Drew University Institutional Strategy Study Overview of Project, Findings and Recommendations December 13, 2017 Purpose of the Study Bring a market perspective to strategic planning at the undergraduate level Inform institutional strategy to: Attract and enroll more of the undergraduate students Drew most desires Engage and animate alumni and donors Generate the revenue the University needs to engage its mission With the ultimate goal of enhancing Drew’s ability to serve students as well as possible 2 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 1
Strategic Context Drew University has a long history of providing students a strong foundation in the liberal arts and propelling many into successful lives of career and service. But like many small, liberal arts institutions in the Northeast, Drew faces a variety of external challenges that threaten its ability to generate the enrollment and revenue it needs to pursue its mission. Additionally, the University’s market position has become less compelling as competitors have increasingly articulated their own positions and increased appeal among prospective students. As a result, Drew recognized the need to take market factors into account when developing institutional strategy. 3 Phases of Study Introspective inventory of potential strategic thrusts and positioning/differentiation assets Document review Discussions/qualitative interviewing (administrators, faculty, students, trustees) 4 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 2
Phases of Research Quantitative research with key domestic prospective student constituencies for fall 2017 (administered blind, phone-mail-phone, analyzed using Simulated Decision Modeling and other methods) Inquirers: 668 initial and 325 follow-up interviews -- 151 Non-Applicant Inquirers (NAI) and 174 Applicant Inquirers (APP ), screened for admissibility and familiarity/interest Admitted Applicants: 275 initial and 113 follow-up interviews -- 88 Admit-Declines (AD) and 25 Matriculants (MAT) 5 Phases of Study, cont. Research with advancement constituencies Undergraduate alumni (quantitative): 451 completed interviews • 234 Recent givers: given in the last two years • 117 Lapsed givers: given, but not in the last two years • 100 Never givers: never given to Drew Major gift prospects (qualitative): 20 in-depth interviews completed 6 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 3
Phases of Study, cont. Synthesis of strategic implications and questions arising from research Recommendations: substantive (academic, student life, etc.) and promotional 7 Research Topics Drew’s current market dynamics and position vis-à-vis competitors Strengths and weaknesses Key decision factors Market sensitivities to positioning themes and strategic thrusts that may influence enrollment and giving/involvement behaviors Sticker price and aid sensitivities 8 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 4
Demographic Highlights Demographic Highlights Qualified Inquirers & Admitted Applicants Two-fifths of inquirers and three-fifths of admitted applicants reside in New Jersey About three-fifths of respondents are female, two-fifths male Three-fifths are Caucasian/Asian and two-fifths are under- represented minorities Average self-reported SAT score (ACT converted): Inquires = 1250; Admitted applicants = 1270 Average self-reported annual household income is about $100,000 • Respondents report a variety of intended majors • Two-fifths of inquirers and one-half of admitted applicants report that their intended major is in the natural sciences, mathematics, or engineering-related majors 10 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 5
Demographic Highlights Alumni Two-fifths of respondents are from New Jersey; another two-fifths are from elsewhere in the Northeast Three-fifths of respondents are female, two-fifths male Four-fifths of respondents are Caucasian/Asian, and one-fifth are under-represented minorities Respondents have an average self-reported annual household income of $160,000 11 Demographic Highlights Major Donors Four-fifths alumni Half current or former trustees All have given to Drew University Four-fifths have given over $100,000 to Drew A third have given over $500,000 to Drew 12 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 6
Key Findings: Current Market Dynamics Key Findings Alumni and Major Donor Prospects While alumni and major donor prospects closest to Drew recognize and express concern over the University’s financial and enrollment challenges, both groups are generally optimistic concerning the University’s trajectory and future . There are some differences among alumni by giving history – but there remains a generally positive view – and, importantly, higher capacity/higher givers tend to be more optimistic. Major donor prospects who are also current or former trustees are more likely to be aware of Drew’s fiscal challenges, but major donor prospects overall are still fairly optimistic about Drew looking forward. 14 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 7
Perception of Drew’s trajectory – Alumni by Giving History 1% 8% 15% 50% 23% Recent givers Lapsed givers 2% 12% 15% 38% 14% Never givers 2% 12% 18% 43% 13% -100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Very negative Negative Flat Positive Very positive Q1c 15 Key Findings Alumni and Major Donor Prospects, cont. Experiences and feelings are quite predictive of alumni ratings of Drew, but aren’t strong predictors of giving behavior broadly. There were, however, some interesting findings along those lines: Career preparation is predictive of giving among 2005 – 2016 graduates Belonging, broad education, and community are predictive of giving among 1990 – 2005 graduates Belief and high-quality teaching are predictive of giving among 1942 – 1989 graduates Belonging is predictive of giving among higher-income alumni These experiences and feelings are associated with Drew to varying degrees. 16 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 8
Experiences while attending Drew – Alumni Broad 8.7 a education High quality 8.7 a teaching Rigorous 8.5 b High performing 8.2 bc peers Faculty 8.0 cd mentors Career 7.9 de preparation Community 7.8 def Helpful 7.8 def staff Extracurriculars 7.6 ef Active social 7.5 f life Experiential 7.1 f learning Sports 5.8 g participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q2 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘describes your experience there perfectly’ and 1 = 17 ‘does not describe your experience there at all’ Feelings toward Drew today – Alumni Fond 8.4 a memories Gratitude 8.0 b Satisfaction 7.9 b Belief 7.6 bc Pride 7.3 c Belonging 5.6 d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q3 Note: Mean ratings where 10 = ‘feel this strongly’ and 1 = ‘do not feel this at all’ 19 Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 9
Key Findings Alumni and Major Donor Prospects, cont. While alumni report a reasonably strong history of charitable giving (even among Other givers and more recent graduates), Drew does not seem to be a priority for most. Not surprisingly, recent givers are much more likely to indicate Drew among their giving priorities. 20 Organization or cause most likely to give donations to: Top response – Alumni Drew 7% bc Social or environmental 27% a agencies Your place 23% a of worship Healthcare 11% b organizations Your child’s 8% bc school Community or civic 7% bc organizations Arts 6% c organizations Political 4% c organizations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q9 Note: Top response; 4% or more of responses shown; Reduced-base: Those who make 21 or have made charitable gifts to a non-profit organization or cause Confidential: This document and its contents are not to be revealed to individuals or organizations outside of Drew University without the permission of both Drew and Art & Science Group. 10
Recommend
More recommend
