Don't gamble with compliance presentation final2web
Don’t Gamble with Compliance: Recruitment Marketing Under the New State RegulationsStacy Snow, Director of Marketing, Mizzou Online, University of Missouri Jim Fong, Director, Center for Research & Consulting, UPCEA Richard Garrett, Managing Director, Eduventures, Inc. Amy Pikalek, Director of Marketing & Communications, Continuing Education, Outreach & E-Learning UW-Extension
Key Findings from 2011 UPCEA/WCET StudyExtensive Institutional Reach. Institutions average serving students in 34 states. 46% ofinstitutions plan to seek approval in all U.S. states, territories and protectorates.Many Have Not Applied. Most institutions (97%) have taken some steps to address stateauthorization, but 69% of institutions have yet to apply for approval in any state.Many Misunderstand Regulations. Of those who have yet to apply, 19% believe that theregulation will be repealed. While this is true at the federal level, state regulations arestill in place. 10% believe that they are exempt, which seems higher than possible basedon our knowledge of the regulations.Many Lack Funds to Address. Of those who have yet to apply, many are hampered bybudget restriction, such as lack of staff (29%) and believe that the cost is too high (15%).The Costs are Significant. Two-thirds of the institutions have yet to estimate the costs ofcompliance. For those that have estimated the costs, they estimated an average of$143,884 and a median of $78,793. This does not include staff time.Institutions are Planning to Pull Out of States. 59% of respondents identified states fromwhich they will probably not accept students. Most frequent: MA (29), MN (16), AR (15). August 18, 2011 (c) UPCEA (c) WCET
Key Findings from 2011UPCEA/WCET StudySignificant Revenue is at Stake. On average, the revenue generated by out-of-statestudents represents 18% of the revenue for the institution’s distance educationoperations. The “trimmed mean” income at stake was $2,898,595 (note: we had toremove one very large outlier) with a median of $475,769. The amount andpercentage of total revenue that is at stake varies greatly by type of institution.Thousands of Students Affected. 111 institutions provided estimates of how manystudents they might not be able to serve because of state regulations. On average, theinstitutions stated that the number of students that they might not be able to serve is173, with a low of 0 and a high of 4,000. The institutions responding to this questionestimated that they will not be able to serve a total of about 19,000 students.Smaller Colleges May Suffer. With fewer students in a state, the cost-per-student mayhave a bigger impact on smaller colleges.Call for Action. Open-ended comments can be summarized: continued confusion aboutthe nuances of regulations from state-to-state; frustration with difficult processes thatseem duplicative of accreditation, unnecessary, and expensive; feeling that there islittle value added with the regulations hindering the ability to serve students; and acall for consistency among regulations or reciprocity among states. August 18, 2011 (c) UPCEA (c) WCET
Institutions Serve Many StatesExcluding your state, in how Sixty percent of respondents serve students in at least 30 states, with the many other U.S. states, average being 34 states. Not surprisingly, the largest institutions serve the territories or protectorates most states and community colleges, the fewest. As can be seen on the next slide, bi-modal differences on the number of states served by institutional size do you offer online or is clear in that smaller institutions serve fewer states while larger institutions correspondence courses? serve more states. Given the small sample sizes for for-profits, trade or technical schools or other, they have been combined into the “Other/No Dont Answer” category. know/Not applicable n=215 Average number of states 1% Average (All) 34 51+ 1 to 10 A public 4-year institution (n=106) 35 22% 18% A private non-profit 4-year institution (n=52) 35 A community college (n=34) 29 11 to 20 9% Other/No answer (n=15) 36 21 to 30 41 to 50 More than 20,000 (n=55) 37 12% 24% 10,001 to 20,000 (n=40) 23 31 to 40 14% 5,001 to 10,000 (n=42) 32 Under 5,000 (n=61) 28 0 10 20 30 40 August 18, 2011 (c) UPCEA (c) WCET
1. Marketing Implications for the Future• Institution will need to calculate the cost of applying and complying from both a business and branding standpoint. (see ND spreadsheet for business analysis)• If all 4,000+ institutions apply to all fifty states and seven protectorates and territories, an unexpected marketing advantage/disadvantage could occur.
2. Marketing Implication for the Future: Shooting the Messenger• [Play Audio #1 ]
Some implications of not servicing students• Complaints filed against the institution with the accrediting agency or DOE.• Blogging and viral complaints. Facebook complaints.• Negative impact to the brand.
Other Impacts• Pressure from international providers?• Marketing globally rather than to the U.S.• Will military students be given special privilege for DE or be in the same mess as other students?• What if students move to a “non-friendly” state?• Border students?• Some niche programs, despite having no competition or alternatives in the state, may not be able to serve residents.
Anticipated Impact of Federally Mandated State Authorization of DE (What could happen at the state level?)Present 2 – 5 Years 6+ years • Progressive • All or most • Established institutions institutions institutions already in must come already in compliance into compliance. • Limited compliance • New applications • Flood of applications > short applications, only > processing limited staff resume queue >long queue normal processing queue If no grace period, previously authorized institutions have market advantage
The University of Wisconsin- Extension: A System-wide Response ҋ Amy J. Pikalek University of Wisconsin-ExtensionContinuing Education, Outreach & E- Learning
Who We Are• The University of Wisconsin System is one of the largest systems of public higher education in the country, serving more than 182,000 students each year and employing more than 32,000 faculty and staff statewide. 䔠ϙ• The UW System is made up of: – 13 four-year universities, – 13 freshman-sophomore UW Colleges campuses, and – statewide UW-Extension.
Who we are (cont.)Continuing Education, Outreach & E-Learning• One of four divisions of UW-Extension• Enrollments in all 50 states
What We Do• Design and Development of online synchronous and asynchronous courses• Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co- Lab: an applied research and development team• Information Technology• Communications and Marketing• Student Services• Online Collaborative Degree Programs
Why we do it The Need: Our Response:• Jobs requiring a The UW System Growth bachelor’s degree are Agenda: projected to grow at a faster rate than the Ϣ overall job market. • Wisconsin ranks 35 out of 50 states in the attainment of bachelor’s degrees.• From 2004-14 jobs requiring a bachelor’s • Goal: produce 72,000 more degree in Wisconsin are four-year college projected to grow by graduates by 2017. 18.7%.
Bachelor of Science in Sustainable Management (SMGT): A Case StudySMGT is a collaboration among UW-Extension and4 University of Wisconsin campuses: UW-Parkside,UW-River Falls, UW-Stout, and UW-Superior.Received Board of Regents approval June 2009.Enrolled the first students August 2009.• Average age: 37• 97% are adult returning students• 50% male; 50% female• Out-of-state enrollments: 25%
How Were We first Impacted by Program Integrity Rules?• Decisions made by UW System office• No out-of-state marketing – Purely nationwide was okay – Media release distribution affected
Then and Now…September 2010 September 2011• Enrollment up 66% over ‘09 • Enrollment up 36% over• 10 states; 2 countries fall 2010 Markets included: ҏ• Madison/Milwaukee Markets included:• Minneapolis • Madison/Milwaukee• Chicago • Smaller WI markets• Nationwide (Google) • Nationwide (Google Facebook)
Current Issues• Media releases given the “green light” nationally• Marketing is state-by-state distribution 고ϥ• Twitter/Facebook events are unresolved• Blogs are unresolved
The University of Missouri: A Wake-Up Call Stacy Snow
Who We Are• The University of Missouri has one of the largest inventories of distance programs among our peers with more than 75 degrees and certificates. ҋ• In 2010-2011, Mizzou Online served more than 8500 students in nearly every state.
How Were We first Impacted by Program Integrity Rules? ҋ
Our Approach• A few hands on deck• Considered the variables – What each state required; definitions ، – What each of our programs required – Examined enrollment and inquiry data• Authorized in 24 states by the end of the summer (the “easy” ones); had applied for information from all (good faith)
Our Approach• Centralized coordination• The guy who drew the short straw…• Waited and watched• As of October: moving forward with authorization procedures in all but five states (still awaiting Provost’s decision on those)
Wake-Up Call• The Oregon State Board of Nursing and their Office of Degree Authorization are in communication• Fee and paperwork immediately submitted ҋ• Authorization granted• Still determining the other degrees for which we’ll pay the fees.
Current Issues• Most geotargeted activities had been suspended (banner ad network placements, adwords)• Gave ourselves the green light in October to ҋ resume activities (even though enrollment continued throughout)