This divide impacts the quality of student’s educational experiences, the student affairs profession, and higher education in general and has been a major focus of higher education within the past decade (Jackson & Ebbers, 1999). Spurred by the call for increased accountability and attention to outcomes from legislators, policy makers, and stakeholders, including parents and students alike, higher education has been in the throes of a major transformation in the past decade, with increased attention being given to student learning (ACPA, 1994). This focus on learning has prompted an exploration of the role that student affairs professionals have, or should have, in promoting student learning and has given rise to the third philosophical movement to guide the student affairs profession, the student learning movement. At the core of this exploration of student affair's contribution to student learning is the bridging of the academic-social divide.

The call for collaboration between academic and student affairs divisions has been loud and clear. Postulated in 1994 by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), The Student Learning Imperative (SLI) articulated a set of "assumptions about higher education, student affairs, and student development" (ACPA, 1994, p.2). These assumptions held, for the most part, that student affairs professionals were in a unique position to contribute to the learning and personal development of students and that these contributions are critical to overall institutional effectiveness. Further, the SLI articulated a set of principles reflective of commitment to student learning and personal development. Student affairs divisions that exemplify these principles are characterized as learning oriented (ACPA).

Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs

The SLI laid the groundwork for student affairs to more closely align itself with the primary mission of higher education and direct its purpose toward student learning. As significant as the document was however, it did not explicate how to accomplish these objectives. In an attempt to build on the groundwork laid by the SLI, the ACPA and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), convened a group of leading student affairs professionals to build on the SLI and take the next step—“identifying practices that will move our profession forward in its focus on learning and guide us in meeting the challenges with which we are confronted" (ACPA & NASPA, 1997, p. 1). The result of this collaboration was the 1996 publication of Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs, which described for student affairs practitioners a set of behaviors that exemplified good practice in student affairs:

1. Engaging students in active learning.

2. Helping students develop coherent values and ethical standards.

3. Setting and communicating high expectations for learning.

4. Using systematic inquiry to improve student and institutional performance.

5. Using resources effectively to achieve institutional missions and goals.

6. Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning.

7. Building supportive and inclusive communities. (ACPA & NASPA, pp. 3-4)

Organizational Structure

The issue of the placement of the student affairs division within the institution's overall organizational structure has not gone unnoticed in the examination of the role of student affairs in student learning. Many institutions seek a solution to the academic-social divide by orchestrating an organizational restructuring which results in the consolidation of responsibility for both academic and student affairs (Price, 1999). While there has been an emerging body of literature identifying factors to be considered when undertaking a merger of student and academic affairs (Price), little research exists regarding the efficacy of such a merger.

Colleges utilize a variety of organizational and reporting structures for the administration of student affairs functions. Barr and Desler (2000) note four major models of administrative oversight of student affairs all of which represent a variation of one of two reporting relationships with the college president: either the chief student affairs officer (CSAO) reports directly to the president or they report through another institutional officer (e.g., chief academic affairs officer or provost).

Knapp (1988), in a review of organizational charts of 758 community colleges, junior colleges, technical institutes, and extension centers, described five models of organizational structure within two-year colleges. Four of the models involve the CSAO reporting directly to either the president or the chief executive officer, while the fifth model consolidates administrative responsibility for academic and student affairs with one chief academic officer reporting to the president.

In a more recent review of organizational models for community college student service divisions, Culp notes, "although there appears to be an almost infinite number of ways to organize student services, three basic reporting structures dominate the two-year college" (1995, p. 35). The first model is described by a direct reporting relationship between the CSAO and the president. Culp notes, "many practitioners believe that this reporting structure places student services in a position of influence and equality; others caution that it invites turf building and alienation" (p. 35). A second model, a variation of the first, involves the CSAO reporting to an executive vice-president, generally an academic officer, who reports directly to the president. According to Culp, this model presents "a concern to many practitioners because of the potential to dilute the influence and voice of student services" (p. 35). The third model noted by Culp consolidates academic and student affairs with one person serving as both the dean/vice-president of instruction and student affairs and "although this structure presents unique opportunities for collaboration and coordination, it increases the risk that the interests of student services will become subordinate to those of instruction" (p. 35).

The risks for student affairs professionals associated with an organizational consolidation of academic and student affairs have not gone unnoticed within higher education. In 1994, Commission XI of the ACPA surveyed two-year college presidents and CSAOs to identify "threats and opportunities for student services in the next decade" (Culp, 1995, p. 34). According to Culp, presidents identified three major internal threats to student services: organizational paralysis due to fear of change, backlash from staff unable to adjust to changing clientele or understand the increasing complexity of the two-year college's mission, and inability to compete with the faculty in a meaningful way for dramatically reduced resources" (p. 34). Responding to the same survey, CSAOs indicated a number of threats including "diluting the power of student services by placing it under instruction" (Culp. p. 34). The results of this survey indicate a keen awareness by college presidents of the need for change within student affairs and a correspondent concern from student affairs staff about the implications that this change could have on their professional identity.

Research Methods

The Survey of Organizational Structure, designed to elicit information about the organizational structures utilized at community colleges, was administered as the first phase of a planned study to determine the degree to which community colleges have sought to bridge the academic-social divide with particular attention paid to the placement of student affairs division within the organizational structure of institutions. Specifically, the study will seek to determine if community colleges who have merged academic and student affairs via a consolidated organizational structure demonstrate a higher degree of adherence to the principles of a learning oriented student affairs division than do institutions utilizing a traditional, autonomous organizational structure.

The Survey of Organizational Structure was mailed to the CSAOs of 1057 American Association of Community Colleges public member institutions in April 2003. The survey asked CSAOs to identify the placement of student affairs within the institution’s organizational structure, and the size of their institution (as measured by student FTEs). Institutions who indicated a direct reporting relationship between the CSAO and either the college president or another executive officer (excluding the chief academic officer) were categorized as exemplifying the Traditional model. Institutions who indicated a consolidation of academic and student affairs with either one officer having oversight of both units, or a reporting relationship in which the CSAO reported to the chief academic officer, were classified as exemplifying the Provost model.

Results

A number of surveys were returned as undeliverable and several institutions were eliminated due to incomplete responses, bringing the total number of institutions in the population to 991. A total of 776 usable responses were received, representing a 78% response rate. As indicated in Table 1, the clear majority of institutions, 75% (n=583), indicated utilization of the Traditional model of organizational structure while 25% (n=193), of institutions were organized under the Provost model.

Survey of Organizational Structure Results

Findings did not support initial speculation that institution size influenced the organizational model utilized. It had been speculated that smaller institutions would report higher usage of the Provost model, consolidating academic and student affairs for budgetary purposes. However, as shown in Table 2, results indicated that the percentage of institutions utilizing each model was consistent across institution size and mirrored the utilization rate of each model in general. That is, 75% of schools in each size range utilized the Traditional model, while 25% of schools in each size range were organized under the Provost model. Thus, institutional size did not appear to influence organizational structure.

Prevalence of Organizational Model by Institution Size

Comparing the results to Knapp’s 1988 study of community college organizational structures, the predominant organizational model continues to be characterized by autonomous student affairs and academic affairs units – defined as the Traditional model in this study. Knapp reported that 91% of two-year colleges were organized under one of four models in which academic affairs and student affairs units were autonomous and maintained separate reporting functions. However, significant differences are noted in the number of institutions that have organized under the Provost model, consolidating academic and student affairs. In Knapp’s study, (1988) only 68 of 758 two-year colleges, 9%, were organized under this model, compared to 193 of 776 institutions, 25%, who currently reported use of this model.

Reporting Relationship

Of those CSAOs reporting an organizational structure characterized by autonomous student affairs and academic affairs units, 92% (n=536) indicated a direct reporting relationship to the college president, or in the case of a branch campus, the executive campus officer. The remaining 8% of respondents (n=47) indicated a reporting relationship to someone other than the president or chief academic officer as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Title of officer to whom CSAO reports/number of institutions utilizing this reporting relationship.

Conclusion

The predominant organizational structure utilized by student affairs divisions at public community colleges is a Traditional model, characterized by autonomous student affairs and academic affairs units with 75% of respondent community colleges organized under this model. An organizational structure consolidating student affairs and academic affairs, the Provost model, was reported by 25% of institutions. Organizational structure does not appear to be influenced by institution size with both models of organizational structure evenly distributed across institution size.

In comparing the findings of this survey to one conducted in 1988, the predominant model continues to be characterized by autonomous student affairs and academic affairs units, however, current use of the Provost model is considerably higher than reported in 1988, with 25% of institutions currently organized under this model compared to only 9% in 1988.

Within institutions organized under the Traditional model the clear majority, 92%, of CSAOs indicated a direct reporting relationship to the college president or campus executive officer, while a small number, 8%, report to an officer other than the president or chief academic officer, generally a senior vice-president.

Findings seem to indicate an attempt by community colleges to bridge the academic-social divide by means of an organizational model that more closely ties student affairs to the learning function of the college vis-à-vis an administrative consolidation of student affairs and academic affairs.

References

American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author.

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1997). The principles of good practice for student affairs. Washington, DC: Authors.

Barr, M. J. &, Desler, M. K. (Eds.). (2000). The Handbook of student affairs administration (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Culp, M. M. (1995). Organizing for student success. New Directions for Student Services, 69, 33-44.

Jackson, J. F. L., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). Bridging the academic-social divide: Academic and student affairs collaboration. College Student Journal, 33, 380- 383. Retrieved February 15, 2002 from Expanded Academic ASAP database.

Knapp, S. E. (1988). Formal organizational structure in two-year colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 07A. (UMI No. 8818807)

Price, J. (1999). Merging with academic affairs: A promotion or demotion for student affairs? New Directions for Student Services, 87, 75 - 83. Retrieved February 15, 2002 from Expanded Academic ASAP database.