Search Reslife.net
		Programming ... it's not just a Model, it's an Art Form By Jen Frost, ACUHO-I Intern Colorado State University It seems clear that all residence life departments promote programming in similar fashions: Assess the needs of the residents (through resident need surveys, incident reports, word of mouth, etc.) Create a brilliant program that addresses these needs Evaluate all aspects of the program to offer suggestions for improvement in the future Unfortunately, it's step 2 where most universities start to differ. Programming models vary as do the demographics of students, the size of the institution, and the philosophy of programming held by the department of residence life. As part of my ACUHO-I internship at Colorado State University, I have researched programming models at colleges and universities nationwide. My exploration of different programming models led me to the conclusion that no two institutions operate in the same manner. There are certain commonalties in theory and in practice, but each programming model offers its own unique benefits to staff members and to residents. What seems to be an over arching question in residence life, the question which also sparked my project, is whether or not it is productive to create programming requirements for RAs. Should RAs have a minimum number of programs to fulfill? Should there be specific categories that must be addressed by programs? At Colorado State University, and many other institutions, there was a concern that assigning RAs numbers and categories created higher numbers of programs, but detrimentally, also programs of a lesser quality. It is thought that if RAs are forced to program to minimum expectations, they have neither the time or room for flexibility to develop creative and impressive programs. However, on the flip side, a RA with no requirements has potential to lose his or her motivation to program. Unfortunately the sad reality is that many staff members will take the idea of open ended requirements to mean they no longer have programming responsibilities. So, how do we find a model that allows RAs some creative freedom, but also produces programs? From the programming models I researched, it seems most residence life departments have realized that their RAs do need some structure to their programming requirements. However, the two schools that I found who do not set specific programming requirements have very similar approaches to programming, both beginning with departmental goals which guide RAs in their programming efforts. Syracuse University for instance, developed five departmental goals that focus on developing strong communities through multiple avenues. It is up to the hall directors to ensure that these goals are being met through one of six different contexts. Next, the department also provides outlined objectives, which signify a successful community and minimum expectations of RAs. The Ohio State University also does not have a centralized programming model as they house numerous living-learning programs on campus. In each building, therefore, the hall director helps the staff maintains their own requirements based on four departmental goals. Despite the innovative programming techniques of SU and OSU, the remainder of the schools I researched do set some type of centralized programming requirements for RAs. It appears from the colleges and universities I researched, that the residence life departments have all taken different approaches to strive for the same educational and respectful living environment for their students. Many schools adhere to models that stem from the traditional wellness model, incorporating programming categories that address each aspect of student wellness. In addition, particular categories, such as diversity and faculty in residence programs, which appeared in nearly every model, clearly supplement the numerous variations of the wellness model. It seems this simple model helps diversify the types of programming in the residence halls and ensures that the RAs are addressing all aspects of their residents' needs. Another approach I found a few departments implementing is the concept of team programming, in place of traditional individual programming. The philosophy behind team programming is to take some responsibility off of RAs individually, and to encourage greater collaboration of their ideas and efforts to create programs of a higher quality. The University of Delaware, for example, has created a programming model including individual RA requirements as well as staff, or team requirements. The University of Arizona has incorporated team programming for specific topical areas that must be addressed to the entire building of residents, such as drugs and alcohol, safety and security and date rape prevention. Indiana University of Pennsylvania provided an excellent test case of team programming when they compared the two programming models they have maintained over the past several years. It appears that while their traditional individual programming model produced 18 more formal programs per semester, their team programming model which focuses on social interactions, generated an extra 48 social interactions per month. This campus wide comparison illustrates that by relaxing programming requirements and allowing staff members to collaborate on programs, the residents benefit from more community development activities. Another common trend in programming models across all residence life departments is intentional programming efforts geared towards the first year experience. Almost every school I researched offers specific guidelines to RAs who will be working with a floor of first year students. Several of these schools, such as Northern Arizona University and Western State College, use some variation of "Six Week Curriculum," a model that concentrates programming for first year students into the first six weeks of their semester. Other departments approach this experience by preparing RAs for the developmental growth and dilemmas that their residents are likely to experience at any given point in the year. By focusing so much attention on residents in their first year, the departments are hoping to prepare students for success in their transition to college, as well as increasing the retention rate of students from freshman to sophomore year. Aside from the first year experience programming model, I was surprised at the otherwise lack of programming models for specific community living options. Ithaca College was one of the only departments I found that offered models geared for the first year experience, multicultural experience, and apartment life experience. These specific programming models help RAs to address the unique needs surrounding students living in special interest housing. I found that many departments operate with some type of a tracking method, or reward system in order to further motivate RAs to complete their programming requirements. Some methods were as simple as periodic programming check points or visual program tracking devices. Other ideas, such as Shippensburg University's "Pride Points" system, operate as a token economy, rewarding RAs with points that can be turned in for prizes, awards and privileges. In working on this programming manual, my goal was simply to research and compile programming models at different departments of residence life. I am grateful I did not have to develop a brand new model for Colorado State University at this point, because my research taught me most importantly that there are countless different programming models that are equally successful. Whether RAs have structured requirements, or more flexibility, program individually or in teams, each department has found a model that works especially well for their department and students. I do however think it's crucially important for schools to continue to reevaluate their programming model, and change if necessary, as the demographics of staff and students continue to change. About the Author Jen Frost is an ACUHO-I Intern at Colorado State University.