Together we stand, without data we fall
how focusing on NTR can build team between admissions and financial aid
Christine Saadi, Alvernia University
Jen Wick, Scannell & Kurz
AGENDA
Partnership between Admissions and Financial
Aid
 Using Data to Set Awarding Policy
 Case Study

WHY IS A PARTNERSHIP IMPORTANT?

Communicating affordability

Providing excellent customer service

Developing mutually supportive processes

Ensuring strategies that support enrollment
goals
FOCUS ON NTR,
NOT JUST CLASS SIZE OR THE AID BUDGET

Admission’s goal is not just the number and mix of
students

Financial Aid’s goal is not just staying in budget

Keeps admissions and financial aid on the same
page

Remember to think long term – new students’
discount rate will affect the overall discount rate
USE DATA, NOT ANECDOTE
TO ESTABLISH AID POLICIES
Keeping an “ear to the ground” plays a role, but
that should not be the foundation of your
awarding strategies.
 Using analytical approaches to understanding
student responses to your aid offers is where
your strategy needs to begin.

 Table
analysis
 Predictive modeling
 Simulation tools
TO ASSESS HOW EFFECTIVELY YOUR AID PROGRAM
IS CURRENTLY RESPONDING TO MARKET FORCES,
THERE ARE 4 KEY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
1.
2.
3.
4.
Are we perceived as worth the price we’re
charging?
Have we convinced our families that we are
affordable?
How much aid do we need to spend to meet
our enrollment goals?
How can we be sure we are spending our aid
wisely?
QUESTION #1: ARE WE PERCEIVED AS WORTH
THE PRICE WE’RE CHARGING?
Monitor trends in your pool
 Identify your competition
 Benchmark against the competition
 Define your institutional advantage
 Gather and share outcomes data

SAMPLE BENCHMARKING
College/University
Institution A
Institution B
Institution C
Institution D
Institution E
Institution F
Institution G
Tuition
&
Fees
2013-14
$32,776
$34,484
$41,510
$43,270
$44,210
$44,360
$44,551
Freshman Fall
Estimated
Discount 2013
Net Tuition
Rate
Accept
& Fees
2011-12*
Rate
$13,897
57.6%
69.5%
$19,449
43.6%
79.7%
$27,231
34.4%
43.3%
$18,520
57.2%
70.2%
$27,101
38.7%
39.9%
$29,588
33.3%
38.5%
$25,439
42.9%
41.9%
Fall
2011
SAT
25-75%
950 - 1170
950 - 1170
1120 - 1340
1065 - 1320
1220 - 1370
1240 - 1390
1190 - 1370
U.S. News
Ranking 2013
(America's Best
Colleges)
NLAC below 150
NLAC #100-150
NLAC #51-99
NLAC #51-99
NLAC top 50
NLAC top 50
NLAC top 50
* Discount rate has been calculated using IPEDS data which, on occasion, have been found to be inaccurate.
Sources - College/University website, U.S. News & World Report and IPEDS
QUESTION #2: HAVE WE MADE THE CASE FOR
AFFORDABILITY?
 Do you lose your overlap with public institutions
as you progress through the admissions cycle?
 Has the distribution of applicants by
socioeconomic level changed over time?
 How does the level of need and unmet need
impact yield rates and retention rates?
QUESTION #3: HOW MUCH AID DO WE NEED TO
SPEND TO MEET ENROLLMENT GOALS?
It DEPENDS!!!
 If at capacity, the focus should be trade-offs.
 If not at capacity, the priority has to be
maximizing net tuition revenue.
 The institution’s long-range strategic plan
needs to include a plan for enrollment.

BUT WHAT DRIVES THE DISCOUNT RATE?
Market Forces (i.e., the competition)
 Changes in Ability to Pay

Trends in family contributions
 Percentage of students applying for aid


Changes in Willingness to Pay

Yield by need level and grant level
Changes in Outside Support
 Retention by Need Level and Grant Level
 How you build your pool
 Institutional Goals


Commitments to diversity, quality, etc.
NET TUITION REVENUE TABLE -- TUITION $21,000
EFC Non Filers
Quality
Highest
12,511
High
17,254
Medium
18,737
Lower
20,023
Lowest
20,044
Average
18,896
> 30k 20-30k 15-20k 10-15k 5-10k
12,304
17,237
18,997
20,104
20,049
18,071
11,975
14,543
16,075
15,614
16,433
13,243
0-5k Average
9,056 5,609 4,960 4,866
10,772 7,888 7,423 7,018
10,926 9,128 8,082 8,134
11,730 9,740 9,479 9,066
11,651 10,798 10,355 9,684
10,974 8,813 8,161 7,734
8,382
11,270
13,178
14,018
14,633
12,665
QUESTION #4: HOW CAN WE BE SURE WE ARE
SPENDING OUR AID WISELY?
 Are you under-funding need-based grant
programs?
 Are you focusing institutional aid too heavily on
merit programs or is the merit aid focused on
the wrong applicant segment?
 How much revenue is lost by offering
entitlements?
 The competition is offering aggressive merit
programs; should you respond?
CLEARLY THE NEED FOR A DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH
TO ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS HAS NEVER BEEN
MORE IMPORTANT
The challenge will be to balance often
conflicting enrollment goals.
 There is a need for more sophisticated means
to fully understand the tradeoffs and the
impact of various strategies.
 Institutions can’t afford to get it wrong.

DATA-DRIVEN DISCOUNTING
Are there market segments where the “universal
truths” don’t hold?
AID
(FREE $)
Yield
NEED
Yield
DATA-DRIVEN DISCOUNTING:
SAMPLE YIELD TABLE
Need
$0
Gift Aid
> $12,000
$9,000-$12,000
$6,000-$9,000
$3,000-$6,000
$1,001-$3,000
$0
Tuition = $15,000
$1$5,000
$5,000$10,000
$10,000$15,000
$15,000$20,000
55/100 55%
20/80
25%
8/40
20%
> $20,000
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Current NTR
55 * ($15,000 - $10,500) =
20 * ($15,000 - $7,500) =
8 * ($15,000 - $4,500) =
$247,500
$150,000
$ 84,000
$481,500
Projected Enrollment
(Average total grant $10,500)
220 * 55% = 121
Projected NTR
121 * ($15,000 - $10,500) =
$544,500
PREDICTIVE MODELING
Predictive modeling, also known as
econometric modeling, allows you to better
understand these tradeoffs and present
alternatives to institutional decision-makers
 Modeling allows you to test assumptions and
interactions before taking action

GOALS OF ECONOMETRIC MODELING





Identify factors that are important in the enrollment
decision
Determine the impact of institutional grants on the
probability of enrolling
Determine the revenue-maximizing levels of grants
Identify alternative financial aid packaging strategies
Simulate the results of alternative admissions and aid
strategies and policies
SAMPLE SIMULATION SUMMARY
Freshman Simulation Summary Table
Enrollment
Institutional Grant
NTR
Discount
Avg. SAT
% Female
% Minority
% In State
% Pell Eligible
Predicted
Class
Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation
(Baseline)
#1
#2
#3
#4
312
305
278
296
342
$2,136,000 $1,903,000 $1,153,000 $1,654,000 $2,105,000
$4,229,000 $4,327,000 $4,516,000 $4,396,000 $4,883,000
33.5%
30.6%
20.3%
27.3%
30.1%
934
930
930
929
930
62%
61%
62%
61%
61%
19%
19%
20%
20%
20%
81%
82%
83%
82%
82%
30%
31%
31%
31%
32%
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ANALYTICAL
TECHNIQUES THAT ARE OF VALUE IN MANAGING
FINANCIAL AID STRATEGICALLY:
•
•
•
•
Watch and analyze trends
Know what the competition is doing – benchmark
Track the behavior of subpopulations – their
yields and mean values as well as retention rates
Utilize econometric modeling techniques to test
tradeoffs between goals
CASE STUDY: ALVERNIA UNIVERSITY
Private, Catholic university located in Eastern
PA
 Fall 2013 total enrollment:1500

 400
new freshman/115 transfers
 Average SAT – 985
 Male/Female Ratio – 28% Male/72% Female
 Out of state enrollment – Approx. 28%
ORGANIZATION
VP for Enrollment
Management
Dean of Admissions
& Student Financial
Planning
Director
of Admissions
Direct Reports
15
Director of Student
Financial Planning
Direct Reports
8
COLLABORATING ON
AFFORDABILITY MESSAGES
 Designing the right Net Price Calculator
 What
is your goal for use: meet Dept of Ed
requirements or as an enrollment tool?
 Simplicity vs. accuracy
 Work with Admissions to create NPC
 Get your marketing department involved
 Front-and-center or buried on website

Alvernia advantage
USING PREDICTIVE MODELING
TO DEVELOP AID STRATEGIES


Nursing & OT packaging vs. other programs
Decision to change OT in 2011
2010 % need met ranged 40% to 55%
2011% need met ranged 35% to 45%
OT packaging changes
OT Fresh
2010
2011
2012
32
49
41
Tuition
$819,840 $1,307,810 $1,152,510
Inst Aid
$368,350
$429,330
$457,500
NTR
$451,490
$878,480
$695,010
0.449
0.328
0.397
$11,510.94
$8,762
$11,159
32
49
41
DR
Ave Pkg
Total Pkgd
COMBINED GOALS: FOCUSING ON NTR
SAMPLE NTR BUDGET MODEL
2011
Tuition and fees
Total Institutional Grant Aid
Freshmen
Freshmen attended before
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Totals
$3,928,106.00
$669,713
$3,033,560
$2,548,920
$2,618,633
$12,798,932
$26,770
Number of
Students Discount
Receiving
Rate
Grant
371
81
313
307
337
1409
Deflation Factor = 96% for students; 97.4% for Grant Aid
Annulized totals
$12,466,160
Net Tuition
Revenue
Gross Tuition
Revenue
0.385
0.288
0.342
0.283
0.268
0.319
$6,271,264
$1,659,277
$5,827,310
$6,472,570
$7,152,417
$27,382,838
$10,199,370
$2,328,990
$8,860,870
$9,021,490
$9,771,050
$40,181,770
0.323
$26,108,339
$38,574,499
Average Grant
Award
$10,588
$10,160
$10,160
$8,393
$8,290
$9,084
# in Class
381
87
331
337
365
1501
Estimated
Conv. Of
Students
0.22
0.71
0.99
1.13
% Getting Aid
0.97
0.93
0.95
0.91
0.92
1,441
Estimated 2012
Tuition and fees
Total Institutional Grant Aid
Freshmen
Freshmen attended before
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Totals
$4,450,207
$954,441
$3,424,987
$3,194,842
$2,970,410
$14,994,886
Deflation Factor = 96% for students; 97.4% for Grant Aid
Annulized totals
$14,605,019
$27,975
Number of
Students Discount
Receiving
Rate
Grant
402
90
323
314
354
1484
Net Tuition
Revenue
Gross Tuition
Revenue
0.388
0.344
0.363
0.345
0.267
0.340
$7,019,399
$1,816,728
$6,001,352
$6,064,767
$8,153,990
$29,056,236
$11,469,607
$2,771,169
$9,426,338
$9,259,609
$11,124,399
$44,051,122
0.345
$27,684,058
$42,289,077
Average Grant
Award
$11,076
$10,588
$10,588
$10,160
$8,393
$10,106
# in Class
410
99
337
331
398
1575
1,512
Estimated
Conv. Of
Students
0.26
0.72
1.00
1.18
% Getting Aid
0.98
0.91
0.96
0.95
0.89
COMBINED GOALS: FOCUSING ON NTR
SAMPLE NTR BUDGET MODEL
Conversion of student population from year to year
Freshman Attended Before
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
2009 Actuals
0.27
0.72
1.05
1.19
2010 Actuals
0.24
0.78
0.99
1.11
2011 Actuals 2012 Averages AU Ave Used 2012-2015
0.22
0.25
0.26
0.71
0.74
0.72
0.99
1.01
1.00
1.13
1.15
1.18
Percentage of the class receiving grant
Freshman
Freshman Attended Before
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
2009 Actuals
0.97
0.78
0.91
0.91
0.87
2010 Actuals
0.98
0.91
0.94
0.94
0.81
Annual Tuition Increase 2012
1.045
*used as estimate for increase of tuition through 2015
2011 Actuals 2012 Averages AU Ave Used 2012-2015
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.93
0.88
0.91
0.95
0.93
0.96
0.91
0.92
0.95
0.92
0.87
0.89
SUCCESSFUL ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT
MUST INCLUDE A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN
ADMISSIONS, FINANCIAL AID, AND THE DATA.



Making the case for affordability and value
Supportive, efficient processes and quality customer
service
Effective strategies to achieve enrollment goals
CHRISTINE SAADI
JEN WICK
Director, Student Financial Planning
Alvernia University
400 Saint Bernardine Street
Reading, PA 19607
(610) 796-8356
Enrollment Management Consultant
Scannell & Kurz
71-B Monroe Avenue
Pittsford, NY 14534
(585) 381-1120
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.ScannellKurz.com
QUESTIONS?