I. History and Mission of the Survey
The SCSU Survey is an ongoing survey research extension of the Social
Science Research Institute in the College of Social Sciences at St. Cloud State
University. The SCSU Survey performs
its research in the form of telephone interviews. Telephone surveys are but one of the many types of research
employed by researchers to collect data randomly. The telephone survey is now the instrument of choice for a
growing number of researchers.
Dr. Steve Frank began the SCSU
Survey in 1980 conducting several omnibus surveys a year of central Minnesota
adults in conjunction with his Political Science classes. The SCSU Survey conducts its statewide
omnibus survey once a year. In addition
to questions focusing on the research of the faculty directors, clients can buy
into the survey or contract for specialized surveys.
Presently, the omnibus
surveys have continued, but have shifted to a primary statewide focus. These statewide surveys are conducted once a
year in the fall and focus on statewide issues such as election races, current
events, and other important issues that are present in the state of
Minnesota. Besides the annual fall
survey, the SCSU Survey conducts an annual spring survey of SCSU students on
various issues such as campus safety, alcohol and drug use, race, etc. Lastly, the SCSU Survey conducts contract
surveys for various public and private sector clients. The Survey provides a useful service for the
people and institutions of the State of Minnesota by furnishing valid data of
the opinions, behaviors, and characteristics of adult Minnesotans.
The primary mission of the
SCSU Survey is to serve the academic community and various clients through its
commitment to high quality survey research and to provide education and experiential
opportunities to researchers and students.
The directors of the SCSU Survey strive to assure that all SCSU students
and faculty directors contribute to the research process, as all are essential
in making a research project successful.
This success is measured by our ability to obtain high quality survey
data that is timely, accurate, and reliable while maintaining an environment
that promotes the professional and personal growth of each staff member. The survey procedures used by the SCSU Survey
adhere to the highest quality academic standards. The SCSU Survey maintains the highest ethical standards in its
procedures and methods. Both faculty
and student directors demonstrate integrity and respect for dignity in all
interactions with colleagues, clients, researchers, and survey participants.
II. Survey Staff
The Survey’s faculty directors
are Dr. Steve Frank (SCSU Professor of Political Science), Dr. Steven Wagner
(SCSU Associate Professor of Public and Non-Profit Administration) and Dr. Michelle
Kukoleca Hammes (SCSU Assistant Professor of Political Science). The faculty directors are members of the
Midwest Association Of Public Opinion Research (M.A.P.O.R.) and the American
Association Of Public Opinion Research (A.A.P.O.R.). The directors subscribe to
the code of ethics of A.A.P.O.R.
Stephen I. Frank
Dr. Frank holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political
Science from Washington State University.
Dr. Frank teaches courses in American Politics, Public Opinion and
Research Methods at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Frank started the SCSU Survey in 1980 and has played a major
role in the development, administration and analysis of over 150 telephone
surveys for local and state governments, school districts, and a variety of
nonprofit agencies. Dr. Frank has
completed extensive postgraduate work in survey research at the University of
Michigan. Dr. Frank recently coauthored
with Dr. Wagner and published by Harcourt College Press, “We Shocked the World!” A Case
Study of Jesse Ventura’s Election as Governor of Minnesota, Revised Edition. Dr. Frank serves the SCSU Department of
Political Science as it chairperson.
Steven C. Wagner
Dr. Wagner holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political
Science and a Master of Public Administration from Northern Illinois
University. Dr. Wagner earned his
Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Illinois State University. Dr. Wagner teaches courses in American
Politics and Public and Nonprofit Management at St. Cloud State
University. Dr. Wagner joined the SCSU
Survey in 1997. Before coming to SCSU,
Dr. Wagner taught in Kansas where he engaged in community-based survey research
and before that was staff researcher for the U.S. General Accounting Office. Dr. Wagner has written many papers on
taxation, health care delivery and state politics and has published articles on
voting behavior, federal funding of local services and organizational decision
making. Dr. Wagner, with Dr. Frank,
recently completed a second text on Minnesota’s Governor, Jesse Ventura.
Michelle K. Hammes
Dr. Kukoleca Hammes holds a Doctor of Philosophy in
Political Science and a Masters in Political Science from the State University
of New York at Binghamton. Dr. Kukoleca
Hammes earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Niagara
University. Kr. Kukoleca Hammes’ is a
comparativist with an area focus on North America and Western Europe. Her substantive focus is representative
governmental institutions. She teaches
courses in American Government, Introduction to Ideas and Institutions, Western
European Politics, and a Capstone in Political Science at St. Cloud State
University. Dr. Kukoleca Hammes has
recently joined the survey team and will be using her extensive graduate school
training in political methodology to aid in questionnaire construction and
results analysis.
Ms. Laurie Hoogeveen and Ms.
Angela Jabs serve as senior supervising student director. Other student
directors are Ms. Tesha Peterson, Ms. Marisol Rodriguez, Mr Dave Lundy, Ms.
Renate Schultz, Ms. Julie Herbst, Mr. Jason Lunser, Ms. Ginger Becker and Mr.
Paul Ben-Yehuda. Mr. Tim Claason
provides network and software technical support to the survey laboratory.
After five or more hours of
training and screening, approximately 20 SCSU students completed the calling. Under the director of Drs. Frank, Wagner and
Kukoleca Hammes, Ms. Hoogeveen and Ms. Jabs trained all callers and supervised
all calling. These students serve the
SCSU Survey as student directors and, in addition to supervising the lab for
client-centered surveys, perform similar functions for the fall omnibus survey
and spring student survey.
III. Methodology
The SCSU Survey
operates the CATI Lab in Stewart Hall 324.
The CATI Lab, which stands for Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing Lab, is equipped with 13 interviewer stations that each
includes a computer, a phone, and a headset.
In addition to the interviewer stations, there is the Supervisor
Station, which is used to monitor the survey while it is in progress. The SCSU
Survey has its own server designated solely for the use of the SCSU
Survey.
The SCSU Survey is licensed to use Sawtooth Software’s Ci3
Questionnaire Authoring Version 4.1, a state-of-the-art windows-based
computer-assisted interviewing package.
This program allow us to develop virtually any type of questionnaire
while at the same time programming edit and consistency checks and other
quality control measures to insure the most valid data. Interviewing with Ci3 offers many advantages:
Complete control of what the interviewer sees;
Automatic skip or branch patterns based on previous
answers, combinations of answers, or even mathematical computations performed
on answers;
Randomization of response categories or question order;
Customized questionnaires using respondents’ previous
responses, and,
Incorporation of data from the sample directly into the
sample database.
In addition, all interview stations are networked for
complete, ongoing sample management.
Sawtooth Software’s Ci3 allows immediate data updating, ensuring maximum
data integrity and allowing clients to get progress reports anytime. The Survey directors are able the review
data for quality and consistency.
Question answers are entered directly into the computer, thus
keypunching is eliminated, which decreases human error and facilitates
immediate data analysis. The calling
system is programmed to store call record keeping automatically, allowing
interviewers and supervisors to focus on the interviewing task. Callbacks are programmed through the
computer network and made on a schedule.
Each number is called ten times.
Interrupted surveys are easily completed. Persons who are willing to be interviewed can do so when it is
convenient to them, improving the quality of their responses.
Calls were made at various times during the week (Monday
through Thursday, 4:30 to 9:30) and on Sunday afternoon and evening to maximize
contacts and ensure equal opportunities to respond among various demographic
groups. The calling system maintains
full and detailed records, including the number of attempts made to each number
and the disposition of each attempt.
Initial refusals were contacted and many were converted to
completions. Most of the calling for
students was done between the hours of 2:00 pm and 9:30 pm.
Pretesting of the two survey instruments was conducted on
Sunday, December 1, 2002. Calling
commenced after adjustments were made to several questions. Calling concluded on Thursday, December 5,
2002 for both the parking and housing questionnaires.
We were asked to execute the surveys the middle of
November. SCSU Survey faculty directors
wrote the parking questions from concepts provided by Mr. Steve Ludwig, interim
vice president of administrative affairs.
A consultation firm prepared the housing questions engaged by SCSU to
analyze housing preferences among SCSU students.
Several steps were taken to
ensure that the telephone sample of SCSU faculty, staff and students was
representative of the larger faculty, staff and student population. Two samples were drawn. One sample is of students and the second is
of combined faculty and staff. The
Minnesota State College and University (MnSCU) Regional Center constructed both
samples. The survey was pre-tested
Sunday, December 1. Adjustments were
made to several questions based on pre-testing.
Student sample
The sample was comprised of
1,400 currently enrolled students who had a telephone anywhere in the state of
Minnesota. Our interest was to
interview a minimum of 400 (we currently active full and part time
students. In order to reach hard-to-get
respondents each number was called up to ten times over different days and
times and appointments made as necessary to interview the designated respondent
at her/his convenience. Most calling of
students was conducted after 4:30 pm.
The sample consists of 502
respondents. However, weighting the
sample was necessary and that lowered the sample size to 501. Weighting was conducted for gender and place
of residence. In samples of 501
interviews, the sample error due to sampling and other random effects is
approximately plus/minus four percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This
means that if one were to have drawn 20 samples of the student population and
administered the same instrument it would be expected that the overall findings
would be greater/lesser than four percent only one time in twenty. There are other possible sources of error in
all surveys but precise estimates are not calculated. These include interviewer
and coder error, respondent misinterpretation, and analysis errors. When analysis is made of sub-samples such as
respondents who are live in university residence halls or when the sample is
broken down by variables such as gender the sample error may be larger.
The demographics of the sample
match know characteristics of the student population very well but weighting
was necessary for gender and place of residence to align the sample with the
population. The ratio of male to female
respondents obtained during interviewing was 65 percent female and 35 percent
male, while the ratio in the student population is 56 percent female and 44
percent male. The ratio of dorm
resident obtained during interviewing is 33 percent, while 20 percent of SCSU
students reside in campus residency halls.
Thus, weighting of dorm residence was necessary to obtain a sample
matching the student population regarding gender and place of residence.
The cooperation rate of the
survey was 95 percent. A cooperation rate of 95 percent is 45
percentage points above the average for professional marketing firms. Cooperation rate means that once we reached
an eligible respondent, more than nine of ten respondents agreed to participate
in the survey.
The total questionnaire
consists of 55 questions, with 12 devoted to parking issues. Respondent gender, place of residence, year
of birth, ethnic status, citizenship and class standing were imported from the
database. Of the 55 questions, 12 are
reported herein and 43 are included in a separate report. The complete questionnaire is viewable by
going to the SCSU Survey web site and following the links to the SCSU student,
faculty and staff 2002 parking and housing survey.
The faculty directors would
like to thank Steven Ludwig for always being available to answer our questions
while we developed the questionnaire and tested it. He was instrumental in obtaining demographic information on both
student and faculty-staff population characteristics. That data allowed us to access the match between the sample and
the population.
The faculty directors would
also like to thank Dr. David Robinson, Chair of the SCSU Department of
Statistics. Dr. Robinson assisted us in
weighting the student sample for both gender and place of residence. It is common for us to weight for one factor
but weighting for two factors was new to us and Dr. Robinson taught us how to
weight two factors. We would also like
to thank David Kosel of the Center for Information Systems, who generated the
student and faculty and staff samples.
Simply put, we would not have been able to complete this project with
out the assistance of Vice President Ludwig, Professor Robinson and David
Kosel.
|
Table 1:
Calling Record
|
|
Disposition
Record
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
|
Completed Calls
|
502
|
35
|
|
Not Eligible - Respondent not available during the
period of the study, language problems, hearing problems, illness, etc.
|
11
|
1
|
|
Callbacks - Appointments made but contact could not be
made with designated respondent.
|
301
|
21
|
|
Refusals - Attempt to re-contact and convert refusals to
a completion was made for 69 of the refusals.
|
28
|
2
|
|
Answering Machine - Live contact could not be made even
after nine calls.
|
124
|
9
|
|
No Answers - Probable non-working numbers but some may
be households on vacation, etc.
|
199
|
14
|
|
Fax/Modem
|
22
|
2
|
|
Busy
|
13
|
1
|
|
Business
|
16
|
1
|
|
Call Blocking
|
11
|
1
|
|
No longer at student
|
10
|
|
|
No longer resident at phone number, new number not
available
|
152
|
11
|
|
.Partial Interview-not completed
|
11
|
1
|
|
Total Calls Placed
|
1400
|
100
|
IV. Summary of Substantive
Findings
Table 2 shows that about 80% of
the respondents to the survey live off campus while 20% of the respondents live
on campus. Regardless of whether the student lives on or off campus, we started
by asking a series of questions about housing preferences for living on campus.
Tables 3-6 and Figures 2-5 show that there is a definite change in student
attitudes about living accommodations as they spend more time in school. Students indicate more willingness as
Freshmen to live in a dorm setting and share a room. Seniors are more likely to want to move to an off campus
apartment setting. In fact, respondents
only seem to show a desire to live on campus during Freshman year. A full 96% of the respondents show a desire
to live off campus in their senior year.
Similar results can be seen for
questions regarding whether students wanted to or would be willing to share a
bedroom. As seen in Tables 7-10 and
Figures 6-9, respondents were most willing to share a bedroom as Freshmen and
Sophomores. When asked what their
preference would be as a junior or senior, and overwhelming majority of
respondents were unwilling to share a bedroom at that stage.
Students were also asked a
series of questions about amenities that were important to them. The full breakdown of statistics for these
questions can be found in Tables 11-23 and in figures 10-22. A quick ranking of the importance of the
thirteen amenities asked about was achieved by adding together the scores for
very important, somewhat important, and important categories and ordering them
as follows:
1) Computer
Lab 94%
2) Proximity
to Academic Buildings 93%
3) Proximity
to Food Services 91%
4) Same
Floor Laundry Facilities 86%
5) Air
Conditioning 85%
6) Common
Kitchen 85%
7) Small
Group Study Rooms 83%
8) Quiet
Lounge Space 79%
9) Proximity
to Other Campus Services 78%
10) Proximity to Intramural and Intercollegiate
Athletic Facilities 71%
11) Fitness/Weight Room 69%
12) TV/Game Room 67%
13) Vending Machines 65%
We can also look just at the
very important category in order to gauge the saliency of the issue. The rankings for very important are as
follows:
1) Compute
Lab 66%
2) Same
Floor Laundry Facilities 47%
3) Proximity
to Academic Buildings 38%
4) Air
Conditioning 36%
5) Proximity
to Food Services 30%
6) Common
Kitchen 23%
7) Quiet
Lounge Space 22%
8) Small
Group Study Room 21%
9) Fitness/Weight
Room 16%
10) Proximity to Intramural and Intercollegiate
Athletic Facilities 12%
11) TV/Game Room 11%
12) Vending Machines 11%
13) Proximity to Other
Campus Services 8%
When asked how long they might want to live on campus
given a full range of housing options, the plurality of respondents (44% as
indicated in Table 24 and Figure 23) said two years. However, with this type of housing available 19% indicated that
they would like to live on campus for four years. When asked whether they would consider staying on campus in an
apartment or suite a majority of respondents (indicated in Table 25 and Figure
24) indicated that they would live on campus in this type of housing or they
would consider it. In addition, most
students indicated that they would be willing to pay a small premium to be able
to have their own bedroom. As shown in
Table 27 and Figure 26, 46% of students indicated that they would pay 10% more
in rent to have their own room while and additional 29% indicated that they
would pay 20% more in rent to not share a bedroom. When asked how many roommates a person would ideally like to
have, the most common answers (found in Table 28 and Figure 27) were three
roommates with 36% and four roommates with 32%. Sharing a bathroom was less clear. There was not clear preference of sharing a bathroom with one,
two, three, or four persons.
Interestingly, as can be seen in Table 29 and Figure 28, only 5% on the
respondents indicated a preference to have their own bathroom. Students were also split on whether they
wanted to have a room/apartment that was furnished or unfurnished. As seen in Table 30 and Figure 29, 47% of
the respondents said that they wanted a furnished room while 48% said that they
preferred a furnished room.
V. Substantive Questions
|
Table
2:
Student
Respondents- Place of Residence
|
|
“Place of residence was imported from the data base”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
On Campus
|
101
|
20
|
|
Off
Campus
|
100
|
80
|
|
Total
|
501
|
100
|
Figure
1: Student Respondents- Place of Residence
The
following passage was read to each respondent as an introduction and instruction
to the next four questions.
For each of
the next few questions please put yourself in the position of a student in the
year of study that I mention.
|
Table
3:
Preferred
Residence Type as a Freshman
|
|
“As a freshman, what would be your preference of housing unit type,
assuming that all types were available?
Would you prefer to live in a residence hall single room, a residence
hall double room, a residence hall suite, or on-campus apartment, or an off
campus apartment?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Residence Hall-Single Room
|
50
|
10
|
|
Residence
Hall-Double Room
|
242
|
49
|
|
Residence
Hall-Suite
|
62
|
12
|
|
On Campus
Apartment
|
75
|
15
|
|
Off
Campus Apartment
|
60
|
12
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
10
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
2: Preferred Residence Type as a Freshman
|
Table
4:
Preferred Residence Type as a Sophomore
|
|
“As a sophomore, what would be your preference of housing unit type,
assuming that all types were available?
Would you prefer to live in a residence hall single room, a residence
hall double room, a residence hall suite, or on-campus apartment, or an off
campus apartment?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Residence Hall-Single Room
|
41
|
8
|
|
Residence
Hall-Double Room
|
49
|
10
|
|
Residence
Hall-Suite
|
61
|
12
|
|
On Campus
Apartment
|
115
|
23
|
|
Off
Campus Apartment
|
225
|
45
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
3: Preferred Residence Type as a Sophomore
|
Table
5:
Preferred
Residence Type as a Junior
|
|
“As a junior, what would be your preference of housing unit type,
assuming that all types were available?
Would you prefer to live in a residence hall single room, a residence
hall double room, a residence hall suite, or on-campus apartment, or an off
campus apartment?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Residence Hall-Single Room
|
19
|
4
|
|
Residence
Hall-Double Room
|
3
|
1
|
|
Residence
Hall-Suite
|
16
|
3
|
|
On Campus
Apartment
|
74
|
15
|
|
Off
Campus Apartment
|
379
|
75
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
4: Preferred Residence Type as a Junior
|
Table
6:
Preferred
Residence Type as a Senior
|
|
“As a senior, what would be your preference of housing unit type,
assuming that all types were available?
Would you prefer to live in a residence hall single room, a residence
hall double room, a residence hall suite, or on-campus apartment, or an off
campus apartment?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Residence Hall-Single Room
|
16
|
3
|
|
Residence
Hall-Double Room
|
1
|
0
|
|
Residence
Hall-Suite
|
5
|
1
|
|
On Campus
Apartment
|
42
|
9
|
|
Off
Campus Apartment
|
428
|
86
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
7
|
1
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
5: Preferred Residence Type as a Senior
The
following passage was read to each respondent as an introduction and
introduction to the next four questions.
Again, for each of the next few questions please put
yourself in the position of a student in the year of study that I mention. Please select the response that most closely
matches your view with respect to sharing a bedroom with one other person.
|
Table
7:
Preferred
Bedroom Type as a Freshman
|
|
“As a freshman, would you prefer to share a bedroom, would you be
willing to share a bedroom, or would you not want to share a bedroom?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Prefer to Share a Bedroom
|
122
|
25
|
|
Willing
to Share a Bedroom
|
288
|
57
|
|
Would Not
Share a Bedroom
|
79
|
16
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
9
|
2
|
|
Total
|
498
|
100
|
Figure
6: Preferred Bedroom Type as a Freshman
|
Table
8:
Preferred
Bedroom Type as a Sophomore
|
|
“As a sophomore, would you prefer to share a bedroom, would you be
willing to share a bedroom, or would you not want to share a bedroom?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Prefer to Share a Bedroom
|
38
|
8
|
|
Willing
to Share a Bedroom
|
239
|
48
|
|
Would Not
Share a Bedroom
|
215
|
43
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
6
|
1
|
|
Total
|
498
|
100
|
Figure
7: Preferred Bedroom Type as a Sophomore
|
Table
9:
Preferred
Bedroom Type as a Junior
|
|
“As a junior, would you prefer to share a bedroom, would you be willing
to share a bedroom, or would you not want to share a bedroom?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Prefer to Share a Bedroom
|
17
|
3
|
|
Willing
to Share a Bedroom
|
86
|
18
|
|
Would Not
Share a Bedroom
|
389
|
78
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
6
|
1
|
|
Total
|
498
|
100
|
Figure
8: Preferred Bedroom Type as a Junior
|
Table
10:
Preferred
Bedroom Type as a Senior
|
|
“As a senior, would you prefer to share a bedroom, would you be willing
to share a bedroom, or would you not want to share a bedroom?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Prefer to Share a Bedroom
|
17
|
3
|
|
Willing
to Share a Bedroom
|
57
|
12
|
|
Would Not
Share a Bedroom
|
418
|
84
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
6
|
1
|
|
Total
|
498
|
100
|
Figure
9: Preferred Bedroom Type as a Senior
The
following passage was read to each respondent as an introduction and introduction
to the next 13 questions.
For the next set of questions, I am going to ask you to rate
some features of on-campus housing as to how important they are to you
personally. If you don’t currently live
on campus, please imagine that you do and rate each feature accordingly.
|
Table
11:
Small
Group Study Rooms
|
|
“The first is small group study rooms.
Do you find this feature very important, somewhat important,
important, not very important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
103
|
21
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
193
|
38
|
|
Important
|
123
|
24
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
57
|
12
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
15
|
3
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
10: Importance of Small Group Study Rooms
|
Table
12:
Computer
Lab
|
|
“Next is a computer lab. Do you
find this feature very important, somewhat important, important, not very
important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
329
|
66
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
61
|
12
|
|
Important
|
79
|
16
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
20
|
4
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
2
|
0
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
7
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
11: Importance of Computer Labs
Table
13:
Quite
Lounge Space
|
|
“Next is an informal quite lounge space. Do you find this feature very important, somewhat important,
important, not very important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
108
|
22
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
183
|
37
|
|
Important
|
101
|
20
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
88
|
18
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
12
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
7
|
1
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
12: Importance of Quiet Lounge Space
|
Table
14:
TV-Game
Room
|
|
“Next is a TV-Game room. Do you
find this feature very important, somewhat important, important, not very
important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
57
|
11
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
165
|
33
|
|
Important
|
116
|
23
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
137
|
28
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
19
|
4
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
5
|
1
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
13: Importance of TV-Game Room
|
Table
15:
Common
Kitchen
|
|
“Next is a common kitchen. Do
you find this feature very important, somewhat important, important, not very
important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
112
|
23
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
148
|
30
|
|
Important
|
160
|
32
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
56
|
11
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
15
|
3
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
7
|
1
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
14: Importance of Common Kitchen
|
Table
16:
Fitness-Weight
Room
|
|
“Next is a fitness-weight room.
Do you find this feature very important, somewhat important,
important, not very important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
81
|
16
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
141
|
28
|
|
Important
|
125
|
25
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
116
|
23
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
28
|
6
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
15: Importance of a Fitness-Weight Room
|
Table
17:
Same
Floor Laundry Facility
|
|
“Next is a same floor laundry facility. Do you find this feature very important, somewhat important,
important, not very important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
241
|
47
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
87
|
18
|
|
Important
|
105
|
21
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
48
|
10
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
8
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
16: Importance of Same Floor Laundry Facilities
|
Table
18:
Vending
Machines
|
|
“Next is vending machines. Do
you find this feature very important, somewhat important, important, not very
important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
55
|
11
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
148
|
30
|
|
Important
|
122
|
24
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
147
|
30
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
21
|
4
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
6
|
1
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
16: Importance of Vending Machines
|
Table
19:
Air
Conditioning
|
|
“Next is air conditioning. Do
you find this feature very important, somewhat important, important, not very
important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
184
|
36
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
132
|
26
|
|
Important
|
114
|
23
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
52
|
11
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
8
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
18: Importance of Air Conditioning
|
Table
20:
Proximity
to Academic Buildings
|
|
“Next is proximity to academic buildings. Do you find this feature very important, somewhat important,
important, not very important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
191
|
38
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
138
|
28
|
|
Important
|
135
|
27
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
26
|
5
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
2
|
0
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
499
|
100
|
Figure
19: Importance of Proximity to Academic Buildings
|
Table
21:
Proximity
to Dining and Food Services
|
|
“Next is proximity to dining and food services. Do you find this feature very important,
somewhat important, important, not very important or not at all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
151
|
30
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
150
|
30
|
|
Important
|
156
|
31
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
30
|
6
|
|
Not At All
Important
|
4
|
1
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
7
|
2
|
|
Total
|
497
|
100
|
Figure
20: Importance of Proximity to Dining and Food Services
|
Table
22:
Proximity
to Intramural and Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities
|
|
“Next proximity to intramural and intercollegiate athletic
facilities. Do you find this feature
very important, somewhat important, important, not very important or not at
all important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
59
|
12
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
183
|
37
|
|
Important
|
111
|
22
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
110
|
22
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
26
|
5
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
497
|
100
|
Figure
21: Importance of Proximity to Intramural and Intercollegiate Athletic
Facilities
|
Table
23:
Proximity
to Other Campus Services
|
|
“Next is proximity to other campus services, amenities and retail
spots. Do you find this feature very
important, somewhat important, important, not very important or not at all
important?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Very Important
|
42
|
8
|
|
Somewhat
Important
|
189
|
39
|
|
Important
|
156
|
31
|
|
Not Very
Important
|
92
|
18
|
|
Not At
All Important
|
9
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
10
|
2
|
|
Total
|
497
|
100
|
Figure
22: Importance of Proximity to Other Campus Services
|
Table
24:
Years
You Would Want to Live On-Campus
|
|
“Ideally, if there was an adequate supply of different types of housing
options on campus, for example singles, doubles, suites, apartments, how many
years would you want to live on-campus?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
One Year
|
96
|
20
|
|
Two Years
|
219
|
44
|
|
Three
Years
|
63
|
13
|
|
Four
Years
|
94
|
19
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
19
|
4
|
|
Total
|
491
|
100
|
Figure
23: Years You Would Want to Live On Campus
The
following passage was read to each respondent as an introduction and
introduction to the next six questions.
Now I would like to ask a few questions regarding the
possibility of having suites and/or apartment style housing developed on
campus.
|
Table
25:
On or
Off-Campus Housing Preference
|
|
“Which statement most accurately describes your interest in such
housing? Would you say that you would
definitely live there, you would strongly consider it, you might consider it
but would likely live off-campus, you would not be interested in living
there?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Definitely Live There
|
43
|
9
|
|
Strongly
Consider It
|
203
|
40
|
|
Might
Consider It But Likely Live Off Campus
|
188
|
38
|
|
Not
Interested in Living There
|
48
|
10
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
12
|
3
|
|
Total
|
495
|
100
|
Figure
24: On or Off-Campus Housing Preference
|
Table
26:
Willing
to Pay
|
|
“What would you individually be willing to pay on the basis of a
monthly equivalent rent for this type of housing?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
$250 or under
|
120
|
24
|
|
$251 to
$300
|
165
|
32
|
|
$301 to
$250
|
98
|
20
|
|
$351 to
$400
|
34
|
7
|
|
$401 to
$450
|
17
|
4
|
|
$451 to
$500
|
7
|
2
|
|
$501 to
$550
|
8
|
2
|
|
$551 to
$600
|
5
|
1
|
|
$601 to
$650
|
0
|
0
|
|
$651 to
$700
|
2
|
0
|
|
Over $700
|
2
|
0
|
|
I Don’t
Currently Pay Rent
|
8
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
28
|
6
|
|
Total
|
493
|
100
|
Figure
25: Willing to Pay
|
Table
27:
Premium
for Own Bedroom
|
|
“What premium would you pay, per month, for having your own
bedroom? Would you pay 10% over your
rent, 15% over, 20% or 25% over?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
10%
|
226
|
46
|
|
15%
|
143
|
29
|
|
20%
|
63
|
13
|
|
25%
|
35
|
7
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
23
|
5
|
|
Total
|
489
|
100
|
Figure
26: Premium for Own Bedroom
|
Table
28:
Preferred
Number of Roommates
|
|
“How many other people would you be willing to live with in your
unit? Would you be willing to live
with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or more than 6 other persons in your unit?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
0 (volunteered) or 1
|
36
|
7
|
|
2
|
63
|
13
|
|
3
|
176
|
36
|
|
4
|
158
|
32
|
|
5
|
18
|
4
|
|
6
|
17
|
3
|
|
More than
6
|
12
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
12
|
3
|
|
Total
|
493
|
100
|
Figure
27: Preferred Number of Roommates
|
Table
29:
Preferred
Number of to Share Bathroom
|
|
“How many other people would you be willing to share a bathroom? Would you be willing to share the bathroom
with 1, 2, 3, or 4 other people?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
1
|
96
|
19
|
|
2
|
139
|
27
|
|
3
|
118
|
24
|
|
4
|
111
|
23
|
|
0 (no
other people)
|
22
|
5
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
8
|
2
|
|
Total
|
495
|
100
|
Figure
28: Preferred Number of to Share Bathroom
|
Table
30:
Furnished
vs. Unfurnished
|
|
“Do you prefer the unit to be furnished or unfurnished?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
Furnished
|
235
|
47
|
|
Unfurnished
|
239
|
48
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
21
|
5
|
|
Total
|
495
|
100
|
Figure
29: Furnished vs. Unfurnished
On-campus
respondents concluded the survey with the previous question. Respondents who live off campus are asked
the remaining questions.
|
Table
31:
Currently
Pay for Housing
|
|
“How much do you now individually pay for housing on a
monthly-equivalent basis, not including utilities, such as gas, electric,
water?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
$250 or under
|
71
|
18
|
|
$251 to
$300
|
98
|
25
|
|
$301 to
$250
|
60
|
16
|
|
$351 to
$400
|
11
|
3
|
|
$401 to
$450
|
15
|
4
|
|
$451 to
$500
|
13
|
4
|
|
$501 to
$550
|
16
|
4
|
|
$551 to
$600
|
6
|
2
|
|
$601 to
$650
|
7
|
2
|
|
$651 to
$700
|
4
|
1
|
|
Over $700
|
29
|
8
|
|
I Don’t
Currently Pay Rent
|
40
|
11
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
7
|
2
|
|
Total
|
376
|
100
|
Figure
30: Currently Pay for Housing
|
Table
32:
Pay
for Utilities
|
|
“Approximately how much is your portion of utilities (other than
telephone) each month?”
|
|
RESPONSE
|
FREQUENCY
|
PERCENT
|
|
$0.00
|
24
|
6
|
|
$2-29.00
|
76
|
20
|
|
$30-49.00
|
81
|
22
|
|
$50-59.00
|
39
|
10
|
|
$60-99.00
|
40
|
11
|
|
$100-125.00
|
37
|
10
|
|
$126-250.00
|
27
|
7
|
|
Over
$250.00
|
9
|
2
|
|
Don’t
Know
|
44
|
12
|
|
Total
|
372
|
100
|
|
Arithmetic mean is xxxx and the standard deviation is
xxxx.
|
Figure
31: Currently Pay for Utilities
