NMJC Planning UpdateNMJC Planning Update

Board Budget Work Session

April 9, 2009April 9, 2009

General Trendsandand 

Institutional Demographics

2

NMJC Student Credit Hours

65 000

NMJC Student Credit Hours1995‐2009

55 000

60,000

65,000

45 000

50,000

55,000

40,000

45,000

3

NMJC Student Credit Hours

65 000

NMJC Student Credit Hours1995‐2009

55 000

60,000

65,0005.9% unempl.

$23 ppb4.0% unempl.

$47 ppb

45 000

50,000

55,000

40,000

45,000

4

Who are NMJC Students?

61%61% are women82% are in‐district residents28% are full‐time students23% are dual enrollment students23% are dual enrollment students37% are Hispanic50% are White29.3 is the average ageHalf are <22 years old19 are over 80 years old27% are first‐time freshmen

5

NMJC E l t D tNMJC Employment Data

Support Staff

ProfessionalStaff

Faculty Part‐timeStaff

AdjunctFaculty

Employed 102 81 73 69 49

Turnover*4 yr. ave.

12.7% 13% 12.3% 16.3%y . a e.

Turnover*4% unempl.

5.8% 9.8% 10.9% 5%

Ave Service 6 4 yrs 6 6 yrs 6 8 yrsAve. Service 6.4 yrs 6.6 yrs 6.8 yrs

*Turnover rates are estimated*Turnover rates are estimated

6

SCH Distribution by Time of Day

50.0%

60.0%

30.0%

40.0%

NMJC

10 0%

20.0%

30.0%AzWest

CNM

CCC

0.0%

10.0%

MorningAft

CCC

AfternoonEvening

ITVWebOnly

7

Student Credits Hours FT vs PTStudent Credits Hours FT vs PTSpring 2009

50.0%

60.0%

30.0%

40.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

0.0%

SCH from FT Students SCH from PT Students

8

Internet Classes Offered

150

200

250

300

0

50

100

150

Distance education first identified as a priority

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

Student Credit Hoursfrom Internet Classes

identified as a priority in the 1999/2000 Strategic Plan

8,000

10,000

12,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

,

0

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/099

Workforce Non CreditTraining Clients

4,000

6,000

Shift of clients to credit status

0

2,000

05/06 06/07 07/08

Shift of clients to credit status

05/06 06/07 07/08

Workforce TrainingNon Credit Contact Hours

Training & Outreach Staff Established

30 000

40,000

50,000Training and Outreach Center Opened

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

0

05/06 06/07 07/0810

Dual Enrollment is a Priority for NMJC:

Lea County High School Students Served by NMJC

Dual Enrollment is a Priority for NMJC:

1,200

Lea County High School Students Served by NMJCACT Academy (former), iTV and Dual Enrollment

800

1,000

,

400

600

0

200

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

11

Lea County Unemployment Rate

5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%

Lea County Market

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Lea County Census

MarketDemographics

56 000

57,000

58,000

59,000

53,000

54,000

55,000

56,000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

12

Lea County 12th GradeSchool Population

Lea County Market

800900

School Population

MarketDemographics

400500600700

0100200300

0

98‐99

99‐00

00‐01

01‐02

02‐03

03‐04

04‐05

05‐06

06‐07

07‐08

08‐09

Hobbs HS

Lea County 12th Graders

13

Education Attainment of Adults over the age of 25Education Attainment of Adults over the age of 25in Lea County

17,800

10,600

14

Education Attainment of Adults over the age of 25Education Attainment of Adults over the age of 25in Lea, Yoakum, Gaines and Andrews Counties

37 900

18 300

37,900

18,300

15

Measuring Progressand Benchmarking

16

Measuring Progressand Benchmarking

Evaluate Performance

Identify OpportunitiesIdentify Opportunities

Reality Check

17

Spring 2009 Spring 2005

Noel‐Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2005 v. 2009Spring 2009 Spring 2005

Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean DifferenceAcademic Advising/Counseling 6.19 5.47 6.00 5.23 0.24**Safety and Security 6.09 5.47 5.94 5.27 0.20**Campus Support Services 5.55 5.02 5.41 4.86 0.16*Responsiveness to Diverse Populations 5.66 5.51 0.15RegistrationRegistration Effectiveness 6.18 5.64 6.07 5.49 0.15*Instructional Effectiveness 6.21 5.49 6.03 5.39 0.10

Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.91 5.43 0.08Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.91 5.43 0.08Academic Services 6.04 5.52 5.98 5.44 0.08Concern for the Individual 6.14 5.42 6.00 5.34 0.08Campus Climate 6.04 5.42 5.89 5.35 0.07Admissions /Financial Aid 6.05 5.36 5.99 5.30 0.06Service Excellence 5.99 5.36 5.92 5.32 0.04

18

Spring 2009 Spring 2005

Noel‐Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2005 v. 2009Spring 2009 Spring 2005

Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean DifferenceAcademic Advising/Counseling 6.19 5.47 6.00 5.23 0.24**Safety and Security 6.09 5.47 5.94 5.27 0.20**Campus Support Services 5.55 5.02 5.41 4.86 0.16*Responsiveness to Diverse Populations 5.66 5.51 0.15RegistrationRegistration Effectiveness 6.18 5.64 6.07 5.49 0.15*Instructional Effectiveness 6.21 5.49 6.03 5.39 0.10

Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.91 5.43 0.08Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.91 5.43 0.08Academic Services 6.04 5.52 5.98 5.44 0.08Concern for the Individual 6.14 5.42 6.00 5.34 0.08Campus Climate 6.04 5.42 5.89 5.35 0.07Admissions /Financial Aid 6.05 5.36 5.99 5.30 0.06Service Excellence 5.99 5.36 5.92 5.32 0.04

NMJC Student Satisfaction Improved in Every CategoryNMJC Student Satisfaction Improved in Every Category

19

Spring 2009 Spring 2005

Noel‐Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2005 v. 2009Spring 2009 Spring 2005

Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean DifferenceAcademic Advising/Counseling 6.19 5.47 6.00 5.23 0.24**Safety and Security 6.09 5.47 5.94 5.27 0.20**Campus Support Services 5.55 5.02 5.41 4.86 0.16*Responsiveness to Diverse Populations 5.66 5.51 0.15RegistrationRegistration Effectiveness 6.18 5.64 6.07 5.49 0.15*Instructional Effectiveness 6.21 5.49 6.03 5.39 0.10

Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.91 5.43 0.08Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.91 5.43 0.08Academic Services 6.04 5.52 5.98 5.44 0.08Concern for the Individual 6.14 5.42 6.00 5.34 0.08Campus Climate 6.04 5.42 5.89 5.35 0.07Admissions /Financial Aid 6.05 5.36 5.99 5.30 0.06Service Excellence 5.99 5.36 5.92 5.32 0.04

Ben Alexander Student Services Center Opened in 2005Ben Alexander Student Services Center Opened in 2005

20

NMJC National

Noel‐Levitz Student Satisfaction: NMJC vs. NationalNMJC National

Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean Difference

Safety and Security 6.09 5.47 5.98 4.97 0.50***Academic Advising/Counseling 6.19 5.47 6.11 5.19 0.28***gAdmissions /Financial Aid 6.05 5.36 6.01 5.10 0.26***Registration Effectiveness 6.18 5.64 6.14 5.39 0.25***R iResponsiveness to Diverse Populations 5.66 5.43 0.23***Concern for the Individual 6.14 5.42 6.07 5.21 0.21***

St d t C t d 6 08 5 51 5 96 5 34 0 17**Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.96 5.34 0.17**Campus Climate 6.04 5.42 5.95 5.27 0.15**

Service Excellence 5.99 5.36 5.94 5.23 0.13*Instructional Effectiveness 6 21 5 49 6 16 5 38 0 11*Effectiveness 6.21 5.49 6.16 5.38 0.11*Academic Services 6.04 5.52 6.03 5.42 0.10Campus Support Services 5.55 5.02 5.44 4.94 0.08

21

NMJC National

Noel‐Levitz Student Satisfaction: NMJC vs. NationalNMJC National

Importance Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Mean Difference

Safety and Security 6.09 5.47 5.98 4.97 0.50***Academic Advising/Counseling 6.19 5.47 6.11 5.19 0.28***gAdmissions /Financial Aid 6.05 5.36 6.01 5.10 0.26***Registration Effectiveness 6.18 5.64 6.14 5.39 0.25***R iResponsiveness to Diverse Populations 5.66 5.43 0.23***Concern for the Individual 6.14 5.42 6.07 5.21 0.21***

St d t C t d 6 08 5 51 5 96 5 34 0 17**Student Centeredness 6.08 5.51 5.96 5.34 0.17**Campus Climate 6.04 5.42 5.95 5.27 0.15**

Service Excellence 5.99 5.36 5.94 5.23 0.13*Instructional Effectiveness 6 21 5 49 6 16 5 38 0 11*Effectiveness 6.21 5.49 6.16 5.38 0.11*Academic Services 6.04 5.52 6.03 5.42 0.10Campus Support Services 5.55 5.02 5.44 4.94 0.08

NMJC St d t S ti f ti Ab Nt’l i E C tNMJC Student Satisfaction Above Nt’l in Every Category22

Peer Benchmark GroupsPeer Benchmark Groups• HED Peer Group

Carl Sandburg College

• NMJC Regional PeersOdessa CollegeCarl Sandburg College

Lower Columbia College

Darton College

G C t C ll

Odessa College

Midland College

South Plains College

W th f d C llGrayson County College

Hutchinson Community College

Louisiana State Univ. – Eunice

Weatherford College

San Juan College

Iowa Lakes Community College

Sheridan College

Temple College

Reading Area Community College

Midland College

Paris Junior Collegeg

23

Benchmarking Against HED PeersNMJC HED Peers

Graduation Rate (150% of time) 24% 21%

Benchmarking Against HED Peers

Graduation Rate (150% of time) 24% 21%Full‐time Retention 49% 53%Part‐time Retention 34% 38%Expenses as % of Total

Instruction 85% 87%Institutional Support 76% 69%Institutional Support 76% 69%

Expenses per FTEInstruction $4,177 $4,020

l $ $Institutional Support $1,518 $1,402Student Services $1,868 $1,000

24

Benchmarking Against HED PeersBenchmarking Against HED Peers

NMJC HED Peers

Tuition and FeesTuition and Fees

2007‐2008 $1,032 $2,141

2006 2007 $850 $2 0292006‐2007 $850 $2,029

2005‐2006 $601 $1,964

25

Headcount (FT and PT) Enrollment

7,000

( )NMJC v Regional Peers

5,000

6,000

4,000

5,000

2,000

3,000

1,000

2005 2006 2007

NMJC Regional Peers

26

Headcount (FT and PT) Enrollment

7,000

( )NMJC v Regional Peers

5,000

6,000

4,000

5,000

Increase driven by credit‐bearing PT workforce training students

2,000

3,000

Training and Outreach Staff Established1,000

2005 2006 2007

Training and Outreach Staff Established

NMJC Regional Peers

27

Full‐time Student Retention Rate

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30% NMJC FT

Peer FT Benchmarking: Retention Rates

0%

2005 2006 2007

60%

Part‐time Student Retention Rate NMJC v. Regional Peers

30%

40%

50%

NMJC PT

Need to understand difference in types of students – NMJC Workforce Focus

0%

10%

20% Peer PT

2005 2006 2007

28

Key messages:Key messages:

• Plans take time to become reality (particularlyPlans take time to become reality (particularly when capital funding involved)– Equine Center and Oil & Gas Trainingq g– Master Plan and Strategic Plan drive the process

• Transitory workers = unique enrollment y qdynamic– 5% unemployment level seems to be key– Good times push enrollment down quickly– Bad times affect enrollment 2‐3 years later

29

Key messages – con’t:Key messages  con t:

• Headcount is important but Student CreditHeadcount is important but Student Credit Hours (SCH) drive formula funding

• New modes of delivery (iTV Online and Dual• New modes of delivery (iTV, Online and Dual credit) have been critical decisions

NMJC h i bl il bl k• NMJC has a sizeable, available market

• NMJC compares favorably to peers

• We are seeking…and using…information/data

30

Thank you!Thank you!