Andrew Drinkwater
In the last blog, we discussed how targets are created. They can be bottom-up (starting from the faculties) or top-down (starting from the Provost). Targets can be detailed or very general, tied to revenue or to a block grant, or for specific groups of students. They can be influenced by resource constraints (physical plant, faculty capacity, clinical oversight, etc.) or due to collective agreements and pedagogical reasons.
But how are they really formed? What is the magic that makes this all happen? What factors are considered?
Well, it depends.
Targets can be set as part of a defined business process executed annually. Our example institution is Queen’s University in Ontario (Canada). This type of process has been the case at many institutions I have worked with, though few have documented how it works publicly.
More often, targets are informed by a Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) Plan, which itself is usually informed by the institution’s Strategic Plan and mission. Today, we discuss SEM plans and targets from Black Hills State University in South Dakota (USA) and the University of Maine (USA). It’s worth noting here that Queen’s University clearly also defines their targets based on SEM priorities but they go into more depth on the business process than most others I’ve found.
In the case examples that follow, we also call out aspects that make their presentation of targets unique compared to others. For instance, Queen’s uses a three-year rolling target framework, Black Hills includes students and identifies resources, and Maine champions public transparency.
Please note: Plaid Analytics is not currently affiliated with any of the institutions mentioned below. We’re featuring them because they have done admirable work in helping the public understand their processes.
Queen’s University (Ontario, Canada)
Targets are approved using a rolling three-year framework at Queen’s University in Canada. The first two years are submitted to Senate for approval, while the third year is for information. As changes happen through the cycle, it is likely that the targets for the second year in the cycle will need to change; when this happens, they are submitted for approval to Senate again, using language similar to this:
“Revisions to 2024-2025 targets: 2024-2025 targets were previously approved by Senate in April 2023, and the modifications are now submitted for April 2024 Senate approval;”
We’d characterize Queen’s as using a bottom-up target setting process, because the targets originate with the deans of faculties and work their way through the approval chain to become university targets.
The process encompasses in-depth review of key areas of focus for the university. While these areas shift from time to time, they currently include undergraduate enrolment, graduate enrolment, international enrolment, a focus on Indigenization, equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, and accessibility, Indigenous student enrolment, and first-generation student enrolment.
Detailed tables of actuals and planned are presented to follow.
Unique: three year rolling target framework.
Read more on Queen's targets process here: https://at.plaid.is/queens-targets
Black Hills State University (South Dakota, USA)
Targets can also be created as part of an all-encompassing Strategic Enrollment Management Plan. Black Hills State University's (South Dakota) Strategic Enrollment Plan (SEP) established enrollment targets, including specific goals to reach 70% retention by Fall 2022, 75% retention by Fall 2026, increase first-time, full-time enrollment from 436 to 580 by 2026, and increase overall campus undergraduate enrollment from 3,608 to 4,250 by 2026. These targets were developed through the SEP process, drawing on historical data, market analysis, student feedback, and action plan projections created by working groups and reviewed by leadership. To resource the thirteen action plans and other initiatives designed to achieve these goals, funding is planned through four primary sources: one-time funds prioritized for enrollment and retention projects, reallocation of existing University resources, new base budget dollars generated through increased enrollment and retention, and importantly, inclusion in a federal Title III Institutional Strengthening Grant. Many initiatives, particularly those within the Student Success Center and the Center for Faculty Innovation (formerly Teaching & Learning Center), are planned to be included in the Title III grant request, which is considered a critical component for funding the SEP's implementation.
Unique: involving student feedback in the process; identifying resourcing requirements to support the targets.
Read more on Black Hills SEM Plan here: https://at.plaid.is/black-hills-targets
The University of Maine – SEM Action Plan (Maine, USA)
At the University of Maine, Fall 2022 saw the smallest incoming class in over a decade. The state of Maine is seeing a reduction in traditional university age learners. This plan identifies three high level goals:
- Grow Enrollment across our Learner Populations
- Foster a Sense of Belonging and Identity
- Improve Perseverance and Student Success
Goals 1 and 3 relate most closely to enrollment target setting, while Goal 2 supports it.
Within these goals, the Objectives of Goal 1 align most closely with the target setting framework we’ve previously described. Here are two that jump out as being very clear targets:
Objective 1.1
Stabilize the incoming first-time-full-time (FTFT) class size at 1,900 for fall 2023 and 2,000 for fall 2024, with 2.5% growth annually through 2027. This will be achieved by strengthening our efforts at each stage of the funnel.
Objective 1.4
Advance the enrollment goals of Maine College of Engineering and Computing, (MCEC) across undergraduate and graduate student populations, toward the Alfond Foundation target of doubling engineering and computing degrees awarded by 2032.
One area that we think UMaine has done very well in here is public transparency. UMaine maintains a public facing dashboard that shows progress towards the goal.
Unique: public transparency
Read more on the UMaine plan here: https://at.plaid.is/umaine-targets
Factors to Consider for Setting Targets
A number of factors impact an institution’s ability to set and achieve their targets. These include both manageable and unmanageable factors (Brinkman and McIntyre, 2017). Manageable factors are those that typically within the control of the institution, while unmanageable factors are those “outside the institution that are typically associated with demand analysis”
Now that we better understand targets being set top-down or bottom-up, how they are actioned in different institutions, and factors that can impact both your enrollment forecast and the targets you set, we’ll turn our attention to where people make mistakes in the target setting process next time. Stay tuned!