Defining Strategic Enrollment Management:

How is it aiding the future of higher education?

Scott R. Argo

Capstone- PADM 7050

Master of Public Administration

Augusta State University

May 1, 2008

Abstract

In recent years, enrollment at universities across the nation has constantly increased. Consequently, a new trend of strategic enrollment management, which consists of various management styles to oversee growth, has emerged as institutions like Augusta State University must meet the needs of their communities while advancing knowledge and education. This study sets out to identify the various forms of growth management at the twelve state universities within the University System of Georgia along with eleven other universities nationwide similar to Augusta State University. Specifically, an emphasis is placed on institutions that utilize strategic enrollment management. The results suggest that strategic enrollment management is an effective form of growth management as it highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses at institutions who utilize it.

Introduction

In our increasingly educated world, the question of how to maintain the mission of a university while controlling its growth, maintaining its financial obligations, and preparing its students for the workforce that lies ahead of them is on the minds of many college administrators. Increasingly, a new trend of strategic enrollment management is emerging and mission statements at institutions of higher education are being reworded to fit the current needs of these academic institutions.

A mission statement is important to an institution as it is the guiding force that drives the institution. The mission of Augusta State University (ASU) states that the institution “is committed to excellence in teaching, advancement of knowledge, and enrichment of the community in a climate that fosters humane values and a life-long love of learning. This mission is based on the value of a liberal arts education for students who are diverse in ethnicity, background, age, and preparation. The mission obligates the university to be open to the voices of all its members, to be responsive to the needs of its community, and to measure its success by the success of its students” (Augusta State University, 2007).

Institutions like Augusta State University must meet the needs of their communities while advancing knowledge and education. Similar to these institutions, ASU must look for answers as it simply cannot keep up with the current growth patterns it is experiencing. While ASU has been able to manage growth thus far, the academic campus is nearing capacity and questions must be answered. Even if the institution receives funding for new buildings and facilities, the likelihood of their completion before the current academic campus on Walton Way reaches capacity is not likely.

Purpose and Significance

With growth come challenges. As Augusta State University continues to grow, it is the opinion of many that it must strengthen the student support and academic services available to accommodate its student’s needs. In a recent student customer satisfaction survey conducted on campus in spring 2007 by Professor Ralph Walker (2007), Director of the ASU Research Center, students ranked the ASU Financial Aid Office at the bottom of the list in regards to adequate service. While measures have been taken to increase student satisfaction in this area, financial services are critical to the success of ASU as many of its students must receive funding to pay for their education.

In the University System of Georgia’s (USG) most recently released retention rating report, Augusta State University ranks next to last when compared to other state universities in the USG. This data evaluates the freshman to sophomore progression rate among all state universities within the system. The evidence presented in this report suggests that ASU is not adequately selecting students for admissions while preparing them to transition from high school to college. (USG Retention Rate, 2004). In a similar report by the USG, Augusta State’s admissions standards have the third lowest high school grade point average among entering freshman in comparison to the twelve other state universities (USG First Time Freshman GPA, 2005).

According to a September 2007 article in the Augusta Chronicle, a third of ASU students do not make it past their freshman year of college (Gelpi, 2007). Furthermore, of students who enrolled as freshman at the institution six years prior, less than twenty three percent graduated with a bachelor's degree (2007). Statistics such as these often suggest that lower level classes are often full, yet many upper level courses have a lot of room for growth. ASU and other state universities in the USG are constantly exploring ways to attract well-qualified transfer students, particularly targeting enrollment for degree programs that can accommodate more upper-level students.

Augusta State University must continue to manage its growth in order to fulfill the entire mission of the university. Yes, ASU must meet the needs of the community, but at the same time it must continue to be dedicated to excellence in teaching while fostering life-long values in learning. Currently, Augusta State University and several institutions like ASU do not have a strategic enrollment management plan. However, a lot of institutions that are similar to ASU do have a strategic enrollment management plan or some other form of growth management.

How should Augusta State University and other University System of Georgia state universities control there enrollment and financial trends? Is there a need for ASU and other institutions like it to alter its current practices of enrollment management? This research attempts to serve as an introductory study of other University System of Georgia institutions and institutions like Augusta State University across the nation who have implemented a strategic enrollment management plan. Because strategic enrollment management is a fairly new trend that has not been overly analyzed, this study attempts to serve as a means of preliminary background information in the event that strategic enrollment management or some other form of growth management is considered at ASU or other state universities within the USG in the future.

Literature Review

Defining Strategic Enrollment Management

According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrar’s and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the leader in Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM), SEM was originally conceived as institutions began to cope with declining enrollment. Consequently in the past several years, SEM emerged as a leading trend at higher educational institutions in response to increased accountability and limited resources (Bontrager, 2007).

At many institutions, the implementation of SEM, whether through re-organization of an institution, formation of an enrollment committee, hiring of an enrollment manager, or a combination of all of the above, has been an effective means of responding to these enrollment challenges (Bontrager, 2007). Determining whether Augusta State University and other state universities need to implement a strategic enrollment plan is difficult because the concept is very new and there are many ways of creating and implementing it. Furthermore, the benefits of a SEM plan are hard to evaluate because of the differences in the various higher educational institutions that utilize it.

Strategic enrollment management is defined by AACRAO as a mechanism that is used to effectively answer the financial and enrollment challenges that higher education institutions are facing (Henderson, 2005). If that definition were not vague enough, Jim Black, Assistant Provost for Enrollment Services at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro and author of The Strategic Enrollment Management Revolution described it as a “comprehensive process designed to help an institution achieve and maintain the optimum recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of students where ‘optimum’ is defined within the academic context of the institution. As such, SEM is an institution-wide process that embraces virtually every aspect of an institution’s function and culture” (Black, 2001, p. 3).

For purposes of potentially applying the definition of strategic enrollment management at Augusta State University and similar institutions, the second description by Black seemed the most appropriate. At first glance, it appeared that the concept simply meant altering admissions requirements, program concepts, and support services in order to graduate an optimum number of students while maintaining appropriate enrollment rates. However, how did this apply to the future of institutions like Augusta State University? We must also question how these models of strategic enrollment management have developed and helped other state universities within the University System of Georgia and similar institutions across the nation.

Core Concepts of Strategic Enrollment Management

The core concepts of SEM can be understood within the contexts of several overarching goals. Bontrager (2007) listed these concepts as increasing academic quality and student success, achieving optimum enrollment, delivering top-quality service, optimizing financial opportunities, and building campus collaboration.

In Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities, Dolence, Lujan, and Rowley (1997) illustrated how strategic enrollment management can lead to effective change at several different universities. For instance, Michael Dolence successfully implemented a SEM approach on a variety of campuses in the United States and Canada. In his approach, SEM provided a consistent framework that unified all levels of administration and departments involved and was vital in keeping various groups within the institution focused on their elements of success. Dolence’s collaborative model of SEM often resulted in an institution's mission statement rather than starting with it and then working forwards.

Four Models of Enrollment Management

There are four main models of enrollment management. The first model is the adoption of a formal SEM process or division model. For instance, there is an executive administrator of a university (typically a vice president, vice provost or dean) that is designated as an enrollment manager. Underneath this administrator are various department heads or representatives including a recruitment representative (typically a director of recruitment), an admissions representative (typically a director or dean of admissions), a registration representative (typically a registrar), a financial aid representative (typically a director of financial aid), a career center representative (typically a career center director), and a retention (director of advisement) representative (Dolence, 1997).

There are many benefits in organizing SEM as a division. The division model gives all of the administrative functions a central focus and the various policies, procedures, budgets and their components are easily developed with the academic affairs side of a campus rather than falling under multiple departments. According to Garlene Penn (1999), the enrollment management division provides the most centralized systems approach. However, it requires many administrative changes to create this type of SEM into a cohesive group.

Georgia State University, a research unit of the University System of Georgia began its transition of implementing SEM as a division in 1988. Within five years it went from an idea to a reality and they have had several positive outcomes. Through their SEM plan, communication increased and many questions were answered such as how many students should be accepted, where to increase admissions standards, and how to package financial aid (Dolence, 1997). However, in a self evaluation of their model, administrators at Georgia State University point out several weaknesses. They cite that the money involved in changing personnel and adding positions proved to be both costly and time consuming. Furthermore, they suggest that budget allocations had to go through a very bureaucratic process that was not ideal (Dolence, 1997).

The second model of SEM is a task force or SEM committee. Typically, the committee is a representative body of individuals from various campus departments (academic affairs, student services, business services, admissions, financial aid, etc..) who design a SEM plan and meet occasionally as an oversight committee of this plan (Penn, 1999). Penn notes that the enrollment management committee is simply a form a communication intended to serve as a means of informing specific campus offices of the institutions’ needs in regards to enrollment management. While the committee may create a picture perfect plan, because they are not in an administrative role it is not guaranteed that the plan will be implemented as theorized. Furthermore, various individuals that comprise the committee may be so far removed from the other departments involved that they do not adequately understand the importance of SEM in the context of those other departments (Penn, 1999).

In 1992, California Polytechnic State University formed an enrollment management advisory committee that was comprised of administrative personnel from various campus offices including student development, student services, academic affairs, institutional studies, and admissions. The committee met weekly to develop an enrollment plan for the university. The more the committee analyzed the needs of the campus the more they found they needed to know. Throughout the process the enrollment management committee adopted a philosophy of providing direction without imposing administrative demands and restrictions (Dolence, 1997).

The enrollment management committee served as a simple solution to increase enrollment management. While it strengthened communications among various departments, it was also a long-term process that faced many obstacles such as turnover among the committee (training new members). It also served as a means of unity in attempt to create unity among all campus departments working for the common good of the university but because there was no administrator in charge this did not happen as planned (Dolence, 1997).

The third model, hiring a SEM coordinator or consultant, is considered an early model of the formal SEM process. This position is usually filled by an outside consultant or a veteran enrollment professional. The coordinator serves as a liaison between various departments, creating, coordinating and integrating various SEM functions and strategies. This model is often put into place in earlier stages of program development as it allows an institution to focus on the main principles of SEM before adopting these principals into a formal process (Dolence, 1997).

Since 1994, the University of Memphis has utilized the coordinator model of enrollment management. It is headed by an individual with a title of vice provost for enrollment management. While many would think this classifies the university as a division model, this is not the case. The vice provost is not directly responsible for all levels of SEM at his institution. Instead, the vice president serves a bridge between departments that fall under the division of academic affairs, university affairs, and student affairs. The vice president serves as a liaison between many different campus committees including retention, admissions, academic dean’s council, student affairs and retention. The vice president’s job is to help determine (along with over 35 other individuals on campus) the quality of students desired and set policies for these students to be matriculated, in attempt to constantly increase graduation rates (Penn, 1999).

According to Penn, “the personal influence of the individual holding this type of position is the only indicator of impact” (Penn, 1999, p. 18). She suggests that a coordinator has little influence on policies and procedures at various campuses implementing this type of strategic enrollment management. The only strength of this model is monitoring activities of various departments who fall within the realm of enrollment management. While individuals at various institutions can have large impacts, a lack of authority and administrative oversight can prove to be ineffective in this form of enrollment management (Penn, 1999).

Finally, the fourth model of SEM is the matrix. The SEM matrix links administrators directly responsible for enrollment of students with one senior-level administrator who oversees the process. This model allows for more impact within each division of enrollment management but will only work if the senior administrator has the time to effectively communicate and influence the other administrators. It requires a moderate degree of restructuring and cooperation from the various departments involved in the SEM process. Basically, in SEM, a matrix is a hybrid that often times include parts of the division model and parts of the committee model of strategic enrollment management (Penn, 1999).

With an enrollment of over 50,000 students, the University of Minnesota- Twin Cities is one of the largest university campuses in the United States. Because of the size of the university it was impossible to adapt a single SEM approach so a matrix was used. The University of Minnesota’s model consisted of a chief administrator of SEM and also utilized several task forces to serve over each of the enrollment management departments. Dolence (1997), states that this model at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities helps maximize the enrollment management process while increasing enrollment vitality. However, a team of this magnitude imposes a lot of change which can create a number of obstacles at various institutions. Because the university is so complex and decentralized, it must find a way to retain the good qualities of decentralization while incorporating a centralized approach. (Dolence, 1997).

The four main models of Strategic Enrollment Management fail to focus on the role of faculty in the enrollment management process. In A Practical Guide to Enrollment and Retention Management in Higher Education, Marguerite Dennis points out that admissions offices can only sell the product that faculty provide to students. Faculty members have direct contact with students in their classes and can provide enrollment management feedback on what has been effective. They can also serve as a brainstorming team to effectively give suggestions on how to improve the enrollment management process at an institution (Dennis, 1998). Furthermore, the enrollment management team must sell their plan to the faculty in order for it to be embraced by an entire campus.

Effects of Strategic Enrollment Management

While strategic enrollment management is a fairly new trend, it has been around long enough to prove effective. The University of Vermont conducted an audit of existing enrollment practices including it’s organizational structure, staffing patterns, processes, workflow, strategies, and technology utilization. Jim Black, serving as a consultant for a strategic enrollment management firm, came in and helped implement a new plan. According to the University’s Vice President for Undergraduate Education, the strategic enrollment plan provided “was a critical, dispassionate, neutral analysis of our current state of affairs, and then provided the compassionate, sounding board for all parties to vent, complain, finger point, etc.” (Semworks Success Stories, 2004, pg. 7). According to the vice president, the plan pointed them in “the direction of positive, constructive improvement…and the university has now begun to slowly turn around, an important early indicator that we can indeed control our future enrollments” (Semworks Success Stories, 2004, pg. 8).

In an article entitled Enrollment Management Yields Impressive Results, Phyllis Gottlieb illustrates the effects of SEM at Rutgers University. Since it’s inception in the early 1990’s, Rutgers has experienced growth both in the number of applications and the quality of students enrolling at the university in recent years. Since 1996, Rutgers has experienced an increase of 31 percent in applications for admissions. Furthermore, the quality of students choosing to attend Rutgers continues to rise as the mean SAT score for new students is 1189, a rise of 15 points in the past four years. Accordingly, under-represented minorities have reached five-year highs at the university (Gottlieb, 2000).

Corinne Webb, Rutgers associate vice president for enrollment management credits several factors to Rutgers increase in successful students. She credits the faculty’s involvement in the enrollment process, a new honors program and merit-based scholarships, a newly-implemented document imaging system, a strategic marketing plan, and the hard work of enrollment professionals implementing their new plan (Gottlieb, 2000). This plan and the results at Rutgers seem to show that SEM works.

In the fall of 1999, San Diego State University (SDSU) offered provisional admission to nearly 15,000 of its 29,000 applicants reflecting an increasingly competitive admissions process. According to SDSU President Stephen Weber, SDSU was managing enrollment to protect the quality of the education their students received by controlling admissions and avoiding overcrowding. SDSU's efforts to manage its enrollment began in 1996. Their SEM plan has received support from business leaders, the local school system, professors on the campus, and local organizations (Moore, 1999).

While SEM hasn’t been evaluated at SDSU, the number of students it accepts and enrolls is being forecasted and controlled more carefully. The main reason for SDSU implementing SEM is a result of the 1997-98 academic year when SDSU enrolled 1,150 more students than it had received funding to support resulting in no state compensation for a $6.2 million cost of providing classes and services for those students (Moore, 1999).

While most of the literature on Strategic Enrollment Management identifies it as the leading form of growth management, it often fails to point out its weaknesses. The authors of most of the studies are advocates of strategic enrollment management and interested in promoting its well being rather than its downfalls. However, there are often underlying messages that point to several weaknesses in SEM.

The majority of institutions around the nation are similar as they offer academic preparation and degrees to students in a manner of coursework taught by trained academic professionals. Institutions are consistently seeking ways to understand their uniqueness and how to get high ability students to choose them over other institutions. Branding is a concept mentioned within the realm of strategic enrollment management. However, while a lot of institutions attempt to use SEM to understand and convey their uniqueness, they fail to successfully market it to potential students. Another downfall to SEM is more often than not, it fails to incorporate university relations and alumni affairs into its planning process. Because of this, campuses often have two divisions working on the same mission of connecting various groups of individuals with their institutions without communicating with each other (Black, 2001).

While there are several studies on Strategic Enrollment Management, it is still a fairly new subject. Therefore, it is very challenging to evaluate long term results of the various forms of strategic enrollment management. Likewise, while several institutions within the University System of Georgia such as Georgia State University have implemented some form of SEM, there has not been much done in the way of evaluating these programs much less assessing the need for other institutions to follow their lead.

Methodology

In order to find out the effectiveness of strategic enrollment management and what other forms of enrollment management were utilized an applied non-experimental research design was used. First, institutions categorized as state universities within the University System of Georgia were analyzed. Three enrollment professionals at each of these twelve accredited institutions within the University System of Georgia were asked to be surveyed via semi-structured interviews in this study to determine the processes of controlling growth and providing service at their institutions. They included Albany State University, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Clayton State University, Columbus State University, Fort Valley State University, Georgia College & State University, Georgia Southwestern State University, Kennesaw State University, North Georgia College & State University, Savannah State University, Southern Polytechnic State University, and the University of West Georgia. While Kennesaw State University and West Georgia are much larger in size, they were still analyzed as they fall within the same category as ASU within the USG.

The USG does not mandate a specific form of enrollment management to be utilized. In an attempt to understand enrollment management trends across the nation, eleven other schools that are similar to state universities within the USG including Augusta State University were targeted in this study. These institutions were classified as like institutions by The Education Trust, a non-profit organization dedicated to research and wide public dissemination of data identifying achievement patterns among different groups of students and institutions. According to its website, www.educationtrust.org, it was established in 1990 by the American Association for Higher Education as a project to encourage colleges and universities to support K-12 reform efforts.

Utilizing information on The Education Trust website (2008) , criteria for institutions to be considered like Augusta State University and other state universities in the USG included the Carnegie class (Master’s medium/small), size (two thousand to ten thousand), graduation rate, SAT mean, percentage of students who were pell grant recipients, and the institution’s sector (public institution). Schools included in the search were California State University, Stanislaus, Francis Marion University, Southwestern Oklahoma State University, East Central University, Texas A&M University- Commerce, Henderson State University, Austin Peay State University, Southern Utah University, Southeastern Oklahoma State University, University of Louisiana at Monroe, and Montana State University- Billings (The Education Trust, 2007).

An initial search of the internet was conducted in an attempt to identify which of these institutions, both in Georgia and across the nation have implemented some form of strategic enrollment management. For those who did implement some form of strategic enrollment management, three individuals were asked to participate in this study. The first interviewee was the chief enrollment manager or highest ranking officer in charge of enrollment management. This interviewee was targeted in an attempt to identify the structure, goals, and results of strategic enrollment management at their particular institution (see Appendix A). The second and third interviewees were the chief admissions officer and the chief financial aid officer at each institution (see Appendix B). They were interviewed in an attempt to find out how strategic enrollment management has impacted their respective offices both positively and negatively in attempt to understand the strengths and weaknesses of SEM.

If identification of strategic enrollment management at a specific institution was unavailable on the internet, an e-mail was sent and/or phone call was made to the chief admissions officer of those specific institutions to find out if they utilize strategic enrollment management. If the interviewee did not utilize SEM, an interview was attempted to be conducted with the chief admissions officer to find out how enrollment is controlled (if at all) at their institution (see Appendix C). The various institutions that were surveyed did not necessarily utilize strategic enrollment management. It was hypothesized that many of these institutions may not have used any form of enrollment management. However, this was acceptable as the purpose of this study is to serve as a means of preliminary background information about the enrollment management process among state universities within the University System of Georgia and similar universities across the southeast.

The semi-structured interviews were conducted with a fairly open framework allowing for focused, conversational, two-way communication. The questions were set-up much like a focus group script as they started with very generic questions and became more detailed as the interview progressed. In theory, these questions were meant to probe the interviewees in an attempt to understand strategic enrollment management at the various institutions.

Since the semi-structured interviews were conducted via phone interview, an initial e-mail was sent to each interviewee asking them to participate in the study. A second e-mail or phone call was sent one week after the initial attempt to these enrollment professionals who did not respond. If they responded that they would participate, the second form of contact was to set up a phone interview. For participants who did not respond to the second e-mail, a phone call was made as a last resort of setting up an interview. Finally, for participants who were never contacted, the interviewee attempted to call the respective institution that the participant was still an employee of that college or university.

Because the researcher of this study works in the profession and his institution is known by many of the enrollment management administrators at the USG schools, it was expected that the response rates of these institutions would be very high since the researcher is a from an institution that was part of the same university system rather than a random student doing a qualitative study with no feedback or benefits for the interviewee. It was also expected that the eleven institutions across the nation who were being analyzed would not have as high of a response rate as many of them do not work with Augusta State University and report under the same system of administration.

While all the institutions who participated in this study were analyzed, there were some limitations when combining results. As noted in the literature review, every institution was very similar yet very different. Institutions used different forms of enrollment management to fit the needs of their specific institution. This study included institutions that range in size from two thousand students to over ten thousand students. This study also included institutions that have vast differences in regards to diversity on campuses as well as overall missions in regards to populations they served which also may be an indicator of various forms of enrollment management. Another limitation to this study was that there is no clear definition of strategic enrollment management. While the consensus was that it helps effectively control enrollment and financial trends at an institution, it was still a relatively new term and different schools may define enrollment management in different ways. Questions about how enrollment management was addressed at the specific institutions and how each program define it should somewhat control for these discrepancies.

Findings and Discussion

The initial search of the internet conducted in an attempt to identify the institutions utilizing strategic enrollment management did not yield the results intended in the planning stages of this research. However, the internet did prove useful for identifying the chief admissions officer, chief financial officer, and often times the chief enrollment officer at each institution. Therefore an e-mail was sent on February 21, 2008 to the chief admissions officers of the twelve targeted USG state universities and the eleven targeted schools like Augusta State from across the nation in an attempt to identify if they utilize strategic enrollment management.

Of the twenty three institutions targeted in this study, twenty one have responded to the request for participation. However, only eleven of those institutions had representatives who agreed to participate. The others representatives said they were not interested in participating. Many of the representatives who did participate were very hesitant as they did not wish to talk about weaknesses and the organization of their department or institution. Furthermore, the results of this study are limited as there was not a single institution with strategic enrollment management who had all three targeted individuals agree to participate in this study.

Sixty four percent of the interviews were from the University System of Georgia. The other thirty six percent were from representatives around the nation. Within the University system of Georgia, the majority of participants (sixty percent) were chief enrollment officers. There was only financial aid representative who responded. Among the targeted institutions across the nation, the percentage of responses were equally divided among chief enrollment officers, financial aid representatives, and chief enrollment officers, although the response rate was very weak.

Twelve different responses were given by targeted participants stating they did not wish to participate in this study. Five of the individuals reported they had not been in their current position for more than a year and did not feel comfortable reporting on growth management at their institution. Three more individuals responded they were not at liberty to discuss growth management and SEM at their institution. Four other individuals reported they simply did not have time to participate in this study; several citing that their job did not allow time to respond to the overwhelming amount of surveys they receive on various topics of admissions, financial aid, and enrollment management. Finally, several positions are currently vacant at the targeted institutions.

The majority of the institutions surveyed implemented strategic enrollment management as a response to address the issue of growth and its impact on the university. The chief enrollment officers interviewed reported no matter the form of SEM, there was a common goal of attracting and retaining qualified students. However, it was interesting to note that some institutions implemented SEM due to a lack of growth while some implemented it to slow down growth.

The person interviewed at the University of West Georgia indicated that over the past few decades there was rapid growth among entering freshman at his institution which resulted in a lack of class selection for core curriculum classes. Therefore, one of the University of West Georgia’s main purposes of implementing SEM was to increase retention while attracting transfer students to fill upper-level classes that were often conducted with less than half of the seats occupied. Likewise, the person interviewed at North Georgia College and State University, indicated that in recent years they have received an overabundance of qualified applicants. However, they implemented a form of SEM to strategically target specific groups of students (resident, commuters, upper division transfers, etc…) in order to maintaining the growth necessary to meet the formula funding model utilized by the University System of Georgia without overloading core curriculum classes with first semester freshman.

The person interviewed at Kennesaw State University indicated that SEM was implemented at their institution in response to their College of Education losing its accreditation and the need to respond to dispel the notion that the institution as a whole had lost its regional accreditation. They reorganized into the division or student access and enrollment services as they combined admissions, registrar, financial aid and bursar into one division rather than multiple divisions. At Georgia College and State University, SEM was implemented simply to optimize enrollment goals and better manage and predict enrollment, retention and graduation of students.

Six of the eight enrollment managers interviewed indicated by implementing some form of Strategic Enrollment Management, it was easier to set growth management goals as well as retention goals. Much like other institutions, the main goal of the enrollment management division at East Central Oklahoma State University was to increase retention (by implementing more student services and increasing admissions standards). The person interviewed at North Georgia College and State University explained they were able to manage admission of the different classifications of undergraduate students in a manner that enabled the institution to serve the student body most effectively and efficiently while maintaining a reasonable growth rate. Georgia College and State University along with Kennesaw State University highlighted retention and graduation rates as just a few of the goals set by implementing some form of SEM. However, Kennesaw State University, one of the pioneers of SEM within the USG, was quick to point out that goals often seem to change with the leadership of the president’s cabinet.

The division model of strategic enrollment management was the overwhelming form of SEM at state universities within the University System of Georgia as well as institutions surveyed across the nation as only one interviewee reported otherwise. At North Georgia College and State University, Georgia College and State University, and Eastern Oklahoma State University, there was either an Associate Vice President under academic affairs or a vice president of enrollment management who was directly responsible for all of the departments involved in growth management. Even institutions who chose not to participate in this study indicated that their institution had a vice president for enrollment management who was in charge of growth management. For the most part, these chief enrollment officers gained their position from the formation of a committee of campus representatives with the common goal of talking about growth management. These conversations have led to the committee determining that there should be one person in charge of all departments in order for communication to occur and a common goal among all departments be achieved.

The University of West Georgia utilized a matrix form of SEM. While there is an associate vice president for enrollment management responsible for the offices of admissions, registrar, financial aid, orientation, first year advising, and student information systems technology, there was also a strategic enrollment council. This council consists of all of the other associate and assistant vice presidents from academic affairs, business, facilities, information, marketing, and university advancement as well as the chief officers from areas of critical function (areas within the realm of SEM). This council helped develop the policies and goals that the SEM division carries out at the university.

The chief enrollment officers of universities who implement SEM agreed they have seen positive results from this form of growth management. They sited while they wished they had implemented it much earlier, there was a sense of freshman asking for help rather than dropping out when obstacles arose. Furthermore, they all stated they continually altered their strategic enrollment plan in an attempt to achieve optimal goals. Besides increasing retention and the number of qualified applicants, most enrollment managers sited communication and a sense of unity among the various departments as the best result of SEM.

One chief enrollment officer (who requested to remain anonymous in his answers) reported that before implementing SEM it was the attitude of his university to simply “go get everybody you can” in order to increase enrollment. However, after implementation, there has been a stronger focus on planning and targeting for different populations to increase the overall effectiveness of the institution. Likewise, the enrollment officer interviewed at Kennesaw State University reported a sense of pride among the various departments involved in enrollment management at the institution. Rather than being distributed among various campus divisions, there is a sense of belonging as the enrollment management system provided a central point of expertise.

With this new form of growth management, there can also be many negative results. At several schools, there was a long period of adjustment of the way things used to be done (fill seats) and the way they are now (plan and prepare) for students. Accordingly, there was a sense of distrust among longtime employees. The majority of institutions stated that while SEM was sufficient for now it was a very slow process that must be altered by incremental changes over a period of time in order to keep up with current trends. There was also a time of question during the implementation of SEM at many of the institutions. It took a lot of effort to have employees by into the philosophy of SEM.

Because of SEM, many admissions offices (such as Southern Polytechnic State University) were more streamlined and focused. Admissions officers felt that SEM allowed a more improved data processing component. Under SEM, admissions offices have evolved into simple application processing and decision components as there were separate offices for student recruitment and orientation.

SEM has also created several challenges in admissions offices. One such challenge at Southern Polytechnic State University was eliminating the old way of doing things. This was a challenge because of the centralization of various departments into even more departments under one umbrella and various employees having to learn new responsibilities and let go of doing multiple duties. It has also created a new type of personnel conflict which the admissions director did not want to discuss. The admissions officer interviewed at the University of West Georgia stated that for SEM to function optimally, all components of the division must function synergistically which is a concept that is foreign to some departments at the institution. However, with time and incremental changes, it will become the norm and the understood practice of the way things work.

In regards to financial aid offices, there were several strengths to enrollment management. These include communications among the entire campus as well as constant planning to be more competitive with other institutions. According to financial aid officer interviewed at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, SEM allowed the financial aid office to be informed of changes occurring on campus rather than simply processing grants, loans, and scholarships. She also stated that it has allowed admissions, recruitment, advising, and orientation to help inform students of financial aid procedures and deadlines. The interviewee didn’t feel they had seen any negative impacts from Strategic Enrollment Management.

The financial aid officer interviewed at Southern Polytechnic State University indicated that by implementing SEM at their institution, it helped turn the financial aid office around. While many functions of financial aid is regulated by the federal or state government, moving to an enrollment management division allowed financial aid to become part of a team and have a lot more people involved in the customer service aspect of financial aid. However, the interviewee stated that with the implementation of SEM at Southern Polytechnic State University funding was increased and there is also better awarding of scholarships to shape the freshman class and overall enrollment.

Examining the officers of institutions who do not use any form of strategic enrollment management as their means of controlling growth, it was the consensus that they handle growth management on term-by-term basis. The admissions officer interviewed at Austin Peay University indicated that because of the increase in students enrolling in college, their campus has consistently seen an increase in enrollment. However, the interviewee did state their institution sets goals and enrollment projections, but it was part of the overall institutions plan, not a specific enrollment plan. While there was consistent growth within the university without a specific enrollment plan there were also some shortfalls. The interviewee cited the institution’s various enrollment services departments often responded to situations with reactive action instead of proactive planning. Also, communication among departments at schools not utilizing strategic enrollment management was weak, as many departments were in separate divisions such as business affairs, student affairs, university relations (recruitment can fall under this classification), and academic affairs.

As previously stated, responses thus far indicate that strategic enrollment management was the overriding trend in growth management both at state universities within the University System of Georgia as well as institutions across the nation. While there are both positive and negative results due to SEM, it improves communication among various departments rather than leaving many to figure it out themselves and do the best they can without any specific goals or performance measures being set. Based on the results of this study, it seems safe to make several suggestions regarding the implementation of SEM at Augusta State University and other state universities within the University System of Georgia where the enrollment management process is not present.

First, institutions who wish to implement some form of strategic enrollment management will want to consider starting with either a matrix (reorganize into a division and have an enrollment management committee). By creating a division, all areas of growth management will be moved under one umbrella. By implementing a committee, other areas of the university, including faculty involvement, will be active in the process of creating a strategic enrollment plan. Institutions may also want to consider bringing in a consultant to help identify areas that need to be altered and help set a strategic enrollment plan. By creating a combination of the various divisions of strategic enrollment management, the likelihood of employee buy in will be much larger.

Institutions will want to be careful not to isolate individuals who have longstanding employment with an institution. While institutions are constantly changing, the process will need to take place incrementally over a period of time. For example, institutions may want to consider creating a plan first, then changing responsibilities as goals increase within each department. By creating a department of enrollment management, several other chief administrators will lose part of their responsibilities. However, this should be acceptable as it will allow them to devote time increasing service to currently enrolled students.

Finally, if Augusta State University or other state universities within the USG chose to implement the division model of SEM, they will want to be careful when selecting the administrator. According to the literature and individuals interviewed in this study, it is clear that the right person must be in charge for SEM to be effective. This is especially true during the planning and implementation stage of SEM. Only a person with an understanding of an institutions dynamics and mission will truly be able to sell strategic enrollment management to everyone involved, creating a sense of unity and pride among employees.

According to the available literature, SEM has been successful at almost all institutions that have chosen to utilize it. However the literature is limited and there are many questions to be answered. As this study indicates, individuals in various enrollment management positions are hesitant to talk about their organizations, especially when it involves negative impacts. While this study suggests that SEM is an effective means of growth management, more research must be done to understand how it works and the best way to go about implementing it.

References

Augusta State University (2007). Augusta State University 2007-2008 Catalog. Augusta, GA:

Author.

Black, J. (2001). The Strategic Enrollment Management Revolution. Washington, D.C.,

AACRAO Publishing.

Bontrager, B. (2007). SEM Strategy & Implementation. 2007 AACRAO Consulting.

Dennis, M. (1998). A Practical Guide to Enrolment and Retention Management in Higher

Education. Westport, CT, Bergin and Garvey.

Dolence, M. (1997). Strategic Enrolment Management: A primer for campus administrators.

American Association of Collegiate Registrar’s and Admissions Officers.

Dolence, M., Lujan, H., & Rowley, D. (1997). Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities:

Planning to Survive and Prosper (Jossey Bass Higher and Adult Education Series). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gelpi, G. (2007, September 10). ASU's low grad rate raises concerns. Augusta Chronicle.

Retrieved Apr. 4, 2008, from http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/091007/

met_143134.shtml.

Gottlieb, P. (2000). Enrollment Management Yields Impressive Results, Rutgers Focus, N.J.,

Rutgers Publishing.

Henderson, S.E. (2005). Refocusing enrollment management: Losing structure and finding the

academic context. College and University, 80(3), 3–8.

Moore, R. (1999) SDSU announces results of enrollment management for fall 1999; Incoming

students have higher grades and test scores, SDSU Marketing & Communications, San

Diego, CA.

Penn, G. (1999). Enrolment Management for the 21^st Century: Institutional Goals,

Accountability and Fiscal Responsibility. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report

Volume 26, No. 7. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate

School of Education and Human Development.

USG First Time Freshman GPA. (2005, February 14) Retrieved October 24, 2007, from

http://www.usg.edu/research/students/freshman/hsgpa/HSGPA_fall04.pdf

USG Retention Rate (2004, March 29). Retrieved October 23, 2007, from

http://www.usg.edu/research/students/grad_ret/reports/rprecy02ys01ffff.pdf

Semworks Success Stories (2004, March 29). Retrieved October 24, 2007, from

http://www.semworks.net/about_us/success-stories.php

The Education Trust (2007). Retrieved April 23, 2008, from

http:www.collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?InstitutionID=138983.

Walker, R. (2007). Customer Service Satisfaction Survey. Unpublished survey results. Augusta

State University, Augusta, Georgia.

Appendix A

Interview Schedule for Chief Enrollment Managers

I. Opening

a. (Establish Rapport) My name is Scott Argo and I serve as a member of the Master’s of Public Administration program at Augusta State University. I have also worked on campus as an admissions recruiter for the past three years.

b. (Purpose) I’m conducting research on SEM at several institutions including yours.

c. (Motivation) I hope to use this information to serve as initial research for the possibility of institutions that may look at implementing some form of growth management in the future. This research will also aid me in meeting requirements for my capstone paper here at ASU.

d. (Time Line) This interview should take about 15 – 20 minutes. Are you available to respond to questions at this time?

II. Structure: I will begin by asking you a few basics about SEM at your institution (specific questions may not be asked depending on prior research found on schools website).

a. What made you implement SEM at your institution?

b. How is enrollment management at your school structured?

III. Goals: What are the goals of SEM at your institution?

a. Are there any other goals?

IV. Results: Has your school seen any results from your SEM plan?

i. If so, what are they?

ii. If not, why have there not been results yet?

b. Is your institution where it wants to be with your enrollment plan and planning?

i. Why or why not?

If time permits:

V. Benefits: How has your school benefited from strategic enrollment management?

a. How do department directors involved in SEM feel it has benefited their daily operations?

VI. Weaknesses: Have there been any negative results from strategic enrollment management planning at your institution?

a. How do department directors involved in SEM feel it has negatively affected their daily operations?

VII. Conclusion

a. It has been a pleasure finding out more about how strategic enrollment management effects your institution.

b. (Maintain Rapport) I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Is there any advice you would like to give to an institution considering implementing some form of SEM?

c. (Action to be taken) I should have all the information I need. Would it be alright to call you if I have any more questions? Thanks again.

Appendix B

Interview Schedule for Chief Admissions & Financial Aid Officers

I. Opening

a. (Establish Rapport) My name is Scott Argo and I serve as a member of the Master’s of Public Administration program at Augusta State University. I have also worked on campus as an admissions recruiter for the past three years.

b. (Purpose) I’m conducting research on SEM at several institutions including yours.

c. (Motivation) I hope to use this information to serve as initial research for the possibility of SEM aiding Augusta State University in the future. This research will also aid me in meeting requirements for my capstone paper here at ASU.

d. (Time Line) This interview should take about 15 – 20 minutes. Are you available to respond to questions at this time?

II. Results: Has your institution seen results due to a SEM plan?

i. If so, what are they?

ii. If not, why have there not been results yet?

b. Do you think your institution where it wants to be with your enrollment plan and planning?

i. Why or why not?

III. Specific Department: How has SEM benefited your department?

i. Daily operations

ii. Long-term

b. How SEM created any challenges for your department?

c. Have there been any negative results from strategic enrollment management planning at your institution?

IV. Overall Benefits

a. Do you think a strategic enrollment plan is the best practice available?

V. Conclusion

a. It has been a pleasure finding out more about how strategic enrollment management effects your institution and your department.

b. (Maintain Rapport) I appreciate the time you took for this interview. Is there any advice you would like to give to an institution considering implementing some form of SEM?

c. (Action to be taken) I should have all the information I need. Would it be alright to call you if I have any more questions? Thanks again. I look forward to including this information in my research.

Appendix C

Interview Schedule for Chief Admissions Offices who do not utilize SEM

I. Opening

a. (Establish Rapport) My name is Scott Argo and I serve as a member of the Master’s of Public Administration program at Augusta State University. I have also worked on campus as an admissions recruiter for the past three years.

b. (Purpose) I am conducting research on SEM at several schools including yours.

c. (Motivation) I hope to use this information to serve as initial research for the possibility of SEM aiding Augusta State University in the future. This research will also aid me in meeting requirements for my capstone paper here at ASU.

d. (Time Line) This interview should take about 15 – 20 minutes. Are you available to respond to questions at this time?

II. Structure: How does your institution handle growth management??

a. Is there a plan and how is it structured?

III. Does your institution set enrollment goals?

IV. Benefits

a. Do you think your schools form of growth management is sufficient?

V. Weaknesses

a. Have there been any negative results from this form of growth management at your institution?

VI. Conclusion

a. It’s been a pleasure finding out how growth management. works at your institution.

b. (Action to be taken) I should have all the information I need. Would it be alright to call you if I have any more questions? Thanks again. I look forward to including this information in my research.