REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
AD 201 Boardroom
Thursday, June 21, 2012
2:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Summary Notes
EMC Mission
To interpret enrollment trends, patterns and projections, student achievement/success data, basic
skills student achievement data, and to inform all institutional divisions and units in meeting
CR’s enrollment goals within a framework of collaboration continued growth and community
alignment. The Enrollment Management Committee (EMC) also formulates enrollment goals
consistent with the College’s mission and program review data, develops FTES budget
projections, implements, monitors, and periodically revises the process of student enrollment and
retention.
PRESENT
DISCUSSION
Projected FTES
Rachel Anderson, Jenn Bailey Jeff Cummings, Anna Duffy, Sheila
Hall, Angelina Hill, Cheryl Tucker, Keith Snow-Flamer,
Angelina noted that IR provided a set of initial projections for the
full academic year based on how they have been ran in the past. See
attached document. Cabinet is concerned with how the budget
reductions will affect the FTES target.
Discussion continued regarding fill rates specific to course, semester
and location. Years 06/07-11/12 were averaged to get a steadier
average. Using this model, the projections are very close to what we
came up with in past years and it appears that we need to add
sections.
There was also discussion regarding about taking the non-resident
students out of the projections because only residents are included
the target.
Using the TLU budget as a base, we are close to the TLU
expenditure planned by the EMC and cabinet last year.
Total TLUs budgeted
7,284
Summer 2012 ($ 160,000 at $984/TLU) 162
Fall 2012
3,374
Spring 2013
3,141
Potential Overload TLUs
176
Remaining
431
Sections
96
FTES (2.8 FTES/Section)
268
1
We should, if all the assumptions in the plan hold, should come
close to the FTES target of 4,532 with the 431 TLUs remaining.
Future Actions
 The Budget Planning Committee will meet in the coming
week and discuss the budget assumptions, review the
projected budget shortfall, and potential remedies to the
shortfall.
 The EMC will meet shortly thereafter and discuss strategies to
reach the 4,532 FTES target.
 If we do a late start spring again we need to give as much
advance notice as possible.
 Whatever FTES are projected we should hold our ground and
work through the problems.
 Release the spring schedule early (October rather than
November)
 Create new marketing strategy to let people know CR is still a
good choice.
 Have a solid projection for fall so that we don’t have to make
adjustments to spring prior to census.
2
2012-2013 FTES Projections
& Description of Projection Model
FTES Projections
District Total
Del Norte
Eureka
EOC
KT
Mendocino
MCOC
SH
Virtual
Summer
2012
40
Fall 2012
2265
239
1632
11
51
110
46
4
172
Spring
2013
2140
234
1546
1
62
116
37
4
140
2012-2013
4445 - 190 non-res=
4255 resident
473
3178
12
113
226
83
8
312
2012-2013 Resident
FTES Target
W/out cuts
W/ Cuts
4532
4481
need +277
need +226
FTES to make target
based on resident projection
FTES Projections were obtained by estimating fill rates of scheduled course sections, on a section by
section basis, based on past terms.
The fill-rates of all sections meeting the following criteria were averaged to obtain a section’s
projected fill rate:
o The course was the same as that being projected (e.g., MATH-120)
o The section occurred in the same semester as the projected section (e.g., fall)
o The section occurred in the same location as the projected section (e.g., KT)
o The section occurred within 2006-07 through 2011-12
If no courses met these criteria, a fill rate of 80 percent was used.
Positive attendance FTES were calculated assuming that 80 percent of contact hours would be
completed.
If the sections used to determine the above average were cancelled more than one-third of the
time, the fill rate was set to zero.
The projected fill rate was then multiplied by the capacity of the section to obtain enrollments from
which to base FTES projection for that section.
The projected non-resident FTES was estimated based on the percentage of non-resident FTES claimed
for apportionment in the 2011-2012 apportionment attendance report (CCFS-320). Non-residents were
found to represent 4.28% of the total FTES.
Total TLUs budgeted
Summer 2012 ($ 160,000 at $984/TLU)
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Potential Overload TLUs
Remaining
Sections
FTES (2.8 FTES/Section)
7,284
162
3,374
3,141
176
431
96
268