University of Southern Mississippi - USM

8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 750 ▪ San Diego, CA 92108 ▪ Tel: 619‐297‐0400 ▪ Fax: 619‐297‐0440 www.pierceeducationproperties.com

University of Southern Mississippi

Replacement of Fraternity Housing

Research and Conceptual Feasibility Study

October 2012



Table of Contents

Section Title Page

I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

II. Scope of Work, Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................ 2

A. Overview and Consulting Project Scope ......................................................... 2

B. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 3

C. Next Steps ....................................................................................................... 5

III. Benchmarking ........................................................................................................ 6

A. Peer Institutions .............................................................................................. 6

B. Most Comparable Peer Institutions (Key Peers) ............................................. 7

C. Factors Impacting Greek/Fraternity Participation .......................................... 7

D. Greek Membership Trends .............................................................................. 8

E. Greek Life Programs, Services & Staffing ........................................................ 9

IV. Fraternity Member Surveys ................................................................................. 10

A. Survey: Key Findings and Conclusions ........................................................... 11

B. Fraternity Housing Project ............................................................................ 13

V. Greek Projects Delivered via Public Private Partnership ..................................... 14

VI. NIC Fraternity Housing Lending Programs .......................................................... 16

VII. Development Delivery & Financing Alternatives ................................................. 17

A. Development Delivery ................................................................................... 18

B. Financing ....................................................................................................... 18

C. Framework for Development Delivery & Financing Plan .............................. 19

D. Qualified Private Developers, Non‐Profit Corporations and Fundraising

Consultants .................................................................................................... 20

Exhibits

A Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................ 22

B Stakeholder Engagement ..................................................................................... 27

C Southern Miss Peer Institutions ........................................................................... 29

D USM Greek Life Survey Matrix (page 1) ............................................................... 30

E USM Greek Life Survey Matrix (page 2) ............................................................... 31

F USM Comparable Greek Project Matrix .............................................................. 32

G Fraternity Lending Programs ............................................................................... 33

H Development Delivery Alternatives & Implications ............................................. 34

I USM Greek Life – Future Focus (2012‐15) ........................................................... 35

J USM Survey of Fraternity Members Living in Residence Halls ............................ 45

K USM Survey of Fraternity Members Living in Fraternity Houses ........................ 56

L USM Survey of Fraternity Members Living Off Campus ...................................... 72

M USM Fraternity Member Housing Survey (PowerPoint Report) .......................... 82

of 28



Summary Report

October 2012

I. Executive Summary

The University of Southern Mississippi (“Southern Miss”) commissioned Pierce Education Properties, L.P.

(“PEP”) to provide consulting services (“Consulting Project”) related to the University’s potential desire

to replace its aging stock of fraternity housing (“Fraternity Project”). The key findings and

recommendations for the Consulting Project are summarized in this Executive Summary and detailed in

the body of the report and exhibits.

Thorough Research – The scope of work that was commissioned for this Consulting Project

represents a comprehensive evaluation and benchmarking of national, Peer Institution, Key Peer

and Greek Peer (all defined below) fraternity participation and housing trends and preferences.

Growing Greek Membership – Greek (both fraternity and sorority) membership is on the

increase nationwide, as well as at the majority of Southern Miss’ Greek Peers, and at Southern

Miss. This creates strong and growing demand for a Fraternity Project at Southern Miss.

Proliferation of Greek Housing – In implementing a Fraternity Project at Southern Miss, the

university would be following a strong nationwide trend over the past decade of university‐led

and financed development of new Greek Housing. This trend is in response to a need for

contemporary facilities to replace an aging Greek Housing stock.

Membership Development – Southern Miss’ very successful Sorority Village not only delivered

contemporary new facilities for sorority members, but served as a tool to facilitate strong

chapter membership growth. It is expected that a Fraternity Project would provide the same

membership development benefit.

Fraternity Project Development Program – We recommend that a Fraternity Project initially

include up to 12 detached chapter houses to accommodate the relocation of Southern Miss’ NIC

(defined below) organizations. Two floor plans – one accommodating 12 beds and the other

with 18 beds in a mixture of single and double occupancy rooms – would appear to be “right

sized” for the NIC fraternities at Southern Miss. Development of a 200‐bed Greek apartment

building is also recommended to accommodate largely upper division Greek students (fraternity

and sorority members) who currently are moving off campus.

Financing Plan – The most likely source of financing for a Fraternity Project would be Tax‐

Exempt Revenue Bonds issued by the university, an affiliated foundation/corporation or 3rd

party non‐profit entity.

of 28

Next Steps – The logical next steps in evaluating the feasibility of the recommended Fraternity

Project would be to: (a) hire an architect to develop a conceptual design, (b) prepare cost and

rent estimates based upon the design, and (c) engage fraternity representatives (members and

alumni) to participate in this process. The end result would be: (d) finalization of the Fraternity

Development Program, (e) selection of the project site, (f) determination of which fraternities

elect to participate in the Fraternity Project, and (g) design of a concept plan for the Fraternity

Project. Once these steps are taken, Southern Miss will be in a position to consider the project

financing and delivery alternatives outlined herein and proceed with project procurement.

II. Scope of Work, Conclusions & Recommendations

A. Overview and Consulting Project Scope

In order to evaluate the conceptual feasibility of replacing Southern Miss’ aging stock of fraternity

housing, PEP completed the following scope of work. All of the research referenced in this report was

collected in Spring 2012. In that regard, PEP has:

(a) Established in collaboration with Southern Miss a universe of peer higher education institutions

(“Peer Institutions”)

(b) Collected benchmark data on the Peer Institutions correlative to Greek Life participation

(c) Reviewed the Greek Life program and Greek housing offerings at Southern Miss

(d) Surveyed Greek Life programs at a sample of the Peer Institutions (“Greek Peers”)

(e) Summarized national fraternity trends amongst the North American Interfraternity Conference

(“NIC”) organizations

(f) Surveyed undergraduate fraternity members at Southern Miss regarding their housing experience

and preferences

(g) Administered focus group sessions with fraternity members regarding their housing experiences

and preferences (see Exhibit B – Stakeholder Engagement)

(h) Identified and profiled selected existing Greek housing projects at universities throughout the

country that have been delivered through some form of public‐private partnership

(i) Collected information from (inter)national offices of NIC organizations with chapters at Southern

Miss pertaining to housing financing programs available to local chapters and/or house

corporations

(j) Reviewed project financing and development delivery alternatives and recommended the

framework for a financing and development delivery plan for the Fraternity Project

(k) Participated in a series of stakeholder workshops with undergraduate fraternity members, a “Blue

Ribbon” committee of undergraduate fraternity leaders, fraternity alumni and chapter advisors,

sorority alumni leadership, the “Blue Ribbon” committee of fraternity alumni leaders and a wide

range of campus administrators (see Exhibit A), and

(l) Prepared this Summary Report of our findings and observations from this scope of work.

of 28

B. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the research conducted for this Consulting Project, together with PEP’s Greek Life and Greek

housing experience and circumstances and conditions at Southern Miss, the following key findings have

been made:

Thorough Research – The scope of work that was commissioned for this Consulting Project

represents a comprehensive evaluation of national, Peer Institution, Key Peer and Greek Peer

(all defined below) fraternity participation and housing trends and preferences. This provides a

solid foundation for the establishment of a new fraternity housing program at Southern Miss

and a financing, development and implementation framework related thereto.

Growing Greek Membership – Greek membership is on the increase nationwide, as well as at

the majority of Southern Miss’ Greek Peers, and at Southern Miss. This is the case for most all

types of Greek organizations including NIC fraternities, National Panhellenic Conference (“NPC”)

Sororities and National Pan‐Hellenic Council (“NPHC”)1 organizations. This creates strong

current and projected demand nationally for Greek Housing in general, and for new fraternity

housing at Southern Miss. Trends at Southern Miss’ Key Peers (defined below) further

underscore the potential for future fraternity participation and membership growth at Southern

Miss.

Proliferation of New Greek Housing – An array of new Greek housing solutions are being

implemented at a growing number of universities nationwide, in response to an aging Greek

housing stock, competition with modern student housing, changing needs of the Greek

community and a desire to strengthen Greek life as an important element of student life on

campus. The majority of this new Greek housing has been financed and is owned by universities

or their controlled affiliates. Most universities with new Greek housing have provided new

facilities for all Greek councils including NIC, NPC, NPHC and Multi‐Cultural Greek Council

(“MGC”). Implementation of a new fraternity project at Southern Miss would be consistent with

efforts of other universities to provide contemporary housing to both men’s and women’s

organizations.

Build Upon Sorority Village Success and Strength of Greek Life in the South – Southern Miss

can build upon the success of its recently completed Sorority Village (average membership up

from 93 to 122 since completion) and the very strong history and strength of Greek life in the

southern region of the U.S. to further strengthen fraternity chapters on campus. The primary

opportunity is to strengthen existing chapters through growing chapter membership to meet

and exceed national standards.

Replacement Fraternity Housing as Solution – New fraternity housing can be a key asset in the

strengthening of the fraternity system and individual chapter membership. Sorority Village at

1 The NIC is an umbrella organization for 75 (inter)national member fraternities. The NPC is an umbrella organization for 26 (inter)national member sororities. The NPHC is an umbrella organization for nine (inter)national historically Black fraternities and sororities.

of 28

Southern Miss did exactly that for the university’s sorority organizations. At the same time, the

existing stock of fraternity housing with its deficient infrastructure, code and ADA non‐

compliance, functionally obsolete housing accommodations, and excess bed capacity is neither

financially sustainable, nor competitive with contemporary student housing. Even if substantial

upgrades were made to the existing fraternity housing, the houses would still be deficient in key

amenity and floor plan standards common in new housing such as private bedrooms and

bathrooms and individual room thermostats to control heating and air conditioning.

Preliminary Fraternity Development Program – A Fraternity Project should be programmed to

accommodate the current and projected future size of the fraternity community and individual

organizations at Southern Miss. Currently, there are 9 NIC fraternities residing on‐campus at

Southern Miss, with an tenth planned to re‐occupy their house in Fall 2012. Kappa Alpha has

plans to recolonize in Fall 2014. The average membership in these organizations is 48 men.

There are also a small number of NPHC fraternities who currently do not have housing. We

recommend that a Fraternity Project initially include up to 12 detached chapter houses to

accommodate the relocation of the NIC organizations. Two floor plans – one accommodating 12

beds and the other with 18 beds in a mixture of single and double occupancy rooms – would

appear to be “right sized” for the NIC fraternities at Southern Miss. Each would include a multi‐

purpose room (500 sf for the small house and 750 sf for the larger house) and also a presidential

suite (part of the stipulated bed count), unisex common bathroom, residential bathrooms,

private upstairs residential lounge, ample storage spaces and residential kitchen. Common or

multi‐purpose room(s) and sizes could be expanded if funded by the individual organizations or

related house corporations. If possible, it would be beneficial to include additional lots for

future house construction in the event of additional future chapter growth. If NPHC chapters

are interested and opt to participate, a block of row houses (townhomes) with bed capacity for

3‐4 members would accommodate the housing needs for those organizations that choose to

have smaller membership.

A Greek apartment complex is also recommended for consideration. Based upon the number of

Greek students who currently live off campus, a 200‐bed apartment building (“Greek

Apartments”) located central to the Fraternity Project and Sorority Village could also be planned

for development concurrent with the fraternity chapter houses. In order for the Greek

Apartments to be feasible, they would need to be operated with rules consistent with off‐

campus apartments, include full kitchens, and be co‐ed. Occupancy priority would be given to

members of Southern Miss’ Greek community, but the apartments could also be rented to other

Southern Miss students if the full capacity were not absorbed by Greeks. The Greek Apartments

would also include a full amenity package consistent with off‐campus apartments including

swimming pool, spa, tanning beds, game room, business center, etc.

Financing and Development Delivery Plan Framework – The most likely source of financing for

a Fraternity Project would be through university, affiliated foundation/corporation or 3rd party

non‐profit tax‐exempt revenue bonds. While there have been a fair number of public‐private

partnership structures used for Greek housing projects (about 30% of projects completed in the

of 28

last decade), all of those have used affiliated or 3rd party tax‐exempt bonds and not 3rd party

developer equity. In all those instances, the university has been integrally involved in the

projects and lent – directly or indirectly – their credit support. While the house corporation

model of individual fraternities financing their own facilities is very prevalent, it has not been

used beyond the scale of a single house for an entire Greek Village (with the exception of the

project at SDSU, where most all of the participating house corporation already had equity in

existing property holdings). The house corporation model is not believe to be a viable financing

structure for the timely development of a large project aiming to deliver a large number of

houses in a single phase at Southern Miss.

C. Next Steps

If a decision is made to pursue development of a replacement Fraternity Project, the findings and

benchmarking data from this report provide a strong foundation for next steps. It is recommended that

the next phase of planning and feasibility assessment for a replacement Fraternity Project at Southern

Miss include the following scope of work:

1) Development Program, Project Location, Fraternity Participation and Concept Design Plan –

Based upon the best practices identified during this Consulting Project and the Preliminary

Fraternity Development Program outlined above, we recommend that Southern Miss: (a)

engage an architect to develop prototype fraternity house floor plans (“Floor Plans”), (b) have

cost estimates prepared for the Floor Plans and estimate related bed rents (“Rents”) and parlor

fees (“Parlor Fees”) for each, and (c) engage fraternity chapters (members and alumni) to review

the Floor Plans, Rents and Parlor Fees and provide feedback, indicate Floor Plan preferences and

provide project participation intentions (participate or not). Based upon fraternity chapter input

and university determinations, the Fraternity Development Program would then be finalized. At

that point, we would recommend that the university identify alternate site location(s) for the

Fraternity Project and have the architect prepare site plans and site massing/density studies for

review by the university and fraternity stakeholders. The end result would be: (a) finalization of

the Fraternity Development Program, (b) selection of the project site, (c) determination of which

fraternities elect to participate in the Fraternity Project, and (d) design of a concept plan for the

Fraternity Project.

2) Project Financing & Delivery – Project development delivery and financing options have been

profiled and assessed as part of this Consulting Project and a preliminary financing plan

framework has been outlined. Once the decisions are made pursuant to Task 1 above, Southern

Miss will need to determine its preferred method of development delivery and project

financing. This will likely include a stand‐alone new fraternity development project, but also

may involve a larger scope to potentially include additional housing or other uses that may

enhance financial feasibility, critical mass, efficiency of delivery, Greek life programming, etc. In

addition, should a privatized delivery and/or financing of the Fraternity Project be

considered/preferred, careful planning will be needed related to the transaction structure,

management and operational controls, role and relationship of the university and private

of 28

developer/manager, etc. Those conditions should be thoroughly vetted and evaluated before

Fraternity Project procurement, as those decisions will have a significant impact on cost, timing,

control, risk, balance sheet accounting, credit treatment, debt capacity, and economic/financing

feasibility of the Fraternity Project to the university and any private partner. Once these

considerations are evaluated and decisions are made, Southern Miss will be in a position to

issue a definitive RFQ or RFP for project development, construction and delivery that can

produce comparable responses based upon a carefully selected development program and

financing structure.

III. Benchmarking

A. Peer Institutions

A group of 36 peer higher education institutions (“Peer Institutions”) was developed for benchmarking

purposes with input from Southern Miss’ Department of Institutional Research and well as feedback

from university administrators. Generally, universities identify peers that share certain characteristics

including Carnegie classification (Southern Miss is a Research University with High Research Activity),

size and residential profile (large, 4‐year, primarily residential) and enrollment profile (high

undergraduate). Consideration is also given to geographic location/proximity, campus setting

(suburban), athletic conference and universities to which admitted students also applied or considered.

Southern Miss’ 36 Peer Institutions are profiled on Exhibit B.

University of Southern Mississippi Profile

Enrollment: Hattiesburg Campus: 12,263 (UG), 2,583 (Graduate), 14,846 (Total)

Housed On‐Campus: 72% of Freshman, 36% of Undergraduates

Gender: 39% Male/61% Female

Type: Public University

Setting: Suburban

Carnegie

Classifications: Research University (high research activity), Large 4‐year, Primarily Residential,

High Undergraduate Enrollment

Athletics: Division I (FBS), Conference USA (pending merger Mountain West Conference)

Trends amongst Southern Miss’s Peer Institutions include:

All are public universities with average enrollment of 15,556 undergraduates, 2,106 graduate

students and 17,663 total students; 75% are classified as large, 4‐year universities

75% are designated with a high undergraduate (HU) enrollment profile, with another 17% as

very high undergraduate (VHU) enrollment institutions

The majority are Research Universities with high research activity (44%) or Master’s Colleges

and Universities (33%)

of 28

58% are primarily non‐residential (less than 25% of undergraduates live on‐campus) and 42%

are primarily residential (25 – 49% of undergraduates live on‐campus)

B. Most Comparable Peer Institutions (“Key Peers”)

The Peer Institutions most closely aligned with University of Southern Mississippi in terms of Carnegie

Classification (RU/H or VH, L4/R, HU, the “Key Peers”) are University of Mississippi, Mississippi State

University, University of Delaware, Ohio University, George Mason University, Bowling Green State

University, Old Dominion University and University of Maryland Baltimore County. The key metrics for

these universities as compared to Southern Miss and the entire Peer Institutions group averages are as

follows:

Key Peers Southern Miss/HBG All Peer Avg.

Undergraduate Enrollment 17,063 12,263 15,556

Graduate Enrollment 2,451 2,583 2,106

Total Enrollment 19,514 14,846 17,663

% In‐state Enrollment 73% 72% 86%

% Freshmen On‐Campus 85% 72% 68%

% Undergraduates On‐Campus 35% 36% 23%

% Fraternity Members 18%/11%2 11% 10%

% Sorority Members 20%/12%3 13% 12%

% Male Students 48% 39% 45%

% Female Students 53% 61% 55%

C. Factors Impacting Greek/Fraternity Participation

Nationally, a 10% Greek participation rate amongst undergraduate students is believed to be healthy.

The current participation rates at Southern Miss are good at 11% for fraternities and 13% for sororities.

These compare favorably to a still strong 10% average fraternity participation and 12% sorority

participation among Peer Institutions. However, opportunity for enhancement in Greek life

participation is also evident by virtue of extremely high fraternity and sorority participation rates at Ole

Miss (47% fraternity/52% sorority) and Mississippi State University (30%/33%).

Several factors have a positive correlation with Greek and fraternity participation. These factors

become more apparent when isolating the Key Peers and Southern Miss from the same information for

all Peer Institutions. Campus geographic location is also an important factor, with the Southern Region

of the U.S. perhaps the strongest area of Greek participation in the country.

Out‐of‐State Students – Generally, out‐of‐state students have a higher propensity to live on

campus and to be more involved in campus life including Greek life than do in‐state students.

Thus, with 72% and 73% in‐state enrollment at Southern Miss and its Key Peers respectively,

2 Key Peer Institution Fraternity Participation Rates are skewed by the extremely high rates at Ole Miss (47%) and Mississippi State University (30%). Excluding these two universities, the Fraternity Participation Rate at Key Peers is 11%. 3 Key Peer Institution Sorority Participation Rates are also skewed by the extremely high rates at Ole Miss (52%) and Mississippi State University

(33%). Excluding these two universities, the Sorority Participation Rate at Key Peers is 12%.

of 28

they have an initial advantage in Greek life recruitment and participation as compared to the all

Peer Institution average at 86% in‐state.

Freshman Housing – An even higher correlation is found between the percentage of freshman

living on campus and Greek life participation. The Key Peers on average house 85% of their

freshman on‐campus, as compared to 68% for Peer Institutions and 72% at Southern Miss. This

presents an opportunity to potentially enlist more Southern Miss students into Greek life if the

percentage of freshman living on campus can trend toward the rate of its Key Peers.

D. Greek Membership Trends

The statistical data referenced below regarding fraternity membership at Southern Miss, Peer

Institutions and those Greek Life offices who responded to the Greek Life Survey (“Greek Peers”) is

summarized from the information contained in the survey of Peer Higher Education Institutions (Exhibits

B) and Greek Life Survey (Exhibits C and D). Source references are footnoted for national membership

data.

Over the last five years, fraternity membership at most Greek Peers has shown a strong

increase. Of the 10 Greek Peers who responded (including Southern Miss), IFC membership has

increased at 80% of those institutions by an average of 35% over the past five years. Only two

(Bowling Green State University and University of South Alabama) showed membership

declines. Membership trends for NPHC organizations were mixed (four increased, two

decreased, one stayed the same) – the total number of NPHC members at Greek Peers in 2011

averaged only 63 people. IFC membership at Southern Miss grew by 5% over this period,

significantly below the Greek Peer average.

NIC fraternities have also experienced significant increases nationally by all metrics4. Between

AY 2005‐6 and 2009‐10 total members in the 75 NIC fraternities have increased by almost 17%

from 260,745 to 304,171 and annual new recruits have grown by over 24% from 74,707 to

92,868. These organizations are also expanding with new chapters, the numbers of which have

grown almost 9% nationwide from 5,183 in 2005‐6 to 5,626 in 2009‐10.

Period New Members

2009‐2010 92,868

2008‐2009 89,083

2007‐2008 86,129

2006‐2007 80,220

2005‐2006 74,707

At most Greek Peers (including Southern Miss), the number of NIC fraternity chapters on

campus has remained fairly stable over the last five years (campuses had either the same

number of chapters or had added or lost one chapter, except for University of North Texas

4 Source: Advancement of Standards 2005 – 2011, North‐American Interfraternity Conference

of 28

which added four chapters). The number of NPHC chapters has also remained fairly steady at

Greek Peers over the last five years.

With 25 Greek organizations including 10 NIC fraternities, 7 NPC sororities and 8 NPHC chapters,

Southern Miss has the same number of Greek chapters as the average of its Greek Peers.

However, when looking at the Greek Peers closest in size to Southern Miss (10,000 – 15,000

undergraduates), the university’s 10 NIC chapters is two to four more than those peers which

have between six and eight IFC chapters each. However, at 16% of undergraduate students,

Southern Miss’ Greek participation rate is the highest amongst its Greek Peers and 150% higher

than their average rate (6.4%). Amongst the 28 Peer Institutions where fraternity participation

rates were available, Southern Miss ranks in the upper 20th percentile.

With an average IFC chapter size of 48 members, Southern Miss is also above its Greek Peer

average of 40 members, but ranks below the NIC national average (54 members for 2009‐10).

The introduction of new fraternity housing would likely assist Southern Miss to meet or exceed

the national average in terms of chapter size, perhaps growing average chapter membership by

15% to 20%.

The single most correlative factor related to Greek participation rates is the residential character

of the university as defined by the percentage of undergraduates living on‐campus. Of Southern

Miss’ 15 Peer Institutions with double digit Greek participation rates, 93% (14/15) housed at

least 20% of their student body on campus and 64% are primarily residential campuses (25‐49%

of undergraduates live on‐campus).

E. Greek Life Programs, Services & Staffing

PEP has met with Greek Life and Greek Housing staff at Southern Miss and reviewed a variety of

information pertaining to Greek membership and the Greek Life program including the Greek Life

strategic plan (see Exhibit H – Greek Life at Southern Miss: Vision Attainment 2012‐2015). This

information has been reviewed in the context of national standards, the Greek Life Survey and its Greek

Peers. Below, we offer findings related to Best Practices, future program investment, and Greek Life

Program funding and staffing.

Identified Best Practices: Best Practices suggest that nationally the following key initiatives and

programs optimally contribute towards development of the most successful Greek Life programs and

Greek chapters:

A) Leadership Development Programs including new member orientation, emerging leaders

training and alumni/advisor education;

B) Participation of Greek Life staff and selected Greek leaders in key industry conferences and

organizations (Undergraduate Inter‐Fraternity Institute, IMPACT, Futures Quest, Association for

Fraternal Leadership and Values or one of the regional Greek conferences, Association of

Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, etc.);

of 28

C) Community Service Initiatives;

D) Academic Support for Greek Members (tutoring, advising, workshops, etc.);

E) Internships & Career Development linking alumni and corporate partners to support internships

and job placement for Greek students and graduates;

F) Alumni Relations & Development – Working with chapters to help them cultivate their alumni in

support of their chapters and the University;

G) Publicity, Marketing & Promotion to raise the awareness, perception and appeal of Greek Life to

drive increased student participation; and

H) Housing to allow Greek accommodations to be competitive with the quality of new housing

available to students both on and off campus.

Peer Investment Areas: The Greek Life Survey indicated that increased staffing and programming were

the highest priorities of Greek Peers should they be afforded more budget resources. Specifically, Greek

Peers indicated the following priority areas for additional investment:

More and adequate staffing;

More and adequate funding for Greek Life programming;

Scholarships/stipends for students to attend industry conferences and organizations;

Dedicated staff to focus on NPHC and MGC organizations; and

New or improved facilities including Greek Life center and Greek housing.

Programming Observations: Southern Miss currently does not receive programming funds from the

General Fund budget, but rather relies on its Greek Councils for programming support. Greek life

programs with the most successful and comprehensive programming have annual budgets of $50,000 to

$85,000 to support those efforts. We recommend that University of Southern Mississippi allocate at

least $50,000 annually in Greek Life program funding in addition to any support received from the Greek

Councils.

Greek Life Staffing: Southern Miss currently has a Greek Life professional staff of 3.5 FTE (adjusting to

3.0 FTE for AY 2012‐13) including three full time staff and a part time graduate assistant. This does not

include the staffing for Fraternity Housing which is not part of the Greek Life Office. Greek Life staffing

at its Greek Peers ranges from 1.0 to 6.0 FTES, with an average staffing of 2.8 FTES. Current staffing is

consistent with industry standard, but as noted above additional funding for programming would be

necessary to bring total Greek Life support in line with Best Practices and its Greek Peers.

IV. Fraternity Member Surveys

As part of the Consulting Project, Southern Miss commissioned PEP to prepare and administer a survey

of the university’s fraternity members (“Fraternity Members”) to probe:

(1) Their sources of income used to pay for the cost of room and board;

(2) The primary reasons why they chose to live in their current residence location (Residence Hall,

Fraternity House or Off‐Campus) for academic year (“AY”) 2011‐12;

of 28

(3) For Fraternity Members currently living in on‐campus Residence Halls and Fraternity Houses,

their residency intention for AY 2012‐13 and their primary reasons for that decision;

(4) For Fraternity Members currently living in Fraternity Houses, their level of satisfaction with

those facilities;

(5) For Fraternity Members currently living off‐campus, their level of satisfaction with their prior

housing when they lived on‐campus; and

(6) As it relates to a Fraternity Project, the likelihood that various potential housing program,

product type, facility, amenities and operating conditions would influence their willingness to

continue to reside in an on‐campus Fraternity Project beyond Southern Miss’ current four‐

semester on‐campus residency requirement.

In order to ascertain this information, PEP prepared three surveys for Fraternity Members customized

based upon their current residence type and location (e.g. Exhibit I ‐ Residence Halls, Exhibit J ‐

Fraternity Houses or Exhibit K ‐ Off‐Campus). As typical, a variety of demographic information was also

collected of survey respondents so the results could be cross tabulated. Surveys were distributed via e‐

mail to all 432 members of the fraternity community including 128 Fraternity Members living in the

Residence Halls (30%), 134 Fraternity Members living in Fraternity Houses (31%) and 170 Fraternity

Members living Off‐Campus (39%). The survey response rate of 47% was extremely high which portends

a very high level of confidence in the survey results. As expected, those Fraternity Members most

engaged with their fraternities (recent recruits and those living in their Fraternity House) had the highest

response rates.

Location of Residence Response Rate

Residence Halls 59%

Fraternity Houses 57%

Off‐Campus 29%

A. Survey: Key Findings and Conclusions

The key findings and conclusions which follow are based upon the survey results together with PEP’s

experience. The survey results are summarized with emphasis on key outcomes which are further

detailed in the PowerPoint slide show provided under separate cover.

The residence location of Fraternity Members by class year is fairly consistent with national trends.

Of the Fraternity Members living in the Residence Halls, 81% are freshman and 13% sophomores

(freshmen are not allowed to live in on‐campus Fraternity Houses). Half (50%) of Fraternity

Members living in Fraternity Houses are sophomores, and the other approximate half (47%) are

upperclassmen. Seventy‐six percent (76%) of Fraternity Members living off‐campus are upper

classmen. Just over half of the Fraternity Members living on‐campus reside at Century Park 3,

Southern Miss’ newest and most expensive Residence Hall. That large percentage bodes well for a

new Fraternity Project, as many members would move into their Fraternity House having previously

lived in a state‐of‐the‐art contemporary facility. The overwhelming percentage (70%) of Fraternity

Members living off‐campus have chosen to live in an apartment project, which infers potential to

of 28

house some of those members on campus if a competitive product (physically and operationally

were made available.

Southern Miss’ 4‐semester in‐house residency requirement for Greeks has a significant impact on

the housing choice of its students. Of those Fraternity Members currently living in their Fraternity

House who intend to return to the house next year, 74% indicated that the university’s 4‐semester

in‐residence policy was an important factor in their decision. Of those living in a Residence Hall,

58% said that requirement was a primary factor in their decision.

While Southern Miss’ in‐house residency requirement does have a measureable impact on the

decision of Fraternity Members in Residence Halls to move into their Fraternity Houses next year,

the overwhelming majority of those members (82%) are doing so because they want to. Of those

Fraternity Members currently living in their Fraternity House, 87% ranked the “opportunity to bond”

as the most important factor in their residency decision. Nearly two thirds (66%) of current

Fraternity residents indicated they intended to return to their Fraternity House next year. The same

percentage (66%) of Fraternity Members living in Residence Halls intends to move into their

Fraternity House next year. Only 24% of Fraternity House residents cited an intention to move off‐

campus next year.

Just under half (46%) of Fraternity upperclassman at Southern Miss have chosen to live off‐campus.

This figure is lower than most public universities and is undoubtedly impacted by Southern Miss’ 4‐

semester live‐in requirement. Of those living off‐campus, only 20% moved off‐campus from their

Fraternity House. Fifty‐two percent (52%) of off‐campus Fraternity Members moved there from the

Residence Halls, while 28% never lived on campus. The most important factors contributing to their

decision to move off‐campus included the following (with the percentage responding either very or

extremely important in parenthesis):

Private Bedroom (78%)

USM Rules (78%)

More Privacy (78%)

Overnight Guests (74%)

Private/Semi‐Private Bathroom (72%)

Greater Food Plan Flexibility (72%)

It is clear that privacy is an important factor for Fraternity Members choosing to live off‐campus,

whether defined as a private bathroom or bedroom, unregulated overnight guests or privacy in

general. In addition, on‐campus living also comes with university housing rules and a meal plan

requirement, conditions which also contribute to students’ choice to move off‐campus.

Fraternity House satisfaction levels were high pertaining to social life and activities (84% very or

somewhat satisfied), amenities (80%) and common spaces (65%). Fraternity Members were most

dissatisfied with their ability to control room temperature (78% very or somewhat dissatisfied),

laundry facilities (62%) and the fixed nature of the beds/bed frames (61%).

of 28

The survey asked members not returning to their Fraternity Houses in 2012‐13 what were their

primary reasons for that decision. The factors ranking highest were the ability to control room

temperature, larger personal spaces (bedroom, storage, laundry), more privacy (individual bedroom,

bathroom, privacy in general) and lower costs (rent, food, food options). Over half (55%) also

referenced having completed the university’s 4‐semester live‐in requirement.

The source of funds used by Fraternity Members to pay for room and board changes as they

matriculate towards graduation. The majority of Fraternity Members in Residence Halls cited

grants/scholarships (74%) and parents/relatives (64%) as sources of income, while only 20%

identified job earnings as a source. Residents in Fraternity Houses increased their reliance on job

earnings (36%) as a source of income, while the number receiving grants and scholarships (59%)

declined. The most significant shift in income sources occurs with upper classmen living off‐campus

where more than double (62%) the number of students work as compared to their on‐campus

brothers. Parental support remains high for off‐campus Greeks (65%), but markedly fewer of those

students continue to receive income from grants and scholarships (45%).

B. Fraternity Housing Project

Part of the survey was designed to measure the importance of a variety of factors on Fraternity

Members’ willingness to continue to reside on‐campus after their 4‐semester in‐house residency

requirement has been satisfied. As such, the following statement/question was posed in each of the

surveys:

“Southern Miss is considering replacement fraternity housing facilities to address the

contemporary needs of fraternity members. Accordingly, we want to know, if certain

design elements or housing policy changes were integrated into new facilities, whether

they might increase your consideration of living in your chapter’s fraternity house

beyond the four‐semester University in‐house residency requirement.” A five point Likert

scale was used to rank their responses to 16 different potential project

elements/conditions.

The survey affirmed that the experience, preference and expectations of Fraternity Members, consistent

with most undergraduate students, clearly evolve as they progress from freshman to seniors. This

evolution and maturity has a distinct impact on their desires and requirements as it relates to housing

product, food service, lifestyle and living arrangements. This is reflected in the changing nature of the

responses in certain key areas by Fraternity Members in Residence Halls, Fraternity Houses and Off‐

Campus. That being said, certain central themes (across all residency locations and class year) emerged

in terms of contemporary housing preferences and these included a desire for larger/private bedrooms

and better laundry facilities. After their freshman year, the super majority (80%+) of Fraternity

Members also indicate a very high preference for kitchens and greater flexibility regarding food options.

There is an opportunity to retain in a Greek Housing Project a measurable amount of the upperclassmen

that currently migrate off‐campus, if such a project were programmed and managed in a manner

consistent with upper class student housing preferences. Fraternity Members were directly asked:

of 28

“If Greek apartments (with full kitchens) were built as part of a new fraternity housing

project (in addition to new fraternity houses) which were operated consistent with

private apartment rules and staffing, what is the likelihood they would consider residing

in those rather than moving off‐campus?” Nearly three quarters (73%) of Fraternity

Members responded in the affirmative (likely or very likely) and the level of interest was

fairly consistent irrespective of residency location or class year.

Key elements of retaining a greater percentage of upperclassmen in on‐campus housing5 would include:

Building apartment‐style units with private bedrooms, private bathrooms and kitchens as one of

the housing product types in a Greek or Fraternity Project

Providing competitive amenity packages such as a swimming pool, spa, game rooms, etc.

Offering a small declining balance meal plan option and no mandatory meal plan requirement

for apartment residents

Apartment housing rules consistent with off‐campus apartments (no guest registration, etc.)

Provision of convenient parking

If the university were to consider Greek apartments as part of the Fraternity Project development

program, it is recommended that those facilities be co‐ed and accommodate members of IFC,

Panhellenic and NPHC organizations. That would make the facilities most competitive with private

apartments and also increase demand for the apartments.

V. Greek Projects Delivered via Public Private Partnership

About a third of the Greek Housing projects that have been completed nationally (most over the last

decade) have been developed and financed using a Public Private Partnership (“PPP”) structure. The

development and financing structure and terms for these five projects are summarized below and

detailed in Exhibit E.

San Diego State University, Fraternity Row

Fraternity Row at San Diego State University (“SDSU”) was

completed in 2002 pursuant to a PPP between SDSU

Foundation, a wholly‐owned and controlled affiliate of SDSU,

and Pierce Education Properties. The project included a

one‐level subterranean parking structure, eight detached fraternity chapter houses and 64 adjacent

apartment units (262 beds). PEP served as a fee developer for the project. SDSU Foundation is the

property manager and the student apartments are leased annually pursuant to a referral agreement

between SDSU Foundation and each resident fraternity’s house corporation. The student apartments

were financed with tax‐exempt bonds issued by SDSU Foundation. The fraternity chapter houses were

5 In order to capture a meaningful percentage of upper class sorority members in‐on campus apartments, it would be critical that the apartment‐style offering is not considered sorority housing by the national organizations or their primary insurance carrier (and thus would be exempt from national rules that apply to in‐house residents of sororities).

of 28

financed through a construction loan from a national bank. Six of the eight chapter houses were sold (as

condominium units) to local fraternity house corporations, while SDSU Foundation retained two chapter

houses that are rented. For the six owned houses, local fraternity house corporations financed the

purchases through a combination of equity from previous property holdings, alumni contributions and

bank debt. The project is on balance sheet for SDSU Foundation and on‐credit to the university.

Arizona State University, Adelphi Commons

Adelphi Commons at Arizona State University (“ASU”) was

completed in 2001 pursuant to a PPP between a special

purpose, non‐profit corporation (“SPE”) created and

controlled by ASU and Century Development (“Century”, a

company that was subsequently acquired by Australia‐

based REIT and now operating in the U.S. as Campus Living

Villages, “CLV”). Century was a fee developer and also

served for about 10 years as the property manager. Recently, ASU terminated CLV as manager and took

over property management itself. The sorority project includes 330 beds in 11 townhome style clusters

with residence hall‐style bedrooms, a small common room for each cluster and a central multi‐purpose

room. ASU leased the land to the SPE, and the project was entirely financed with tax exempt bonds with

the SPE as the borrower.

University of Houston, Bayou Oaks

Bayou Oaks at University of Houston (“UH”)

was completed in 2003 pursuant to a PPP

between an SPE (created for the project) and

American Campus Communities (“ACC”).

ACC was a fee developer and also provides

property management services for the project. Occupants include fraternities and sororities in 15

townhome style clusters with 13 – 21 beds each. In addition, the project includes 66 apartment units

including double occupied suites (no kitchen) and 4‐bedroom, 2‐bath apartment units. The project

houses 8 NIC fraternities, 6 NPC sororities and one NPHC organization. UH leased the land to the SPE,

and the project was entirely financed with tax‐exempt bonds.

Western Carolina University, The Village

The Village at Western Carolina University (“WCU”) was

completed in 2004 and 2005 pursuant to a PPP between an

SPE (Research & Development LLC) owned and controlled by

WCU and Capstone Development (“Capstone”). Capstone was

a fee developer for the project. WCU’s Office of Housing and Residential Life handles leasing and

property management pursuant to a master leaseback of the facilities from the SPE. The 220‐bed

project includes 15 detached chapter houses, 6 with 6‐8 beds, 2 with 16 beds and 7 with 20 beds. WCU

leased the land to the SPE which financed the project with tax‐exempt bonds.

of 28

Washington & Jefferson University,

Chestnut Street Housing

The Chestnut Street Housing project at Washington &

Jefferson University was completed in 2004 pursuant to a

PPP between the university and Capstone Development.

Capstone served as a fee developer for the project, which

was built on university land and financed directly by the

university using tax‐exempt bonds. The university leases and manages the property directly which

includes 7 detached chapter houses with 26 beds each and 3 townhome‐style units also with 26 beds

each. The project houses six fraternities and four sororities.

VI. NIC Fraternity Housing Lending Programs

A survey was distributed to the (inter)national offices of all fraternities (NIC and NPHC) with chapters at

Southern Miss to evaluate the range of lending programs and related terms potentially available to

finance a portion of project costs related to local fraternity houses. Of the 10 NIC fraternities currently

with chapters at Southern Miss, 70% provided information about national fraternity house lending

programs (see Exhibit F – NIC Fraternity Lending Programs). None of the national organizations for

Southern Miss’ NPHC fraternities responded to the survey and it is believed that none of them have

national lending programs available to support local housing.

The following summarizes the general types and terms of lending programs available from those

(inter)national organizations that provide financing to local house corporations in support of fraternity

housing.

Uses of Funds: Generally, loans are available to support acquisition, construction, renovation

and refinancing of local fraternity houses. Sigma Phi Epsilon will provide its balance sheet to

support third party construction loan guarantees.

Secured Loan Amounts: From most national organizations, the loan amounts available for

individual projects generally can be up to $200,000 to $550,000. Kappa Alpha has loaned as

much as $1 million and Sigma Phi Epsilon has loaned $2.24 million.

Collateral: Most national organizations prefer a first deed of trust (“TD”) as security, but most

will also loan funds secured by a second TD. Typically, the amount available is smaller where the

security is a second TD.

Loan Term & Amortization: National loans are typically short term, with the majority offering

terms between three and five years. Delta Tau Delta is the only long term lender of those

responding to the survey, offering terms of 10, 15 and 20 years. The typical amortization period

for national loans is 20 years, while Sigma Chi will allow up to 30 years and Pi Kappa Phi and

Kappa Alpha require amortization matching the shorter terms (3‐5 years) of their loans.

of 28

Interest Rates: Interest rates vary widely and are largely based upon a spread over a selected

index including Prime Rate, LIBOR, Treasury Bonds, Commercial Paper, etc. Spreads range from

110 to 350 basis points and many have interest rate floors ranging from 6.5% ‐ 10%.

Guarantees: Most national organizations require guarantees to support their loans from the

local house corporation or local alumni.

Unsecured Loans: A few of the national organizations make smaller, unsecured loans available

to local house corporations including Pi Kappa Alpha, Pi Kappa Phi and Sigma Phi Epsilon. These

are generally for smaller amounts (up to $25,000) and are used for small renovation, ADA or life

safety projects, furnishings and equipment. Delta Tau Delta, Pi Kappa Alpha and Pi Kappa Phi

consider unsecured advances to finance payments to retain project fundraising consultants.

Source of Funds: The majority of national organizations fund their chapter house lending

programs with endowment funds (as an investment vehicle for a portion of those funds). Sigma

Phi Epsilon has a sophisticated conduit program whereby they have a line of credit established

with a bank secured by their loan portfolio whereby they are able to draw upon the line of credit

to fund new loans. All national organizations making loans do so through separate entities

(corporations or LLCs) that are wholly‐owned affiliates of the (inter)national fraternity, but are

bankrupt remote (e.g. stand‐alone entities which hold assets and make loans legally segregated

from the (inter)national fraternity or foundation).

As Southern Miss proceeds to evaluate the feasibility and alternative financing structures for a planned

new Fraternity development, the majority of its IFC chapters likely could have access to loan funds from

affiliates of their (inter)national organizations that could be available to finance a portion of project

costs. These loan funds might logically fund detached or expanded chapter rooms,

furnishings/fixtures/equipment, interior upgrades (millwork, flooring, etc.) or amenities. Of course,

these national lending programs do scrutinize the ability of the local house corporation to repay

borrowed funds and revenue sources to support such repayment would be an important part of any

financing plan that would include national loan funds. National loan programs can also be used, in some

instances, as a vehicle to monetize up‐front, multi‐year alumni pledges.

VII. Development Delivery & Financing Alternatives

Project development, construction, delivery and financing for Greek projects, similar to other university‐

related projects, can be accomplished in a variety of manners. Exhibit G outlines the continuum of

development delivery, ground lease and financing alternatives and summarizes the structure,

advantages, disadvantages and implications related to control, risk, accounting, credit treatment, debt

capacity and other important factors. The entire continuum portrayed in Exhibit G is available for

application to many university projects (e.g. traditional student housing), but realistically only a subset

of those options are practical for Greek housing. The following sections summarize general project

ownership and delivery alternatives, as well as potential sources of Fraternity Project financing.

of 28

A. Development Delivery

Development Delivery, as distinguished from project finance, typically involves alternate structures for

pre‐development planning, design and project construction. In the context of a Greek or Fraternity

Project, this traditionally involves projects that are built by: (1) the university itself, (2) a controlled and

affiliated foundation or special purpose tax‐exempt corporation, (3) an (inter)national Greek

organization or local affiliated house corporation, or (4) a private party usually in the form of a

developer or unaffiliated non‐profit corporation. The risk, control and cost trade‐offs related to these

delivery methods are summarized in Exhibit F.

B. Financing

A wide array of financing is available and can be used to finance a fraternity housing project. Many

projects that include a mixture of product types and/or ownership structures may use a hybrid of these

financing sources. Under all circumstances where tax‐exempt bonds might be utilized, consultation with

bond counsel should include an evaluation as to whether contractual involvement with alumni house

corporations could be deemed a private use and compromise the tax‐exempt status of the bonds as well

as the deemed use for property tax or possessory interest tax purposes.

The following types of financing are potentially available for a Fraternity Project.

Tax‐Exempt Bonds Revenue Bonds (issued by University) – For University‐owned projects. This

offers the lowest cost of capital and maximum control, where university takes all/most of the

risk, and is on balance sheet, on credit (e.g. high impact on credit quality/analysis), uses debt

capacity, and necessitates state procurement with all the requirements and related time

considerations. This method is likely off the property tax rolls and could be leased to students

or fraternity chapters.

Tax‐Exempt Revenue Bonds (issued by University‐affiliated entity) – For project components

consistent with tax‐exempt mission of the Foundation/Corporation. Can offer procurement

flexibility and lower project costs, but likely still uses debt capacity and likely to have a limited or

moderate impact on credit quality/analysis by rating agencies. Can use existing Foundation or

create an SPE.

Tax‐Exempt Revenue Bonds (issued by 3rd Party Non‐Profit entity) – For components of a

public/private project which are delivered through a 3rd party non‐profit entity (e.g. The

Provident Group, Collegiate Housing Foundation), which components are consistent with their

tax‐exempt mission. These offer the same benefits as Foundation tax‐exempt bonds, but may

also have more preferable accounting, credit treatment and impact on debt capacity. This can

also shift some risk. Under this structure, a project is typically owned by an LLC of a foundation

that is not directly affiliated with or controlled by the university.

of 28

Taxable Bonds – For components of projects that do not qualify for tax‐exempt bonds, but

which may be financed on a parity lien basis with tax‐exempt bonds. As such, this would

typically be a series of bonds that would be part of one of the above types of tax‐exempt bond

financings. This might be required under transactions where the lessee were a local house

corporation (typically a 501(c)(7) and not a 501(c)(3) organization). The structure could also

potentially trigger property tax liability.

Private Developer Conventional Financing – Conventional bank construction debt financing and

institutional or private equity financing. This typically requires a master lease from the

university and/or Greek House Corporation or (inter)national organization. This structure can

be off balance sheet and off credit if there is no University or Foundation master lease or credit

support, but private developers may require such a lease or credit support in order to procure

the financing. To our knowledge, no university‐affiliated Greek housing project has been

financed with conventional debt and equity with the exception of the Chapter Houses at SDSU’s

Fraternity Row, however that project used SDSU Foundation’s equity and a fee developer. The

only other projects we are aware of that have used this approach have been individual

(inter)national organization‐sponsored fraternity or sorority houses built or financed by local

house corporations.

Greek Organization Loans – These facilities are generally described in Section VIII and detailed

in Exhibit E). These are loans from affiliates of (inter)national fraternities and most typically

range from $200,000 ‐ $550,000. These are often just a piece of the project financing (and not

typically an option for an entire project or building). These loans often fund upgraded finishes,

furniture or equipment or are a source of funds to monetize up‐front multi‐year alumni pledges.

Alumni Contributions – These are quite common to pay for significant portions of project costs

and can range from the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Large capital campaigns

often use private fundraising organizations like Pennington & Associates. According to how the

contribution is structured, gifts can be directed to the University/Foundation, Project or

National Organization, each of which can have different implications related to tax deductibility.

There is a greater history of fundraising to facilitate Greek housing with fraternity alumni than

there is with sorority alumnae. Alumni funds can also be made available in the form of loans

(subordinated debt), which under some structures can be tax‐exempt bonds.

C. Framework for Development Delivery & Financing Plan

The most likely sources of financing for an on‐campus fraternity housing project would be university

bonds, affiliated foundation or corporation bonds or 3rd party non‐profit, tax‐exempt bonds. Provided

the university would have a willingness to incur the debt and the availability of sufficient debt capacity, a

university or affiliated foundation tax‐exempt bond issue would be fairly easy to accomplish (same

method as Sorority Village). That is how most universities have financed their Greek housing projects.

of 28

Under a 3rd party tax‐exempt bond structure, there would likely be university linkages required to the

Fraternity Project in order for the 3rd party non‐profit to achieve the lowest level of investment grade

rating or favorable underwriting necessary to procure the credit enhancement (bond insurance or bank

letter of credit) necessary to sell the bonds. Even with university linkages, a 3rd party tax‐exempt bond

structure may also require sponsor equity in the form of free land (e.g. long term ground lease for $1

per year) and subordinated, unrated tax‐exempt bonds (carried back by the developer, purchased by

fraternity alumni, or subordinated (2nd TD) loans from national fraternities). It may also be feasible to

package Fraternity Project debt with other assets (student housing) to be financed with a 3rd party non‐

profit that would diversify the credit risk, therefore strengthening the credit and financing feasibility.

Some of the university support necessary for a 3rd party debt execution is already in place (e.g. 4‐

semester occupancy requirement). That requirement would need to be extended to include the

Fraternity Project, even if owned by a party other than the university. In addition, the university may be

required to enter into a lease‐back commitment whereby it would agree to lease back (on terms to be

established) any fraternity house which might be vacated by a fraternity for a specified period of time

(e.g. after vacant for one year). Under that scenario, universities often re‐purpose the houses to some

type of themed student housing (international students, student athletes, student organizations,

residential honors house, etc.), if there is not another available Greek organization to lease the property.

Given the limited number of students that are members of fraternities (and therefore, a finite demand

to fill the facilities) and more limited liquidity related to the sale of leased fraternity houses by

developers to third party investors, the ability to finance a Fraternity Project with third party (e.g.

developer or institutional) equity is very limited. The one source that may be worth pursuing in that

regard are infrastructure funds, but that source of capital would likely require a direct, long‐term lease

from the university which would be carried on balance sheet (and be more expensive than directly

issued tax‐exempt bonds).

D. Qualified Private Developers, Non‐Profit Corporations and Fundraising Consultants

If a PPP delivery is selected by Southern Miss, there are a variety of developers and contractor affiliates

that have experience with privatized student housing. If looking for a private partner with Greek

housing development experience, the universe of qualified parties is much narrower. If a PPP delivery

utilizing tax‐exempt bond financing is to be considered, in addition to potentially creating a new non‐

profit specifically to own and finance a fraternity housing project, there are also three known non‐profit

corporations with national IRS‐approved educational missions that could be part of the project team.

Finally, a list of known Greek fundraising consultants is also provided. Below is a list of private

companies who have been involved with student housing development, financing and/or fundraising

and a sub‐set of those who have experience with Greek housing projects.

Developers with Greek Housing Development Experience

American Campus Communities – Austin, TX (www.americancampus.com)

Capstone Development – Birmingham, AL (www.capstonecompanies.com)

Pierce Education Properties – San Diego, CA (www.pierceeducationproperties.com)

of 28

Developers with Garden Style Student Housing Development Experience (all of the above plus)

Ambling University Development Group – Valdosta, GA (www.ambling.com)

Aspen Heights – Austin, TX (www.myaspenheights.com)

Campus Crest – Charlotte, NC (www.campuscrest.com)

Education Realty Trust/Allen & O’Hara – Memphis, TN (www.EdRtrust.com)

Edwards Communities – Columbus, OH (www.edwardsstudenthousing.com)

Fairfield Residential – Grand Prairie, TX (www.fairfieldresidential.com)

Inland American Communities – Dallas, TX (www.inlandamerican.com)

Landmark Properties, Inc. – Athens, GA (www.landmark‐properties.com)

The Preiss Company – Raleigh, NC (www.tpco.com)

Sterling University Housing/The Dinerstein Companies – Houston, TX (www.dinersteincos.com)

Contractor Affiliates with Student Housing Experience

Balfour Beatty Capital Group – Newtown Square, PA (www.bbcapitalgroup.com)

Clark Realty Capital – Bethesda, MD (www.clarkcapitalventures.com)

Gilbane Development Company – Providence, RI (www.gilbaneco.com)

National Non‐Profit Corporations with Educational Missions

Collegiate Housing Foundation – Fairhope, Alabama (www.collegiatehousing.org)

Provident Resources Group Inc. – Baton Rouge, LA (www.provident.org)

The University Financing Foundation – Atlanta, GA (www.tuff.org)

Greek Fundraising Companies

Fraternity Management Group – Tucson, AZ (www.fmgtucson.com)

The Laurus Group – Atlanta, GA (www.thelaurusgroup.net)

Pennington & Company – Lawrence, KS (www.penningtonco.com)

of 28

Exhibit A

Glossary of Terms

“ACC” means American Campus Communities.

“ADA” refers to The Americans with Disabilities Act, Federal legislation that establishes ADA

Standards for Accessible Design as set forth in Appendix A of the Title III Regulations of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

“ASU” means Arizona State University located in Tempe, Arizona.

“AY” means academic year.

“Best Practices” is a generic reference to leading standards, practices and activities within an

industry.

“Blue Ribbon Committee” refers to two committees of Greek leaders, one being a committee of

undergraduate leaders from Southern Miss’ fraternity chapters and the other being a committee of

alumni leaders from Southern Miss’ fraternity chapters.

“Capstone” means Capstone Development.

“Century” means Century Development.

“Consulting Project” is that certain research and conceptual feasibility study for the prospective

replacement of on‐campus fraternity housing at Southern Miss including this Summary Report.

“CLV” means Campus Living Villages.

“FBS” refers to the Football Bowl Subdivision of National Collegiate Athletic Association

conferences, colleges and universities which have Division IA men’s football programs.

“Floor Plans” means prototype floor plans for the Fraternity Project to be designed in the

future.

“Fraternity Development Program” refers to the scope of the Fraternity Project outlined in

Section B in the Summary Report.

“Fraternity Housing” refers to the existing fraternity houses located on the Southern Miss

campus which are owned by the university and occupied by fraternities and their members

“Fraternity Members” mean undergraduate student members of Southern Miss’ fraternity

chapters.

of 28

“Fraternity Project” refers to a prospective new development of fraternity housing to be

developed on‐campus to replace the existing Fraternity Housing.

“FTE” stands for Full Time Equivalent.

“FTES” stands for Full Time Equivalent Staff.

“Greek” is a general reference to a student organization named with Greek letters and

traditionally a member of the NPC, IFC, NPHC or MGC “Greek Councils” at their university.

“Greek Apartments” refers to a proposed 200‐bed student apartment complex that might be

constructed on campus at Southern Miss and offered for priority occupancy to members of the Southern

Miss Greek community.

“Greek Life” refers to a university’s Office of Greek Life.

“Greek Life Program” refers to the program offerings made available to Greek students by the

Office of Greek Life.

“Greek Life Survey” refers to that survey distributed to Greek Peers, the results of which are

summarized in Exhibits D and E.

“Greek Peers” means those nine universities referenced in Exhibits D and E that are deemed to

have comparable Greek Programs to that at Southern Miss and who responded to the Greek Life Survey

administered as part of this Consulting Project.

“HBG” refers to the Hattiesburg campus of the University of Southern Mississippi.

“HU” refers to the Carnegie Foundation classification of “high undergraduate enrollment” that

pertains to universities where greater than 75% of their full time equivalent enrollment is comprised of

undergraduate students.

“IFC” refers to the Inter Fraternity Council(s) at Southern Miss and its Greek Peers which are

comprised of NIC fraternity chapters.

“IRS” means the United States Internal Revenue Service.

“Key Peers” are those peer institutions which Southern Miss determined are most closely

aligned with it in terms of Carnegie Classifications (RU/H or RU/VH, L4/R and HU) including the

University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, University of Delaware, Ohio University, George

Mason University, Bowling Green State University, Old Dominion University and University of Maryland

Baltimore County

of 28

“LLC” means limited liability company.

“L4/R” refers to the Carnegie Foundation classification for large, four‐year institutions that are

primarily residential (25% – 49% of undergraduates live on‐campus).

“Master’s Colleges and Universities” refers to the Carnegie Foundation classification for

universities that generally award at least 50 master’s degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees during

an academic year.

“MGC” refers to the Multi‐Cultural Greek Council.

“NIC” refers to the North American Interfraternity Conference, which is an umbrella

organization for 75 (inter)national member fraternities.

“NPC” refers to the National Panhellenic Conference, which is an umbrella organization of 26

(inter)national member sororities.

“NPHC” refers to the National Pan‐Hellenic Council, which is an umbrella organization of nine

(inter)national historically Black fraternities and sororities.

“Off‐Campus” refers to the those Fraternity Members who live in housing accommodations that

are owned and operated independent of the university in locations that are off‐campus.

“Parlor Fees” refers to a fee (e.g. rent) charged to a Greek Organization as consideration for the

use by that organization of the common areas within their Greek house.

“Peer Institutions” means those 35 Peer Higher Education Institutions which were selected by

Southern Miss as its peers based upon a variety of criteria as set forth in Exhibit C.

“PEP” means Pierce Education Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, who is the

consultant for this Consulting Project.

“PPP” means Public Private Partnership which is a term used to describe a contractual or other

business relationship between a public agency or body (such as a university) and a private company.

“Rents” refers to prospective future rental rates for bed spaces in the Fraternity Project.

“Research Universities” refers to the Carnegie Foundation classifications for universities which

engage in sponsored research activities.

of 28

“Residence Halls” refers to the on‐campus housing facilities at Southern Miss where some

Fraternity Members live including Bolton Hall, Century Park, Hattiesburg Hall, Hickman Hall, Hillcrest

Hall, Jones Hall, McCarty Hall, Mississippi Hall, Pulley Hall, Roberts Hall, Vann Hall and Wilber Hall.

“RFP” refers to a Request for Proposals distributed to prospective bidders as part of project

procurement. In contrast with an RFQ, an RFP typically requires a specific cost proposal from

respondents.

“RFQ” refers to a Request for Qualifications distributed to prospective bidders as part of project

procurement. In contrast with an RFP, an RFQ typically requires the submission of a statement of

qualifications from respondents, but does not typically require a cost proposal with the submittal.

“RU/H” refers to the Carnegie Foundation classification for a Research University with High

research activity.

“RU/VH” refers to the Carnegie Foundation classification for a Research University with Very

High research activity.

“SDSU” means San Diego State University located in San Diego, California.

“Sorority Village” refers to the complex of nine, 30‐bed detached sorority houses and one

duplex unit accommodating two 12‐bed organizations located on‐campus and owned by Southern Miss.

“Southern Miss” means the University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg Campus.

“Southern Region” means that region of the United States of America that includes the states of

Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

“SPE” means a Special Purpose Entity such as a limited liability company, limited partnership or

other entity, the sole purpose of which is a single business activity (such as owning a single real estate

project).

“TD” means Trust Deed and is used in connection with both a first Trust Deed and second Trust

Deed.

“UG” means undergraduate student(s).

“UH” means University of Houston located in Houston, Texas.

“USM Core Leadership Team” is comprised of the following University of Southern Mississippi

administrators: Sid Gonsoulin (AVP for Student Affairs), Josh Schutts (Asst. Dean of Students for Greek

Life), Gary Kimble (Director, Conference and Housing Operations), Charles Childress (Asst. Director,

of 28

Conference and Housing Operations), Dr. Scott Blackwell (Director or Residence Life), Valencia Walls

(Coordinator of Greek Life) and Melissa Sharp (Asst. Director of Greek Life).

“VHU” is an acronym for the Carnegie Foundation‐definition “very high undergraduate

enrollment” that pertains to universities where greater than 90% of their full time equivalent enrollment

is comprised of undergraduate students.

“WCU” means West Carolina University located in Cullowhee, North Carolina.

of 28

Exhibit B

Stakeholder Engagement

The following meetings and consultations have occurred during the duration of this Consulting Project.

Unless otherwise noted, all meetings occurred in person at the Hattiesburg campus of University of

Southern Mississippi.

February 28‐29, 2012

Tour of Fraternity Row with Gary Kimble, Charles Childress and Ernie Oliveras

Tour of University of Southern Mississippi Campus

Meetings with USM Core Leadership Team6 to discuss Consulting Project

Meeting with Dr. Scott Blackwell (Director of Residence Life & Housing)

Meeting with IFC and NPHC (male) leadership

Meeting with NPC and NPHC (female) leadership

Meeting with Fraternity Undergraduate Leadership, Chapter Advisors & Housing

Corporation Offices

Meeting with Dr. Joe Paul (VP for Student Affairs) and Dr. Eddie Holloway (Dean of

Students)

March 2012

March 19 – Greek Life Survey Distributed to Greek Peers

March 19 – Fraternity Member Survey Distributed to Fraternity Members

March 30 – Fraternity Member Survey Closes (initial distribution)

April 17‐19, 2012

Meetings with USM Core Leadership Team

NPHC Undergraduate Member Focus Group Session

IFC Undergraduate Member (Lower Division) Focus Group Sessions

IFC Undergraduate Blue Ribbon Work Team (Upper Division) Focus Group Session

Meeting with NPC and NPHC Alumni Representatives – Presentation of Greek Member

Survey Results

Meeting with Fraternity Chapter Advisors and House Corporation Officers –

Presentation of Greek Member Survey Results

Meeting Alumni Blue Ribbon Work Team – Presentation of Greek Member Survey

Results

April 27 – Fraternity Member Survey Re‐Opens (second distribution)

6 USM Core Leadership Team includes the following USM administrators: Sid Gonsoulin (AVP for Student Affairs), Josh Schutts (Asst. Dean of

Students for Greek Life), Gary Kimble (Director, Conference and Housing Operations), Charles Childress (Asst. Director, Conference and Housing Operations), Dr. Scott Blackwell (Director of Residence Life), Valencia Walls (Coordinator of Greek Life) and Melissa Sharp (Asst. Director of Greek Life).

of 28

May 2012

May 7 – Fraternity Member Survey Closes (second distribution)

May 22 – Conference Call with Alumni Blue Ribbon Work Team (members who could

not attend meeting of April 18th)

June 2012

June 18 – Fraternity Lending Survey Distributed

June 19, 2012

Meeting with USM Core Leadership Team

Meeting with Chris Crenshaw, Director of Physical Plan

Meeting with Dr. Joe Paul, VP of Student Affairs

Meeting with Dr. Eddie Holloway, Dean of Students

Exhibit C

Peer Higher Education Institutions (1)


Sorted by % Fraternity Participation

April 2012

Peer Public/

Number Peer Institutions Location Private Setting (4) Conference Division Undergrad Graduate Total % Instate % Freshman % UG Fraternity Sorority Male Female

1 University of Mississippi Oxford, MS Public Rural RU/H, L4/R, HU SEC Div I/FBS 15,346 2,151 17,497 52% 33% 47% 52% 45% 55%

2 Mississippi State University Starkville, MS Public Rural RU/VH, L4/R, HU SEC Div I/FBS 16,312 2,064 18,376 69% 96% 25% 30% 33% 48% 52%

3 Delta State University Cleveland, MS Public Rural Master's L, M4/R, HU Gulf South Div II 2,880 1,155 4,035 84% 81% 28% 21% 24% 43% 57%

4 University of Delaware Newark, DE Public Suburban RU/VH, L4/R, HU Colonial Div IAA 17,120 2,750 19,870 32% 94% 44% 16% 21% 41% 59%

5 University of So. Mississippi (5) Hattiesburg, MS Public Suburban RU/H, L4/R, HU Conf. USA Div I/FBS 12,263 2,583 14,846 72% 72% 36% 11% 13% 39% 61%

6 Nicholls State University Thibodaux, LA Public Rural Master's M, M4/NR, VHU Southland Div I/FCS 6,141 171 6,312 96% 46% 23% 14% 12% 40% 60%

7 Ohio University Athens, OH Public Rural RU/H, L4/R, HU MAC Div I/FBS 21,936 2,909 24,845 89% 95% 44% 13% 8% 48% 52%

8 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Public Suburban RU/H, L4/R, MU Colonial Div I (no FB) 20,782 3,884 24,666 77% 73% 27% 13% 18% 47% 53%

9 University of Louisiana, Lafayette Lafayette, LA Public Urban RU/H, L4/NR, VHU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 15,321 850 16,171 97% 36% 14% 11% 11% 44% 56%

10 University of Louisiana, Monroe Monroe, LA Public Urban Master's L, M4/NR, HU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 8,015 1,198 9,213 98% 54% 23% 11% 5% 31% 69%

11 University of South Alabama Mobile, AL Public Urban RU/H, L4/NR, HU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 11,578 2,694 14,272 21% 10% 10% 46% 54%

12 Louisiana Tech University Ruston, LA Public Rural RU/H, M4/R, HU WAC Div I/FBS 8,978 2,765 11,743 86% 35% 15% 9% 17% 47% 53%

13 Bowling Green State Univeristy Bowling Green, OH Public Rural RU/H, L4/R, HU MAC Div I/FBS 15,064 1,334 16,398 85% 90% 45% 9% 11% 42% 58%

14 University of Texas at Tyler Tyler, TX Public Urban Master's L, M4/NR, HU Div III 5,116 537 5,653 97% 63% 14% 9% 8% 43% 57%

15 Georgia Southern University Statesboro, GA Public Rural DRU, L4/R, VHU Southern Div I/FCS 17,525 952 18,477 96% 93% 25% 8% 14% 52% 48%

16 Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA Public Urban RU/H, L4/R, HU Colonial Div IAA 19,367 1,891 21,258 91% 74% 24% 8% 11% 51% 49%

17 University of Alabama, Birmingham Birmingham, AL Public Urban RU/VH, L4/NR, MU Conf. USA Div I/FBS 11,128 3,527 14,655 90% 67% 21% 7% 8% 44% 56%

18 Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA Public Urban RU/VH, L4/NR, HU Colonial Div I (no FB) 23,754 5,168 28,922 88% 79% 21% 7% 7% 42% 58%

19 University of North Texas Denton, TX Public Suburban RU/H, L4/NR, HU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 28,325 3,283 31,608 97% 83% 19% 7% 6% 45% 55%

20 University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL Public Urban Master's L, L4/NR, VHU Atlantic Sun Div I (no FB) 14,363 1,807 16,170 97% 64% 18% 6% 9% 47% 53%

21 University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX Public Urban RU/H, L4/NR, HU Southland Div I (no FB) 25,419 3,262 28,681 99% 51% 13% 6% 3% 49% 51%

22 Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN Public Suburban DRU, L4/NR, VHU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 23,415 261 23,676 95% 44% 17% 5% 7% 49% 51%

23 University of West Florida Pensacola, FL Public Suburban DRU, M4/NR, HU Gulf South Div II 9,826 2,156 11,982 91% 59% 19% 5% 6% 41% 59%

24 Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI Public Urban RU/H, L4/NR, HU MAC Div I/FBS 20,054 1,080 21,134 90% 87% 27% 4% 8% 47% 53%

25 University of North Alabama Florence, AL Public Urban Master's L, M4/NR, HU Gulf South Div II 6,120 289 6,409 87% 49% 18% 4% 7% 41% 59%

26 University of Maryland, Balt. County Baltimore, MD Public Suburban RU/H, L4/R, HU America East Div I (no FB) 10,573 2,626 13,199 91% 73% 35% 4% 4% 58% 42%

27 University of New Orleans New Orleans, LA Public Urban RU/H, M4/NR, HU Gulf South Div II 8,263 1,310 9,573 96% 21% 8% 3% 4% 51% 49%

28 Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL Public Suburban RY/H, L4/NR, HU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 24,281 1,787 26,068 92% 70% 6% 1% 1% 45% 55%

29 East Carolina University Greenville, NC Public Urban DRU, L4/NR, HU Conf. USA Div I/FBS 21,589 2,487 24,076 86% 86% 24% 43% 57%

30 Marshall University Huntington, WV Public Urban Master's L, L4/R, HU Conf. USA Div I/FBS 10,053 1,662 11,715 72% 42% 58%

31 Southeastern Louisiana University Hammond, LA Public Suburban Master's L, L4/NR, VHU Southland Div I/FCS 14,072 462 14,534 97% 15% 42% 58%

32 Troy University Troy, AL Public Rural Master's L, L4/R, HU Sunbelt Div I/FBS 20,582 1,521 22,103 68% 62% 31% 37% 63%

33 University of Memphis Memphis, TN Public Urban RU/H, L4/NR, HU Big East Div I/FBS 17,966 2,247 20,213 91% 56% 18% 42% 58%

34 University of West Alabama Livingston, AL Public Urban Master's L, M4/R, MU Gulf South Div II 2,076 2,847 4,923 82% 30% 45% 55%

35 Georgia State University Atlanta, GA Public Urban RU/VH, L4/NR, HU Colonial Div IAA 24,101 5,201 29,302 97% 58% 14% 46% 54%

36 Texas State University San Marcos, TX Public Suburban Master's L, L4/NR, HU WAC Div I/FBS 28,967 2,555 31,522 99% 88% 20% 41% 59%

AVERAGES 15,519 2,095 17,614 86% 68% 23% 10% 12% 45% 55%

(1) The group of Peer Institutions was developed by including the institutional benchmark peers as determined by Southern Miss's Office of Institutional Research together with relevant Conference USA and selected other universities identified as comparable by Core committee members.

(2) Source: www.classifications.carnegiefoundation.org

(3) Source: www.ncaa.com

(4) Source:www.collegesearch.collegeboard.com

(5) Per University of Southern Mississippi, Fall 2011 Hattiesburg Campus undergraduate enrollment (unduplicated) was 9,233. This figure is used to calculate % of undergraduates living on as well as Greek participation rates.

Basic Categories Undergraduate Profiles Enrollment Profile

RU/VH ‐ Research Universities (very high research activity) L4/HR ‐ Large four‐year, highly residential HU ‐ High Undergraduate

RU/H ‐ Research Universities (high research activity) L4/R ‐ Large four‐year, primarily residential MU ‐ Majority Undergraduate

DRU ‐ Doctoral/Research Universities L4/NR ‐ Large four‐year, primarily non‐residential VHU ‐ Very High Undergraduate

Master's L ‐ Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs) M4/HR ‐ Medium four‐year, highly residential

Bac/Diverse ‐ Baccalaureate Colleges ‐ Diverse Fields M4/R ‐ Medium four‐year, primarily residential

Student Body (4)Carnegie Classifications (2)

Athletics (3) Enrollment (4) On‐Campus Housing (4) Greek Participation (4)

Exhibit D

Greek Life Survey

University of Southern Mississippi ‐ Greek Peers

September 2012

Greek Life Website usm.edu/greeklife bgsu.edu/greek fau.edu/fslife ulgreeks.com ulmgreeks.com umbc.edu/studentlife/greunf.edu/fraternity‐sorount.edu/gl southalabama.edu/greeuwf.edu/greekaff

University Enrollment (AY 2011)

Undergraduate 12,263 15,064 23,615 15,321 8,015 10,573 14,363 28,283 11,575 9,826

Graduate 2,583 1,334 4,251 1,564 1,198 2,626 1,807 7,784 2,890 2,156

Total 14,846 16,398 27,866 16,885 9,213 13,199 16,170 36,067 14,465 11,982

Gender Mix (M/F) 39%/61% 42%/58% 42%/58% 43%/57% 31%/69% 42%/58% 47%/53% 45%/55% 46%/54% 41%/59%

Undergraduate Minority % 37% 26% 44% 35% 27% 51% 26% 49% 35% 28%

Undergrad Enrollment Change (2007‐11) 3% ‐4% 14% 3% 18% 12% ‐4% 4% 8% 13%

Membership (see detail next page)

Total Greek Chapters 25 42 28 20 16 21 24 38 17 15

Total Greek Members 1,492 1,510 1,077 1,061 550 408 1,138 1,281 545 548

Members as % of Undergraduates 16.0% 10.0% 4.6% 6.9% 6.9% 3.9% 7.9% 4.5% 4.7% 5.6%

NIC Members/Chapter 48 34 46 53 50 28 52 35 30 30

NPC Members/Chapter 122 63 119 117 67 35 130 94 60 78

NPHC Members/Chapter 19 8 8 7 17 6 6 n/s 12 5

Greek Life Staff & Operations

Full Time Staff (FTE) 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00

Graduate Students (#) 1.00 6.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total Greek Life Staff (FTE) 3.50 6.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 3.50 1.50 1.50

Annual Budget (incl. staff) 110,000$ 553,542$ 175,844$ N/S 50,000$ N/S 83,000$ 219,100$ N/S N/S

Annual Budget (excl. staff) ‐$ 84,000$ 73,665$ N/S ‐$ N/S 7,500$ 51,000$ N/S 12,740$

Senior Staff Reports to Dean of Students Dean of Students AD St Involv & Leadshp Dean of Students VP for Student Affairs AD Maj. Progs/Events AVP Student Affairs Dean of Students Ass. Dean of Students AD Stud. Involvment

Division Housed within Dean of Students Dean of Students Office Stud Involv & Leadshp Dean of Students Student Life & Ldshp Office of Student Life Student Affairs Student Affiars Student Center Univ. Commons

Source of Funding General Fund for

salaries; Gov. Councils

support programs

Housing & Residential

Life

Activity & Service Fees Salaries = Gen. Fund;

Programs = Greek

student fees

Recruit Fees, St Govt

Council Dues, St Fees

Campus Act. Board

Student Life Activity Fee Educ. & Gen. Fees,

Student Affairs,

Foundation

Student Service Fees Staff = Stud Ctr; Progs

= CAB; NPHC GA =

Multicultural Aff

A&S Fees; UCSA

Key Greek Life Programs

New Member Training UNV 312 Greek Ldrship NM Greek Council Academic Success New Member Fusion NM Convocation Greek Convocation Chptr/Emerg Leaders Acropolis NM Institute

Advanced Leadership Development Officer Roundtable Emerging Leaders (So/Jr) Learn to Lead Inst. Greek Ldshp Retreat Greek Retreat Greek Retreat Leadership Retreats Emerg. Leaders Training ‐ Council Off. Greak Leaders Retreat

Advisors Training Summer .75 day Pres & Advisors Mtgs Chapter Adv. Retreats Advisor Luncheon

Philantropy IFC/PC Philanth. Week Habitat for Humanity NPHC Stepshow

Publicity Campaigns Meet the Greeks Go Greek Team Social Media Network Greek Seekers Town Hall Meetings Greek Awards Greek Awards

Homecoming NPHC Step Show/Aft. Pty

Greek Week Greek Weekend √ √ √ √ GW Unity Night

Others Ritual Awareness Week Risk Mgt Train., Sclsp. Bd., Ritual Celebration Wk Officer Roundtables Day of Service President's Council Mtgs Risk Mgt Training Greek Ambassadors Ed. Programming for: Council Exec Boards

Order of Olympians Gk Hsg Gk. Com. Prog. Natl Hazing Prevention Standards Excellence Alumni Roundtables Educ & Leadership Prog AFLV Conference President's Retreat subst. abuse, hazing,

Chapter Roster Mgmt Team; Order of Omega Presidents Ldshp Exp Fall Fest Song Fest All Greek Study Exp Greek Career Dev. bystander behavior

Changes with More Staff/Budget Addtl staff, leadership

programs, marketing,

alumni fundraising,

academic incentives

Leadership Programming 1‐2 Additional FTES N/S Speakers; stipends for

dues, recruiting &

programming; better

office facilities

N/S (2) (3) Staffing,

programming, Council

support, leadership

dev.

Staff member for each

council; office with

student space

(1) Figures for Undergraduate Minority Percentage and Undergraduate Greek Membership Percentage provided by Southern Miss

(3) Building a Greek Life Center used to house meetings, activity space ‐‐ mainly for use by NPHC and MGC groups; could also house Greek Life Office.

University of West

Florida

U of Maryland

Baltimore County

Bowling Green State

University

(2) More leadership programming, housing funds, more all‐greek events and sponsored events, quality publications and marketing materials, more staff, increased salaries, scholarships to UIFI, Greek Ambassador Program, more leadership experiences, NPHC & MGC programming

University of

North Texas

University of Southern

Mississippi (1)

Florida Atlantic

University

U of Louisiana ‐

Monroe

University of South

Alabama

U of Louisiana ‐

LafayetteUniversity

University of North

Florida

Exhibit E

Greek Life Survey ‐ Membership Detail

University of Southern Mississippi ‐ Peer Insitutions

September 2012

Greek Organization Membership 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2006 2010 2007 2011 2011

NIC Chapters 11 10 16 16 7 8 7 8 5 4 6 7 7 8 6 6 11 15 6 7 9

NPC Chapters 8 7 14 13 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 8 4 4 6

NPHC Chapters 7 8 6 7 5 8 8 7 9 9 5 4 7 9 6 6 9 8 4 3 7

Other Chapters ‐ ‐ 6 6 5 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 6 1 2 ‐ ‐ 5 7 ‐ 1 3

Total Chapters 26 25 42 42 20 28 20 20 17 16 18 21 20 24 17 17 31 38 14 15 25

2007 2011 (1) 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 2008 2011

NIC Members 460 482 641 549 203 370 267 426 156 200 136 196 N/S 416 192 178 532 174 208 356

NPC Members 625 856 904 824 171 596 389 586 215 200 117 139 N/S 650 314 298 749 299 311 521

NPHC Members 94 154 60 53 35 61 148 49 107 150 18 22 N/S 57 69 69 n/s unknown 16 63

Other Members ‐ ‐ 146 84 37 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 51 N/S 15 ‐ ‐ n/s ‐ 13 21

Total Members 1,179 1,492 1,751 1,510 446 1,077 804 1,061 478 550 289 408 N/S 1,138 575 545 1,281 473 548 961

Members as % of Undergraduates 9.9% 12.2% 11.2% 6.4% 2.2% 4.6% 5.4% 6.9% 7.0% 6.9% 3.1% 3.9% N/S 7.9% 5.4% 4.7% 4.5% 5.4% 5.6% 6.5%

NIC Members/Chapter 42 48 40 34 29 46 38 53 31 50 23 28 N/S 52 32 30 ‐ 35 29 30 40

NPC Members/Chapter 78 122 65 63 57 119 78 117 72 67 29 35 N/S 130 63 60 ‐ 94 75 78 88

NPHC Members/Chapter 13 19 10 8 7 8 19 7 12 17 4 6 N/S 6 12 12 ‐ n/s n/a 5 9

MGC Members/Chapter ‐ ‐ 24 14 7 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 9 N/S 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ n/s ‐ 13 7

Greek Housing (Houses/Beds)

Fraternities on Campus 10/312 14/257 N/S 7/75 0/0 0/0 N/S N/S 4/81 7/140 0/0

Sororities on Campus 9/268 16/373 N/S 6/0 0/0 0/0 N/S N/S 5/115 7/140 Res. Halls 4/15

Fraternities off Campus ‐ ‐ N/S ‐ 4/40 0/0 N/S N/S 2/3 1/n/s 1/3

Sororities off Campus ‐ ‐ N/S ‐ Lodge 3/0 0/0 N/S N/S 0/0 0/0 0/0

TOTAL Fraternity & Sorority Houses 19/580 30/630 (4) N/S 13/75 7/40 0/0 N/S N/S 11/199 15/280 5/18

Beds to NIC+NPC Membership 43% 41% N/S 11% 11% 0% N/S N/S 39% n/av 4%

Beds to Total Membership 39% 36% N/S 9% 8% 0% N/S N/S 35% n/av 4%

Staff Supporting Greek Housing 3.00 (2) (28 @ 0.25 FTE = 7.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(1) Southern Miss Greek Membership percentage reflects a total of 9,233 unduplicated, undergraduate students enrolled at the HBG Campus for Fall 2011.

(2) Two FTES support Fraternity Housing (part of Student Affairs but not Greek Life; one hall director for Sorority Housing (reports to Residence Life).

(3) University of North Florida reports future goals of the following numbers of Chapters: NIC (9), NPH (6), NPCH (9) and MGC (3).

(4) Current negotiated capacity is 560 beds, 505 of which are occupied for AY 2010‐11

AveragesUniversity

University of West

Florida

University of

North Texas

University of Southern

Mississippi

Bowling Green State

University

Florida Atlantic

University

U of Louisiana ‐

Lafayette

University of

North Florida (3)

U of Maryland

Baltimore County

U of Louisiana ‐

Monroe

University of South

Alabama

Exhibit F

Greek Housing Project Matrix

Projects Delivered via Public‐Private‐Partnership

June 2012

University Arizona State University San Diego State University University of Houston Washington And Jefferson Western Carolina University

Project Name Adelphi Commons Fraternity Row Bayou Oaks Chestnut Street Housing The Village

Location Tempe, AZ San Diego, CA Houston, TX Butler, PA Cullowhee, NC

Website www.asu.edu/tour/tempe/adel.html www.sdsufraternityrow.com www.bayouoaks‐uh.com www.washjeff.edu

Completed 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004‐2005

Type of Facilities 11 Attached Townhome Style Chapter

Houses. A total of 332 beds. 10 Houses with

30 beds; 2 houses with 60.

8 Detached Chapter Houses 62‐

unit/264‐bed Student Apt. Bldg. 1.4 acres land

15 Attached townhome style houses with 13‐

21 beds; 66 units in the attached dormitory

style, 2‐4 beds.

7 Detached Houses with 26 beds each; 3

Attached houses Townhome style with 26

beds

6 Detached Chapter Houses with 6‐8 beds; 7

Detached Chapter Houses with 20 beds; 2

Detached Chatpter Houses with 16 beds

Facility Sizes On 2 acres of land. Chapter Houses 2,278 ‐ 4,347 sf (2‐4 beds

each); Apartments: 2/1 (1,080 sf), 3/1 (1,107 ‐

1,244 sf)

1.2 to 2 Acres

Shared Project Amenities 175‐car parking garage Laundry Rooms; Volleyball/Basketball Courts

Project Management

Chapter Facilities Arizona State University House Corporations American Campus Communities Washington And Jefferson Residence Life

Housing Facilities Arizona State University SDSU Foundation American Campus Communities Washington And Jefferson Residence Life

Leasing Arizona State University SDSU Foundation per Referral Agts American Campus Communities Washington And Jefferson Residence Life

Greek Life/Programming Staff: 4 Budget: $15,000 Staff: 1 Budget: None Staff: 4 Staff: 1 Budget: $20,000 Staff: 3 Budget: $50,000

Food Service No None; Kitchens in Chapter Houses/Apts None University Meal Plan None

Ownership

Land Arizona State University Condominium Association University of Houston Washington And Jefferson Research and Development, LLC

Chapter Facilities Arizona Capital Facilities Finance Corp. House Corporations & SDSU Foundation University of Houston Washington And Jefferson Research and Development, LLC

Housing Arizona State University SDSU Foundation University of Houston Washington And Jefferson Research and Development, LLC

Delivery & Cost

Delivery Method Ground Lease to Fee Developer PPP ‐w/Fee Developer/Foundation Owner PPP w/Fee Developer & 501(c)3 Owner PPP w/Fee Developer PPP w/Fee Developer

Developer Century Development Pierce Education Properties American Campus Communities Capstone Development Capstone Development

Project Cost $7 Million $16,000,000 $12 Million $12 Million

Rent $4,700 Per Year Apts: From $685/bed; CH: Fratrernities set $7,796 Per Year Per Bed $2,500 Per Semester Per Bed

Greek House Costs $435,000 ‐ $700,000 $1.2 Million

Financing Tax‐exempt bonds issued by ACFFC, a special

purpose tax‐exempt corporation.

Tax‐Exempt Bonds ($11,000,000) Due to all new staffing, exact finance

methods are not known. But it was stated

that each year, the school pays off loans for

this project.

The R&D Corporation sold the bonds to the

university, who backed them with the

property. Once mortgage is payed off, the

title of ownership goes back to WCU.

Bank Debt ($4,200,000)

Other Century became Campus Living Villages.

ASU removed CLV as manager in 2010.

PCBC Gold Nugget Award: Best Public/Private

Special Use Facility; AUREO "Most Outstanding

Project" Award

All Townhouses are occupied by Greek Life

Exhibit G

NIC Fraternity Lending Programs

July 2012

Fraternity ΔΤΔ KA ΠKA ΠΚΦ ΣN ΣφΕ ΣX

Contact Andy Longo Michael P. Wilson Reuben Rodriquez Greg Buehner Nick Murphy Patrick Murphy Tom Burton

Title Director of Fraternity Programs Director of Fraternity Services Director of Real Estate Executive Vice President CFO, Fifth Point Properties Managing Director, Real Estate Chairman, AB Realty

e‐mail [email protected] mwilson@ka‐order.org [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Phone (317) 284‐0203 Ext. 1335 540.463.1865 ext. 2006 (901) 748‐1868 x123 (704) 504‐0888, x 105 (540) 463‐1869 x205 (804) 868‐8512 (443) 831‐0146

Lender Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Fraternity Housing Corporation White Horse Capital, Inc. Pi Kappa Phi Properties Fifth Point Properties, LLC (1) SigEp National Housing, LLC Constantine Capital, Inc. (2)

Source of Funds Endowment Allocation for Loans Reserves and Balance Sheet ΠKA Endowment Natl Housing Corp. Funds ΣN Endowment (as available) Bank Line of Credit ΣX Endowment Funds

Unsecured Loans Chapter Investment Fund

Purpose No No Furnishings/Equipment FF&E, Small Renovation Repairs, Furnishings No

Note Have no RE Collateral $20/member annual reserve

Loan Amount $4,500 ‐ $25,000 Varies ‐ All considered Based upon reserve balance

Term Max 5 Years Typically 3‐5 years; max 10 2‐3 years; 2% interest

Amortization Matches Term 2‐3 years

Rate WSJ Prime + 400; Floor of 8%

Guarantees By 3 Alumni Local House Corp. or Chapter No

Commitment/Service Fees $500 Yes

Secured Loan Conduit Funded

Purposes Construction, Repairs and

Renovation

Acquisition, Renovation,

Construction, Repairs, Refinance

Goodwill (life safety, ADA,

Energy), Acquisition,

Renovation, Construction


Construction, Repairs, Refinance

Not specified. Curently not

providing loans, although loan

parameters are on website.

Renovation, Purchase, Take‐Out

(Construction), Refinance,

Construction Loan Guarantees


Construction or Refinance

(Sprinkler Loans to $50K)

Security for Loan 1st or 2nd TD (prefer 1st) 1st TD only 1st or 2nd TD Strongest Possible, Varies 1st or 2nd TD (mort/leashold) 1st or 2nd TD 1st TD or 2nd TD

Loan Amount up to $550,000 (max 10% of

portfolio) ‐ Equity Required

No minimum; largest loan has been

about $1 million; No set LTV

$400,000 (1st TD); $250,000

(2nd TD)

Varies ‐ All amounts considered Subject to avail. funds; max LTV of

80%, min. DSCR 1.25x

$25M portfolio; loans up to

$2.24M; Max LTV 80% (1st+2nd)

$25,000 to $250,000; max

LTV of 80%; DSCR min 1.0x

Term 10, 15 & 20 Years 5 Years Typically 3‐5 years; No Max 5 Years 5‐7 Years 5 Years

Amortization 10, 15 & 20 Years 5 Years Not to exceed 20 years Matches Term Not to exceed 20 years 20 Years 15‐30 years; Typical is 20

Rate Based upon CMP, Treasury, Term 10% NACMR + 110 pbs (min 9%) 1st TD ‐ WSJ Prime + 250

w/6.5% floor; 2nd TD ‐ WSJ

Prime + 250 w/7% floor

LIBOR + 300 (variable), Treasury +

small spread (fixed)

5‐Year Treas. + 250‐350 bps

Guarantees In certain instances to secure

necessary financing

Possibly Local House Corporation or

Alumni Chapter

Yes Non‐Recourse 10‐20% from 5‐10 alumni

Commitment/Service Fees 1.5% of Loan Amount Yes $250 app., 1% commit. (min.

$500), 2% loan (min. $1,000)

Yes 2% Origination + 1% annual

guaranty fee

Fundraising Advance

Loan Amount Yes $15,000 ‐ $120,000 Considered ‐ individual basis No No

Loan Security 1st or 2nd TD Unsecured

Term

Amortization

Commitment/Service Fees $250

Notes ΔΤΔ has made loans to House Corps

to retain consultants for capital

campaigns. Such loans are part of

their secured lending program and

require RE collateral (1st or 2nd TD).

FHC has a reserve from where it

makes small loans. Larger House

Corp. loans secured with

local/regional banks. Sometime FHC

is borrower (as owner of property) or

guarantor for HC.

Primary emphasis is buying

houses from house corps. who no

longer want to own or operate

their local properties. Price is

typically debt balance.

Housing Loan Funds (funded from

net interest earnings) are made

for small loans ($25K ‐ $500K);

SENH also owns 11 chapter

houses through SPEs

(1) Firm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sigma Nu Fraternity ( http://www.fifthpt.com)

(2) Firm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sigma Chi Fraternity (http://www.sigmachi.org/constantinecapital.html)

Exhibit HUniversity Real Estate Projects

Development Delivery Alternatives and ImplicationsJune 2012

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6Transaction Owner's Representative Non-Profit Development Non-Profit Development Non-Profit Development Non-Profit Development For-Profit DevelopmentScenario University or Foundation Owned Nominal Base Ground Rent Market Base Ground Rent Pre-paid Ground Rent Off-Credit (1) Off-Credit

Type of Developer Development Manager Fee Developer Fee Developer Fee Developer Fee Developer Developer with Private EquityOwner University or Foundation (U/F) 3rd Party Non-Profit Corporation 3rd Party Non-Profit Corporation 3rd Party Non-Profit Corporation 3rd Party Non-Profit Corporation Developer or AffiliateBorrower U/F as Issuer of Bonds Non-Profit Corporation thru Issuer Non-Profit Corporation thru Issuer Non-Profit Corporation thru Issuer Non-Profit Corporation thru Issuer Developer or AffiliateProperty Manager U/F, 3rd Party, Developer Affiliate U/F, 3rd Party, Developer Affiliate U/F, 3rd Party, Developer Affiliate U/F, 3rd Party, Developer Affiliate Developer Affiliate or 3rd Party Developer AffiliateStudent Intake U/F or Prop. Mgr. handles leasing U/F or PM pursuant to Ref. Agt. U/F or PM pursuant to Ref. Agt. U/F or PM pursuant to Ref. Agt. PM with no Referral Agreement U or PM with Referral AgreementResidence Life University or Property Manager University or Property Manager University or Property Manager University or Property Manager Property Manager University or Property ManagerType of Financing Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds Conventional Debt & EquityLand Lease Terms Land leased to Foundation for

nominal base rent; 100% of net cash flow after bond debt service to U/F to serve its mission. Typically, net revenues are unrestricted funds.

Land leased to Non-Profit for nominal base rent; Net cash flow, if any, after senior & subordinated debt service distributed by independent board of Non-Profit pursuant to its tax-exempt mission (to U/F)

Land leased to Non-Profit at fixed base land rent (percent of net revenues or fixed rent as operating expense); 100% of net cash flow after debt service (senior and subordinated, if necessary), if any, distributed by independent board of Non-Profit pursuant to its tax-exempt mission (to U/F)

100% pre-paid land lease in form of lump sum payment. Net cash flow after debt service distributed by independent board of Non-Profit pursuant to its tax-exempt mission (to U/F).

Land leased to Non-Profit at fixed base land rent (percent of revenues or fixed payment as operating expense); 100% of net cash flow after debt service (senior and subordinated, if necessary), if any, distributed by independent board of Non-Profit pursuant to its tax-exempt mission (to U/F)

Ground rent as annual (fixed or percent of net revenues), pre-paid or subordinated payments. Under subordinated ground rent, payment rate would be higher. Net cash flow after debt service and ground rent would all inure to Developer.

Control of Non-Profit University-controlled Affliate No more than two of five board No more than two of five board No more than two of five board No University representatives on N/Amembers to be appointed by members to be appointed by members to be appointed by Non-Profit BoardUniversity University University.

Debt Capacity & On Balance Sheet and defined Structured to be off Balance Sheet Structured to be off Balance Sheet Structured to be off Balance Sheet Structured to be off Balance Sheet Off Balance Sheet and "limited" orCredit Implications (2) as "direct debt" of University and likely treated as "moderate" and likely treated as "moderate" and likely treated as "moderate" and likely to be "limited" impact no impact on Credit Quality/Analysis

"strong" impact on Credit Quality/ impact on Credit Quality/Analysis impact on Credit Quality/Analysis on Credity Quality/Analysis of of UniversityAnalysis of University of University of University University

Advantages Maximum economics to U/F Close to economics of Scenario 1 Guaranteed base land rental income Large, up-front baloon payment Preserves University's Debt Capacity Preserves University's Debt CapacityMaximum U/F Control Construction risk transferred Construction risk transferred Option to endow or use proceeds to Guaranteed base ground rent Variety of ground lease structures

support campus initiative(s) Construction risk transferred Construction risk transferredConstruction risk transferred Can control certain terms through

ground leaseDisadvantages Utilization of Debt Capacity Nominal Base Land Rent Economics to U/F diluted in Annual cash flow (if endowed) subject to Economics to U/F diluted in No economics beyond ground lease

Owner's Risk of Construction and Some Loss of U/F Control order to cover higher cost of debt investment returns order to cover higher cost of debt Loss of U/F ControlOperations (senior and subordinated) Cash spent on one-time basis if applied (senior and subordinated) Highest effective cost of capitalNominal Base Land Rent Some Loss of U/F Control to debt or priority project Loss of U/F Control

Some Loss of U/F Control(1) Location of property and other factors can impact on credit quality/analysis; achieving "limited" or no credit quality/analysis impact absolutely requires University assurance that it will not step in and assist project under any circumstances including an event of default.

(2) Source: Privatized Student Housing and Debt Capacity of U.S. Universities, Moody's Investors Service, March 2010.

Source: Pierce Education Properties, L.P.

VISION ATTAINMENT 2012-2015

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN CURRENT AND FUTURE SUCCESS.

- 2 -

- Executive Summary - The vision of the Office of Greek Life at The University of Southern Mississippi is to be recognized as a distinguished program among our peers. This resource was created as an answer to how that would occur. In this document, we will examine our vision from three lenses: the “Here & Now,” “A Future Focus,” and “Forecasted Projections.” Taken together, the reader is able to see where we begin, and where we seek to end as we pursue these aims from FY 2013 – FY 2015. Each of these sections seeks to demonstrate the health and strength of Greek Life at Southern Miss. In the “Here & Now” section, the essential functions of our Greek Life program will be described. Each function will be supported by a list of programs and experiences that we believe support that role. In “A Future Focus,” our functions and vision will coalesce to provide tangible projects and goals from which we shall devote our focus and energies. Lastly, the “Forecasted Projections” section will look and feel much like an appendix. Charts, graphs and tables will be used to illuminate where we believe we are headed within the framework of continual improvement.

- The Here & Now - The following subsections indicate the role and function of the Office of Greek Life. Contained within each item are a series of programs, events, and activities that are currently implemented toward each function. In many cases, and in an effort to combat campus over-programming, several programs or activities capture multiple office roles. INSPIRE AWARENESS OF INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, AND CAMPUS VALUES AMONG OUR STUDENTS.

• Establishment of a Greek Leadership course • Participation in a new member convocation • Involvement with community service and philanthropy programming • Attendance at an NPHC informational program

PROMOTE POSITIVE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS AMONG OUR STUDENTS.

• Maintaining a term G.P.A. above the campus averages • Individual meetings between staff and students below a 2.0 term average • Greek Leadership course • Greek Life student-led tutoring program • Order of Omega academic honor society

SUPPORT HEALTHY AND DIVERSE INTERACTIONS ACROSS CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTS BETWEEN AND WITHIN OUR STUDENTS.

- 3 -

• Greek Leader retreat • NPHC Retreat • PACKD Retreat (CPC) • Greek Policy Review Session and Welcome Back Workshop • Greek Week program • Greek Leadership course • New Member convocation • Participation in campus intramural and recreational sports • Self-governance model of student leadership, including conduct processes • Marketing and social media • Encouraging campus involvement

FOSTER PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS TO SUPPORT FUTURE SUCCESS AND CONNECTEDNESS BETWEEN AND WITHIN OUR STUDENTS.

• Greek Leader retreat • NPHC Retreat • PACKD Retreat (CPC) • Greek Policy Review Session and Welcome Back Workshop • Encouraging campus involvement

DEVELOP LEADERSHIP SKILLS BETWEEN AND WITHIN OUR STUDENTS

• Greek Leader retreat • NPHC Retreat • PACKD Retreat (CPC) • Recruitment Counselor training • Greek Leadership course • Individual chapter officer transition workshops • Chapter level planning retreats with alumni advisors or national representatives • Regional conference participation (e.g. SEIFC, SEPC, SEGLS) • National institute participation (e.g. UIFI, Leadershape) • Organization-specific national convention/conference participation

CULTIVATE A SENSE OF CONTINUED RESPONSIBILITY, LOYALTY, AND COMMITMENT TO ALMA MATER AND GREEK COMMUNITY WITHIN OUR RISING ALUMNI.

• Encouraging campus involvement • Participation in USM Alumni Association and Eagle Club • Chapter specific scholarships within the University Foundation • Outreach to chapter alumni advisory boards • Encouraging graduate NPHC membership

- 4 -

ENSURE ORGANIZATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF MEMBERS. • CPC Formal Recruitment • IFC Rush • NPHC Intake • NPHC Informational program • NPHC Meet the Greeks program • IFC “Coat and Tie” function • CPC Sorority Recruitment 101 program • Co-sponsoring “Eagle After Hours” programs at summer Preview sessions • Participation at involvement fairs and summer Preview sessions • Greek Life informational programming at GEWW • Sorority Village Meet-and-Greet at Priority Preview • IFC Preview Luncheon Informational program • NPHC scholarship awarded to a non-Greek potential member • Chapter scholarships awarded to potential new members • Individual academics meeting with staff members for poorly-performing students • Encouragement of campus organization involvement (external to Greek life) • Positive new member/associate member education programs • Scholarship opportunities for Greek students based on leadership and academic performance

- 5 -

- A Future Focus - The Office of Greek Life has identified three areas from which programming and initiatives should emerge. This section sets out to define large-scale initiatives or programs that are not presently implemented, but fall within the general spirit of the identified areas. It is the belief of the Office of Greek Life that these items should be implemented by the end of this document’s identified planning cycle (spring 2015). Leadership The creation, promotion and development of opportunities to advance goals, improve organizations and their student members, and allow for the retention of “organizational memory” through efficient and effective transition efforts.

1. Alumnae Panhellenic council 2. Alumni Greek council 3. Greek Seeker program 4. Officer-led student roundtables 5. Additional section of the Greek leadership course 6. Emerging leaders conference (freshman & sophomore focused) 7. Campus-based regional leadership conference 8. Senior Career Workshop (w/ Career Services)

Values The targeted communication and demonstration of activities that serve to positively exemplify organizational and individual character and integrity.

1. Chapter advisor summit/workshop 2. Marketing to high schools/junior colleges 3. Blog for parents, students, and alumni 4. Greek Week with an integrated civic engagement focus. 5. Order of Olympians organization 6. “Alternative Break” trip (w/ Community Service Learning) 7. Alumni networking event (w/ an Academic college)

Membership and Commitment The intentional recruitment and effective retention of individuals who embody the values, traditions, and commitment that is fundamentally necessary to organizational sustainability.

1. Alumni database collaboration (w/ Alumni Association & Foundation) 2. New Fraternity Village Housing Plan 3. Panhellenic extension 4. Programming modules targeted at specific class years

- 6 -

- Forecasted Projections - Each of these figures represents forecasted projections based on historical performance. Multiple regression analysis was used to project these goals into future years. Included with most graphs are a data table, and the regression equation itself. While any number of external factors may alter the forecasted projections, we believe they are helpful in terms of realistic goal setting. With any forecasting, it is important that a large degree of consistency exist within the environment.

RECRUITMENT Fraternity Men

DATA TABLE

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number Joining 184 133 222 262 281 f 313 f 346 f 378 f findicates forecasted figures This table shows the projected growth of new members into the fraternity system given a consistent increased interest over time. On average, we forecast growth of 32 men (above the previous year figure) into our fraternity chapters each successive year. Sorority Women

DATA TABLE

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number Joining 274 326 314 403 423 f 461 f 498 f 536 f findicates forecasted figures This table shows the projected growth of new members into the sorority system given a consistent increased interest over time. On average, we forecast growth of 38 women (above the previous year figure) into our sorority chapters each successive year.

184

133

222 262 y = 32.3x + 119.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

274 326 314

403

y = 37.5x + 235.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

- 7 -

TOTAL MEMBERSHIP Fraternity Men

DATA TABLE

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total members 480 420 479 519 519 f 536f 554 f 571 f findicates forecasted figures This table shows the projected growth of the overall fraternity system membership given a consistent increased interest over time. On average, we forecast a net growth of 18 men (above the previous year figure) into our fraternity chapters each successive year. Sorority Women

DATA TABLE

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total members 707 771 856 973 1,048 f 1,136 f 1,224 f 1,312 f findicates forecasted figures This table shows the projected growth of the overall sorority system membership given a consistent increased interest over time. On average, we forecast a net growth of 88 women (above the previous year figure) into our sorority chapters each successive year.

480 420 479 519

y = 17.6x + 430.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

707 771 856

973

y = 88.3x + 606

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

- 8 -

GRADE POINT AVERAGE (G. P. A.) Fraternity Men

DATA TABLE

F 08 S 09 F 09 S 10 F 10 S 11 F 11 S 12 F 12 S 13 F 13 S 14 F 14 S 15

All Men's GPA 2.47 2.52 2.45 2.53 2.48 2.46 2.45 2.54 2.49 f 2.49 f 2.49 f 2.49 f 2.49 f 2.50 f All Fraternity GPA 2.57 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.71 2.69 2.82 2.76 f 2.78 f 2.80 f 2.82 f 2.84 f 2.86 f

findicates forecasted figures This table shows the relative consistency of the all-Men’s average, and the increasing differential growth of the all-Fraternity average. As a baseline (intercept), the average male makes a 2.48, where the average fraternity man attains a 2.58. This important beginning level indicates the academic priority of chapters, not only in their recruitment selection, but also in their membership education. Over time, the gap forecasts to widen. By these estimates, the all-Men’s average should remain relatively constant, while the all-Fraternity average improves .02 grade points each successive semester. Sorority Women

DATA TABLE

F 08 S 09 F 09 S 10 F 10 S 11 F 11 S 12 F 12 S 13 F 13 S 14 F 14 S 15

All Women’sGPA 2.70 2.71 2.70 2.75 2.68 2.70 2.72 2.75 2.74 f 2.74f 2.74f 2.75f 2.75f 2.75f All Sorority GPA 3.10 3.06 3.11 3.21 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.19 3.17 f 3.18 f 3.19 f 3.20 f 3.21 f 3.22 f

findicates forecasted figures This table shows the relative consistency of the all-Women’s average, and the increasing differential growth of the all-Fraternity average. As a baseline (intercept), the average female makes a 2.70, where the average sorority woman attains a 3.08. Like the aforementioned fraternity discussion, this indicates the academic priority of chapters, not only in their recruitment selection, but also in their membership education. Over time, the gap forecasts to widen. By these estimates, the all-Women’s average should remain relatively constant, while the all-Sorority average improves .01 grade points each successive semester.

y = 0.001x + 2.48

y = 0.02x + 2.58

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

F 08 S 09 F09 S10 F10 S11 F11 S12 F12 S13 F13 S14 F14 S15

All Men's GPA All Fraternity Male's GPA

y = 0.004x + 2.70

y = 0.01x + 3.08

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

F 08 S 09 F09 S10 F10 S11 F11 S12 F12 S13 F13 S14 F14 S15

All Women's GPA All Sor Females GPA

- 9 -

SORORITY INTEREST Since Village Housing opened; measured by recruitment registrations / NPHC Rush attendees

THE “DEAN’S CHALLENGE” INITIATIVE The “Dean’s Challenge” is a growth-oriented awards program inspired from the vision of our Dean of Students, Dr. Eddie Holloway. His challenge to us is to grow and improve aspects of Greek Life by 5% annually. When we consider the five major areas (excluding social) where we can truly ‘measure’ excellence, we arrive at these five categories:

1. Growth in Overall GPA is expected to improve .05 grade points to qualify. Conversely, chapters attaining an annual GPA of 3.0 will also qualify.

2. Growth in Recruitment is expected to improve 5% to qualify.

3. Growth in Retention (%) is expected to improve 5% to qualify. Conversely, chapters attaining an annual retention percentage of 90% or higher will also qualify.

4. Growth in Community Service hours is expected to improve 5% to qualify.

5. Growth in Philanthropic Donation is expected to improve 5% to qualify.

Each award will be given a “Star.” Each chapter can attain up to give possible “Stars.” These awards are presented annually at the Greek Life awards ceremony. We believe this program promotes continual growth and improvement, as opposed to a static level of acceptable performance. Furthermore, we believe these targets provide our chapters the benchmarking wherewithal to set realistic and attainable action plans to accomplish their goals. The 2012 Targets are displayed on the following page.

249

482 413

498

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011

- 10 -

Dean’s Challenge - 2012 Targets Chapter G. P. A. Recruitment Retention Service Philanthropy

Alpha Delta Pi 3.00 44 90 1,027 4,061

Alpha Kappa Alpha 3.00 29 84 1,917 2,902

Alpha Phi Alpha 2.50 10 5 5 5

Alpha Tau Omega 2.50 19 88 928 2,993

Chi Omega 3.00 49 90 263 28,350

Delta Delta Delta 3.00 53 90 1,882 54,277

Delta Gamma 3.00 55 90 4,206 16,097

Delta Sigma Theta 2.71 45 70 2,163 5,408

Delta Tau Delta 2.87 21 80 311 36,807

Kappa Alpha Psi 2.66 9 68 123 473

Kappa Delta 3.00 47 90 2,011 24,360

Kappa Sigma 2.58 20 60 1,607 2,594

Omega Psi Phi 2.53 8 90 34 5

Phi Beta Sigma 2.48 6 90 40 5

Phi Kappa Tau 2.65 29 66 590 1,208

Phi Mu 3.00 51 90 184 19,950

Pi Beta Phi 3.00 47 69 3,150 11,560

Pi Kappa Alpha 2.50 25 59 987 2,573

Pi Kappa Phi 3.00 29 90 313 16,307

Sigma Alpha Epsilon 2.75 19 90 630 3,675

Sigma Chi 2.86 15 90 583 7,560

Sigma Gamma Rho 2.50 5 90 10 5

Sigma Nu 2.60 29 63 2,474 3,777

Sigma Phi Epsilon 2.97 18 90 245 158

Zeta Phi Beta 3.00 8 90 623 315

8880 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 750San Diego, CA 92108

619.297.0400619.297.0440

www.pierceeducationproperties.com

University of Southern MississippiFraternity Member Housing Survey

Spring 2012

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyInitial Observations

Three Fraternity Member Surveys Distributed Based Upon Location of Residence:

Residence Halls

Fraternity Houses (On-Campus)

Off-Campus

Southern Miss responses similar to national trends in Fraternity Housing

Clear Evolution in Housing Preferences as Students Age

There were insignificant number of responses from NPHC Fraternities (4) for meaningful cross tabulation by Greek Council

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyResponse Rates By Residency

Residence Location Members % Total Responses Rate

Residence Halls 128 30% 76 59%

Fraternities (on campus) 134 31% 76 57%

Off-Campus 170 39% 50 29%

TOTALS 432 100% 202 47%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyResponses By Organization

Organization Respondents

Alpha Tau Omega 9

Alpha Phi Alpha 1

Delta Tau Delta 18

Kappa Alpha Psi 2

Kappa Sigma 16

Omega Psi Phi 1

Phi Kappa Tau 20

Pi Kappa Alpha 4

Pi Kappa Phi 47

Sigma Alpha Epsilon 24

Sigma Chi 22

Sigma Nu 13

Sigma Phi Epsilon 25

TOTAL 202

No responses were received from Phi Beta Sigma

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyResidence by Class Year*

Residence Members Frosh Soph Junior Senior

Residence Halls 128 81% 13% 4% 1%

Fraternity Houses 134 3% 50% 28% 19%

Off-Campus** 170 6% 18% 44% 32%

* Figures represent percentage of survey respondents

** Off-Campus Fraternity Members: 70% live in apartments and 20% live in rental houses

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity Member Distribution in Residence Halls

Residence Hall %

Century Park 3 51%

Roberts Hall 26%

McCarty Hall 9%

Hattiesburg Hall 7%

Jones Hall 5%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity Members in Residence Halls

Why don’t you currently reside in your on-campus Fraternity House? (check all that apply)

Freshman are not allowed 76%

The facility is filled – no room 29%

Happy in Residence Halls 9%

My Fraternity has no house on-campus 4%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveySources of Payment for Room & Board

Location of Residence

Income Source* Res Halls Greek Units Off-Campus

Parents/Relatives 64% 60% 65%

Student Loans 47% 48% 39%

Grants/Scholarships 74% 59% 45%

Job Earnings** 20% 36% 62%

Investments/Savings 11% 15% 18%

Other 1% 3% 8%

* Figures reflect the percentage of respondents that receive income from specified source, not the percentage of their income from that source.

** 36% of Fraternity members work – 40% of jobs are on-campus and 60% are off-campus

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity Member Residence Intentions 2012-13

Current Residence

Intended Residence 2012-13 Residence Halls Fraternity Houses

Fraternity House (on-campus) 66% 66%

Off-Campus Apartment 8% 19%

Off-Campus House 4% 5%

Residence Hall 16% 5%

Undecided** 5% 5%

N/A (Graduating/Leaving) -- 4%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyResidents in Fraternity Houses

Importance of Factors on (Current) Live-in Decision

Very/Extremely Important

Opportunity to Bond 87%

Proximity to Convenient Parking 58%

Proximity to Classes 57%*

USM On-Campus Requirement 52%**

Cost/Affordability 52%

Quality of the Facility 44%

Proximity to Campus Food 42%

40% cited an officer residency requirement and 26% a chapter residency requirement (% is of those who did not answer those categories as N/A who assumedly do not have such requirements)

* 82% listed this factors as somewhat, very or extremely important.

** 73% listed this factors as somewhat, very or extremely important.


Importance of Factors on (Current) Live-in Decision

Not Important

Chapter Live-In Requirement 54%*

University Fraternity Housing Rules/Policies 48%

Proximity to Job 45%

Officer Live-In Requirement 42%*

Proximity to Fitness Center 41%

Quality of the Facility 36%

* % is of those who did not answer those categories as N/A who assumedly do not have such requirements

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity Members Living Off-Campus

Where did you live immediately prior to living off-campus?

Residence Hall 52%

Fraternity House (On-Campus) 20%

Always Live Off-Campus 28%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity Members Living Off-Campus

Importance of Factors on (Current) Residency Decision

Very/Extremely Important

Private Bedroom 78%

USM Rules & Policies 78%

More Privacy 78%

Overnight Guests 74%

Private/Semi Bathroom 72%

Greater Food Plan Flexibility 72%

In-Room Temperature Control 68%

Better Laundry Facilities 66%

More Convenient Parking 65%

Larger Closet/Storage Space 64%

Ability to Have Alcoholic Beverages 62%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity House Resident Satisfaction

Very/Somewhat Satisfied (50%+)

Social Life/Activities 84%

Amenities (Volleyball, BB, other) 80%

Space to Hold Group Meetings 65%

Number of Toilets 58%

Number of Showers 57%

Size of Common Areas 54%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyFraternity House Resident Satisfaction

Very/Somewhat Unsatisfied

Ability to Control Temperature 78%

Laundry Facilities 62%

Furniture/Mattress in Bedroom 61%

Maintenance of the Facility 50%

Cost of Meal Plan 48%

University Rules/Policies 47%

Availability of Quiet Places to Study 46%

Amount Closet/Personal Storage 43%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyOff Campus Residents:

Satisfaction w/ Prior On-Campus Housing*

Very/Somewhat Satisfied

Wireless Internet 63%

Social Life/Activities** 47%

Size of Bedroom 41%

Quality of the Meal Plan 40%

* The large majority (80%) of members living off-campus never lived in their fraternity house

** Also amongst very/somewhat satisfied for Fraternity House residents

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyOff-Campus Fraternity Residents:

Satisfaction w/ Prior On-Campus Housing*

Very/Somewhat Unsatisfied

Bedroom Furniture Provided** 56%

Amount of Closet/Storage Space** 54%

University Housing Rules/Policies** 53%

Laundry Facilities ** 52%

Temperature Controls** 51%

Furniture Provided in Common Rooms 50%

Level of Privacy 49%

Cost of the Meal Plan** 47%

Room Rental Costs 47%

Number of Showers 47%

* The large majority (80%) of members living off-campus never lived in their fraternity house

** Also amongst factors deemed unsatisfactory by Fraternity House residents.


Primary Reasons for Not Returning/Undecided

Ability to Control Temperature 76%

Larger Bedroom Space 69%

Access to Better Laundry Facilities 69%

More Closet/Personal Storage Space 66%

Quieter Study Environment 66%

More Privacy 62%

Private/Semi-Private Bathroom 62%

More Flexibility re: Food Options 59%

Private Bedroom 59%

Completed University Residency Requirement 55%

Lower Rent 52%

Lower Food Cost 48%

University Rules/Policies 45%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyLikelihood to Influence Students to Stay on Campus

By Residence Location

Location of Residence Res. Halls Fraternity Off-CampusFlexibility of Food Options 63% 80% 81%

Better Laundry Facilities 79% 72% 84%

Temperature Controls 67% 74% NR

Larger Bedroom 83% 74% 86%Kitchen for Food Preparation 64% 79% 85%

Convenient Parking 77% NR 78%

Study Rooms 68% 67% 78%

Larger Closet/Storage Space 62% 68% 73%

Private/Semi Bathrooms 69% 71% 80%

Private Bedrooms NR 67% 84%

Wireless Internet (Speed/Access) 74% 70% NR

Not Having to Buy Meal Plan NR NR 69%

NR = Not ranked in Top 10 influences for fraternity members in that location.

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyInterest in Greek Apartments

Likelihood to Stay On-Campus if Greek Apartments Were Available? With Full Kitchens Private Apartment-Type Rules & Staffing

Residence Location Likely/Very Likely

Residence Halls 72%

Fraternity Houses 72%

Off-Campus 78%

Weighted Average 73%

Southern Miss Fraternity Housing SurveyKey Findings

Housing preferences of students evolve over tenure of time at university

Retention of 2-year on-campus residency requirement believed essential to feasibility of new fraternity housing

Off-Campus fraternity members specify job earnings as source of income at 3.1x the rate of those is Residence Halls and 1.8x Fraternity residents – job earnings is partially replacing student loans

The overwhelming majority of fraternity members living off-campus never lived in their fraternity house (80%)

Preference/desire for apartments increases markedly for upper classmen

Flexibility of food options and accessible kitchens are a high priority for students – likely a food cost issue

Inclusion of apartment-style housing critical to retaining greater percentage of upper classmen on campus

University of Southern Mississippi - USM

Documents

Transcript of University of Southern Mississippi - USM