Presentation Title | May 4, 2009
Predicting the Need for Academic Support Services
Academic Enrollment Planning Subcommittee
Joan Becker, Vice Provost for Academic Support Services
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Focus and Developing Metrics
▸ Focused on estimating the increases in academic advising, tutoring/academic support, career services, disability services, and library resources and services needed to serve an additional 749 students.
▸ Where available, used national benchmarks—National Academic Advising Association’s (NACADA); National Association of Colleges and Employers—to assess gaps in services or compared to peer institutions.
▸ Where not, used trend and cost per student/contact hour data to predict the increase in the need for service.
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Academic Advising
▸ Focused on the University Advising Center—responsible for undeclared advising in CLA, CSM, and CM
▸ Metric: Student Caseloads
▸ Used the National Academic Advising Association’s (NACADA) average caseload of 300 students per professional advisor as the benchmark
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Academic Advising
Advisor to Student Caseloads
Number
Undeclared Non-
Degree Total
Number of FTE
Advisors Caseload
Fall 2005 2,207 2,207 7 315
Fall 2006 2,500 2,500 7 357
Fall 2007 2,705 2,705 7 386
Fall 2008 2,762 914 3,676 7.5 490
Fall 2009 2,651 911 3,562 10 356
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Advising Contacts
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Walk-in advising sessions Advising sessions by appointment
Students advised via First Year Seminars Students advised at Orientation
Total Student Contacts
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Academic Advising▸ FY 10 Investments in the UAC: 2.5 advisors (1 growth; 1
advising pool; .5 international re-organization)▸ FY 10 Investments in CLA and CSM: 2 advisors CLA and 1
CSM (advising pool)
▸ Issues not addressed by the Growth Committee▸ Is 300 to 1 the right caseload benchmark? It’s the
average; NACADA recommends lower loads for special populations.
▸ Major and college-based advising.▸ Space
▸ UAC: inadequate waiting space at peak times; have run out of office space, unable to accommodate future growth.
▸ No or inadequate space for college-based advisors.
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Tutoring▸ Tutorial programs include:
▸ Subject Tutoring▸ Math Resource Center▸ Reading, Writing, and Study Strategies Center▸ ESL Center▸ Graduate Writing Center
▸ Individual and group tutoring; workshops▸ Metric: looked at the number and percentage of
students served and contact hours over time to determine average percentage of students served, cost per student, and average cost per contact hour.
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Undergraduate Tutoring
Tutoring Contact Hours
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
Total Individual Tutorials
Small Group Tutoring Tutor Led Workshops
Number of Students Tutored
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
Totals Individual Tutorials
Small Group Tutoring Tutor Led Workshops
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Trends in Undergraduate Tutoring FY06-FY09
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY 09
Undergrad HC 8,958 9,246 10,008 10,478
# Tutored 2,204 2,476 2,991 2,983
% Tutored 25% 27% 30% 28%
Contact Hours 5,804 6,878 9,300 9,681
Average Contact Hours/Student
2.63 2.78 3.11 3.25
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Graduate Student Tutoring
Trends in Graduate Writing Center Usage
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
Graduate HC 2,904 3,116 3,425 3,639
# Tutored 57 75 82 87
% Tutored 2% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40%
Contact Hours 247 306 325 346
Contact Hours/Student
4.33 4.08 3.96 3.96
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Tutoring
▸ FY 10 Investments: $68,000 increase
▸ Issues not addressed by the Growth Committee▸ Are we using the right mix of delivery modes
—individual, small group, workshops, supplemental instruction?
▸ Do students have access to enough tutoring? Current policy for one on one subject tutoring is one hour per week per course.
▸ Space: atrium tutoring area is becoming too busy and too noisy.
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Making progress, but not meeting demand or need
Percent Requested but not Served
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Subject Tutoring Math ResourceCenter
Reading, Writing,and Study
Strategies Center
Graduate WritingCenter
Total
Fall 2008 Fall 2009
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Disability Services▸ Metric: determined the number and percentage of
students served 2006-09; then calculated the average percentage served and average cost per student.
Students Served and Cost/Student FY 06-09
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
# Served by RCDS Per Student Cost
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Disability Services
▸ Accurately projecting costs is very difficult.▸ Number of students registering with the Ross Center
fluctuates▸ Number and kinds of courses (lecture, seminar,
clinical, practicum) each student takes fluctuates ▸ The kinds of accommodations needed and cost per
student varies widely—for example, in FY 09, the average per student cost for testing accommodations (test proctoring) was $112 per student; for interpreting for students with hearing impairments it was $14,316 per student.
▸ FY 10 Investments: $68,000 increase
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Career Services
▸ Metric: compared staffing and operational expenses in relation to National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) benchmarks.
Staffing and Operational Budget Comparisons
NACE Benchmark
UMB 2008-09
UMB 2009-10
Needed
FTE Professional Staff 7.6 5 7 0.6
FTE Support Staff 6.7 3 3 3.7
Total FTE Staff 14.3 8 10 4.3
Operational Budget $110,880 $30,750 $30,750 $80,130
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Career Services
▸ Career Services has been under-funded for many years and the addition of more students exacerbates this problem. However, the Growth Committee as unable to directly link the situation in Career Services to new student growth and recommended that attention be paid to these needs in the regular budgeting process.
▸ FY 10 Investments: 2 career specialists (advising pool)
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Library Services▸ Metric: compare expenditures per FTE and
staffing patterns to peer institutions
▸ UMB expenditures per FTE are well below those of our peers.
Institution Educause DataIPEDS Library Expenditures
FTE Educause $/ FTE
University of Louisville $18,493,614 16,682 $1,109
Univ. Maryland Baltimore Co. $7,000,271 9,794 $715
Univ. of Missouri Kansas City $7,349,504 10,283 $715
Cleveland State University $6,324,986 10,536 $600
UMass Lowell $4,599,837 8,182 $562
University of Memphis $7,912,372 16,091 $492
UMass Boston $3,557,001 8,582 $414
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
UMB student to reference librarian ratios are higher than those of peers.
Comparison of FTE Reference Librarians UMB and Selected Peer Institutions
UMB Peer Institution FTE 2007# of
Librarians RATIO
University of Memphis 16,091 6 2,682
UMass Boston 8,582 4 2,146
Univ. of Maryland Baltimore Co. 9,794 6 1,632
University of Louisville 16,682 7 1,192
Univ. of Missouri Kansas City 10,283 10 1,028
Average 12,286 7 1,736
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Library Services
▸ Like Career Services, the library is an area that has been under-funded for some time and the addition of more students exacerbates this already existing problem.
▸ Growth Committee recommended that attention be paid to these needs in the regular budgeting process.
▸ No new funds allocated to address these issues—new funds were allocated to offset increases in the cost of library materials.
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
General Education
▸ Need to assess the impact of growth on ▸ Availability of courses to meet
requirements—ENG 101/102, FYS/IS, quantitative reasoning, diversity, distribution
▸ Writing Proficiency Requirement▸ Requests for waivers of requirements▸ Number of students not making academic
progress
Academic Support Services | March 18, 2010
Strategic Questions▸ Are we working as “smartly” as we can? What are the best
ways to use technology to better manage service delivery and to more pro-actively communicate with students? What are the costs and benefits?
▸ The number of students taking all their courses on-line is increasing. Currently, very few academic support services are available on-line. What are the most effective ways to deliver these services on-line? What are the costs associated with development and implementation?
▸ What impact will Mass Transfer have on the extent to which transfer students will need general education courses? For students who bring in the transfer block, what will the impact be on their ability to meet the WPR?