1. SEM Summit ‘09 Framing Our Discussions: Partnering to Harmonize Enrolment Management Susan Gottheil, Mount Royal College Clayton Smith, University of Windsor 1 © Gottheil/Smith

2. SEM Summit ‘09 2 © Gottheil/Smith Topics  Welcome  Introductions  Setting the tone  A bit about SEM  Importance of partnering

3. SEM Summit ‘09 Setting the Tone  Our unique discussion style The discussion leader will take 10-20 minutes or so to frame the issue This will be followed by a facilitated discussion of the topic  Notes will be taken, with a summary placed to our web site (www.uwindsor.ca/sem) at the conclusion of the Summitwww.uwindsor.ca/sem 3 © Gottheil/Smith

4. SEM Summit ‘09 Setting the Tone (Cont’d)  A written compilation of our thoughts will be developed, which will create a jumping off place for further Canadian SEM discussions  Lots of great discussion, opportunities for networking: The SEM Summit Way! 4 © Gottheil/Smith

5. SEM Summit ‘09 First, A bit About SEM… 5 © Gottheil/Smith

6. SEM Summit ‘09 Definition of SEM Strategic enrollment management (SEM) is a concept and process that enables the fulfillment of institutional mission and students’ educational goals. -Bontrager, 2009 6 © Gottheil/Smith

7. SEM Summit ‘09 7 © Gottheil/Smith The Purposes of SEM are Achieved by…  Establishing clear goals for the number and types of students needed to fulfill the institutional mission  Promoting students’ academic success by improving access, transition, persistence, and graduation  Promoting institutional success by enabling effective strategic and financial planning

8. SEM Summit ‘09 8 © Gottheil/Smith The Purposes of SEM are Achieved by…  Creating a data-rich environment to inform decisions and evaluate strategies  Improving process, organizational and financial efficiency and outcomes  Strengthening communications and marketing with internal and external stakeholders  Increasing collaboration among departments across the campus to support the enrolment program

9. SEM Summit ‘09 Some Core SEM Concepts… 9 © Gottheil/Smith

10. SEM Summit ‘09 10 © Gottheil/Smith The Concept of Optimum Enrolment Physical Capacity Undergrad/ Grad International Program Capacity Special Skills Academic Profiles Majors Ethnicity Institutional Mission

11. SEM Summit ‘09 11 © Gottheil/Smith

12. SEM Summit ‘09 12 © Gottheil/Smith Institutional Mission & Enrolment Goals Are Determined By: Programs offered Historical status Niche Weaknesses Strengths Range of influence Aspirational status Current competitive status …with consideration to institutional differentiation!

13. SEM Summit ‘09 13 © Gottheil/Smith  Traditional Enrollment Perspective Recruitment/ Marketing Admission Orientation Co-curricular Support Academic Support Retention Financial Support Classroom Experience The Student Success Continuum Student’s College Career Attain Degree/Goal

14. SEM Summit ‘09 14 © Gottheil/Smith  The SEM Perspective Recruitment/ Marketing Admission Orientation Co-curricular Support Academic Support Retention Financial Support Classroom Experience The Student Success Continuum Student’s College Career Attain Degree/Goal

15. SEM Summit ‘09 15 © Gottheil/Smith Starting point for long term success SEM Planning Model Typical starting point Meeting Goals Tactics Strategies DATA Clear Mission and Goals Enrollment Infrastructure Structure, Staffing, Skills, Systems, Service

16. SEM Summit ‘09 16 © Gottheil/Smith The Enrolment Funnel is Different for Different Students Student Type: New Immigrants International Students First Generation Students Rural Students Francophone Students Students with Disabilities Dislocated Workers Sole Support Mothers Low-income Students Minority Students High-Achieving Students

17. SEM Summit ‘09 17 © Gottheil/Smith A Few Ways to Look at SEM

18. SEM Summit ‘09 18 © Gottheil/Smith Gov’t Grants & External Funding “Capacity Development Loop”“Delivery Loop” Demand for Programs & Courses + + Student Retention + Programs & Courses Completed + - Reasons For Not Continuing + + Students Graduated, Transferred, Hired + + Gov’t Approval For Credit Programs = Programs & Courses Offered + = + Tuition & Other Sources Of Revenue + + Courses Enrolled Student Attrition + = Programs & Courses Developed & Approved + + + = Courses Taught + or - -Seto, 2008

19. SEM Summit ‘09 19 © Gottheil/Smith Enrolment Management System Institutional Goals Environmental Factors Student Characteristics Institutional Objectives Institutional Strategies Desired Outcomes Enduring Effect Enduring Behaviour Member of underserved student group Beliefs & values Academic preparation Motivation to learn Educational aspirations Self-discipline Adaptability Interpersonal skills Peer involvement Ability to pay Study habits Family & peer Support Student enrolment behaviour Demographic trends Competition Public Accountability (loan default rate, graduation, Accessibility, retention) Student geographic draw Economic Trends Off-campus employment availability Federal & provincial polices Quantitative Goals Qualitative Goals Diversity Goals Persistence Goals Capacity Goals Net Revenue Goals Student headcount Admission average Transfer GPA Visible minorities, Aboriginal, international Retention rates, Student Satisfaction, graduation rates Classroom capacity, adequate sections, Class size Financial aid discount rate, international enrolment Marketing Recruitment Admission Financial aid/pricing Orientation Residence Athletics First Year Experience Advising Supplemental instruction Service learning Learning communities Academic support Peer support Teaching & learning approaches Student engagement SEM organization Data mining Awareness Interest Commitment Enrolment Persistence Satisfaction Education Relationship Institutional Loyalty Institutional Image Adapted from: Kuh et al, 2007; Black, 2003

20. SEM Summit ‘09 20 © Gottheil/Smith

21. SEM Summit ‘09 21 © Gottheil/Smith Major SEM Components  Accessibility  Accountability  Admission Policies  Financial Aid  Geographic Draw  Enrolment Marketing  Organization  Planning  Recruitment  Retention

22. SEM Summit ‘09 22 © Gottheil/Smith SEM Started in the U.S.  Started in the late 1970’s at Boston College As a result of declining traditional student enrolments  Early focus on attracting new students (e.g., returning adults, women, minorities, low- income)  Expanded to all types of PSE institutions (e.g., public, private, 2-year, 4-year, grad)

23. SEM Summit ‘09 23 © Gottheil/Smith SEM Started in the U.S. (Cont’d)  Grew to include student success First-Year Experience programs Increased levels of student engagement  Increasing emphasis on connecting with institutional financial management  Now the concern of the senior leadership team – presidents, provost, deans

24. SEM Summit ‘09 24 © Gottheil/Smith Emergence of SEM in Canada  Slower emergence of SEM in Canada  Driven by funding cuts, lack of revenue, heavier reliance on tuition, changing demographics  Many Canadian institutions have now adopted SEM in name, practice or both We’re attending webinars, workshops & conferences Some of us are working with consultants

25. SEM Summit ‘09 Importance of Partnering… 25

26. SEM Summit ‘09 What SEM factors are most associated with institutions successfully reaching their enrolment goals? 26 © Gottheil/Smith

27. SEM Summit ‘09 Assessment Comprehen- siveness Definitions/ Classifications DocumentationEvaluation Key Performance Indicators Leadership Participation/ Integration ResourcesStrategiesSystemsTiming

28. SEM Summit ‘09 Methodology  Mail survey sent to enrolment managers at 500 two- and four-year (public and private) undergraduate institutions, with the following response rates: 4-year public: 53% 4-year private: 53% 2-year public: 55% 2-year private: 49%  Multiple regression techniques were used to determine the relationship between the 12 individual enrolment management factors (identified by Dolence) and enrolment manager perceptions of enrolment performance (recruitment/retention)  An analysis was conducted for each of the 4 institutional stratifications 28 © Gottheil/Smith

29. SEM Summit ‘09 VariableChange in R Squared Significant at the 0.05 level Assessment0.011* Comprehensiveness0.003 Definitions/Classifications0.029 Documentation0.000 Evaluation0.004* Key Performance Indicators0.019 Leadership0.007 Participation & Integration0.417* Resources0.009 Strategies0.093* Systems0.003 Timing0.058* 29 © Gottheil/Smith Four-Year Public Institutions

30. SEM Summit ‘09 VariableChange in R Squared Significant at the 0.05 level Assessment0.009 Comprehensiveness0.024 Definitions/Classifications0.001 Documentation0.007 Evaluation0.082 Key Performance Indicators0.053 Leadership0.042 Participation & Integration0.135 Resources-0.022 Strategies-0.036 Systems0.018 Timing0.022 30 © Gottheil/Smith Four-Year Private Institutions

31. SEM Summit ‘09 VariableChange in R Squared Significant at the 0.05 level Assessment0.064 Comprehensiveness0.011 Definitions/Classifications0.004* Documentation0.006 Evaluation0.013 Key Performance Indicators0.029* Leadership0.005 Participation & Integration0.312* Resources0.061 Strategies0.025 Systems0.115* Timing0.049 31 © Gottheil/Smith Two-Year Public Institutions

32. SEM Summit ‘09 VariableChange in R Squared Significant at the 0.05 level Assessment0.072* Comprehensiveness0.027 Definitions/Classifications0.001 Documentation0.003 Evaluation0.041 Key Performance Indicators0.004 Leadership0.000 Participation & Integration-0.082 Resources0.000 Strategies0.076 Systems0.004 Timing0.002 32 © Gottheil/Smith Two-Year Private Institutions

33. SEM Summit ‘09 33 © Gottheil/Smith Participation & integration is the most important factor at both 4-year and 2-year public institutions in sustaining long-term SEM success. -Smith, 1997

34. SEM Summit ‘09 34 © Gottheil/Smith What is Participation & Integration?  Participation of senior administration, academic governance, academic administration, faculty and the persons responsible for strategy and tactic implementation  In short, both vertical and horizontal involvement in SEM

35. SEM Summit ‘09 …but what is the relationship between enrolment management effectiveness (all factors combined) and enrolment performance? 35 © Gottheil/Smith

36. SEM Summit ‘09 Perception of Enrolment Management Effectiveness Varies by Institutional Type  From highest to lowest: Two-year Private Four-year Private Two-year Public Four-year Public 36 © Gottheil/Smith More developed at private institutions

37. SEM Summit ‘09 Perception of Enrolment Management Performance Varies by Institutional Type  From highest to lowest: Four-year Public Four-year Private Two-year Private Two-Year Public 37 © Gottheil/Smith …However, the difference between four-year and two-year institutions is relatively small

38. SEM Summit ‘09 There is a relatively small difference in the proportion of variability in the dependent variable, perceptions of enrolment performance, explained by variability in the independent variable, perceptions of enrolment effectiveness, within the institutional groups 38 © Gottheil/Smith

39. SEM Summit ‘09 R Squared Values by Institutional Grouping 39 © Gottheil/Smith Institutional TypeChange in R Squared Significant at the 0.05 level 2-year Public0.000 2-year Private0.056 4-year Public0.014 4-year Private0.014

40. SEM Summit ‘09 It is possible that:  Variability in enrolment performance attributed to variability in enrolment management effectiveness is less than what the SEM literature revealed  Dolence’s 12-factor model does not include all the factors that relate to variability in institutional enrolment performance  The research methods used in this study were inadequate in detecting either enrolment performance or enrolment management effectiveness 40 © Gottheil/Smith

41. SEM Summit ‘09 Some Collaboration is Common  High levels of collaboration generally exist between academic and student affairs activities related to counselling, first-year experience programs, orientation and recruitment -Kezaar, Hirsh & Burak (2002) 41 © Gottheil/Smith

42. SEM Summit ‘09 However…  Many institutions mistake a series of joint events for true collaboration  To truly be competitive and to meet the rigors of accountability, institutions must go beyond activities and embrace collaborative dialogue 42 © Gottheil/Smith

43. SEM Summit ‘09 It is time for academic and student affairs professionals alike to realize that it is only through the breaking down of current barriers— real and perceived—that institutions will achieve the outcomes they seek. Through strategic collaboration, both segments…can develop and implement programs and processes that add value and benefit students 43 © Gottheil/Smith -Newton & Smith, 2009

44. SEM Summit ‘09 Collaborative Dialogue Requires Partnerships with…  Senior Management  Deans, Associate Deans, Dept Heads  Student Affairs  Institutional Research/Analysis  Finance/Budget  Marketing/PR/Communication 44 © Gottheil/Smith

45. SEM Summit ‘09 “What is needed is an adjustment in the lens with which enrollment professionals view (S)EM as a quintessentially academic enterprise.” 45 © Gottheil/Smith -Henderson, 2005

46. SEM Summit ‘09 Guiding Principles – SEM Ethos  A shared responsibility  Integrated institutional planning  A focus on service  Accountability  Research & evaluation  For the long haul 46 © Gottheil/Smith

47. SEM Summit ‘09 Questions & Comments 47