Consultant Report
ACCESS Center and Adult/Commuter Student Programming
at the University of Louisville
Submitted by:
Dr. Barbara Jacoby
Scholar, National Clearinghouse for Commuter Programs
February 9, 2004
Consultant Report
ACCESS Center and Adult/Commuter Student Programming
at the University of Louisville
Introduction
At the invitation of the Student Government Association, I visited the University
of Louisville on January 27 and 28, 2004 to evaluate the ACCESS Center and
programming for adult/commuter students. Prior to the visit, I reviewed extensive
materials about ACCESS, including several proposals about its future, budgets, and
results of student surveys. I met with student leaders, ACCESS staff, the Vice President
for Student Affairs and Assistant Vice President for Campus Life, members of the
ACCESS Task Force, and students who are users of ACCESS as well as those who are
not.
By the time of my visit, a lengthy and tumultuous period of debate about the
continued existence of ACCESS had concluded. The recommendation of the ACCESS
Task Force was clearly in favor of the continuation, and even expansion, of ACCESS.
As a result of an auspicious agreement between SGA and Student Affairs, ACCESS’s
funding is secure, albeit at 80% of its full time-staff salaries.
The salient questions at this point concern how effective ACCESS is, what
improvements/changes should be considered, and how the University of Louisville might
better address the needs of adult/commuter students. I am pleased to offer the following
assessments and recommendations based on information acquired at and about the U of L
as well as my 35 years of work for, with, and on behalf of adult/commuter students on the
national level.
1
What ACCESS Does Well/Efficacy of Present Strategies
Conversations with ACCESS regular users and a thorough review of the
responses to the ACCESS Task Force Survey reported on February 21, 2002 reflect a
unanimous and enthusiastic endorsement of ACCESS. The regular users like it very
much just the way it is. No doubt about it, the “regulars” believe that ACCESS does
what it does very well indeed. Although most agreed that its basic services (e.g.,
computers, copier, study/lounge space, coffee, supplies) are available elsewhere on
campus, they agree that “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” “it’s all about the
atmosphere,” that even at an institution where 86% of the students are adults/commuters,
they need a place where they feel special, comfortable, and relaxed.
The “regulars” also expressed unanimous kudos and appreciation for the two fulltime staff, Barbara King and Donna Holmes. It is not just about having full-time staff,
they emphasized, but about having the right staff. The staff were universally
commended, especially for their genuine warmth and hospitality, personal assistance and
problem solving, and right-on-target referrals to other campus offices and resources.
In my observations, other notable examples of what ACCESS does well include:

Its hours of service are appropriate, given the wide range of hours during which
adult/commuter students seek its services: 9 a.m. – 7 p.m. Monday through
Thursday and 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Friday. Remaining open until 7 p.m. was lauded
by users and non-users alike because most other offices close at 5 p.m. and
because the last evening classes begin at 7:10 p.m.

ACCESS seems to offer the right balance between programming (e.g., monthly
lunches, Wednesday speakers) and open use of space.

ACCESS is staffed by a professional experienced at handling the difficult issues
that students are likely to bring to the center, such as illness and emotional
problems. A professional with the knowledge and ability to diffuse the
potentially explosive situations that may arise and to make appropriate referrals is
important.

ACCESS is a rare example of an authentic and natural multicultural and
multigenerational community.
In summary, I believe that ACCESS offers the right services, in the right location, to the
students who need them most.
2
What Could Improve or Change ACCESS’s Ability to Better Meet
Adult/Commuter Student Needs
Given my view that ACCESS does what it does very well for its regular users,
two questions arise:
1. Does it have an adequate number and range of users to justify its costs?
2. Should it be expanded and, if so, how?
I raise the first question as a result of the concern of several non-users and SGA
leaders about the cost-benefit ratio of ACCESS. While ACCESS receives approximately
400-500 student visits daily, its regular users number around 200. ACCESS statistics
reveal that it is quite busy between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., but that its use falls off
significantly after around 2 or 2:30 p.m. To address this concern, I believe that ACCESS
staff, working with SGA, should design and implement an outreach and publicity
campaign to increase ACCESS usage by evening, transfer, and graduate students. This
would lead to fuller usage of the facilities and staff during the afternoon and early
evening hours. Some possible outreach strategies are:

Inform academic advisors and counselors about ACCESS and encourage them
to refer students as appropriate.

Broadly distribute the revised ACCESS brochure across campus.

Make a brief announcement about ACCESS in evening classes during the first
week of each semester.

Offer an incentive (e.g., free cup of coffee) between 2:30 and 7 p.m.

Revise signage in Davidson Hall and at the front door to read “ACCESS
Student Center” in order to respond to feedback I received that many students
who pass by ACCESS and do not realize that it is space available for student
use.
Regarding the question of expansion, I believe that the current space is adequate
for its purpose and use in Davidson Hall. However, the U of L occupies two completely
separate campuses, Belknap and the Health Sciences Center. Even the Belknap campus
is widely spread out, with key schools located away from the center of campus. For
example, the Speed school of engineering is located across busy Eastern Parkway.
Students from the Health Sciences Center and the Speed school are highly unlikely to use
ACCESS even if it would be of substantial benefit to them.
As a result of these factors, the idea of piloting satellite ACCESS-type center(s)
has arisen. Among the individuals I spoke with, opinion is quite divided on this subject.
3
Although I did not have the opportunity to visit the Health Sciences Center or to talk with
any of its students, faculty, staff, it seems logical that a center that provides services
similar to those of ACCESS would be welcome there. I recommend that the Vice
President for Student Affairs discuss this possibility with the Vice President for Health
Affairs or other appropriate administrators. The Speed school seems like another logical
site for an ACCESS-type center. I suggest that Vice President for Student Affairs also
discuss this possibility with the Dean of the Speed school. The next step would be to
hold one or two focus groups with health sciences and engineering students (separately)
to determine their needs for such a center. I suggest holding the focus groups in
ACCESS to give the students a good idea of what the center is. Parking passes plus
incentives such as a meal or a gift certificate to the U of L bookstore should be offered to
participants. The satellite center(s) could be staffed by Health Sciences practicum
students or graduate assistants/interns in higher education and supervised by the
ACCESS director.
Another means of expansion mentioned by several ACCESS “regulars” is
opening the center at 7 a.m. I observed a number of students waiting in the hall for the
center to open on the day of my visit. Students told me that they arrive on campus early
to get a parking space, to study individually or with others, to use computers to check
email, to print papers, to make copies, and to accomplish other tasks. I recommend that
consideration be given to this suggestion.
4
Other Suggestions for How U of L Can Foster Community for Adult/Commuter
Students
I am pleased to provide suggestions for additional ways in which the U of L can
foster a sense of community for adult/commuter students. I believe there are several
ways in which the U of L can build on good things that are already in place:

ACCESS staff and work-study students could increase their efforts very
intentionally to encourage both regular and occasional users to get involved in
student organizations and activities that address their particular interests. The
staff know many of the users and are knowledgeable about campus opportunities.
Research indicates that students often state that they got involved “because
someone asked,” someone invited them personally.

While ACCESS users have formed a community, they have not developed a
collective voice to advocate on their own behalf. It is unusual for an institution
like the U of L to lack an adult and/or commuter student organization to advocate
for its constituents’needs and interests. Such organizations can be quite powerful
in influencing policy and programming, especially when they work in conjunction
with Student Affairs/Student Life, the SGA, and a savvy advisor. An adult and/or
commuter student organization could also work with the Student Activities Board
to encourage programming to address their interests and apply to SGA for funding
for projects and speakers.

Several students commented that there are many interesting programs offered on
campus between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. but that commuter students often leave
campus immediately following their classes because “nothing happens between
3:30 p.m. and 7 p.m.” Perhaps some programming could be piloted in this time
slot to attract students to stay on campus after class or for evening students who
may arrive early.

As is usual at a large commuter institution, U of L students complain of not
knowing “what’s going on.” Highly involved students that I met mentioned
“ULink” as an excellent information resource. However, the same students and
others also reported that they and their friends do not use it. I saw nothing
encouraging students to use this potentially powerful tool. ACCESS, REACH,
academic advisors, other staff, and student leaders should actively encourage
students to use ULink regularly.

While it is quite commendable that SGA runs a full page advertisement in The
Louisville Cardinal announcing upcoming events and opportunities, some careful
thought should be applied to making the ads more intentionally inclusive of all
students. For example, the following ads appeared on the SGA page in the
January 20, 2004 issue:
5
Too Cold in Kentucky?
Warm up at the
5th Annual
Cruise the Caribbean
Free Cuban Dinner
Limbo Contest
Music and Games
Free Giveaways
Friday, January 30th @ the Red
Barn 7-10 p.m.
Psi Chi Meeting
January 29th, 12:30 p.m. in Life
Sciences Room 103
Resident Assistant Interest Session
Wednesday, January 28th, 5:00 p.m.
in Stevenson Hall
For more info, contact Glen Midkiff
@852.3795
Regarding “Cruise the Caribbean,” students who are new or have never attended
such an activity on campus are likely to wonder, “Can I come alone or is this a
‘date’ event?,” “Can I bring my husband? My kids?,” “What do people wear?,”
“Is there a cost?,” or “Do I need an advance ticket?”. As far as the Psi Chi
meeting and the Resident Assistant information meetings are concerned, students
may wonder, “Do I have to be a Psi Chi member to attend?” or “Do I need to live
in a residence hall to be eligible to be an RA?”. Ads should be specifically
designed to reach out to students who do not feel like they are in the “in crowd” to
attend by providing detailed information and especially inviting new students and
non-members.
6
The “Big Picture”: Programming Ideas for Adult/Commuter Students
Several programs and practices that are successful at other universities with
student populations similar to that of the U of L are readily adaptable to fit the U of L’s
institutional culture:

Because new commuter students—including freshmen, transfers, and adults—
tend to have the greatest difficulty developing peer relationships on campus,
early efforts are needed to involve and assist them. A team of experienced
commuter students can be selected and trained to serve as “big brothers” and
“big sisters” to new commuter students who request to be part of the program.
This effort would complement similar efforts already in place for residential
students. New transfer students can be paired with experienced transfer
students, new adult students with experienced peers, etc. The team of
commuter student leaders can assist new students in a number of ways,
including: making telephone calls during the summer to welcome them and
answer questions, participating in summer orientation, and helping new
students in their transition to the U of L (finding classes, purchasing
textbooks, getting involved, visiting the ACCESS center). “Big
brothers/sisters” can be volunteers or offered a small stipend (e.g., $50-75 in
cash or as a book store gift certificate). Students who serve as “big
brothers/sisters” should, in turn, be encouraged to apply for other campus
leadership positions based on their experience in the program, thereby
creating a “leadership ladder” for adult/commuter students who do not hold
enough leadership positions at the U of L.

Consideration should be given to creating a Commuter Appreciation Week
program. This type of program is often organized by a committee of staff and
students and can include a variety of events, including: free coffee and
doughnuts one morning, a “pizza bar” or “potato bar” similar to the monthly
lunches in ACCESS, informational workshops, a “stress free zone,” free
movies, free carwashes, free massages, and various giveaways. Activities can
be spread throughout the campus and should be highly publicized. An
example of a university with such a program is Eastern Michigan University
in Ypsilanti, MI: www.emich.edu/commute.

Parents and Partners Programs are effective at institutions like the U of L
because commuter students, whether they are dependent students of traditional
age or living independently with a spouse or partner, could benefit
substantially from increased support and assistance from those closest to
them. Adult/commuter students often feel that they lack an on-campus “safety
net,” support network, or person to turn to for advice. While on-campus
mentors and “safety nets” should be increased, students could receive more
immediate support if their parents or partners were trained and informed to
provide it. Online or in-person workshops could be created for parents and
7
partners, along with training on how to access information and resources on
the web or by telephone.

Information technology offers multiple opportunities for affiliation that can be
designed to lead to on-campus involvement. “Virtual communities” by zip
code of residence, for example, can be established and nurtured for and by
commuter students, as are floor communities for students living in residence
halls. These can take the form of Yahoo-style news and chat groups. Smaller,
more focused “communities” can readily splinter off. Initially, moderated
virtual communities may provide a method for engaging students who live
beyond a 20-30 minute commute to campus.

Seattle University’s Collegia Program is an innovative approach to creating a
sense of place, an opportunity for affiliation, and a supportive environment for
adult/commuter students. A Collegium is a single room of approximately
1,200 square feet, furnished and equipped to provide for the basic needs and
comforts of commuter students. Existing space in campus academic buildings
is selected and then adapted and renovated as necessary. In each case, a
designer who understands the desired outcomes develops an interior concept
that maximizes the particular space and inspires a variety of student uses. The
Collegia have a homelike quality and are intimate, personal, and inviting.
Collegia are staffed by graduate and undergraduate work-study students and
have a faculty associate who serves as an informal advisor. Commuter
students in a particular academic college are invited to join the collegium in
their college’s building. At Seattle, each collegium has 250-300 members.
Collegia subsequent to the original have been funded by Seattle-based
corporations. For further information: C. E., Orlando, “The Collegium:
Community as Gathering Place,” in B. Jacoby, ed., Involving Commuter
Students in Learning, Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Additional programming ideas and referrals to institutions where they have been
implemented can be obtained from the National Clearinghouse for Commuter
Programs: www.umd.edu/NCCP or (301) 405-0986.
8
Recommendations Regarding ACCESS Facilities
Several questions regarding ACCESS facilities remain to be addressed:
1. Is it a prudent use of funds for ACCESS to provide services that are
available elsewhere on campus (i.e., study and lounge space, copy
machine, computer lab, coffee, supplies)? Is it justified to spend $80,00090,000 on a facility that mainly serves around 200 regular users?
Despite the fact that it can be argued that the services provided by ACCESS are
available elsewhere, I believe, as stated earlier, that the “one-stop shop” that
ACCESS offers, together with its uniquely welcoming atmosphere, justifies what may
initially seem like duplication. I also believe, however, that the suggestions I have
offered to increase the number and ways students use ACCESS should be given
attention.
2. Should the funds dedicated to a single ACCESS center be redirected to
create several smaller centers around campus?
I do not recommend that the ACCESS center as it is now be replaced by several
smaller satellite centers. I have made suggestions earlier regarding piloting similar
centers to ACCESS at the Health Sciences Center and in the Speed school—if that
can be done without adversely affecting ACCESS.
3. If ACCESS were to remain basically as it is, how should its renovation
funds be best utilized over the next two years?
SGA has dedicated $20,000 in renovation funds for 2003-2004 and $15,000 in 20042005. In subsequent years, requests for renovation funds would need to be made to
the Senate. One possible use of a portion of the funds is to renovate the entrance of
ACCESS by adding a glass door and façade. This would go a long way to make
ACCESS more attractive to non-users, some of whom told me they have not used it
because “it looks like someone’s office.”
It is also necessary for ACCESS to have an ongoing renovation/replacement fund.
Given the increased use of computers and the Internet for email and course work, the
availability of up-to-date equipment in good repair is important. This is critical for
ACCESS users because many of them do not have home computers or have old
equipment and/or slow dial-up modems. In addition, while the furniture and carpet in
the center are adequate for the present, they are showing signs of wear and tear. A
“homey” look is all right, but excessive wear that results in torn carpet and broken
furniture is neither “homey” nor safe.
9
The possibility of using any funds remaining after façade alteration to establish an
ongoing renovation fund should be considered. This would require an account that
enables funds unused in one fiscal year to carry over into the next.
4. What are other possible funding sources to address adult/commuter
student needs?
Unfortunately, I am not aware of any foundations or federal programs that make
grants to support adult/commuter student needs. However, creative partnerships
among campus units may yield sources of funding. For example, the Career
Development Center, the Disability Resource Center, or the Student Health Center
may seek opportunities to attract students who do not know about or use their
services. They may be willing to co-sponsor programs or outreach efforts, such as
Commuter Appreciation Week. Other potential partners include on- or off-campus
vendors who may be willing to provide items (e.g., t-shirts, pens) or discount coupons
in order to gain awareness of their offerings.
10
Conclusion
It has been a pleasure to visit the University of Louisville to see and hear first
hand the deep and genuine concern on the part of the SGA, the office of the Vice
President for Student Affairs, the ACCESS staff, and all the other students and staff I
met to seek ways to enhance the quality of campus life for adult/commuter students. I
sincerely hope that the observations and recommendations in this report will be of
assistance in this process.
Respectfully submitted by:
Dr. Barbara Jacoby
Scholar, National Clearinghouse for Commuter Programs
11