Leveraging Persistence: A New Strategy for

Reducing Attrition by 20%.

2

Agenda - Today

Enrollment & Persistence Math

A Viable Investment: InsideTrack Coaching

Conclusions, Questions & Answers

3

Increased competition and rising costs make persistence worthy of attention and investment

“Rapid increases in discounting have resulted in losses in net revenue, have not improved retention or graduation rates, and have causedinstitutions to decrease spending on instruction and other vital services to students."- Kenneth E. Redd, director of research and policy analysis, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

"It's a very crowded and competitive space, and the organizations that have a lot of money are the ones that are doing well."- Nan Dawkins, RedBoots Consulting, in McLean, Va., advises clients on Internet-marketing strategies. -Dec. 1, 2006, By GOLDIE BLUMENSTYK

“[Online Marketing] is both more expensive and less effective because more people are doing it." - Margee Ensign, dean, University of the Pacific School of International Studies

“The stakes are getting higher.“- Bob Sevier, Stamats

1 “Kenneth Redd: Tracked the Downside of Discounting.” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 15, 20052 “Marketing The For-Profit Way,” CHE, December 1, 2006.3 “Marketing The For-Profit Way,” CHE, December 1, 2006.4 “Breaking Through the Noise of a Crowded Field,” CHE, May 19, 2006.

4

Enrollment Management – Rising Costs

Cost of Recruiting Report – Noel Levitz, 2006:

Median Cost to Recruit One Student at a 4-year Private Institution

2004: $1,9012005: $2,073

… 9% increase

25% Spend More than $2,500/student

Math Problems

6

Persistence Math

How many terms does the average student stay in your school? ______

What is your annual net tuition/student/term? $______

Multiply these numbers to get your average lifetime tuition revenue/student $______

7

Persistence Math - Example

How many semesters does the average student stay in your school? 5.81

What is your net tuition/student/semester? $8,000

Multiply these numbers to get your average lifetimetuition revenue/student $46,480

8

An Effective Persistence Program

Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3:

SemSem-by-Sem

retentionStudents attending Sem

Sem-by-Sem retention

Students attending Sem

Sem-by-Sem retention

Students attending

1 (start yr 1) 100.0% 100 1 (start yr 1) 100.0% 100 1 (start yr 1) 100.0% 1002 88.0% 88 2 90.0% 90 2 91.0% 913 (yr 2) 74.0% 74 3 (yr 2) 79.0% 79 3 (yr 2) 80.0% 804 68.0% 68 4 73.0% 73 4 74.0% 745 (yr3) 61.0% 61 5 (yr3) 66.0% 66 5 (yr3) 67.0% 676 59.0% 59 6 63.0% 63 6 64.0% 647 (yr 4) 55.0% 55 7 (yr 4) 60.0% 60 7 (yr 4) 61.0% 618 (end yr 4) 53.0% 53 8 (end yr 4) 58.0% 58 8 (end yr 4) 59.0% 599 (5th yr) 12.0% 12 9 (5th yr) 13.0% 13 9 (5th yr) 13.0% 1310 11.0% 11 10 12.0% 12 10 12.0% 12

Average Semesters Attended 5.8 Average Semesters Attended 6.1 Average Semesters Attended 6.2

Net tuition per student per Sem $8,000 Tuition revenue per student/Sem $8,000 Tuition revenue per student/Sem $8,000

Lifetime Value of a student $46,480 Lifetime Value of a student $49,120 Lifetime Value of a student $49,680

Revenue per cohort of 100 starts $4,648,000 Revenue per cohort of 100 starts $4,912,000 Revenue per cohort of 100 starts $4,968,000

% increase over Scenario 1 5.7% % increase over Scenario 1 6.9%$ increase over Scenario 1 $264,000 $ increase over Scenario 1 $320,000

9

An Effective Persistence Program

Q: What Can Produce a Sustained Improvement Like This?

Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3:

SemSem-by-Sem

retentionStudents attending Sem

Sem-by-Sem retention

Students attending Sem

Sem-by-Sem retention

Students attending

1 (start yr 1) 100.0% 100 1 (start yr 1) 100.0% 100 1 (start yr 1) 100.0% 1002 88.0% 88 2 90.0% 90 2 91.0% 913 (yr 2) 74.0% 74 3 (yr 2) 79.0% 79 3 (yr 2) 80.0% 804 68.0% 68 4 73.0% 73 4 74.0% 745 (yr3) 61.0% 61 5 (yr3) 66.0% 66 5 (yr3) 67.0% 676 59.0% 59 6 63.0% 63 6 64.0% 647 (yr 4) 55.0% 55 7 (yr 4) 60.0% 60 7 (yr 4) 61.0% 618 (end yr 4) 53.0% 53 8 (end yr 4) 58.0% 58 8 (end yr 4) 59.0% 599 (5th yr) 12.0% 12 9 (5th yr) 13.0% 13 9 (5th yr) 13.0% 1310 11.0% 11 10 12.0% 12 10 12.0% 12

Average Semesters Attended 5.8 Average Semesters Attended 6.1 Average Semesters Attended 6.2

Net tuition per student per Sem $8,000 Tuition revenue per student/Sem $8,000 Tuition revenue per student/Sem $8,000

Lifetime Value of a student $46,480 Lifetime Value of a student $49,120 Lifetime Value of a student $49,680

Revenue per cohort of 100 starts $4,648,000 Revenue per cohort of 100 starts $4,912,000 Revenue per cohort of 100 starts $4,968,000

% increase over Scenario 1 5.7% % increase over Scenario 1 6.9%$ increase over Scenario 1 $264,000 $ increase over Scenario 1 $320,000

A Viable Investment –InsideTrack Coaching

11

InsideTrack Basics

Founded 2000

Core Services– Success Coaching (retention-focused)– Enrollment Coaching (enrollment-focused)

Students Served– Over 32,000 by Dec. 2006 (Success Coaching)– Nearly 50,000 by July, 2007

Coaching operations in Portland, San Francisco, and on campuses in S. California & San Antonio, TX

12

Success & Enrollment Coaching

Lead Applicant Admit First-year student Graduate

Increase starts 10-15% Increase continuing enrollments 10-15%

Impact of InsideTrack Programs Along the Student Lifecycle

EnrollmentCoaching

SuccessCoaching

Enrollment Coaching (since Oct-04)Weekly phone and email contact prior to start of school to motivate and prepare students to start at client collegePrice: $8,333/Coach/Month

New Student Success CoachingWeekly in-person or over-phone sessions that increase student success and satisfaction in “8 Areas of Focus”Price: $27/Session ~ $115/Student/Month ~ $1,000/Student/Year

Contg. student

13

Coaching results (1 of 2): Success Coaching1

1 Bars and percentages represent cumulative enrollment rates of InsideTrack coached students versus matching control groups created that did not receive coaching. Sample size = 2283 students in 15 separate pilot programs

Cumulative retention rates (n = 15 pilot and control groups)

82.9%

72.0%

61.4%%

52.2%

89.4%

79.1%

70.3%

59.9%

Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12

Non-coached InsideTrack

15% more students after 12 months

16% reduction in status quo attrition

14

Coaching results (2 of 2): Success Coaching – student funded1

Percentage of students who opt in for coaching in their second year

49%47%

38%

Chap-FA03 Chap-FA04 Mmt-FA041 Bars and percentages represent the percent of coached freshmen who opted to pay

for coaching in their sophomore year2 Sample sizes: ChapFA03 = 225 freshmen; ChapFA04 = 345 freshmen; and

MmtFA04 = 150 freshmen

15

Highly selective recruitment process brings outstanding Coaches

Drive for success, performance orientation:– Self motivated with strong initiative and work ethic (strives for excellence)– Comfortable with accountability and being measured (takes ownership for performance)

Strong communication and management skills:– Clear and direct, able to organize thoughts and communicate them– Able to deliver constructive feedback effectively– Great listening skills/good at asking questions/persuasive

Strong interpersonal skills:– Confident; having and exercising good judgment; flexible and able to adapt; emotionally stable– Easy to talk with: able to connect with and appeal to a broad range of people

Strong organization and time management:– Able to prioritize effectively and follow through on responsibilities– Able to keep track of many projects at once and stay organized

Connection to InsideTrack mission and culture– Passion for helping students succeed– Balance of ambition with fulfillment by coaching role

InsideTrack Coaches share 5 important attributes:

16

Coach Certification Achievement

Level I Certification– Successful completion of InsideTrack 8-day initial training– Demonstrated knowledge of InsideTrack Coaching Model (3 hour

written exam)– Demonstrated ability to deliver InsideTrack Coaching Model in

multiple observed coaching sessionsLevel II Certification (1 year)– Full integration of Coach Core Objectives into all daily activities– Coaching is observed regularly and exceeds expectations for 70%

of evaluation metrics Level III Certification (2 years) – Demonstrated mastery of InsideTrack’s coaching model – Certifiers have no suggested improvements for 30% of evaluation

metrics Level IV Certification (3 years or more)– Design of training seminars to improve coach delivery– Demonstration of coaching on demand to an audience

17

Active focus on seven areas keeps students in school

InsideTrack’s Seven Focus Areas

1. Commitment to graduation

2. Managing commitments

3. Finances

4. School community

5. Academics

6. Effectiveness

7. Health & support

≈≈ Student satisfactionStudent satisfaction≈≈ Student success Student success ≈≈ Degree completionDegree completion

18

3. Solve problems

• Work directly with the student to address and resolve urgent issues

4. Develop student

• Improve student independence by building their problem solving skills

5. Motivate student

• Building student desire to take positive action and succeed in school

• Listen, support and ask questions

• Create a respectful, professional and enjoyable environment

• Establish trust

• Gather information from meetings and school systems (grades, attendance)

• Determine areas of focus for student

• Identify most effective coach action

1. Build relationship

2. Evaluate student

Powerful, Proactive Engagement Approach

According to needAlways active

19

Expectations – Coach Core Objectives

Generate Strong Results: Maximize the retention of your assigned roster of students– Track information– Project results– Prioritize action to get results

Master the Coaching Process: Structure meetings flexibly but consistently

Maximize Meeting Attendance– Pro-actively attract students to meetings:– Be persistent in getting students to attend meetings

Play Your Role: Understand and correctly position your role in relation to the student, the school and InsideTrack

Contribute to Team and Individual Development: Support the culture of InsideTrack as a learning organization

20

Catalyst – Student Management System

21

Catalyst – System for Managers

22

Student self-management - RightTrack

23

Student self-management - RightTrack

24

Impact on Schools - Deep Understanding

Finances - can not afford16%

External commitments- Family

8%

External commitments- Work9%Finances - Customer

Service 6%

Likely Graduate7%

Effectiveness5%

Commitment to Degree5%

Unknown21%

Health5%

External commitments- Other

4%

Dissatisfied3%

Academics (Dismissal)3%

Dropped during the first week (not

contacted)2%

Other6%

Attrition factors for ALL cohorts not retained Sep 06 to Nov 06

Note: N = 1291 drops in Mar 05 – Sep 06 cohorts; “Other” includes tech issues, natural disaster, future plans, communityon campus, financial holds not removed, students unable to succeed in an online format, military and transfer students

6% last session

4% last session

25

We have proved our effectiveness with a wide variety of schools and programs

26

• Tom Abrahamson, Managing Director & Principal, Lipman Hearne • Lloyd Armstrong, Jr., University Professor & Provost Emeritus, University of Southern California • Robert Atwell, President Emeritus, American Council on Education • David Breneman, University Professor and Dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia • Ann Duffield, Principal, The Presidential Practice • Ellis Gedney, Past Chair, Career College Association; Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Ex'pression College for the Digital Arts• Albert "Hank" Greenstone, Director Emeritus, Education Management Corp. • Don Hossler, Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, Indiana University • Paul Jansen, Director of the Global Non-Profit Practice, McKinsey & Co. • Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-chief, Science Magazine; President Emeritus, Stanford University• Ted Marchese, Senior Consultant, Academic Search • Margaret "Peg" Miller, Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education, UVA; Editor-in-chief, Change magazine • Michael Nettles, Senior Vice President for Policy Evaluation and Research, ETS • Muriel Oaks, Dean, Center for Distance and Professional Education, WSU; President Emerita, UCEA

Active Advisory Board

Questions?

Thank You!!