Concurrent-use campuses: part of the new definition of access.

As the national and state economies move from the industrial to the information age, the need for individuals with baccalaureates is increasing. Preparation and geographical access to postsecondary education are important components of meeting this need. Concurrent-use facilities address both issues. By having both two- and four-year institutions share a facility, students are able to complete their lower division requirements in a community college setting including any needed remedidation. Associate in Arts graduates can then transfer to a university for the final two years without having to change geographical locations. This paper provides information from one state that is using this type of delivery system to enhance access to baccalaureate education.

**********

As the children of baby boomers mature, postsecondary institutions in the United States face the prospect of an onslaught of new students. This "tidal wave" of potential new students comes at a time of decreasing financial support from state and federal sources (Postsecondary Opportunity, 1998). The situation is further complicated by the need to provide opportunities for current workers to continually upgrade their skills in order to remain productive in the information age (Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission, 1998).

This juncture of more high school graduates, less money and increasing need for new skills has caused the postsecondary community to step back and take a second look at the definition of opportunity. "The scope of defining opportunity can be framed as the question: opportunity to what, for whom? To what represents the type of postsecondary educational experience. For whom pertains to the population to be included in the definition in two ways: whether it is equal opportunity or simply opportunity for participation in higher education; and whether opportunity is for those students who are college qualified or for the entire population" (The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1999, p. 3).

Florida has defined opportunity as being broadly inclusive with the ability to attend the type of institution best suited to an individual's personal educational goals. When this comprehensive desire was compared to the current educational attainment levels in the state, it was clear there were gaps that needed to be addressed. The question then became the best way to meet these needs.

The United States community college concept was built on the idea of access. Postsecondary education was designed to be available to anyone who could benefit from it. However, the underlying principal of this access was geographic. Physical facilities were to be placed within commuting distance of large portions of the population. The Florida Community College System (FCCS) was specifically planned to place institutions within commuting distance of at least 90% of the state's population.

During the past decade, the nation has come to realize that just placing a building within driving distance is not enough. Individuals must be prepared in order to have true access to postsecondary education and institutions must be able to offer the courses and programs students need. Preparation for postsecondary education has traditionally been a major responsibility of the K-12 system. Providing access to postsecondary courses and needed programs falls squarely upon the shoulders of the community college system and the state university system.

Internet-based distance learning is quickly becoming a means of offering courses outside the traditional boundaries of time and place. This has allowed many students who are unable to attend campuses during traditional hours the opportunity to take classes. However, not every student is able to take advantage of the distance learning mode. Many students can effectively use the support systems institutions have put in place for these distance learners, but many still need the discipline of structured face-to-face interactions with instructors. Determining who would benefit from Internet-based courses and who needs on-campus instruction is an additional challenge for institutions as they struggle with the best way to integrate distance learning courses into academic programs.

The need to have a comprehensive set of programs offered in a wide variety of places has led the state of Florida to explore innovative ways to provide not only lower division, but also upper division coursework at as many sites as possible. Many believe it is not feasible to build an entirely new system of state four-year colleges to perform this task. Thus, the question is how to provide upper division coursework using existing facilities. Florida's primary answer is concurrent-use campuses.

A concurrent-use campus is a community college campus that is shared with a four-year institution. The four-year institutions may be either public or private and the sharing may occur in many different formats.

Current formats range from a one-term agreement to use certain rooms at certain times, to a fully shared separate campus. When the arrangement is long-term, shared facilities often include libraries and student services buildings. Other formats include permanently assigning floors of a community college building to a university and having a university owned building on land owned by the community college. All of these arrangements have been developed in an attempt to bring upper division coursework and baccalaureate degree programs to time- and place-bound students as part of an overall effort to increase access.

Florida began its concurrent-use program with a joint use facility at Brevard Community College that was occupied by the University of Central Florida. Joint use buildings are now found at 10 different sites in the state. Between buildings and other types of concurrent-use arrangements, all 28 community colleges in the public system in Florida have at least one concurrent-use agreement. Due to data availability constraints, this study is limited to the older, facility-based concurrent-use sites. The main focus is on how well these efforts have succeeded in increasing access.

The State of Florida is fortunate to have the information resources needed to determine if concurrent-use facilities are increasing access. Both the FCCS and the State University System (SUS) centrally collect unit record data on all enrollees including the identification of the campus providing the instruction. Using these databases, the authors were able to track backwards in the FCCS records to determine how many of these students enrolled at concurrent-use campuses during 1998-99 had previously attended a community college. Additional characteristics such as program intent and courses taken were also identified. This paper also provides state policy makers with a picture of how students on concurrent-use campuses are moving from one institution to the other.

A National Review of Joint-Use Facilities

Review of the Literature

Educational institutions in many states are increasingly willing to act collaboratively to achieve expressed common goals. These collaborative relationships can provide, for all participating institutions, enlarged resource bases through increasing benefits and decreasing costs to the individual organizations (Kanter, 1994; California Commission on Innovation, 1992). Taber (1995) notes that there are numerous collaborative strategies in which community colleges may participate with other institutions. Due to increased demand for facilities space and library resources, community colleges are finding it beneficial to share the cost of information storage and dissemination with other organizations such as public library systems or even other community colleges. Further, these partnerships can lead to greater expansion of resources through the participation in networked electronic systems as well as shared physical facilities.

Higher education complexes provide similar advantages to community colleges and universities, as well as the communities they serve by providing educational opportunities in one central location. "Consortia of community colleges and universities appear to be one of the best vehicles that community colleges can use to meet the challenges placed before them and to establish and maintain their proper place in the educational community" (May & Smith, 1992, p. 63; Jadallah, 1994). Likewise, in a report to the California State Chancellor's Office, the Facilities Planning and Utilization Unit noted that the capital outlay need in the California community college system "far exceeds the resources currently available" and that a "... major feature of collaborative facilities projects will be cost savings or cost avoidance" (1999, p. 26). Taber (1994) states that:

   When carefully planned and developed, higher education centers can provide
   economical access to a full range of college and university education
   opportunities. Students have local access to higher education programs,
   from those offered by community colleges through graduate programs. This
   enables them to remain employed full-time or in their residence with family
   members. This can be especially helpful in less populated areas where
   opportunities for higher education are limited. Faculty at higher education
   centers have reported enhanced professional experiences due to
   opportunities for scholarly exchanges and comparisons of teaching methods.
   Staff found that articulation between institutions might be vastly improved
   due to their proximity and their increased understanding of each
   institution's requirements. (p. 77)

Below are examples of joint-use activities in other states that have been reviewed in the literature.

Colorado--Front Range Community College approached the city of Westminster in Colorado with the idea of establishing a joint-use library facility to help accommodate their shrinking budget and increasing demands for library access. The city agreed that a collaborate facility, which pooled the resources of the public library system and the community college, would be beneficial. By sharing the construction costs, each partner gained substantial amounts of space as well as funding for books and necessary equipment which would not have been available had each organization provided separate facilities.

Illinois--In Lake County, Illinois, a new university center was constructed as a cooperative institution to help meet educational demand arising primarily from working adults who live in burgeoning suburban and rural areas. The University Center is the product of an initiative to "improve access to educationally underserved areas in the state." (SIBOE, 1998, p. 1). The facility is to support the needs of the county but does not award degrees or employ faculty, as these are responsibilities of member institutions. Instruction will be focused upon place-bound students and working adults with a schedule of courses constructed to accommodate their schedules.

Michigan--Until recently, Macomb County, Michigan, had no four-year college within its borders, although it is one of the 75 largest counties in the nation. In the 1980s, only 11% of adults living in Macomb County held a bachelor's degree. In 1988, a university center was founded through Macomb Community College and a "Bachelor Degree Partnership Program" was established. The center now houses 8 colleges and universities and offers 29 bachelor's and master's degrees to its residents. By bringing partner colleges and universities to the University Center, the state of Michigan and its resident taxpayers have avoided the costly process of establishing another state institution of higher learning in Macomb County. The University Center opened its doors in the fall of 1991 with 936 students and four years later had almost doubled its enrollment (Macomb Community College, 1996).

New York--The State University System of New York has made similar recommendations regarding collaborative relationships in a Board of Regents 1995 report called Rethinking SUNK The report states that it is key to the economic health of the state of New York that community colleges play a large role in workforce development and encourages community colleges to collaborate with other educational institutions and business entities to meet regional needs for specialized programs. The report suggests the use of strategic alliances as a means to this end. As the SUNY system is made up of many relatively small campuses, this structure has the advantages of local access for students, regional employment, and widely distributed economic impact across the state. To encourage fiscal efficiency, the report suggests strategic alliances that will link together some smaller campuses and will develop partnerships with the private sector.

Oklahoma--Oklahoma is developing a statewide plan to increase baccalaureate program access on the basis of local and regional need. In a status report on higher education in Oklahoma (1998), numerous updates to earlier recommendations are stated, particularly with regard to baccalaureate program access. The Oklahoma Electronic Campus represents almost 600 courses being offered by state colleges and universities in a variety of electronic formats. The number of these courses, as well as traditionally provided courses that seamlessly transfer, has increased, and a cooperative curriculum development project was approved. This project assembled faculty in 11 disciplines to evaluate and recommend multimedia course materials for electronic offerings in early 1998. Further, a learning site initiative has addressed access issues in Oklahoma, and a teacher education supply and demand survey was conducted to address the state shortage of qualified instructors.

In 1997, the Oklahoma State Regents approved a consortium of four community colleges to exchange low enrollment and specialized courses via electronic media. The Regents also endorsed a proposal for a consortium of five institutions to provide cooperative instructional services including electronic delivery of courses and programs. The status report also called for the improvement of quality and efficiency in the system, with collaboration, coordination, and mergers of functions across campuses.

Texas--A multiuniversity facility has been established at North Harris Montgomery Community College. This facility enables 6 public universities to work together to offer 21 unduplicated bachelor's and 24 master's degree programs. These programs, although offered by six different four-year institutions, share a single admissions process and financial aid application process. It is reported that coursework is easily transferred among institutions. Technology is an integral part of this partnership, and the facility has an extensive technology infrastructure, as 40% of the University Center's instruction is delivered via interactive distance learning.

The University of Texas at Brownsville, in cooperation with Texas Southmost College, serves over 10,000 students at its campus located in Brownsville, Texas. In partnership with Southmost College, the University offers a wide range of courses from associate and baccalaureate degrees through graduate degrees. The mission of this partnership is to provide accessible, affordable, and high quality postsecondary education.

The mission further encompasses the pursuit of scholarly research and the presentation of programs of continuing education, public service, and cultural value to meet the needs of the surrounding community. This partnership combines the strengths of the four-year institution and community college to increase student access and eliminate interinstitutional barriers while fulfilling the distinctive responsibilities of each respective institution. Interestingly, this partnership represents one of only a handful in the state of Texas.

Virginia--The commonwealth of Virginia has seen a significant increase in the number of joint-use facilities and collaborative partnerships in recent years. According to the Division of Facilities Planning for the Virginia Community College System, virtually every four-year university in the state makes use of a facility in conjunction with a community college. Because the community colleges are widely distributed and situated within driving distance of any citizen of the state, they represent a solid opportunity for colleges to increase student access and reduce duplication of programs and services.

Survey Of State Higher Education Agencies

The Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission conducted a survey in 1999 of member states of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) regarding joint-use facilities and the policies and procedures of the respective states (see Table 1). The survey requested information regarding the following: 1) Whether the individual state utilizes joint-use facilities; 2) the type of entity creating the facilities (legislature, state governing board, interinstitutional agreements); 3) the number of facilities in the state and total 1998-99 headcount; 4) the year the initial facility was established; 5) reasons why joint-use facilities were established; 6) how they are governed and administered; 7) whether there is a separate annual appropriation in the state budget for the operation of the facility; 8) the number of complete degree programs and academic courses available; 9) the types of student support services available; and 10) whether any facilities ceased operation or had their status changed to a four-year institution.

Twenty-five states responded and 19 of the respondents indicated they have joint-use facilities in their states. The survey revealed that the majority of joint-use facilities have been created by state governing boards or through regional inter-institutional agreements or both. Other methods cited were state legislative mandates alone or mandates coupled with interinstitutional agreements and state board input.

Of the respondents, Wisconsin, Utah, and Texas have the most joint-use facilities in place, followed by Kentucky, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Virginia. Enrollments in programs offered at these sites range from 1,000 students at one facility in South Dakota to 33,000 students at another in Colorado.

All states utilizing joint-use facilities cited increased access as the primary reason for the establishment of the facility, and a majority of survey respondents noted the ability to offer additional educational programs in the state. The majority of the facilities are governed by joint boards, state boards, the local college or university, or a combination of these structures. Other states responded that sites are governed either by interinstitutional agreements, the presidents or directors of the facilities, or private boards. All survey respondents indicated that their joint-use facilities have extensive student-support services available, including course registration, academic advising, counseling, libraries, study areas, computer labs, social lounges, food services, and often financial aid services. In summary, joint-use facilities are established by states to increase access of their residents to postsecondary education and, specifically, to a greater variety of academic degree programs. The most successful joint-use sites are developed at the local and regional level or both through collaborative partnerships that first identify specific workforce needs and then offer the educational programs to meet the needs. Additional key findings of the survey responses follow:

1) Eighty-five percent of responding facilities were created by state governing boards, interinstitutional agreements, or combinations of the two.

2) All respondents cited increased access as a reason for the establishment of joint-use facilities.

3) Only 3 of the 20 states employing joint-use facilities have a separate annual legislative appropriation in the state budget for operation of the facilities.

4) Only a small minority of states has a separate annual legislative appropriation in the state budget for operation of joint-use facilities.

5) Institutional closures or transformations into an independent four-year facility are rare.

Florida Results

Access has been an important priority of higher education in Florida for many years. In the mid 1950s, the state developed a master plan for bringing the first two years of undergraduate education within commuting distance of over 95% of the population. This master plan for community colleges was fully implemented in 1972 and has been used as a model for other states. The second phase of access is bringing the final two years of an undergraduate degree to as many citizens as possible.

Establishing joint-use facilities was the first component of this second phase. Brevard Community College and the University of Central Florida built the first joint-use facility, which was first occupied in 1983. There are currently 10 joint-use sites either in operation or approved between the FCCS and the SUS. Additional joint programs are available at several more campuses, but they do not involve joint-use buildings. Constructing joint-use buildings has allowed many students to access upper division courses that they otherwise would not have been available to access.

However, bricks and mortar are becoming increasingly expensive. Before more money was allocated for this purpose, both academic administrators and the legislature wanted to know if the sites were fulfilling their intended purpose. By combining the student level records of the FCCS and the SUS, it was possible to determine which former FCCS students were attending the joint-use facilities currently in operation in the state. Although there are 10 official sites, only 6 have been in operation long enough to produce the type of data needed for this study. The six joint-use facilities considered in this review are listed below:

Fort Walton: University of West Florida and Okaloosa-Walton Community College

Lakeland: University of South Florida and Polk Community College

Daytona: University of Central Florida and Daytona Beach Community College

Brevard: University of Central Florida and Brevard Community College

Davie: Florida Atlantic University and Broward Community College

Downtown Tower: Florida International University, Florida Atlantic University and Broward Community College

All of these sites serve a variety of educational needs for their respective community, offering courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Due to differences in populations served, the results of this investigation have been grouped into those related to the entire population and those related to former community college students who transferred directly to the joint-use sites.

All Students

These six facilities served a total of almost 16,000 students in 1998-99 (see Table 2). Of these, 11,183 (70%) were former community college students. The Davie site serves the most students with Brevard second and Daytona third. The remaining three sites serve a very similar number of students.

The main coursework offered at these sites varies as needed by the community served. The majority of enrollments in the Ft. Lauderdale Tower are in social work, changing to architecture for upper division and students with an A.A. The majority of those in Lakeland and Fort Walton are in education. The most popular discipline at Lakeland changes to criminal justice for upper division and A.A. students, while at Fort Walton it continues to be education for upper division students and accounting for A.A. recipients. Daytona Beach and Brevard provide criminal justice courses for the majority of their students. Upper division students receive management courses at Daytona Beach and criminal justice courses at Brevard. A.A. recipients are studying management at both Daytona Beach and Brevard. At Davie, all types of students most frequently select management courses over all other disciplines.

Direct Transfers

In this study, a "direct transfer" is a community college student who transfers directly to the upper division of the host university at a joint-use facility without attending any other postsecondary institution in between. The profile of such a student attending the six joint-use facilities examined in this study is a White (70.4% White) female (66.9% female) 32 years of age (ages range from 20 to 81), taking an average of 8.4 hours per term. Table 2 provides information about the number of community college transfer students enrolled in the upper division at the six joint-use facilities included in this study. For example, at the Brevard joint-use facility, there were 1,464 total students enrolled in the upper division. Of those 1,464 students, more than 81% (1,187) transferred from a Florida public community college and nearly three-quarters of those (73.63%, 1,078 students) transferred with either an A.A. or an A.S. degree.

Data in Table 2 imply that these sites are serving the needs of placebound students who cannot travel to a main campus. The two sites, Brevard and Daytona Beach with the highest percentage of former community college students and of A.A. and A.S. transfers are more remote from the main campus of a state university than are the other joint-use facilities. Ft. Walton is similarly situated and only slightly behind with respect to the percentage of transfers and those with an associates degree. The Davie and Lakeland facilities are somewhat remote from the main campus of a state university and their percentages, in terms of both community college students as a percent of all upper level students and community college students with either an A.A. or A.S. degree, are somewhat lower than the top three. The Ft. Lauderdale Tower, located in downtown Ft. Lauderdale, is somewhat of a special case both in regard to its location and the students it serves. With the exception of the architecture program offered by Florida International University, much of the other enrollment activity is accounted for by professionals employed full-time in downtown Ft. Lauderdale.

Conclusions

As the United States' economy has evolved from industry to information, the need for baccalaureate degrees has increased. In order to meet this need, students must be both academically prepared for and physically able to attend upper division courses. Florida has purposefully designed a postsecondary system comprised of strategically located community colleges and a comparatively small number of public universities. One solution to the problem of educational attainment is concurrent-use programs that take advantage of the facilities already in place and are targeted to place- and time-bound adults.

Concurrent-use programs involve a community college and a university but may not necessarily involve a specific building. Every public community college in Florida has partnered with at least one public university to provide a complete baccalaureate program on its campus. In addition, most colleges have also joined with private universities to expand these programs. While these agreements have not been in place long enough to produce many graduates, both community colleges and universities are dedicating additional resources to these partnerships.

The results of this study of joint-use facilities indicate that these facilities serve a unique segment of the population that otherwise might not have access to upper division work. The demographics suggest that these students are largely White females who, based on their average age (31 years old), are probably place bound by family and work responsibilities.

It is this type of student that both joint-use and concurrent-use programs are targeting. Both programs were designed to provide access to a baccalaureate degree for students who are unable to attend a main campus due to time or place constraints. Combining the geographical distribution of the community college system with the ability of the public and private universities to provide upper division courses at these same sites has resulted in expanded access for the citizens of the state.

Table 1

SHEEO Survey on Joint-Use Facilities

                                                             Initial
            Joint--Use   Creating      # of       1998-99     Estab-
            Facilities   Entity *   Facilities   Headcount   lishment

  State

Arizona     Yes          SB,        5            12,629      1997
                         IIA

Colorado    Yes          L          1            33,000      1976

FLORIDA     Yes          L, IIA     6            9,200       1972

Hawaii      Yes          IIA        3            2,626       1996

Idaho       Yes          SB         2            2,600       NA

Illinois    Yes          SB         3            NA          1969

Kentucky    Yes          L          6            NA          NA

Massachu-   No
setts

Mississi-   Yes          SB,        6            3,000       1966
ppi                      IIA

Nebraska    Yes          SB         2            NA          1993

Nevada      No

New         Yes          IIA        1            NA          1995
Jersey

North       No
Carolina

Ohio        Yes          IIA        1            983         1996

Oklahoma    Yes          L, SB,     6            NA          1974
                         IIA

Oregon      Yes          SB,        NA           NA          NA
                         IIA

Pennsyl-    No
vania

Rhode       No
Island

South       Yes          IIA        1            1,400       1987
Carolina

South       Yes          SB         1            1,000       1992
Dakota

Tennessee   Yes          SB,        4            2,735       NA
                         IIA

Texas       Yes          L, SB,     8            NA          NA
                         IIA

Utah        Yes          SB         8            NA          1980's

Virginia    Yes          L          6            NA          1991

West        No
Virginia

Wisconsin   Yes          SB         13           9,843       1960's

              Reason for        Separate
            Establishment    Appropriation   Governance

            Incr.    Add.
  State     Access   Prog.

Arizona     Yes      Yes     Yes             Joint

Colorado    Yes      No      No              Joint

FLORIDA     Yes      Yes     Yes             Local

Hawaii      Yes      Yes     No              Local

Idaho       Yes      Yes     No              SB/Pres

Illinois    Yes      Yes     No              Joint

Kentucky    Yes      No      No              Local

Massachu-
setts

Mississi-   Yes      Yes     No              SB,
ppi                                          Local

Nebraska    Yes      NA      No              Private

Nevada

New         Yes      Yes     No              IIA
Jersey

North
Carolina

Ohio        Yes      Yes     No              Local

Oklahoma    Yes      No      No              Local

Oregon      Yes      Yes     No              IIA

Pennsyl-
vania

Rhode
Island

South       Yes      Yes     Yes             SB/
Carolina                                     Local

South       Yes      No      No              Pres.
Dakota

Tennessee   Yes      No      No              SB

Texas       Yes      Yes     Yes &           Situational
                             No

Utah        Yes      Yes     No              SB

Virginia    Yes      Yes     Yes             Joint

West
Virginia

Wisconsin   Yes      Yes     No              SB

              # of       # of     Instnl.    Change
            Programs   Courses   Closures   to 4-Year

  State

Arizona     110        500       No         No

Colorado    194        6224      No         No

FLORIDA     12         NA        No         No

Hawaii      25         195       No         No

Idaho       50         500       No         No

Illinois    NA         NA        No         No

Kentucky    NA         NA        No         No

Massachu-
setts

Mississi-   NA         NA        No         No
ppi

Nebraska    NA         NA        No         No

Nevada

New         17         NA        No         No
Jersey

North
Carolina

Ohio        17         104       No         NO

Oklahoma    NA         NA        No         Yes (1)

Oregon      23         NA        No         No

Pennsyl-
vania

Rhode
Island

South       45         600       Yes        No
Carolina

South       24         NA        No         No
Dakota

Tennessee   NA         NA        No         No

Texas       NA         NA        No         Yes

Utah        NA         NA        No         No

Virginia    NA         NA        No         No

West
Virginia

Wisconsin   1 (2+2)    NA        Yes-      Yes-1960
                                 1982

L=Legislature; SB=State Board; IIA=Inter-institutional Agreement
Table 2

Students Served by SUS Joint-Use Facilities, 1998-99

                                                 Comm Coll
Joint-Use        Students   Former Comm Coll   Students w/ AS
Facility          Served        Students           or AA

All Students                   #       %         #       %

Brevard             2,169    1,764   81.33%    1,069   60.60%
Davie               7,348    5,022   68.35%    2,332   46.44%
Daytona             2,077    1,741   83.82%    1,059   60.83%
Ft. Walton          1,546      964   62.35%      456   47.30%
Lakeland            1,523    1,061   69.67%      554   52.21%
Ft. Lauderdale      1,325      631   47.62%      174   27.58%
Total              15,988   11,183   69.95%    5,644   50.47%

Direct
Transfers

Brevard             1,464    1,187   81.08%    1,078   90.82%
Davie               4,950    3,008   60.77%    1,921   63.86%
Daytona             1,373    1,122   81.72%    1,005   89.57%
Ft. Walton            519      398   76.69%      345   86.68%
Lakeland              821      514   62.61%      385   74.90%
Ft. Lauderdale        195       87   44.62%       41   47.13%
Total               9,322    6,316   67.75%    4,775   75.60%

References

California Commission on Innovation. (1992). Cutting the cost of new community college facilities: Joint use strategies: Policy discussion paper #2. Sacramento, CA: Commission on Innovation.

Commission on Innovation Policy Discussion Paper Number 2. (1992). Cutting the Cost of New Community College Facilities: Joint Use Strategies. Berkley, CA: BW Associates.

Florida Board of Regents. (1985) A path to excellence in public higher education in florida. Report of the Regents' Study Commission on Funding for Excellence. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Florida State Board of Community Colleges (1999). A strategic plan for the millennium 1998-2003. State Board of Community Colleges Tallahassee: Florida.

Florida State Department of Education. (1994). Educational plant survey: Polk Community College. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Educational Facilities.

Florida State Postsecondary Education Commission. (1990). The structure of public postsecondary education in Florida: Postsecondary Education Planning Commission, 1990-Report 9. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission (1998). Challenges and choices: The master plan for Florida postsecondary education Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission (1999). The impact of joint-use facilities on the delivery of postsecondary education in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Jadallah, E. (1994). The community education center: A model for school-university partnerships. American Secondary Education, 22 (4), 23-27.

Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72 (4), 96-108.

Macomb Community College. (1996) A commitment made ... A promise delivered. Community Report. Macomb Community College, Warren, Michigan Board of Trustees.

May, G., & Smith, A. (1992). Gaining stature through community college-university consortia. In B.W. Dziech and W.R. Viler (Eds.), Prisoners of Elitism: The Community College's Struggle for Stature (pp. 63-76). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 78.

Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY (1998, November) State tax fund appropriations for higher education, FY1999, Number 77.

State of California Community College Facilities Planning and Utilization Unit. (1999, February 23). Report on Collaborative Facilities Projects. Sacramento, CA: California Community Colleges, Office of the Chancellor.

State of Illinois Board of Higher Education. (1998). An Implementation Plan for the University Center of lake County: A Committee Report. Springfield, IL: Author.

Taber, L.S. (1995). ERIC Review: Collaboration as a vehicle for community college facilities development. Community College Review, 23 (3), 73-87.

The Institute for Higher Education Policy (1999) What is Opportunity? A concept paper. Washington, DC: Author.

Patricia Windham is the director of Educational Effectiveness & Research at the Florida State Board of Community Colleges in Tallahassee, Florida. [e-mail]

George R. Perkins is the director of Research & Policy Analysis at the Florida Board of Regents in Tallahassee, Florida. [e-mail]

Jon Rogers is a chief legislative analyst at the Florida Council for Education Policy Research and Improvement in Tallahassee, Florida. [e-mail]