Lock Haven University

Pet Policy Proposal

September 2004 

Prepared by:

Michael J. Heck

INTRODUCTION:

            The Resident Director position, a live-in professional position, is unique in today’s workplace.  The position is filled with highly stressful and potentially dangerous confrontations, that don’t stop with the end of the work day.  “Living in” has traditionally been seen as a proving ground, with an extremely high rate of attrition, but one that if you make it through, is rewarded with opportunities for higher echelon positions.  The Resident Director position is also filled with stipulations being placed upon the personal lives of those who occupy these positions.  Examples include policies on cohabitation, possession and consumption of alcohol, and owning pets.  This proposal will address the pet policy, presenting rationale in favor of allowing live-in professionals to possess certain types of pets, given some qualifications.

CURRENT SITUATION:

            While the live-in Resident Director positions at the Lock Haven University are considered to be entry-level, possession of a degree is required.  Due to this requirement, the typical ages of the staff members frequently fall within the range of twenty-three to forty-five years of age.  Candidates are sometimes older, but rarely younger.  Given the ages of these incoming professionals, many will have had significant periods of time in which to develop their independent, personal lives.  Included in developing this life is often the acquisition of a pet.  Currently, the only pets allowed by the student life/housing department are aquatic animals (fish).  We would like to see that list expanded to include a limited variety of caged animals, of an avian, mammalian or reptilian nature as specified in Appendix C1 and C2.

            The acquisition of a pet is an indulgence in which, according to Media mark Research, 43% of all American households decide to partake.  The popularity of pets is often due to the companionship they offer, but studies have also shown that possessing pets such as dogs and cats reduces one’s blood pressure and level of stress.

SUMMARY:

            It is generally agreed that the Resident Director position can be intense and stressful.  Being fully immersed within the world of the students requires significant sacrifices in lifestyle.  Resident Director’s have the ability of living with one’s spouse and/or child (ren).  This proposal asserts that a pet can also be a significant family member, and should receive similar consideration.  As much as a child is fully reliant upon the caring and attention of a one individual or couple, so is the pet.  Perhaps more importantly, minimizing the lifestyle sacrifices of the live-in professionals—in an area as precious to people as their pets--will benefit not only the live in professionals and their family units, but the University community as well.

Rationale and Supporting Evidence

Resident Directors are full-time professional university employees who live on campus and have different roles and needs than the students who live on campus.

In order to perform adequately and ensure the degree of supervision necessary to the management of a residence hall, Resident Directors are required to live in the residence halls.  A large part of the responsibility of the live-in staff is to behave as a role model, which includes complying with the regulations of the college.  The Office of Student Life/Housing does, however, recognize the needs and circumstances of the professional as being different from those of the undergraduate student.  One goal of residence hall living is to create a community that becomes the students’ “home away from home.”  For the Resident Directors, their on-campus apartment is a permanent home, and should be awarded the same rights and responsibilities of a real home.

The university recognizes fundamental differences between a Resident Director and a student.  For example: Resident Directors are permitted to live in their apartments during breaks in the school year (specifically winter holidays and summer breaks, when student residents are required to vacate). The apartments are supplied with kitchens, bathrooms, and bedrooms, whereas these are not located in a “typical” residence hall room.  Finally, these staff members are professionals with the training and education that translate to the understanding that they are responsible adults who live on campus as a part of their job, not as students, and hence are different from students.

It is important to note that the role model image is not compromised because the differences in expectations between students and professional staff are well regulated.  These differences reinforce the concept that a professional is a career-oriented person who was selected by the University for his/her skills and experience, and should therefore be afforded privileges beyond those of students.

Lastly, allowing the Resident Directors to possess pets would assist us in our recruitment process, in an ever shrinking candidate pool.  This would increase our appeal to prospective candidates by showing our department in an innovative, friendly light, and would place our department in with a select few schools, who have taken this bold step.  In the past, applicants have declined many offers from other universities due to the fact that a pet policy was not in place.

Pets can reduce the stress in daily life.

As live-in professionals, Resident Directors encounter stressful situations such as crisis management, conflict mediation and resolution, and unpredictable and often long work schedules.  When compounded, these work-related responsibilities can lead to emotional, mental and physical stress.  These stressors are negatively reinforced by the reality that there is sometimes little separation between a staff member’s professional and personal environments. Efforts must be made by both the individual and the university to enhance, separate, and respect the Resident Director’s personal life, especially his/her home.  Owning pets would provide one outlet to alleviate the stress of the job, and would enrich the professional’s life.  Supporting evidence for this assertion includes:

“Researchers have long hypothesized that pets can influence their owner’s health by reducing anxiety, loneliness, and depression, and thus decrease the onset, severity, or progression of stress-related conditions.  Studies on the potential anxiolytic effects of companion animals show evidence for reductions in cardiovascular, behavioral, and psychological indicators of anxiety….”

(Wilson, 1991)

“Companion animals provide numerous psychological, emotional, and physiological benefits for their owners… Savishinsky (1983) proposed that pets serve as outlets for nurturance, displacement, and projection and can function as child substitutes…Many of the interactions that take place between individuals and their children.”  (Marks, Koopke, & Bradely, 1994)

“In recent years, researchers have begun to prove that pet therapy has positive effects on mind and body.  The presence of animals increases a person’s chances of [better health], lowers heart rate, and promotes social behaviors… Some scientists believe that because animal companionship is uncomplicated, nonjudgmental, accepting, and attentive, animals give the person something to be responsible for, and they are a non-threatening channel for physical contact.”  (Burke, 1992)

“Pet owners not only get great enjoyment out of their non-human friends, but research shows that interacting with animals can improve your overall physical and mental health.  Playing with a pet can lower blood pressure…. Part of the beneficial relationship is that pets draw people’s attention away from problems or worries.  Owning a dog encourages people to exercise, and studies show that people with pets are considered more socially attractive than those without pets.  Pets also provide emotional support for their owners: people can respond to pets without concern for appearances or acceptance.” 

(Monson, 1995)

“Science aside, pets (especially for dog-owning city dwellers) usually mean a brisk walk or two, or three, or four times a day, and that’s always good for human stress management via fresh air and exercise…. Of course, fish, turtles, birds, hamsters, ferrets, and other domesticated animals are capable of enhancing the relaxation and relationship development just like their dog and cat cousins.”  (Alice, 1996)

A stressor that can affect both the pet owner and the pet is the possibility of separation.  As stated in the research above, humans become genuinely attached to their pets, and likewise, the animals depend upon their human owners for care, love, and safety. Zasloff & Kidd (1994) found that both cat and dog owners view their pets as family members.  With specific attention to felines, the researchers concluded that "people can and do become highly attached to cats.”  In her work as an animal-behavior consultant, Dr. Amy Marder, V.M.D. (1994) concludes that pets certainly experience anxiety and unhappiness much like our own.”  Separation from the owner is a common anxiety, which can cause a cat and dog to seem lost for days or weeks, experience loss of appetite or in some cases, physiological illness.

Concerns regarding disease and allergies can be handled and dealt with productively.

Health issues may be a concern when considering animals living with human beings.  In a national study of institutional residential environments, however, no one had contracted infections or disease from domestic animals residing in the environment. Most documented cases of infection were reportedly contracted from other residents of that same environment.

“Rather convincing data indicated that the presence of pets in nursing homes, which is now permitted in all fifty states, poses no problem….”  Robert K. Anderson, a veterinarian and public health specialist at the University of Minnesota, found “no evidence that anyone contracted infections or allergies from pets –‘zero’- but documented numerous cases of infections breeding from resident to resident.”  (Culliton, 1987)

It can be concluded that pets pose no greater health risk than other human contact.

Humans required proof of immunization.  Therefore, before a pet were to move onto campus, written documentation from a certified veterinarian stating that the animal is up-to-date on all vaccines (including rabies), and is in general good health, would be required.  Additionally, animals could be either spayed or neutered, depending upon the animal’s needs, and the owner and the departments needs.

The potential for students or other staff to be bothered by allergic reactions to pets is also a concern.  The home of professional staff members is a private, not public, area. Students do not freely walk through a Resident Director’s apartment as they do in common lounges or other student rooms.  Because all pets owned by the Resident Directors would need to be confined to the apartment space, only small caged rodents/reptiles/birds, and fish as defined in Appendix C1 and C2 would be allowed.  The only contact students would have with the animal would be if invited into the apartment, which greatly reduces the chances of individual student contact.  Only students who are comfortable with pets would enter the living area.  Students and staff have the option to choose whether they want to expose themselves to the animal by entering the apartment.  Each staff member has his/her own private office in which the staff member can conduct meetings and other work-related activities.  It is never necessary to have a potentially allergic student or staff member in his/her home.  Any time a live-in professional leaves residence, they are expected to leave the apartment clean and in suitable condition for the next occupant.  A pet deposit can be required of Resident Directors to insure that the costs of cleaning and shampooing the apartment would be covered.

Addressing Student Concerns

Another concern with pets in residence is answering questions of students.  As it stands, university policy permits students to only have fish in their student rooms.  The following statements are presented as means of explanation, the first being the primary rationale:

The Resident Director’s full-time; 10- or 12-month professional status justifies many exceptions to student policies.

The larger space of the Resident Director’s apartment is unlikely to create a health concern from any level of bacteria that the animal may carry.

Resident Directors do not have assigned roommates.  The animal would live within the confines of the staff member’s apartment, thereby eliminating contact with others.

There is no added responsibility on custodial staff from an animal in a Resident Director’s apartment as staff members with pets would be completely responsible for cleaning their own living facilities.

If students continue to question the policy, it is hoped that with an approved pet policy, all professional staff would be willing to explain the rationale for the policy and the differences between Resident Directors and students.  With this support, any controversy regarding this improvement in the quality of life for the live-in staff members should be effectively handled.  It is the view of the author that students would not be overly concerned with the perceived inconsistency.

For further examples of institutional pet policies for professional live-in staff, a large number of colleges/universities were contacted (See Appendix A).  Surprisingly, few of these schools have anything in writing, such as this proposal and the attached sample contract.

The approval of a formal pet policy for professional live-in full-time staff would greatly improve the quality of life for those who would like to complete their home with a pet.  This proposal has provided several rationales, supporting evidence, stipulations for concerns, and suggestions for implementation.  The last part of this proposal is a sample contract that the Resident Director staff would be required to sign and abide by, should the policy be approved, be it this one or a modified version.

Special Circumstances

There are several stipulations regarding pets that could be implemented.  The following suggestion can further control the above mentioned concerns.

• A deposit may be collected at the beginning of the Resident Director’s contract that would cover the cost of any damages to the physical structure of the apartment incurred as a result of the pet’s presence in the apartment.

The following institutions use these amounts as security deposits for staff members wishing to have pets:

San Diego State University has a $200 pet deposit that is held for the duration of the pet’s stay;

University of Wisconsin-Steven’s Point has a $300 pet deposit for the duration of the pet’s stay;

West Virginia University has a $300 pet deposit also.

·         A deposit could also be collected at the beginning of the Resident Director’s contract that would cover the cost of any damages to the furniture in the apartment incurred as a result of the pet’s presence in the apartment.  Appendix C 1 also covers the possible damage of furniture with the following statement: “If college furniture is utilized by the staff member owning a pet, that individual agrees to have all upholstered furniture and carpeting cleaned, repaired, or replaced upon moving out of the apartment”.

For either of these stipulations to work, though, it is necessary for the department to physically inspect the condition of the apartment, prior to the pet’s arrival, to insure accurate reporting of damages.  An apartment inventory, outlining the condition of the apartment furniture could be conducted by both the staff member and the Director of Student Life/Housing.  This inventory should then remain on file for the duration of the staff member’s occupancy, being updated with new tenant’s occupancy.
 

Appendix A:

ADDRESSING THE CONCERN OF DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR STUDENTS AND LIVE-IN PROFFESSIONAL:

            A common concern among administrators in allowing live-in professionals to possess pets, or—more broadly—to enjoy privileges or perquisites not available to students, is that of setting “double standards”.  This proposal asserts that the different standards which students and live-in professionals experience are not only merited but necessary.

            At its most basic level, the title of the “live-in professional”, or "a professional position” connotes a certain degree of maturity, competence, and responsibility.  Indeed, as previously mentioned, the Resident Directors have been professionals outside of the live-in experience, and have worked to attain a degree.  Generally, Resident Directors differ from students in the following respects.

1.      They have received more years of education.

2.      They possess more life and work experiences.

3.      They are employed full-time by the University, and are required to live within the residence hall as a stipulation of their employment.

Distinctions and variations in privileges among students and Professional Staff members have already been made due to these differences.  For example, Professional Staff members have larger living areas and private bathrooms, as opposed to the smaller, shared living areas and bathrooms of students.  In addition, children and spouses are permitted to reside with in the private quarters of the Resident Director staff.  Different standards are necessary in dealing with two distinctly different populations within the residence hall.  This proposal encourages the Office of Student Life/Housing to continue to acknowledge the difference between live-in professionals and students, and extend it to the ability to possess certain pets. 

Appendix B:

ADDRESSING THE CONCERN REGARDING THE LACK OF A PRIVATE ENTRANCE FOR SOME RESIDENT DIRECTORS:

            Another concern regarding allowing Professional Staff members to possess pets is that some apartments do not possess a private entryway—when the pet may require a certain amount of “outdoor time”.  The concern exists due to the possibility for—what may be considered—excessive exposure of the pet to the living or public areas of the residents.  In cases of students with acute allergies to, or fears of, certain pets, it is believed that accommodations can be made to minimize—if not totally eliminate—the inconvenience experienced by such students.  The accommodations the Resident Directors without private entryways may be required to observe are as follows:

1.      Resident Director pets will not be permitted to roam in the residential area of the residence hall.

2.      During transit, the Resident Director may carry the pet directly and promptly to the nearest exit, through a public (non-residential) area of the residence hall, or cage or leash the pet and quickly walk to the exit.

It is believed that total control and restraint of the pet, and a direct and immediate transit route will effectively prevent any difficulties for students with fears of such pets and/or allergies.

Appendix C 1: Sample Pet Contract for Live-in Professionals

This contract is designed to recognize and accommodate the needs of live-in professionals, and therefore applies only to those who are full-time Residential Services employees.

Terms:

1)       Allowable pets for the purpose of this contract are defined as follows:

a)       Small caged mammals

i)         Hamsters

ii)       Gerbils

iii)      Guinea Pigs

iv)      Rabbits

b)       Reptiles

i)         Frogs and Toads

ii)       Salamanders

iii)      Lizards (Any lizard not including snakes and crocodilians).

iv)      Turtles

c)       Birds

i)         Any bird in an appropriately sized cage.

d)       Fish

i)         Any type of fish, in an appropriately sized aquarium.

2)       In the interest of insuring that the primary goal of a residence hall is to provide an environment that is conducive to academic achievement, pets cannot make excessive noise or any noise that can be heard out of a closed room. The owner must be receptive to complaints by resident students or college officials and personnel. In the event that a formal grievance is filed, a consultation will occur between the person filing the grievance, the pet owner, and the Director of Student Life/Housing. A three-way decision will be made as to the continuation or modification of the pet contract.

3)       All animals need to be vaccinated and registered in accordance with the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. Proof of this must be submitted before the pet can enter the premises.

4)       No animals are to roam free in areas surrounding the residence halls or in the halls themselves. Pets are to be contained in the respective Resident Director’s apartment, and if taken outside, it should be in an appropriate travel container.

5)       All animal feces will be disposed of properly. It is the owner’s responsibility to properly dispose of all waste from the animal.

6)       The Resident Director must ensure that their apartment is clean and ready for the next person moving into the space. If college furniture is utilized by the staff member owning a pet, that individual agrees to have all upholstered furniture and carpeting cleaned, repaired, or replaced upon moving out of the apartment.

7)       If the facilities are in any way damaged by the pet, i.e. stained rugs, torn furniture, or scratched walls, the staff member is financially responsible for these damages, and any appropriate billing will be charged immediately to the staff member.

8)       Any liability for the actions of the animal will be the sole responsibility of the owner.

9)       The Office of Student Life/Housing reserves the right to remove any pet that does not meet the aforementioned guidelines.

10)   Denial of pet ownership is not a viable grievance to SCUPA on the Resident Director’s behalf.  However, if either a Resident Director or the Office of Student Life/Housing refuses to follow the stipulations of this agreement, SCUPA could be advised of the situation by the appropriate individual.

11)   Pet owners are expected to seek proper care for their pets in the case of an absence, such as kennel-care or a pet-sitter.

This contract stands as a binding agreement between the Lock Haven University Office of Student Life/Housing and the Professional Staff member identified below.

By signing this agreement, I acknowledge my responsibility to abide by all the terms of the contract with regard to the care and maintenance of a pet within the confines of my residence hall apartment. I also understand that the department reserves the right to inspect my apartment at any time, should they feel that this agreement has been violated.

__________________________                                                   _____________________________

Pet Owner Signature/Date                                                                 Director of Student Life Signature/Date

Appendix C 2: Sample Pet Policy for Lock Haven University

In an effort to more clearly define a pet policy for Lock Haven University, the following stipulations are proposed.

1)       The pet may be a small caged rodent, small caged reptile, small caged bird or fish tank of any size.

a)       Allowable pets for the purpose of this contract are defined as follows:

i)         Small caged mammals

(1)     Hamsters

(2)     Gerbils

(3)     Guinea Pigs

(4)     Rabbits

ii)       Reptiles

(1)     Frogs and Toads

(2)     Salamanders

(3)     Lizards (Any lizard not including snakes and crocodilians).

(4)     Turtles

iii)      Birds

(1)     Any bird in any appropriately sized cage.

iv)      Fish

(1)     Any type of fish, in any appropriately sized aquarium.

2)       The animal must have all required vaccinations up to date and a copy must be on file with the Director of Student Life.

3)       The animal’s feces must be disposed of properly. It is the owner’s responsibility to shovel feces from University grounds, dispose of in a plastic bag, and then place that bag in the garbage bins outside.

4)       The pet is allowed only in the Resident Director apartments.

5)       When bringing the pet outdoors--in the event of a lack of a private entryway--the pet must be carried, in an appropriate travel container, directly and promptly to the nearest exit.

6)       Any and all damages caused by the animal will be the responsibility of the owner.. The cost of repair, replacement, or cleaning will be billed to the owner of the pet.

7)       All liability for the actions of the animal in direct contact with others (bites, scratches, etc.) is the responsibility of the owner.

8)       The owner will take all reasonable precautions to protect the property of the University and the residents.

9)       All pets will be spayed or neutered at the appropriate age, if deemed necessary. A copy of the veterinary report will be on file in the Director of Student Life’s office.

10)   Pets, which constitute a nuisance to the other residents, as determined by the Director of Student Life, will be removed within seven (7) days of notification by the Director of Student Life.   

Appendix D              2003 Live In Professional Report