1 / 42

How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to Enrollment Success in 2010

How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to Enrollment Success in 2010. Richard Whiteside Dean, Strategic Enrollment Management Royall & Company. Presenter. Richard Whiteside, Ph.D.

arin
Download Presentation

How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to Enrollment Success in 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How 100 Institutions Managed Their Way to Enrollment Success in 2010 Richard Whiteside Dean, Strategic Enrollment Management Royall & Company

  2. Presenter Richard Whiteside, Ph.D. Richard Whiteside joined Royall in 2006 after 37 years in enrollment management and academic affairs, the last thirteen years as Dean of Admission and Vice President for Enrollment Management at Tulane University. Dean Whiteside was a leader in Tulane’s post-Katrina recovery and rebuilding program. He is the editor of Student Marketing for Colleges & Universities (2004). Dr. Whiteside is a frequent presenter at a variety of professional meetings and is considered a leading voice in matters related to direct marketing in college recruitment, enrollment planning and strategy, the strategic use of financial aid, and the implementation of strategic enrollment management programs in colleges and universities. He holds a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership from the University of Connecticut, two M.S. degrees from The Johns Hopkins University (Applied Behavioral Sciences and Student Personnel Services), and a B.A. from Manhattan College.

  3. Dedicated exclusively to helping colleges and universities achieve their enrollment and financial goals through the use of direct marketing recruitment.

  4. Full-service direct marketing agency • Founded in 1983 • Located in Richmond, Virginia • 220 full-time staff members • 200+ institutional partners • 94% year-to-year retention

  5. The survey • Electronic survey • Determine the outcomes for Royall & Company clients • Understand what strategies contribute to success • Share success strategies with other institutions

  6. The respondents

  7. The respondents

  8. The respondents

  9. Overall results – input & conversion

  10. Overall results – average outcomes 131 institutions

  11. But some did better than others Quartiles based on change in deposits 2009 v 2010

  12. Key differences between groups

  13. Key differences between groups

  14. Success did not depend on location! Region

  15. Success did not depend on size! Freshman Class Size * These 16 smaller institutions are not included in the analysis of the data for institutions with freshman class sizes greater than or equal t0 200

  16. Or quality! SAT Ranges & Averages

  17. Affiliation didn’t matter either! Religious Affiliation

  18. Privates and publics did well! Control

  19. All kinds of schools succeeded! Campus Environment

  20. Success depended less on who you are than what you did!

  21. 3 “Keys” That Drove Success • 10% increase in inquiries • 10% increase in admitted students • Net increase in cost of attendance within $500 of 2009

  22. The more the institution did, the greater the results!

  23. The more the institution did, the greater the results!

  24. The more the institution did, the greater the results!

  25. How did those in the top 3 quartiles get the numbers they wanted?

  26. How did they do it?

  27. Search & Senior Search – Impact At Each Stage of Engagement Compound Impact - 2012 Senior Search and Inquiry Pool Marketing Immediate Impact –Senior Search and Inquiry Pool Marketing Enrolled Freshman Pre-QualifiedHigh School Seniors (Next Entering Class) Royall Senior Search Program Royall Application Program Admissions Processing Current Inquiry Pool for Next Class Future Impact – 2012 & 2013 Junior / Sophomore Search Future Impact – 2013 & 2014 Junior / Sophomore Search Pre-Qualified High School Sophomores & Juniors (Future Classes) Royall Search Program Royall Fulfillment & Brochure Program Inquiry Pool for Future Classes Inquiry Pool for Future Classes

  28. The impact of Senior Search was significant 27 Institutions added Senior Search in 2009-10

  29. Senior Search - responsibilities Search Mailing & Email SearchResponse Fulfillment & Invite Application Process Application Institutional Responsibility

  30. Search • Creates pipeline of inquiries who are two times more likely to apply and 2.5 times more likely to deposit that comparable names not searched • Access to the 50%+/- of the names available only during the sophomore or junior year

  31. Search - responsibilities Search Mailing & Email Search Response Paper, Email, Login Fulfillment • Build & Evolve Relationship Invite Application Institutional Responsibility

  32. The Power of Royall Inquiry Development Programs For every student from this group that enrolled… More than 2.25 students from this group enrolled

  33. The lift is apparent at every stage of the process and for all types of students Applied Men 2X 2X More Likely to Deposit More Likely to Apply Women Accepted 2X 2.5X More Likely to Deposit More Likely to Be Accepted Deposited Minorities 3.0X 2.5X More Likely to Deposit More Likely to Deposit

  34. Searching Across Years Is Highly ProductiveNames acquired from The College Board Students searched as sophomores showed average application SAT scores = 1278 Students searched as juniors showed average application SAT scores = 1240 Students searched as seniors showed average application SAT scores = 1200

  35. Searching Across Years Is Highly Productive Names acquired from ACT Sophomores responding to Search and applying showed average ACT scores = 26.6 • Seniors responding to Search and applying showed average ACT scores = 26.7

  36. The Power of a Royall Application Development Program 30,000 inquiries were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Test Group 15,000 Royall Application Outreach Control Group 15,000 Regular Institutional Application Outreach

  37. The Power of a Royall Application Program For every 100 students from the control group that enrolled, 176 students from the test group enrolled ACT 25.8 ACT 25.6 ACT 27.0 ACT 27.3 ACT 26.4 ACT 26.7

  38. Using Royall Application increased number of in and out-of-state students In-State Out-of-State Deposits = 46 Deposits = 130 Deposits = 118 Deposits = 183

  39. Other key findings • Institutions that reduced commitment to recruitment likely to be in bottom quartile • Keeping cost increases low for those receiving grants is critical

  40. Continued • The best performers distributed applications, acceptances, merit-based awards and need-based awards 10 – 14 days earlier than those institutions that did not perform well! • Their deposits are more likely to be refundable through May 1. • Less likely to be Common Application members • More likely to mail an institutionally branded application

  41. Why Royall & Company? • 15.1% Search Response (Our Average in 2009) • 37% Conversion Rate (R & C Average for Senior Search Inquiries) • 57 Points Higher on SAT Scores (Applications from Search Responders vs. Other Sources) • 25% More Applications (From Students You Will Accept)

  42. Questions? Richard Whiteside Dean, Strategic Enrollment Management Royall & Company 1920 E. Parham Road Richmond, VA23228 rwhiteside@royall.com (804) 741-8965 www.royall.com

More Related