The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 37, No. 1 - 67

Public-Private Partnerships for On-Campus Housing

ios, privatization can increase accountability, particularly if contracts and memoranda of understanding are well written (Rasberry, Cooper, & Sanseviro, 2009). There can also be significant challenges. Depending on the model and the relationship among the stakeholders, the institution may have diminished input or input that is filtered through private developers or management. Final decision-making authority may lie solely with the owner, and not the institution. Decisions may be driven more by profit and speed, which can result in minimal code compliance or certain cost-saving measures that may result in long-term facility issues resulting in diminished facility life or increased restoration costs. Particularly when private management is involved in the partnership, students and parents can become easily confused over roles and authority and may engage the wrong parties to resolve certain problems, or they may develop an impression of the institution based on experiences with third-party vendors that may or may not represent the college or university. This potential problem is particularly heightened if separate financial processes exist for managing housing expenses versus other college- or university-related expenses. From a residential education perspective, a significant challenge is often balancing the institution’s desire for student and community development with rigid corporate policies and procedures. College and university employees in student housing are typically trained in student development theory or similar skill sets, while private management training is more likely to mirror off-campus housing management approaches. Depending on how relationships are structured, there may

also be legal implications related to local fair housing laws and information exchange, such as FERPA compliance considerations. As Moore and Ellis (2008) say, “The main flaw of the university’s public-private partnerships has been twofold: the profit motive of partners is often at odds with the university’s goal to take care of student residents, and initial safeguards to protect tenants often either prove insufficient or are forgotten over time” (¶ 7). Coakley (2000) expresses the opinion that “the positive outweighs the negative, when considering this kind of partnership. If an institution needs additional housing and resources are scarce, it may be the only approach that is feasible” (¶ 13). Both the positives and the challenges deserve careful consideration, and a common theme from both the literature and discussions

If an institution needs additional housing and resources are scarce, it may be the only approach that is feasible.” Both the positives and the challenges deserve careful consideration, and a common theme from both the literature and discussions with colleagues is that the key to success is having all the critical stakeholders at the table early and continuously throughout the process.
V o l u m e 3 7 , No. 1 • 2 0 1 0

67
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 37, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 37, No. 1
