Moreno Valley College Dialogue: Enrollment Management Hosted by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Moreno Valley College Dialogue:

Enrollment Management

Hosted by President Irving Hendrick March 10, 2017 10:00 – 11:30am HUM 322

Agenda

• Welcome & Context
• Context – Dr. Hendrick
• FTES & Budget – Dr. Jones
• Data Considerations – Dr. Steinback and Dr. Foster
• Strategies & Critical Dialogue
• Interactive Discussion
• Action Items & Next Steps
• Closing Remarks

MVC is the “home college” for majority of our students

• Percent of students who complete at least 60%
• f their attempted coursework at only one

college

• Moreno Valley College is clearly a unique case

in RCCD

• Vast majority of MVC students complete

majority of attempted coursework at MVC = 3 of every 4 students

• Norco and RCC students complete or attempt

coursework at more than one college

• Strengthening our culture so that MVC is

College of Choice!

Local Student Enrollment

1800 800 800 400 300 200 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Moreno Valley USD ValVerde USD Graduates Enroll into PostSecondary Attend MVC

40%

Data Source: California Department of Education, CDE 2015; California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, CCCCO 2017

50%

Race/Ethnicity Enrollment by Percentage Race/Ethnicity CCC State Total RCCD MVC Norco RCC African American

5.87 8.09

11.89

5.42 7.64 American Indian 0.40 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.37 Asian 11.00 4.90 3.14 6.32 5.03 Filipino 2.92 2.11 2.05 2.42 2.00 Latina/o

45.08 60.93

63.78

58.61 60.75 Multi-Ethnicity 3.76 2.31 2.89 2.32 2.09 Pacific Islander 0.41 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.37 Unknown 4.42 0.85 0.58 0.36 1.21 White Non-Hispanic

26.14 20.13 15.04

24.07 20.55

MVC serves Students of Color proportionally at higher rates than State and District levels

Data Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), February, 2017

Region 9: Completion Rates (Spring, 2016)

13

12.4

11.9 9.5

8.9

8.4 8.4 7.5 7.4 7.2 6.7

Chaffey (#1) Copper Mt (#2) Crafton Hills (#3) RCC (#4)

• Mt. San

Jacinto (#5) Norco (#6) San Bernardino (#7) COD (#8) Victor Valley (#9) MVC (#10) Palo Verde (#11)

Top Quarter of CA CCC

CA: #19 #24 #27 #48 #54 #62 #63 #74 #76 #81 #83

Data Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), February, 2017 Number of Degrees+Certificates/Unduplicated Headcount

Region 9: Average of Retention & Success Rates (Spring, 2016)

83.6 81.5 81.1 81

78.4

78.1 77.7 77.6 76 75.1 74.8

Palo Verde (#1) Crafton Hills (#2) Chaffey (#3) Copper Mt (#4) MVC (#5) Norco (#6) San Bernardino (#7) Victor Valley (#8) RCC (#9)

• Mt. San

Jacinto (#10) COD (#11)

Top Quarter of CA CCC Bottom Quarter of CA CCC

CA: #5 #17 #23 #25 #58 #63 #74 #76 #92 #100 #103

Region 9: All Student Success Rates (Spring, 2016)

76.9 73.5 72.5 71.3

70.7

70 67.3 67.2 67 66.6 64.7

Palo Verde (#1) Copper Mt (#2) Crafton Hills (#3) Chaffey (#4) MVC (#5) Norco (#6) COD (#7) San Bernardino (#

• Mt. San

Jacinto(#9) RCC (#10) Victor Valley (#11)

Top Quarter of CA CCC Bottom Quarter of CA CCC

CA: #6 #28 #39 #49 #62 #70 #98 #100 #102 #106 #111

Region 9: Latinx Student Success Rates (Spring, 2016)

70.1

69.9

69.7 69

68.5

67.2 66.2 65.1 65 64.3 64.2

Crafton Hills (#1) MVC (#2) Palo Verde (#3) Chaffey (#4) Cooper Mt (#5) Norco (#6) San Bernardino (#7) COD (#8)

• Mt. San

Jacinto(#9) Victor Valley (#10) RCC (#11)

Top Quarter of CA CCC Bottom Quarter of CA CCC

CA: #24 #27 #29 #39 #43 #58 #72 #85 #87 #93 #94

FTES - Target vs. Actual Realized (2011-2016)

6062 6043.21 6362.94 6606.51 6832.72 6173.65 5726.61 6262.44 6473.19 6573.26 6340 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Target Actual

Data Source: Targets established via District Allocation Model; Annual Credit FTES Reported CCFS‐320 Report Note: In order to make district targets, FTES earned in summer sessions were reported for previous year every year but 2013‐2014

MVC Budget & RCCD Budget Allocation Model (BAM)

• Dr. Nathaniel Jones (Vice President, Business Services)

MVC Budget & District Budget Allocation Model (BAM)

• MVC FY17 General Fund Budget is $36.5M
• This budget allocation is largely based on an FTES

target of 6,833 (23.1% of RCCD total of 29,579 FTES)

• The state provides funding to community college

districts primarily on the basis FTES, calculated on a growth model

• Hence, RCCD’s BAM is based on FTES
• FY18 FTES targets: MVC & NC (7,035.4) & RCC

(16,385.5)

Implications of FTES Shortfalls

• Reductions in MVC’s general fund budget
• Decreased allocations for faculty and staff

positions

• Decreased allocations for equipment & network

infrastructure

• Lower probability of state funding for new

facilities, which is based in part on fall WSCH

Some points to consider ….

• Dr. Robin Steinback (VPAA)
• Dr. Dyrell Foster (VPSS)

Student On-Boarding: Application, Assessment, Orientation, Enrollment, (2014‐2016)

MVC Enrollment Data Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Completed Application, did not complete assessment, orientation or enroll for fall term 1314 1178 1102 Completed Application, completed assessment, did not complete orientation or enroll for fall term 155 127 464 Completed Application, completed/assessment completed orientation did not enroll for fall term 650 503 430 Unduplicated head count on day 1 of term 8774 8842 9036

MVC Financial Aid Support (2016‐2017)

48%

Pell Grant non-Pell

81% 50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Full-time Part-time

Pell non-Pell Data Source: MVC Financial Aid; MIS Differential Files, March 2017

Students Employed (work hours per week)

None 35% 1‐20 hours 25% 21‐30 hours 18% 30+ hours 22%

Data Source: MIS referential files (2012‐2016)

15 8 8 11 12

26 28 30 30 86

47 48 50 44

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Moreno Valley Unified School District (Fall 2012 – 2016)

Transfer 1-step 2-steps 3 steps no placement

60 40

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MMAP ‐ Fall 2016 Transfer 1‐step

MMAP ‐ ENGLISH

43

26 21

10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fall 2016

MMAP - MATH

Transfer 1-step 2-steps 3+ steps

3 3 3 2 2

40 39 40 43 40 23 21 24 21 23

31 33 32 32 36

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Moreno Valley Unified School District (Fall 2012 – 2016)

Transfer 1-step 2-steps 3+ steps no placement

What might we discern from enrollment patterns, 2010-2016?

Student Unit Load (% by Category) Fall Terms, 2010-2016

18 19 15 5 3 4 5 29 29 29 31 31 30 31 20 21 20 23 22 24 24 14 13 15 17 18 18 18 14 14 15 18 19 19 17 4 4 5 6 6 5 4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

<2.9 units 3-5.9 units 6-8.9 units 9-11.9 units 12-14.9 units 15+ units

10532 9829 8936 8220 8592 8697 9022 Data Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), March, 2017

Number of Course Sections, Average Fill Rates

(2010-2016)

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700

2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017

1521 1596

91%

83% 78% 81% 77% 74%

Data Source: RCCD Enrollment Management Dashboard, March 2017

1700 1475 1370 1428 1520

88%

Average Class Size (2010-2016)

31.94 32.03 31.14 31.14 30.72 29.82 28.82

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017

Average FTES per Section (2010-2016)

3.97 4.01 4.16 4.38 4.24 4.15 3.96

3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017

FTES - Target vs. Actual Realized (2011-2016)

6062 6043.21 6362.94 6606.51 6832.72 6173.65 5726.61 6262.44 6473.19 6573.26 6340 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Target Actual

Data Source: Targets established via District Allocation Model; Annual Credit FTES Reported CCFS‐320 Report Note: In order to make district targets, FTES earned in summer sessions were reported for previous year every year but 2013‐2014

Promise of Transformation

• Acceleration – Reducing Time in Remediation (Math,

English)

• Multiple Measure for Assessment and Placement
• Faculty‐to‐Faculty Collaboration (K‐12 Collaborative)
• Articulation Agreements (Articulation Summit)
• Summits!: Mutual Respect & Collaboration with Local

Unified School Districts

• And many, many more ….

Small Group Dialogue

• 1. What additional

data or information would be helpful to better understand the enrollment management challenges at MVC?

(15 minutes)

Report Out: What data elements or information would be helpful to better understand our enrollment challenges?

• 2. What ideas or

strategies do you think would be immediately help address the enrollment management challenges at MVC?

(15 minutes)

Report Out: What were your group’s top 3-5 ideas

• r strategies to

immediately address enrollment strategies?

Strategic Enrollment Management

STRATEGIC ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

• Participatory & Active
• Representation from and Involvement of Areas of

College

• Strategic Planning Council
• Guiding Principles: Foundation, Approach & Strategies
• Strategic = Linked to Plans with targeted outcomes

SEM Model: Single Funnel

Completers

Applicants Inquirers Prospects

Admits Enrollees

34

Strategic Enrollment Management Framework: Student Success Continuum

Admits Enrollees Bontranger, 2004

Recruitment/ Marketing Admissions Orientation Co‐curricular Support Academic Support Retention Financial Support Classroom Experience Student’s College Career Attain Degree/Goal

35

Purpose of Strategic Enrollment Management

A concept and process that enables the fulfillment of institutional mission and students’ educational goals. In practice, the purposes of SEM are achieved by:

• Establishing comprehensive goals for the number and type of students needed to fulfill

the institutional mission,

• Promoting students’ academic success by improving access, transition, persistence, and

graduation,

• Promoting institutional success by enabling effective strategic and financial planning,
• Creating a data‐rich environment to inform decisions and evaluate strategies,
• Strengthening communications and marketing with internal and external stakeholders,

and

• Increasing collaboration among departments across the campus to support the

enrollment program.

Bontrager, B. and Pollack, K. (2009). Strategic Enrollment Management at Community College, from Applying SEM at the Community College

36

Thank you!