Using RCM and Scorecards to Drive Enrollment Management. Ron Nowaczyk Paul Bylaska AACRAO Fall 2012

Transcription

1 Using RCM and Scorecards to Drive Enrollment Management Ron Nowaczyk Paul Bylaska AACRAO Fall 2012

2 Overview 1. Context 2. Outline of the Process 3. Example Scorecard 4. The Outcomes 5. Some Concluding ObservaPons

3 Clarion University Public InsPtuPon in Rural Western PA Part of the PA State System of Higher EducaPon Student PopulaPon of 7000 students Four Colleges Historic Mission was Teacher Ed. New President in 2010 & New Provost in 2011 Declining State Support Upcoming Year = 24%

4 Clarion University Adopted Responsibility- Centered Management in Budget Cuts could no longer be across the board. Heavily unionized campus

5 Outline of the Process Fall 2011 Future budget cuts from state likely RCM in its first semester of implementapon President states need to evaluate all programs Academic Degree programs (not minors or cerpficates) Infrastructure Dickeson (2010) model used to guide process Data support team formed

6 RCM Development Fall 2011 Common Cost AccounPng Report (CCAR) Not enough detail Not well understood Would not support decision- making Built on decentralized budget model West Chester Approach Start with summer model (as test case) Expand out to academic year Net revenue based on marginal revenue - cost

7 RCM Development Fall 2011 Kutztown Approach Calculated Average cost / student- credit- hour PosiPve or negapve variance from average Credits and cost at individual faculty level Very data intensive Could we support this? (Not with our staff)

8 Kutztown Course Analysis

9 Kutztown Faculty Assessment

10 Clarion RCM Fall 2011 BRIC (Budget Review & ImplementaPon) RepresenPng cross- secpon of university Advisory to RC Managers Group Produced RC Manual for inipal guidance In pracpce some recommendapons were too complex/pme consuming to implement Infrastructure assessment average cost

11 IniPal Clarion RC Model

12 Outline of the Scorecard Process Spring 2012 Academic Program Scorecards Evolve Possible Academic Variables Shared with Faculty Admissions Data # of Majors RetenPon and GraduaPon Data Financial Data by Academic Department Employment Data Collected

13 The Scorecard Process Spring 2012 Several versions of data scorecard are circulated in mid- semester. Based on feedback, the final scorecard evolves. By end of April, academic scorecards are distributed to faculty and posted on university intranet. Scorecard Review Taskforces are formed.

14 Example Scorecard - Academic Program Recruitment Student Demand- Internal Prepare dness Enrollment Strength Persistence (10F to 11F Rate) Majors Program ComplePon Within Major At University Academic Plan DescripPon Applied Accpt Matric w/in Major Matric at Univer sity Yield RaPo First Enrolled Sum11/ F11 HS GPA SAT Within Comb. Major At Univ. F11 Enroll F05 Enroll Bachelor 4 yrs/ Master&Ass ociate 2 years Bachelor 6 yrs/ Master&A ssociate 4 years BA XXXX XXXX BA % % 82% % 63% 68% 60% 72% 79% BS LS Liberal Studies BS % % 60% % 61% 62% 59% 71% 72% BS LS EDU BS LS ELS MN ANC MED MN HBS Liberal Studies: EducaPon BS % % 86% 86% 100% 100% 100% Liberal Studies: Ed/ Lib Sci BS % 9 Minor Ancient Mediterranean % 25% 25% 50% 50% 50% Minor XXXX: Black Studies % 33% 33% 33% 67% 67% MN XXXX Minor XXXX % 100% % 62% 62% 73% 76% 76% Complet ed by Dec 2011 Bachelo r 4 yrs/ Master &Associ ate 2 years Bachelo r 6 yrs/ Master &Associ ate 4 years Complet ed by Dec 2011

15 Example Scorecard - Financial Financial FY12 Total Fall 2011 & Spring 2012 Winter 2011 Summer 2011 Calcula9on or Source (A) Total Dept Direct Costs: $ 827,538 $ 772,963 $ 22,920 $ 31,655 (B) Other InstrucPonal Costs: $ 42,581 $ 42,581 $ - $ - Dept SAP Fund Center figures (personnel and operapng) actuals as of , plus projecpon through end of fiscal year. Summer & winter marginal costs only College costs not part of dept budgets (distributed by credit producpon) (C)Total Undergraduate Crs 6,255 5, Revenue CalculaPon Spreadsheets (D) Total Graduate Crs Revenue CalculaPon Spreadsheets (E) Course Rev- - including tuipon, ISF and approp $ 2,234,529 $ 2,093,461 $ 65,447 $ 75,621 Revenue CalculaPon Spreadsheets (F) Indirect Costs % of Course Rev $ 1,128,437 $ 1,057,198 $ 33,051 $ 38,189 F = E * 50.5% (G) Net Profit or Loss $ 235,973 $ 220,719 $ 9,477 $ 5,778 G = E - A - B - F (H) Student FTE - Undergrad 197 H = C/30 (I) Student FTE - Grad - I = D/24 (J) Total Dept Direct Cost/FTE $ 3,928 J = A/(H+I)

16 Example Scorecard OccupaPonal PA CIP- SOC Crosswalk (added from Na$onal Crosswalk in italics) HPO PA Regional Wage & Employm ent PA Wage & Employment Na9onal Employ ment CIP Code CIP Title XX.0101 XXXX BA (BA HIST) SOC Code SOC Title Educ Level PA 2011 Pirsburg h MSA Median Wage 2011 Pirsburg h MSA Total Annual Openings Pirsburgh MSA % Change Employme nt Far Western Nonmetr o Area Median Wage 2011 PA Median Annual Wage 2011 Avg Annual Opening s % Change Employ ment NaPonal Median Wage 2011 % Change Employ ment XX.0101 XXXX, General Managers, All Other 96, ,160 99, , XX.0101 XXXX, General XXXians MD , , XX.0101 XXXX, General XXXX Teachers, Postsecondary 82, ,860 75, ,860 XX.0101 XXXX, General. Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical EducaIon 56, ,320 56, , XX.0101 XXXX, General Archivists MD 32, , , Liberal Studies BS (BS LS), Liberal Studies: EducaPon BS (BS LS EDU), Liberal Studies: Ed/Lib Sci BS (BS LS ELS) Liberal Arts & Sciences/Liberal Studies Postsecondary Teachers, All Other PhD 103, , ,310

17 Program Review Taskforce ComposiPon Collegiate Deans Faculty RepresentaPon Staff RepresentaPon Dean of Libraries Charge Act like University Trustees IdenPfy CriPcal Criteria Sort Programs into QuinPles

18 Outcomes Taskforce DeliberaPons Reduced set of Academic Criteria QuinPle Rankings Released in early June Summer Progress Mandatory Review of 4 th and 5 th QuinPle Programs Voluntary Review of 1 st to 3 rd QuinPle Programs Performance Targets & Plans required by fall 2012

19 ObservaPons - Overall Faculty and staff took process seriously. In many instances, this was first Pme faculty had seen data on many of the variables by program. Departments challenged data accuracy. Linking departmental financial data with program costs not easy. We need more work on employment data.

20 Recruitment: ObservaPons Enrollment Management Faculty understanding of accepted, deposited, yield and matriculated. Request to get data earlier from admissions and be more acpvely involved in recruitment Persistence: Immediate arenpon on first- year factors: Student preparedness Financial concerns

21 GraduaPon ObservaPons Enrollment Management Change in major fata Progress toward degree and years to graduate RC (budgetary) implicapons

22 Moving Forward The process will be refined and repeated. ConsideraPon of data variables. We need to move the summer acpvipes into the spring semester for greater faculty involvement and acceptance. Faculty need to see changes and trends. Process to be used for program improvement resource reallocapon.

23 Contact InformaPon Ron Nowaczyk Paul Bylaska