Jim Grimm, Past President of ACUHO-I

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Health Sciences Librarians in Michigan: Connecting to Emerging Web 2.0 Technologies INTRODUCTION DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS RESULTS (cont) Web 2.0 technologies.
Advertisements

SCHOOL DISTRICT PALM BEACH COUNTY District Design Criteria DDC.
First-Year Graduate Student Survey INTRODUCTION As part of the Graduate Schools recruitment and retention efforts, a graduate student survey was developed.
Duke Enterprise CMS CGS Meeting 5/7/2004 Cheryl Crupi Senior Manager, Duke OIT Office of Web Services.
Under New Management : Developing a Library Assessment Program at a Small Public University Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable,
Welcome to the Michigan Public Service Commission.
The LibQual+ CUL Assessment Working Group Jeff Carroll Joanna DiPasquale Joel Fine Andy Moore Nick Patterson Jennifer Rutner Chengzhi Wang January.
Findings from Fall 2001 UM.CourseTools Survey Michelle Bejian, UM Media Union Findings from UM.CourseTools Satisfaction Survey Fall 2001.
Now That They Stay, What Next?: Using NSSE Results to Enhance the Impact of the Undergraduate Experience.
1 Distance Learning College Action Project UPDATE – September 22, 2011 Presented by: Eric Kunnen, M.A. Director, Distance Learning and Instructional Technologies.
OVERVIEW OF ClASS METHODS and ACTIVITIES. Session Objectives By the end of the session, participants will be able to: Describe ClASS team composition.
Neil Naftzger Principal Researcher Washington 21st CCLC Evaluation February 2015 Copyright © 20XX American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved.
Forecasting FTES Using a Yield Projection Model Presented at the 2009 RP/CISOA Conference Tahoe City, CA: April 27, 2009 Sam Ballard, Research Analyst.
New Web-Based Course Evaluation Services Available to Schools and Departments Presentation to Faculty Council November 6, 2009.
The Pathway to Success Improve Student Housing Partnering For Success – Initiative 6.
Chapter 13 Survey Designs
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement Using What Faculty Say about Improving Their Teaching Thomas F. Nelson Laird, IUB Jennifer Buckley, IUB Megan Palmer,
Review of SUNY Oneonta Course Evaluation Form Report and Recommendations from The Committee on Instruction: Part II October 4, 2010.
Chapter 13 Survey Designs
Phillip R. Rosenkrantz, Ed.D., P.E. Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Department California State University, Pomona.
T HE R OLE OF I NTERNATIONAL D IVERSITY IN G RADUATE E NGINEERING E DUCATION Advisory Board Meeting (“Research Results So Far and Timeline for Surveys”
Survey Designs EDUC 640- Dr. William M. Bauer
Introduction to eChalk For Teachers. What is eChalk? » eChalk’s unique online learning environment provides your school with its own electronic “town.
Techniques for Improving Student Learning Outcomes Lynn M. Forsythe Ida M. Jones Deborah J. Kemp Craig School of Business California State University,
The Personal Development Plan (PDP)
F LORIDA A TLANTIC U NIVERSITY B OARD OF T RUSTEES.
1 P3 CONNECT July 20, 2015 Jim Tucker Senior Vice President.
Power Point Slides by Ronald J. Shope in collaboration with John W. Creswell Chapter 13 Survey Designs.
Power Point Slides by Ronald J. Shope in collaboration with John W. Creswell Chapter 13 Survey Designs.
1 Assessing and Addressing the Need for Child Psychiatry in NYS Center for Human Services Research and Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors.
1 ACUHO-I Construction & Renovation Survey 2006 Report of Findings Jim Day, University of Georgia Ray Thompson, Partner, MGT Cynthia Parish Balogh, Principal,
Office of Space Planning & Management Developed with mission of: Providing strategic and thoughtful planning Efficient management and utilization of both.
Master Planning Architecture / Engineering / Construction Energy Services ESG by Honeywell City of marshall, Minnesota Marshall Public Schools.
Minnesota’s Electronic Portfolio TM - “efolio” A Statewide Infrastructure NLII Focus Session October 25, 2002 Gary Langer Minnesota State Colleges and.
FAEIS Project User Opinion Survey 2005 Thursday, June 23, 2005 Washington, D.C. H. Dean SutphinYasamin Miller ProfessorDirector, SRI Agriculture & Extension.
European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics (Q2010) 4-6 May 2010, Helsinki, Finland Brancato G., Carbini R., Murgia M., Simeoni G. Istat, Italian.
Corning CC and CCSSE: What We Experienced and How We Handled It Maren N. Hess Director of Institutional Research AIRPO Winter Conference Syracuse – January.
Before & After: What Undergraduates and Alumni Say About Their College Experience and Outcomes Angie L. Miller, NSSE & SNAAP Research Analyst Amber D.
Chapter 12: Survey Designs
California Learning Resource Network Bridget Foster Presentation to Software Publishers July 31, 2000 Bridget Foster Presentation to Software Publishers.
Streamlined NCATE Visits Donna M. Gollnick Senior Vice President, NCATE 2008 AACTE Annual Meeting.
U SING ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES TO GUIDE LIBRARY SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Diane Wahl Beth Avery Annie Downey University of North Texas.
Final Update on the New Faculty Course Evaluation & Online System November, 2003.
Makerere University Outreach Workshop.  Setting goals  Survey design  Key stakeholders  Implementation  Online survey tools  Survey results.
Page 1 Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates’ Employment Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is Needed Presentation.
University Planning: Strategic Communication in Times of Change Cathy A. Fleuriet Ana Lisa Garza Texas State University-San Marcos Presented at the July.
The 2005 ResNet Survey Strategic Comprehensive Relevant David Futey, Stanford University Kevin Guidry, ResNet Applied Research Group October 3, 2005 ©
2013 Participant Public Comment Survey (PCS) Key Results & Findings and 2015 PCS Proposed Changes Presentation to: Nutrition Services Directors Meeting,
FINANCING, DESIGNING, CONSTRUCTING, AND RENOVATING OF FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING PRE-PROPOSAL TOUR AND CONFERENCE FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY.
Industry Advisory Board (IAB) Purpose & Mission and Past Activities.
1 CIS101 Introduction to Computing Week 01 Dr. Catherine Dwyer Information Systems.
Select Slides… Spring 2013 Training Strengthening Teaching and Learning through the Results of Your Student Assessment of Instruction (SAI) For Faculty.
An Introduction to Virginia’s Standards of Learning, Assessments, and Related Resources Provided by the Virginia Department of Education Dr. Linda Wallinger.
0 Renovation Innovations Jim Day, Consultant, MGT Cynthia Parish Balogh, Principal, MGT Mark Cunningham, UC – San Diego Bob Huss, Oklahoma State University.
Copyright © 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All rights reserved. John W. Creswell Educational Research: Planning,
College of Natural Resources Focus on Research Three different departments means three sets of needs and capabilities. Forestry Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
Power Point Slides by Ronald J. Shope in collaboration with John W. Creswell Chapter 13 Survey Designs.
TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAREER TRAINING GRANT (TAACCCT) January 24, 2014, 3 PM ET ROUND 3 GRANT REVIEW.
LibQUAL+ TM Library Survey LIBQUAL+ “ Only customers judge quality – all other measures are irrelevant”
© 2016 University at Buffalo Click Training Agreements Module University at Buffalo Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development.
Wadsworth Community Survey Results March 2008 Mayor Robin Laubaugh, City of Wadsworth Dale Fortner, Superintendent, Wadsworth City Schools Jim Pope, Chief.
1 Welcome! Choose a photo from the table that appeals to you or represents you in some way. Write the answers to the following questions on a 3×5 notecard.
Athletics Certification Orientation
Wadsworth Community Survey Results
BECOMING AN EXPERT IN SURVEY DESIGN By Ghania Zgheib EDIT 732
Click Training Agreements Module
Course Evaluation Ad-Hoc Committee Recommendations
National Student Enrollment Registry
Seattle Preschool Program Technical Assistance Pool
Presentation transcript:

ACUHO-I Construction and Renovation Data: The ''Next Generation'' Survey Jim Grimm, Past President of ACUHO-I Cynthia Parish Balogh, Senior Associate, MGT Ray Thompson, Partner, MGT Kimberly Hardy, Senior Analyst, MGT June 21, 2004

Jim Grimm’s Video

Introduction History of the Survey ACUHO-I and MGT Collaboration Project Goal and Objectives Establish a national data set that is reliable and useful for institutional planning To provide information that CHOs want and need To create a user-friendly electronic survey To produce an easily accessible report

Purpose of Presentation Share results from the study of 284 colleges and universities Obtain feedback for fine-tuning the survey and the process prior to Fall 2005 administration

Process for Administering the Survey

Study Process Develop Online Format for Survey Pilot Test with Expanded Research Advisory Group - 42 Institutions Analyze Pilot Test Data and Report at ACUHO-I Conference and on Web site Revise Survey Instrument and Process Feedback from Pilot Study Participants Feedback from ACUHO-I Conference

Administer Survey Administer Survey to All ACUHO-I Member Institutions in Fall 2003 Initial E-mail to CHOs with Link to Survey and Unique Password Reminder E-mail Analyze Survey Data and Report at 2004 ACUHO-I Conference Produce Final Report for Web site

Survey Instrument

Survey Items Section A: Institutional Characteristics Institutional Type, Size, Control Housing Capacity and Program Information Section B: Facilities Planning Initiatives Projects During Relevant Time Period Projects Planned Within Next Five Years Existence of Campus/Housing Master Plans

Survey Items (cont.) Section C: New Construction Projects Types and Numbers of Units/Beds Gross Square Footage Cost Figures Project and Construction Costs Per SF and Per Bed Costs Calculated Types of Space and Amenities Reasons for New Construction Methods of Funding

Survey Items (cont.) Section D: Renovation Projects Extent of Renovation Types and Numbers of Units/Beds Gross Square Footage Cost Figures Project and Construction Costs Per SF and Per Bed Costs Calculated Types of Space and Amenities Reasons for Renovation Methods of Funding

Survey Items (cont.) Section E: Survey Feedback Length of Time to Complete Survey Assistance from Other Departments Feedback on Questions Other Comments Unit/Floor Plans and Photos New Construction - Plans and Photos Renovation - Before/After Plans

Study Results

Respondents 284 Respondents ~ 30% Response Rate 97% 4-Year, 3% 2-Year Institutions 59% Public, 40% Private, <1% Other Representative of Institutional and Housing Program Size

Institutional Enrollment by On-Campus Housing Capacity

Construction or renovation completed from Fall 2001 through Fall 2003?

Planning to initiate construction or renovation project in next 5 years?

Does your institution have a campus master plan that includes housing?

Do you currently have a separate housing master plan for your institution?

New Construction Findings 88 Institutions Reporting 113 New Construction Projects

What type of living units? (choose all that apply)

Number of Projects by Percent of Units Configured as Single Occupancy Bedroom

Number of Projects by Percent of Units Configured as Double Occupancy Bedroom

Types of space and amenities in facility? Laundry - 80.5% Staff office(s) - 77.9% Staff apartment(s) - 77.9% Lobby - 68.1% Elevator(s) - 68.1% Electronic security system - 66.4% Central lounge - 61.9% Vending area - 60.2% Reception office - 58.4% Kitchen(s) - 52.2% Television room - 49.6% Storage for institution furniture/equipment - 46.9% Floor lounge(s) - 44.2% Recreation/Game room - 43.4% Library/Study - 38.9% BBQ/Picnic area - 37.2% Computer lab - 33.6% Classroom(s) - 30.1% Faculty office(s) - 15.9% Storage for student belongings -15.0% Exercise/Fitness room - 14.2% Cafeteria/Dining facility - 13.3% Volleyball court - 10.6% Faculty apartment(s) - 9.7% Snack bar - 9.7% Convenience store - 9.7% Swimming pool - 8.0% Basketball court - 7.1% Conference/Meeting Room - 3.5%

Types of amenities in unit? Internet access - 92.9% Furniture - 91.2% Air conditioning - 80.5% Carpeting - 79.6% Stove - 64.6% Temperature control in each living unit - 64.6% Telephone Outlet - 64.6% Refrigerator - 61.9% Cable TV service - 58.4% Washer/Dryer in each living unit - 40.7% Microwave - 38.9% Dishwasher - 31.9% Panic button - 19.5%

Project Costs - Adjoining Suite Style Facilities High: $43.0 million Low: $8.1 million Average: $17.7 million Project Cost/GSF High: $226 Low: $108 Average: $156 Project Cost/Bed High: $66,882 Low: $29,809 Average: $43,076 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly adjoining suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Construction Costs - Adjoining Suite Style Facilities High: $40.0 million Low: $5.6 million Average: $15.8 million Construction Cost/GSF High: $185 Low: $88 Average: $135 Construction Cost/Bed High: $64,591 Low: $24,403 Average: $39,143 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly adjoining suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Project Costs - Super Suite Style Facilities High: $38.0 million Low: $4.0 million Average: $23.6 million Project Cost/GSF High: $276 Low: $83 Average: $148 Project Cost/Bed High: $94,763 Low: $33,957 Average: $50,025 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly super suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Construction Costs - Super Suite Style Facilities High: $39.0 million Low: $4.2 million Average: $20.3 million Construction Cost/GSF High: $204 Low: $88 Average: $116 Construction Cost/Bed High: $49,171 Low: $23,733 Average: $42,757 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly super suite facilities not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Project Costs - Apartment Facilities High: $69.0 million Low: $3.0 million Average: $24.4 million Project Cost/GSF High: $490 Low: $52 Average: $151 Project Cost/Bed High: $139,676 Low: $27,728 Average: $52,433 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly apartments and individual contract apartments (or a combination of the two) not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Construction Costs - Apartment Facilities High: $59.0 million Low: $3.4 million Average: $20.3 million Construction Cost/GSF High: $419 Low: $40 Average: $120 Construction Cost/Bed High: $119,433 Low: $19,149 Average: $43,452 Notes: Only includes projects that were strictly apartments and individual contract apartments (or a combination of the two) not in combination with any other type of unit. Only includes projects that provided either Number of Beds or GSF, and either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Are you seeking or did you achieve LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for this project?

Why was this facility built? Choose All That Apply:  Meet demand for additional beds (81%)  Meet the needs and interests of students (81%)  Increase the variety of housing options (63%)  Increase percent of undergrads housed (53%) Primary Reason:  Meet demand for additional beds (48%)

What entity will own the new facility?

What entity will manage the new facility?

When a foundation owns the facility, who manages it?

Method of funding for the project? (choose all that apply)

If debt financed, what entity is responsible for the debt?

98 Institutions Reporting 72 Rehabilitation or Modified Rehabilitation Renovation Findings 98 Institutions Reporting 221 Renovation Projects 72 Rehabilitation or Modified Rehabilitation

Extent of the renovation? (all institutions)

Type of living unit? (Rehab/Modified Rehab ~ choose all that apply)

Project Cost Figures (Rehab/Modified Rehab) High: $22.0 million Low: $24,000 Average: $5.4 million Project Cost/GSF High: $888 Low: $11 Average: $90 Project Cost/Bed High: $109,375 Low: $198 Average: $18,560 Note: Only includes projects that provided either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Construction Cost Figures (Rehab/Modified Rehab) High: $14.9 million Low: $24,000 Average: $4.6 million Construction Cost/GSF High: $259 Low: $13 Average: $64 Construction Cost/Bed High: $91,500 Low: $119 Average: $14,267 Note: Only includes projects that provided either Project Cost or Construction Cost.

Why was this facility renovated? (Rehab/Modified Rehab) Choose All That Apply:  Update facilities (86%)  Meet the needs and interests of students (74%)  Accommodate academic or other special programs (24%)  Provide higher levels of privacy (19%) Primary Reason:  Update facilities (61%)

Method of funding for the project Method of funding for the project? (Rehab/Modified Rehab ~ choose all that apply)

If debt financed, what entity is responsible for the debt If debt financed, what entity is responsible for the debt? (Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Were you able or do you plan to increase the rental rate for this facility? (Rehab/Modified Rehab)

Historical Survey Comparison

Historical Comparison: Average Construction Cost Per Square Foot *This figure does not include two institutions, Clemson University and North Carolina State University.

Historical Comparison: Average Construction Cost Per Bed *This figure does not include two institutions, Clemson University and North Carolina State University. **This figure includes apartments and suites for 1995.

Discussion and Questions

Discussion Data omitted for critical questions Value of comprehensive questionnaire vs. time for completion Other

Acknowledgements

Research Advisory Group Randy Alexander - Iowa State University Dallas Bauman - SUNY at Stony Brook Patrick Bradley - Central Missouri State U. Connie Carson - Wake Forest University Jim Day - University of Georgia Terry Durkin - Old Dominion University Roger Fisher - Texas Christian University Bob Huss - Oklahoma State University Paul Jahr - Georgia College & State U. Jeff Janz - U. of Wisconsin - Whitewater Beth McCuskey - University of Wyoming Rita Moser - Florida State University Ron Sasse - Texas A&M University Craig Schmitt - University of Dayton Christine Smith - Elmhurst College Ken Stoner - University of Kansas Craig Thompson - Boise State University Tim Tiemens - Sonoma State University Jeff Urdahl - University of Southern California Bill Zeller - University of Michigan A Special Thank You to All Survey Participants!

Presenter Contact Information Jim Grimm (352) 332-6862 jcgrimm@bellsouth.net Cynthia Parish Balogh, Ph.D. MGT of America, Inc. (850) 386-3191 cbalogh@mgtamer.com www.mgtamer.com Ray Thompson, Ph.D. MGT of America, Inc. (239) 482-7095 rthompso@mgtamer.com www.mgtamer.com Kimberly Hardy, Ph.D. MGT of America, Inc. (850) 386-3191 khardy@mgtamer.com www.mgtamer.com