SECTION 6.4: PHYSICAL RESOURCES

CONTENTS: SECTION 6.4

INTRODUCTION
FINDINGS OF THE PHYSICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
6.4.1 SPACE MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.1
6.4.2 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.2
6.4.3 SAFETY AND SECURITY
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.3
6.4.4 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.4
COMPLIANCE TABLES: SECTIONS 6.4.1—6.4.4
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTIONS 6.4.1—6.4.4
APPENDIX
APPENDIX: Survey of Departments and Colleges Concerning Space

INTRODUCTION

Sam Houston State University, founded in 1879, is located in the heart of East Texas, in the city of Huntsville, an hour’s drive north of Houston on Interstate Highway 45. On its main campus and beyond, the University owns and operates over 1,200 acres and more than 175 buildings. The campus is as venerable as Austin Hall, already three decades old when the University was born, and as modern as recent and ongoing major renovations of such important facilities as the Estill and Administration Buildings.

FINDINGS OF THE PHYSICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Research undertaken by the Physical Resources Committee indicates that the University has adequate space for its existing needs; some programs, however, are nearing the limits of their available space, and a rise in enrollment will put pressure on others.

The Committee found that the upkeep of the University’s buildings, grounds, and equipment is being accomplished in a prompt, orderly, and effective fashion.

Student surveys revealed general agreement that the University provides a "healthful, safe, and secure campus environment." Nearly 98% of students, for example, reported that they felt safe on the campus in daytime. A substantial majority found the University Health Center adequate to their needs.

Finally, the Committee concluded that the Campus Master Plan currently in place should "provide for [the] orderly development" of the University well into the next century.

The following sections report the Physical Resources Committee’s findings in the four major areas outlined in Section 6.4 of the SACS Criteria for Accreditation: Space Management (6.4.1); Buildings, Grounds, and Equipment Maintenance (6.4.2); Safety and Security (6.4.3); and Facilities Master Plan (6.4.4). The Committee addresses "must" statements from each of the sections and, in the order in which the statements appear in the Criteria, reports on the University’s compliance or noncompliance with these imperatives. Following each series of "must" statements and findings, the Committee makes recommendations and/or offers suggestions, according to the University’s compliance status.

6.4.1 SPACE MANAGEMENT

1. Space allocated to any institutional function must be adequate for the effective conduct of the function (Criteria 77).

The Physical Resources Committee found that the University complies with this criterion.

University enrollment has been stable in recent years, and neither University nor Coordinating Board estimates project a substantial increase in the number of students in the immediate future. Enrollment in the fall of 1993 was 12,800, and in the fall of 1997, 12,709, with only small fluctuations in the other three years (SHSU Mini-Profiles, Fall 1997). The 1996 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) enrollment forecast for the year 2000 is 13,080, and for the year 2010, 13,690 (THECB "Memorandum: Enrollment Forecast," December 6, 1996). The Office of Institutional Research’s Strategic Plan projects an increase of fifty students per year, for a total of 12,950 by the year 2003 (SHSU "Agency Strategic Plan for the 1999-2003 Period," June 1, 1998).

At present, the total educational and general space available at the University is adequate, according to Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board standards. The THECB Space Projection Model "predicts how much assignable educational and general space is required to fulfill an institution’s mission for teaching, research, and public service" (THECB 1996 Facilities Fact Book). The University exceeds by less than 1% the total space projected by the model (Table 6.4.1.a).

Table 6.4.1.a

Projected and Actual Educational and General (E&G) Space at Sam Houston State University, Fall 1996 (in square feet)¹

	Teaching	Library	Research	Office	Support	Total
Predicted2	528,847	132,163	35,427	235,536	83,878	1,015,850
Actual	589,353	105,9193	22,166	209,287	96,043	1,022,768
Surplus (Deficit)	60,506	(26,244)	(13,261)	(26,249)	12,165	6,918

¹ Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 1996 Facilities Fact Book.
² Projections are based on the THECB’s Space Projection model, which predicts how much assignable E&G space is required to fulfill an institution’s mission for teaching, research and public service.
³ This figure includes all space under the Library’s jurisdiction, including some which is not used for library activities.
Overall, the University’s classrooms and laboratories are used at a lower rate than THECB standards suggest (Table 6.4.1.b).

Table 6.4.1.b

Utilization of Classrooms and Laboratories at SHSU, Fall 1996 and 1997 Average Hours of Use per Week¹

	1996	1997	THECB Standard
Laboratory classrooms	22.2	21.7	25
Lecture classrooms	28.3	28.7	38

¹ Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 1996 Facilities Fact Book and SHSU, Report of the Registrar, Fall 1996, Fall 1997.

Therefore, if enrollment increases at the expected low rate, the University should be able to meet total classroom and laboratory needs by increasing the usage of rooms during hours of lower utilization. In the fall of 1997, for example, usage of laboratory classrooms on Tuesday, the day of heaviest demand, varied from 30% at 8:00 a.m. to over 60% from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., to 25% at 6:00 p. m. On the same day, usage of lecture classrooms varied from 68% at 8:00 a.m. to over 80% at 10:00 and 11:00, and then declined to 28% at 6:00 p.m. (Report of the Registrar, Fall Semester 1997).

The generally favorable overall situation of the University with respect to space is not matched at the departmental level. In response to an oral survey by the SACS Self-Study Committee, departmental chairs, college representatives, and others in charge of space management reported deficiencies. For example, the Newton Gresham Library culls as many as 10,000 volumes per year because of limited stack space. According to Standard 6 of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), the Library should have had 195,642 square feet of space in Fall 1997 to accommodate its collections, users, and staff; however, it had only 95,181 square feet actually available, a deficit of 100,461 square feet (Table 6.4.1.a.). (See also the self-study report of the Library Committee.)

In addition, two of the science departments reported inadequate research space; another department was teaching lecture classes in a laboratory; and one had overlapping classes in teaching labs. Lack of storage space was reported by two colleges and two departments. (See Appendix, "Survey of Departments and Colleges Concerning Space.")

The University takes advantage of overall space by scheduling classes outside the designated building of a department when necessary. For example, most Political Science classes are taught on the third floor of Academic Building 1; however, classes have been taught on the second floor of that building, as well as in the nearby Smith-Hutson Building and Newton Gresham Library, and even in the Evans and Thomason Buildings, which are across campus.

These adaptations to space limitations having been noted, most respondents reported that the current system worked satisfactorily. Still, those disciplines that make use of specialized equipment and materials that cannot be readily transported noted the need for more dedicated and more accessible classrooms. Additionally, office space was reported as short or in maximum use in two colleges and six departments. Any expansion in enrollment would pose a significant difficulty for these units (Oral Survey by Space Utilization Subcommittee).

The results of a written survey of chairs and coordinators conducted by the SACS Self-Study Steering Committee also suggest that there are some current space problems (Table 6.4.1.c).

Table 6.4.1.c

Adequacy of Space: Chair/Coordinator Survey
Response to the statement: "I have sufficient space in terms of. . . ."

	Disagree/Strongly Disagree	Neither Disagree nor Agree	Agree/Strongly Agree	Number of Respondents1
Classrooms	45%	14%	41%	29
Faculty Offices	52%	3%	45%	29
Research Space	54%	12%	35%	26

¹ Excludes those responding "Not Applicable."

A majority of chairs believe that they do not have adequate faculty offices and research facilities space, and nearly half feel that classroom space is inadequate. On the other hand, a substantial minority agree that space is adequate for each category. In short, overall space at the University is adequate, but there are apparent deficiencies at the unit level.

Similarly, while overall availability of equipment to support teaching and research is adequate, some problems face individual instructors and departments. In a written survey of faculty, a majority for each category agreed with the statement that "I am provided adequate: computer resources, classroom instruction equipment, classroom environments, instructional supplies, and facilities." However, a significant minority—between 22% and 33% for each of seven categories—disagreed. In the case of "laboratory science equipment," only 42% agreed that the equipment was adequate, while 33% disagreed (Table 6.4.1.d).

Table 6.4.1.d

Adequacy of Facilities and Equipment: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "I am provided adequate. . . ."

	Disagree/Strongly Disagree	Neither Disagree nor Agree	Agree/Strongly Agree	Number of Respondents1
Computer Resources	22%	7%	71%	197
Laboratory Science Equipment	33%	25%	42%	88
Classroom Instruction Equipment	31%	15%	54%	194
Classroom Environments	22%	16%	62%	198
Up-to-date Technology	31%	19%	50%	195
Instructional Supplies	22%	21%	57%	197
Facilities	23%	13%	64%	200

¹ Excludes those responding "Not Applicable."

On the other hand, 81% of students surveyed agreed with the statement that "Classrooms adequately meet my needs," while only 6% disagreed (Table 6.4.1.e).

Table 6.4.1.e

Adequacy of Facilities: Student Survey
Response to the statement: " The following facilities adequately meet my needs. . . ."

	Disagree/Strongly Disagree	Neither Disagree nor Agree	Agree/Strongly Agree	Number of Respondents1
Computer Labs	35%	11%	54%	738
Classrooms	6%	14%	81%	760
Recreational Facilities	9%	16%	75%	604

¹ Excludes those responding "Not Applicable."

In an oral survey of chairs and coordinators, a widespread complaint was the need for modernization of such systems as wiring and lighting in classrooms, to make use of the University’s increasing emphasis on technology in the classroom. There were also concerns about the sizes and configurations of classrooms in various departmental areas (Oral Survey by Space Utilization Subcommittee).

Computer laboratory space is adequate at this time. In March 1997, a computer lab was opened in the Newton Gresham Library, and in March 1998, a new lab was opened in Academic Building 1. With the new facilities, Computer Services has noted no substantial queuing for workspace access. Because all of the four hundred computer laboratory work stations are operated by the Computer Services Department and have similar computing compatibilities, students can perform their work at any laboratory on campus. In a SACS Self-Study Steering Committee survey, 54% of students agreed with the proposition that computer labs "adequately meet my needs," while 35% disagreed (Table 6.4.1.e). Since the survey was conducted at the time of the opening of the expanded computer lab in AB1, it is probable that satisfaction has increased, as students find computers more available. With its increased budget beginning in Fall 1998, the Computer Services Department should be able to accommodate the increasing demand for work stations, including the staffing required. However, this is an area in which demand historically has caught up quickly with supply (Interview with Director of Computer Services).

Dormitory space is also adequate for current needs. Only freshmen are required to reside on campus; veterans, married students, and those commuting from the homes of their parents are exempted from even the freshman residency requirement. Therefore, according to an interview with the Director of Residence Life, the problem is not to provide sufficient housing to meet the demand, but to make campus housing sufficiently attractive to keep students on campus for the benefits of that experience. Because of changing student expectations for residences, the University will continue to examine the issues of room size (responding to students increasingly expecting more personal space), configuration (such as suites and apartments as opposed to traditional shared small rooms), and amenities (such as wiring for computer access).

Room for recreation and student activities is not as crucial to the University’s mission as is classroom and laboratory space; however, recreation and activities serve important needs for students and enhance both recruitment and retention. Although additional outdoor facilities (such as picnic and camping space) might be considered, outdoor field space is adequate. Indoor space, on the other hand, while of high quality, is not adequate for a university of this size. For example, Recreational Sports and Activities has only one multi-purpose room for student use, and it is shared with the Department of Kinesiology. Each year, as a result, Recreational Sports and Activities turns away between sixty and one hundred groups who wish to use the existing facility. In addition, the University was forced to close its indoor swimming pool because of its deterioration, leaving only minimal outdoor swimming facilities (Interview with Director of Recreational Sports and Activities). Still, 75% of responding students agreed that recreational facilities "adequately meet [their] needs" (Table 6.4.1.e).

Several groups provide guidelines for recreational facilities. The National Intramural Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) is the major association of recreational practitioners, while the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) draws more academics. The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance has a broad spectrum of membership. The space available in the University’s current recreational facilities fails to meet the guidelines of any of these groups (NIRSA Space Standards for Indoor Facilities and ACSM’s Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines). Accreditation by these groups is not an issue, and the shortfalls do not cause the University to fail to meet the SACS "must" statement. Nevertheless, the problems are sufficient to call for closer examination by the University.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.1

Having determined that the University complies with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Physical Resources Committee makes no recommendations. Although space and equipment are adequate for the effective conducting of teaching, research, and service for the University as a whole, the Committee offers the following suggestions to address shortfalls in specific programs:

The University should conduct an assessment of space needs by unit to determine if it would be better served by a reallocation of space.

More space should be made available to the Library.

Because recreation and student activities serve important needs for students and improve retention rates, the University should examine the adequacy of student recreational and activity space.

6.4.2 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

1. An institution must have a plan for the upkeep of its property (Criteria 77).

2. At a minimum, the plan must address routine, preventative, and deferred maintenance of buildings, equipment, and grounds (Criteria 77).

3. Where appropriate, it should verify the estimated costs of maintenance as well as when and how it is to be performed (Criteria 77).

4. There should be a written schedule for regular maintenance activities and a written record of projects completed (Criteria 77-78).

5. The plan must be operational and evaluated annually (Criteria 78).

The Physical Resources Committee determined that the University complies with all five of these imperatives.

Maintenance of buildings, grounds, and equipment of the University is proactive, planned, and documented. The maintenance system in place allows continuous tracking, evaluation, and upkeep of routine, preventative, and deferred maintenance for the University.

The Sam Houston State University Physical Plant Department utilizes a computerized maintenance management program from Datastream Systems called MP2 Enterprise. This program organizes all the information needed to set maintenance priorities; assign tasks; and schedule routine and preventative upkeep of buildings, equipment, and asset areas on campus. It also tracks inventory and the completion status of all maintenance. Supervisors use data from the program to generate work orders, assign work details, track job status and cost, and direct all other administrative functions of campus maintenance. The program also allows area supervisors (painters and carpenters, for example) to oversee work orders, workers, and maintenance schedules particular to those areas. The program is regularly updated and refined to achieve the highest level of resource utilization possible. Maintenance schedules are available from the Physical Plant office.

Survey data from across campus indicate a high level of satisfaction with maintenance of University buildings, grounds, and equipment. Over 92% of responding students stated that campus grounds adequately meet their needs (Table 6.4.2.a). 98.4% of responding faculty and 97.9% of responding staff agreed that University grounds are adequately maintained (Tables 6.4.2.b and 6.4.2.c). Asked whether building maintenance is adequate, 87.7% of responding faculty and 76.5% of responding staff either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" (Tables 6.4.2.d and 6.4.2.e).

Table 6.4.2.a

Adequacy of Grounds: Student Survey
Response to statement: "The [campus grounds] following facilities adequately meet my needs.

Strongly Disagree	26	4%
Disagree	17	2.7%
Agree	414	66%
Strongly Agree	168	26.9%
Total	625	99.6%

Table 6.4.2.b

Adequacy of Grounds Maintenance: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "SHSU’s grounds are adequately maintained.

Strongly Disagree	2	1%
Disagree	1	.5%
Agree	85	43.8%
Strongly Agree	106	54.6%
Total	194	99.9%

Table 6.4.2.c

Adequacy of Grounds Maintenance: Staff Survey
Response to statement: "SHSU’s grounds are adequately maintained."

Strongly Disagree	1	.3%
Disagree	5	1.8%
Agree	96	33.8%
Strongly Agree	182	64.1%
Total	284	100%

Table 6.4.2.d

Adequacy of Buildings Maintenance: Faculty Survey
Response to statement: "SHSU’s buildings are adequately maintained."

Strongly Disagree	8	4.5%
Disagree	14	7.9%
Agree	95	53.4%
Strongly Agree	61	34.3%
Total	178	100.1%

Table 6.4.2.e

Adequacy of Buildings Maintenance: Staff Survey
Response to statement: "SHSU’s buildings are adequately maintained."

Strongly Disagree	11	4.2%
Disagree	50	19.2%
Agree	136	52.3%
Strongly Agree	63	24.2%
Total	260	99.9%

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.2

The Physical Resources Committee found that the University complies with all of the imperatives in this section of the Criteria; there are no recommendations.

6.4.3 SAFETY AND SECURITY

1. The institution must take reasonable steps to provide a healthful, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community (Criteria 78).

The Physical Resources Committee found that Sam Houston State University complies with this "must" statement. The University demonstrates a strong and active commitment to providing a healthful, safe, and secure campus environment. It has assigned responsibility and implemented procedures for the oversight and maintenance of campus safety and security.

The University Health Center provides students with appropriate health care, including diagnosis, treatment, and referral services, nursing care, doctor visits for routine illness and minor injury, pharmacy, wound care and dressing, allergy injections, HIV testing, immunizations, contraception and STD (sexually transmitted disease) counseling, and health education services. The Center averages almost ten thousand student visits per year (Table 6.4.3.a).

Table 6.4.3.a

Health Center Monthly Patient Visits: 1989-1997

	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997
September	1522	1348	1517	1498	1166	1438	775	1188	1224
October	1694	1650	1520	1531	1169	1140	612	1318	1482
November	1291	1240	1376	1194	1045	1056	1046	924	N/A.
December	684	757	871	741	487	545	395	409	N/A.
January	699	1003	963	845	837	645	957	811	786
February	1182	1372	1334	1251	1276	994	854	1084	1037
March	1008	1153	986	1123	1144	891	999	909	743
April	1108	1228	1375	1314	1170	988	969	1134	1011
May	407	522	428	562	533	449	551	381	483
June	382	507	470	514	474	437	341	268	345
July	392	493	533	471	392	346	275	309	381
August	447	547	568	587	507	652	746	390	511
Total	10816	11820	11941	11631	10200	9581	8520	9125	5297

The Health Center has eleven full-time employees on its staff, including two physicians, one registered nurse, two LVNs, a lab technician, a pharmacist, and four office personnel, which includes the Director.

Over 74% of students who gave an opinion either agreed or strongly agreed that the Health Center has adequate hours of operation (Table 6.4.3.b).

Table 6.4.3.b

Adequacy of Health Center Hours of Operation: Student Survey
Response to the statement: "The Health Center has adequate hours of operation."

Strongly Disagree	32	9.7%
Disagree	53	16.1%
Agree	195	59.2%
Strongly Agree	49	14.9%
Total	329	99.9%

Of the 353 students surveyed who gave an opinion, 64% agreed or strongly agreed that the Health Center provides adequate health care (Table 6.4.3.c):

Table 6.4.3.c

Adequacy of Care Provided by Health Center: Student Survey
Response to the statement: "The Health Center provides adequate care."

Strongly Disagree	58	16.4%
Disagree	69	19.5%
Agree	173	49%
Strongly Agree	53	15%
Total	353	99.9%

Seventy-eight percent of students responding either agreed or strongly agreed that the Health Center adequately meets their needs (Table 6.4.3.d):

Table 6.4.3.d

General Adequacy of Health Center: Student Survey
Response to statement: "The [Health Center] adequately meet[s] my needs."

Strongly Disagree	37	9.6%
Disagree	47	12.3%
Agree	203	53%
Strongly Agree	96	25%
Total	383	99.9%

The Director of Public Safety Services administers a staff of thirteen full-time police officers certified by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education. Programs administered by the University Police Department (UPD) include Parking Control, Foot Patrol, Campus Escort Service, Hall Security, and a 24-hour-a-day Telecommunications Dispatch Operator, who answers calls from the emergency call boxes placed in parking lots throughout the campus. The Parking Control and Foot Patrol provide officer-visibility, information, and other assistance throughout the campus. UPD employs between thirty and thirty-five students as Hall Security to monitor the safety and security of residence halls and their parking lots and grounds and to communicate any criminal or suspicious activity to UPD. The Huntsville Fire Department responds to fire emergencies, while medical emergencies and ambulance calls are referred to the Huntsville/Walker County Emergency Medical Services.

Over 70% of students who gave an opinion either agreed or strongly agreed that University police, when called, respond in a timely fashion (Table 6.4.3.e):

Table 6.4.3.e

Timely Response of Police: Student Survey
Response to statement: "When called, the University police respond in a timely fashion."

Strongly Disagree	33	13.9%
Disagree	37	15.6%
Agree	107	45.1%
Strongly Agree	60	25.3%
Total	237	99.9%

Additionally, over 64% of students who gave an opinion stated that police personnel are courteous (Table 6.4.3.f):

Table 6.4.3.f

Police Personnel Courteousness: Student Survey
Response to statement: "University police personnel are courteous."

Strongly Disagree	63	16.1%
Disagree	75	19.2%
Agree	180	46%
Strongly Agree	73	18.7%
Total	391	100%

To the statement "I feel safe on campus during the day," almost 98% of responding students either agreed or strongly agreed (Table 6.4.3.g):

Table 6.4.3.g

Perception of Daytime Safety on Campus: Student Survey
Response to statement: "I feel safe on campus during the day."

Strongly Disagree	12	1.6%
Disagree	6	0.82%
Agree	372	51.1%
Strongly Agree	338	46.4%
Total	728	100%

Asked about safety after dark, 64% of responding students reported that they feel safe, while 15% indicated that they do not feel safe (Table 6.4.3.h):

Table 6.4.3.h

Perception of Nighttime Safety on Campus: Student Survey
Response to statement: "I feel safe on campus after dark."

Strongly Disagree	34	5.4%
Disagree	89	14.2%
Agree	321	51.2%
Strongly Agree	183	29.2%
Total	627	99.92%

Of 386 responding students with an opinion about safety in residence halls, almost 92% agreed or strongly agreed that they feel safe (Table 6.4.3.i):

Table 6.4.3.i

Perception of Residence Hall Safety: Student Survey
Response to statement: "I feel safe in my residence hall."

Strongly Disagree	16	4.1%
Disagree	16	4.1%
Agree	221	57.3%
Strongly Agree	133	34.5%
Total	386	100%

Table 6.4.3.j contains reportable crimes documented by UPD from 1991 through 1997:

Table 6.4.3.j

Sam Houston State University Campus Security Act Statistics

Academic Year1	1991-92	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97	1997-982
Murder	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Sexual Assault	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Robbery	0	0	1	0	2	0	1
Assault	0	2	1	0	0	0	0
Burglary	14	7	6	5	4	1	3
Larceny/Theft	200	146	162	154	103	96	47
Motor Vehicle Theft	4	4	5	3	3	3	1
Liquor Violations	6	3	2	14	19	59	4
Drug Violations	3	1	8	5	23	23	15
Weapons Violations	4	2	4	1	4	1	2

¹ Academic Year is from August 1 through July 31.
² August 1, 1997 through February 10, 1998

The University Safety Committee oversees environmental and occupational health and safety. The Safety Coordinator conducts regular safety inspections of all buildings, including academic buildings, residence halls, cafeterias, and administrative/staff offices. The Safety Office maintains an active policy of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines. All buildings are certified yearly according to Life Safety Code 101 standards, as required in the University Safety Policies and Procedures Manual. Since the University contracts food service to a private firm, food safety comes under the purview of the City of Huntsville, with the Safety Coordinator providing supplementary support as needed.

2. Administrative responsibility for environmental health and safety programs must be assigned (Criteria 78).

The Physical Resources Committee determined that the University complies with this "must" statement.

The University has assigned responsibility for providing for student health services to the Director of the Health Center and for general safety and security to the Safety Coordinator and the Director of Public Safety Services. All three personnel report to the Vice President for Student Services. The designated units have formulated and implemented complementary safety and security plans to provide adequately for the needs of the University.

3. A comprehensive safety plan must be developed, implemented, and evaluated regularly (Criteria 78).

4. The plan should give special attention to the adequate provision and use of safety equipment in laboratories and other hazardous areas; to the modification of buildings, if necessary, for easy egress in the event of fire or other emergency; and to familiarizing all building occupants with emergency evacuation procedures (Criteria 78).

The Committee determined that the University complies with these criteria.

The University Safety Policies and Procedures Manual delineates procedures concerning use of safety equipment, risk, management, easy egress from buildings in emergencies, and notification of emergency evacuation plans. The plan is developed and implemented by the University Safety Officer and is evaluated on a yearly basis. This comprehensive plan adequately covers the stipulated areas of concern. A 1997 evaluation by the State Risk Management Office concluded that "a fully implemented proactive safety and health program is in place" (letter to President Marks from Texas Workers Compensation Commission, April 8, 1997).

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.3

Having determined that the University complies fully with the imperatives in this section of the Criteria, the Physical Resources Committee has no recommendations.

6.4.4 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

1. The institution must maintain a current written physical facilities master plan that provides for orderly development of the institution and relates it to other institutional planning efforts (Criteria 78).

The Physical Resources Committee found that the University complies with this imperative.

The University utilizes a facilities Campus Master Plan as the basis of its short-term and long-term campus development. The University Master Plan, the continuation of previous facilities master planning efforts, consists of a 1982 Master Plan plus several other documents which provide regular updates of the planning and implementation process. The existing plan is a 1988 document whose implementation timeline runs through the year 2008. The plan includes updates which are submitted for approval of projects by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. These documents encompass new construction, major repair and renovations, infrastructure, and land acquisitions. For the most part, implementation is proceeding according to the timetables established by the Master Plan.

The Maintenance, Renovation, and Construction (MRC) Plan sets priorities for development over a five-year period. Academic and administrative units have input in the project approval process, which results in yearly revisions of the University Master Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTION 6.4.4

Having determined that the University complies fully with the "must" statement in this section of the Criteria, the Physical Resources Committee has no recommendations.

COMPLIANCE TABLES: SECTIONS 6.4.1—6.4.4

6.4.1: Space Management

Imperative	Statement of Compliance	Supporting Documentation
1. Space allocated to any institutional function must be adequate for the effective conduct of the function.	Compliance	SHSU Office of Institutional Research, Mini-Profiles (Fall 1997) SHSU "Agency Strategic Plan for the 1993-2003 Period," (June 1, 1998) SHSU Report of the Registrar (Fall 1997) SHSU Registrar Records Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, "Memorandum Enrollment Forecast" (December 6, 1996) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 1996 Facilities Fact Book Association of College and Research Libraries Standard 6 The National Intramural Recreational Sports Association, "Space Standards for Indoor Facilities" (1997) American College of Sports Medicine, Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines (1992) Oral Surveys and Interviews Conducted by SACS Self-study Survey Space Utilization Subcommittee Written Surveys Conducted by SACS Self-Study Steering Committee

6.4.2: Buildings, Grounds, and Equipment

Imperative	Statement of Compliance	Supporting Documentation
1. An institution must have a plan for the upkeep of its property.	Compliance	Computerized Maintenance Management
2. At a minimum, the plan must address routine, preventative, and deferred maintenance of buildings, equipment, and grounds.	Compliance	Computerized Maintenance Management Program in the Physical Plant Office and MRC Report for Deferred Projects
3. Where appropriate, it should verify the estimated costs of maintenance as well as when and how it is to be performed.	Compliance	Computerized Maintenance Management Program in the Physical Plant Office
4. There should be a written schedule for regular maintenance activities and a written record of projects completed.	Compliance	Computerized Maintenance Management Program in the Physical Plant Office and MRC Report for Completed Projects
5. The plan must be operational and evaluated annually.	Compliance	Computerized Maintenance Management Program in the Physical Plant Office

6.4.3: Safety and Security

Imperative	Statement of Compliance	Supporting Documentation
1. The institution must take reasonable steps to provide a healthful, safe, and secure environment for all members of the campus community.	Compliance	Services Brochure, SHSU Police SHSU Safety Policies and Procedures Manual SHSU Health Center Institutional Effectiveness Report (May 1997) SHSU Hazardous Communication Education and Training Program SHSU Nursing Procedures Protocol Manual Written Survey Conducted by SACS Self-Study Steering Committee Additional Documents Maintained by Health Center, University Police, and SHSU Safety Office Texas Workers Compensation Commission Letter to President Marks (April 8, 1997)
2. Administrative responsibility for environmental health and safety programs must be assigned.	Compliance	Services Brochure, SHSU Police SHSU Safety Policies and Procedures Manual SHSU Health Center Institutional Effectiveness Report (May 1997) SHSU Hazardous Communication Education and Training Program SHSU Nursing Procedures Protocol Manual Written Survey Conducted by SACS Self-Study Steering Committee Additional Documents Maintained by Health Center, University Police, and SHSU Safety Office
3. A comprehensive safety plan must be developed, implemented, and evaluated regularly.	Compliance	SHSU Safety Policies and Procedures Manual SHSU Hazardous Communication Education and Training Program Additional Documents Maintained by SHSU Safety Office
4. The plan should give special attention to the adequate provision and use of safety equipment in laboratories and other hazardous areas; to the modification of buildings, if necessary, for easy egress in the event of fire or other emergency; and to familiarizing all building occupants with emergency evacuation procedures.	Compliance	SHSU Safety Policies and Procedures Manual SHSU Hazardous Communication Education and Training Program Additional Documents Maintained by SHSU Safety Office

6.4.4: Facilities Master Plan

Imperative	Statement of Compliance	Supporting Documentation
1. The institution must maintain a current written physical facilities master plan that provides for orderly development of the institution and relates it to other institutional planning efforts.	Compliance	SHSU Campus Master Plan (1988) Coordinating Board Campus Master Plan Document (1995, 1996, 1997) MRC Reports Available from Physical Plant Department Texas State Audit Report on Management Controls at SHSU (March 1997)

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: SECTIONS 6.4.1—6.4.4

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

SUGGESTIONS:

The University should conduct an assessment of space needs by unit to determine if it would be better served by a reallocation of space.

More space should be made available to the Library.

Because recreation and student activities serve important needs for students and improve retention rates, the University should examine the adequacy of student recreational and activity space.

SECTION 6.4: APPENDIX