ED 223 297

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT--=':'

DOCUMENT RESUME

JC 820 540

Deegan, William L.The Management of Student Affairs Programs inCommunity Colleges: Revampina Processes andStructures. Horizons Issues ionograph Series.American Association of Community and JuniorColleges, Washington, D.C.; American Association ofCommunity and Junior Colleges, Washington, D.C.Council of Universities and Colleges.; ERICClearinghouse for Junior Colleges, Los Angeles,Calif.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.82400-78-003865p.American-Association of Community and JuniorColleges, One Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC 20036($5.00).Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071) -- Reports Research/Technical (143)-- Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) -- Branch Around(888)

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Administrative Organization; Budgeting; CommunityColleges; Evaluation Criteria; *ManagementDevelopment; *Progkam Administration; ProgramDevelopment; Program Evaluation; Retrenchment;*Student Personnel Services; Student PersonnelWorkers; Two Year Colleges

Based on a review of the management literature in thefields of business and education and on case studies, interviews, anddiscussions, this monograph identifies the prerequisites for thesuccessful management of student affairs programs. Chapter 1 presentsperspectives on the student affairs profession, summarizes theproblems facing the field, and identifies the objectives of themonograph and the methods used in its development. Chapter 2 outlinesfactors that will influence the future of student affairs programmanagement, focusing on the challenge posed by uncertainty overfuture demographics and mission, the problems and opportunitiesresulting from increased student diversity, and the need to respondto demands for greater accountability and participation. In chapter3, a synthesis of research findings on issues, problems, and trendsis integrated with a series of recommendations for the planning,forganization, budgeting, staffing, direction, and evaluation ofstudent affairs programs. Included are recommendations for the use ofmore flexible and dynamic planning processes; the creation of moreeffective training programs for student affairs professionals,especially in the areas of planning and budgetinw and thedevelopment of an effective national- and state-level leadership inthe student affairs profession. A frameworkS for management analysisis appended to assist in analyzing the major functions and tasks ofmanagement and comparing actual practice against a universalistmodel. (H8)

Cs--

CTcvreN("\JCVCO

S-1-)

\...

i

4.

...

..,

..... ____de

..._

The Management of Student Affairs Programsin Community Colleges:Revamping Processes and Structures

By William L. Deegan

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER IERICI`..A This document has been reproduced as

received horn the person or organizationoriginating it.

I I Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-:ment do not necessarily represent official NIEposition or policy.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges /Council of Universities and Colleges / ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges

ERIC/AACJC MbnographsI --Junior College; Institutional Research: The State of the Art.* By John E.

Roueche an,1 Sohn R.Viggs. 1968. 70p. (ED 021 -557)

Personality CharactertFicS of College 'and University Faculty: Implications for' the Conununity 911ege.* By Florence B. Brawer. 1968. 104p. (ED 026 048)

Institutional Administrator or Educational Leader? The Junior College Presi-dent.'* By Arthur NI. Cohen dnd Johii E. Roueche. 1969. 55p. (ED 03 I 1'86)

Student Activism in Junior Colleges: An Administrator's Vint's.* By John Lom-bardi. 1969. 83p. (ED 028 767)

The Multi-Institution Junior College District.* By Frederick C. Kintzer. Arthur,.M. Jensen. aad John S. ilansefi. 1969. 66p. (ED 030 4 15)

State Master Plans fbr Commgnity Colleges.* By Allan S. Hur [burl. 1969. 55p.(ED 032 887)

Student Characteristics: Personality and Dropout Propensity.* By Arthur M.Cohen and Florence B. Brawer. 1970. 69p. (ED 038 130)

Orientation for acuity in Junior Co !Awes.* By M. Frances Kelley and JohnConnolly. 1970. 85p. (ED 043 323)

Values and the Generation Gap: Junior College Fresiwwn and acuity.* ByFlorence B. Brawer. 1971. 77p. (ED 050 724)

Junior Colkge acuity: Their Values and Perceptions. By Young Park. 1971.75 p. (ED 050 725)

Black Studies in the Community College.* By John Lombardi. 1971. 75p.(ED 053 723)

The Chief Student Personnel Administrator in the l'ublic TWO. Year College.*By Alice J. Thurston. Fredric B. Zook. Timothy Neher. and Joseph Ingra.ham. 1972. 75p, (ED 060 840)

Community College Response to the IIi,gh-Risk Student: A Critical Reapprais-al.** By William Moore, Jr. 1976. 60p. (ED 122 873)

Time its the Variable, Achievement As the Constant: C'ompetency-Based Instruc-tion in the Community College." By John E. Roueche, Barton R. 1 lerrscher.and George A. Baker III. 1976. 5 I p. (ED 122 872)

Developing Constituency Programs in Community Colleges.** By Max R.Raines. 1977. 70p, (ED 143 393)

Dollars and Directives: Issues and Problems Related to Financial Support andLegal Authorkations of Cotnmunity Colleges.** By S.V. Martorana, JamesL. Wattenbaiger, and Wayne D. Smutz. 60 p. 1978. (ED 156 295)

Perspective; Community Colleges in the 1980s.* By Joseph P. Cosand. 1979.63p. (ED 178 146)

The Impossible Dream? Financing Community College's Evolving Mission.**By Richard C. Richardson, Jr. and lArry L. Leslie. 1980. 58p. (ED 197 783)

What is Student Development?" By Donald Rippey! 1981. 109p. (ED 207 619)

The monographs with the single asterisk are S2.00 each and the ones withthe dOuble asterisks are $5.00 each from AACJC. Also, microfiche (MF) andpaper reproductions (PC) of each are available from the ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, P.O. Box 190, Arlington, VA 22210.

THE MANAGEMENT,OF STUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAMSIN COMMUNITY COLLEGES:

REVAMPING PROCESSES AND STRUCTURES

William L. DeeganDirector, Center for Community CollegesTeachers College, Columbia UniversityNew York, New York

"Horizons Issues" Monograph Series

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges/Council of Universities and ColIeges/ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior C011eges

4

tOUCAIIIONAL RESOURCES INFORMAtION MEIER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, lOS ANGELES

The material in this publication NT/as prepared pursuant to acontract with National Institute of Education, U.S. Department ofEducation. Contractors undertaking such projects under governmentsponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgment in pro-fessional and technical matters. Prior to publication, the manuscriptwas submitted to the American Association of Conmtunity andJunior Colleges, Council of Universities and Colleges for criticalreview and determination of professional competence. This publi-cation has met such standards. Points of view or opinions, however.do not necessarily represent the official view or opinions of theCouncil of Universities and Colleges or the National Institute ofEducation.

This publication was prepared with fundingfrom the National Institute of Education,U.S. Department of Education. under con-tract no. 400-78-0038. The opinions ex-pressed in this report do not necessarily re-flect the positions or policies of N1E or theDepartment.

Price: $5.00Copyright 1982: American Association of Community and JuniorCollegesOne Dupont Circle. N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036Copyright is claimed until August 1987. Thereafter all portions ofthis work covered by this copyright will be in the public domain.Printed in U.S.A.

For information about this series, write to ERIC Clearinghouse forJunior Colleges, 96 Powell Library, UCLA, Los Angeles 90024, orcall 213-825-3931.

5

[

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EDITORS' OVERVIEW iii

FOREWO RD - v

1. PER§PECTIVES ON THE STUDENT AFFAIRSPROFESSION 1

The Problem 1

Objectives 4

Methods 5

/. FORCES THAT WILL INFLUENCE THE FUZURE OFSTUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 7

The Challenge of Uncertainty Over Demographicsand Mission 7

The Problems and Opportunities Resulting FromIncreased Diversity PWorking in an Increasingly Participatory Context 14

Responding to the Need for Greater Accountability.. . 16

Summary 18

3. THE MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS: PROGRESSAND PROPOSALS 19

Planning 19

Organizing 24

Budgeting 29

Staffing 32

Directing 36

Evaluating 40

Conclusion 42

APPENDIX I : A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENTANALYSIS' 45

6

i

TABLES AND FIGURES

I. TOTAL ENROLLMENT IN TWO:YEAR COLLEGES,PRIVATE AND PUBLIC, 1900-1980 8

/. INTERMEDIATE PROJECTIONS OF TOTALENROLLMENT IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHEREDUCATION 9

3. ALTERNATIVE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FORTWO-YEAR COLLEGES IN 1988 10

4. MODELS FOR ORGANIZING STUDENT AFFAIRSDIVISIONS

Figure I. Line-Staff Structure of Student Affairs 26

Figure 2. Line-Staff Structure with ThreeSubdivisions 26

Figure 3. Line-Staff Structure with TwoSubdivisions 26

Figure 4. The Hub-Spoke Model 26

ii

7

EDITORS' OVERVIEW

The Council of Universities and Colleges is an affiliated council ofthe American Associgion of Community and Junior Colleges. TheCouncil includes among its membership those concerned with thepreparation of professionals to work in two-year colleges. While mostof the members are professors in university programs, adfninistratorsand others interested in research and writing, as well as the study ofcommunity colleges, also belong to the Council.

The "Horizons Issues" monograph series is a Council-sponsored publication. The purpose ot the series is to address criticalissues confronting community-junior colleps. Past issues have beenauthored by De 11d Rippey, Joseph Cosand. and S. V. Martorana,James Wattenbarger, and Wayne Smutz, among others. Each year,the Editorial Review Committee for the series solicits proposals formanuscripts. Currently, two additional issues have been planned:"At the Crossroads: General Education in Community Colleges" byClifton Conrad, to be published in spring, 1983; and "Small/RuralCommunity Colleges: Problems and Prospects" by NV. Robert Sullinsand Charles Atwell, to be published in spring. 1984.

ERIC (Educational Resources Infordittion Center) is anationwide information network, sponsored by the National Insti-tute of Education, for the collection and dissemination of informa-tion about education. Since 1966, ERIC has operated through six-teen subject-specialized clearinghouses, each fesponsible for provid-ing access to the literature of education in its scope area.

ERIC/JC (ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges) is lo-cated at UCLA. It specializes in information about all aspects oftwo-year college education. Included in its collection are publishedand unpublished materials on public and private community andjunior colleges, technical institutes, and two-year branch universitycampuses. These materials cover administration, faculty, students,instruction, curricula, support services, libraries, and communityeduca tion.

iii

8

"Horizons Issues" Editorial Review Committee

Council of Universities and Colleges

Richard C. Richardson, Jr., ChairArizona State University

Richard L. AlfredUniversity of Michigan

Darrel A. ClowesVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

S ta te University

Thomas G. OwingsUniversity of Alabama

ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges

Arthur M. Cohen, Director

Gayle Byock, Associate Director

Florence 13. Brawer, Research Educationist

9iv

FOREWORD

Medsker, in his 1960 landmark survey of two-year colleges, makestwo significant observations about student affairs programs. Thefirst relates to the importance he attaches to these services which,together with the instructional program of the college, are bothmeans of serving and educating students. "A college," Medsker says,"may have a plant, a faculty, and a curriculum; but unless there is anorderly way of admitting students, some method of assisting them toappraise themselves and to plan their educational and vocational pro-grams acordingly, some means of assuring enriching experiencesthrough campus social interactions, and some attempt to center atten-tion on the individual rather than on the group, the college is an im-personal shell in which students are not conditioned for optimumlearning" (Medsker, 1960, p. 141). Medsker's second observation re-lates to a weakness that was observed in the way in which studentpersonnel programs were organized and administered. While notingthat administrators of two-year colleges recognized their responsi-bility to provide an effective student personnel program, the quan-tity and quality of these services varied considerably, and the mannerin which the programs were organized and managed varied greatly."Many institutions," he says, "lack policy fornAtion, planning, andprofessional development of the program" (Medsker, 1960, p. 162).

Similar observations were voiced by two other communitycollege spokesmen- writing in the early 1960s, Fields (1962) andBrick (1963), who were associated with the Center for CommunityColleges at Teachers College, Columbia Univsersity. They agreedwith Medsker that more adequate student affairs programs would beneeded as the community colleges moved into the expansion periodof the 1960s and 1970s. And all three warned that the whole stu-dent affairs concept could be in jeopardy unless more attention wasgiven to planning, evaluating, staff training, and interpreting the ob-jectives and services to students, staff., and the community. Theirunited call was clearly for better management of these importantservices.

As Professor Deegan notes in this monograph, while the stu-dent affairs profession flourished during the 1960s and 1970s andemerged with a stronger and more viable conceptual base, the prob-lems and issues that prompted the earlier warnings about improving

10

the management of sludent affairs programs remain. Deegan warnsthat student affairs professionals face an uncertain future. Theymust manage their programs in a contracting or steady state fiscalcondition while at the same time they are expected to address theneeds of an increasingly diverse and complex student population.Because of this paradoxical situation, Deegan says that, "... the ad-ministrators of student affairs programs will be called upon to bemore effective in planning, to modify organizational structures, andto find more ways to bring control and flexibility to budget processesand staffing Otterns. They also will need to be more effective inassessing needs, in conducting more thorough evaluations of pro-grams, and in providing leadership within a more democratic andlegalistic framework." Responding to these demands will require astronger emphasis on developing skills in both the art and science ofmanagement.

Improving the management of student affairs programs is thecentral theme of this monograph, which is presented in three parts.Chapter I presents a perspective on the student affairs profession,summarizes the crucial problems that face the profession, and identi-fies the objectives of the monograph and the methods that were em-ployed in developing it. Chapter 2 reviews a number of internal andexternal forces that affect the context in which the management ofstudent affairs programs takes place and identities the problems andissues that will influence the future development of these services.Chapter 3 presents a synthesis of research findings on issues, prob-lems. and trends and offers some conclusions about the current con-dition of management in student affairs programs. Finally, the mono-graph proposes a number of recommendations for future research,policy development, and management practices which managers ofstudent affairs programs might consider as they review their ownmanagement priorities for the decade ahead.

Walter E. Sind lingerProfessor Emeritus of Higher Educationand former Director, Center forCommunity Colleges, Teachers College.Columbia University

vi

1.1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Brick, Michael. Forum and Focus for the Junior College Move-ment: The American Association of Junior Colleges. NewYork: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1963.

1. Fields, Ralph R. The Conununity College Movement. New -York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

3. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. p. 141.

vfi

12

:

1. PERSPECTIVES ON THE STUDENTAFFAIRS PROFESSION

Student affairs professionals have progressed through some hardtimes in the past fifteen years. They were called on to meet the de-mands of the tremendous growth and expansion of higher educationin the 1960s; they were put on the front lines during the student pro-tests of the Vietnam War; and they were often shuffled to near thebottom of the budget priority list of many of the collebes and univer-sities that faced fiscal crises during the early and mid 1970s. Despitethese challenges. the profession has held firm. responded to newneeds, and emerged with a stronger and more viable conceptual basethe student developnlent concept (Miller and Prince. 1976).

Still, student affairs professionals face an uncertain future.Increasingly, administrators of student affairs programs will be calledupon to be more effective in planning. to modify organizationalstructures, and to find more ways to bring control and flexibility tobudget processes and staffing patterns. They also will need to bemore effective in assessing needs, in conducting more thorough evalu-ations of programs, and in providing leadership within a more demo-cratic and legalistic framework.

Responding to these demands will require a stronger empha-sis on developing skills in both the art and science of managementskills for which many student affairs professionals have been onlymarginally trained.

THE PROBLEM

The student affairs profession is currently at a crucial time in its his-tory when a number of forces are intensely competing to influencethe future. In one sense the philosophical foundation of theprofessionwith the emphasis on student developmentis perhapsmore clearly articulated today than ever before. Yet there are otherforces on the horizon which could substantially alter the hnplemen-tation of the student development philosophy. The specters of bud-get cuts, property tax rebellions, enrollment declines, and increasedintervention in the internal workings of academic institutions bygovernmental agencies all portend difficult times in the 1980s.

Coupled with the challenges facing colleges and universitiesin general are growing demands for specific student services, such as

1

13

counseling, placement, and academic and career advisement for anincreasingly diverse studtmt population. Unfortunately, these de-mands have emerged at a time when colleges andwniversities face afuture that will entail more limited resources. more complicated pro-cedures, and more fiscal and program accountability to an increasednumber of both internal and external constituencies.

Until the recent "accountabiNty era," educational institu-tions have been mostly underdeveloped areas in regard to manage-ment systems and procedures. There were a number of reasons forthis underdevelopment including the easy availability of funds, thetraditional pace and style of a college, and the sellerS' market in re-gard to students (Corson, 1975). The forces for increased participa-tion of faculty and students in college decision making and for in-creased accountability to government funding agencies and legislativebodies, combined with the recent fiscal squeeze. make it necessary toask some very tough questions about existing management practicesin colleges and universities. This need is especially true in the !thin-agement of student affairs programs where many professionals havebeen prepared for counseling and close student contact but frequent-ly find that their main efforts are directed toward performing man-agement functions which all too often are learned on the job.

Studies of management responses to the challenges facing stu-dent affairs professionals is a priority area of needed research as weapproach the predicted budget and enrollment crises of the 1980s. Aspecial need is for research on management in static or contractingorganizations. Traditional literature on management theory andpractice is primarily based on the assumption that the organizationwill grow. This assumption comes from the concentration on thebusiness firin where the motivation is for increased profit and expan-sion. Research on contracting or constant-size organizations has re-ceived relatively little attention. But in higher education we mustbecome more aware, more skilled, and more analytic about institu-tions that either are not growing or may be declining. Growingorganizations usually include additional income, increased oppor-tunities for staff promotions, new staff positions (and therefore newideas and enthusiasm), and some "risk money" for innovations orexperiments. In contracting organizations inflation may cut beavilyinto revenues; staff promotional opportunities and mobility oftenbecome severely limited; opportunities for innovation. experimenta-tion, and research are restricted; sub-units may begin to pursue sur-vival objectives rather than the overall institutional or divisional.ab-jectives; the potential for conflict may increase substantially; andmorale may decline decidedly (Cyert and Benton. 1975).

14

t

Many college' S have already retrenched by eliminating courses,reducing maintenance, and cutting administrative and clerical staff.Enrollment and income prospects of colleges and universities ingeneral are not encouraging today because of the much publicizeddrop in the birth rate. Other factors that will further complicatemanagement in higher education include the problem of inflation,the decline in the federal government's share of expenditures forcolleges, the emergence of new social priorities, and the growing tax-payer revolt. New York State has already experienced a major fiscalcrisis in higher education, and the passage of the Proposition 13property-tax relief constitutional amendment in California hasushered in an era of reduced educational resources for that state.Efforts have also been made to place property tax limitations on theballot in at least 25 other states with Massachusetts the latest stateto experience the traumatic impact of a tax relief measure.

The student affairs profession has been hit especially hard bybudget reductions on some campuses. Humphries (1977) warns;

Fiscal pressures produced and continue to producecasualties. Some institutions, in drastic economymoves, have eliminated student personnel divisions;others have imposed substantial staff reductions.A few institutions are experimenting with organi-zational patterns that place all student personnelfunctions in the hands of the faculty as they werepreviously. Student services have been reduced inmany areas, although the administrative responsi-,bility for such services has not been relinquished.

In an even more dire note, Mayhew ( 1973), in commentingon the series of Carnegie Commission reports, observed;

The Commission also seems to have neglectedmuch of the student personnel movement, with theexception of a policy statement on student dissentand violence. It seems a serious oversight not todeal with trends in the rendering of student person-nel services since they lie at the heart of the rela-tionship between institutions and their students.Perhaps the commission correctly sensed that stu-dent personnel services are in flux and that manyonce operative positions will be replaced.

3

15

While Mayhew's predictions have not come true to any largeextent, managing in a static or contracting organization seems des-tined to be one of the issues of the 1980s for conmunity colleges ingeneral and for the student affairs profession in particular. To helpmeet the challenges of this issue, student affairs divisions will needstrong leadership. clear objectives, and managers with the courage tocut through vested interests in favor of institutional priorities. Flowstudent affairs managers in selected institutions are responding to theproblem of managing in a static or contracting organization is an areaof needed research and a major focus of this monograph.

OBJEtTIVES

This monottraph was commissioned by the ERIC agringhouse forJunior Colleges and the Council of Universities and Colleges of theAmerican Association of Community and Junior Colleges. The pur-pose of the monograph is to present a summary and synthesis of theresults of research projects (conducted through the Center for Com-munity Colleges at Teachers College, Columbia University) whichhave examined the management of studeM affairs divisions in two-

' year and four-year colleges. Other publications ot' the project haveincluded case studies and a comprehensive examination of the man-agement theory and methods used in the research projects (Deegan.198 I). This monograph will bring together significant findings ot' theprojects, focus primarily on community colleges. and include recom-mendations about needed changes in the management processes andstruciures of community college student affairs divisions. All recom-mendations are those of the author and do not represent a formalposition of the ERIC Clearinghouse or the Council of Universitiesand Colleges. '

There were a number of reasons for examining the manage-ment of student affairs programs at this tunic. First. niuch of theemotion seems to have settled from the intense movements for in-creased participation in decision making of the late I 960s and for in-creased .accountability of the 1970s. That is not to imply that theseforces are not still actively at work: rather. there is now more experi-ence to assess. Many of the early innovations and crisis-oriented re-sponses have now been institutionalized, revised, or discarded:and abetter picture of where and how the student affairs profession ismoving is more available now than in either earlier decade.

Second. many specifically management-related developmentssuch as management by objectives, program budgeting, needs

assessments, or staff development programs have also been tested.There is now a more substantial base of experience to study than the

4

16

pilot programs and feasibility studies that dominated managementprograms at many campuses during the early and mid-I 970s.

Finally, I maintain the premise that there are two prerequi-sites to successful management of student affairs programs. One isan understanding of the context of the student affairs professionthe historical evolutions, philosophical bases, functions, and nuijorinternal and external forces that help to shape the profession. Muchhas been written on these topics. The second prerequisite is anunderstanding both of the art and discipline of management and ofthe functions, tasks, and sensitivities required to be a-successful man-ager. The literature of the student affairs profession is not as exten-sive on the second topic. In view of these reasons, the objectives ofthis monograph are: (1) to review a number of forces that affect thecontext in which the management of student affairs programs takesplace; (2) to report results of a study of management resgonses to re-ductions in resources in student affairs programs at two-year andfour-year colleges; and (3) to propose recommendations about futuredirections to help improve both the theory and practice of managingstudent affairs programs in community colleges.

METHODS

The first tasks in conducting the studies on which this monograph isbased involved an extensive review of existing management literaturein both business and education and the development of a frameworkfor management analysis. The framework was used to analyze man-agement responses to reductions in resources and to provide a stan-dard for comparing actual practice against a theoretical model Acopy of the framework is included in Appendix I.*

A related decision about methods was to use case studies andinterviews rather than to attempt any kind of broad survey. Sevencolleges located in three different states were examined: four largeconununity colleges, two state colleges and a university. It was de-cided that studying specially selected cases of management responses

*The framework for management analysis developed forthese studies is based on the "universalist" school of managementtheory. This school of theory rests on the premise that managementis a universal process and that fundamental general principles of man-agement can be developed and applied. For further discussions ofthe "universalist" approach, see Koontz, Harold, and O'Donnell,Cyril, Essentials of Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974;or Wadia, Maneck, The Nature and Scope of Management, Scott.Foresman and Company, 1966.

5

17

to reductions in resources would contribute more than survey da:a tothe develonment of management theory and practice, particularly interms of getting at reasons for policies and procedures and looking-indetail at political and financial issues and impacts. A related decisionwas not to reveal the names of these institutions or-their staff mem-bers to ensure access to confidential information about highly sensi-tive management issues and political problems. Once the institutionswere selected, extensive interviews were conducted with the chiefstudent affairs officers and with staff members; planning papers,annual reports, and other documents were reviewed; and interviewswere held with officials from state agencies in each of the stateswhere the institutions were located.

Finally, once the case studies were completed, follow-upinterviews and discussions were conducted with student affairs offi-cers from community colleges in three states, presentations weremade at national conferences such as the National Association ofStudent Personnel Administrators, and a panel of community collegestudent personnel officers was asked to respond to a draft of themonograph.

Given this combination of cases, interviews, and discussionsand interactions with both the review panel and student affairs offi-cers at various presentations, the issues, problems and trends discussedin the monograph are generally representative of condiiions in com-munity colleges across the country. While some recommendationsmay be controversial. I hope that they will provide a useful focus fixdebate and policy development as students and student affairs offi-cers reflect on their current management philosophies and practices.

1 8

6

2. FORCES THAT WILL INFLUENCETHE FUTURE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

In addition to demands within the profession, a number of otherforces have emerged that may significantly alter future needs for pro-grams and management responses in student affairs divisions in com-munity colleges. The objective of this section is to review a numberof these forces before proceeding to the conclusions and reconunen-dations presented in Chapter 3.

THE CHALLENGE OF UNCERTAINTY OVER DEMOGRAPHICSAND MISSION

A number of changes and developments mark the history of com-numity colleges, but the constant has been growth. Increasingly, theconstant for the decade of the 1980s seems to be uncertainty. Whileindividual areas may experience varying degrees of uncertainty, twodimensions uncertainty about demographics and uncertainty aboutmission stand out as major challenges that will affect the characterof community colleges in the future.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 show some of the dimensions of the uncer-tainty in the area of demographics.

As Table 1 illustrates, the growth of the community collegehas been spectacular. Total community college enrollment has in-creased from a few hundred students around 1900 'to over fourmillion, or one-third of all higher education enrollment in 1982. Thecommunity college evolution has been marked not only by growthbut by a tremendous responsiveness to community needs and -by arole as the leading force in providing access and opportunity to popu-lations not traditionally well served by the four-year colleges: stu-dents from low-income families, minorities, women, and part-timestudents.

Given the significant changes in student characteristics andattendance patterns that occurred in the 1970s, predictions aboutthe 1980s are hazardous at best. Outside forces such as the state ofthe economy, changes in the availability of financial aid, or newdevelopments in technology and delivery systems could alter the mixand attendance patterns of students.

7

1 9

Table I. Total Enrollment in Two-Year Colleges, Private and Public

1900-1980

School Year Beginning Total Enrollment

1900 100

1921 16,031

1933 107,807

1938 196.710

1952 560.732

1956 869,720

1968 1,909,118

1970 2,247.401

1975 4,069,279

1980 4,825.931

Sources: Thornton, J. W. The Community Junior College, NewYork: John Wiley & Sons. 1980; and The American Asso-ciation of Community and Junior Colleges 1965-1980.various reports.

Tables 2 and 3 show projections of alternative enrollments to1988. The intermediate projection (Table 2) shows a relative stabil-ity in enrollments. while Table 3 projects alternative enrollments thatvary by almost two million, from a low of 3.9 million to a high of5.8 million students. This variation is greater than total communitycollege enrollment prior to 1970.

The potential for significant changes in total enrollment, andfor changes in student characteristics within totals. will place sub-stantial management demands on student affairs personnel. Chang-an!, forces in the economy will further affect the need for programssuch as financial aid, couaeling, placement. and, perhaps. new stu-dent services. While groups such as the Carnegie Council on PolicyStudies (1980) predict that community colleges will fare well in com-petition with other segments of higher education, the potential forsignificant change in both the total number and the mix of students

8 20

Table 2. Intermediate Projections of Total Enrollment inInstitutions of Higher Education

Enrollmentin thousands15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Projected

0 1 I I I I 1

1974 19761970 1972mil I III

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986

Year

1988

Source: The Condition of Education. Washington, D.C.: NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, 1980.

9

21

..1

Table 3. Alternative Enrollment Projections for Two-YearColleges in I 988

Enrollment

[7 million

6 million

5 million

4 million

3 million

2 million

1 million

5.8 million

I

4.4 million

3.9 million

High Intermediate

Pro ection

Low

Source: Projections of Education Statistics to 1988-89. Washington,D.C.; U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics, 1980.

remains both real and uncertain. The problem may be heightened bya second dimension of uncertaintythe growing debate over themission of the community college.

10

22

Uncertainty Over Mission. Like the increases in total enrollment, themission of the community college has evolved in spectacular fashion.Each dimension of the mission emerged as a response to a particularneed. The generally accepted dimensions of the mission of the com-munity college in 1982 include academic transfer programs,vocational technical programs, developmental/remedial programs,continuing education programs. and community service programs.Underlying the five generally accepted dimensions of mission is astrong commitment to student development including counselingprograms, an emphasis on teaching, and providing a full range of stu-dent services.

While the idea of the comprehensive community collegeevolved to achieve a significant acceptance and consensus in the early1970s. elements of uncertainty began to emerge in the late 1970sand have grown more intense today. The community college missionis questioned from two directions. each of which can influence thetypes of student services needed to respond to a change in mission.

A push in one directionfor example. adding another missioncame from the Carnegie Commission (1980) which suggested thatcommunity colleges assume a "residual responsibility for youth."most particularly for the disadvanteged segment who do not currentlyavail themselves of postsecondary opportunities. While a ease can bemade for expanding the community college mission to develop addi-tional programs and a "sixth great mission." significant problems ofcosts, faculty commitment, and organization would have to be over-come. Further. as Richardson and Leslie (1980) observe: "One isleft to wonder whethei' anyone can describe a viable communitycollege function that some community college somewhere is notalready growing."

Yet growth is not the only challenge to the mission of thecommunity college. Recently there have been challenges for reviewand possibly contraction of the community college mission. Thechronicle of Higher Education (1981) headlined. "California Com-munity Colleges Attacked: Too Much Growth in the Wrong Direc-tion." The debate over mission is related to the increasing difficul-ties of state and local governments to provide adequate finances totheir various constituencies. Of particular concern are the emphaseson adult education and vocational training, programs that haveaccounted for most of the growth in community college enrollmentsduring the 1970s.

A recent report of the California Postsecondary EducationCommission (1981) questioned whether the conmmnity- collegeswere capable of performing all of the missions adequately dr whether

11

23

some missions should be emphasized at the expense of others. As thereport put it: "Chokes will have to be made and priorities set, or theresult will probably be to do everything less well and some things un-satisfactorily."

The prospects for change in either growth or contraction ormission will most likely vary state by state; however, each change inemphasis has profound implications for the community colleges ingeneral and t'or student services programs in particular. While *theoutcome of the debate over mission is still uncertain, it seems clearthat managers of student affairs programs must be more preparedthan ever to plan for rapid change. to provkle organizational flexi-bility. and to become more skilled in needs assessments, programevaluation, and leadership.

THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES RESULTING FROM.INCREASED DIVERSITY

The history ot' higher-education in America is characterized primarilyby a significant homogeneity of studen t abilities and values, a reason-able Consensus about the purposes of education, and an acceptanceof tradition. The post-1965 college or university is somewhat diverse.causing problems for student services. This diversity is present in therange of college studentstheir abilities, values, and interests, pat-terns ot' attendancez.guktbrity and sophistication levels; and programdemands.

Despite the rapid changes of the past decade, we seem on theverge of even greater change and diversity in the 1980s. Communitycolleges should continue to flourish, but in doing so they will em-brace new forms of access. new means of achieving quality, and newdimensions of diversity. As Luskin (1981) observes:

We will see (I) improved use of integrated educa-tional technology and alternative learning systemsadapted for unconventional hours. intensity, andlearning styks. (2) increased use of communityfacilities and new ways ot' using comnumity re-sources. (3) more diverse and flexible arrangementsot' many types. (4) new and expanded relationshipsbetween school and work, (5) new ways of person-alizing learning and responding to alternative learn-ing styles. and (6) great understanding of diverselearner -groups and their controlling motivations.

112 4

If community colleges act, they "will receive thesupport they deserve." The potential for a brightfuture is here. The "50-year college is our com-munity college of the future."

The key word is act; that is, plan and anticipate. not just react.Academic institutions today mtist provide administration and

funding For prOgrams to meet the needs of a number of student con-stituencies. many of whom actively express preferences. Unfortu-nately, the problems of student needs often clash with the problemsof managing in a contracting or steady state fiscal condition. Tomeet the challenges of diverse needs and of maintaining fiscal stabil-ity. it is necessary to look beyond traditional management approachesand to develop new and more flexible management practices. Pos-sible changes may include alterations of traditional staffing patternsand work hours, revisions of budget rules and processes to accom-modate rapid change, and creation of more temporary organizationalarrangemepts.

The last change is perluilis'be-sr symbolized-by. the increaseduse of special-topic task forces created outside of traditional organi-zational lines. As Bennis observed. "The more rapidly the environ-ment changes, the shorter the life span of organizational forms. Weare moving from long-enduring to temporary forms, from permanenceto transience, from bureaucracy to "ad-hocracy" (Toffler, 1971).

This coining "ad-hocracy" is not likely to totally replacebureaucracy; however, it may present a way to meet some of thechallenges of diversity through the development of temporary,special-purpose organizational structures and administrative processesthat may be more suitable for dealing with many of the nonroutineproblems that bureaucracies often seem incapable of solving. In con-trast with more permanent organizational structures, future manage-ment tasks may incrgasingly involve the coordination among special-ists who work For teinporary periods in a variety of ,nodular settingson a diversity of problems.

Thus, the isstie of managing in a contracting or steady stateorganization becoinel complicated by the problems of uncertaintyabout demographics and mi.aion and by the needs of an increasinglydiverse and complex student Oopulation. Things become moreimaldled by the intictsion of two issues from the pastworking inan increasingly participatory context and responding to the need forgreater accountability.

25 13

WORKING IN AN INCREASINGLY PARTICIPATORY CONTEXT

It seems reasonable to predict that many college administrators facea future that will be more complex, more legalistic, more formallymechanized: that will include snore staff and student demands for avoice in decisions: and that will be nmrked by less trust, less dedica-tion to the college. less public and government support. more finan-cial problems and crises, and greater and more frequent strains onstaff, resources and relationships. To function effectively in such anenvironment, student affairs administrators will need to developskills for increased participation in decision making by students,faculty. and staff and for increased participation in the deliberationsof legislative committees. government agencies, and state universityor college systems.

The issue of participation has always been a theme in highereducation, but it was crystalized and given renewed emphasis duringthe "participation movement" that started in Berkeley in the mid-

-1.960s. The issue takes many forms, involves many constituencies,and has been the subject of much philosophical debate. However,the principle that academic decision-making procedures must providea voice for those affected by the decisions seems to be generallyestablished.

Internal Constituencies. A number of in ternai and external constitu-encies usually need to be consulted in the decision-making process,and student affairs administrators should prepare policies and pro-cedures to ensure effective two-way consu!tation with these groups.Major internal constituencies include students, faculty, employeeunions, the president, other major divisions of the university orcollege, and independent student organizations.

While arguments continue over the exact form of student par-ticipation in decision maldng, most professionals seem to haveaccepted the principle that students should be represented, or atleast consulted, in the decision-making process (Deegan, 1970).Unfortunately, the faculty role is often less clear. Too often, a kindof "separate jurisdictions" understanding seems to prevail wherefaculty are involved in academic matters, but have little interestabout or participation in the business of th e. studen t affairs division.As one vice president put it:

Faculty were born into this profession, but stu-dent affairs is an adopted program and there isa whole complex of attitudesnot only among

14

26

student affairs staff, but among others in the insti-tution, in the staff of the Systemwide administra-tion, in staff of the State Division of the Budget,and in the Legislature which questions the value ofour programs. These attitudes lead to fear, distrust,over-defensiveness, and some game playing at alllevels. My response is to point to national studiesof impact which show that much of the impact ofthe coll,e experience (such as social, cultural, per-sonal, and interpersonal giowth) takes place asa result of activities directly related to studentaffairs programs. Unfortunately, this inferioritycomplex hinders creative programming and risk tak-ing, and too often promotes pessimism and nega-tive attitudesespecially in light of our projectedenrollment declines.

The array of problems facing colleges and universities willrequire more collaboration and interaction between faculty and stu-dent affairs professionals. Therefore, a priority issue should be thecreation of more effective mechanisms to, ensure a faculty role notonly in policy development but also in the implementation of stu-dent affairs program.

Employee unions are another, and increasingly significant.influence. A number of campuses now have unions representing cler-ical and mid-management staff: and these unions serve as powerfulforces on issues such as salaries, staff rights and grievances, and dis-ciplinary procedures. It seems likely that the employee union con-cept will spread to more campuses and become an even strongerpolitical force at campuses where it is already established, thus add-ing4o the complexity, legalism, and formalism of future managementprocesses.

A fourth area where effective consultathe procedures shouldbe developed is in relationships between the president and othermajor divisions in the college or university. Some signs are now onthe horizon that the emphasis and importance of student affairsprograms are lessening. Student affairs managers may need to work toensure that the status and priorities of the student affairs division arepreserved and that an effective role in college-wide decision-makingprocesses is maintained. Otherwise, student affairs leaders may findthemselves at second or third levels of decision making, increasinglyperipheral and vulnerable.

27 15

External Constituencies. In addition to providing opportunities forparticipation and consultation among internal constituencies, studentaffairs leaders will need to seek a greater participatory role for them-selves with a numoer of external constituencies. Too often in thepast, student affairs profevionals have been missing from the delib-erations of important groups external to the campus. Major decision-making arenas where student affairs professionals should play a moreprominent role include the system-wide administration of multi-campus systems, boards of trustees of single-campus colleges, the de-liberations of state budgeting agencies, the projects and studies ofstate agencies (i.e., coordinating agencies, task forces, and commit-tees dealing with higher education); the state legislature; federalagencies; and national task forces and commissions of major edu-cational associations.

All of these groups make decisions that shape the contextand character of student affairs programs, and student affairs leadersmust aggressively work to ensure that these groups are informedabout the contributions and problems of the profession. To leaveparticipation with these groups to chance or to passive response willforfeit significant opportunities for leadership and may result in in-creased isolation in the crucial political processes that surround these

,important decision-making groups.A A

RESPONDING TO THE NEED FOR GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY

One of the cornerstones of the community college philosophy hasbeen responsiveness to community needs and local control. Increas-ingly. that local control is eroding as funding support shifts ingreater proportions to the state. As Martorana (1978, p. 5) observedwhile summarizing a review of a number of studies: "The strikingfact here is not merely that the state has become predominant in pro-viding support for community colleges but that in a growing numberof cases local tax support is disappearing," With the passage of anumber of tax initiatives that further limit local contributions, thestate role in finance has increased since the Martorana study (mostdramatically in California where operating revenues changed from47 percent local and 41 percent state to 24 percent local and 65 per-cent state after the passage of Proposition 13). Increased statefinancial support has meant and will continue to mean increasedaccountability.

But for most institutions accountability is not a new con-cept; evaluations and reviews have been done for years. What is newis the increase in formalized accountability (more procedures.studies.

16

and forms) and the increase in the political and funding risk of notbeing able to demonstrate accountability processes and results.

Student affairs managers need to recognize and respond tothe legitimate demands of governmental agencies for timely andaccurate information about the uses and results of public dollar ex-penditures. It is obvious that public money will be more difficult toobtain as taxpayer resistance stiffens and other social needs compete.Additional housing staff may be a pressing issue on a particular cam-pus but may wane in comparison with training for the blind or withproviding money to fund a promising development in cancer research.These are the kind of choices federal and state legislators and agencyrepresentatives face; college administrators must assist them with asmuch information as they can muster. Such accountability is a legit-imate demand of democracy.

There is a second issue concerning accountabilitythe some-times excessive intrusion into college or university internal affairs byassorted external (primarily governmental) forces. In these cases,college and university officials must show the courage to ward offthe unnecessary or duplicate studies, visits, reports. and forms,which some bureaucrats seem to churn out with deadening regular-ity. Too much accountability takes precious time and resourcesfrom performing necessary student services, and it can destroy mo-rale, enthusiasm, and job performance.

Despite fears and potential problems that can be created byover-zealous accountability proponents. the movement offers bene-fits which can accrue to institutions that develop sensible and real-istic accountability mechanisms. As Harpel (1975) put it:

A new sense of direction and purpose can be de-velopeth valuable feedback on results become avail-able; the unmet needs of both stafland consumerscan be identified; underutilized resources can beredeployed for better results; more external recog-nition and visibility can be gained; and often in-creased financial support can result. In otherwords, even though the current accountabilitymovement appears to be externally imposed uponthe student affairs profession, there is no reasonwhy the response cannot be healthy from an organ-izational standpoint.

The problem is that accountability is not an easy concept toimplement. Harpel (1975) observed:

17

29

Those institutions which have made early at-tempts to implement accountability systems ontheir campuses have quickly discovered that thereare no panaceas available. The extra staff time andcost of the development and implementation ofthese systems is often unanticipated; impacts areoften difficult to measure; budgetary and manage-ment expertise is often lacking; and financial pres-sures tempt many professionals into opting fol..quick but desirable solutions. Perhaps most dis-illusioning is the fact that while the accountabilitysystems are rational and systematic, the budgetingprocess is often irrational and political in nature.

Related to the mechanical and political problems of imple-menting accountability systems are the problems of overcoming staffresistance and mistrust. The fear is that, because much managementtheory and practice has developed in business and government, pre-vailing practices in these contexts will simply be imposed on theacademic context. What is needed is the adaptation of managementtechniques to the character of a particular college. Thus, skillsgained in the study of the discipline of management must be_modi-fled to meet the special needs and values of an academic environ-ment. This is especially true in the student affairs profession wheremany programs involve complex human relationships that do not al-ways lend themselves to easy cost-benefit analysis.

The immediate future will most likely include more account-ability demands by groups external to higher education. The pres-sures will be multiple, growing, and sometimes conflicting. The cru-cial accountability tasks, therefore, will include more than the de-velopment of the technical skills needed to implement accountabilitysystems: Perhaps more importantly, they will include developmentof the political skills necessary to become more informed aboutgovernmental needs and procedures, to anticipate and respond tolegitimate requests, and to fight back when bureaucrats overstep thebounds of need and legitimacy.

SUMMARY

The intent of this section was to present a discussion of some of themajor forces and issues shaping the current context of the studentaffairs profession. The rest of the monograph is devoted to the topicof management within that context. Much of the future vitality ofthe student affairs profession may depend on the management skillsdeveloped to meet the challenges outlined. Hopefully, the analysis,conclusions, and proposals that follow will contribute to that vitality.

1830

3. THE MANAGEMENT OFCOMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT

PERSONNEL PROGRAMS: PROGRESSAND PROPOSALS

The forces discussed in the previous chapter will have an importantbearing on the future character and context of community collegesgenerally and on student affairs programs in particular. Major changesin demographics or mission, or even modest changes, may require sig-nificant program and management responses. The need for leader-ship, planning, organizational flexibility, program evaluation, effec-tive budgeting and creative staff development will heighten evenbeyond the current rigorous demands as budgets tighten and outsideforces increase. Given the forces already discussed and the new de-mands on the horizon, the intent of this section is to present a syn-thesis of research findings on issues, problems and trends in the man-agement of student affairs programs, to suggest some conclusionsabout the current condition of management in student affairs pro-grams, and to propose a number of recommendations for future re-search, policy development, or management practice, although I un-derstand there is no single management model to meet all the needsof varied student affairs contexts.

PLANNING

Planning is the most basic and pervasive management function. Allother activities should grow from it and reflect it. Unfortunately,planning for community colleges has frequently become the subjectof intense debate. Some regard planning with a reverence thatassumes that it is an end in itself. Others, already strangled by amaze of governmental planning bodies, fear th e. addition of moretime-wasting committees and administrative procedures. The trendin planning and evaluating student affairs programs in communitycolleges is toward the development of more formal documents, morewritten objectives, more research-based needs assessments, and moreformal program evaluations. Planning activities in the institutionsstudied were marked by increasing pressures from a number of ex-ternal sources (primarily state government and the central adminis-tration of multi-campus systems) to develop formal plans and

31 19

accountability documents; several different planning models wereemployed. While the exact forms varied, common elements in theplanning models included the creation of live-year plans to guide thelong-range development of divisions and annual plans and objectives(evaluated yearly) to guide the short-range program and changes.

Needs assessments. as a basis for planning. were cited as in-creasingly important activities. Because of the decline in resourcesand enrollments experienced at colleges. many new programs may beimplemented only if old programs are eliminated. Thereforet- accu-rate assessments of student, staff, and public interestsAre xrucial.The various approaches to assessing needs can range from telephonesurveys, questionnaires distributed at campus functions, and attemptsat implementing a college-based "Gallup Poll" of students, to exten-sive involvement of faculty, students, administrators, and communityrepresentatives in a year-long comprehensive review of college pro-grams and services. While the range of formal needs assessment activ-ities are wide, two couCerns are commonly expressed; a distrust of,needs assessment surveys coupled with an insistence that any type ofquestionnaire or survey be supplemented by interviews and staffcomments, and an awareness that needs assessments skills are at anearly stage of developnient and must be improved.

Planning activities are usually coordinated by a studentaffairs division executive committee and are evakiateil 'in formal,annual reports. This formal system is supported by an extensive net-work of informal contacts and relationships employed to sustain (orat times overcome) the formal planning system.

Planning Problems. The institutions studied reported several com-mon problems of planning. The most serious problem was the in-creased time, politics, and formal paperwork involved in phinning ac-tivities. Much of this resulted from demands of state agencies andsystem-wide administrations of multi-campus systems. but it was asource of great frustration to the student affairs executives and staffmembers interviewed. Much of the frustration involved using whatwas deemed excessive time for activities that are becoming increas-ingly defensive. That is, many.of the staff members felt that theywere at the point of "overplanning" or extensively documenting ac-tivities for political protection rather than for actual planning pur-poses. The futility of much planning (such as when one institutiondiscarded most of its five-year plan because of a fiscal crisis), the lackof skill for developing really effective projections and plans. and theloss of staff morale were other problems reported because of the es-calation of planning requirements.

10 32

Despite the problems, many planning activities were viewedpositively. The executives felt formal plans did help provide a firmerdirection and control of student affairs programs and that planningwould most likely play an increasingly propinent role in the decadeahead. Planning activities can contribute to improved -management,but there is a danger of overplanning and excessive monitoring ofroutine activities. The danger is in the cost, the time, the loss of staffmorale, and the dubious benefits that result from an overplanned andoverevalua ted enViron men t.

In View of the issues and trends uncovered inAhe study, Ioffer four recommendations to improve planning for student affairsprograms in community colleges.

Recommendation 1. There is a need to develop more flexible anddynamic planning processes to replace the rigid planning modes cur-rently used by most colleges.

A second problem of planning was uncovered in the study. Despitethe extensive and rigid planning exercises found at several of the col-leges, much management practice was actually conducted by crisis orstep-by-step withdrawal.

For the past two decades, college and university administra-tors have enjoyed enrollment increases and the resulting growth inbudgets, staff, and facilities. The management of decreases or'steadystate enrollment conditions was generally not part of the experiencesof administrators in higher education during this period.

Today, despite available data, it is still difficult to appreciatethe implications of a no-growth era, to believe predictions about fis-cal problems of the future, or to develop plans which have real utilityfor managing a college or university. The most prominent formal re-sponse of the colleges in this study to present and predicted prob-lems was to develop rigid and detailed formal plans and accountabil-ity systems, but these were mostly for political or defensive purposesor to satisfy mandates of state agencies.

Several or the colleges have been forced into a management-by-crisis mode of operation which is often based on reactions toexternally initiated issues beyond their control. These crises havecaused the colleges to focus planning activities on the immediate sixmonths to one year -- the absolute minimum planning period for de-termining the next year's budget. Often the colleges did not confrontproblems seriously until they were unavoidable.

There is a need to find a compromise between rigid and de-tailed planning exercises, which may be discarded at the first crisis,

2 I

3 3

and the management-by-crisis approach to planning, which seems toprevail when problems strike. Planning for the rapid change anddiversity of the future may have to be based on the development ofseveral alternative scenarios that would serve as a basis for planning.These planning scenarios should anticipate and project alternativefuture conditions and responses; they should build in flexibility instaffing patterns, budgets, and organizational arrangements; and theyshould provide for staff training and retraining to meet changing stu-dent and program needs. Although dynamic, these flexible planscould be developed to cover a reasonable period of three to fiveyears; they could be monitored by more informal progress reportsthan the detailed and time-consuming formal accountability exer-cises currently in vogue; and they could be formally evaluated andrevised at the end of three- or five-year periods.

The goals of implementing an alternative scenario approachto planning would be to provide more usable plans and options fordealing with fiscal problems and emergencies, to reduce the amountof staff time devoted to the rigid planning and accountability exer-cises, and to provide a planning system less reactive and defensivethan many of those currently in existence at many colleges anduniversi ties.

A second area of needed experimentation concerns regionalplanning. Regional planning has been tried in the past, usually withlittle enthusiasm and with mixed results. However, the increasingfinancial problems of many community colleges have heightened theneed to maximize scarce resources and have produced a climate moreconducive to experimentation with regional planning.

While across-the-board regional planning does not seem to bea viable concept for student affairs programs in community colleges.there are a number of areas where cooperation on a regional basismight effectively meet certain needs in a region and help avoid costlyduplication or competition.

Recommendation 2. Community college student affairs executivesshould experiment more fully with regional planning for selectedactivities.

Potential activities might include cooperative sponsorship or fundingof special projects, development of grants or research proposals, cul-tural and entertainment programs, interinstitutional staff develop-ment activities, or sharing of data processing resources, staff, andfacilities. There is a need to experiment more fully with models ofregional planning for selected student affairs programs. Regional

12

34

planning ahd eooperation may prove to be a way to provide limitedand well-detiria services to a number of institutions where costswould be prohibitive to any single institution.

A third area of concern about planning relates to the growinggovernment role in community college education and the need tostrike a balance between the necessity for legitimate accountabilityfor public funds and the sometimes excessive planning mandates andreports demanded by government agencies.

Recommendation 3. There is a need for the development of researchprojects and policy statements on the cost, hnpact, and contributionsof the increasing number of governmental studies, planning require-ments and agencies, both federal and state, on student affairsprograms.

While this kind of research may be difficult for student affairs prac-titioners to undertake, it is a natural topic for professors of highereducation or political scientists. Major questions that need examina-tion include the following: What are the sources of governmentalstudies? Who uses them? What impact have they had? What is thereal cost of studies (in campus personnel time, staff disruption)?What benefits have accrued to the profession? How much duplica-tion is involved?

A number of experts have testified about the cost bur-den, and unnecessary demands of many governmental studies andplanning requirements, and the stories about relations between col-leges and govermnent agencies are the stuff of legends. For example,Zoglin (1976) found over 54 different local, county, regional, andstate organizations or officials to whom the state legislature haddelegated some degree of responsibility for the community collegesin California. In another case, three different state agencies wereconducting independent studies of educational opportunity pro-grams at the same time.

Preventing this kind ot' excessive review, duplication, and in-terference by government agencies requires documented eases,specific recommendations, and the perseverance to push for reformin the face of the backlash that is sure to come when some of thebureaucratic enclaves are threatened. The ultimate goals of reformshould be positive ones: to help develop reasonable policies and pro-cedures for relations between colleges and government, to help en-shre effective accountability for public funds, and to help relieve theburdens imposed by many of the questionable and often duplicativeplanning requirements and studies currently proliferating in manyg6Vernment agencies.

23

3 5

Reform will be a slow process, probably fought case by casemid state by state. It will also be filled with political risks and INiththreats of funding loss. However, studies of relations between col-leges and government agencies may help to halt the shift of muchdecision making from campus to state levels, and they may also leadto the development of more reasonable policies and procedures thanthe current maze of rules and planning mandates that increases eachyear.

A final concern about planning involves the need for moreadequate preparation of student affairs professionals for the planningfunction.

Recommendation 4. There is a need to develop more effective educa-tion and 'training programsboth in graduate programs and for staffdevelopment purposesto better prepare student affeirs professionsto perjbrm planning functions.

While many colleges and universities offer excellent general courseson organization and administration in higher education, staff Mem-bers interviewed in the study expressed an interest in more specificmanagement training. Needed is the development of some modularor short courses that will help students and staff to acquire specificplanning skills. Short courses of five to seven weeks could be de-veloped around a number of planning themes such as managementby objectives, long-range planning options, needs assess dent tech-niques, strategic planning, and regional planning. Tilt:se modulescould conthine a brief review of theory with case studies from busi-ness. government and education to provide a needed supplement tothe general training most student affairs administrators receive.

Planning will be mandated and inescapable. How it is done.how effective it is, and its impact on the future of student affairsprograms will depend on the use of skills, sensitivity and judgmentall of which can be enhanced through more effective education andt raining programs.

ORGANIZATION

Much of the recent literature concerning student affairs programs hasfocused on organizing to facilitate the implementation of the studentdevelopment concepts set forth by Miller and Prince (1976). Whilethere are numerous variations in the organization of student affairsprograms, four predominant models seem to capture both the tradi-tional approach and emerging trends. Crookston and Atkyns (1974)

14 36

reported on three of these models in a national survey. The mostcommon model (80 percent of the institutions) was the traditionalline-staff structure shown in Figure I. The second most prevalentmodel (11 percent of the institutions) was the more clustered modelshown in Figure 2. A two-part version of the clustered model(Figure 3) was found in less than two percent or the institutionssurveyed. Appleton, Moore, and Vinton (1978) report the develop-ment of a fourth model, the Hub-Spoke model (Figure 4), which wasdesigned to help integrate responsibilities for meeting student needsbetween academic departments and the division of student affairs:The institutions examined in this study were also struggling to imple-ment student development philosophies, and the organizational ap-proaches fell into several patterns. Four institutions were experi-menting with variations of clusters for student development whichmay eventually lead to the kind of cluster models shown in Figures2 and 3. One four-year institution has created a highly visible andspecialized student development office within the student union togentrally coordinate a number of student development orientationprograms, life workshops, recreation activities, and training programsfor all the university community. The other institutions were orga-nized along more traditional lines, but they were advocating and im-plementing student development programs through college-widecommittees and special programs administered; in the traditionalorganizational context.

All of the student affairs executives interviewed stressed theirinterest in taking the initiative for implementing a student develop-ment philosophy, but they were also aware that to really be success-ful .their efforts must eventually go beyond the student affairs divi-sion, become college-wide, and include faculty and staff from otherdivisions. They also expressed a concern about finding ways to in-crease organizational flexibility in order to provide more effectiveresponses to the problems of changing student and program needsand to the problem of staff locked in to rigid organizational fiefdoms.There is a need for effective organizational models to help give life tothe student development concept and to encourage the organiza-tional flexibility that will be needed in the future. As Toffler (1981)writes, "We are necessarily led to whole new organizations 'for thefuture . . . We need managers who can operate as capably in anopen-door free flow style as in a hierarchical mode, who can work inan organization structured like an Egyptian pyramid as well as in onethat looks like a Calder mobile."

The following recommendation is made in view of the needsfor flexibility, rapid change, and more effective organizationalmodels to implement student development concepts.

25

3 7

MODELS FOR ORGANIZINGSTUDENT AFFAIRS DIVISION

PRINCIPAL STUDENTAFFAIRS OFFICER

FinancialAid

CounselingOffice

ResidenceHalls

StudentActivities

CareerPlacement

Figure I. Line-Staff Structure of Student Affairs

PRINCIPAL STUDENTAFFAIRS OFFICER

Student Development [ Student Activities Student Services

Figur; 1 Line-Staff Structure with Three Subdivisions

PRINCIPAL STUDENT AFFAIRSSTUDENT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

PROGRAMS SERVICES

Figure 3. Line-Staff Structure with Two Subdivisions

Academic IDeans

Vice PresidentStudent Affairs

StaffFunctions

Major MajorArea Area

StaffFunctions

MajorArea

Assistant Deans for Student Affairs

_L_Major MajorArea Area

Figure 4. The Hub-Spoke Model

2638

Recommendation 5. There is a need to experiment more fully withmore flexible organizational patterns for connnunity college studentaffairs divisions.

Organizational concepts such as matrix organization, clusteredmodels, and quality circles may hold great potential for providingeffective organization, improving staff morale, and creating organiza-tional vehicles that can meet changing needs and can reduce costs.At present the community college literature lacks solid research evi-dence of the implementation and evaluation of these organizational"concepts. Hopefully, more colleges will consider experimenting withthese organizational vehicles in the-future.

Decentralization. In addition to the approaches for organizing forstudent development, several other organizational issues were exam-ined in the study. One area of consensus was decentralization. Allthe student affairs executives expressed support for decentralizedmanagement and for delegation of authority and responsibility. Asone community college dean of students puts it:

You decentralize as much as you can, The or-ganizational scheme must work every day or itwon't work when you most need it, so I don't in-terfere. I never feel uncomfortable about leavingthe campus. We try to have clear policies and pro-cedures, clearly defined delegation of authorityand responsibility, and a well-informed staff. I amavailable to staff to test alternatives, for ideas, andto discuss implications of decisions, but I let themrun the show in their areas.

While there is general consensus about the value of decentrali-zation, the amount of delegation varies widely as do the proceduresfor coordinating and evaluating decentralized units. The most promi-nent pattern for coordination of decentralized units was the-use ofwritten objectives, weekly meetings of departmental directors, andthe development of annual reports by each department director,Only one executive had actually centralized authority in his firstyear on the job, but he was planning to decentralize and coordinateunits in ways similar to the general pattern.

Span of Management, An issue related to decentralization was thesize of the span of management of the chief student affairs officers.

39

The most typical span of management ranged between eight and ten.One dean had a direct span of management of five because of exten-sive delegation to associate and assistant deans. All of the executivesagreed that "numbers approaches" to determine span of managementmust be guided by considerations of individual ability and the diffi-culty of the programs to be administered. However, several of the

y, executives also complained about being involved in "busywork" andtoo much detail, and about the lack of time for planning, evaluation.and Icadershipfactors related to the size of their span of manage-ment.

While rigid rules about "numbers" cannot be applied, severalof the student affairs executives seemed to be overextended in theirwork comm itmen ts. Business ma nagemen t studies have recommendeda span of management that ranges from four to eight staff reportingdirectly to top management to eight to twelve staff reporting tolower-level managers. This advice seems to have merit for over-extended student affairs executives.

Recommendation 6. Any chief student affairs executive whose spanof tnanagement exceeds eight should reexamine reporting relation-ships and time management to ensure that sufficient time is availablefbr leadership activities.

While many executives may easily handle spans of management in ex-cess of eight, periodic review of their obligations, which tend to in-crease quietly and in multiples, should be undertaken to ensure thattheir time is spent on priorities and that effective delegation ofauthority and responsibility is taking place.

Organizational Politics. The other organizational issues that emergedfrom the study involved organizational polities. The first politicalissue is danger that student affairs programs could be downgraded:this occurred at one oC the four-year colleges in the study. Thedowngrading of the chief student affairs officer's position from vice-president to dean, and the organizational placement of the studentaffairs department within the-academie affairs division, led to theloss of communication, access to top management, status. authority,and participation at the highest levels of policy making that wasnecessary for the vitality of the student affairs division. This down-grading has happened at a number of colleges across the country, andit does not augur well for student affairs programs in the increasinglypolitical and competitive academic environment that will mark the1980s.

4 0

Recommendation 7. The chief student affairs executive should be atthe highest level of management and report directly to the president.

Organizational positions reflect priorities. The research of highereducation clearly shows the contributions of student affairs programsin the past, and the development and innovation in the professionpromise continued contributions in the future. Given the increas-ing problems of retention and recruitment, the concern that studentsexpress for services and programs (Cross, 1981), and the changingneeds of an ever More diverse student population, now is not thetime to downgrade student affairs work as a priority. Indeed, per-haps more than ever, student affairs work and student developmentshould be reemphasized as essential components of the communitycollege studen t.

A final political issue is the trend to remove many business orfinance functions, such as financial aid or the fiscal responsibility forcertain special services from student affairs divisions to other divi-sions on campui. This problem takes two formseither the func-tion was completely removed to another division or the function wassplit, with program responsibility remaining in student affairs andfiscal responsibility transferred to a business or auxiliary servicesdivision. Recommendation 8 is offered in view of the potentialproblems that can develop when organizational responsibilities areunclear.

Recommendation S. There is a need to clarify organizational policyconcerning the trend to split responsibility for some functions be-tween business divisions and student affairs divisions.

As a preferred course of action, student affairs professionals shoulddevelop the staff skills necessary to maintain business-related func-tions within the division. In cases where college policy mandates asplit in responsibilities, they must sharply define program and per-sonnel responsibilities. Otherwise, they may find policy, program,and personnel decisions increasingly made outside their control.

BUDGETING

Student affairs staff who were interviewed generally conveyed an im-pression that budgetary activities are distasteful, complicated, anduninteresting. This attitude is understandable in view of the con-centration on counseling and the humanistic interests that draw

19

41

so many people to the student affairs profession. However, budgetdevelopment and the political skills that surround it will becomeincreasingly important as the battle intensifies to retain decision-making authority on campus, instead of handing it over to stateagencies.

Current campus budget development procedures at the col-leges studied followed a generally traditional pattern. Budgets weredeveloped by departments (usually within guidelines provided by thepresident); they were then reviewed by the chief student affairs offi-cer, by a college-wide committee, by the president, and by the boardof trustees and/or by state system committees and the system chan-cellor where the colleges were part of multi-campus systems.

Once a system budget was developed, it was reviewed by thestate budget agency and further negotiations followed. These nego-tiations resulted in a system-wide budget that became part of theGovernor's budget. The Governor's budget then proceeded throughthe legislative process which led to a final budget, subject to theGovernor's line item reductions.

All of the colleges had detailed budgetary procedures andtimetables; budget formats were primarily incremental and line item.Although some departments developed program budgets, they wererecast as line items for review by state agencies. The size of the bud-get was generally determined by student enrollments, by the use ofsome formulas, and by political negotiations.

Trends in funding were discouraging. Student affairs divi-sions in all of the colleges studied had experienced significant budgetcuts in the past five years. One college had lost 20 peNent of itsbudget over the past five years, while another college had received a15 percent budget reduction on a one-month notice because of thepassage of a property tax initiative.

Budget Management Techniques. The responses to these budget cutsinvolved many of the management procedures already describeddeveloping management by objectives systems, increasing programevaluations, requiring more frequent accountability reports, deferringmaintenance (a technique which may lead to future disaster), haltingbuilding projects, and reducing some part-time and clerical staff.Few professional staff were lost, but that prospect seems likely atseveral of the colleges if further budget reductions occur.

The most specific budget management response to the fiscalproblems was the use of a "zero-based" budget review. Two of thecolleges studied had used this device to thoroughly review all pro-grams, and the deans of students at the other colleges were expecting

30

42

zero-based budget reviews to be conducted in the near future andpossibly every-five years.

Budget Flexibility. Budget flexibilityone of the first victims ofbudget criseswas becoming more difficult to achieve in the col-leges. All of the colleges had lost specific flexibility devices, such asspecial administrative accounts, or had suffered reductions in otherflexibility devices, such as temporary -position monies or over-expenditure accounts. One dean stated that he did not believe inspecial flexibility accounts for the studen t affairs division; instead herelied on a college-wide contingency account, subject to the approvalof the president, to seek special funds when needs occurred.

Budget Control. Budget control devices fell into two patterns. Twoof the student affairs executives maintained separate sets of books(in addition to college-wide books). while the other executives reliedsolely on monthly college-wide budget reports to monitor budgetbalances. Those advocating separate budget records cited the advan-tages of increased accuracy, more timely information, and some in-creased flexibility. Those advantages must be weighed against theincreased cost and duplication involvedluxuries that may be moredifficult to maintain in the future.

A second control device used by several of the student affairsexecutives was to centralize division funds during the last twomonths of the year. Again, there was a split in philosophy on thewrits of this control device. Advocates cited the primary benefits asincreased flexibility, reduction of waste, and the ability to spendfunds in terms of division-wide needs. Those not employing this con-trol device preferred to leave budget decisions decentralized withunit directors to show confidence in them and to maintain morale.

Budget Problems. The most significant budget-related problems re-ported were the lack of staff interest and skill for effective participa-tion in the budget.pr6cess, the increased intervention of state agen-cies into local campus budget decisions, the loss of most budget flexi-bility, the increased time and effort involved in the budget process(especially in preparing defensive "accountability" reports), and theimpact on staff morale of projected budget declines in the 1980s.While there are no easy solutions to these problems, budget skills willclearly be necessary for dealing with future declines in resources forhigher education projected throughout the 1980s.

31

4 3

Recommendation 9. Student affairs staffs should receive moretraining in budget techniques, procedures, and politics. This trainingshould Pcus on the development of budget skills necessary to func-tion at three levelson campus, in multi-campus systemi, and inrelationships with state agencies and the legislature.

Recent trends in higher education are toward the loss of budget flexi-bility and the increase of budget controls. Creative, new budget for-mats and procedures for achieving flexibility and control must be de-veloped to cope with the projected fiscal problems of the future.The loss of budget flexibility removes a significant leadership tool:and the increased cost, time, and duplication involved in many cur-rent budget control practices, such as keeping dual sets of books, is adubious use of scarce time and resources.

One of the great dangers of the next ten years is that thelocus of much decision making for student affairs programs will notonly move out of student affairs divisions but may move off campusand into government budget bureaus. Preventing that shift of powerwill require increased budget and political abilities and a willingnessto fight to stop itboth of which can be achieved through stafftraining and the development of more budget savvy.

STAFFING

The staffing function turned out to be one of the most troublesomeand explosive areas examined in the study. Stiffing tasks have beenheavily affected by the declining job market and the resulting inabil-ity of many people to change jobs or to receive promotions. Allstaffing tasksselection, orientation, staff development, and staffevaluation are becoming increasingly formal, time consuming, andcost:y.

Selection. Staff selection processes for professional positions tendedto follow a general pattern. Positions would become availableand, in two of the colleges, the free position would revert to thevice-president for student affairs who would conduct a needs assess-ment of whether the position should remain where it was or shouldbe shifted to another department. Student affairs executives at theother colleges tended not to shift positions either because of formularestrictions or staff preferences. After a determination was madeabou't how the staff vacancy would Ix illocated, the college wouldconduct a search by circulating job announcements and by contact-ing and recruiting potential candidates. Affirmative action searches.

32

4

"A -

a priority task in the selection process, were achieved by followingestablished formal procedures, by contacting minority associations,and by personal contacts of staff.

Once the application deadline passed, a selection committee,appointed by the chief student affairs officers, screened the,applica-tions. Usually three or four candidates were invited for an interviewwith the committee, the department director, and, for senior posi-tions, the chief student affairs officer. The conimittee memberswould then submit their recommendations to the chief studentaffairs officer and the departmental director who, in consultation,made the final decision. -

These selection procedures, while more democratic and openthan in the past, led to a number of procedural and time-consumingproblems. All of the, student affairs executives discussed the increas-ing emph ,is on procedures and paperwork and the resulting costs,time, am recordkeeping involved in national searches and affirmativeaction procedures. These requirements may be reaching a pointwhere they are hindering rather than helping the goals of extendingjob opportunities. There is a danger that staffing efforts will begin tofocus more on meeting bureaucratic procedural requirements than onthe substance of what democratic selection is all about.

Recommendation 10. There is a need to develop less cumbersomeprocedures for selecting staff and implementing affirmative actionprograms.

While there is a need to monitor affirmative action and equal oppor-tunity programs to ensure that reasonable efforts and progress arebeing maintained, these needs might be effectively met by periodicreportsperhaps every three yearsrather than by the costly, time-consuming case-by-case approach currently used at many collegesand universities. Unfortunately, staff selection procedures arebecoming another area where excessive government regulations andreporting requirements may be more of a detriment than an aid tolaudable national goals.

Two additional issues in the-stlection of staff emerged fromthe studythe trends toward-the use of more part-time and morevolunteer staff in the work of student affairs divisions.

Recommendation 11. There is a need to develop fair policies con-cerning the employment of part-time and student workers.

The employment of these kinds of staff may increase as funds be-come more difficult to obtain. Employment policies should ensure

4533

that part-time and student staff are fairly compensated, that theyhave some options for access to benefits available to full-time staff,and that they do not become (as some part-time faculty at commun-ity colleges have become) low-cost substitutes for needed full-timestaff.

A related selection issue is the possibility that volunteerworkers may also be increasingly used to help run programs in severalstudent affairs areas. Areas such as day care centers, peer counselingprograms, and social and cultural programs may have to use fewerpaid professional staff and more volunteers in the future.

Recommendation 12. Student affairs administrators will need todevelop policies and implement training programs to help staffdevelop skills for working with volunteer groupsskills that mayvary considerably from those necessary when working with a full-time paid staff

Orientation. Staff orientation was generally a low priority at theinstitytions in the study. Only one institutution had a formal orien-tation program within the student affairs division. The vice-presidentht the institution had assigned orientation responsibility to a staffmember and had developed a student affairs orientation manual anda two-day orientation program.

Orientation activities at the other institutions varied, butthey tended to consist of the use of some general college-wide docu-ments (such as a faculty handbook) supplemented by individual dis-cussions and a staff welcoming function such as a coffee hour or acocktail party.

None of the student affairs executives anticipated particularproblems or changes in orientation activities, but one communitycollege did experience problems (and lost a court case) when a plain-tiff cited the lack of orientation and training as a defense in a lawsuitover dismissal. In general, staff orientation is not viewed as a crucialactivity. Yt, new staff need help in understanding the context ofthe college a n d the division. While orientations need not be mara-thon sessions or handbooks that, as one dean put it, "cover 80,000regulations and bore the hell out of people," they should be system-aric enough to ensure that new staff feel welcome, that they under-stand their new environment, and that they know where to go forhelp.

Staff Development. Staff development activities are an increasingpriority, but they turned -out to be surprisingly controversial at

34

4 6

several of the colleges in the study. Activities designed to determine'individual staff needs met resistance at two colleges and almost esca-lated into a confrontation with an employee union in one case be-cause of staff concerns about motives and privacy in a survey of statTdevelopment needs.

Staff development programs were implemented in a numberof ways and were guided by four different philosophies of how toperform the task. One institution had a formally scheduled programof staff development workshops sponsored by the students affairsdivision. Another approach was to have college-wide staff develop-ment programs, some of which were sponsored by the student affairsdivision. In a third model, the vice-president for student affairs wastrying to assist staff to create individual tive-year plans for personaldevelopment and to initiate staff exchnges with other institutionsfor periods ranging from a few weeks to a year. Finally, one dean ofstudents preferred to "create a climate for growth," but he left muchto individual initiative and tried to support staff in their individuallyinitiated efforts.

All of the student affairs executives tried to assist in attend-ing national conferences or workshops and in participating in thework of professional associations. The primary form of assistancewas release time. Budget support was provided for some activities,but staff development budgets were declining and tended to bespread thinly among the division staff.

The most significant problems with implementing staff de-velopment programs involved limited budgets, some staff resistanceto needs assessments. and staff concerns about the relevance andquality of some group programs. Perhaps the tasks of the future instaff development will be centered around developing more person-ally tailored programs (i.e.. individual plans rather than group activ-ities) to meet the unique needs of individuals and around helpingstaff find creative and new Work when upward mobility is limited bythe tight job market.

Reconnnendation 13. Maiwgers of student affairs progrwns shouldexperiment more Ally With creating staff development programsbased on individual needs.

While group presentations and workshops will always be an impor-tant part of staff development, future staff development plans basedon individual needs and incorporating a variety of experiences(workshops, staff exchanges, formal coursework, special projects,etc.), may be more effective in meeting the genuine needs of staff

35

4 7

in the 1980s than the often cosmetic group programs that character-ized much of the 1970s.

Staff Evaluation. Staff evaluation activities at the colleges resembledindustrial union models. All of the colleges had formal, mandatedstaff evaluations which followed a basic pattern of setting objectivesat the beginning of the year and evaluating at the end of the year.Each college had formal evaluation forms, and staff were required towork closely with employee unions in developing forms, policies, andprocedures.

Evaluation criteria varied, but standard areas ihcluded jobperformance, service to the college, human relations, how well theemployee "fit in," and suggestions by the supervisor for changes orimprovement. Evaluation asOivities tended to focus on probationarystaff, but at least one college was developing a "critical incident--based evaluation of tenured staff. All of the student affairs execu-tives supplemented formal activities with informal and ongoingevaluation. As one dean put it, "You don't wait until the end of theyear to evaluate or intervene."

Two problems stand out in the study of staff evaluation.One is the search for improved evaluation criteria; the other is the"open-file system which permits staff access to their personnelfiles. This open-file system inhibits honest evaluations, and it fre-quently puts the dean in the awkward position of simultaneouslyreceiving both favorable written comments and unfavorable verbalcomments about staff being considered for tenure.

Overall, the staffing function is fraught with potential prob-lems in selection, orientation, development, and evaluation. Each ofthese areas needs additional research, development, experimentation,and exchange of information among student affairs professionals.Unfortunately, the increasingly difficult job market may maketoday's problems seem like the "good old days" by the end of the1980s.

DIRECTING

The key task in any management situation is leadership. A primaryfocus of the research projects was on portraying how leadership wasaccomplishedthe philosophical bases, the tasks, the principles, andstyles that guided the management activities of the chief studentaffairs officers in the study. What works in any particular manage-ment situation is a variablea blending of the art and science ofmanagement to fit the unique needs of the environment. Styles of

36

48

the student affairs executives also differ, but there is some consistencyamong styles.

First, and most important, each of the student affairs execu-tives in the case studies had clearly defined a philosophy of leader-ship and was working to. implement it. These leaders were not"winging it." They knew what they believed about human relation-ships, about management style and technique, and about the needsof their institutions, divisions, and staffs. They varied in aggressive-ness, personality, and success, but they were all consistent in tryingto imprint ,their leadership style on the management of the studentaffairs programs for which they were responsible.

A second theme that transcended-variations in style was anawareness of staff needs and a concern for good human relations.McGregor (1960) proposed that old-style authoritarian management.Theory X, should be replaced by a new type of management styleTheory Y. McGregor's Theory X was based on three assumptions:that the average human being has an inherent dislike of work, thatmost people must be coerced and controlled in order to get themto put forth adequate efforts. and that people prefer to avoid respon-sibility and to gain security.

None of the student affairs executives in this study expressedTheory X beliefs. While they expressed concern about the perform-ance or attitudes of some staff members, their principal managementresponse was closer to McGregor's Theory Y which assumes the fol-lowing: the average human does not inherently dislike work; peoplewill exercise self-direction when committed to certain objectives;ego-satisfying and "self-actualizing" needs can be blended withorganizational needs to produce creativity. commitment, and imagi-nation in finding solutions to organizational problems; and the intel-lectual potential of the average human is only partially utilized.

The concern for staff, the understanding of the difficulties ofsome staff who are unable or unwilling to move, and the genuineinterest and effort of the student affairs executives to help staff findmeaning, productivity, and ego satisfaction in their work is a themereflected in numerous actions of these executives- actions thatrange from taking time away from a busy schedule to counsel stafflacing serious personal problems to trying to find creative outlets andnew projects for staff who are stifled in a current position but un-willing to leave. While all of' the student affairs executives indicatedthat there was a point beyond which they would not pass in trying torevive or stinwlate a disgruntled staff member, all wanted to makemaximum efforts at human development before resorting to dismis-sal or demotion.

4 9"

Woven across the predominant characteristics of a definedphilosophy of leadership and a concern for effective human rela-tions were two additional themes: an awareness of academic poli-tics and a concern for developing a team spirit.

Academic Politics. The increased importance of academic politicswas discussed by all of the student affairs executives. All of the insti-tutions studied either had experienced, or were about to experience,fiscal and/or enrollment problems. These problems tend to heightenvested interest politics as various units compete for limited resources.The student affairs executives in the study were extremely aware ofthe kinds of academic politics involved in budget reduction deci-sions; they were preparing for potential problems by involving them-selves and their staff on key college-wide or state-wide committees;by increasing efforts at "accountability" (often excessive for pro-gram needs, but necessary for political needs); by taking aggressiveactions, such as initiating new programs; or by developing politicalstrategies to meet challenges to programs and resources that weremade by other divisions or state agencies.

Team Spirit. A final element of style evidenced by all the studentaffairs executives was the concern with developing a team spiritwithin the division. As one dean said: "One of the most difficultproblems to deal with is when someone sees their unit as separateand independent and when they distegard the team and cooperativeconcept." While none of the executives tended toward the kind ofcompulsive "organization man" mentality described by Whyte(1956) and others, they did insist on loyalty, positive attitudes, and awillingness to work for the good of the division. Their concept ofteam was along the lines described by McGregor (1960) who wrote:

The principle of divide and rule is eminentlysound if one wants to exercise personal power oversubdrdinates. It is the best way to control them.But, if the superior recognizes the existence ofthe intricate interdependent characteristics ofmodern industry, and if he is less interested in per-sonal power than in creating conditions such thathuman resources available to him will be utilized toachieve organizational purposes, he will seek tobuild a strong group. He will recognize that thehighest commitment to organizational objectives,and the most successful collaboration in achieving

38 5 0

them, require unique kinds of interactions whichcan only occur in a highly effective group setting.He will in fact discourage discussion or decisionmaking on many matters which affect his organi-zation except in a group setting. He will give theidea of "the team" full expression, with all theconnotations it carries on the football field.

The principal problems of leadership that executives reportare lack of time for long-range planning, maintaining staff tuorale inthe lace of declining resources and professional opportunities, and in-creased intervention of outside agencies which has hindered leader-ship prerogatives and has removed many leadership decisions fromthe campus.

Despite the frequent references in academic literature to"mediators" or "negotiators," leadership remains a crucial need.Leadership in a college or university cannot mean arbitrary use ofauthority, but neither does it mean passive responses or detailedmanagement by committee. Leadership initiative is not antitheticalto the democratic process-it is essential. The dangers of the lossof leadership, because or the increasing intervention and role ofgovernment agencies in the internal affairs of colleges and universi-ties, have already been discussed in this section. There is a need tocombat this intervention in a variety of ways- through research,through political action, and through more effective participationwith policy-making groups external to the campus.

Recommendation 14. There is a need for more effective national-and state-level leadership in the student affinrs profession and fbrmore participation in student affairs professional organizations bycommunity college student afThirs profrssionals.

Mayhew (1973), Penney (1969), and McConnell (1970) have citedthe often peripheral role of student affairs personnel in national andstate educational policy development. While leadership within theprofession may be strong and visible, future decisions will increas-ingly involve more interrelationships and political considerations.Student affairs personnel in general, and community college stu-dent affairs personnel in particular, should work to ensure that theprofession is represented adequately in ,policy deliberations at alllevels-on federal and state policy committees, on task forces, andin educational research projects and publications outside of the stu-dent affairs arena. Mayhew's (1973) observation that the massive

39

51

work of the Carnegie Commission "has neglected much of the studentpersonnel nmvement" was a serious indictment of the failure of stu-dent affairs professionals to become effectively involved in majorpolicy decisions outside of their own professional interests. Morethan ever there is a need for student affairs personnel to becomemore active in a broader range of policy considerations.

EVALUATION

Evaluation activities in the imtitutions studied can be described interms of three dimensions: formative-summative, internal-external.and process-outcome. Formative evaluation activities were de-veloped in the planning process and implemented through the on-going reviews conducted in the student affairs division executivecommittee meetings and through the close staff contacts maintainedby the one dean of students who did not have a division executiveconun i t tee.

Sununative evaluation was achieved in a number of ways.The most common pattern was to require detailed annual reportsand formal personal evaluations from department directors. Oneinstitution used a formal evaluation format recommended by a statt:-wide committee of student affairs officers. and all of the executivesinterviewed said that they occasionally appointed special taskforces to evaluate selected programs or problems.

Evaluations were primarily conducted by the chief stu-dent affairs executive as an 'internal ' activity, but there was atrend toward more periodic external evaluations. External evalua-tions were of two kinds: evaluations of the student affairs divisionconducted for the president of the institution, sometimes involvingfaculty and staff from divisions other than student affairs andoccasionally bringing in outside consultants, and evaluations con-ducted for the chief student affairs officer by teams of outsideconsultants. These outside evaluations were planned to occurabout every five years. In addition, several of the institutions hadundergone a zero-based budget evaluation. Staff at several otherinstitutions expected to conduct their own zero-based budget re-view within the next few years.

Evaluations also tended to be focused on both process andoutcome variables. Because of the difficulty of measuring the out-comes of many student affairs programs, much evaluation tended tofocus on processes. That is, criteria focused on variables such asnumbers of programs offered, numbers of student contacts made,or students served. There was both an interest and an attempt at

40' 52

all of the institutions to develop more effective evaluation criteriaand more outcome-related evaluations (for example, student satis-faction. changes in behavior), but those measures are costly and dif-ficult to obtain.

Evaluation Problems. The two principal problems or evaluation re-ported by the student affairs executives were the increasing for-malism and frequency of evaluation and the increasingly politicalcharacter of much evaluation. Several of the executives questionedthe need for many evaluations, and they were concerned about cri-teria often developed for political reasons by outside agencies. Asone dean put it:

It's ridiculous. Criteria are often drawn uppolitically, and the whole effort is based on afalse start. At the end of these studies people stilldon't know what's going on. There are more ques-tions than answers, and then the whole processstarts again. In one area alone - - EducationalOpportunity Programs - - we've had about five orsix major studies by various government agenciessince 1970. In addition, we've had all of the visitsand requests for budget reports and justificationsfrom our local board and the State Board ofGovernors. Our frustration is with the time andcost of these studies. Who uses them? \Vhat dif-ference do they make? Do they realize the bur-den it places on campus staffs trying to provideservices?

13ecause of the interrelationships of malufgement functions,recommendations about evaluation were made earlier in this section.The concerns about the frequency of evaluation and accountabilityreports were addressed in the planning section, and the concernsabout excessive governmental intrusion into college affairs werediscussed in the planning and leadership sections.

In sum, evaluation activities are increasingly being based on amanagement-by-objectives model. Evaluations tend-to be conductedannually by the chief student affairs officers, they are mostly for in-ternal (within the student affairs division) purposes, and they focusmore on processes than on outcomes. Trends in evaluation activitiesseem to be toward the use of more outside consultants, towardperiodic zero-based budget reviews, and towaid the development of

5 341

i

more outcome-related criteria. The key to successful evaluation inthe future seems to lie in achieving a delicate balance by conductingthorough evaluations but not allowing the process to overwhelm staffor to create an atmosphere of defensiveness. While there is a needfor'experimentation, research, and improvement in each of the eval-uation dimensions discussed, there is an equally strong need to guardagainst the temptation to overevaluatea temptation that will onlylead to defensive number-counting exercises by a demoralized orapathetic staff.

CONCLUSION

As we reflect on the future of student affairs programs in communitycolleges, a number of forces emerge as harbingers of potentially sig-nificant change, Uncertainty about demographics, challenges to thecomprehensive mission, increased diversity of student needs and pro-gram demands, and continuing demands for participation in decisionmaking and for accountability made by various internal and exter-nal constituencies present complex challenges to managers of studentaffairs programs.

Responding to these challenges requires an emphasis on skillsin both the art and science of managementskills for which manystudent affairs administrators have only been marginally trained.

This monograph has reviewed a number of the forces that af-fect the context in which the management of student affairs programsoccurs, has reported the results of a study of management responsesto reductions in resources in student affairs programs, and has pro-posed recommendations for changes in the management processesand structures of student affairs programs in community colleges.The challenge ahead is not to initiate cosmetically, but to evolvemanagement processes and structures to meet changing needs and tofit the unique environment of each campus. This special blending ofscientific management principles with sensitivity and judgment aboutcontext is the art of management and the categorical imperative forstudent affairs administrators in community colleges in the decadeahead.

42 54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appleton, J., Moore, P., and Vinton, J. "A Model for the EffectiveDelivery of Student Services in Academic Schools and Depart-ments." Journal of Higher Education, 1978, 49 (4), 372-381.

Board of Governors, California Community Colleges. Long-TermFinance Plan: Recommendations for the 1980's. Sacramento:Board of Governors, California Community Colleges, 1979.84pp. (ED 178 153)

California Postsecondary Education Commission. Missions andFunctions of the California Community Colleges. One in a Seriesof Staff Papers for Discussion. Commission Report 81-14. Sacra-mento: California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1981.3Opp. (ED 203 957)

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. ThreeThousand Futures. The Next Twenty Years for Higher Educa-tion. Final Report of the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies inHigher Education. Berkeley, Calif.: Carnegie Council on PolicyStudies in Higher Education, 1980. 175pp. (ED 183 076; avail-able on microfiche only)

The Chronicle of Higher Education. McCurdy, J. "California Com-munity Colleges Attacked: Too Much Growth in the WrongDirection," November 4, 1981, 13 (11), p. 11.

Corson, J. The Governance of Colleges and Universities: Modern-izing Structure and Pro&i.sses. New Yoth-McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Crookston, B.B., and Atkyns, G.C. A Study of Student Affairs:The Principal Student Affairs Officer, the Functions, the Organi-zation at American Colleges and Universities 1967-1972. A Pre-liminary Summary Report. Technical Report No. 3. Paper pre-sented at the 48th Annual Conference of theNitiMI Associationof Student Personnel Administrators, Chicago, Illinois, April 1974.62pp. (ED 095 762)

Cross, K.P. "Community Colleges on the Plateau."Journal of HigherEducation, 1981, 52 (2), 113-123.

Cyert, R., and Benton, L. The Management of 1Von-Profit Organiza-tions. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1975.

Deegan, W.L. Managing Student Affairs _programs: Methods, Models,Muddles. Palm Springs, Calif.: ETC Publications, 1981.

55 43

Deegan, W.L., and Others. "Student Participation in Governance:Models for the 1970-s. Junior College Journal, 1970,41 (3), 15-22.

Harpel. R. "Accountability: Current Demands on Student PersonnelPrograms."NASPA Journal. 1975, 12 (3), 144-145.

Humphries, J. "Student Personnel Professionals: Is There a Future?"Educational Record. 1977,58 (1), 59-65.

Koontz, H. "The Management Theory Jungle." Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 1961, 4 (3), 174-188.

Luskin, B. "The Coming Changes in Our Community Colleges."In CCICA News. Sacramento: California Community and JuniorCollege Association, Octobef 1981.

McConnell, T.R. "Student Personnel Services: Central or Peripheral?"NASPA Journal, 1970,8 (1), 55-63.

McGregor, D. Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill,1960.

Martorana, S.V. "Shifting Patterns of Financial Support." In R.L.Alfred (Ed.), Coping with Reduced Resources: New Directionsfor Community Colleges. no. 22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1978.

Mayhew. L. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education: A Criti-cal Analysis of the Reports and Recommendations. San Francisco:jossey-Bass, 1973.

Miller, T., and Prince, J. The Future of Student Affairs. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.

Penney, J.F. "Student Personnel Work: A Profession Stillborn."The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 47 (10), 958-961.

Richardson, R.C., Jr., and Leslie, L.L. The Impossible Dream? Fi-nancing Community College's Evolving Mission. "Horizons Issues"Monograph Series. Washington, D.C.: American Association ofCommunity and Junior Colleges; Council of Universities andColleges, American Association of Community and Junior Col-leges; and Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges,1980. 58pp. (ED 197 783)

Toffler, A. Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books, 1971.

Toffler, A. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books. 1981.Whyte, W.I-1. Organization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster,

1956.

Zoglin, M.L. Power and Politics in the Community College. PalmSprings, Calif.: ETC Publications, 1976.

44

5 6

APPENDIX 1: A FRAMEWORK FORMANAGEMENT ANALYSIS©

The framework for management analysis presented in thisappendix is a systematic guide developed to zissist in analyzing if andhow the major functions and tasks of management are performedand to provide a standard fos comparing actual practice against a"universalist model" (Koontz, 1961). Managers of student affairsprograms may find the framework a useful guide as they conducttheir own management reviews.

Copyright 1981 by William L. Deegan.

57

45

Management Function. Tasks and Issues for Review

I. Planning

1. What is the philosophy of planning?

/. Has a comprehensive plan been developed?

3. Are assumptions and values reflected in the plan?

4. Are environmental constraints reflected in the plan?

5. Has a needs assessment been conducted:

a. Annual?

b. Five-year projec tion?

6. Has a resource inventory been compiled?

7. Are objectives stated :

a. Annual?

b. Five-year?

8. Is there provision for staff participation in the planningprocess?

9. Is there provision for coordination of planning activities?

10. Have plans been developed for each of the followingmanagement functions:

a. Organizing?

b. Budgeting?

c. Staffing?

d. Directing?

1 1. Is provision for flexibility and change provided in theplan?

12. Have plans been developed for the following evaluationtasks:

a. On-going evaluation?

b. Annual evaluation?

c. Five-year comprthensive evaluation?

46 5 8

13. Is there a plan for feedback and use of evaluation findings?

14. (-,What major planning successes occurred in the last year?

15. What major planning problems occurred in the last year?

16. What changes in planning activities should occur:

a. In the next year?

b. In the next five years?

II. Organizing

I. What is the philosophy of organization?

1. Does the organization structure reflect:

a. Objectives?

b. Environmental constraints?

3. How centralized /decentralized is the organization? Why?

4. If the organization is decentralized:

a. Is the authority equal to responsibility delegated?

b. Are lines of delegated authority and responSibilitycommunicated to staff?

c. Do individuals report to a single supervisor? .

d. Are there procedures for coordination and ,control ofdecentralized units?

5. If the organization is centralized:

a. Are there procedures for effective communication?

b. Are there problems of staff morale?

c. Can decisions be made quickly enough'?

6. What is the philosophy about span of management?

7. What is the size of span of management of each unitdirector?

8. Is there periodic review of the span of management ofeach director?

9. Is management aware of informal organizational patternsand values?

47

59

10. What is the management philosophy about the amountof hierarchy or flatness in the organizational structure?

I 1. Is there provision for review of the organizational struc-ture:

a. Annual?

b. Five-year comprehensive?

12. What are the primary strengths of the current organiza-tiOnal pattern?

13. What are the primary problems with the current organiza-tional pattern?

14. What changes in organization should occur:

a In the next year?

b. In the next five years?

III. Budgeting

I. What is the philosophy of budgeting?

2. Does the budget reflect:

a. Objectives?

b. Priorities?

3. How is budget control maintained?

4. Is budget information for decision making provided in atimely manner?

5. How is budget flexibility.provjded?

6. What percentage of the budget is flexible?

7. How are budget reductions (i.e., percentage cuts, priori-tized cuts) managed?

8. Are staff trained and updated on budget processes andtechniques?

9. Are there comprehensive evaluations of budget formatsand budget processes:

a. Annual?

b. Five-year?

4860

10. What are the strengths of the current budget format andprocess?

11. What are the problems with the current budget format andprocess?

12. What changes in budget format or processes are needed:

a. In the next year?

b. In the next five years?

IV. Staffing

I. What is the philosophy about each of the following staff-ing functions:

a. Recruitment'?

b. Selection?

c. Orientation?

d. Staff development?

e. Staff evaluation?

2. Are clear procedures developed for each staffing function?

3. Are job descriptions written and clear?

4. Is there a staff orientation program?

S. If yes:

a. What are the objectives of the program?

b. What are the most successful aspects of' the program?

c. What are the greatest problems with the program?

6. Is there a staff development program:

a. For individuals?

b. For groups?

7. If yes:

a. What are the objectives of each of' the programs?

b. What are the most successful aspects of the programs?

c. What are the greatest problems with the programs?

61

49

8. Is there a budget for staff development?

9. Is there a staff evaluation program?

10. If yes:

a. Are objectives and evaluation criteria communi-cated to staff?

b. What are the most successful aspects of the program?

c. What are the greatest problems with the program?

1 1. Is there provision for periodic evaluation of each of thestaffing functions:

a. Annual?

b. Five-year comprehensive?

12. What changes in staffing tasks are needed:

a. In the next year?

b. In the next five years?

V. Directing

I. What is the philosophy of directing?

2. Are there clear:

a. Objectives?

b. Written policies?

c. Procedures for control?

3. Do policies specify the following:

a. Objectives sought?

b. Procedures for implementation?

c. Responsible staff?

d. Delegated authority?

4. Communication:

a. Is there a system for communication?

b. Are there clear procedures for:

1. Upward communication?

50 62

2. Downward communication?

3. Lateral communication? c

c. Are staff trained in communication techniques andprocedures?

d. Is there provision for evaluation of the communica-tion system:

I. Annual?

2. Five-year comprehensive?

5. Leadership

a. What is the philosophy of leadership?

b. How is leadership provided?

c. Is leadership perceived by staff?

d. Are staff relations harmonious?

6. What are the most successful aspects of the directive func-tions?

7. What are the greatest problems with the directive func-tions?

8. What changes in the directive functions are necessary:

a. In the next year?

b. In the next five years?

VI. Evaluating

I. What is the philosophy of evaluation?

2. Is there a plan for each of the following kinds of evalua-tion:

a. Ongoing?

b. Annual?

e. Five-year comprehensive?

3. Is there provision for staff participation in developing theevaluation plan?

4. Are the following communicated to staff:

a. Expected outcomes?

b. Evaluation criteria?

5 1

6 3

c. Evaluation procedures?

(1. Target dates?

5. What measures of quality are used in the evaluation pro-cess?

6. What measures of quantity are used in the evaluationprocess?

7. Is there a system for timely feedback and use of evalua-tion findings?

8. Are staff trained in evaluation techniques and proce-dures?

9. Do staff accept evaluation as a necessary managementfunction?

10. What are the most successful aspects of the evaluationprogram?

11. What are the greatest problems with the evaluation pro-gram?

i 2. What changes in the evaluation program are necessary:

a. In the next year?

b. In the next five years?

52 64

Information About The Clearinghouse

ERIC 'IC (the ERIC Clearinghouse fur Junior Colleges) is loated at UCLA. It speializes in informationabout all aspiNts of tw o year ollege edikation. Induded in our olleclion are published and unpublishedmaterials un publi, and private ummurity and Junior olleges, technkal institutes, and two year brandiuniversity k.ampuses. 'These materials ,..over administration, faulty , students, instill, non, urrkula, supportservices, libraries, and community education,

Do.wnent .1u/unit/um. ERIC,'JC akluires researdi reports, program desaiptions. position papers, ,..urrk-ulum guides and other instriktional materials, monographs, unfereike papers and prueedings, projetreports, and other unpublished materials uf value to those interested in two year ullege edikation. Re -

.)earhers. administrators, fa,ulty , and support personnel 1.an assist the dcannghouse by sending two upiesof pertinent inateiials to Anita Colby, Duuments Coordinator. No upy right is held by the Clearinghouse,so authors may reuse the materials for other purposes.

Document Ara:lab:41. Douments ak.,..epted for the ERIC s)stein w ill be annuumed in Resources inEthitationt month!) abstra,t journal available in 4,000 libraries and information enters, The dikaimentswill be filmed on inkrofidie and housed in over 750 libraries across the ountry. Must douuwnts inay alsobe purhased from the ERIC Doument Reproduction Service (EDRS)in InkrufEhe or paper opies.

Journal .'hrt, k Tlw clearinghouse also annotates ankles found in the oie journals uf the field of tw u-yeat olle edikation foi Current Index to Journals in Mutation. au annulated index to over 700 edika-rural periodkals. Citation, to both the lournal ar tkles in Current Wax lo Journals in Edutathm mid theER IC documents in Resources in Educaiwn are computer searchable.

Clearmghoust Publitations. The clearinghouse prodikes several series publkanuns whkh 5> nthemzere:.ent information about the t wu year wIlette field. We will be happy to send you opies of the mostreent putlk.ations in the following series. Junior Collegc Resource R, Tupwal Paper monographs.and Sheets, Also edited and k.uordinat ed at the deaumigliukiNe ak; the Ilunzontal numographi, seriespublblied in onjundion itli AACJCind the Neu Dire, non% Jor Commumt) ('ollegestquarterly pub-lished E) Josse) Bass. Publishers. Ideas and outlines for these pubLations are ekome. Contad GayleByock. Associate Director.

Clearinghouse Sen rtes. Computer seardies are ,onduded at the Llearinghouse and may be tailoted byedu,a howl loel. or a set period of years bemeen 1966 and the present\ search is useful for a

iolew of the literature, a ieseardi tool, onfeien,e progiam des,elopment. plogram or college rote% urdevelopmelit of new teathing and ainkuluin materials, planning, among other things. Fur

se.ndi senkes, information about ERIC tools, and development of resourte pakets for unfereik.es.,ontact Jim Palmer, User Services Librarian.

tIailing tesi ()iii quarter!) Bulletin will keep >La. apprised of clearinghouse attivires and publkatiuns.Write to us and reonve it free. Our address is % Powell Library , University uf California, Lus Angeles, CA.90024, Phone: (213) 825-3931,

ERIC Clelrimnyvise for Junior Colleges

96 Powl!! LUniversity of C3hfornia

Los Angeles, California 90024

JAN 1 4 109

65