PEMSA Division Meeting Spring 2014

1. PEMSA Division MeetingSpring 2014 February 12, 2014 Lori Varlotta Senior Vice President for Planning, Enrollment Management and Student Affairs

2. Overview • State Budget and Its Implications for CSU and Sacramento State • California’s Emerging Funding Model • Advising-Related Programs • Graduation Initiative (GI)-Related Programs • Co-Curricular Programs • Capital Planning Updates • Housing Expansion • Union/WELL Expansion • Lassen Hall Updates

3. State Budget and Its Implications for CSU and Sacramento State

4. Summary of Governor’s Proposed Budget Governor Brown’s 2014-15 proposed budget calls for increases in CSU funding. • $142M increase for CSU system in 2014-15 • 5% general fund increase to CSU for next two years (4% in the two following years) The proposal also includes grant incentives to increase graduation rates and reduce time-to-degree rates.

5. California’s Emerging Funding Model California, like other states, is considering a move away from enrollment-based funding toward a performance-based model. Such a model might include metrics such as: • Affordability • Efficiency • Timely Completion of Degree • Aggregated and Disaggregated Graduation Rates • Ease of Transfer

6. California’s Emerging Funding Model (cont.) If California moves in that direction, both the CSU and Sac State have programs such as Advising, the Graduation Initiative (GI), and others that might move the needle forward.

7. Sac State’s Advising-Related Programs

8. The Connection Between Advising & Student Success The data collected in many of the University’s established advising-related programs suggests that there is a strong correlation between the intrusive advising offered in “specialty” programs and student success. • Student-Athlete Resource Center (SARC) • Second-Year Advising (SYA)

9. Student-Athlete Resource Center (SARC) (8 years in existence) The SARC serves Sac State’s ~500 intercollegiate student-athletes. Data shows SARC programs & services contribute to the academic success of its students. • Student-athletes’ first-year retention rate (88%) is higher than that of the overall student population (81%) • In Fall 2012, student-athletes had a 2.94 average GPA (overall undergrad GPA = 2.86) • The Fall 2006-2007 freshman student-athlete cohort had a 61% graduation rate (overall undergrad = 41%)

10. Second-Year Advising (SYA)(5 years in existence) The SYA program serves students who are on academic probation or “at-risk.” Support services include: • Mandatory 1½ hours of intervention • Initial 1 hour meeting • ½ hour follow-up meeting • Study skills • Course planning • Goal planning • Time management • Degree progress After receiving services, students in the SYA program showed an average GPA increase of 0.3 grade points in one semester.

11. Second-Year Advising: Moving the Needle 100% Status in Students’Third Year 90% 80% 70% 60% Withdrew DQ/DM 50% Probation 40% Good Standing 30% 20% 10% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 Comparison Cohorts

12. Academic Advising In addition to advising programs that have been in place for years, new ones are being conceptualized this year to “scale up” programs that worked in the past. • A Transfer Student Advising Program is being piloted this spring to parallel, in some part, what is offered to freshmen in first-year advising. • A Residential Student Advising Program is also being piloted this spring to augment the existing second-year probation program.

13. Transfer Student Advising (Piloted Spring 2014) • Initial target: undeclared transfer students admitted for AY 2013-2014 • Mandatory academic advising • GE/GR • Course planning • Strategies for academic success • Transitioning from community college • Campus and community resources • Connecting with other transfer students

14. Residential Student Advising (Piloted Spring 2014) • Target: residential students on academic probation • 189 first-year students • Multiple advising sessions • RLC training began last semester • 7 RLCs • 1 Residential Academic Advisor

15. Graduation Initiative (GI)-Related Programs

16. Goals of the GI • Increase the six-year graduation rate of Sacramento State’s FTF from 42% to 51% by 2015. • Increase the four-year graduation rate of Sacramento State’s transfer students from 63% to 68% by 2015. • Close the Sacramento State achievement gap by half by 2015. The current gap is • ~10.3% for FTF • ~5.2% for Transfer Students

17. A Key Strategy to Meet GI Goals Scale “what works” with small groups such as EOP, CAMP, and PARC to the larger student population. Since “specialty” programs that offer intensive advising, mentoring, and academic support (tutoring, etc.) work for their specific audiences, the GI aims to expand such services to reach more of the general student body.

18. Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) (45 years in existence) EOP serves first-generation students from low-income or traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. According to a 2012 OIR study, EOP participants had slightly higher rates of retention than non-participants in both Spring and Fall 2011, in spite of the fact that they had significantly lower average HS GPAs and SAT scores than non-EOP first-generation FTF students.

19. College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) (32 years in existence) CAMP supports ~80 migrant students per year. According to a 2012 study, the first- to second- year retention rate for CAMP participants was significantly higher than that of non-CAMP students with similar backgrounds in Fall 2011 (92.6% vs. 82.3%). The 6-year graduation rate was 40%—slightly higher than URMs not served by SASEEP.

20. Peer & Academic Resource Center (PARC)(2.5 years in existence) In Fall 2011, PARC was launched in an effort to centralize many academic support services. Students can stop by or make an appointment to see a tutor, get assistance on a paper, meet with a peer advisor, or take advantage of courses that offer a supplemental instruction component.

21. Supplemental Instruction (SI) (34 years in existence) Supplemental Instruction, conducted through PARC, is a 1-unit support course for students enrolled in historically challenging general education (GE) courses (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Economics, History, and more). In Fall 2009, SI efforts were scaled up to serve more students across a variety of disciplines.

22. SI (cont.) Student participants in SI have repeatedly earned better grades than non-SI participants in the same or similar GE courses. Additionally, SI students outperformed non-participants in terms of the course passage rate in numerous instances.

23. DEGREES (3 months in existence) Funded this fall through a CO grant, the DEGREES program—“Dedicated to Educating, Graduating, and Retaining Educational Equity Students”—is designed to help close the achievement gap by getting URM students involved in high impact programs such as: • Online mentoring services (Mutual Force) • Online tutoring 24 hours a day (Smarthinking) • Early warning interventions through the EBI MAP Works Platform

24. DEGREES(cont.) The DEGREES Project proposes to scale up services to underrepresented populations not served by an equity program. • Rationale: • The Federal government definition of URM is a narrow one (African-American, non-white Latino, API, and Native American). • DEGREES targets all underrepresented students, not only those defined as URM.

25. Co-Curricular Programs

26. Greek Life Last year, Student Organizations & Leadership offered a $1,000 incentive to the fraternity that most improved its GPA. • 16 fraternities competed for the $1,000. • 12 of 16 groups improved their GPAs. • The 12 groups improved their GPAs by an average of .07 points in one semester. • 167 individual students improved their GPAs in that one semester.

27. Student Club Leaders High impact practices in the co-curricular/ student involvement arena, such as being a club leader, are correlated with student success (OIR, 2011). • Improved 4-year and 6-year graduation rates • Improved retention rates

28. On the Horizon Though the performance-based funding model has just emerged on the California horizon, it is important to know that both existing and emerging programs associated with advising, the GI, and co-curricular activities may well position Sac State to meet the forthcoming metrics in this area.

29. PEMSA Capital Planning Updates

30. Housing Expansion

31. Feasibility Study for Housing & Residential Life • An outside consultant’s two Student Housing Feasibility Studies (2006 and 2011) indicate that student demand is such that Sacramento State could viably increase the number of beds on campus. • The studies recommended that Sac State upgrade its on-campus housing in two building phases and renovate existing buildings over a multi-year period.

32. Study Recommendations • Add 600 beds, predominantly student/suite-apartments to open in Fall 2009 (American River Courtyard). • Undertake phased modernization of existing residence halls over 5 years. • Add 1,557 new beds in phases between 2012 and 2021.

33. New Construction: Phase 1 Construction of the American River Courtyard (ARC) • Opened in 2009 • Attractive & modern facility • 606 beds, predominantly suite-style apartments • 2 bedroom/2 bathroom with common living and kitchenette areas or 5 single bedrooms with the same common living and kitchenette areas With the addition of the American River Courtyard, student housing was increased by 56%

34. Renovation of Existing Halls Completed Renovations: • Dining Commons (Summer 2012): seating space area was modernized • Sierra Hall (Summer 2012) and Sutter Hall (Summer 2013): general refurbishment (i.e., system upgrades/replacement and cosmetic improvements) plus structural changes to the first floor restrooms Planned Renovations: • Draper Hall (Summer 2014) and Jenkins Hall (Summer 2015): General Refurbishment (i.e., system upgrades/replacement and cosmetic improvements) • These are the two oldest buildings, built in 1959 in the traditional style of that era—cinderblock with double-loaded corridors and community restrooms on each wing

35. New Construction: Phase 2 Construction of a new 350-bed hall serving first- and second-year students • 200 beds will serve first-year students • Double room configuration with sinks and community bathrooms that serve 8-12 students (rather than 20 plus students). • Rooms will be arranged in podlike clusters (compared to long “double loaded” corridors). Pods provide residents with more privacy and foster a sense of community for the ten or so residents who live within the pod. • 150 beds will serve second-year students • Single room configuration with 4-8 students in a pod sharing a large bathroom. • Each pod will have access to a community space and kitchen with a stove serving 8-16 students. • The “community pod” concept will concretely reinforce the President’s vision for bolstering the campus’ residential feel.

36. Phase 2: Scope & Design The complex will also include in some form or fashion: • Conference and programming space • Food retail space • Outdoor seating that oversees the American River • Administrative offices • Recreation and community building space • Approximately 300 parking spaces for use by student residents and staff working in the building, including space allocated for bike racks and lockers

37. Phase 2: Project Goals The programs and services in the new building stem from a model that: • Promotes academic achievement and student success for both first- and second-year students. • Promotes meaningful interactions among residents throughout the building. • Offers ‘theme floors’ with faculty mentors with the intent of creating living-learning spaces. • Provides adequate community space for educational and recreational programming. • Provides consolidated office space for Housing staff and personnel. • Provides a small retail dining space.

38. Union / WELL Expansion

39. Alternative Consultation Process forUnion WELL Inc. • During Summer 2013, Union WELL Inc. hired an architect and a financial consultant • Staff and students toured “like” facilities on six other California campuses to gather data for the Sac State project • An in-depth study was conducted regarding the financial feasibility of the project and its impact on the campus • In early Fall 2013, staff from Union WELL Inc. held 28 open forum and town hall meetings with student groups over a 4-week period • A final report was produced summarizing student feedback, financial models, and questionnaire results

40. Alternative Consultation: The Data A follow up questionnaire asked 18 questions ranging from general demographic information to very specific inquiries about meeting, lounge, Health Center, and workout space preferences. The results showed that it was important to students to have: • Additional food service seating (75%) • Additional casual/study seating (77%) • Additional meeting space (75%)

41. Alternative Consultation: The Data (cont.) • Additional workout, weightlifting, and open gym space(67%) • Expanded health, counseling, and psychological services (79%) Responses also indicated that 44% of those who completed questionnaires supported the fee to build the event center and renovate the Union & WELL. 55% did not support the fee.

42. Alternative Consultation: The Result • The fee increase was approved by both the Union WELL Inc. Board of Directors and the Student Fee Advisory Committee • After reviewing the data, President Gonzalez reluctantly decided not to approve the fee increase • Since student feedback showed a desire to expand both the Union and The WELL, the President recommended re-evaluating the scope of the expansion project, under a much smaller fee, to include just the existing facilities (University Union and The WELL), and not to include an event center

43. Alternative Consultation: Next Steps • Union WELL Inc. has hired a new architect and has started the process of identifying priorities for expanding the Union and The WELL • A marketing committee is determining the most effective approach to present the project to students and receive feedback this spring • Meetings with classes and student groups is scheduled to take place during the month of March, with a final report to be compiled and given to President Gonzalez in April

44. Lassen Hall Updates 3rd floor renovations: • We are in the process of renovating the Senior Vice President’s office suite in order to provide more space for the Student Conduct Office as well as a waiting area for students visiting that office. • We expect to complete the third floor renovations by July 2014. This may entail moving certain offices to a new space as well as expanding the conference room. 1st/2nd floor plans: • We expect to move some “back of the house” functions from the first floor to the second floor to create space for a student-services center (“One-Stop”) on the first floor. • The anticipated timeline is late 2014/early 2015.

45. A Time of Change Dr. Varlotta will be leaving Sacramento State at the end of the Spring 2014 semester to assume her new role as President of Hiram College in Hiram, Ohio. President Gonzalez is considering a couple of scenarios to put in place for the short term. More information is forthcoming.

46. Thank you very much.