The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 2 - 114

Craig W. Beebe * Torry Brouillard-Bruce * Carolyn Golz * Stephen K. Harrison * Shigeo J. Iwamiya

. . . the body of knowledge
organizes competencies within
functional domains, each
containing common sub-domains
denoting levels of complexity
within each . The levels are
designed to build on each other,
so professionals are expected to
master one before moving on
to the next .

institutions received a disproportionately low
degree of attention in the literature, and discussion of competencies for administrators at
two-year institutions was absent altogether.
More recently, College Student Educators
International (ACPA) and Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA)
published their revised statement, Professional
Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators (ACPA & NASPA, 2015). This document
updated the scope of student affairs competencies to include technology, assessment, and
policy, among others. More importantly, this
document established a framework for individual professional competency development,
including a striated set of domains for each of
10 competency areas, describing three levels
of development within each (foundational outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and advanced
outcomes). The document also suggests professional development opportunities for each

114

competency area, highlighting the interconnectedness of individual competency areas to
the holistic development of effective student
affairs administrators.
Nonetheless, as Bloland (1992) noted, a
greater challenge exists for student affairs
administrators in terms of identifying the
set competencies required of administrators
in particular functional areas within student
affairs. Next, we explore the development of
professional competencies specific to college
and university student housing.

EARLY UNDERSTANDINGS OF
COMPETENCIES IN STUDENT
HOUSING
Prior to 1990, there was little research investigating the role of professional competencies
in college and university housing work. The
emphasis in empirical and applied contexts
had been almost exclusively on the general
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of administrators within the student affairs field. However,
in the 1980s student affairs professionals
became increasingly concerned about high
levels of staff attrition within various functional areas. Holmes, Verrier, and Chisolm (1983)
and Burns (1982) each reported increasing
attrition among recent graduates of student
personnel master's programs, reaching 39%
attrition within a decade of entering the field.
Similarly, Bender (1980) found that 31% of
young student affairs staff planned to leave the
field, while 41% were unsure about their future
in student affairs.
Burns (1982) found that the major reasons
student affairs professionals pursued work
outside the field included a poor fit between

T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y St u d e n t H o u s i n g

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 2