personnel." Journal of College Student
Personnel 12 (1971): 165-176.
Jones, D. P.
"A Manual for Budgeting and Accounting for
Manpower Resources in Postsecondary Education.”
Technical Report #84. National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems.

193
Jones, John D. "Student Personnel Work: Current State and
Future Directions." Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators 15
(Spring 1978) : 2-11.
Knefelkamp, L. Lee. "Faculty and Student Development in
the 80's: Renewing the Community of Scholars."
Session 41 - National Conference on Higher Educa­
tion, American Association for Higher Education,
March 7, 1980.
Kramer, Howard C. "Futuristic Student Services: One Per­
spective." Journal of National Association of
Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors 38
(Winter 1975): 80-86.
Leslie, Larry L. "The Financial Prospects for Higher Educa­
tion in the 1980's." Journal of Higher Education
51 (1980): 1-17.
Lewis, C. L.
"College Student Personnel: A Current Estimate."
Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (January
1973): 5-9.
Marshall, J. F . , and Sorochty, R. W. "Assessing the Need
to Reorganize: A Process Model." Journal of
National Association of Student Personnel Adminis­
trators 14 (Fall 1976): 13-16.
Matson, Jane E. "Reductions and Student Services." New
Directions for Community Colleges. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1978.
McIntyre, James.
"Student Personnel: The Challenge of the
Future." Journal of National Association of Women
Deans, Administrators, and Counselors 38 (Winter
1975) : 59-64.
Meabon, David L.; Sims, O. Suthern; Suddick, David E.; and
Alley, Barbara.
"Management Techniques in Student
Affairs: A National Study." Journal of College
Student Personnel 19 (May 1978): 211-230.
Miller, T. K. "A Student Development Model for student
Affairs in Tomorrow's Higher Education." Journal of
College Student Personnel 16 (1975)s 334-341.
Miller, T. K . , and Prince, J. S. The Future of Student
Affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Publisher,
1976.

194
Mueller, K. H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.
Mueller, K. H.
"The Future of the Campus Personnel Worker."
Journal of National Association of Women Deans,
Administrators, and Counselors 31 #3 (Spring 1968):
132-140.
Mueller, K. H. "Student Personnel Work in Higher Education:
Philosophy and Framework." In College Student
Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, edited by
L. E. Fitzgerald et al. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1970).
Nelson, Jackie.
"The Effects of Enrollment and Budget
Reductions on College and University Personnel
Services and Programs." Doctoral dissertation,
East Texas State University, 1979.
Nelson, Jack, and Murphy, Harold.
"The Projected Effects
of Enrollment and Budget Reductions on Student
Personnel Services." Journal of National Associ­
ation of Student Personnel Administrators 17 (Spring
1980): 2-10.
Nie, N. H.; Bent, D. H.; and Hull, C. H.
Package for the Social Sciences.
Hill Book Co., 1970.

Statistical
New York: McGraw-

Office of institutional Research, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan (April 1979). Unpublished
Document.
Ostroth, Don David.
"Procedures and Criteria Used in
Selecting Entry-Level College Student Personnel
Professionals." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1980.
Packwood, William T.
"College Student Personnel Graduate
Placement." Journal of College Student Personnel
17 (1976): 22-27.
Packwood, William T. College Student Personnel Services.
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1977.
Parker, Clyde A. "Institutional Self-Renewal in Higher
Education." Journal of College Student Personnel
12 (1975): 405-409.
Penney, James F. "Student Personnel Work: A Profession
Still Born." Personnel and Guidance Journal 47
(June 1969): 958-962.

195
Podolsky, Arthur, and Smith, Carolyn R. Education Directory
for Colleges and Universities 1978-79. National
Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Prior, John J.
"The Reorganization of Student Personnel
Services: Facing Reality." Journal of College
Student Personnel 14 (1973): 202-205.
Rhatigan, James J.
"Looking Forward to the 1980's.”
Journal of the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators 17 (Autumn 1979): 2-11.
Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University.
New York: Vintage Books, 1962.
Schmidt, M. R.
"College Student Personnel: Two Alternatives
for the Future." Journal of College Student Per­
sonnel 16 (September 1975): 354-355.
Shaffer, R. H . , and Martinson, W. D. Student Personnel
Services in Higher Education. New York: The Center
for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1969.
Shaffer, R. H.
"An Emerging Role of Student Personnel Contributing to Organizational Effectiveness."
Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (September
1973): 386-391.
Shoemer, J., and Snapp, M. K.
"Student Personnel as a
Primary Educational Function: A Battle Lost."
Journal of the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators 14 (Winter 1977): 48-51.
Teeter, Ruskin.
"What the Carnegie Commission Says to
Student Personnel Administrators?" Journal of
National Association of Women Deans,"Administrators,
and Counselors 38 (Winter 1975): 70-72.
Terenzini, Patrick.
"The Goals of Student Personnel Work:
Views from the Top." Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administration
11 (October 1973): 31-35.
Tryon, C . , and Lilienthal, J. W.
"Developmental Tasks: The
Concept and Its Importance."
In Fostering Mental
Health in Our Schools. Washington: National Educa­
tion Association, 1950.
Tucker, John M.
"Planning for Curtailed Enrollments."
American School and University 50.2 (October 1977):
46-48.

196
Wellington, Arthur M. "From Policy and Programming in Stu­
dent Personnel." Journal of College Student Per­
sonnel 17 (July 1976)* 327-333.
Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges
and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Wise, W. Max. "Major Developments to Influence College
Students in the Late *70's." Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel Adminis­
trators 14 (Fall 1976): 2-12.
Witkowski, Edward H. "The Economy and the University:
Economic Aspects of Declining Enrollments."
Journal of Higher Education XLV #1 (January 1974).
Woodard, Dudley B. Jr., and Birch, Edward E. "NASPA
Student Affairs Cost Study." Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel Adminis­
trators 15.1 (Summer 1977): 20-23.
Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel Work in College.
New York: Ronald Press Co., 1951.
Young, Bernadine.
"Perspectives on the Future of Student
Affairs: A Modified Delphi Study in Higher Educa­
tion." Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, 1978.
1978-79 Fact Book on Higher Education in Michigan, Michigan
Department of Education - Higher Education Manage­
ment Services, July, 1979.
1979-80 Michigan Higher Education Executive Budget Funding
Model - Selected Data, Comparisons and Trends.
Department of Management and Budget, Education
Division - March 1979.