So You Want to, or Have to, Build an Enrollment Plan ...€¦ · So You Want to, or Have to, Build...

Presented by: Craig Cornell, Ohio University

Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 9:15Session ID 224

So You Want to, or Have to, Build an Enrollment Plan: Where to Start (and End)

AACRAO Philadelphia 2012 Session ID: 224

Ohio University 4 year public institution in SE Ohio.

Approximately 26,000 students at our main Athens, Ohio Campus and 10,000 students at 5 regional campuses

Very traditional with 8,000 students in our residence halls, but significantly growing online e-learning presence.

Enrollment management a relatively new concept at Ohio University

Position created 4 years ago

Developed the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan 2010-2016 (SEMP)

Overview of an Enrollment Plan


Overview

Like no 2 institutions are alike- no two enrollment plans are alike:

Is it an enrollment plan, a strategic enrollment plan, a strategic enrollment management plan, an enrollment goal plan, or a budget and enrollment plan???

Is it organically grown, mandated, formal, informal, committee driven, enrollment driven, budget driven?


However there are many common elements to almost any plan:

1. They address different student populations2. Often address coordination/staffing/services needs that must

be present to be successful3. They generally outline student populations and enrollment

goals for overall and entering student populations4. Enrollment is key to an institution’s survival so there is a

necessity for some sort of roadmap to follow and why they are becoming a common strategy tool on campus:

Overview


4/5/2012

Overview


Where the generally fall short- pitfalls to avoid

1. Done too quickly and with an end goal in mind from the beginning – President saying (s)he wants “20,000 students within 2 years”.

2. Not enough buy-in from faculty due to lack of input in the process.3. The wrong people leading the effort 4. Large restrictions put in place – “build a plan but don’t ask for

more money”5. The ultimate “approver” not kept in mind – e.g.-Board fiscal needs6. Are not tied into other existing strategic plans on campus7. NOT one person ultimately responsible for its completion- Death

by Committee, or Faculty member who has no skin in the game or has other priorities, etc.

8. Others?

Overview


Moving Forward

I am going to approach the rest of the presentation as what OU did as an example of what I feel has a lot of elements of a best practice as opposed to a neutral- “try this or this”.

I wanted to be very open and tangible in the process in an attempt to demonstrate a clear picture on how to move through the development of such an important document on your campus.

The Foundation of the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan

(SEMP) at Ohio University


Vice Provost for Enrollment Management Position established in Spring of 2008. As a result of VisionOhio, the University’s strategic plan at the time

Charged by President and BOT to establish an enrollment plan in August 2009-given 4 months originally, which became 60 days.

Developed Enrollment Management Committees to create exposure as well move issues through the University effectively- these became the basis for future development of the SEMP

The Foundation of the SEMP at OU


Enrollment Management Committee Structure

Strategic Enrollment Management Steering Committee (SEMSC) -

Oversight

Enrollment & Retention Monitoring Committee

(ERMC) -Implementation

Enrollment Management Advisory Committee (EMAC)

Advisory

Vice Provost, Enrollment

ManagementStrategy

The Development of the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan


Where to Start


General Starting Points

Get a mandate from as high as you can – this gives you the judicial immunity to cut through a lot of red tape and pull a lot of people into the process. We had our Board official declare their desire to see a formal plan.

Establish your committee(s) - with a special emphasis on a steering committee. We used our existing committee structure and I pulled out some key people to handle the first round of the presentation to the board.

Keep on Task – Be annoying (in a good way).

Control the Process – this can be one of the most challenging parts. Provide information that is relevant and keep those that are pushing comfortable enough to give the time to do it right.

Break the Process into Manageable Chunks – it took us 3 reports- 72,38 and 36 pages respectively.

The Development of the SEMP at OU



Round 1


ROUND 1 – “Smart, Strategic and Sustainable Enrollment Growth at Ohio University”

It quickly became evident we would need a lot of information to truly approach the topic. So we quickly limited the scope of the first iterative of the enrollment plan. We carefully communicated that there were some fundamental issues to address in the development of an overall plan and we would address those in the first report.

This could not have been done without establishing the right committee structure providing a loud enough voice.

The Development of the SEMP at OURound 1 -


Round 1 Committee Members:Executive Vice President and ProvostUniversity RegistrarVice Provost for University Outreach Vice Provost for Diversity, Access and EquityVice Provost for Enrollment Management, ChairAssociate Provost for Academic Budget and PlanningDean of University College and Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies Executive Dean for Regional CampusesSenior Associate Vice President for Regional Campuses and University OutreachAssociate Dean, Graduate CollegeProfessor, PhysicsAssistant Vice President for Auxiliary ServicesAssistant Vice President, Budget Planning and AnalysisChief of Staff, Special Assistant to the PresidentAssociate Provost for Institutional Research and Assessment

The Development of the SEMP at OURound 1


Capacity Analysis was the key – we were already at record enrollments and wanted to see what we really could handle so divided up the group into the following sub-committees:

Housing Capacity Analysis Physical Capacity Analysis Regional Campuses, Athens Commuter and Adult Population

Capacity Analysis Program Capacity Analysis Student Experience Capacity Analysis

Each of these groups pulled in the leaders of the respective areas to determine these numbers. For instance- the Program Capacity Analysis



Program Capacity Analysis-Teaching Capacity

In addition to the idea of providing the information you expect, this is also the time to carefully consider who the audience is. Who is the written for and what are you trying to convey in the data.

So, we shared the usual stuff you would expect- current and historical enrollment numbers by campus, college and major, but also began to discuss the complexities of growing enrollment- for instance:

The Development of the SEMP at OURound 1 -


4/5/2012


Program Capacity Analysis –Teaching Capacity Also got all of the faculty involved, via the Deans, with the judicial

immunity card to look at their programs to determine their capacities:


COLLEGE OF XXXXXX

Undergraduate

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Final Final Final Final Final Final Final Prelim Future Future Future Future Future

COLLEGE OF XXXXX

Interdisciplinary/Undecided 245 245 191 158 137 192 176 200 188 188 188 188 188

Major 1 209 256 261 275 304 330 342 377 354 354 354 354 354

Major 2 327 319 319 325 334 365 403 406 382 382 382 382 382

Major 3 428 457 453 421 387 411 381 376 353 353 353 353 353

Major 4 247 143 94 99 132 144 181 166 156 156 156 156 156

Major 5 437 422 445 442 452 401 461 496 467 467 467 467 467

XXXX TOTAL 1,893 1,842 1,763 1,720 1,746 1,843 1,944 2,021 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900


Sub Committee Topics Addressed

Housing Capacity Analysis – Room analysis and numbers, housing master plan

Physical Capacity Analysis – Classroom space analysis, parking analysis,

Regional Campuses, Athens Commuter and Adult Population Capacity Analysis – enrollments, targeted growth, support for new program development

Program Capacity Analysis- Teaching Capacity and General Education, Mitigating Factors-Targeted Growth, Competition, Costs/Affordability, Graduate Students, Grad programs and fee paying students, out-of-state markets, transfer students, online programs, student quality indicators, financial aid, marketing, impact of undergraduate growth on grad programs

Student Experience Capacity Analysis – our “care capacity”; Service responsiveness (IT, dining, medical support, student affairs, etc.)



Summary of Round 1

Left a lot of questions on the table inside the summary- keeping the door open for further development. Made it clear that more effort was needed to fully address the questions before us STRATEGICALLY

Purposely did not put numbers down on paper yet. Once they are put down, you can not pull them back. But did promise that we would be clearing up some of the questions that emerged and coming back shortly with more insights

Received the charge to carefully consider the results of round one in the development of the final SEMP – this kept the judicial immunity as well as appeasing the BOT and President that we were moving forward.

Instantly moved into our Round 2- next 60 days.




Round 2


ROUND 2 – “Results from the Smart, Strategic and Sustainable Enrollment Growth at Ohio University Committees” - pretty original!

Three committees were established to follow-up on recommendations from Round 1:

1. Smart Enrollment Planning: Recommend actions necessary to enhance the efficacy of institutional and admissions marketing materials, student academic services, and academic support services, and to ensure that both sets of services are sufficient to meet demand associated with sustainable enrollment. Recommendations will be based on (a) an assessment of the quality of current institutional and admissions marketing materials across various populations and priority markets, specifically with respect to whether they are effectively aligned in anticipation of the upcoming branding campaign, and (b) an assessment of the adequacy of both student academic services (advising, tutoring, retention initiatives) and academic support services (instructional technology, student life programs, etc.) in light of institutional goals for student success, retention, and timely graduation.



2. Strategic Enrollment Planning: Recommend actions necessary (a) to achieve specific distinctive five-year maximum enrollment targets for traditional recruitment populations, including priority markets (transfer students, nonresident students, multicultural and international students, graduate students, online students, regional campuses), and (b) to expand online education and summer programs in ways that protect academic quality and ensure sustainable revenue generation. Making decisions that protect academic quality will require consultation with and annual reports to colleges, departments/schools, and standing enrollment committees. Making decisions that ensure steady revenue generation will require annual assessment of yield and retention among the specific target populations and determining whether online education programs and summer programs are academically sound and effectively meeting enrollment goals.



3. Sustainable Enrollment Planning: Recommend actions necessary to achieve realistic, durable five-year sustainable enrollment in ways that protect academic quality and are financially sound. Making decisions that protect academic quality will require specifying the instructional capacity necessary to accommodate annual sustainable enrollment targets, determining how instructional and related facilities can be optimally used, and studying extant policies and procedures to discover if they constrain enrollment expansion. Making financially sound decisions will require conducting a price elasticity study and taking into account the consequences of the new SSI taxonomy for the estimated sustainable enrollment targets, the possible strategic opportunities of differential tuition, and the relative advantages of different approaches to scholarship leveraging.



ROUND 2 –

This, in a way, became the background documents to what would be the final report. Each sub-section was divided into “need”, “situational analysis”, “recommendation” and “resource analysis”

Again, who is the audience- we wanted to make it clear to our Board that there are investment costs associated with the desire to grow

Also wanted to highlight the complexities of just adding in a large number of students, so we did a tongue-in-cheek hypothetical calculation of just growing widgets, uh, I mean students, affected the University’s profile and actual bottom-line:



4/5/2012

Year Class size

Year – to‐Year Change

Need to admit (35.1% yield)

Change from 2009

% Admitted

*

Mean High School GPA

Mean ACT

Retention

2009 4,072 11,591 (base #) 3.43 24.13 81%2010 3,985 ‐87 11,105 3.37 24.32 81%

2011 4,185 200 11,923 332 84% 3.39 24.122012 4,385 200 12,493 902 88% 3.35 23.93 80%

2013 4,585 200 13,063 1,472 92% 3.31 23.65 79%2014 4,785 200 13,632 2,041 96% 3.29 23.39 79%2015 4,985 200 14,202 2,611 100%

Table 12: Estimated Freshman Class to Increase by 1,000Effect on Admit, GPA, ACT and Retention


4/5/2012

Year Freshman Class size

Year – to ‐Year

Change

Total Undergraduate Overall Enrollment Change as a Result

of Increased Class Size

# Change

2009 4,072 17,124 ‐

2010 3,985 ‐87 17,141 17

2011 4,185 200 17,158 17

2012 4,385 200 17,267 109

2013 4,585 200 17,421 154

2014 4,785 200 17,622 201

2015 4,985 200 17,828 206

2016 4,985 0 17,796 ‐32

Table 13: Estimated Freshman Class to Increase by 1,000Effect on Overall Enrollment


4/5/2012

Conclusions

“The above discussion highlights the complexity of large growth of the freshman class size at Ohio University given budgetary constraints, the new SSI model, and the ability to maintain student /faculty ratios.

Assuming current application, admission, and yield rates, it would be highly problematic and difficult to enroll an additional 200 students per year.

In moving in that direction, student average quality would decline, retention and graduation rates would decline, need for remedial academic and behavioral student services would increase, and students would be disproportionately assigned to three colleges.”


Summary of Round 2

Desire was to address outstanding issues and questions from the BOT that were real or anticipated

Laid the groundwork for the fact that there is a complexity to the enrollment planning process, there are anticipated and unanticipated costs associated with

“Ohio University does have capacity to grow its enrollments. However this growth will have to be done in a very strategic and conservative manner due to a decade of budget cuts, declines in the state share of instruction, struggling national and State of Ohio economies, changing student demographics, and significantly increased competition. Therefore, Ohio University may be close to its functional capacity limit in many academic, support and student service areas following its record enrollments for the Fall 2009 year at the Athens Campus without additional resources strategically allocated back to these areas.”


The Development of the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan (SEMP)

at Ohio University

Round 3- Final


At this point it was a straightforward piece that came together in a few months- making the whole process from start to finish 1 year.

Pretty much about the numbers at this point.

Realistic numbers, built on previous capacity and limitations laid out in previous reports.

Focus on the strategy involved to meet the goals:



Topics of Final Enrollment Plan Executive Summary SECTION 1. Background of Enrollment Planning at Ohio

UniversitySECTION 2. Current Enrollment Metrics

SECTION 3. Significant Influences on the Enrollment Planning Process

SECTION 4. Enrollment Goals SECTION 5. Enrollment Plan Revenue Assumptions SECTION 6. Necessary Conditions to Meet Enrollment

Goals SECTION 7. Key Enrollment Strategies to Meet Enrollment

Goals SECTION 8. Conclusion



4/5/2012

1. Strategic Enrollment Growth- Due to the growing reliance on net-tuition revenue, it is imperative to develop an enrollment management model that is designed to both align with overall campus strategic planning and designed to grow enrollments and/or net tuition revenue in select academic areas while maintaining the strengths of existing programs. Such a model should supply the funding necessary to meet institutional quality metrics. The Office of the Provost will consult with the individual colleges to define these metrics and to conduct the broader assessment of the efficacy of the enrollment plan.

2. Strategic Student Recruitment - A strategic recruitment plan focused on the personalization of student cohorts based on intended major, relative academic preparedness, and demographic sub-population is necessary to meet the enrollment goals of the institution and will allow for a continued growth of student academic quality.

3. Strategic Funding Reinvestments - A strategic reinvestment funding model must be developed to estimate the costs of increased curricular and co-curricular support that should accompany any enrollment growth or new initiatives with the goal of increased student access and success. This model would incorporate a comprehensive understanding of student revenue flow, the new state share of instruction taxonomy, and overall costs associated with investing in new program development and with enrolling and retaining students across the Ohio University system.

4. Strategic Scholarship Leveraging - A student scholarship leveraging model that expands proportionally with tuition increases is necessary to maintain student affordability and to allow for the enhancement of current scholarship programs, both of which are central to the university’s ability to remain competitive and affordable to the desired populations in the marketplace.


Considering the audience, we felt we needed to add another piece to the discussion and that is a realistic estimate of the potential ROI of the efforts associated with meeting the enrollment goals


Enrollment Plan with Flat Tuition

* Investment for new scholarships, marketing and targeted recruitment

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Gross Revenue to Budget $3,173,943 $2,992,668 $3,428,530 $3,283,793 $2,574,913

Strategic Funding Reinvestments (@6% of Gross)* $190,437 $179,560 $205,712 $197,028 $154,495

Net Revenue $2,983,507 $2,813,108 $3,222,818 $3,086,765 $2,420,418

Minimum expenses to support enrollment (@30%) $952,183 $897,800 $1,028,559 $985,138 $772,474

Net Revenue available to budget $2,031,324 $1.915.308 $2,194,259 $2,101,628 $1,647,944

Maximum expenses to support enrollment (@60%) $1,904,366 $1,795,601 $2,057,118 $1,970,276 $1,544,948

Net Revenue available to budget $1,079,141 $1,017,507 $1,165,700 $1,116,490 $875,470


Questions?


Thank You!

Craig CornellVice Provost for Enrollment Management, Ohio University

Chair, AACRAO, Group 1 Enrollment Management and Retention Committee

[email protected]

Please complete the class evaluation formSession ID 224

So You Want to, or Have to, Build an Enrollment Plan ...€¦ · So You Want to, or Have to, Build...

Documents

Transcript of So You Want to, or Have to, Build an Enrollment Plan ...€¦ · So You Want to, or Have to, Build...