ACUHO-I/EBI Data Analysis Per Building at UW-Whitewater

Prepared by: Renee Piquette June 27, 2007

Comparing the 2005-2006 ACUHO-I/EBI data to the most recent 2006-07 data set brings many interesting trends among residence halls at UW-Whitewater. Some have dramatically improved in student satisfaction, some remain the same, and yet others show a decrease. Taking the following information and analysis and using it to understand the influence of past decisions and the impact of future residence life decisions will ideally assist UW-Whitewater residence life professionals in creating informed practice. It is important to note that EBI factor categories changes from 05-06. Factors were then compared by their closes comparison to the individual categories in each factor. Renamed factors that are compared have been noted in this assessment with an asterisk. In addition, there was an overall decline in satisfaction as there was as sharp rise in student satisfaction the previous year. The mean is included for each factor as well as the ranking in comparison to other halls. It is important to view the results with both statistical pieces in mind. Examining the overall assessment, it is clear that there are many benefits to living oncampus. For example, students placed in Year One housing had an average GPA of 3.00, .05 points higher than all new first-year students, and .09 points higher than non-Year One students both on and off-campus. In addition, those students in Year One housing are more likely to make academic progress to the next class standing (i.e. from freshmen class standing to sophomore standing), at 93.2%. Learning communities ranked even higher at 96.4%, where as only 91.8% of on-campus counterparts achieved academic progress from the first to second year, and 89.5% of off-campus first-year students. Looking at the overall UWW Residence Life EBI assessment and comparing to the Cohort Assessment and satisfaction by residence hall, there are several things that can be done to continue to improve the residential living experience for students and improve areas of concern. First, to continue to build a feeling of personal space for learning communities and first-year halls, utilize common-area space to allow these groups to make the space feel like their own. Through artwork, photos of current students, and painting lounge/hallway space more personable colors can create an environment where students feel a sense of ownership and belonging. Second, being clear with resident assistants as to how they can influence the satisfaction of the residential experience. RAs, if their duties and performance are left with a lack of affirmation, can feel that they operate more trial-by-fire than purposeful. Looking at the RA versus resident assessment, if RAs fully understood how their role impacts the individual experiences of their residents, they may more fully appreciate the role of residence life and how they function as a part of it. Their criticisms likely come from being so close to residence life that they can view the operations under a microscope that the average student never sees. Showing them how they fit and influence what they view from that level should help alleviate some of their critique of the operations. Finally, determining the role academics plays within the halls and how it is highlighted by non-learning community groups. Whether it is with faculty who have office hours, offering satellite sessions from various tutoring centers on campus, or providing RAs with additional academic programming resources, the ability for residence halls to impact student learning is one of our biggest strengths. Ensuring that the resources necessary to continue to do so in ways that are relevant to the current student body is important and needs evaluation on a continual basis to provide

Clem Hall Clem Hall experienced a variety of increases and decreases for satisfaction factors. In particular, several areas that had been ranked lower and had a low mean for satisfaction increased. Notable are the areas of Personal Interactions and Dining Services. In addition, Clem Hall ranked first of all halls in Hall/Apartment Student Staff (although mean satisfaction had decreased) and for Hall/Apartment Programming. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process

2005-06 Overall 5.47 4.42 5.43 5.66 5.31 5.58 4.94

Hall Rank 14 13 14 12 13 11 12

2006-07 Overall 5.85 4.92 6.03 5.76 5.44 5.74 5.39

Hall Rank 9 3 2 3 3 4 2

2005-06 Overall 5.95 6.17 5.42 5.45 5.70 5.60

Hall Rank 5 2 9 8 1 10

2006-07 Overall 5.57 6.03 5.11 5.04 5.51 5.42

Hall Rank 8 1 13 9 1 12

In particular with Dining Services satisfaction, there were multiple significant increases among factor predictors. The following had a .50 satisfaction increase or higher for predictors from 2005-06 to 2006-07: quality of food, services provided by staff, dining services hours, variety of dining plan options, and value of dining plan. To further explain this, further analysis of the change in student demographics from 2005-06 to 2006-07 will help. For example, if primarily first-year students have lived there, influence of learning communities, etc. With the large change in satisfaction, this is a hall worth further understanding by University Dining Services to examine why students feel particularly satisfied in this area of campus. The specific predictors in Personal Interactions did not increase significantly from the previous year. However, additional work with hall/apartment staff and use of hall/apartment programming to facilitate resident interaction should all help to continue to improve this area. Residents’ interactions with one another are part of the residential experience and a large indicator of overall satisfaction. An area for closer examination and improvement is Room/Floor Environment. The two predictors that decreased the most in resident satisfaction were ability to sleep without interruption and noise level on the floor. These factors also relate to Hall/Apartment Staff

satisfaction. Although this area increased to first among all halls, the overall satisfaction with hall staff did decrease. Both policy enforcement and overall satisfaction with resident assistants decreased for 2006-07 from the previous year. This issue can make an excellent point to share with staff during training as to the impact RAs have on overall resident satisfaction and the necessity of policy enforcement to maintain an environment that all can feel comfortable to sleep and study in. This also shares a relationship with Facilities and Services Provided. These factors both had significant decreases along with Room/Floor Environment and contribute to residents’ perceptions of the living environment and their interactions within it. For facilities, residents were least satisfied with the attitude of cleaning staff, timeliness of repairs, and cleanliness of bathroom facilities. Working with custodial staff on a regular basis to find out how interactions with students are going on floors is important. Often residents can develop an excellent relationship with their custodial staff, welcoming him or her into the community, however this takes a willingness to maintain a customer service attitude on the custodial side and a student culture of respect. Seeing this is an area of particular dissatisfaction, special attention in the next academic year may be helpful to improve the custodial services provided and interactions of students with staff. Residence Hall services decreased among several hall due to the addition of several predictors. The 2007-08 year should provide a more clear idea of hall performance in this area. For the future: Work with resident assistant staff regarding policy enforcement from a communityoriented perspective. Meaning, helping RAs understand their work in enforcing policy is less about telling residents what to do and more about maintaining a community that all can live in comfortably – a challenge in the college residence hall environment. Additional work with custodial and maintenance staff to understand issues in resident interactions and overall performance would assist in improving this relationship for the future.

Bigelow Hall Bigelow Hall experienced decreases in several areas, both for the factor mean and hall rank. It is important to keep in mind there was an overall decrease in satisfaction after an extremely high level of satisfaction the previous year. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Safety and Security Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness

2005-06 Overall 5.63

Hall Rank 12

2006-07 Overall 5.94

Hall Rank 4

2005-06 Overall 5.97 6.05 5.52 5.46 5.61 5.95 5.18 5.73 5.98 5.60 5.76 5.22

Hall Rank 3 8 7 7 6 7 2 6 1 3 5 2

2006-07 Overall 5.43 5.70 5.34 4.95 4.96 5.89 4.47 5.72 5.65 5.14 5.37 5.14

Hall Rank 11 12 8 11 13 5 11 12 6 12 13 10

Highlighted are factors that decreased in satisfaction by a mean of .50 or greater. These may be the areas that are best to focus time and energy on. Additional evaluation to these areas, in particular Service Provided, Facilities, and Hall/Apartment Programming, with goals set to improve the functioning of these areas for the future, may assist in improving overall program effectiveness and resident satisfaction. The following were predictors that lead to the lowest levels of resident satisfaction, not including Dining Services: - Cable TV Services - Postal Services - Vending Services - Cleanliness of Residence Halls - Cleanliness of Bathroom Facilities - Social/Educational/Cultural Programs - Athletic/Recreational Activities It appears that one of the greatest needs is residential programming, which may also assist in the areas of time management, personal growth, personal interactions, and developing tolerant residents. It is clear that residents of Bigelow do not feel satisfied with the programming offered and therefore desire a different variety. Working with RAs, and L.I.T. to develop a

comprehensive programming plan, including informal interactions, recreational activities, programs building cultural competencies, and leadership development opportunities, would all benefit its residents. Further discussions should take place with Bigelow custodial and maintenance staff. The decline in resident satisfaction for the basic upkeep of the living environment can be addressed in a way not accusatory but rather seeking ways to improve – were there particular resident issues that custodial staff were frustrated with or could not keep up with? How were these issues communicated to hall staff? What is the expectation for the future? In addition, addressing with RAs their role in resolving floor maintenance issues with both hall directors and custodial/maintenance staff is essential as they are the staff members closest to witnessing the day to day use and issues for the floor. For the future: Develop a plan for how programming need will be addressed and assessed with residents to ensure their expectations are being met. Programming should be reflective of the needs of the residents, therefore, evaluating whether current programming plans are effective for the types of students in the building should be a discussion for the whole staff, reflective of past practice and with its primary goal of how students can be served for the future. In addition, work with custodial staff and front desk staff regarding declines in satisfaction will be valuable conversations to have, as well as an emphasis on the impact and importance of their roles within the residential community.

Benson Hall Benson Hall experienced a slight increase in overall program effectiveness, however, there are many areas where Benson can work to improve and better serve its all-female residents. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth

2005-06 Overall 4.61

Hall Rank 14

2006-07 Overall 4.62

Hall Rank 13

2005-06 Overall 5.91 5.85 5.25 4.85 5.51 5.48 5.49 4.53 5.62 5.43 5.16 5.47

Hall Rank 6 11 13 14 10 13 13 10 10 14 14 14

2006-07 Overall 5.44 5.66 5.20 4.33 5.09 5.32 5.48 4.51 5.55 5.06 4.89 5.37

Hall Rank 10 13 12 12 11 13 13 9 13 13 13 12

Many factor areas were slight decreases, however, Benson has remained toward the lower half of residence hall satisfaction for the past two years in the majority of factor areas. Conscious effort and work to understand the needs of an all-female residence hall is necessary to ensure that the residential environment unique to all-female housing meets the best interest of its students. Service Provided, Facilities, and Hall/Apartment programming had the greatest mean decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07. However, there are many factors involved with each factor that contribute to the increase or decrease from year to year. As noted early, because the 2005-06 year had a significantly high level of student satisfaction, 2006-07 experienced an overall decline in satisfaction in comparison. An area such as Service Provided, when compared for the 2007-08 school year will provide even better comparison, as additional predictors were added to the Service Provided factor. The areas consistent from year to year did increase in most categories with the exception of Cable Television. Looking back at work orders or other floor complaints may help to narrow down that issue as linked to accessing cable television, the location of cable hubs in the room, number of channels, etc. For Hall/Apartment programming, residents were particularly dissatisfied with the lack of athletic/recreation activities offered and were in the middle among hall means for satisfaction with the social/educational programming. Also examining the declines in satisfaction with personal interaction and staff satisfaction as they relate to hall programming, making program efforts designed specifically for the unique environment an all-female hall provides. Keeping in

mind that there is a mixture of women living in Benson who self-select the building while others may be placed there by default or at a parent’s discretion, embracing what connects these women in the community and meeting their needs will also help.

Arey Hall Arey Hall experienced improvements in a handful of areas including Safety and Security, Dining Services, Fellow Residents are Tolerant and Overall Program Effectiveness. These were all improvements in both rank and overall mean. Identifying what caused these improvements and further understanding the declines in satisfaction in other areas will allow Arey to effectively serve its residents. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth

2005-06 Overall 5.80 4.48 5.60 5.04

Hall Rank 11 11 12 5

2006-07 Overall 5.86 4.54 5.80 5.16

Hall Rank 8 8 10 9

2005-06 Overall 5.77 6.04 5.54 5.09 5.64 5.74 5.71 5.50 5.55

Hall Rank 13 9 5 13 4 5 10 6 13

2006-07 Overall 5.70 5.91 5.33 5.03 5.14 5.54 5.53 5.16 5.44

Hall Rank 12 6 9 10 10 8 12 10 11

The improvements in Safety and Security were not statistically significant, however, the small increases in mean do show that students overall feel their belongings are safe, students feel safe in the building, and students are increasingly feeling more safe walking to Arey hall on campus. Continued safety awareness programs and evaluating the need for additional lighting surrounding the hall and the pathways leading to the building. For dining services, Arey students dramatically improved in satisfaction with the cleanliness of the dining area. The remaining predictors each improved but not significantly. Fellow residents’ tolerance also did not show significant improvement. In Overall Program Effectiveness, residents actually declined or maintained in satisfaction in all predictor areas except for one. There was a significant increase in residents’ likelihood of recommending living on campus to other students. The cause of this improvement would be worth further evaluation, in particular if a significant number of students are returning to Arey Hall from the previous year, and decline in satisfaction with hall programming, hall staff and personal interactions – all which directly effect the resident experience and likely overall satisfaction – there is likely other reasons for Arey Hall student’s satisfaction with their experiences.

Hall/Apartment programming was one area that had a large decline in satisfaction. Examining the individual variables, residents were particularly dissatisfied with the offering of social/educational/cultural programs. Emphasizing meeting this need in new ways both among resident assistants and through hall council programming will assist in increasing satisfaction for the future. Through a combination of evaluating past programs, assessing resident needs, and seeking new trends in student programming that will fit Arey Hall residents, staff can further understand this trend and make changes to improve it for the future.

Fricker Hall Fricker Hall experienced decreases in satisfaction in all areas of the EBI. They are not unique in this as 2005-06 had an extremely high level of satisfaction among residents accompanied by a decline, although not statistically large overall, for 2006-07. However, the areas of Service Provided, Facilities, and Dining Services are worth continued investigation due to the statistically significant decreases in satisfaction. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor

2005-06 Overall

Hall Rank

2006-07 Overall

Hall Rank

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness

2005-06 Overall 5.99 5.85 5.63 5.39 5.55 5.88 6.02 5.22 5.90 5.89 5.59 5.79 5.08

Hall Rank 2 12 1 10 8 1 4 1 1 5 4 3 4

2006-07 Overall 5.39 5.71 5.24 4.24 5.17 5.49 5.99 4.26 5.82 5.55 5.33 5.49 4.92

Hall Rank 13 11 11 13 8 10 3 13 9 11 8 10 12

Fricker Hall decreased in satisfaction in all consistent predictors from the 2005-06 to 2006-07 factor. Most significant were the declines in satisfaction with cable television service and vending services. Evaluating work orders and resident complaints from the past year may shed some light on this issue, as well as evaluating Fricker’s performance in service satisfaction in the context of the additional predictor factors added for the 2006-07 school year. Fricker Hall did rank 2nd overall in 2005-06, dropping to 13th, and last place, overall in 2006-07. Such as, comparing to other halls, Fricker residents were particularly dissatisfied this past year with laundry services and common area space as compared to other halls. Laundry services are an additional area that work orders and resident complaints may explain where resident dissatisfaction comes from. However, issues with common area space may be more fitting to investigate through focus groups, discussion with the hall council or L.I.T. teams, or evaluating if Fricker Hall is scheduled for an overall facilities update. Signficant facilities issues according to resident satisfaction were cleanliness of the hall, attitude of the cleaning staff, timeliness of repairs, and cleanliness of bathrooms. All of these predictors experience statistically significant decreases beyond the scope of an abnormally high level of satisfaction from the previous year. These facility issues echo similar problems with facilities. Evaluating the work order process, how facility problems are kept up and followed-up

on, and working with custodial/maintenance staff to identify morale issues as they affect performance and interaction with students. Issues with facilities may also benefit from further understanding through methods as mentioned for service satisfaction, including focus groups and additional work with the L.I.T. team for that building. Fricker Hall went from ranking first of all halls in dining services satisfaction to ranking th 13 in 2006-07. This was a significant drop in not only overall rank but also overall factor mean. Resident satisfaction changed significantly in the areas of food quality, cleanliness of the dining hall, dining room environment, services provided by dining service staff, variety of dining plan options, and value of dining plan. Only dining service hours did not have the significant decrease that the aforementioned predictors had. It is important to view dining services satisfaction both in the context of hall demographics (e.g. is the hall primarily made up of returning students (second-years) or first-year students?) as well as current university projects that may influence dining accessibility and options. Students in Fricker, living close in proximity to the University Center may be feeling a lack of options which also becomes reflective in other areas of dining service satisfaction when eating at one or two places consistently. Continued understanding of what had dissatisfied residents in Fricker this past year as well as investigating possible solutions for the future should help Fricker continue to provide an excellent residence hall experience as it has in the past.

Lee Hall Lee Hall experienced a combination of both improvements in mean satisfaction and a handful of areas that decreased in resident satisfaction. However, many areas that had a satisfaction decrease still ranked highly among all halls overall, echoing previous statements of the 2006-07 year following an abnormally high level of satisfaction in the 2005-06 year. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process

2005-06 Overall 6.02 5.04 5.71 5.77 5.39 5.59 5.03

Hall Rank 3 4 7 9 10 10 6

2006-07 Overall 6.08 5.22 6.05 5.90 5.63 5.84 5.59

Hall Rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2005-06 Overall 6.02 6.08 5.57 5.64 5.54 5.81

Hall Rank 1 7 3 4 9 2

2006-07 Overall 5.82 6.02 5.52 5.20 5.49 5.77

Hall Rank 1 3 2 8 2 1

The largest improvements came in Overall Program Effectiveness and Fellow Residents are Tolerant. An area that could use continued improvement for the future is facilities. However, overall, Lee Hall showed a high level of resident satisfaction in particular when compared to other UWW residence halls. For resident tolerance, there was a significant increase in the area of students having respect for cultural/ethnic differences. Many factors can play a role in this, including the use of learning communities in the building, the high level of personal interactions, and resident satisfaction with personal growth. The continued support of students at this stage of personal growth and development, exploration, and building a continually larger worldview has created an environment in Lee where residents can respect one another and their differences. This is all an important piece of building interpersonal relationships and competency that will be important to students’ continued growth and development throughout their college experience. In Overall Program Effectiveness, residents felt particularly satisfied, and significantly increased from the previous year, with their expectations for on-campus housing being met, overall residence hall value, and likeliness to recommend on-campus living to others. Clearly from both the overall hall ranking and significant areas such as personal interaction, Lee Hall has had many great things going on in its building. It will be important to identify how these

improvements were made from the previous year and continue to set high goals and standards to meet this success. One area to look into further is the level of dissatisfaction residents had overall with facilities. Predictors that significantly decreased were satisfaction with the attitude of the cleaning staff and cleanliness of the residence hall. As with other halls, working with hall custodial staff to understand their level of satisfaction or issues they are having with specific floors or communities is important to keep morale high and encourage positive interaction with residents.

Knilans Hall Knilans Hall experienced multiple areas that decline in both hall rank and overall mean satisfaction. Even with many areas decreasing in resident satisfaction, Knilans still maintained a high rank and improved mean score for overall effectiveness. Important areas to investigate include Hall/Apartment Programming, Personal Interactions, and which predictors contributed to continued program effectiveness. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Fellow Residents are Tolerant Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth

2005-06 Overall 5.70 5.16

Hall Rank 9 3

2006-07 Overall 5.79 5.32

Hall Rank 11 3

2005-06 Overall 5.91 6.16 5.54 5.69 5.63 5.80 5.98 5.05 5.89 5.47 5.71

Hall Rank 7 3 6 2 5 3 6 3 4 8 7

2006-07 Overall 5.70 5.80 5.50 5.54 5.01 5.73 5.75 4.94 5.58 5.37 5.51

Hall Rank 3 10 4 2 12 3 12 2 10 5 9

Simply put, in comparison to 2005-06, residents expressed a lack of satisfaction with the educational, social, athletic/recreational, and cultural programs offered. This could be attributed to many reasons including timing of events, decrease in number of events, events that did not appeal to the overall student population, or a variety of other reasons. Taking time to purposefully guide both resident assistants and the L.I.T. team for the hall in making thoughtful programming decisions reflective of Knilans Hall resident needs should assist with increasing satisfaction in this area for the future. This should be a priority as well when also viewed in the context of a decline in satisfaction with personal interactions. Residents of the building clearly want to interact with one another and taking the time to create opportunities to do so, in particular at key points in the year such as the beginning of the semester or following breaks, will allow residents to feel a greater part of the community. In doing this, you may see other satisfaction areas such as personal growth, satisfaction with Hall/Apartment staff, and room/floor environment also increase as residents become more satisfied with their overall residential experience feeling a closer part of the hall community. However, it is a bit curious why program effectiveness would increase in mean and maintain its standing among other halls when several other satisfaction factors decreased. The

most significant area that improved, while other predictors increased slightly, was the on-campus living experience meeting expectations. Overall, albeit many areas were ranked by students as being lower than past residents’ satisfaction, the experience was above the 2005-06 satisfaction ranking. Knowing that overall students feel happy with their experience and would recommend it to others should make it very feasible to improve the areas as discussed earlier and others that declined in satisfaction for 2006-07 for the future.

Wellers Hall Wellers hall demonstrated improvement in several areas for the 2006-2007 year. From satisfaction with resident assistants to facilities, the ACUHO-I EBI data showed significant changes in resident satisfaction. The following were areas that experienced a significant increase: Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided

2005-06 Overall 5.66 5.21 5.53 5.31 5.64 5.63 4.45 5.62 5.68 5.36 5.56 5.00

Hall Rank 13 14 6 14 8 12 12 11 13 11 12 8

2006-07 Overall 6.02 5.41 5.77 5.33 5.75 5.94 4.63 5.85 5.72 5.44 5.69 5.31

Hall Rank 2 5 1 6 2 4 6 7 4 3 5 5

2005-06 Overall 5.82

Hall Rank 12

2006-07 Overall 5.77

Hall Rank 2

Among the comparable factors, it is clear that there was a large increase in satisfaction among Wellers students. In particular, satisfaction with hall and apartment staff improved from 5.77, second to last in 2005-06, to 6.02, second overall in 2006-07. The influence of an excellent, committed staff cannot be overlooked. Evaluating potential influences for the hall is important to better understand how Wellers improved this year. Whether it can attributed to overall improvement in staff morale, change in student demographics living in the hall (e.g. primarily first-year students, learning communities, etc.) understanding the changes in hall to better inform best practice and decisions for the future is essential. Although there were many areas of growth for Wellers, aside from hall and apartment staff satisfaction and overall, one other area experienced a large increase in satisfaction. Safety and security (5.63 in 2005-06 to 5.94 in 2006-07) had one of the biggest increases in student satisfaction. There were large increases in all factor areas including satisfaction with security of room possessions, walking on campus at night, and feeling of safety in the residence halls. Understanding if any additional educational resources were used to address student safety and the timing of them may all have had an impact on student’s experiences, including the addition of identification needed for entry into buildings. Although additions such as that affected all buildings, examining safety features with the current student demographics may also make a difference. What impacts or changes the perspective of one group of students, coupled with

educational information from RAs or the campus community, all contribute to the perception of safety. Services provided was the only area that dropped for Wellers hall, although that decrease was minimal. It should be noted that there have been additional questions added to the campus services factor. Additional services included satisfaction with internet connection, laundry facilities, common areas, and computing facilities. Cable TV, telephone, postal, vending, and information desk services remained consistent from the previous year’s survey. To provide proper comparison, Wellers hall actually ranked second in that category for 2006-07 as compared to 12th during the previous year. This indicates that with the additional questions in the factor all halls experienced a decline in overall student satisfaction, however, even with that decline, Wellers was above 11 other halls, showing that there was still an increase in satisfaction. The questions from the previous year remained relatively consistent, whereas the new questions for this factor were higher than its residence hall counterparts. In addition, Wellers is slightly above the on-campus retention rate for the years 20012005. Adding in the most recent year, it should be interest to see if the increase in satisfaction has impacted hall retention. Both the cumulative GPA and one-year retention rate has varied from year to year. Examining what changes may have occurred each year, as related to academic performance, may help in fully understanding the ups and downs experience specifically by this hall. For overall program effectiveness, the areas that experienced the greatest increases in satisfaction were the housing experience fulfilling expectations (5.03 in 2005-06; 5.30 in 200607), recommending living on-campus to new students (5.19 to 5.63), and cost to quality comparison (4.22 to 4.79). For the future: Examine what contributed to the increase in satisfaction among students – what potentially causes Wellers specifically to “yo-yo” between levels of satisfaction? What can be done to offer a consistent experience? Were there other staff, policy, or programming changes made that may have influenced students’ overall experience?

White Hall White Hall experienced a variety of hall ranking and overall satisfaction mean increases and decreases from 2005-06 to 2006-07. Notably, few were significant overall, showing that although there were areas that decreased, the hall rankings show slight movement. The biggest challenge for White Hall will be to identify which areas to make a priority that will best assist its residents. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Room/Floor Environment* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth

2005-06 Overall 5.35 5.36 5.90 4.14 5.84 4.97

Hall Rank 10 14 8 14 2 10

2006-07 Overall 5.61 5.64 6.00 4.36 6.02 5.24

Hall Rank 1 6 2 12 3 8

2005-06 Overall 5.57 6.08 5.60 5.58 5.70 5.62 5.63

Hall Rank 14 6 5 7 11 2 9

2006-07 Overall 5.70 6.01 5.46 5.47 5.59 5.39 5.54

Hall Rank 4 4 3 3 9 4 8

Particular areas that seem to need improvement or continued work are within the human aggregate and many of these areas appear to already be improving overall as compared to its hall counterparts if not seen within the statistical mean. These areas include hall staff, personal interactions, and programming. Improving and committing to these areas should allow satisfaction with factors such as personal growth and time management to improve through the experience that can be gained from spending time resident assistants, attending beneficial programs, and helping residents to feel a part of a larger residential community. Setting goals with staff and giving specific outcomes or programming expectations to the L.I.T. team can allow the hall to better meet the unique needs, with many international and upper-class students, of White Hall.

Fischer Hall Fischer Hall experienced several decreases in resident satisfaction by both statistical mean and hall ranking. Further attention should be given to Service Provided, Hall/Apartment Student Staff, Facilities, Hall/Apartment Programming, and Dining Services. Fischer Hall did show improvement in both the room assignment process and resident tolerance, which should be applauded and evaluated for how the improvement occurred. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Room Assignment/Change Process Fellow Residents are Tolerant Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Safety and Security Dining Services Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness

2005-06 Overall 5.64 5.83

Hall Rank 8 4

2006-07 Overall 5.73 5.98

Hall Rank 4 4

2005-06 Overall 5.90 6.20 5.57 6.00 5.69 6.08 5.03 5.90 5.52 5.87 5.28

Hall Rank 8 1 2 1 2 1 5 2 5 1 1

2006-07 Overall 5.51 5.85 5.52 5.37 5.36 5.88 4.51 5.70 5.34 5.80 5.31

Hall Rank 9 8 3 5 5 6 10 5 7 2 4

With the exception of Dining Services and Facilities, this is an issue, as with a few other halls, of human aggregate and the interaction and engagement of residents within the residential community. Residents want to interact more with staff and have high expectations for what that interaction should look like. Residents viewed their interactions based on the predictors as declining significantly in availability, gaining respect, helping with a problem, enforcing policies, organizing events, appreciating diversity, and overall satisfaction with RA performance and interaction. Many of these areas can be solved by using programming, both formal and informal, effectively and to the needs of the students in the hall. Continued work and direction in this area as provided by professional staff and working with both RAs and L.I.T. to satisfy resident needs for interaction should assist in improving satisfaction in this area. Resident satisfaction with facilities appears to be a separate issue, as unlike other halls, the lack of satisfaction does not stem from custodial staff attitude, but rather from the cleanliness of the hall, speed of hall repairs, and bathroom cleanliness. Satisfaction with Dining Services also decreased significantly in all predictor areas from the previous year. Looking at this through the lens of if the hall had primarily returning students or first-year students may provide some understanding as to where their dissatisfaction from one year to the next may come from.

Tutt Hall Tutt Hall experienced multiple decreases in resident satisfaction – some not as significant as others. In particular, further understanding of the decline in satisfaction with services provided, Hall/Apartment Student Staff, Facilities, and Hall/Apartment Programming. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Fellow Residents are Tolerant Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems Personal Growth

2005-06 Overall 5.79 4.85

Hall Rank 5 13

2006-07 Overall 5.84 5.29

Hall Rank 8 6

2005-06 Overall 5.89 6.12 5.56 5.66 5.51 5.67 6.07 4.91 5.85 5.33 5.69

Hall Rank 9 4 4 3 11 6 2 6 6 12 8

2006-07 Overall 5.58 5.82 5.37 5.34 5.17 5.49 5.78 4.59 5.60 5.29 5.67

Hall Rank 7 9 7 6 9 11 11 7 8 9 6

Two things are not surprising with the results in Tutt Hall: first, is that similar issues in satisfaction that occurred in Fischer also happened in Tutt. For example, residents in both halls felt a similar level of satisfaction in areas including staff availability, staff gaining respecting and helping with problems, organizing activities, and respecting diversity. The two halls varied to an extent with satisfaction with RA performance (Tutt ranked higher), efforts to get to know you (Fischer ranked higher), and enforcing policy (Tutt ranked higher). However, an emphasis with both staffs in regards to the usefulness of programming in creating personal interaction for residents and availability of staff to residents as well as an opportunity to voice issues as related to hall services and facilities are very important and potentially need more emphasis in the coming year. Tutt had significant growth in Overall Program Effectiveness. In particular with the hall experience meeting residents needs, likelihood to recommend to other students, and cost-quality comparison. It appears residents overall feel happy in their space and ability to grown personally while in Tutt. However, there are other areas that could benefit residents by being addressed and worked at for the future, as mentioned earlier. In fully understanding the type of student that lives in Tutt and affirming the role of the RA and L.I.T. within it as to meet those needs, likely overall satisfaction will continue to increase as well as several other areas from the 2006-07 academic year.

Wells East Hall Like many halls, Wells East Hall experienced a variety of increases and decreases in satisfaction both by mean and by ranking. The East Hall staff should be very proud of its mean increase despite an overall satisfaction decline in the areas of Hall/Apartment Student Staff and Fellow Residents are Tolerant. An area to continue to work on is Service Provided. Many of the areas that decreased did not do so significantly and showed an overall improvement as compared to other halls. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Room/Floor Environment* Room Assignment/Change Process Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor

2005-06 Overall 5.74 5.29 5.59 5.81 4.83 5.54 4.95

Hall Rank 14 11 11 10 7 13 11

2006-07 Overall 5.90 5.40 5.59 5.83 4.83 5.85 5.14

Hall Rank 4 6 7 10 4 6 11

2005-06 Hall 2006-07 Hall Overall Rank Overall Rank Service Provided 5.89 10 5.59 6 Facilities 5.28 12 5.25 7 Hall/Apartment Programming* 5.41 13 5.28 7 Personal Interactions 5.82 8 5.62 7 Manage Time and Solve Problems 5.43 9 5.16 11 Personal Growth 5.72 6 5.60 7 With Hall/Apartment staff, residents felt particularly satisfied with staff helping with problems and enforcing policy/rules and regulations. Residents overall appeared to respect one another and continue to improve in that area from previous years as evidenced through the tolerance area. An area that improved in ranking but not in overall mean was programming. Utilizing programming to suit resident needs is increasingly important. The predictors in this factor did change in some ways from the previous year, but residents appeared in the middle-ofthe-pack as compared to its hall counterparts with satisfaction in the area. Taking time to survey and understand the needs of residents currently in the building and maintaining relevant, quality programs reflective of that could help improve this satisfaction area for the future. For Service Provided, one factor that declined significantly both statistically and as compared to others, could benefit from further understanding of resident satisfaction with vending services, internet connectivity, and hall computing facilities. These were areas that either significantly declined from the previous year or appeared significantly lower than other predictor areas in this factor for Wells East. Overall, it appears Wells East has made many improvements. Taking time to understand changes that have occurred in the past year and its significance on the residential experience for Wells East students will allow the hall to continue to improve in the future.

Wells West Hall Wells West Hall experienced and overall improvement by either statistical mean or hall rank. Like Wells East, the staff should be satisfied in their ability to help make the hall continue to improve both due to the natural constraints of a building its size and its architecture which an often inhibit satisfaction with the personal element of residential living and during a year when residence hall satisfaction overall decreased. Particular attention to Service Provided would be useful for the future as well as maintaining improvement in Hall/Apartment Student Staff, programming, and Personal Interactions. Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Room/Floor Environment* Safety and Security Dining Services Fellow Residents are Tolerant Personal Growth Overall Program Effectiveness Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07 Factor Service Provided Hall/Apartment Student Staff* Facilities Hall/Apartment Programming* Room Assignment/Change Process Personal Interactions Manage Time and Solve Problems

2005-06 Overall 5.27 5.82 4.72 5.71 5.77 4.98

Hall Rank 12 9 8 8 4 9

2006-07 Overall 5.28 5.88 4.72 5.90 5.77 5.28

Hall Rank 10 7 5 5 3 7

2005-06 Overall 5.96 6.03 5.45 5.65 5.67 5.90 5.48

Hall Rank 4 10 9 3 7 3 7

2006-07 Overall 5.65 5.92 5.41 5.39 5.66 5.77 5.47

Hall Rank 5 5 4 4 5 2 2

Wells West actually faced many of the same satisfaction issues as Wells East. An additional area that decreased in satisfaction included postal services. Where Wells West could spend additional time to continue to improve is as suggested above – the staff and personal interaction components. Clearly, in particular accoriding to hall ranking, Wells West has made many of these improvements and this is reflective as well in resident’s personal growth, feelings of safety, and time management skills. Understanding how these improvements were made with the staff is important from this point as well as taking action to continue these improvements for the future.