Campus housing fell below budget goal for the 2010-2011 academic year with 790 students signing housing contracts on a budget goal of 807 housing contacts.
| Guad Hall | St. Charles Hall | Borromeo Hall | Trinity Hall | Total Students | |
| Contracts | 333 | 207 | 45 | 205 | 790 |
| Budget | 350 | 230 | 48 | 179 | 807 |
| Capacity | 350 | 260 | 52 | 208 | 870 |
| % Budget | 95.1% | 90.0% | 93.8% | 114.5% | 97.9% |
| % Capacity | 95.1% | 79.6% | 86.5% | 98.6%% | 90.8% |
Source: Community Living Housing Occupancy Report
Carroll College has seen a steady increase of the percentage of residential students over the past five years from 55.4% in 2005-2006 to 63.9% in 2009-2010. Housing capacity has also increased over the past five years from 84.5% of adjusted building capacity (using the super-single format in Trinity Hall) to 95.0% of adjusted building capacity. A smaller enrollment in 2009-2010 produced less sophomore residents in campus housing for 2010-11.
Source: Student Life Report to the Board of Trustees, Fall 2010
| 2010-11 | 2009-10 | 2008-09 | 2007-08 | 2006-07 | 2005-06 | |
| Residents | 790 | 784 | 802 | 772 | 702 | 711 |
| Residents/Full-Time Students | 60.7% | 63.9% | 63.2% | 62.2% | 58.5% | 55.4% |
| Residents/Adjusted Capacity | 90.8% | 95.0% | 94.0% | 91.8% | 83.5% | 84.5% |
Source: Student Life Report to the Board of Trustees, Fall 2010
Carroll College students who live in campus housing typically have a higher semester grade point average than students who lived in off-campus housing.
Grade Point Averages/On-Campus vs. Off-Campus (Fall 2008)
| Women | Freshmen | Sophomores | Juniors | Seniors |
| On-Campus Housing | 3.16 | 3.27 | 3.51 | 3.39 |
| Off-Campus Housing | 2.99 | 2.96 | 3.25 | 3.39 |
| Men | Freshmen | Sophomores | Juniors | Seniors |
| On-Campus Housing | 2.78 | 3.19 | 3.37 | 3.21 |
| Off-Campus Housing | 2.66 | 2.86 | 2.98 | 2.93 |
Source: Office of Instittutional Effectiveness, Carroll College
The Student Satisfaction Inventory measures student importance and student satisfaction with items about the operations, services and attention students receive at the college. Students indicate on a scale of 1 to 7 (with 7 being the highest rating) their assessment of the item. Student importance and student satisfaction data are reported with benchmark data for national four-year private colleges.
| Item | Carroll College Student Importance | Carroll College Student Satisfaction | Gap | National Four-Year Privates Student Importance | National Four-Year Privates Student Satisfaction | Gap |
| Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable. | 6.21 | 4.96 | 1.25 | 5.99 | 4.55 | 1.44 |
| Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual. | 5.71 | 5.10 | 0.61 | 5.66 | 4.84 | 0.82 |
| Residence hall regulations are reasonable. | 5.81 | 5.25 | 0.56 | 5.79 | 4.64 | 1.15 |
Carroll College students report that living conditions in the residence halls are important to them but they are less satisfied with the comfortableness of the facilities. The concern of residence hall staff and the reasonableness of residence hall regulations are less important to Carroll College students with less of a gap in satisfaction. As far as benchmark data, Carroll students scored importance levels and satisfaction levels on residence hall items higher than students at national four-year private colleges. In addition, Carroll students report less of a gap between importance and student satisfaction than students at national four-year private colleges.
| Item | Carroll College Student Importance | Carroll College Student Satisfaction | Gap | National Four-Year Privates Student Importance | National Four-Year Privates Student Satisfaction | Gap |
| The student handbook provides helpful information about campus life. | 5.17 | 5.15 | 0.02 | 5.68 | 5.14 | 0.54 |
| Student disciplinary procedures are fair. | 5.81 | 5.08 | 0.73 | 6.04 | 5.10 | 0.94 |
| Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available. | 5.81 | 4.52 | 1.29 | 6.02 | 4.72 | 1.30 |
Carroll College students report that importance and satisfaction with the student handbook providing helpful information are at acceptable levels. The fairness of student disciplinary procedures are important to Carroll students but with less satisfaction. Carroll students report a larger gap between the importance and satisfaction of having readily available channels for expressing student complaints. As far as benchmark data, Carroll students scored lower importance levels and comparable satisfaction levels for each of these items than students at national four-year private colleges.
The Student Life Annual Survey is administered each spring as an on-line survey. This year we had 384 students of the 1400 students enrolled for Spring 2010 submit responses.
1. What changes in campus housing would enhance your college experience? (Responses listed in rank order)
65.8% More places to study in the building
51.9% More lounges in the building
44.5% More places to play in the building
37.8% Less noise
32.9% More no-roommate housing options
29.3% More floor programs
28.8% More all-hall programs
23.1% Less rules
21.2% Less supervision by staff
13.6% More contact with faculty
| Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Unable to Evaluate | |
| Living on campus has provided me with opportunities to meet people who have valuesa nd points of views different from mine. | 33.0% | 49.7% | 3.2% | 1.4% | 12.8% |
| Living on campus has added to my educational experience at Carroll. | 40.1% | 36.6% | 5.8% | 3.0% | 14.5% |
| In campus housing, I am/was generally able to sleep when I wish. | 13.6% | 49.8% | 15.4% | 6.9% | 14.3% |
| In campus housing, I am/was generally able to study when I wish. | 15.3% | 51.7% | 13.5% | 5.6% | 13.9% |
| I would recommend campus housing at Carroll as a good place to live. | 31.4% | 44.0% | 8.3% | 4.4% | 11.9% |
2. Please rank the importance of the following factors that would influence your decision to live off-campus.
| Very Important | Somewhat Important | Not Very Important | Not Important At All | Rating Average | |
| Cost | 79.5% (276) | 18.7% (65) | 1.4% (5) | 0.3% (1) | 1.22 |
| Square Footage | 25.5% (88) | 43.2% (149) | 26.4% (91) | 4.9% (17) | 2.11 |
| Independence | 48.7% (167) | 32.1% (110) | 16.3% (56) | 2.9% (10) | 1.73 |
| No Meal Plan Required | 45.1% (156) | 28.3% (98) | 19.9% (69) | 6.6% (23) | 1.88 |
| Number of Roomates | 36.6% (126) | 36.9% (127) | 19.2% (66) | 7.3% (25) | 1.97 |
| Family/Friends-Owned Housing | 32.6% (111) | 27.1% (92) | 23.8% (81) | 16.5% (56) | 2.24 |
| Less Rules or Supervision | 29.9% (103) | 24.9% (86) | 34.5% (119) | 10.7% (37) | 2.26 |
| Medical Issues | 14.3% (49) | 21.0% (72) | 33.2% (114) | 31.5% (108) | 2.82 |
| More Connection to Helena | 15.7% (54) | 22.4% (77) | 43.3% (149) | 18.6% (64) | 2.65 |
| Less Noise | 36.2% (124) | 35.0% (120) | 20.7% (71) | 8.2% (28) | 2.01 |
| Less Noise Control | 17.1% (58) | 31.5% (107) | 37.4% (127) | 14.1% (48) | 2.49 |
| Ability to Have Pets | 32.3% (110) | 26.4% (90) | 21.1% (72) | 20.2% (69) | 2.29 |
| Ability to Party | 13.7% (47) | 21.0% (72) | 32.4% (111) | 32.9% (113) | 2.85 |
| Parking | 30.0% (103) | 38.2% (131) | 21.3% (73) | 10.5% (36) | 2.12 |
3. Which amenities in an apartment or townhouse would motivate you to live in future campus housing?
| Very Important | Somewhat Important | Not Very Important | Not Important At All | Rating Average | |
| Private Bedroom | 71.3% (244) | 21.1% (72) | 4.7% (16) | 2.9% (10) | 1.39 |
| Larger Bedrooms | 54.1% (184) | 30.9% (105) | 10.0% (34) | 5.0% (17) | 1.66 |
| Private Bedrooms | 58.1% (201) | 26.3% (91) | 11.0% (38) | 4.6% (16) | 1.62 |
| Kitchen | 70.9% (244) | 22.7% (78) | 4.1% (14) | 2.3% (8) | 1.38 |
| Washer/Dryer | 71.1% (244) | 21.9% (75) | 4.1% (14) | 2.9% (10) | 1.39 |
| Living Room | 59.3% (204) | 31.1% (107) | 7.0% (24) | 2.6% (9) | 1.53 |
| Bike Storage | 22.9% (78) | 24.7% (84) | 35.3% (120) | 17.1% (58) | 2.46 |
| Internet | 80.2% (276) | 15.4% (53) | 1.5% (5) | 2.9% (10) | 1.27 |
| Cable TV | 46.4% (159) | 28.3% (97) | 16.3% (56) | 9.0% (31) | 1.88 |
| Furniture Provided | 43.7% (150) | 35.9% (123) | 15.2% (52) | 5.2% (18) | 1.82 |
| Card-Access Security | 32.5% (111) | 32.7% (112) | 24.0% (82) | 10.8% (37) | 2.13 |
| Accessible Parking | 57.1% (196) | 30.9% (106) | 7.9% (27) | 4.1% (14) | 1.59 |
| Community Lounge | 25.9% (89) | 34.7% (119) | 32.1% (110) | 7.3% (25) | 2.21 |
| Community Recreation Room | 24.0% (82) | 36.8% (126) | 30.7% (105) | 8.5% (25) | 2.24 |
| Community Exercise Room | 38.5% (132) | 38.5% (132 | 17.2% (59) | 5.8% (20) | 1.90 |
Carroll College hired the campus planning firm of Dober Lidsky Mathey to update the college's master plan. Exhibit 3.3 of the master plan compares the average amount of space in nine space types at colleges with enrollments below 2,500 surveyed by the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) for the 2006 Campus Facilities Inventory Report. A sample of the exhibit provides these benchmarks:
Exhibit 3.3 - Comparison of Carroll Space to SCUP Peers
| Classrooms | Labs | Offices | Library | Athletic | Residential | |
| SCUP Survey Avg Space | 44,514 | 47,880 | 80,479 | 45,558 | 88,566 | 223,622 |
| SCUP Survey Avg per Student | 26 | 28 | 48 | 27 | 53 | 133 |
| Carroll Existing Space | 42,096 | 29,640 | 47,851 | 34,097 | 45,439 | 139,880 |
| Carroll Existing per Student | 29 | 21 | 33 | 24 | 32 | 97 |
| Carroll NASF at SCUP Averages | 38,136 | 41,020 | 68,948 | 39,030 | 75,876 | 191,581 |
Dober Lidsky Mathey reported: "32 percent of the inventory is coded residential, forming the environment for student housing with a capacity of 845 beds, right on the College's target of housing 67 percent of its full-time enrollment of 1,241 students. The amount of residential space per student is lower than the peer group, and this is reflected in Carroll's very efficient dormitory-style housing in its older residential buildings--Guadalupe Hall (for first year students) and St. Charles Hall."
The firm recommended: "Develop an implementation plan for new student residences to accomplish the following goals:
Source: Centennial Plan, 2008-2009, Carroll College. Dober Lidsky Mathey. December 2009.
17 Community Advisors
15 Kirchen Ministers
3 Resident Technical Advisors
Please rate how valuable you believe each of these areas contribute to the quality of campus life at Carroll:
Campus housing for freshmen (Guad Hall)
65.3% Highly Valuable
18.8% Somewhat Valuable
4.3% Somewhat Lacking Value
2.2% Highly Lacking Value
9.4% Unable to Evaluate
Campus housing for sophomores (St. Charles/Borromeo Halls)
47.2% Highly Valuable
23.5% Somewhat Valuable
6.0% Somewhat Lacking Value
6.7% Highly Lacking Value
16.6% Unable to Evaluate
Campus housing for juniors/seniors (Trinity Hall)
49.4% Highly Valuable
22.6% Somewhat Valuable
6.5% Somewhat Lacking Value
3.4% Highly Lacking Value
18.1% Unable to Evaluate