Two workshops and a concurrent session examined the importance of a comprehensive campus-wide plan for student enrollment and retention management to assure institutional health and student success. The workshops, one at the basic level and one advanced, highlighted strategic enrollment planning. The concurrent session illustrated steps two colleges have taken to increase students’ interactions with each other, with campus services, and with facilities.
Strategic Enrollment Planning Workshop Focuses on Collaboration
A three-hour advanced-level workshop for chief academic, financial, and enrollment management officers focused on how to conduct collaborative strategic enrollment planning. This approach, the workshop facilitators explained, differs from traditional planning where campus leaders set goals and then develop steps to achieve those goals. Instead, it uses a return on investment strategy to align organizations with environments in order to promote stability, sustainability, growth, and excellence. The workshop was led by a team of experts from
Whitworth University (WA)—Larry Probus, vice president for finance and administration, and Caroline J. Simon, provost and executive vice president—and Ruffalo Noel Levitz—Lew Sanborne, vice president for strategic enrollment planning, and Michael Williams, president of the Austen Group, a division of Ruffalo Noel Levitz.
The “Strategic Enrollment Planning: A Dynamic Collaboration” workshop was led by teams from
Whitworth University (WA) and Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Pictured are Caroline J. Simon, provost and executive vice president of Whitworth; workshop chair Elissa Heil, vice president for academic affairs and dean of the faculty at
Wilson College (PA); Michael Williams, president of the Austen Group, a division of Ruffalo Noel Levitz; Larry Probus, vice president for finance and administration at Whitworth; and Lew Sanborne, vice president for strategic enrollment planning at Ruffalo Noel Levitz.
Sanborne characterized strategic enrollment planning as a “businesslike approach” that focuses on the entire student lifecycle, noting that all involved need to know their net revenue per student and key performance indicators for their campuses as well as understand that not all programs can expand or be prioritized. He amplified this by characterizing institutions as “like healthy coral reefs—we grow by accretion, but we’re not good at saying when something isn’t working anymore.” He also emphasized, “If you don’t have dollars for investment, don’t start the strategic enrollment plan or you’ll demoralize everyone” since part of executing successful strategic enrollment planning requires to invest in service of the strategy. In addition, Sanborne pointed out that successful strategic enrollment planning necessitates that the CEMO, CFO, and CAO all must be committed to the plan and work collaboratively.
The Whitworth University team members then presented a detailed case study of their strategic enrollment plan to boost undergraduate and graduate student recruitment, match the institution’s strengths and capacities with market demand, prioritize strategies consistent with the institution’s mission and strategic plan, and finally, strengthen Whitworth’s enrollment and financial position. Specifically, the leadership team winnowed down an initial list of over three dozen strategic enrollment planning ideas through extensive research and community stakeholder education and engagement. They ultimately chose to implement a strategic enrollment plan that includes two to three new undergraduate programs, five to six new or expanded graduate programs, five market recruitment strategies, a new retention strategy, and a new athletic program.
In addition to the case study presentation, participants engaged in multiple small group discussions about strategic enrollment planning and how to integrate academic programs, enrollment, and financial needs.
CAOs and CFOs Learn the Fundamentals of Strategic Enrollment Management
During the “Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) 101” workshop, two experts guided more than 60 chief academic and chief financial officers through the basics of the approach, explaining the core concepts and methods used as well as exploring a case study. The workshop was led by Jay Goff, vice president for enrollment and retention management at Saint Louis University, and Tom Green, associate executive director of consulting and strategic enrollment management at AACRAO.
The “Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) 101” workshop was led by Jay Goff (right), vice president for enrollment and retention management at Saint Louis University, and Tom Green (left), associate executive director of consulting and strategic enrollment management at AACRAO.
The panelists discussed the three main sources of enrollment pressures on independent colleges and universities—the desired size of the student body, the desired quality of the students enrolled, and the needed net tuition revenue—and how SEM can address those pressures. SEM combines consideration of demographic trends relevant to the college or university (which can be local, regional, or national), campus policies that affect enrollment and retention, and the financial state of the institution, including how the institution packages financial aid for students and the net tuition revenue it needs.
After reviewing the current and future demographic trends for college-aged students in the United States, as presented earlier by
plenary speaker Nathan Grawe, Goff and Green discussed other types of potential student populations, including international, law, MBA, and adult (either first-time or completer) students. Unfortunately, the number of potential students in each of these groups also is declining, as is the number of students majoring in traditional humanities areas. In addition, higher education policy is presenting challenges to the enrollments at independent colleges and universities, through free college tuition movements for public institutions, the recent shift in support for for-profit institutions, and accountability legislation involving gainful employment and scorecard requirements. Simultaneously, financial pressures on colleges have worsened due to the widening gap between average family incomes and the cost of college, among other issues.
The good news comes in the deployment of SEM: Strategic enrollment management is a concept and process geared toward the fulfillment of institutional mission and students’ educational goals. SEM considers a student’s whole career, from prospect (as early as elementary school) through graduation, to a satisfied, engaged alumnus and active donor. The process helps institutions look at “the total arc of a student’s experience and remove barriers that cause students to stop out or drop out,” according to Green. SEM is built into the strategic plan of the college or university and involves administrators, faculty and staff members, and students in data analysis and the revision of problematic policies. For example, administrators at one college found that students withdrew for a semester or more due to unpaid bills totaling less than $500. The institution was able to establish an emergency loan/grant program to tide students over so that they could remain enrolled for the semester. This led to an increase in both retention and graduation rates.
Goff presented a case study of how SEM was implemented at Saint Louis University. The university planning committee began with five core enrollment management principles:
- To succeed, enrollment efforts need high-quality academic programs;
- Recruitment and retention is an on-going, multi-year process with strong access to research and data;
- The majority of enrollments come from regional student markets;
- The most successful recruitment programs clearly differentiate the student experience from competitor’s programs;
- The most successful retention programs clearly address students’ needs and regularly engage students in academic and non-academic programs.
Goff added that Saint Louis University established a communication and marketing pipeline that begins with students in elementary school and follows them through successful college completion. The SEM team also charted all student “touch points” with administrative offices and academic and non-academic programs, analyzed the effectiveness of those “touches,” and used the data to improve the student experience.
The campus-wide implementation led to significant increases in retention (6 percent) and graduation (10 percent) rates over ten years along with increases in the number of enrolled underrepresented minority students. How did they do it? “Silver buckshot,” said Goff, “Many smaller initiatives, all pointed at the same goals.”
The workshop concluded with a lively question-and-answer session, which covered topics such as the structure of the SEM team, how to reach out to elementary and middle schools, and how to streamline financial aid procedures.
Campus Master Plans Support Strategies for Enrollment, Retention, and Student Engagement
Of the many assets that colleges and universities can leverage to enhance student recruitment and retention, some of the most important are the buildings and spaces where learning and engagement occur. Administrators from two colleges—Sewanee: The University of the South (TN) and
Goucher College (MD)—highlighted their institutions’ approaches to redesigning campus spaces during a session on “Master Planning for the Campus.” The panel included Nancy Berner, provost, and Doug Williams, vice president for finance and treasurer, at Sewanee, and Lynne P. Lochte, vice president for finance and administration, and Scott Sibley, interim provost, at Goucher.

Administrators from Sewanee: The University of the South (TN) and Goucher College (MD) exemplified their institutions’ approaches to redesigning campus spaces during the session “Master Planning for the Campus.” Pictured are Sewanee’s Nancy Berner, provost, and Doug Williams, vice president for finance and treasurer.
The Sewanee campus is graced with historic stone buildings that reflect the character, nature, and culture of the institution. “The campus is our most important long-term asset,” said Berner. Yet university leaders also recognized that some buildings and common areas needed a refresh to ensure that prospective students could “see themselves” at Sewanee. Sewanee had developed a campus master plan in 2001 and updated it in 2005. This earlier work and the university’s strategic plan of 2012 served as a framework for new discussions in 2015. By integrating the goals of the strategic plan, the 2015 campus master plan could readily draw on projections for recruitment and existing retention data to help planners consider the university’s needs for student housing, faculty offices, laboratories, teaching spaces, common areas, and student services.
A broad group of stakeholders was involved early on to define the purpose and vision for new spaces. Sewanee formed a capital working group to establish the list of goals for the look and feel of the campus: It should be attractive, inspiring, and inviting to students, faculty members, and staff; it also should reflect the institutional culture and support the activities and programs of today and of the future. One key project that reflected a shift in process was to develop a learning commons instead of a new library. The capital working group also committed to an inclusive process and held a competition to select an architect. “The project was a departure from earlier approaches,” Berner said. “It included restoration plus new technology and more comfortable furniture, for starters, to affirm the importance of a place for students to learn, study, and interact socially.”
Other spaces that were included in the Sewanee master plan’s $26 million worth of projects were a new wellness commons, a social commons and alternative event space, and a new and expanded career and leadership development center. The projects were a mix of renovation and new construction, and funding came from both gifts and carefully managed debt.
At Goucher College, administrators embarked on a campus master plan to create a shift from texting to talking, according to Lochte. Facilitating face-to-face communication drove several decisions in the development of Goucher’s master plan, which started by putting feet on the ground to establish the sightlines of students who walk across campus. “We identified the significance of campus spaces as if you were a student walking across campus and looking up from your phone,” said Lochte. The plan incorporated new research and observations of student behavior as well as a recent plan for athletics. Everything addressed the larger goal of creating more engagement on campus and led to the creation of a first-year village residential community.
Some changes were straightforward and pragmatic. “Rocking chairs and lawn chairs were the big things that students talked about,” said Lochte. Other changes were more comprehensive. They moved all activities to the first floor and located laundry rooms across the hall from activity spaces. They also created a central dining facility, to which students initially objected. “We didn’t anticipate that sophomores, juniors, and seniors would first hate the idea of sitting and talking to each other,” Lochte added. The dining space included large table seating and large window walls that faced the new athletic fields, another nod to engaging students in the life of the campus. Goucher also chose to move a building that was in good condition, saving about two-thirds of the cost of new construction.
A second major project at Goucher was a new science research wing. The project started with the curriculum, according to Lochte, and focused on pedagogy. A new curriculum had been introduced, but faculty expectations for teaching spaces were still being worked out. Faculty members had significant input on the master plan, the design of new spaces, and the impact the plan would have on pedagogy. They sought spaces that could function as a traditional classroom and could incorporate lab activities. And they favored smaller classrooms, rather than large lecture halls. To make informed decisions, Goucher administrators also analyzed three years of course data that involved a team of 13 faculty members. The data pointed toward program priorities for the college.
“STEM is the number one inquiry area of students that inquire about Goucher,” said Lochte. “The campus community felt that the science building was holding us back. Knowing how important STEM programs are to recruiting, we were able to justify the cost of the building.”
In addition to new construction, Goucher looked at ways to integrate the curriculum across campus better. Study abroad is mandatory for every Goucher student. Yet the study abroad office was in an administrative building. Goucher’s new master plan incorporates study abroad into academic spaces.
According to Lochte, communicating with faculty members and students is key to making successful changes to campus space. “But keep in mind,” said Lochte, “that the students you start with are not the students who will be there when you open the new space.” Student needs and concerns should be monitored each year, with the goal of increasing their human interactions.