enrollment management plan - connecticut state … · our goal was to focus on enrollment...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Assert a CSCU brand position.
• 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
Marketing and Communications
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
Marketing and Communications
Positioning Choice: Compete and succeed.
11
Marketing and Communications
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
Assert a CSCU brand position.
• 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
Marketing and Communications
Assert a CSCU brand position.
• 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
Marketing and Communications
Facilitate use of positioning among the institutions.
14
Marketing and Communications
• 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
Marketing and Communications
• 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
Marketing and Communications
• 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
Value and Online Learning
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
Value and Online Learning
• 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
Student-Centric Services
• 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
Student-Centric Services
• 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:
Full-time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Part-time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Adults Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Student-aged Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
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%
Metric Value Start Complete
For Core AND Secondary Markets:
Full-time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Part-time Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
First Time Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Transfer Share Change 0% 2014 2023
For Core Market:
Adults Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Student-aged Market Share Change 20% 2014 2023
For Secondary Market
Adults Market Share Change 0% 2014 2023
Student-aged Market Share Change 20% 2014 2023
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
Metric Value Start Complete
% 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
Scenario Projections: Enrollment Growth Rates
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
Scenario Projections: Enrollment Growth Rates
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%
Universities Community
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
$1,800,000
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
Rev
enu
e ($
10
00
s)
Baseline Projections: Total Revenue
Grand Total Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak
$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)
Grand Total Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak
$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)
Grand Total Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak
$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
$140,000
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024
Rev
enu
e ($
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)
Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak Grand Total
$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)
Community Colleges State Universities Charter Oak Grand Total
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
Scenario Projections: Revenue Growth Rates
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
Scenario Projections: Revenue Growth Rates
Charter Oak
48.5% 53.4%
198.9%
52.4%
Universities Community
Colleges
Charter Oak Grand Total
Scenario Projections: 10-Year Revenue Growth (2014-2023)
39.0%
44.9%
31.9%
41.2%
Universities Community
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
Marketing and Communications
Student Recruitment
Student Success
Value and Online Learning
Student-Centric Services
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