EBI Hall Profiles

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 on-
campus. 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 2005-06 Hall 2006-07 Hall
Overall Rank Overall Rank
Safety and Security 5.47 14 5.85 9
Dining Services 4.42 13 4.92 3
Fellow Residents are Tolerant 5.43 14 6.03 2
Personal Interactions 5.66 12 5.76 3
Manage Time and Solve Problems 5.31 13 5.44 3
Personal Growth 5.58 11 5.74 4
Overall Program Effectiveness 4.94 12 5.39 2
Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Service Provided 5.95 5 5.57 8
Hall/Apartment Student Staff* 6.17 2 6.03 1
Room/Floor Environment* 5.42 9 5.11 13
Facilities 5.45 8 5.04 9
Hall/Apartment Programming* 5.70 1 5.51 1
Room Assignment/Change Process 5.60 10 5.42 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 community-
oriented 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.


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.


Facilities 4.85 14 4.33 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.


Facilities 5.09 13 5.03 10
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.


Facilities 5.39 10 4.24 13
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.


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.


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:


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 2001-
2005. 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 2006-
07), 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.


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.


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.


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.


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-of-
the-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.


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.

EBI Hall Profiles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EBI Hall Profiles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACUHO-I/EBI Data Analysis

Per Building at UW-Whitewater

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Benson Hall experienced a slight increase in overall program effectiveness, however,

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Lee Hall experienced a combination of both improvements in mean satisfaction and a

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Fischer Hall experienced several decreases in resident satisfaction by both statistical

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Increase from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07

You might also like