ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN - Connecticut State … · Our goal was to focus on enrollment...

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN:Recommendations and Projected Outcomes for Connecticut State Colleges and Universities

June 18, 2014

The Board of Regents has established strategic goals for the system and CSCU has outlined transformative projects in the multi-year, multi-phase initiative Transform CSCU 2020.

2Source: http://ct.edu/transform

Our goal was to focus on enrollment management and the factors that influence enrollment, student success, and revenue for the system as a whole.

3

EnrollmentStudent Success

Revenue

StudentSatisfaction

InterventionStrategies

RecruitmentStrategies

& Processes

Tuition & Pricing

Org Structure & Dynamics

Reputation, Marketing & Branding

Non-Tuition Revenue

Tuition & Pricing

Competitive Positioning

Population /Demographics

Institutional Capacity

RetentionStrategies

& Processes

Tuition & Pricing

Org Structure & Dynamics

Reputation, Marketing & Branding

StudentChallenges

-8.0%

-4.0%

0.0%

4.0%

8.0%

12.0%

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

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

2015

-16

2016

-17

2017

-18

2018

-19

2019

-20

2020

-21

2021

-22

2022

-23

2023

-24

2024

-25

2025

-26

2026

-27

2027

-28

Year Over Year Changes in HS Graduates: WICHE Projections to 2028

CT Northeast US

Without strategic, focused effort, CSCU may experience enrollment shortfalls due to the declining population of student-aged high school graduates.

4

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,0001

99

6-9

7

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

20

10

-11

20

11

-12

20

12

-13

20

13

-14

20

14

-15

20

15

-16

20

16

-17

20

17

-18

20

18

-19

20

19

-20

20

20

-21

20

21

-22

20

22

-23

20

23

-24

20

24

-25

20

25

-26

20

26

-27

20

27

-28

High School Graduates in Connecticut: WICHE Projections to 2028

Actual Projected

Source: “Knocking on the College Door”, Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, December 2012; http://wiche.edu/knocking-8th

Actual Projections

CSCU needs to come together and collaborate as a system to enjoy success in this challenging context.

• CSCU is a relatively new system and leadership needs to continue the commitment to becoming a cohesive set of institutions with a shared mission and vision.

• CSCU can be more than the sum of its parts, and it will need leadership to develop and implement a clear, focused strategy and monitor progress toward the system-wide strategic goals.

5

• Transparency and open communication are critical factors to help build and maintain trusting, collaborative relationships at CSCU.

Source: http://ct.edu/transform

Against this backdrop, we have compiled 15 recommendations underneath five key pillars of this enrollment management strategy.

6

Marketing and Communications CSCU has the opportunity to come together as a system via a single marketing and

communications platform that institutions can tailor to highlight their image.

Student RecruitmentCSCU should leverage targeted recruitment strategies, bolster prospect mgmt. approaches,

and refine messaging to grow enrollment in the context of declining core demographics.

Student SuccessCSCU needs to focus on achieving and sustaining retention and graduation rates across the

system to reach and exceed national averages.

Value and Online LearningCSCU should position itself as offering superior value to students while keeping tuition low

and academic quality high and expanding the reach of online learning.

Student-Centric ServicesCSCU needs to take a student-centric approach such that student services are seamless,

cater to the students’ needs, and efficiently gather data to use in CSCU’s decision-making.

These recommendations are based on an extensive body of work.

7

Quantitative Research

• Retention Diagnostic Questionnaire of CSCU faculty and staff

• Prospective / admitted student survey• Current student survey• Alumni survey

Qualitative Research

• Campus visits to each of the 17 institutions, including sessions with students and administrators

• Meetings with key administrators from all 17 CSCU institutions

• Telephone interviews with influential opinion leaders from Connecticut

Analysis – Internal Data/ Info

• Historical enrollment data• Revenue data and future assumptions• Retention and graduation rates• Faculty counts• Classroom utilization• Websites and marketing materials• Etc.

Analysis – External Data/ Info

• WICHE high school graduate forecasts• Demographic data from Alteryx (data

compiled from US Census, ACS, etc.)• IPEDS and IPEDS Delta Cost Project• The College Board tuition and fees data• Websites and marketing materials• Etc.

Assert a CSCU brand position.

• A positioning statement is a choice, strategy and tool that: – Serves as gateway for system-level marketing and communications:

It’s the system’s story lead, conversation starter, and top-line messaging.

We believe the best positioning focuses on results, which in this case apply both to student outcomes – even at the system level – and state outcomes.

– Delivers substantive and tonal guidance to inform and reasonably align the institutions’ specific messaging:

The positioning should be used in institutions’ top-line messaging, as possible, though not always literally:

– A wide variety of words and creative executions can be used to deliver the message.

Positioning is not a tagline or an ad slogan, though it guides their development.

8

1

Marketing and Communications


• Positioning statements and derived messages work best when: – Sustained for 3-4 years in order to break through the clutter and claims

found in an indifferent market.

– Internal identity and external image are reasonably aligned so that brand behaviors match brand promises.

– Creating a platform to convey facts (cognition) and stories (emotion).

– Providing the capacity to tell a complete narrative, from life/career/state outcomes that result from, for example, quality academics, experiential learning, flexibility and affordability.

9

1


Positioning Choice: Compete and succeed.

10

Compete successfully in today’s global economy with a degree from Connecticut State Colleges and Universities. Employers across our

region respect the intelligence, character, attitude and work ethic of our graduates, over 300,000 of them since 1983. Upon your graduation, you’ll join a smart network of alumni innovators,

employers and professionals – the doers and difference makers –creating jobs and improving the health and welfare of our citizens.

1


Positioning Choice: Compete and succeed.

11


CSCU institutions provide quality academics and practical hands-on learning, affordably and with an extraordinary depth and breadth of programs. Plus, we offer

you the convenience to follow a schedule, course load and certification or degree program that’s right for you, with highly flexible credit-transfer policies.

The vast and varied contributions of our students, faculty and alumni have an enormous impact on our region. CSCU is transforming and transformative; you can

feel our momentum. So join us and create some impact and momentum of your own. Now that’s an education that works for a lifetime. CSCU: It’s the smart choice

for you and for Connecticut.

1


• CSCU achieves competitive differentiation by:– Choosing to take and sustain any reasonable position that is well executed:

Right now, the system is all over the map without a meaningful position.

Taking a position prevents an organization from trying to lead with everything.

– Achieving some level of congruence between system and institutional messaging, using the positioning statement as a guideline.

12

1



• CSCU achieves competitive differentiation by:– Focusing prescriptively on outcomes and the needs of students and the

state. In contrast, some of UConn’s top-line messaging appears to focus more descriptively and generically on themselves, their size, their clout, etc. and not on outcomes as a first order.

13

1


Facilitate use of positioning among the institutions.

14


• Facilitate process through which the 17 institutions adopt and adapt the positioning substance, tone and language as their own:– Building their specific messaging from this value proposition:

Customizing and applying it to their particular markets.

While ensuring reasonable “editorial” consistency across the system.

• CSCU and Maguire Associates will hold brand workshops for the institutions across the state in July to support this process.

2

Cohere the CSCU brand with a better name.

15


• Full system name is too long and the initializations don’t work.

• Connecticut State is worth considering, though you’ll need a process to vet any final name choice:– Has some of the California State and SUNY energy.

– Initial Google, Bing and USPTO searches find no current use.

• Ideally, this would compel a system-level logo change, though we know this takes time and money.

3

Create consistent visual identity and brand standards.

16


• Adopt a shared visual identity system including color palette:– Choose one unifying visual element for shared use by system and

institutions, e.g., we like the energy of the QVCC swoosh.

– Consider applying new system-level name in one of each institution’s primary logo treatments for use, for example, on website headers.

– It’s early enough in the system’s history to take the time now to get this right. It only gets more complicated and expensive down the road.

• Include system logo in institutions' materials and media, e.g., website footers and back page of key print materials.

4

Link recruitment messaging to the market position.

17

Student Recruitment

5

Source: CSCU and Institution websites

Consistency of top-line messaging and voice deliver much-needed clarity and coherence.

Leverage Charter Oak as a primary vehicle to attract and serve non-traditional students well.

18

Student Recruitment

6

Charter Oak current students and alumni typically report the highest satisfaction ratings across the CSCU system. • These constituencies give Charter Oak very strong ratings in the

areas of overall satisfaction, transfer credit assistance, time to degree completion, academic advising and counseling.

• At least nine in ten current students and alumni would recommend the school to a friend.

“Charter Oak is a great school for working adults with little spare time, those who may be unable to travel back and forth to class several times a

week, or for the homeschooled looking to get a head start on college. Charter Oak also gives you a quality education and the most “bang for your

buck” when it comes to transfer credit acceptance and cost per semester hour compared to other 100% online schools.” – COSC current student

“I have 2 friends that Graduated last year, their decision to return to college and finish a degree is what encouraged me to also attend. I love the accelerated 8-week classes, taking one at a time allows me to work hard on one class at a time. These are not the first classes I have taken online, but are certainly well run. Thank you Charter Oak for making a BS attainable!”

– COSC current student

“The experience at Charter Oak has exceeded my expectations. I would highly recommend it, and in fact have

recommended it to a friend who recently enrolled. The entire administrative team has been excellent to work with.

I really enjoy being a student at Charter Oak.” – COSC current student

“Charter Oak accepted and transferred more of my military training and

schooling than any other college.” – COSC alum

“Being an adult learner I felt the program was much easier to maneuver than I had anticipated. The PM classes were very [much] a group hands-on type course and I feel the instructors did a great job making sure

everyone was pulling their weight in a virtual environment.” – COSC alum

What some satisfied students and alumni say about Charter Oak:

Source: Maguire Associates survey research of alumni and current students

85% 75% 81% 89%87% 79% 77% 89%

CC SU -Undergrad

SU -Grad

COSC

Overall Satisfaction with CSCU:% Satisfied or Very Satisfied

Current students Alumni

Establish clear leadership with responsibility for student success and distribute best practices across institutions.

19

Student Success

7

“Go back to get ahead” is an appropriate short-term marketing program, however, it is only one small piece of the retention puzzle. The system must become known for effective

execution and outstanding customer service, and fund long-term retention efforts.

Retention Diagnostic Questionnaire Results: % Faculty and Staff who Agree or Strongly Agree

Source: Maguire Associates survey research of faculty and staff (RDQ) and alumni

Organize Intervene Promise Deliver Know Track Enroll Reframe

Asnuntuck CC 50% 52% 32% 47% 35% 35% 49% 50%

Capital CC 41% 47% 43% 51% 36% 36% 42% 43%

Gateway CC 62% 55% 59% 62% 43% 33% 47% 47%

Housatonic CC 59% 48% 55% 58% 39% 26% 44% 45%

Manchester CC 79% 56% 60% 67% 59% 53% 48% 53%

Middlesex CC 62% 44% 59% 62% 42% 28% 43% 47%

Naugatuck CC 64% 65% 60% 67% 44% 31% 47% 55%

Northwestern CC 51% 49% 43% 55% 31% 29% 36% 38%

Norwalk CC 50% 46% 53% 52% 36% 23% 37% 40%

Quinebaug CC 42% 35% 57% 53% 35% 20% 40% 37%

Three Rivers CC 58% 64% 45% 64% 37% 32% 42% 48%

Tunxis CC 63% 46% 60% 66% 54% 61% 42% 47%

Central CSU 53% 60% 45% 53% 39% 40% 39% 51%

Eastern CSU 66% 73% 58% 69% 60% 65% 50% 64%

Southern CSU 44% 57% 38% 49% 30% 30% 31% 44%

Western CSU 35% 34% 35% 45% 24% 19% 24% 42%

Charter Oak 63% 68% 67% 69% 45% 35% 54% 61%

23%32%

36%39%

45%46%

60%54%

62%45%

56%52%

60%52%

71%41%

Western

Southern

Eastern

Central

Tunxis

Three Rivers

Quinebaug Valley

Norwalk

Northwestern CT

Naugatuck Valley

Middlesex

Manchester

Housatonic

Gateway

Capital

Asnuntuck

Satisfaction with Career Counseling, % Undergraduate Alumni Satisfied or Very Satisfied

Develop goals for student success and metrics to track progress.

20

46% 32.7% 17.1%

56.3%

25% 20.1%9.1%

27.1%

21%12.6%

21.2%7.7%

40.3%

50% 47.7% 41.7% 35.9%57.2%

60% 59.5% 60.1% 47.9%68.7%

60% 47.6% 54.8% 42.6% 52.7%

65% 63.6% 50% 53.8%75.0%

77% 73.6% 79.5%68.5%

75.9%

Retention Rates:First-time Part-time

Completion Rates:150% Time

Transfer-Out Rates

Success Rates:Compl. + Transfer

State Universities Community Colleges

Retention Rates:First-time Full-time

We encourage CSCU institutions to develop institution-specific strategies (e.g. develop exit interview process for withdrawals) to achieve system-wide goals for key student success metrics, e.g.:

Source: National average data from NCES; CSCU benchmarks from institutional data compiled for IPEDS

Develop a “one-stop shop” approach for student services.

21

Student Success

8

Students outlook on administrative processes and service varies by institution but almost universally they felt as if there is room for improvement.

• CSCU has an opportunity to become known for outstanding “customer” service and to use it as a competitive differentiator.

• Some high-profile “pain points” have been identified and are part of Transform, e.g. system-wide “common” application for CSCU; credit articulation issue.

22%29% 33%35%

39%

55%

31%36%

57%

15% 16%

Helpfulness of theadministration / staff

Academic advising /counseling

Financial aid advising

CC SU - Undergrad SU - Grad COSC

• “One-stop shop” consisting of both centralized and decentralized services could relieve the administrative burden felt by students and enable schools to identify opportunities to further improve service and better retain students.

• CSCU students told us that the “small college feel” is important to them, many contrasted their institution with large universities where they felt they would not get the same attention or have same sense of individuality. This is a key differentiator for CSCU; the system should recognize it and own it.

Dissatisfaction with Services% Current Students Neutral, Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied

Source: Maguire Associates current student survey

Establish firm, clear articulation agreements to fully realize the potential for intra-system transfer.

22

Student Success

9

Credit articulation presents an opportunity for excellence throughout the system. • Student experiences with credit articulation within CSCU vary

greatly, which can serve as a major point of dissatisfaction.• Satisfaction tends to be lower among current students and

alumni from state universities than at community colleges or Charter Oak.

Despite being on track for honours degree, WCSU would not let me graduate with honours as I had transferred from NVCC and so did not fulfil the credit quota taken at WCSU, despite having

enough credits to graduate. Disgraceful, why would I pay for additional credits when I had already fulfilled the criteria for graduating just to get honours?

– CSCU current student

Transfer of credits from SCSU to CCSU was a large disappointment. Many credits were not accepted by CCSU.

- CSCU alum

My credit evaluation was extremely poor when I transferred and I had to fight for equivalent classes to come over as things other than electives. Maybe have a transfer advisor for each department who is educated in

the subject matter. – CSCU current student

I transferred a two-year degree from Northwestern CT Community College and most of my credits did not transfer,

causing me to complete 3 years at Central instead of 2. - CSCU alum

What some dissatisfied students and alumni say:

Source: Maguire Associates survey research of CSCU alumni and current students.

63% 54%

90%82%67%

90%

CC SU -Undergrad

COSC

Current students Alumni

Satisfaction with CSCU Transfer Credit Assistance % Satisfied or Very Satisfied

Maintain low tuition increases to continue to fulfill the system’s mission of accessibility and affordability.

23

Value and Online Learning

10

Although Connecticut still maintains relatively low tuition and fees compared to surrounding states, Connecticut’s recent pricing increases have been greater than others, including CT private four-year institutions:

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

VT NH MA NY RI CT ME

Average Public Two-Year In-State Tuition and Fees for 2013-2014

2013-14 T&F 1-Year % Change 5-Year % Change

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

-

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

NH VT RI MA CT ME NY

Average Public Four-Year In-State Tuition and Fees for 2013-2014

2013-14 T&F 1-Year % Change 5-Year % Change

5.2% 5.9% 3.3%

26.9% 27.0%20.1%

Public Two-Year Public Four-Year Private Four-Year

Increases in 2013-2014 Tuition and Fees for Connecticut Institutions

1-Year % Change 5-Year % Change

Source: Maguire Associates analysis of The College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges 2013 data

Pursue targeted experimentation with pricing strategies, particularly at state universities.

24

11


New Ham

pshire

Idaho

Louisi

ana

Kansas

Kentuck

y

North Caro

lina

South D

akota

Miss

issip

pi

Mass

achuse

tts

Arkansa

s

Arizona

Oregon

Oklahoma

Monta

na

Indiana

Pennsylvania

South Caro

lina

Alabama

Wyom

ing

Iowa

Utah

West

Virgin

ia

North D

akota

Vermont

Rhode Island

Distric

t of C

olumbia

% of State's Enrollment from

Out-of-state Residents47% 37% 17% 21% 19% 20% 32% 18% 41% 21% 22% 33% 22% 31% 24% 30% 25% 25% 37% 32% 29% 36% 47% 69% 62% 94%

% of State's Residents Going to

School Out-of-state43% 32% 10% 15% 11% 11% 23% 7% 33% 9% 11% 23% 10% 21% 12% 17% 10% 10% 22% 13% 8% 11% 25% 50% 36% 79%

Source: Maguire Associates survey research; IPEDS migration data from fall 2010; www.nebhe.org for info on their cross-border tuition discount

One program CSCU may

consider developing/expanding

is the use of scholarship money

to keep community college

completers in the system for

their bachelor’s degree.30%

82% 80%32%

9% 11%37%9% 9%

Baseline Option 1: Pay CCTuition at SU

Option 2: $1,000Scholarship

Potential Impact of Transfer Scholarship

Considering Bachelor’s at CSCU

Considering Bachelor’s Not at CSCU

Not Considering Bachelor’s

New Jerse

y

Alaska

Delaware

Mary

land

Connecticu

t

Illinois

Hawaii

Nevada

Minneso

ta

Wash

ingto

n

Maine

Texas

Colorado

Californ

ia

Georgia

Michigan

Florida

New York

New Mexic

o

Ohio Tenness

ee

Nebrask

a

Wisc

onsin

Virgin

ia

Miss

ouri

% of State's Enrollment from

Out-of-state Residents9% 10% 29% 21% 34% 15% 21% 11% 20% 18% 30% 6% 21% 7% 14% 11% 12% 21% 15% 17% 18% 19% 22% 22% 20%

% of State's Residents Going to

School Out-of-state41% 39% 42% 35% 45% 29% 32% 25% 28% 24% 34% 12% 24% 10% 15% 11% 11% 19% 13% 15% 15% 16% 19% 19% 16%

US Avg

20%

18%

Another experiment CSCU should consider is lowering the pricing barrier for out-of-state students (above what NEBHE offers) within particular target states, e.g. NY, to capitalize on the fluid migration of students in the northeast.

Expand Charter Oak’s reach and leverage online education as a key growth platform for the system.

25

12


• Charter Oak could play a larger, very profitable role in CSCU system. Many other state online ventures provide framework for comparison.

65,00082,000

53,000

UMUC(MD)

Arizona State(AZ)

Michigan State(MI)

Enrollment in Other State Online Ventures

• Organizational structure, systems, business processes all need examination and refinement to meet larger scale. Academic design and marketing are important and may require investment.

• Consider name change to convey COSC’s identity in the system and leverage value of CSCU brand – Connecticut Online, Connecticut State University Online, etc. are worthy of consideration and might also appeal to out-of-state students.

• Consider branding study and business case as a first step.

Source: Collegestats.org for online enrollment data

Consider centralizing and outsourcing of shared administrative services.

26

13

Student-Centric Services

• Appropriate investment in system–level service platform could serve the long-term financial sustainability of the system and enhance the capability to serve students.Examples include:

⁻ Call center services – inbound service and outbound campaigns, financial aid, student advising (administrative, not faculty advising), etc.

⁻ Some marketing functions – e.g. list purchase and name buying, student search services, web support – currently done at the campus level (if at all)

⁻ Electronic document storage and retrieval – reduce reliance on paper, reduce order entry

• Ensure performance by negotiated service level agreements using consistent and transparent key performance indicators (KPI).

• These will enable “one-stop shop” for enrollment functions.

Streamline student information systems and consider system-wide CRM platform to manage prospects.

14


• Standardize usage of Banner (SIS) across the system.

- Community Colleges and State Universities are currently on different versions of Banner.

- Migrating all schools to the same Banner release increases opportunity for efficiency and effectiveness, e.g. centralized reporting of common metrics, efficiency through centralized management of upgrades and new releases, better service to students and campuses.

• Consider system-wide CRM (Customer Relationship Management), which include:

- An integrated self-service online prospect, event, and web application management system, in a single database (admission offices are currently encumbered by manual paperwork processes);

- Automated multi-channel communication planning and deployment;

- CRM functionality/single workspace through the admission lifecycle with extensibility to maximize current student retention and success; and

- Real-time, customizable reporting of admission & student lifecycle activity (currently limited capability to run customized reporting or datasets (management reporting) to support management efforts).

27

Standardize enrollment management functions across institutions.

28

15


• Standardize EM organizations and practices with variations to accommodate different needs of student populations.

‒ Differentiate between state universities, community colleges, and Charter Oak, as needed.‒ Consider developing central shared services organization.

• Establish reporting structure where all EM functions report to senior administrator.

‒ Not every institution has an Enrollment Manager. Distribution of EM responsibilities varies from campus to campus.

‒ Campus officials were not aware of any system-wide enrollment strategy, and/or how their own individual enrollment goals fit into a larger overall strategy.

• Create ownership for student retention.

‒ One department in each school should own retention with support/attention at system level.‒ Develop consistent exit interviewing process for students who leave – CRM could enable better tracking of

student data, maintain transparent system-wide metrics.‒ Consider “one-stop shop” approach for admissions/financial aid/registrar/student accounts, etc.

Thus, we have created an enrollment and revenue projections model to provide the system with insight on:

enrollment and revenue projections to 2023 based on historic trends, demographics, and future strategies

as well as

a tool for the system to use for ongoing strategic enrollment planning.

Ultimately, the goal of these strategic recommendations is to help CSCU increase enrollment to surpass 100K students.

29

We hope the system will continue to use the projections tool we created for ongoing strategic enrollment planning.

30

All dates related to enrollment correspond to the fall of that academic year

E.g. "2013" represents the 2013-2014 academic year

Metric Value Start Complete

For Degree-Seekers:

Full-time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023

Part-time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023

Adults Market Share Change 15% 2014 2023

Student-aged Market Share Change 15% 2014 2023

First Time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023

Returning Student Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023

For Non Degree-Seekers:





First Time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023

Returning Student Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023

% Change in Enrollment of Other Degree-Seekers 0% 2014 2023

% Change in Enrollment of Other Non Degree-Seekers 10% 2014 2023

Capacity Level 85%


For Core AND Secondary Markets:



First Time Share Change 0% 2014 2023

Transfer Share Change 0% 2014 2023

For Core Market:



For Secondary Market



Out-of-state % Change in Enrollment 0% 2014 2023

International % Change in Enrollment 0% 2014 2023

Graduate % Change in Enrollment 0% 2014 2023

Other % Change in Enrollment 0% 2014 2023

Capacity Level 85%

Full-time Retention Rate 78% 2014 2023

Part-time Retention Rate 65% 2014 2023

6-year Graduation Rate 60% 2014 2023

Full-time Retention Rate Change 0% 2014 2023

Part-time Retention Rate Change 0% 2014 2023

6-year Graduation Rate Change 0% 2014 2023

USE RATE or RATE CHANGE for Retention/Graduation RATE


% Change (Annual) in Enrollment:

Full Time 0% 2014 2023

Part Time 6% 2014 2023

Student-aged: Under 24 6% 2014 2023

Adults: 25-64 6% 2014 2023

Other 0% 2014 2023

Connecticut State Colleges and Universities

Enrollment Projections Simulator: 2014-2025

Scenario INPUTS - State Universities

Scenario INPUTS - Charter Oak

Scenario INPUTS - Community Colleges

1,740

3,529

5,379

7,303

9,317

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

He

adco

un

t

Additional Enrollment Based on Inputs: Community Colleges

85,39594,696 94,318 97,211 100,355 103,746 107,335

48,43458,228 58,657 60,387 62,179 64,044 65,999

35,384 34,824 33,637 34,329 35,095 35,892 36,617

1,577 1,644 2,024 2,495 3,081 3,811 4,719

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Hea

dcou

nt

Scenario Projections: Based on Inputs Below

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL CC

TOTAL SU

Charter Oak

719

1,513

2,369

3,232

4,025

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

He

adco

un

t

Additional Enrollment Based on Inputs: State Universities

380

851

1,437

2,167

3,075

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

He

adco

un

t

Additional Enrollment Based on Inputs: Charter Oak

85,39594,696 91,479 91,318 91,170 91,044 90,919

48,43458,228 56,917 56,859 56,800 56,741 56,682

35,384 34,824 32,918 32,816 32,726 32,659 32,593

1,577 1,644 1,644 1,644 1,644 1,644 1,644

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

He

adco

un

t

Baseline Projections: Continuing 2013 Status Quo

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL CC

TOTAL SU

Charter Oak

4.2%5.3%

3.7%

-1.2%-2.1%

0.3%1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

YOY

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Scenario Projections: Enrollment Growth Rates

Grand Total

5.5%7.8%

5.7%

-1.0%1.0%

-2.2%

1.5%1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

1.4%1.7%0.3%

-1.6%-3.4%

-2.2%

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

YOY

Gro

wth

Rat

e


Community Colleges Universities

26.1%

4.6%9.6%

-1.6%

-26.6%

0.0%

11.0% 11.1% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

YOY

Gro

wth

Rat

e


Charter Oak

10.8% 14.0%

158.8%

15.7%

Universities Community

Colleges

Charter

Oak

Grand Total

Scenario Projections: 10-Year

Enrollment Growth (2014-2023)

-1.3%

-0.6%

0.0%

-0.8%


Colleges

Charter

Oak

Grand Total

Baseline Projections: 10-Year

Enrollment Growth (2014-2023)

All dates related to revenue correspond to fiscal year which is in numerical terms here the previous year

E.g. "FY 2014" corresponds to the the 2013-2014 academic year, or "2013" as represented on enrollment projections

Connecticut State Colleges and Universities

Enrollment Projections Simulator: 2014-2025Based on Inputs from "Projections Simulator" Worksheet

4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%

2.2%

4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

YOY

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Scenario Projections: Revenue Growth Rates

Community Colleges Universities

$1,106,419 $1,141,774 $1,191,052 $1,242,717 $1,297,092 $1,354,695 $1,414,572 $1,477,928 $1,544,285 $1,613,652 $1,686,224

$432,395 $451,678 $471,261 $491,720 $513,098 $535,443 $558,803 $583,232 $608,786 $635,523 $663,509$659,353 $673,805 $701,689 $730,858 $761,562 $794,237 $827,840 $863,480 $900,573 $939,010 $978,858

$14,671 $16,292 $18,102 $20,139 $22,432 $25,016 $27,929 $31,216 $34,927 $39,118 $43,856

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024

Rev

enue

($1

000s

)

Scenario Projections: Total Revenue

Grand Total Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak

$1,106,419$1,133,193$1,173,515$1,215,247$1,258,565$1,303,740$1,351,174$1,400,649$1,452,261$1,506,114$1,562,314

$432,395$448,815 $465,387 $482,674 $500,709 $519,526 $539,163 $559,658 $581,052 $603,387 $626,708

$659,353 $669,297 $692,632 $716,651 $741,493 $767,394 $794,718 $823,209 $852,922 $883,916 $916,253

$14,671 $15,081 $15,495 $15,922 $16,364 $16,821 $17,293 $17,782 $18,287 $18,810 $19,352

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000


Rev

enu

e ($

10

00

s)

Baseline Projections: Total Revenue


$502,733 $526,577 $562,994$603,079

$646,879$693,847

$183,597 $196,539 $210,392 $225,256 $241,248 $258,507$310,786 $319,386 $338,990 $360,403 $383,307 $406,694

$8,350 $10,652 $13,612 $17,419 $22,324 $28,646

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Rev

enu

e ($

10

00

s)

Scenario Projections: Tuition and Fees Revenue

(Total)


$603,686$664,475

$734,098$811,493

$897,406$992,377

$248,798 $274,723 $302,706 $333,547 $367,538 $405,002

$348,567 $382,302 $422,571 $467,436 $517,266 $572,165

$6,321 $7,450 $8,820 $10,510 $12,603 $15,210$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Rev

enu

e ($

10

00

s)

Scenario Projections: Non-tuition and Fees Revenue

(Total)


$0$8,581

$17,538$27,470

$38,527$50,955

$63,397$77,279

$92,024$107,538

$123,910

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000


Rev

enu

e ($

10

00

s)

Scenario Projections: Additional Revenue over Baseline

Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak Grand Total

$0 $7,049$14,376$22,422$31,288$41,146

$51,009$61,906

$73,421$85,488

$98,175

$0$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000

$100,000$120,000

Rev

enue

($1

000s

)

Scenario Projections: Tuition and Fees Revenue

(Additional over Baseline)


$0 $1,532$3,161$5,048$7,239$9,809

$12,389$15,373

$18,603$22,050

$25,735

$0$5,000

$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000

Rev

enue

($1

000s

)

Scenario Projections: Non-tuition and Fees Revenue

(Additional over Baseline)


2.4%

3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024

YOY

Gro

wth

Rat

e


Grand Total

11.0% 11.1% 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% 11.6% 11.8% 11.9% 12.0% 12.1%

11%

11%

12%

12%

13%

YOY

Gro

wth

Rat

e


Charter Oak

48.5% 53.4%

198.9%

52.4%


Colleges

Charter Oak Grand Total

Scenario Projections: 10-Year Revenue Growth (2014-2023)

39.0%

44.9%

31.9%

41.2%


Colleges

Charter Oak Grand Total

Baseline Projections: 10-Year

Revenue Growth (2014-2023)

Enrollment projections were created for each institution individually, with the same calculations and input parameters for each type of institution, and then rolled up (by summation) to produce system-level projections.

Data embedded in the model includes:• Census data from Alteryx (formerly

DemographicsNow);• Enrollment data by institution (new

student enrollment for SUs, and total enrollment for CCs and COSC);

• Average utilization and number of classrooms by room size;

• Number of faculty (IPEDS) and teaching load restrictions (for SUs only); and

• Financial assumptions determined by CSCU CFO (e.g. maintaining annual 2% tuition and fees increases).

The projections scenario we will present here quantifies a high-level view of our strategic recommendations.

31

Community Colleges

• 15% increase in market share by 2023 of degree-seeking non-traditional students

• 15% increase in market share by 2023 of degree-seeking traditional students

• 10% annual increase in enrollment of other non degree-seekers (i.e. to reflect focus on high school students)

State Universities

• 20% increase in market share by 2023 of traditional students in core market (20 mile radius from institution)

• 20% increase in market share by 2023 of traditional students in secondary market (rest of state of CT)

• Full-time retention rate by 2023: 78%

• Part-time retention rate by 2023: 65%

• 6-year graduation rate by 2023: 60%

Charter Oak

• 6% annual increase in enrollment of part-time students

• 6% annual increase in enrollment of non-traditional students

• 6% annual increase in enrollment of traditional students

Model Inputs Used for “Scenario” Projections:

Our projections scenario shows CSCU can surpass the goal of 100K students enrolled by 2019.

32

Fall of Academic Year

Scenario Projections

Source: Maguire Associates analysis

Achieving this goal by 2019 will require each institution to grow enrollment.

33Source: Maguire Associates analysis

5%11,654

6%6,197

9%11,713

-0.6%5,532

1,922

10%4,536

7%8,941

8%6,328

7%8,184

7%3,207

9%7,951

7%1,838

15%7,041

6%2,145

9%5,206

8%4,881

8%3,081

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Enro

llmen

t (H

ead

cou

nt)

Projected Enrollment by Institution

This enrollment growth scenario grows revenue by 52% over 10 years (versus 41% in baseline).

34Source: Maguire Associates analysis

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

While resources will be required to achieve enrollment goals, we believe CSCU has enough current capacity without building additional space or hiring additional faculty.

35

According to a high-level analysis that assumed no change in the number of sections, classrooms, and faculty, CSCU currently has capacity to enroll additional headcount (totaling 36K students):

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

Central Eastern Southern Western

Add’l Student Headcount at 85% Utilization Capacity: State Universities (Total 21K)

Additional Student Headcount at 85% Utilization Capacity: Community Colleges (Total 15K)

While any capacity analysis has limitations, and undoubtedly there will continue to be issues at peak class times and for popular academic programs, the extent of capacity revealed here provides confidence that CSCU can handle the enrollment growth stated in our projections.

Source: Maguire Associates analysis based on room utilization data provided by CSCU, faculty counts from IPEDS, and faculty teaching loads from collective bargaining agreements.

To implement these recommendations to realize CSCU’s potential, institutions will need to work together and develop effective project management capabilities.

36


Student Recruitment

Student Success



1. Take a disciplined approach to communicate one system brand position and core messages.2. Facilitate the customization and use of positioning and messaging for each institution.3. Consider new name and new system logo.4. Create consistent visual identity and brand standards for all CSCU institutions.

5. Target traditional students with value messages tied to system positioning.6. Use Charter Oak as a recruitment vehicle to attract non-traditional students to the system.

7. Establish clear leadership for student success and distribute best practices across institutions.8. Consider “one-stop shop” approach and centralize components to benefit students.9. Continue work to improve articulation agreements to bolster intra-system transfer.

10.Maintain low tuition increases to fulfill mission of accessibility and affordability.11.Perform targeted experimentation with pricing strategies.12. Expand Charter Oak’s reach and leverage online education as growth platform for CSCU.

13.Consider centralizing and outsourcing of shared administrative services.14.Streamline student information systems and consider using system-wide CRM platform.15. Standardize enrollment management functions across institutions.

Final Steps to Complete This Project

• June 18th presentation to Board of Regents

• July 11th meeting with IRC in Hartford to review projections

• Branding statement training for institutions (TBD – July)

• Final hand-off of documents to CSCU system team in Hartford

37

Date post:	17-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongkhuong
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN - Connecticut State … · Our goal was to focus on enrollment...

Documents