Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rpkgroup iPASS Whitepaper-Final PDF
Rpkgroup iPASS Whitepaper-Final PDF
TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED
ADVISING: iPASS SOLUTIONS
New models are emerging across higher education to improve student performance and outcomes.
They include alternate delivery and instructional models, such as competency-based education,
digital courseware, and open educational resources. Outside the classroom, new educational support
tools and approaches are also helping students plan for, and successfully navigate, college pathways.
First, acknowledge that this is not Second, the focus on total cost The third component for applying
only about dollars spent, but about alone must move to one of cost an ROI lens is to tangibly connect
people and how they spend their per unit, and how unit costs change student success and financial
time. Our research shows that the over time. The best example of sustainability. As the various measures
most significant investment that any such a shift is the cost per credential of student success—retention,
higher education institution makes (degrees and certificates). Using progression, average student credit
is in its people—its faculty and this approach, an institution may hour load, increase in credit comple-
staff. Yet, there often is a very poor elect to increase total spending tion—improve, so too may the net
understanding of how those people on initiatives such as iPASS, revenue earned by the institution.
spend their time. ROI demands a while ultimately reducing the This increase in net revenue may be
better understanding of how faculty more important unit cost per further enhanced by adopting student
and staff use their time, and how it credential awarded. learning and advising systems that
translates into student success. increase efficiency. The financial return
on investment also applies to students,
who translate their success into
reduced tuition, quicker completion,
and faster entry into the workforce.
26+74+R
$700,000
Grantee spending averaged more
26%
than $700,000 on iPASS activities
during FY14-FY16, but largely
reflects a reallocation of exisiting
resources rather than new money. Personnel costs were the largest
expenditure; only about one-quar-
ter of spending was to purchase
iPASS technology/software.
$1 million, annually
Expected increases in student retention rates could generate net
revenue averaging $1 million annually per institution (additional
operating revenue from student credit hour activity, less the
education-related expenses to provide those additional credit hours).
5
Looking separately at the initial investment period and the first-year of the grant shows a sharp
increase in spending. In FY16, spending averaged about $473,000, which was double the average
initial investment of $234,000 across all grantees in FY14-FY15 (see Figure 3).1
spending
So, from a sustainability perspective, funding). Instead, spending in FY16
the expiration of grant funding may averaged nearly $475,000, or $148,000
have less of an impact than expected. more than expected. This additional supported directly
institutional spending reflects a
Colleges certainly welcome grant 63 percent increase over average by institutions.
funding, but its intended impact is FY14-FY15 spending levels.
1
ight institutions reported no initial investment; spending in FY14-FY5 averaged $367,000 among those 14 institutions with initial investment reported.
E
2
iPASS grantees were awarded approximately $75,000 annually for three years; however, some institutions also reported grant funding from other sources, which
increased the average grant amount.
7
26+2+31055G
student advising models is intended to provide higher-quality,
customized advising services more efficiently and effectively. FY14-FY16
66
to their iPASS project, and categorized into four activities:
lanning
P raining
T
I mplementation ngoing iPASS operations
O
Figure 5: Distribution of Average Personnel Hours per Week (All Positions), FY14-FY18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Note: Ongoing operations includes time spent utilizing, maintaining, or updating the iPASS system (e.g. advisors time spent using the iPASS technology;
staff time updating underlying data; system maintenance, etc.). Data show the institutional average of total weekly staff hours across all positions (per annum).
9
2.3
tation of iPASS solutions totaled $7.5 funding comes from institutions.
million (see Figure 6) across grantees Grant funding totaling $2.0 million
in FY14-FY16, averaging more than in FY16 accounted for 45 percent of
$340,000 per institution. Grantees revenues, while institutions provided
million
reported revenue streams that were $2.3 million in budgeted support.
budgeted to provide project support, Institutions are expected to provide
but were not required to reconcile additional support in FY17 and FY18,
revenues and expenditures. As a result, totaling $3.6 million and $2.5 million
the $15.5 million in reported expen- respectively. Grant funding is expected
ditures is twice as large as budgeted to decline and contribute roughly Budgeted revenue
institutions provided
revenue during the FY14-FY16 period. a third of the budget in the final two
The discrepancy is largely attributed to years of the grant, as other sources
personnel costs that were supported
by other costs centers instead of the
of grant funding may be coming
to an end.
for iPASS in FY16
project budget (e.g., planning and (excludes reallocated
staff time).
oversight by senior leadership;
utilization of the iPASS technology
by advising staff).
$5,728
$6,000
$60
$2,012
$16
$3,000
$758 $265
$2,411
$2,000
$1,714
$1,698 $1,677
$1,000
$1,124
$617 $662 $868
$0
FY14/FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
(projected) (projected)
10
HOW IS
SUSTAINABILITY ACHIEVED?
While the adoption of iPASS solutions The revenue impact is expected to retention rates, depends on institution
are expected to boost measures of grow in FY17 and FY18 if retention rates size, average student credit hour load,
student success, they can also have a continue to increase. But the expected and revenue per credit hour from tuition
real financial impact for colleges and revenue impact varies widely across and state and local appropriations.
students. Improvements in standard institutions4 and, in addition to
measures of student success such as
retention, progression, completion, and
Figure 9: Retention Rates, FY16-FY18
average student credit hour load are the
Maximum Average Minimum
traditional top-line metrics of success.
But improvements in these measures 100% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
89.9%
can also produce secondary benefits
by generating additional net revenue 80% 69.8% 71.4%
66.7% 68.1%
for institutions. Students may also see
greater financial returns, as faster com- 60%
CREATING
SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION
Connecting student success and financial sustainability is the final component in developing an ROI
lens on higher education investments. Making this connection is critical to the long-term financial
sustainability of projects, whether they are seeded with grant funding or institutionally financed.
Together, the components of ROI can be used to generate momentum for investments in student
success and garner continued support among college leaders.
In addition to the financial components, education funding models often are
leadership and communication are also not designed to incentivize innovation.
critically important to sustainability. Finally, some college data systems may
Sustainable innovation requires that not be equipped to track the impact of Sustainability
colleges have the leadership and
internal capacity for launching and sup-
innovative practices, which also makes
sustainability more challenging.
depends on
porting innovative practices. Program
Sustainability depends on connecting
connecting data
champions are particularly important in
grant-funded initiatives where there are data to decision making and providing to decision making
good communication around those
strong incentives to move onto the next
new grant opportunity once the current decisions. Support can be cultivated and providing good
initiative is complete. by explaining the various investment
opportunities and the preferred option
communication
Creating sustainable practices can for improving student performance. around those
sometimes prove difficult for colleges Communicating how these investments
that are interested in innovating, are expected to generate additional decisions.
but lack the organization structure, revenue is also important, as is an
cultural climate, or buy-in from key emphasis on how the college can then
constituents (leadership, faculty, staff, reinvest these resources in current or
or students). In addition, higher new initiatives.
13
CONCLUSION
The three components that form the core of an ROI lens—a holistic understanding of resources,
a focus on unit cost, and a connection between student success and financial sustainability—
are the keys to making sustained financial investments in student support services that benefit
institutions as well as students. Additional focus on cultural sustainability—ensuring that leadership,
planning, and communication are in place—highlights the other elements necessary for creating
sustainable innovation.
This analysis of iPASS provides a new An ROI lens can also support an Institutions participating in these
example of how higher education can institution’s need for greater account- grant-supported implementations
utilize an ROI lens to select between ability and transparency around these of iPASS approaches now have an
various student success initiatives. investments. With greater clarity around enhanced ability to consider their
What might the initiative cost, projected costs, institutions now iPASS investment using an ROI lens.
accounting for both new and existing have the ability to compare these In addition, the institutions have
resources? How will that cost be projections to actual expenditures. identified possible connections
supported during the initiative’s launch Once the expected returns are between their investment, changes
and over time? What is the expected established, these targets can be in student success and financial
return to both students and the tracked over time. Ultimately, the use sustainability. Continued analysis
institution, and how might that return of an ROI lens allows an institution to over the next two data collection
be communicated? Finally, how might make the case for continued invest- cycles will allow the institutions, and
the initiative support financial sustain- ment, or to determine when further the field, to more deeply understand
ability at the institution? All of these investment is no longer warranted. the positive impacts from these
questions are essential in making wise technology-enabled initiatives.
resource allocation decisions.
rpk GROUP is a leading consulting and advisory firm in higher education, supporting colleges and
universities with their growth strategies by focusing on mission, market and margin opportunities.
Key areas of focus include academic portfolio and efficiency reviews, financial modeling for new initiatives, administrative
services evaluation, the creation of resource allocation processes, and business model development to support strategic
and facility master planning. The rpk GROUP team operates nationally and internationally.
rpk GROUP’s work has involved traditional institutions of higher education, as well as the creation of new institutions
and alternative learning and business models. Through this work, rpk GROUP has become a leading voice in the
development of a new business model for higher education, working in partnership with institutions and
foundations throughout the higher education sector.
Connect with us
rpkgroup.com • info@rpkgroup.com • 410-591-9018 • 3 Church Circle, Suite 164, Annapolis, MD 21401