• A two-year U.S. institution
• A four-year U.S. institution
• A Canadian institution

The SAE program aims to provide formal recognition to exemplary SEM professionals, establish benchmarks and models for SEM practice, promote the core values of student access and success within SEM, and contribute to the ongoing development of the SEM profession. Each SAE recipient will receive a plaque and a $1,000 cash award at AACRAO’s Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM XIX) Conference.

For more information and details regarding the SAE Award, please visit www.aacrao.org/sem19/award.htm.

There is little doubt about it: Colleges and universities are reluctant to change. They are large and diffuse organizations with few clear lines of control. Yet the external environment in which colleges and universities operate is changing quickly. The U. S. higher education community is experiencing the most dramatic shifts in student demographics since the post–World War II era (WICHE 2003). States and other organizations are conducting new external evaluations to justify lower amounts of public fiscal support. Public expectations for a wide variety of high-quality student services are rapidly increasing. These changes make it essential for institutions to implement at least some aspects of strategic enrollment management (SEM) in order to develop greater institution-wide understanding of how to best respond to emerging student trends, needs, and markets. As a growing number of institutions encounter this reality, many find themselves grappling with a fundamental question: What is an effective, sustainable approach to implementing SEM that is likely to be embraced by the entire campus? The complexity of the current environment as well as most administrative structures has fostered an expectation that environmental scans, assessment of strategic needs, development of marketing plans, and other core planning activities are often best accomplished by outside professionals and consultants. Over the past two decades, many institutional leaders have come to highly value the professional SEM consulting field. Demand for help in responding to changing markets and in revising institutional expectations has driven the rapid growth of the support industry. A June 2007 compilation of higher education consultants listed approximately 200 consultants with focuses in 50 different categories (University Business 2007); more than 130 firms were noted for their abilities to assist universities with implementing SEM in terms of change management, marketing, diversity, financial aid, distance education, student market research, strategy, planning and/or communications. Why must institutions look externally for assistance with these critical institutional needs?

This white paper presents a performance concept of the “in-house consultant” model (IHC) as a means to better position the chief enrollment officer and SEM units as a campus-wide support team focused on helping most campus units achieve and sustain core institutional strategic initiatives. Fundamentally embracing the IHC conceptual metaphor would address the mind and skill sets required by enrollment management professionals to help their institutions operate in a more efficient and proactive manner.

BENEFITS OF CONSULTANTS
The scope of an external consultant’s stature has significantly expanded in our era of high-tech, enterprise-planning workplaces. These temporary, expert employees are expected to provide a client with objective advice and assistance relating to the strategy, structure, management and operations of an organization in pursuit of its long-term purposes and objectives. Such assistance may include the identification of options with recommendations, the provision of an additional resource, and/or the implementation of solutions (Institute of Management Consultancy 2002).

Whereas an institution may find it exhilarating to utilize the resources and knowledge of a field expert, it also may feel frustrated by the loss of energy and competence when a consultant concludes his/her project. Many people are familiar with the scenario: a problem is identified; a consultant is hired; a plan is written; and then the institution is let to develop the structure to implement and sustain the new plan.

This is not to argue that external consultants are either superfluous or ineffective at addressing detailed problems. There is a time and place for colleges and universities to seek outside help. External perspectives are often needed to help institutions reorient or break through bureaucratic obstacles and bring valuable insights from a breadth of experiences. Many schools need a SEM “road map” that only an external agent can help construct. This is true particularly for schools with no prior SEM orientation as well as for institutions facing an emergency enrollment situation. A short-term contract with an experienced firm or individual can prove invaluable.

When a campus does employ the services of an external SEM consultant, the question may be asked, “Where do we go from here?” This scenario provides a “jumping-of point” that can be seized and embraced. By positioning a campus-based SEM professional as an in-house consultant, campus leaders can signal that they are serious about meeting the institution’s enrollment goals and they are willing to take the steps necessary to support a SEM-based organization.

Whether or not an institution starts with an external consultant, SEM professionals can be most effective if the campus community views them in a “consultant” or helping role rather than as just another administrator running a support unit.

THE ROLE OF SEM WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION: STANDARD PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS WITHOUT A STANDARD OPERATIONAL MODEL
There is no one-size-its-all, cookie-cutter approach to enrollment management, with higher education’s trademark of diversity of mission, purpose, size, and control (Kurz and Scannell 2006, p. 35).

The fundamentals of enrollment management focus on the use of research and cross-unit collaboration to drive student recruitment and retention activities. The best enrollment professionals use analytics and tactical skills to engage the entire campus community in knowledge and activities that spur student success and optimize institutional resources.

Many recent SEM papers provide tremendous insight into operational definitions, organizational models, assessment tools, functions, and tactics required of effective SEM organizations (e.g., Black 2003, Bontrager 2006, Henderson 2004, Hossler 2005, and Kalsbeek 2004). Because of the wide variety of colleges and universities and the environments in which they operate, these and many other authors have concluded that no standard model for SEM can exist, though standard expectations of SEM leaders do exist (Kurz and Scannell 2006).

The parallels between the desired qualifications of a SEM leader and a professional consultant are evident. A cursory content analysis of 200 recent job advertisements for enrollment executives further illustrates institutions’ desire to have enrollment management leaders with consultant-like skills and characteristics (Tuchtenhagen 2007). When aligning the desired qualifications and abilities of SEM leaders with Kibbe and Setterber’s (1992) primary skillsets of successful consultants in nonprofit organizations, the parallels in expectations of the positions are obvious (see Table C.1).

The IHC concept is not new, but seldom is publicly embraced by executive leaders, in spite of the previously noted similarities between consultants and SEM professionals. Michael Hovland’s (2006) “Experts Close to Home: How to Work Like a Consultant on Your Own Campus” presentation illustrated how many traditional consulting tactics can be applied systematically by SEM professionals. Jim Black’s SEM framework paper (2003) and SEM business practices workshop (2002) promote the use of such traditional consulting practices as using diagnostic tools, establishing staff technical competencies and training systems, and using key performance indicators (KPIs) for cross-campus data sharing and outcomes assessment.

Shifting a campus’s perception of SEM professional from “administrator” to “in-house consultant” can be a natural transition. Most SEM professionals already possess the expert knowledge expected of practitioners as well as the characteristics and skills common among successful consultants. The Institute of Management Consultancy’s model for professional managerial consultants further defines this professional role by outlining the professional behaviors of effective consultants (2002). Similar to the chief enrollment management officer advertisements, the Institute’s standard emphasizes that consultants must be individuals who regularly manage complexity and responsibility; seek personal growth; use analytical and proactive thinking; have strong interpersonal interactions; and have delivery effectiveness.

In fact, the number of professionals possessing the skills, knowledge, and leadership abilities to effectively create a SEM organization has increased; many of them now have full-time positions within institutions. These professionals draw on their extensive professional networks in order to aid their institutions. Yet many colleges and universities continue to believe that answers to their SEM problems are best found outside of the institution. The task of supporting the external consultant is often let to the very individuals who possess the training and capacity to write the plan but who are disregarded because of their position within the institution. Such a scenario can be changed.

EMBRACING CONSULTING EXPECTATIONS
Noting the similarities between external consultants and current expectations of SEM professionals is only one step in understanding the IHC approach. Creating the role of internal consultant is as much an understanding of needed knowledge and skills as it is an appreciation of how education systems operate and of the role of SEM within those systems. This section seeks to reframe how colleges and universities operate by recasting the way in which campus constituencies view SEM and its leaders.

Over the past two decades, several preeminent SEM thinkers have elaborated on the role and structure of SEM organizations. Hossler (1986), Dolence (1993), Henderson (2004), and Kalsbeek (2006) have discussed the appropriate administrative structures and the orientation of SEM. Both structure and orientation are important aspects of understanding and leading SEM units. The location of a unit in the overall structure can signify its importance and predetermine whose voice will be heard in institutional decision making. Further, philosophical orientation (e.g., administrative, student-focused, academic, or market-centered) can affect the ways in which SEM units operate and interact with other units in the organization (see Kalsbeek 2006). However, neither structure nor orientation fully optimizes the SEM units’ impact on the overall function of the university if the SEM processes and its leaders are not valued.

Universities are complex systems filled with multiple organizations and subsystems. To consider them single organizations that move with cohesion, grace, and unified vision would be inaccurate. In reality, departments and other entities operate as loosely coupled units: even though departments are interdependent, they retain a high level of independence due to their specialization (Weick 1976). When we recognize that universities operate as large systems comprising multiple organizations, the concept of an “internal” consultant who helps bind the institution together begins to make more sense.

Whether a consultant is viewed as “internal” or “external” is purely a matter of perspective. If we view the university as a collection of organizations and subsystems rather than as a singular organization, it quickly becomes apparent that the SEM professional can bring an “external” perspective to other units within the institution. Certainly, each interdependent unit possesses expertise that can be shared among all the units. But such sharing can prove difficult as one purpose of loosely coupled systems is to protect the core units (academic departments) and shield them from the influence of the environment as well as from the actions of other units. For example, changes in the math department typically have little impact on the biology department; similarly, adding student activities does not alter operations in the financial aid office. Simply stated, one unit’s ability to influence the rest of the units is structurally limited without collaboration (Birnbaum 1988). In contrast, management of student enrollments is one of the few functions that cuts across units at any college or university.

The academy has been highly successful in creating buffers to protect academic units from environmental forces. The problem is that the resulting isolation results in many units continuing to operate on outdated assumptions of past environmental conditions; the units have not kept pace with current realities, such as how to recruit and retain undergraduate students (Birnbaum 1988). Different ways of working within the existing structure can keep departments current in regard to changing student trends and can help them adjust their internal plans as needed.

CAN INTERNAL CONSULTANTS BE EFFECTIVE?
Though it is commonly assumed that external consultants are more effective than internal personnel at fostering change, research into organizational operations suggests that this is not necessarily the case. Kurz’s and Scannell (2006) reflection on SEM’s third decade of existence in higher education illustrates the need for successful SEM professionals to act as internal consultants. Kurz and Scannell and (2006) outline three primary contemporary SEM functions:

• Setting and establishing linkages, shared goals, improved communication, and synergy across all institutional units. Rather than functioning as stand-alone systems, unit objectives need to be tied directly to enterprise-wide goals.
• Using an analytical, empirical, data-driven approach to problem solving and decision making. Intuition is important but not sufficient. The “culture of evidence” is a cornerstone of effective enrollment management.
• Providing critical leadership. Enrollment management almost always means changes in structure, reporting lines, communication, goals, etc. The challenges and risks of change should never be underestimated. Effective enrollment leaders are willing to accept risks in areas where they see the need for change.

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), who have produced several seminal works in the field of organizational theory, discussed similar success traits in their discovery that internal consultants (or “interdepartmental” liaisons) were the most effective mechanisms for coordinating departments and resolving conflict in the business arena. The most successful of these individuals possessed four primary characteristics:

• Ability to bridge goals and build trust among different departments. SEM professionals need to understand and actively work to build relationships among administrative offices, academic units, student affairs departments, and so forth. These areas have different cultures. An effective internal consultant needs to be able to bring key stakeholders together.
• Respect earned through demonstration of an expert knowledge base. One of the primary arguments for having SEM professionals serve as internal consultants is that they possess technical competence that needs to be supported at the executive level and communicated throughout the system.
• Understanding and communicating institutional vision. Enrollments undergird the functions of the university. Without them, the institution would not exist. Those who work in SEM units are more attuned to campus-wide functions than those in other units and thus can more easily communicate the need to maximize the university’s overall performance.
• A high profile throughout the organization. An internal consultant does not deserve a high profile; rather, someone with a high profile is more prone than someone without such a profile to help an organization foster change. Execution of this concept is more in the hands of the president than in the SEM professional, but it does emphasize the importance of having strong support from central administration.

The research suggests that individuals who are familiar to the organization, who have intimate knowledge of the organization, and who are trusted by the organization and its members possess great capacity for initiating and sustaining change.

LONG-TERM BENEFITS
Fundamentally, the expectations and stronger working relationships that can result from the IHC model strengthen institutions’ long-term efforts to optimize resources and focus on successful and repeatable business practices. These include:

• Cost savings that result from acknowledging institutional competencies. External consultants can be expensive; depending on the complexity of the project, costs may range from $800 to $3,000 per day, not including travel expenses. Even the most narrowly defined consulting projects can cost in excess of $50,000.
• Greater organizational unity and engagement with regard to core business practices. In order to succeed with SEM, a focus on fundamentals—core business functions—is essential (Black 2002). Organizational complexity and narrow developmental budget margins create an opportunity for SEM to link campus-wide functions and bridge student service gaps. If accepted, the SEM process and consultant-like activities help bond the various leaders and units around a more centralized vision and around business activities. Stronger linkages and working relationships can help highly specialized departments identify the significance of their role in the institution’s progress and financial standing.
• Increased likelihood for sustainable change. External consultants have been criticized for not understanding the institutional culture — that is, the unique political and structural challenges that exist on any campus. The IHC model positions SEM professionals to use their institutional knowledge to better establish the linkages and trust needed to undergird a stronger and more coordinated strategic plan through regular communication and requests for unit input. In other words, the in-house consultant is expected to regularly “take the plan of the shelf ” and put it into action.

IMPLEMENTING THE IHC MODEL
The IHC approach must be more than a rhetorical strategy for heightening the SEM organizational culture: It should be a values-based training philosophy; an institutional expectation for collaboration; a push for heightened professionalism.

Typically, a professional consultant will provide change management solutions to a client. The following five-step platform can help an institution develop the IHC paradigm while implementing SEM principles for planning, training, and reporting activities.

Step 1: Establish a Vision
The first step in developing the IHC model is to define the conceptual role of SEM within the organization. We refer to the core concepts of SEM, not the office or unit (Bontrager 2004). SEM needs to be viewed as a system of institutional responsibilities that transcends divisional boundaries and other administrative silos. In fact, institutions should adopt a SEM-oriented, thematic goal which is “a single, qualitative focus that is shared by the entire leadership team—and ultimately, by the entire organization—and that applies for only a specified time period” (Lencioni 2006, p. 178). (In this context a thematic goal could include “improving the reputation of the institution” or “becoming the college of choice for students in the region or state” [Lencioni 2006, p. 178].) The thematic goal can help reorient the institution and help other units better understand the importance of the SEM unit. Typically this goal is part of the strategic plan (e.g., increasing, stabilizing, or diversifying the student enrollment). Ideally it reflects a meeting of the school’s capacity to serve with a descriptive vision of the type of students it seeks to educate. Whatever the goal, and however it is expressed, the president and the executive board should ensure that everyone within their divisions understands the concepts of SEM as well as SEM’s overall importance to the institution in achieving the initiative.

Step 2: Align Systems
A critical component of the IHC model is to reorient the ways in which SEM is integrated into an institution’s organizational structure. First, for SEM to work, a clear organizational structure with a champion for all core SEM functions (e.g., research, recruitment, and retention) must be designated. The existence of a clear and comprehensive enrollment management structure or administrative designation continues to be a problem on many campuses. While almost all U. S. institutions have appointed a recruitment officer (Noel Levitz 2007), as of 2004, more than 45 percent of four-year colleges and universities in the United States had not designated a formal retention officer (Habley and McClanahan 2004). There needs to be a formal clustering of units that link the research, recruitment, and retention functions of the institution. Once this is achieved, the chief enrollment officer and the SEM units can offer support through market-based knowledge and technical resources to assist all campus units in setting and achieving their enrollment-related objectives.

Second, the IHC model argues for frequent, regular meetings of the service directors and unit leaders who interact most often with students. Like the cross-unit “sharing meetings” that are called when an external consultant is hired, these regular meetings should include the managers of units responsible for admissions, advising, financial aid, student billing and collections, registration, student housing, food services, student activities, orientation, camps and pre-college programs, alumni, and career services. Appropriate faculty and student representatives must be involved. The SEM team should be encouraged to share unit issues and events and, more important, to discuss campus initiatives that might have an impact on students’ ability to remain and succeed at the institution. The team’s concerns and suggestions should be documented and shared with the president and executive leaders.

Step 3: Create and Execute Plans
It is important to create enrollment management plans centrally as well as at the unit level. Objectives should focus on core SEM measurements, such as establishing the institution’s student service volume and the subsequent admissions, student profile, and retention benchmarks. While academic departments likely will know their enrollments and credit-hour generation, it is unlikely that they understand how their enrollments evolve over students’ tenure in their programs. Such information can be important at the undergraduate as well as graduate levels in regard to optimizing course offerings and advising workloads. Using unit audits, the in-house consultant should work with the academic and student service departments to generate benchmarks and determine how best to track unit progress. To begin, the in-house consultant should determine a department’s capacity to serve students by evaluating measures such as teaching loads, class sizes, and service needs. At this point, he/she can — as appropriate — create a profile of students the department wants to attract, retain, and serve. Then the consultant should work with the department to create benchmarks and desired, measurable outcomes. The same types of research and planning exercises can be performed with most campus support units, including food service, billing and cashiers, counseling, career services, and student activity offices.

Step 4: Integrate the Vision
Successful implementation of the IHC model depends on the ability and training of the people employed to execute it. It is important for new hires to have a solid understanding of SEM, to be able to move easily among and to relate to different types of departmental cultures, and to understand and communicate institutional goals. Objectives, deliverables, and reporting activities need to be emphasized in all job descriptions and performance goals. Annual training plans should ensure regular exposure to happenings in specific fields through the sharing of articles and journal readings and the provision of opportunities to attend relevant professional conferences. General training should be based on consulting competency topics, such as effective student learning, analytical and budget skills, market analysis, strategic goal setting, systems management and plan development, and execution methods.

Step 5: Review the Process
In addition to creating the objectives and performance indicators for instituting the SEM vision, it is important to create a mechanism through which the SEM professional can report back to the broader collegiate community about the implementation of SEM initiatives and the market changes that may affect it.

A key deliverable for any consultant is a report and assessment of key performance indicators. (A thorough explanation and definition of SEM KPIs is provided in Dolence, Lujan and Rowley 1997). The fundamentals are growth by program, student profile and diversity, student retention and graduation rates, and preferred discount rates. Whatever the objectives, they need to be determined and embraced by the institution’s executive team. Once established, performance on each objective must be communicated through dashboard indicator reports distributed widely across campus. Data and data interpretation must be widely shared if the information is to be used in cross-campus decision making.

The IHC model encourages the preparation and dissemination of annual reports that include updated environmental scans, comparisons of enrollment performance with strategic plan goals and competitors’ performance levels, and student market assessments. Regularly scheduled events that include all internal stakeholders — such as a state of the university address or a mid-year luncheon — are logical times to review data and discuss the strategies for continual SEM improvement.

CONCLUSION
Not an argument against using external consultants and gaining from their valuable input, the foregoing discussion of an in-house consulting model has to do with establishing an ideal organizational position and performance model for SEM professionals. The IHC model promotes the idea of letting internal, experienced SEM practitioners develop institution-wide partnerships and plans to better ensure that the university lives up to its promises to students, families, faculty, and alumni. Fully embraced, the IHC model can play a uniting role for the typically isolated, silo-focused units of most campuses. The model represents an ideal for strategic levels of performance and professionalism. It can be used to build an organizational culture that better motivates staff and faculty collaboration, demonstrates a dedication to intelligent planning and strategy execution, promotes a stronger passion for academic and student success through shared governance, and embraces the regular use of solid analytical and data-driven skill sets to move an institution in the direction it has chosen.

REFERENCES
Birnbaum, R. 1988. How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Black, J. 2002. Excelling in the core business functions of strategic enrollment management. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL.

———. 2003. Deining enrollment management: The symbolic frame. Accessed September 28, 2007, at www .semworks.net/content/resources/jim_black_publications.php.

Bontrager, R. 2004. Strategic enrollment management: Core strategies and best practices. College and University Journal. 79(4): 9–15.

Dolence, M. G. 1993. A Primer for Campus Administrators. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Dolence, M. G., H. D. Lujan, and D. J. Rowley. 1997. Working Toward Strategic Change: A Step-by-Step Guide to the Planning Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Habley, W., and R. McClanahan. 2004. What Works in Student Retention–All Survey Colleges. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

Henderson, S. E. 2004. Refocusing enrollment management: losing structure and finding the academic context. Paper presented at the 14th Annual SEM Conference. Orlando, FL.

Hossler, D. 1986. Managing college enrollments. New Directions for Higher Education. No.53. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

———. 2005. Managing student retention: Is the glass half full, half empty, or simply empty? Paper presented at the 15th Annual SEM Conference. Chicago, IL.

Hovland, M. 2006. Experts close to home: how to work like a consultant on your own campus. Paper presented at the 2006 GACRAO Conference. Kennesaw, GA.

Institute of Management Consultancy. 2002. Introducing the new management consultancy framework. Accessed September 3, 2007, at http://www.imc.co.uk.

Kalsbeek, D. H. 2006. Some relections on SEM structures and strategies. College and University Journal. 81(3): 3–10.

Kibbe, B., and F. Setterberg. 1992. Succeeding with Consultants: Self-Assessment for the Changing Nonprofit. New York: The Foundation Center.

Kurz, K., and J. Scannell. 2006. Enrollment management grows up: Enrollment managers share their current approaches. University Business 5(5): 34–38. Norwalk, CT: Professional Media Group LLC test.

Lawrence, P. R., and J.W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard College.

Lencioni, P. 2006. Silos, Politics, and Turf Wars. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Noel Levitz, Inc. 2007. 2007 National Research Report-Student Recruitment Practices at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions. Coralville, IA: Author.

———. 2005. Recruitment Practices Survey. Coralville, IA: Author.

Tuchtenhagen, A. June 2007. Enrollment management position descriptions
2004–2007. Unpublished compilation. University of Wisconsin–River Falls.

University Business. June 2007. Consultants, dealers, services & products. Norwalk, CT: Professional Media Group LLC test.

Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational institutions as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21(1): 1–19.

WICHE. 2003. Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State, Income, and Race/Ethnicity, 1988 to 2018. Boulder, CO: Author.

About the Authors
Jay W. Goff is the Dean of Enrollment Management at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, formerly the University of Missouri – Rolla. With more than fifteen years experience in university enrollment and communication programs, Goff believes in building a team-oriented workplace and service driven success plans. His data-focused and student-centric approach has achieved record setting enrollments, retention and graduation rates.

Jason E. Lane is Assistant Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Administration and affiliate faculty member in the Rockefeller College’s Public Policy Program at the University at Albany, SUNY. Dr. Lane’s research agenda focuses on governance, politics, and organizational capacity building in the postsecondary sector.

This article originally appeared in College & University (Volume 83, No. 3 [2008]), and is being reproduced/distributed with the permission of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. © Copyright 2008.

• A two-year U.S. institution
• A four-year U.S. institution
• A Canadian institution

The SAE program aims to provide formal recognition to exemplary SEM professionals, establish benchmarks and models for SEM practice, promote the core values of student access and success within SEM, and contribute to the ongoing development of the SEM profession.

Each SAE recipient will receive a plaque and a $1,000 cash award at AACRAO’s Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) Conference.

For the past 18 years, AACRAO has sponsored the SEM Conference, the largest gathering of its kind. AACRAO is widely recognized as a leading provider of SEM content and programs. For more information regarding the award and learn about the criteria for entry, please visit www.aacrao.org/sem19/award.htm.

For more information on SEM services for your institution, please contact AACRAO Consulting at consulting@aacrao.org or (202) 355-1056.

THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
Any discussion of fundamental change in an institution’s concept of operations—such as change prompted by shared services delivery—must begin with a clear understanding of the environment within which that institution functions. Thus, our exploration of shared services in higher education, with particular focus on enrollment service functions, begins with a summary of relevant environmental factors.

Societal Factors
Here at the beginning of the twenty-first century, a number of trends are evident that relate generally to organizational effectiveness and specifically to the applicability of shared services in an enterprise’s concept of operations. These factors include:

• Globalization of organizations, processes, communications, and activities, which is having the effect of significantly widening the realm of potential customers, resource suppliers, and service providers for every enterprise. This has led increasingly to:
• Outsourcing of functions and activities not deemed core to the enterprise, with those functions most related to the organization’s core mission remaining internal;
• Customer-centricity as a primary organizational and operational principle, as reflected in the increased use of customer-focused performance measurement and reward systems and processes;
• The Age of the Internet as a primary communications, transactional, networking, marketing, and service delivery vehicle;
• Increased economic uncertainty as evidenced by fluctuating global financial markets, employment shifts, increased debt, uncertain currency valuations, deteriorating infrastructure, and dwindling energy resources;
• Chronic deficit spending by the U.S. government, which, as fixed-cost obligations become an ever-larger portion of government outlays, increasingly prompts hard choices between spending priorities; and
• State governments in a revenue/cost squeeze as a result of lower, recession-driven tax revenues while state services and their associated costs continue to increase.

Higher Education–Specific Factors
The above societal trends are having a significant impact on higher education, including:

• Pressures for cost containment, given increases in the cost of higher education that consistently and significantly exceed the rate of inflation;
• State higher education systems seeking to exert greater leverage on campus operations as a direct result of these cost pressures; in particular, such systems are seeking to take advantage of system-wide economies of scale in driving down costs.
• A more student-centered, pre-K–20 view of the educational life cycle, seeking enhanced preparation, efficiency, coordination, and outcomes;
• Rapid expansion of online education as higher education moves to leverage the capacity of the internet to deliver instructional content and to support a variety of student services functions;
• Increased competition for students, driven by new, more aggressive global players, heightened academic standards, and changing student demographics;
• Integrated, web-based enterprise IT systems to support the full range of higher education administrative, marketing, and student services functions;
• New alliances between four-year and community colleges, colleges and secondary schools, among independent colleges, between institutions and suppliers, etc. — all seeking increased efficiency and effectiveness through collaboration.

All of these factors are at work in today’s higher education landscape, prompting increased consideration of shared services by colleges and universities.

WHAT IS A SHARED SERVICE?
“Shared service” holds different meanings for different people. for the purposes of this discussion, a shared service is defined as a function, process, or activity performed by a single “provider” organization in support of two or more “user” organizations. shared service initiatives typically involve the centralization to a single provider of one or more functions previously performed independently by multiple user organizations. such initiatives typically are undertaken to:

• Gain economies of scale through centralized transaction processing;
• Standardize practices, processes, and policies;
• Standardize and improve services to students;
• Leverage technology capabilities and investments;
• Uncover and utilize best practices among institutions;
• Foster increased interinstitutional collaboration;
• Focus campus staff on high-value activities;
• Reduce total unit cost in order to free up resources for reinvestment in institutional quality.

The case for a shared service typically anticipates benefits of the following types:

• Reduction in unit transaction processing costs through:
  • Automation;
  • Economies of scale (i.e., increased transaction volume);
  • Process streamlining;
  • Sharing and standardizing best practices;
  • Balancing workload peaks and valleys;
  • Lower wage rates;
  • Reduced employee fringe benefits.
• Cost avoidance, for example, of:
  • Additional capacity (facilities, hiring, training)
  • New information systems (sourcing, development).
• Service quality improvement through:
  • Standardization of service;
  • Increased student focus by campus staff;
  • Improved cross-functional coordination;
  • Improved quality controls.
• Increased mission effectiveness via:
  • Greater market impact;
  • Improved educational outcomes;
  • Increased stakeholder satisfaction.

• Detract from the institution’s differentiated mission or competitive position;
• Risk disclosure of proprietary information;
• Put campus staff morale and job security at risk;
• Lessen institutional control over core activities and outcomes;
• Not result in projected cost reductions.

These potential risks discourage many institutions from pursuing shared services and limit the scope of existing collaborations.

SHARED SERVICES MODELS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
While shared services concepts can and do take a wide variety of forms in higher education, four distinctive models are particularly useful to examine:

Multi-Campus System Model
In this organizational model, several institutions are members of a state higher education system, which, as part of its system-wide function, coordinates the provision of various services to the individual campuses. In this model, shared services typically are provided either by a system-level organizational unit or by a lead campus which provides the service to all system campuses. Services typically provided in this model include IT, procurement, facilities planning, and, in some cases, enrollment services. State systems in New York, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and California all have versions of system-level shared services of these types.

Consortium of Independent Institutions
In this model, several independent (usually private) colleges create an alliance to share costs, services, and ideas. Many such consortia exist in the United states. Typically, they are organized by geography (state or regional) or commonality of mission (religious affiliation, high admissions selectivity, etc.). for example:

• The Pennsylvania Shared Services Consortium includes six independent colleges and universities that have joined together to jointly acquire insurance, banking, telecommunications, employee benefits, physical plant maintenance, and bookstore services.
• The South Metropolitan (Chicago) Education Consortium includes sixteen institutions (public and private colleges, universities, and community colleges) pursuing joint advertising, marketing, and community outreach programs.
• The Colleges of Worcester Consortium includes thirteen public and private colleges in central Massachusetts that collaborate in enhancing the city of Worcester as a higher education center.
• The Council of Independent Colleges in Virginia includes 25 private colleges and universities that collaborate in joint market awareness and legislative affairs activities.

Many private colleges’ consortia focus on joint purchasing; other consortia—as, for example, the associated colleges of the south focus more on academic collaboration. Still other private college consortia focus on government relations, coordination of study abroad, cross-registration, employer relations, and career fairs.

Intra-Campus Service Provider
This is the traditional campus-level shared service model according to which individual academic departments, schools, and colleges within a university share common enrollment and student services and administrative support functions.

General Market Third-Party Provider
In this shared services model, a higher education marketwide organization provides common services to multiple client institutions. examples include services provided by higher education associations (AACRAO, CUPA, etc.), IT vendors (Oracle, Peoplesoft, Datatel, IBM), and a host of other suppliers to the higher education industry. (This model is relevant to this paper only to the extent that either of the first two shared services models described might incorporate the use of a third-party market provider.)

The utility of a shared services model for a given institution depends primarily on the organizational environment within which the institution exists. Large public multi-campus systems inherently have different opportunities for sharing services than do private, independent institutions. Nevertheless, certain commonalities do exist even between individual enrollment and student services functions. Following are three generic categories of work common to most campus admissions, financial aid, registrar, and business office functions:

• The “front counter,” where students and parents gain access to and information about the office;
• The “technical expert” function, which shares specific expertise with students, parents, and staff, makes decisions, oversees policy development and compliance, and coordinates activities with other campus offices; and
• The “back room,” where mail processing, data entry, document imaging, and file maintenance occur.

Each of these work categories offers different types of opportunities for shared services. For example:

• Many traditional “front counter” activities now are Web-enabled and are accessed through the internet by students and parents who self-serve. Campuses also may consolidate front counter activities across functional offices in a “one-stop” concept, reducing costs and improving service.
• Function-specific technical expertise can be shared among schools within a university (e.g., a single campus admissions director) or among institutions in a system, facilitated by remote access to common information systems.
• Back-room processing can be consolidated within a campus or among multiple institutions in an operations service center supporting one or more student services functions.

(Note that all such potential shared services applications depend on the use of common information systems, as discussed below.)

Higher education’s experience with shared services models varies widely. In state systems in New York and Texas, the shared services concept has been well developed in areas such as marketing and common admissions application processing. Other states, including Ohio, Maine, Oregon, and New Jersey, are beginning to more actively promote collaboration in enrollment services delivery in their efforts to leverage the power of interinstitutional system governance. For example, the recently created University System of Ohio has announced plans to create a single, integrated information technology infrastructure to support online admissions, financial aid, advising, registration, payment, course articulation, and credit transfer.

Some well-established state systems have made little or no provision for shared enrollment services, having limited shared services to areas such as IT, procurement, academic program coordination, budget formulation, and facilities planning. In such systems, concern for institutional autonomy seems to have trumped concern about duplication of effort or organizational redundancy. That said, there appears to be growing recognition of the need for — and the importance of — standardized information technology applications to maintain consistent levels of student, academic, and administrative support functions.

Collaborative enrollment management efforts among private colleges and universities appear minimal at present. (Those that do exist relate primarily to joint travel activities.) For example, the idea of a shared enrollment services center to provide back-room processing in support of admissions, financial aid, registration, and student billing for multiple institutions has not yet caught on. Institutions’ lack of interest appears to be the result of three primary drivers: concerns about enrollment information security, fear of compromising competitive advantage, and incompatible IT systems.

As institution-level IT systems are replaced by more standardized Web-enabled applications, it is likely that multi-institutional systems and independent colleges alike will envision greater opportunities for standardizing enrollment services functions and the processes they support. Not only could such systems eventually replace current paper-based processes, but the adoption of common systems by multiple institutions could prompt increased exploration of shared enrollment management services. In all such systems, the security of institutional enrollment information will remain vital.

OBSTACLES AND KEY FACTORS FOR SUCCESS
Institutions that wish to explore the potential of shared student services according to either the “multi-campus system” or the “independent consortium” model will need to recognize and address several obstacles to effective implementation. These include:

• Lack of integrated information systems. As noted above, moving to a more standardized, integrated IT infrastructure provides the common technology platform required to support any meaningful shared enrollment services strategy. Institutions without common systems will find it difficult to share services.
• Lack of common policies and processes. Standardizing IT systems will be of limited value if the processes such systems support are not also standardized. This requires careful examination of the institutional policies embedded within such processes. typically, these are more diicult to standardize than IT systems.
• A “we’re different” mentality. When an institution believes that its environment is unique, its student services processes—often highly customized—may prove to be not readily amenable to a shared services strategy.
• Information security issues. Every institution has legitimate information security objectives that can be threatened by the specter of a shared services initiative that involves either the sharing of institution-specific information or reliance on an external agent for data security. In the case of shared enrollment services, concerns are acute as they relate to the security of applicant information, enrollment decisions, financial aid, yield rates, and other enrollment performance statistics.
• Service reliability and access concerns. A common concern about any shared service is the extent of its reliability—particularly if the service is not under the direct control of the institution. Such concerns, typically addressed via explicit service agreements, governance processes, and continuity of operations plans, are heightened in a shared services environment. In enrollment services, concerns about reliability are intensified by the need to meet deadlines (e.g., application, acceptance, financial aid, enrollment, billing, etc.).
• Concerns about loss of control and job security. Management and staff of traditional institution-based student services functions will be concerned about any initiative that threatens their control of performance outcomes and/or their job security. These reasonable concerns must be addressed explicitly.
• Loss of competitive advantage. Even when there may be compelling reasons to do so, institutions in direct competition are unlikely to collaborate for fear of losing competitive advantage. For such institutions, shared admissions and financial aid processing is unlikely unless performed by an independent third party located at an independent site. [Nevertheless, the incidence of collaboration by former competitors seems to be increasing. For example, competing federal government contractors routinely collaborate on joint projects, and “competing” U.S. defense and intelligence agencies are being integrated in the effort to combat global terrorism.]

Given the mixed application of shared student services in higher education to date and the considerable obstacles to their effective use, what criteria can be used to evaluate the prospective benefits of shared services initiatives? Research shows that six primary criteria should be considered:

• Is there a rigorous compelling business case for the proposed shared service that is based on quantified benefits, costs, and risks?
• Does an organizational entity (e.g., system office, lead campus, consortium, etc.) exist to serve as the shared service provider?
• Is a standardized, integrated IT systems infrastructure in place (or under development) to support the shared service?
• Will meaningful service-level agreements and quality controls be put into place to effectively manage risk, reliability, access, and information security?
• Can and will functional staff be restructured to provide job security and improved student satisfaction via functional consolidation?
• Will the shared service enhance (or at least not jeopardize) the institutional mission?

If all of these criteria can be met, then the shared services initiative can be considered to have a high probability of success. Conversely, if any one of these criteria is not satisfied, then such an initiative can be considered to have a high risk of failure.

These criteria lead to the following key factors for the success of a shared student services initiative:

• Rigorous planning and a quantitative business case for change;
• A comprehensively designed concept of operations, including process, organization, staffing, systems, controls, and culture;
• High and continuous user involvement and buy-in;
• Development of control processes to ensure service quality;
• Integrated, standardized, Web-enabled systems, processes, and policies;
• Provision for any staff displaced by the initiative;
• Ongoing communication among and training of service providers, users, and other stakeholders.

 
CONCLUSION
Prompted by intensified pressure for cost containment and expanded services, colleges and universities are demonstrating an increasing willingness to explore the benefits of shared services. Traditionally, shared services in higher education have focused on business functions such as IT services, insurance, and procurement; most colleges and universities consider enrollment and student services to be more institution-specific and more directly related to competitive position. Nevertheless, multi-campus state systems as well as some private college consortia have led efforts to expand the shared services concept into student services functions such as admissions, financial aid, registration, advising, articulation, and student accounts. As cost containment pressures continue to escalate (particularly on those institutions dependent on state funding), institutional interest in shared services can be expected to continue to increase.

In considering the net value of a shared service, a number of important prerequisites must be met. Primary among these is the presence of common, integrated, Web-based information technology systems. As institutions and multi-campus systems contemplate the significant costs associated with the next generation of IT systems development and maintenance, moving to standardized, integrated IT systems platforms will be an increasingly appealing strategy. This in turn will drive increased interest in — and feasibility of — shared enrollment and student services. Beyond the need for standardized, integrated IT systems is the need for a shift in institutional culture: Schools must consider moving away from freestanding, self-contained organizational models toward a more interdependent model in which they rely on alliances with other institutions. Interdependence will be new, challenging, and risk-laden for many institutions, but it may prove an inevitable result of increased pressure by external stakeholders to pursue opportunities for collaboration as a means of cost containment, resource redeployment, and improved student service and satisfaction. Our institutions will require strong, visionary leaders to manage the financial, organizational, technological, and cultural changes implicit in these alliances.

About the Author
Robert Glenn is a management consultant to higher education, government, commercial, and non-profit organizations. Formerly a partner at Booz Allen Hamilton and Unisys, he is currently focused on assisting higher education institutions to contain costs and improve service through IT-enabled business process reengineering. Glenn holds an M.B.A. in operations research from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in mathematics from Purdue University.

This article originally appeared in College & University (Volume 84, No. 3 [2009]), and is being reproduced with the permission of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Recruitment audits include an evaluation of your institutional goals in regards to enrollment growth or student profile, a review of current recruitment activities and existing recruitment plan, and advice on strategically expanding recruitment efforts.

The result are plans spanning one to three years, based on leading national practices, that enable institutions not only to improve their efforts, but to enhance cost effectiveness.

For more information, please contact AACRAO Consulting at consulting@aacrao.org or (202) 355-1056.

Edited by Bob Bontrager
AACRAO, 2008, 93 PP.

Reviewed by Brian A. Vander Schee

Discussions regarding financial pressures, the increasing population of low-income students graduating from high school, and the need to make education affordable are timely and necessary. How institutions will respond to the changing economic, political, and demographic landscape is not well defined. SEM and Institutional Success: Integrating Enrollment, Finance, and Student Access, edited by Bob Bontrager, provides insight into this situation by fostering collegial discussion and institutional action.

The stated purposes of the book are to describe current financial and enrollment challenges; to provide a definition and context for current SEM (Strategic Enrollment Management) practice; to offer new perspectives on the interplay of SEM and institutional finance; to provide a SEM planning model to improve mission, enrollment, and financial outcomes; and to promote the use of SEM to improve student access and success. The intended audience is primarily administrators at four-year public institutions and non-elite private four-year institutions.

The succinct opening chapter provides a solid backdrop for the issues addressed throughout the remainder of the book. Don Hossler discusses the reasons that colleges and universities will experience challenging times in the near future. The reasons include a difficult financial market, demographic shifts, and increasing competition. More and more, community colleges, for-profit private institutions, and universities outside of the United States will compete against nonprofit higher education institutions. Many public institutions will confront flat or decreasing budgets, and private institutions with limited endowments will continue to rely heavily on tuition revenue. Problems related to limited resources and rising costs will be compounded by pressure to serve the needs of a growing number of lower-income high school graduates.

In chapter two, Bob Bontrager summarizes other authors’ as well as hi sown perspectives on SEM. In addition to a comprehensive yet concise overview of the rise of SEM, Bontrager provides a table - a clear visual - regarding the changing demographic and economic status of high school graduates over the next fifteen years. The chapter closes with a defense of SEM’s use of financial aid leveraging. Although Bontrager acknowledges the views of critics, his text reads somewhat defensively. This may reflect the understandable frustration of SEM professionals who are expected to appease faculty, the president, and the board of trustees as well as advocates for increased access for financially needy students. Balancing conflicting mandates is even more difficult when net tuition revenue may be increased by shifting aid dollars to less needy students who are more likely to attend, pay, and, eventually, graduate.

In chapter three, Gil Brown draws attention to the model in which cost = price + subsidy. His equation suggests that what students pay for their education never covers its true cost because some portion of the actual cost inevitably is covered by subsidies such as investment income, gits, or public funding. His chapter provides valuable details, as when Brown explains why a 6.5 percent increase in tuition (for example) would be required to fund a 4 percent salary increase at an institution that receives a 1 percent increase in state support which accounts for 60 percent of institutional revenue. Brown also explains fund accounting and its appropriate use at colleges and universities. Nevertheless, the chapter’s detailed description of how sponsored research complicates the fund accounting process seems out of place. The challenges are clearly articulated, but they are not clearly connected to the content of the remainder of the chapter.

The fourth chapter, also by Gil Brown, describes how SEM can be used to leverage under-utilized capacity to increase revenues. Brown suggests that “under-enrolled programs and courses provide opportunities for institutions to realize additional revenue without increasing marginal costs” (p. 56). However, being aware of such opportunities is not the same as realizing them; little practical guidance is given regarding how to do so. nevertheless, Brown does provide sound advice about preparing multi-year budgets with contingencies. The key is to keep enrollment goals flat and to treat increases as windfalls rather than to increase enrollment expectations each year just to keep pace with rising instructional costs. Unallocated revenue then could be used to increase access for students with significant financial need.

Bob Bontrager and Gil Brown outline the SEM planning model in chapter five. The chapter opens with a concise and accurate description of how institutions set their projected enrollment goals based on established budgets. The authors then outline the four phases of the SEM planning model: (1) developing comprehensive enrollment goals, (2) identifying strategic enrollment investments and measurable outcomes, (3) tracking enrollment, net revenue, and institutional budget outcomes, and (4) creating
reinvestment strategies. Their methodology, using fictitious data for a large public university, is sound: such an institution might be best equipped to increase access to higher education. However, it is hard not to consider that those institutions least able to manage economic challenges and issues of access are those with much smaller budgets and no state funding. Thus, highlighting the nuances of the SEM planning model in a different institutional context — for example, a small private college with a
small endowment — likely would be more useful to those readers who could use the most help.

In chapter six, Bontrager discusses enrollment leadership. He concludes that there is a need for “a new level of leadership, to identify and deploy innovative strategies that create avenues for all members of society to achieve their educational goals” (p. 89). his is an appropriate challenge for those in higher education who are slow to change and/or who continue to rely on unsuccessful strategies from the past.

SEM and Institutional Success highlights the issues of finance and access faced by most institutions. The book is easy to read, provides practical strategies, and should encourage SEM professionals to further explore application of the SEM planning model to other institutional contexts.

About the Author
Brian A. Vander Schee, PH.d., is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Aurora University in Aurora, Illinois. Previously, he served as vice president for enrollment management at two different colleges. His doctorate, in higher education administration, is from the University of Connecticut.

To purchase a copy of SEM and Institutional Success: Integrating Enrollment, Finance, and Student Access or other SEM related publications, please visit http://www.aacrao.org/publications/catalog/sem.cfm or call 301-490-7651.

This article originally appeared in College & University (Volume 84, No. 3 [2009]), and is being reproduced/distributed with the permission of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

By promoting clarity of institutional mission from the perspective of student access and success, SEM provides a paradigm for cutting through the clutter of competing priorities to focus on mission-critical. The resulting alignment of institutional mission, enrollment goals, targeted investments, and budget outcomes enables planning that is more strategic, in turn leading to improved outcomes for the institution as a whole, as well as individual departments.

Let AACRAO Consulting help your institution maximize its resources by sharing with you our powerful “bang-for-the-buck” strategies.

For more information, contact us at 202-355-1056 or consulting@aacrao.org.

According to Dr. Watson Scott Swail, EPI’s President and CEO, this new arrangement takes advantage of the values shared by these two non-profit associations. “We’re both seeking innovative approaches to improving student access and attainment,” says Swail. Bob Bontrager, AACRAO’s SEM Conference Director, agrees: “This is an excellent opportunity to increase the leading-edge retention content we deliver at the SEM Conference, to enhance success for both students and institutions.”

To register for the conferences, click on the links below:

EPI RETENTION 2009 International Conference on Student Retention, May 27-29, 2009, Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Spa, New Orleans, LA.

AACRAO SEM Conference, November 8–11, 2009, Hyatt Regency, Dallas, Texas.

Mr. Rooker is well known to the AACRAO membership because of his extensive outreach to the higher education community while at the Department of Education. His many appearances at AACRAO meetings were “not to be missed” sessions and we are honored that he will continue to share his expertise through AACRAO Consulting. In his new role, LeRoy will offer compliance training, FERPA audits, and other FERPA-related services:
 

FERPA Training Opportunities

Campus and Institution specific Training can be provided to multiple departments or individual offices to ensure your institution is prepared to follow the required federal guidelines. Consultation reviews are available to ensure that campus policies and procedures are protecting individual records. Programs can be customized to meet your institution’s special needs. Available training sessions include:

• Best Practices for Colleges and Universities
• FERPA Compliance 101
• FERPA 101: The Short Version
• FERPA: Beyond the Basics
• FERPA: What You Need to Know — “The Update”
• How to Train Your Faculty, Staff and Administration on FERPA: It Can be Done!
• Legal Issues in Records and Registration
• Virginia Tech: Were We Prepared, What Did We Learn, and How We Were Involved in the Decision Processes that Affected the Entire Campus Community in the Aftermath
• FERPA/HIPAA and student health and counseling records
• Electronic signatures and education records release
• Financial aid under FERPA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley

 
FERPA Audits:

FERPA compliance has become a major issue, and has come under greater scrutiny, following the aftermath of Virginia Tech. AACRAO Consulting can help institutions follow the correct policies and procedures for protecting records. AACRAO can provide FERPA audits at your institution to ensure campus policies and procedures are properly implemented, and issue a FERPA audit certificate upon completion of a successful audit.

A new logo will be presented at the AACRAO Annual Meeting to enhance the visibility of AACRAO Consulting and increase awareness within higher ed. Please stop by booth #331 at the Annual Meeting to speak with an AACRAO consultant and obtain samples of available papers.

At the AACRAO Annual Meeting in Chicago, a group session will be conducted to provide interested persons with additional information about this opportunity. The group meeting will be held Tuesday, April 14, 1:30-2:30 in room W475B at the convention center. Participants will have the option of an individual interview later that afternoon.

If you are interested in participating in the group session, please RSVP to Nicole Spero at speron@aacrao.org and attach your resume.

Take advantage of AACRAO’s 95th Annual Meeting. You’ll get a chance to select from over 260 sessions over 3 full days to get the most out of your time. For more information on the meeting including featured speakers, the conference program, or registration information please visit http://www.aacrao.org/chicago/.

Introduction
Technology has become a necessary tool for enrollment-related activity. It is necessary to deliver effective student services as well as to provide actionable intelligence, such as the dashboard reports needed to inform strategic decision-making. This need exists in a dynamic environment where the technologies we use are constantly evolving, as are the expectations of service from students, faculty and staff.

Given these realities, decisions about whether to update or enhance current enrollment-related technology, or to implement new technology, are inherently part of an institution’s success. In fact, administrative/enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and their associated issues of cost, staff development, user training, business process modifications, and regulatory compliance were chosen as number two in importance for the strategic success of institutions among the issues ranked by information technology leaders for 2008 (Allison et al., 2008).

Key Concepts for Successful Implementation
When existing technology no longer enables the institution to meet its needs or to keep up with its peers then the implementation of new enrollment-related technology must take place. However, the idea of implementing new technology either an entirely new ERP or an add-on enrollment-related solution can be perceived by staff as a daunting and unpleasant task. This is especially true for those who are not part of the information technology unit or who currently use technology strictly as a tool to complete clerical functions. Even when staff supports the change in technology, finding time to complete the required steps, while keeping up with ongoing workload, is a major challenge.

In order to be successful, any technology implementation must be carefully planned to minimize any perceived negative impact on staff and/or daily operations. Successful implementation of enrollment-related technology hinges on factors similar to managing any significant organizational change, such as a clear vision of the end goals, a champion for the effort, systemic buy-in from cross functional areas and the development of a realistic timeline to name a few.

Phelps and Busby (2007) described implementing a new system as similar to remodeling a house in that there are typical questions such as, “Where can you upgrade or make things easier, or Why not put in new plumbing and electrical systems since you have already ripped down the walls?” Before making a enrollment-related technology purchase questions like those listed below should be thoughtfully addressed.

• What is our budget for purchase, implementation, support and maintenance?
• What functional areas are going to be impacted by this change in technology (e.g., admissions, records, registration, institutional research, finance)?
• What business processes are we trying to change and improve with this new technology and why?
  What other business processes will be effected?
• Do our current processes need to be reviewed for relevance to the end goal and the new technology?
• What is our customization expectation?
• How much training is needed for staff to use the new technology?
• Will we be able to extract the data we need from the technology for our operational and regulatory purposes?
• What is the timeline for the implementation and does that timeline conflict with operational business cycles?

Once you have answered the questions listed above and selected an enrollment-related technology, there are seven additional questions derived from Nah et al. (2006) which are critical not only to a successful implementation, but also to an institution’s overall enrollment efforts. These questions include:

• How will this technology enhance the institution’s ability to fulfill its strategic plan?
• Is the institution’s level of preparedness for the operational and cultural changes that will result from the implementation adequate?
• Is there a clear communication plan regarding the implementation with all stakeholders?
• Are those involved in the details representative of all of the business areas impacted by the new technology?
• Are the institution’s governance structures supportive of the change and is the team leadership for the project given an appropriate level of authority and responsibility to get the job done?
• Is there a clearly defined scope and timeline for the project?
• Is there adequate technical expertise (both in the operational unit and in the information technology unit) and infrastructure to support the new technology?

Post-Implementation Considerations
Throughout the implementation phase the focus is primarily on “going live”. However, “going live’ is not the end of implementation. As in any planning process, the next step is to focus on honing the deployment. This can include; examining functionality that was not initially implemented, re-examining perceptions that drove the initial implementation decisions, re-examining the institution’s business processes and business paradigms, as well as sharing and collaborating with other institutions who have previously implemented similar systems.

The environment of higher education is constantly changing as a result of both internal and external factors and changes in technology. As a result, the honing process is not limited to the period immediately following implementation, but really represents a continuous cycle of activity. As such, successful enrollment-related technology implementation will continue to be best served by using a holistic approach from the selection of a product to the end of its lifecycle.

Resources
Given the many inherent challenges, institutions often struggle with selecting and deploying enrollment-related technology or find that the implementation did not provide the desired results. In many cases, external consultants are brought in to address the issues. The best consultants are able to address both the business practice and technology aspects of the project. The consulting experience may include policy review, staff interviews, business process mapping, organizing technology demonstrations and follow-up training. One of the advantages of using an external consultant to help select, implement or refine enrollment-related technology is their objective, external perspective, which includes the benefit of observing best practices at other institutions. AACRAO Consulting is uniquely positioned to provide consultants with extensive functional experience and different institutional types as well as technical expertise.

References
Allison, D., DeBlois, P. & EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee (2008). Current Issues Survey Report, 2008. Educause Quarterly 31(2): 14-30.

Fui-Hoon Nah, F. & Delgado, S. (2006). Critical Success Factors for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation and Upgrade. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(5): 99-113.

Phelps, Jim and Busby, Brian (2007) Service-Oriented Architecture: What is it, and how do we get one?

Educause Quarterly 30(3): 56-30.Swartz, D. & Orgill, K. (2001) Higher Education ERP: Lessons Learned. Educause Quarterly 24(2): 20-27.

Written by Wendy Kilgore, a Senior Consultant for AACRAO Consulting.

There have been numerous reports demonstrating the shifting trends in age among students beginning undergraduate and graduate programs in America. According a 2002 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report, nontraditional students make up 73 percent of all students enrolled in undergraduate programs, and 39 percent of all undergraduate students are 25 years or older. Redd (2007) also indicated in a report for the Council of Graduate Schools that the number of nontraditional graduate students has risen dramatically and projected this trend to continue. Not only does this report indicate that nontraditional students already make up the majority of all postsecondary institutions, but a study conducted by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education indicated that after 2008, the number of high school graduates will decline until 2015, which means increased competition for undergraduate institutions seeking to maintain or increase the number of newly enrolled students. This expected decline in the number of prospective traditional college students may mean that institutions will make up for this decline by making a stronger effort to target nontraditional students.

Non-traditional students were defined in the 2002 NCES report as having at least one or more of the following characteristics: does not enter postsecondary enrollment in the same year that he or she completed high school, attends part-time for at least part of the academic year, works full time, is considered financially independent from a legal guardian, has dependents other than a spouse, is a single parent, does not have a high school diploma but a General Educational Development (GED) test. Defined in this way nontraditional students cannot be defined by age or any one characteristic but rather the term nontraditional seems to represent one’s life and educational experiences. This broad description makes it close to impossible to pin point one target nontraditional group for marketing and recruiting purposes; therefore, institutions must consider a more comprehensive view of who a potential student might be.

The 2002 NCES report also found that private, for-profit and non-profit postsecondary institutions experienced the highest percentage of growth among nontraditional students. The growth of nontraditional students within private universities can be seen by the rise of students enrolling in institutions, like the University of Phoenix, that offer online and face-to-face program options. In the 2008-2009 Almanac edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education, the University of Phoenix was reported to enroll more students than any other university in America. Other non-profit private institutions like the Union Institute and University, Cardinal Stritch University, Pace University, Villanova University and Loyola University of Chicago, to name just a few, all have both traditional college programs and programs that are geared toward working adults. My institution, Saint Mary University of Minnesota, also serves both traditional and nontraditional students. In the Twin Cities area, there are at least 15 other private colleges that compete for nontraditional student enrollments. The institutions listed here all offer some form of nontraditional programs, including distance learning options, evening and weekend courses, flexible schedules, and blended course options. While institutions like the University of Phoenix have critics and the academic world still places the majority of their resources on traditional academic programs, the growth achieved among nontraditional students at private institutions demonstrates that a large majority of people in the United States are choosing nontraditional program options to meet their academic goals.

The recent downturn in the economy has also provoked a dialogue in higher education about offering more distance learning courses and has charged higher education leaders to look for ways that institutions can cut costs and increase economic efficiency. The 2007 Chronicle of Higher Education’s For Profit Higher Education Index indicated that publicly traded education corporations such as Strayer Education Inc., and Laureate Education Inc., can be seen as long term investment opportunities and have proven to their investors that they can maintain enrollment, run efficiently and earn a profit. Kelly (2001) stated that “a growing number of traditional colleges and universities—under pressure to be more responsive to the needs of students, parents, employers and communities—are turning to some of the same entrepreneurial, customer-oriented approaches that have been used so successfully by for-profit institutions” (p. 2). Regardless of what strategies colleges use to meet enrollment goals, Kelly’s article revealed that for-profit institutions have been successful because people in our communities are demonstrating a need and a demand for education options outside of traditional daytime, face-to-face classes. If the number of high school graduates will be declining over the next few years, this is a perfect time for colleges and universities to take a look at how to attract and serve nontraditional students. The shifting demographics and the increase of distance learning course options also indicate that it may be time to rethink the traditional models of education delivery, and rather than focusing on traditional and nontraditional student populations, there may be some changes or services that are applicable to both groups, such as evening or distance learning classes.

The following is an overview of steps that colleges and universities can take to attract nontraditional students to their institution. This is not a comprehensive list of strategies but rather a high-level overview of several key factors admissions or enrollment professionals should be aware of when recruiting or developing services to support nontraditional students.

• Discuss Cost Payment Plans at the Beginning: Nontraditional students vary in their methods of tuition payment. For example, some may pay out of pocket, some may use financial aid, and some may be grant and scholarship recipients. But these options are often limited for nontraditional students and especially for nontraditional graduate students. There are also many nontraditional students who participate in employer tuition reimbursement programs or who are military students seeking reimbursement through the programs set up through the G.I. bill. Given these different types of students, it is important for institutions to create a billing system that will allow for some flexibility. An example would be allowing students to set up a payment plan. Field (2008) discussed the education benefits now available to veterans, indicating that with the recent changes to the G.I. bill, veterans will now have enough aid to attend the most expensive public colleges in their states. However, Field found that veterans prefer community colleges and for-profit institutions because these institutions are convenient and cater to the needs of veterans. Kelly also indicated that veterans tend to be between the ages of 25 and 34, are often married, and are looking for education opportunities that will assist with building on the type of skills they learned while in the service. Many universities are competing for military students these days, and the trends outlined by Kelly indicate these students are looking for nontraditional programs that allow for online courses or evening and weekend class formats and will assist them with navigating their way through the tuition benefit process. Establishing more scholarship opportunities geared toward nontraditional students can also be a great marketing tool.

 

• Ease Transfer Credit Process: According to the NCES 2004 report “Participation in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning,” a majority of nontraditional learners have some previously earned college credit. The 2004 NCES “Student Effort and Educational Progress Report” also indicated that approximately 30 percent of undergraduate students drop out before receiving a degree. Many colleges assume that applicants know about transfer credit and do not emphasize this option in their marketing materials or limit their recruiting of transfer students to attendance at community college transfer fairs. The college and university drop out rates however demonstrate that there is a large of population of adults who have some earned postsecondary credit and cannot be found on community college campuses. Given the concern about cost, transfer credit can provide an incentive to applicants because it will reduce the time and money it takes to complete a degree program; therefore, it is important that institutions make this process clear and easy to navigate by having this information available on their Web site and making sure this option is listed in their marketing materials.

 

• Offer Credit for prior learning, CLEP, DANTES etc.: Many undergraduate completion programs geared towards nontraditional students also emphasis the different ways that students can earn course credit. If your institution does offer any type of credit for prior learning, accepts CLEP credit or military credits, this should be emphasized in all marketing materials for nontraditional students. It is important there is a clear indication of which courses cannot be fulfilled through transfer credit, CLEP, or some other method. This will help students up front as they prepare their program schedules. The following are Web sites that offer information on these different types of college credits: www.dantes.doded.mil, www.clepinfo.com, and www.cael.org/pla.

 

• Offer Evening, Weekend and Online Courses: The NCES (2002) report found that of the adult student population, 57 percent are married, 53 percent support more than on dependent, 29 percent are single parents between the age of 30 and 40, 39 percent worked full time. Given these characteristics, it is important that institutions recognize that a large majority of nontraditional students have multiple responsibilities outside the classroom, so evening, weekend or distance learning course options are a necessity. It is also important to talk with students at the beginning of the program to set clear expectations regarding time management.

 

• Connect Faculty and Curriculum to the Workplace: Kasworm (2003) discussed the idea that the changing perceptions of the workplace and world have increased the desire for people to attain higher education credentials. Kasworm indicated that having a bachelor’s degree is a basic requirement now for many entry level jobs. Scholars such as Malcolm Knowles (1977) and Stephen Brookfield (2005) have indicated that creating environments that allow adult learners to share their experiences and apply what they learn to their work or daily lives will help to drive the learning process. On the admissions end, applicants want to know that the courses they take will be applicable to their work and they want to know how the program they are enrolling in will assist them in meeting their career goals. Given what we know from the research on how adults learn, it is important the faculty understand how to integrate some of their class assignments into projects that students can apply to their area of interest or to their workplace. It is also important that admissions counselors have some career counseling skills and discuss with applicants how they can apply their classroom assignments to their workplace.

 

• Offer Career Counseling Services: Kasworm (2003), also indicated that career advancement is one of the main reasons people go back to school or begin postsecondary degree programs. This is one area that for-profit institutions that serve nontraditional students tend to emphasis in their marketing materials. For example, National American University, Argosy University and Capella University all offer career services to their students and alumni. Providing resources that will assist students and graduates with resume writing, interviewing and strategies to assist with the job search is an important factor for nontraditional students; therefore, it is important to emphasize these resources to prospective students. Career counselors can also help make inroads with the local community by helping to organize job fairs, work with local businesses to develop internship opportunities. This can bring visibility to your institution. Many colleges and universities already offer this service to traditional students, so this would mean broadening the service to apply to students with different levels of experience and different types of career goals.

 

• Offer Orientation and Community Building: McGivney (2004) found that many adult or nontraditional students have some apprehension about going back to school. For many, it may have been years since they have been in academic setting, or they may have had a negative experience the last time they were enrolled. Creating a sense of community is one way to combat the apprehension and let students know they are not alone and that there are other learners with similar backgrounds in the program. Vincent Tinto (1988) has led the research on the importance of social integration for undergraduate students in retention, and scholars like Ashar and Skenes (1993) and Kember (1994) have applied Tinto’s concepts to nontraditional settings and also found that integrating students into the programs at the beginning stages is an important part of retention. This means planning personalized points of contact with advisors, conducting a new student orientation and letting students exchange a dialogue between one another to build relationships and help support one another. While nontraditional students may not be as focused on the social aspect of higher education as traditional college students, they still want to feel that they belong and that they have a support network through the process.

 

• Adopt Flexible Leave Policies: Institutions must adopt policies and procedures that address the special needs of nontraditional students. Nontraditional students represent a broad range of age groups; therefore, institutions need to be prepared to work with students who are having children, going through long-term illnesses, going on military leave, getting married, and experiencing other important life events. If students need to take a semester off, this process should be easy to understand and explained to students at the beginning of the program. While allowing students the ability to take time off without penalty is key, it also important to establish deadlines and regularly check-in with students who are on leave.

 

• Schedule Regular Advising Sessions: Along with following up with students who are on leave, it is important to build in a contact schedule with nontraditional students. Establishing personal contact will help make students feel secure and welcome at your institution. Many nontraditional students do not have as many social opportunities with other students or staff outside of the classroom, so this personalized contact is important in establishing a sense of belonging. These ideas are all based on the information found by researchers like Vincent Tinto (1988), which emphasizes the importance of social and academic integration on retention.

 

• Recruit in Businesses and Community: While high school visits make up the majority of recruiting efforts for many traditional college admissions counselors, visits with local business leaders and attendance at community events is essential to recruiting nontraditional students. As mentioned earlier, nontraditional students represent a broad range of characteristics and are difficult to locate in any one setting; therefore, to recruit nontraditional students, the key is to create diverse recruiting strategies. Career fairs, professional conferences, county fairs, chamber of commerce events and other community events such as art fairs and festivals are all forums for recruiting. Establishing contact with human resource departments at local businesses, locating those businesses that offer tuition reimbursement, and reaching out to business leaders to serve on program development teams or as speakers at on-campus events, and inviting business leaders to your institution for special community events are all activities that will help to bring visibility to your programs for nontraditional students. Alumni and current students also represent an audience for recruiting, so it is important to let your campus community know about your nontraditional course offerings so they can help spread the word among their families, co-workers and friends.

 

• Include Nontraditionals in University Mission: In a 2005 report for the American Council on Education, Cook and King discussed practices that institutions can follow to improve the retention for low-income, nontraditional students who are pursuing postsecondary degrees. One concept that stood out in their report was making sure that institutions acknowledge nontraditional students within the organization’s mission or within the strategic plan. If attracting nontraditional students to your institution is a goal, the success of meeting this goal will depend on whether or not this student population is represented throughout the university and included within the overall mission of the institution.

References
Ashar H. & R. Skenes. (1993). Can Tinto’s student departure model be applied to nontraditional students? Adult Education Quarterly. 43(2): 90-100. Retreived July 18, 2007 from EBSO database.

Blumenstyke, G. (2007). The Chronicle index of for-profit higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(23): A25. Retreived November 10, 2008 from www.chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i23/23a02501.htm.

Brookfield, S. & S. Preskill. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cook, B, & J. King (2005).Campus programs and policies for low in-come adults. American Council on Education. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2005CampusPP4Adults.pdf?survey=3.

Field, K. (2008). Cost, convenience drive veterans’ college choices. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(46): A1. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from www.chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i23/23a02501.htm.

Kasworm, C. (2003). Setting the stage: adults in higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 102:3-10, Retrieved September 10, 2008 from EBSCO database.

Kelly, K. (2001). Meeting needs and making profits: the rise of for-profit degree granting institutions. Education Commission of the States, 1-32. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/27/33/2733.htm.

Kember, D., T. Lai, D. Murphy, et. al. (1994). Student progress in distance education courses: a replication study. Adult Education Quarterly, 45(1):286-301. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from EBSCO database.

Knowles, M. (1977). A History of the Adult Education Movement in the United States. Malabar: Krieger Publishing Company.

McGivney, V. (2004). Understanding persistence in adult learning. Open Learning, 19 (1): 33-45. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from EBSCO database.

Redd, K. (2007). Data sources: The rise of “older” graduate students. Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/DataSources_2007_12.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004). Participation in Adult Education and Life Long Learning 2000-01. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004050.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2004). Student Effort and Educational Progress. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2004/section3/indicator19.asp.

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002). The Condition of Education. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002025.

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: reflections on the longitudinal character of students leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59 (4): 438-455. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from JSTOR database.

Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (2008). Knocking at the college door. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from www.wiche.edu/policy/knocking/1992-2022/knocking_complete_book.pdf.

Becky Copper, M.A., is director of admissions at the Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. She is pursuing an Ed.D. degree at Saint Mary’s University, and she is focusing her research on topics related to student services for nontraditional students.

This article originally appeared in the December 2008 issue of SEM Source.

AACRAO Consulting (AC) recently assisted West Virginia University to resolve its well-documented academic records controversy. According to AC Director Bob Bontrager, “The WVU project was an excellent example of AACRAO Consulting’s core value of colleagues helping colleagues to resolve issues and improve performance.” The consultation tapped into AACRAO’s standards-setting expertise in academic records policies and procedures, providing the opportunity to develop new techniques for helping institutions avoid potential records management problems.

Please click here for related articles.

Preconference Paper for the 16th Annual Strategic Enrollment Management Conference

This article originally appeared in College & University (Volume 82, No. 2 [2007]), and is being reproduced/distributed with the permission of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

The practice of strategic enrollment management (SEM) can be likened to navigating a ship through uncharted waters. Dating back to the 1970s, the very concept of enrollment management came into being and has since evolved in the face of a steady progression of daunting challenges requiring repeated course corrections. A massive demographic downturn in the early 1980s was followed closely by a sea change in the funding hydraulics in higher education, punctuated by a significant drop in public funding. While many institutions regained their enrollment equilibrium in the latter half of the 1990s, in the new millennium we face a fresh set of obstacles that threaten the well-being of not only our institutions, but American society as a whole.

The context in which SEM practitioners operate is changing again in ways that will forever alter how we do business as institutions of higher education. That context is made up of new or newly-evolving challenges related to demographics, economics, and institutional priorities. These issues have gained increased attention as observers contemplate the significant implications for the practice of SEM, institutional outcomes, and the long-term economic and social well-being of the United States. Over the past several years, Kalsbeek (2005), Green (2004), and Whiteside (2003) have provided compelling content on these issues. Observers from outside the SEM profession have weighed in as well, often drawing conclusions that are critical of enrollment management practices. A recent report summarizes these negative perceptions, characterizing enrollment management as institutions “[using] their resources to compete with each other for high-end, high-scoring students instead of providing a chance for college-qualified students from low-income families who cannot attend college without adequate financial support” (Haycock 2006).

This paper will highlight a few of the more prominent enrollment challenges currently faced by colleges and universities, and will conclude with summative comments about the implications of those challenges for the practice of SEM.

Demographics
Figure 1 shows relatively minor fluctuations in the aggregate numbers of high school graduates over the next ten years. However, the aggregate numbers mask a number of stark realities. The demographics of the next ten years will split institutions regionally into broad groups of haves and have-nots in terms of the number of high school graduates who are eligible to continue on to college.

States in the South and West will see large increases in the number of high school graduates throughout the range of years represented, while New England, the Midwest, and states in the middle region of the country will see much more modest growth (see Figure 2).

In fact, specific sub-regions will experience declines in these numbers, particularly in the latter years of this time period. These regional differences are even more striking from the perspective of the racial/ethnic composition of high school graduates. It has been well documented that the U.S. is becoming more diverse; this is also true for the college-going population, as illustrated in Figure 3.

This chart includes graduates of private high schools, whereas Figure 2 represented only graduates of public high schools.

These demographic shifts are daunting enough, given higher education’s modest gains in bachelor degree completion rates among underrepresented students. There have always been wide gaps in educational attainment among racial/ethnic groups, and they are getting wider. From 1980 to 2000, bachelor’s degree attainment increased for persons aged 25 to 64 in each of the major racial/ethnic groups. However, the increase was significantly greater for White and Asian-American students. In 2000, Whites ages 25 to 64 were twice as likely as African-Americans to have a bachelor’s degree, and almost three times as likely as Hispanics/Latinos (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2005). Those statistics make the demographics alone a sobering prospect. But it doesn’t end there.

Economics
The shifting demographics become even more challenging as we consider the confounding economic forces at play in the current environment, namely rising costs, declining state support, and the increasing financial need of students seeking access to higher education. These factors have been reported repeatedly in the higher education literature and will not be reviewed at length here, except to highlight the close relationship between increased diversity among persons of college-
going age and family income. Here again, the numbers vary significantly by region.

Figure 4 shows that in the West and South — the same regions that will experience the largest upcoming increases in high school graduates — the percentages of families at lower income levels are the highest. When looking at the data by race/ethnicity, we see African-American and Hispanic incomes lagging far behind other groups (see Figure 5).

Anyone who values diversity and equity will be concerned about these data. But for us as educators, they take on added meaning when considered with the relationship between family income and bachelor’s degree attainment. Data compiled by Mortensen (2005) indicate that persons from the top quartile of family income in the United States are nearly nine times more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than persons from the lowest quartile. Among the latter group, only about 6 percent earn a bachelor’s degree by age 24.

Institutional Priorities
The demographic and economic trends just described constitute a difficult hand higher education leaders have been dealt as they seek to effectively manage their institutions in an extraordinarily challenging context. Critics of higher education, and of strategic enrollment managers in particular, often fail to grasp the complexity of that context. A superficial analysis of the situation invites some to conclude that SEM and its practitioners are the source of the problem (Haycock 2006). In fact, with its comprehensive approach to enrollment, SEM offers one of the few avenues for achieving the goals of access and equity for students, while maintaining viable financial outcomes for institutions.

If criticisms of higher education and SEM have at times been misguided, those of us within the academy must also account for having been complicit to a certain degree in perpetuating the challenges we face. We have at times been schizophrenic, if not downright duplicitous, by on the one hand pledging our allegiance to access and equity, while on the other hand touting college rankings, institutional profiles, and budget outcomes that in many ways run counter to those same aspirations.
Moreover, we have typically done a poor job in educating our community members on why they should care as much about our institutions’ access programs as our freshmen’s average SAT score, or being clear about the ways SEM practices can be used to promote educational opportunity.

The Brave New World of SEM
With acknowledgement to Aldus Huxley, those of us in the SEM profession find ourselves in a “brave new world” in terms of the challenges we face and our approaches to plying our trade. To thrive in the current context will require that we exhibit a certain kind of bravery, leading our institutions in directions that run counter to prevailing wisdom or conventional enrollment practices. While the opportunities to engage in this type of leadership are many, enrollment managers will do well to begin with the areas described below.

Achieving clarity on enrollment goals and institutional priorities
One of the most difficult challenges in developing an institutional SEM plan is establishing clear goals for the number or “mix” of students the institution wants. This is not necessarily surprising. Conversations on enrollment goals will inevitably lead to discussions of institutional mission and priorities. A focus on aggregate numbers will evolve into detailed analyses of the “mix” of students that best fulfills the institution’s mission. A single goal for overall enrollment becomes multiple goals for undergraduates, graduates, residents, nonresidents, first-year students, transfer students, students of color, retention and graduation rates, and any number of other student subgroups depending on an institution’s unique circumstances.

Among the many discussions that take place on campus, prominence needs to be given to prioritizing — for example, should we be providing access or should we be enrolling high-ability students? This is not an either/or proposition in which the decision is made to enroll all of one group of students
and deny admission to another. Rather, it is critical that the institution understand the trade-offs where they exist, and be honest with itself in the enrollment decisions it is making. These are not easy conversations, which prompts many institutions to avoid having them.

When comprehensive enrollment goals do not exist, it is incumbent on enrollment managers to lead their institutions in establishing them. The beginning point is to create a table listing current enrollments of recommended categories of students, with targets for each category over the next five to ten years, and reviewing the numbers with campus decision-making groups. An active response is virtually guaranteed, providing the impetus for the kind of campus-wide conversations required to develop the ultimate list of enrollment goals.

Redefining academic ability, potential, success
Students and institutions have long been evaluated in terms of high school grade point averages and standardized test scores. Other criteria are often used in making admission decisions and scholarship selections. However, when touting the academic ability of students or the student profile of an institution, high school GPAs and standardized test scores are most often cited. This practice persists despite the widely-acknowledged limitations of these means of measuring students’ academic ability, potential, and success.

A number of studies have looked at the relative value of high school GPAs and test scores in predicting academic performance in college. Findings from these studies have been consistent, indicating that high school grades are slightly more effective as a predictor than test scores alone, but that the addition of test scores produces a modest improvement in predictive
value (Zwick 2004). In one such study, high school GPA was found to account for 15 percent of students’ first-year college grade point average, with 13 percent of variability accounted for by combined math and verbal SAT score. The combination of GPA, SAT math, and SAT verbal scores increased the predictive value to 23 percent. The same study found significant differences
between racial/ethnic groups in terms of the relationships among high school GPAs and SAT scores, and college GPAs. Predictive values were generally higher for Asian American and White students, and lower for Black, Hispanic, and Native American students (Zwick 2004, p. 114).

Looking specifically at standardized tests, Sedlacek (2004) notes that these instruments are poor predictors of first-year college GPA for “anyone who has not had a White, middle-class, Euro-centric, heterosexual, male experience in the United States” (p. 6). Thus, the extent to which test scores continue to be used to evaluate students and as an indicator of institutional prestige is perplexing.

Sedlacek advocates the implementation of an assessment model based on noncognitive variables, that is, “variables relating to adjustment, motivation, and student perceptions, rather than relying solely on the traditional verbal and quantitative [measures]” (p. 7). Educators have long sought to evaluate such variables by looking at high school coursework, extracurricular involvement, leadership activities, and essays. However, standards in each of these areas tend to be set locally by individual institutions, often leading to the same systematic bias such measures seek to avoid. Sedlacek’s approach, based on 30 years of testing and development, has been shown to mitigate the systematic bias associated with many admission and scholarship selection processes. Moreover, it provides information that can be used to promote students’ academic achievement throughout their college
careers, and improve retention rates.

Here again, enrollment managers and other institutional leaders are called to exhibit courage in redefining student and institutional success. It is incumbent upon us to focus less on average GPAs and test scores among our incoming students and to spend more time talking about “value added” measures that indicate the extent to which we provide increased access to students we are mission-bound to serve. This is evidence that we helped a more diverse group of students to be academically successful and graduate.

Realigning institutional financial aid programs
Many observers of higher education have decried the shift from need-based to merit aid over the past 30 years (Dynarski 2002; Green 2004). Given the data reviewed in this paper, that shift is indeed troubling. While this trend includes many types of externally-funded aid that are outside institutions’ control, current realities suggest that institutions would do well to reconsider their awarding practices for institutionally-funded merit aid.

In an approach also used by other institutions, Oregon State University in 1998 revised its selection process for institutionally-funded merit scholarships to include a need-based component. In the first stage of its process, Oregon State utilizes an expanded definition of academic merit, in which applicants can compensate for lower high school GPAs and standardized test scores by achieving stronger scores on noncognitive variables. Once the student has been selected for a scholarship based on merit, the amount of the award she or he is given is based on demonstrated financial need. Among students with similar merit rankings, a student from a low-income family might receive a $5,000 award, while a student from a high-income family might be awarded $1,000.

Making this type of change is not as easy as it may sound. Traditional assumptions about the relationship between high school GPAs, standardized test scores, and scholarship awards are potent. And we are, in fact, talking about money. Few issues are as likely to raise the ire of students or their parents as hitting them in their pocketbooks. There will certainly be incidences when students with extraordinarily high GPAs and test scores receive modest scholarship awards, or receive less money than other students with lower quantitative credentials. At that point, even persons who value educational access and equity may well be upset. In the end, institutions need to be clear on their values and resolve to weather the inevitable criticisms that will be leveled at them, which brings us full circle.

The initiatives highlighted in this paper are not to be considered in isolation, but rather constitute the type of comprehensive approach that is inherent to SEM. Implementing effective enrollment initiatives — including noncognitive variables in student evaluations, consideration of financial need in awarding merit scholarship, and many others, will ultimately depend on clarity of enrollment goals that are directly traceable to institutional mission and purpose. To do otherwise is an abrogation of our responsibilities as educators, and will shortchange the potential of our institutions as they seek to navigate the challenging waters that lie ahead.

By Bob Bontrager, Director of AACRAO Consulting and the AACRAO SEM Conference.

References
Dynarski, S. 2002. Race, income and the impact of merit aid. In Who Should We Help? The Negative Social Consequences of Merit Scholarships, edited by P. Marin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project. pp. 73–91.

Green, Thomas. 2004. Financial Aid, Access, and America’s Social Contract with Higher Education. Preconference paper for the SEM Conference. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Haycock, Kati. 2006. Promise Abandoned: How Policy Choices and Institutional Practices Restrict College Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust.

Kalsbeek, David. 2005. The Challenge of Access: Structures, Strategies, and SEM Antics. Presentation at the AACRAO Strategic Enrollment Management Conference, Chicago, IL, 2005.

Mortensen, Tom. June 2005. Family Income and Higher Education Opportunity, 1970–2003. Oskaloosa, IA: Postsecondary Education Opportunity.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Policy Alert, November 2005, page 4.

Whiteside, Richard. 2003. The Winds of Change and Enrollment Management. Presentation at the AACRAO Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Zwick, Rebecca. 2004. Rethinking the SAT: The Future of Standardized Testing in University Admissions. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Bob Bontrager is Director of the SEM Conference and Director of AACRAO Consulting Services. He previously served as Director of Partnership Programs at Oregon State University and as Chief Enrollment Officer at Oregon State and at Eastern Mennonite University.

Search the program online! Use AACRAO’s searchable database to view times and descriptions of sessions, to see presenter and speaker information, and to plan your time at the Annual Meeting!

Questions?: Contact Melissa Ficek , Associate Director, Meetings, at (202) 355-1042 or e-mail meetings@aacrao.org.