Reducing Inconsiderate Partying in the UDR Apartment through a No-Inconsiderate-Partying Contract - Research Paper Example

Recommendations for Reducing Inconsiderate Partying in the UDR Apartment through a A No-Inconsiderate-Partying (NIP) Contract Samrwit Kahsai and Beede Haile, Managers of UDR Apartment Xinyi Chen Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Introduction 3 Methodology 5 Results 6 Findings 9 Recommendations 10 Conclusion 12 Works Consulted List 13 Executive Summary After experiencing party noises that made me suffer one-too-many sleepless nights and bad school performance, I realized the demand for a no-party contract in the UDR apartment at Domain College Park. This paper is a recommendation report that aims to prevent and resolve inconsiderate partying in the apartment. I interviewed members of the UDR management, Samrwit Kahsai and Beede Haile, to determine their concerns regarding this contract. I also conducted an online survey for UDR apartment renters (n=26). These questionnaires collected information about party/noise experiences and prevalence, cause and effects of such noises, and acceptability for and recommended content for a no-party contract. Findings showed that the management and renters approved of the no-party contract, but the management was concerned that the term “party” is too broad and may be unappealing for future prospects. A No-Inconsiderate-Partying (NIP) contract is recommended because it can effectively and efficiently prevent and resolve insensitive parties in the UDR apartment. The contract will have a section on empathy, designation of quiet hours, recommendation of other outlets where renters can party, and sanctions for violators, including cancellation of lease. I also suggest a party room for every floor and enhancement of the soundproof quality of all rooms. These are more costly suggestions but they can increase profits and improve living experience and brand equity. Hence, the most cost-efficient and effective is the No-Inconsiderate-Partying (NIP) contract that has high management and renter acceptability and sustainability. Introduction I am a recurring victim of inconsiderate partying in the UDR apartment at Domain College Park. Some of the renters here party up to 3 a.m. during weekdays. Though the apartment has students and employees renters alike, many renters are actually students since this apartment is in College Park, and this reality makes it more inconceivable how they can be quite insensitive to the sleep and studying needs of other students like them. I could not always tell them to lower their noises because I am afraid of dealing with drunken adolescents and adults and because there have been times when I told them to lower their noise, which they did for a few minutes, and then they increased the noise again. I have gone to the apartment staff of the UDR apartment at Domain College Park to complain about these party noises. The staff stressed that they have a “no-party” policy, and that they would remind the room’s inhabitants about it. These partying noises continue up to now. Clearly, the no-party policy is not effective in deterring or resolving insensitive partiers. Partying until wee hours of the morning in the UDR apartment throughout the weekdays is damaging to the UDR management because it costs money to respond to the potential legal ramifications of drunken or drugged underage/adult renters and to clean up litter from partiers’ waste, and it can reduce the perceptions of peace and safety for renters, wherein negative UDR perceptions can damage brand equity and reduce future income. I present a recommendation report to the UDR management after conducting secondary and primary research regarding the effectiveness, acceptability, and possible contents of a no-party contract. This recommendation aims to improve renters’ empathy for others, to enhance their knowledge of the no-party policy and its sanctions, to expand sanctions and consequences for no-party contract violators, and to ensure that offenders get the sanctions they deserve to protect the brand equity of UDR as a high-end apartment, to ensure the peace and orderliness of the environment, and to improve management-renter and renter-renter relationships. Furthermore, this recommendation report understands that partying itself, especially get-togethers with family, friends, co-workers, and bosses are not wrong and they are allowed in the UDR premises, as long as they occur within proper hours and areas. The options that I considered are the no-party contract and other sanctions such as empathy training, as well as other partying place options for partiers. My main recommendation is a no-party contract that all renters will sign. This contract strengthens the no-party policy of the apartment. UDR apartment has a policy that discourages loud noises that can affect the peacefulness of the premises, but it does not have any contract to bind its renters to it. Its policy includes eviction as the heaviest penalty for renters who have repeatedly violated the policy. The proposed no-party contract states that renters will not party or make loud noises inside the apartment at all during designated quite hours. The suggested quiet hours are Sunday to Thursday, 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. the following morning. The primary audiences of the recommendation report are members of the UDR management, particularly Samrwit Kahsai and Beede Haile. The management needs a peaceful apartment to avoid handling complaints from renters and loss of revenues. The secondary audiences are the UDR apartment renters. Many are students like me who want peace and quiet, especially at night during weekdays (Johnson; Melnitsky). Renters who are employees also need to sleep because they have work early the next day. The criteria that I used to evaluate options and to propose recommendations are cost-efficiency, sustainability, acceptability for renters, and ability to prevent and resolve inconsiderate partying. I selected these criteria because the management would be concerned of efficient and effective solutions to too much party noises that can undermine its luxury brand image and disrupt renters’ productivity/performance in school/work. The management would also be concerned of knowing the effects of insensitive partying to its renters. They would also be wary of the legal costs and cleaning costs of partying that happens too frequently and which involve underage alcohol drinking. Methodology This recommendation report focuses on primary research results. I interviewed Samrwit Kahsai and Beede Haile who are part of the UDR management last November 18, 2014. I asked them about the advantages and disadvantages of a no-party contract. I also asked them about their experiences regarding partiers. Besides this interview, I also conducted an online survey. The online survey determines the prevalence, causes, and effects of noises during weekday evenings to mornings. It also determines the renters’ response to a no-party contract. From November 12 to November 23, I collected 23 survey results using Google Forms (http://goo.gl/forms/oiFkHs6rCi). The survey link was posted to entire community on MyUDR website. I explained the purpose of the survey with the following instruction: Dear UDR renters: This is a survey that will serve as part of my primary research in writing a recommendation report for the reduction of inconsiderate partying for UDR apartment. This is part of a school project and your response is anonymous. Please be completely honest so that I can incorporate real, useful information into this recommendation report. This survey is completely confidential and in no way will be tied back to you. Thank you in advance for your honest feedback! They answered the survey online and I tallied results through Google Forms too. Besides primary research, I also conducted secondary research that proved the importance and benefits of a no-contract policy to the UDR management and UDR renters. This secondary research is based on contracts and changing apathetic behaviors. This research helps improve the conceptualization of the no-party contract and has prepared me in making suitable interview and survey questions. I also realized from my secondary research that a no-party contract is under-studied, which makes primary research essential to the recommendation report. Results Some articles report that party noise is a consistent and widespread problem for college dorms/residences and other apartments. Melnitsky notes that, even in student dorms, party noises happen during weekdays from evening to morning. She gives an experience where she felt anxious and angry because of these noises. Van der Ryn and Silverstein agree that party noises and other noises frequently affect people who live in the same building. They talk about the ill effects of noises, such as irritation and anxiety, as well as poor performance at work or school (Van der Ryn and Silverstein 373). These sources indicate that party noises prevent people from having an agreeable residential life and satisfactory work or school performance. Besides noise, partying until wee hours during weekdays can present more problems for the UDR management because it can be correlated with college and underage drinking and other potentially harmful and disruptive behaviors that will reduce the credibility of UDR as a safe and orderly luxury apartment. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism lists the harms of college drinking that comes from partying, such as health and school performance problems, criminal activities, and death. Not all parties are considered “clean fun” because sometimes, people get drunk more than it is good for them and they can behave harmfully against others. If they get rowdy and hurt others and litter around, they may also increase the legal and cleaning costs for the UDR apartment. In addition, partying, during sleeping hours, shows poor empathy and possible behavioral problems. Zaki describes the results of the report from Sara H. Konrath and her peers from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Their survey shows that college students have less empathy now compared to students twenty years ago. If some renters have poor empathy, others might be displeased and leave the apartment. Some people who are repetitive policy violators may also have behavioral problems, such as delinquency and substance abuse problems. They may also share their negative experiences with others that may create a bad image for UDR, not only in College Park, but with its whole brand. Besides these negative effects of partying, contracts are effective in curbing insensitive noise in apartments because they can enforce changes or build new social behaviors. Lindemann and Harbke, in the “Use of Contract Grading to Improve Grades among College Freshmen in Introductory Psychology,” show that contract grading improved students’ grades. A contract may help students become more accountable for their actions and feel more in control of their situations (Lindemann and Harbke 3). A no-party contract can increase renters’ sense of responsibility and empathy. As for the primary research results, the survey showed that majority (74%) are aware of the no-party policy (n=17 versus those who are not aware which is n=6). Most (74%) are also informed by the staff about their no-party policy. Despite the majority’s awareness for the policy, most of these renters (78%) experienced noise during late nights until mornings of weekdays. 43% said they experienced these noises once a week, 30% said twice a week, 22% said more than four times a week, and 4% said three to four times a week. Regarding the causes of these noises, the results are the following: parties (87%), playing loud live music (48%), conversations from nearby rooms (30%), and having the TV or radio loudly. Because of this noise, 52% feel angry, 43% feel upset, 30% feel exhausted, while others feel indifferent, sad, and other emotions. When asked about the negative effects of noise during sleeping hours at night, respondents answered emotional distress (65%), tardiness in school or work (52%), low grades in exams or assignments (35%), poor performance in work or school (35%), as well as anger, physical exhaustion, and distress (30%), among others. The management sees the advantages more than disadvantages of a no-party contract. The advantages are: fewer legal ramifications from being possibly blamed for underage drinking; better apartment renter-renter relations; good brand management strategy to attack more renters; fewer expenses with litter; and unsatisfied renters that can lead to lower future incomes. The disadvantages of a no-contract policy are: losing prospects for people who enjoy get-togethers because party is such a broad term and could be misinterpreted easily by future prospects and low compliance from people who do not care. The managers and renters overwhelmingly agree that a no-party contract will improve renters compliance with the prohibited conduct policy. Kahsai and Haile believe that it is possible that it may deter future partying, but it cannot stop insensitive partying behaviors because drunken renters are hardly logical and do not think about the welfare of other renters. They note that the contract can increase the carefulness of people because a written contract is a formal contract that can lead to losing their lease. For the renters, 74% believe that a no-party contract will be effective in reducing insensitive noises during designated quiet hours versus 26% who think that maybe it will work. These renters also significantly believe that the no-party contract will improve compliance of the no-party policy. 100% of the renters say that they will sign a no-party contract too. The recommendations for the included information and rules in the no-party contract are nearly the same for apartment managers and renters. The management considers quiet hours and termination of lease, depending on repetitiveness of offenses, but not empathy trainings because they are more for student housing. Renters suggest that the no-party contract should include designation of quiet hours (83%), recommendation of other outlets where renters can party or make noises (43%), sanctions for violators (39%), and emphasis on empathy for other renters (30%). In addition, though the management did not approve of empathy training as punishment, 16 of the respondents approved it. They believe that it can help renters become more accountable for their actions and feel empathy for fellow renters. They stressed the importance of punishments too because some people do not respond to empathy training only. There is some hesitation on the effectiveness of the empathy training. Six people said think people do what they want because some people do not simply care and because it is not something that should be forced on people. Regarding creative solutions, apartment renters recommended more than the apartment managers. The renters state that the apartment should make some posters to inform people not to party during quiet hours; conduct workshops on the importance of sleep; choose a fixed time every week when the party is allowed; get to know neighbors and community; pay fines if people violate the policy; funds can be used to organize UDR events; add building materials that can help decrease the noise; and the UDR should offer a free party or noise room. The management emphasizes the need for self-control and empathy for all renters to avoid making party noises during quiet hours. Findings Findings indicated that partying is prevalent and leads to negative effects on renters. Most of these renters experienced noise during late nights until mornings of weekdays, often once to twice a week or sometimes even more. Parties also lead these noises, aside from playing loud music and conversations. Noise during sleeping hours also resulted to emotional distress (65%), tardiness in school or work (52%), low grades in exams or assignments (35%), poor performance in work or school (35%), as well as anger, physical exhaustion, and distress (30%), among others. The UDR management is concerned of the bad effects of noise during weekday nights on tenants. They agree that party noise is bad for renters’ state of mind and the image and orderliness of the apartment. Furthermore, the management and the renters agree that a no-party contract will improve renters compliance with the prohibited conduct policy. The management shows concern for a broad term as “party” that can make the apartment seem as not a good place for fun and social interaction. Renters focus on the positive effects of a no-party policy for their performance at school or work. The findings also offer contents for the no-contract policy: designation of quiet hours (83%), recommendation of other outlets where renters can party or make noises (43%), sanctions for violators (39%), and emphasis on empathy for other renters (30%). A no-party contract, however, should not deter all kinds of parties. Parties that do not disrupt sleeping hours are allowed. Recommendations My recommendation is for the UDR apartment to enforce the signing of a no-party policy for all renters. To avoid confusion that “partying” per se is not allowed, the contract will be named as No-Inconsiderate-Partying (NIP) contract. The NIP contract is cost-efficient because it is not something that will be signed every month or frequently but open the start and renew of their lease. In addition, it is sustainable because it is flexible to changes every year upon the review of the management and recommendations of renters, which make it amenable to changes in renter behaviors and preferences. It is also sustainable because it can be included in the usual lease agreements of the apartment. Furthermore, this contract is acceptable for all renters. 100% or 23 renters approved of it and are ready to sign it. It shows overwhelming support for this contract, most probably because they have experienced the negative effects of these noises directly in their lives. Moreover, the NIP contract can prevent inconsiderate partying because it makes renters feel more accountable for their actions. It can also help improve their empathy through helping them see that too much partying during weekdays is already negatively affecting other people around them. In addition, I will discuss the components of the no-party contract. It will have a section on empathy, designation of quiet hours, recommendation of other outlets where renters can party or make noises, and sanctions for violators, including cancellation of lease. The section on empathy reminds them that people live in the apartment to sleep or relax, which cannot be done when noises occurring during weekdays. They are suggested to feel how noise would affect them if they were preparing for an exam or work project or if they needed to wake up early. Moreover, the suggested quiet hours are Sunday to Thursday, 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. the following morning. By 10 p.m., people want to sleep for work or school where they wake up 5 am or earlier. It is also important to recommend party outlets so that renters do not feel that they are being banned from partying. Sanctions for violators include: (1) Verbal warning for the first offense, but documented by the staff; (2) Second and final verbal warning for the second offense, again documented; (3) Written warning for the third offense signed by the renter who broke the contract; (2) Second warning and fine of $50 for the fourth offense (again signed by offender to recognize that he/she has been warned); (3) Final warning for the fifth offense (again signed by offender to recognize that he/she has been warned); and (4) Eviction for the sixth offense. I will no longer recommend the use of empathy training as part of the sanction because I realized that some people would not agree to it because it is like forcing behavioral changes. I want renters to feel more empathy but perhaps it can be done through other means. The empathy section can already remind them of showing more empathy for other renters. In addition, the contract in itself can increase empathy if it can make renters feel more accountable for the consequences of insensitive partying and noises. I also recommend other ways to reduce noises during weekday evenings and early mornings. The suggestions are the following: (1) The UDR should provide a party room or noise room for every floor that will be free for the first two hours and payable thereafter. This must be sound-proof to prevent noise from spilling out of the room. This is not cost-efficient, but this will be profitable for the apartment that apparently has many partiers, and it can also remove the stigma of a no-party contract that makes UDR a not-fun apartment. It is sustainable if it is profitable. It can also be sustained through the use of partiers. It is acceptable for renters who approved of it. They believe that partiers should have a place of their own inside the UDR apartment. It can prevent inconsiderate partying because parties will be located in one controlled place only and it can resolve inconsiderate partying because it provides an outlet for regular partiers. (2) Improve the soundproof characteristic of all rooms. This is additional cost for the management, but it will reduce complaints of noises. Some of the noises after all that renters complain are mere conversations from other rooms and loud music or TV noises. This means that the walls and doors easily let in noises. There could be ways of reducing noise from passing through walls and doors. This is sustainable if budget is allotted to it and if it becomes another selling point for prospective clients. Sound-proof rooms fit the luxury image of the UDR. This recommendation is also acceptable for renters if it can be done quickly. Conclusion A No-Inconsiderate-Partying (NIP) contract can effectively and efficiently prevent and resolve insensitive parties in the UDR apartment. It is effective because the management and surveyed renters believe that it can reinforce the no-party policy and because it can promote more empathy and sense of responsibility of all renters. It is efficient because it is only signed once, but reviewed every year for any changes. The contract will have a section on empathy, designation of quiet hours, recommendation of other outlets where renters can party or make noises, and sanctions for violators, including cancellation of lease. I also suggest a party room for every floor and enhancement of the soundproof quality of all rooms. These are more costly suggestions but they can lead to profits and better living experience and brand equity. Hence, the most cost-efficient and effective is the No-Inconsiderate-Partying (NIP) contract that has high management and renter acceptability and can resolve some concerns about empathy and clarity on the definition of “partying.” Works Consulted List “College Drinking.” National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Goot, Michael. “Drug, Alcohol Issues Surface at SUNY Adirondack Dorm.” poststar.com, 20 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. < http://poststar.com/news/local/drug-alcohol-issues-surface-at-suny-adirondack-dorm/article_a3240bf8-39cf-11e3-8676-001a4bcf887a.html>. Johnson, Jenna. “Party Time in College Park.” The Baltimore Sun, 12 Sept. 2009. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Kaysen, Debra L., Lee, Christine M., and Sean J. Tollison, M.S. “Readiness to Change Drinking Behavior in Female College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Supplement (16): 106-114. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Lindemann, Dana F., and Colin R. Harbke. “Use of Contract Grading to Improve Grades Among College Freshmen in Introductory Psychology.” SAGE Open (2012): 1-7. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Melnitsky, Rebecca. “People Need To Sleep.” timesunion.com, 30 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Shaffer, Howard J., Donato, Anthony N., LaBrie, Richard A., Kidman, Rachel C., and Debi A. LaPlante. “The Epidemiology of College Alcohol and Gambling Policies.” Harm Reduction Journal 2.1 (2005). DOI:10.1186/1477-7517-2-1. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Van der Ryn, Sim, and Murray Silverstein. “The Room, a Student’s Personal Environment.” People and Buildings. Ed. R. Gutman. New Jersey: Transaction, 2009. 370-383. Print. Wechsler, Henry, Lee, Jae Eun, Nelson, Toben F., and Meichun Kuo. “Underage College Students’ Drinking Behavior, Access to Alcohol, and the Influence of Deterrence Policies Findings From the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study.” Journal of American College Health 50.5 (2002): 223-236. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. . Zaki, Jamil. “What, Me Care? Young Are Less Empathetic.” Scientific American, 23 Dec. 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/>. Read More