June 10, 2021

Retention Subcommittee Minutes

Members present: Paul Hoffman, Jessica Shelton, Herman Tucker, Corey Stone, Starlen Roddy, Mario Leal, Staci Taylor, Tisha Monsey, Tamara Culver, Tina Lyles, Paula Unger

Members absent: Mandy Morrison, Brian Jackson, Claudette Jackson, Chad Eggleston, Estella Lopez

Members met on 6/10/21 via Zoom.  Members discussed the steering committee feedback regarding the 4 recommendations we forwarded, as well as ideas for where to go next.  

Recommendation #1: Acquire, implement, and utilize CRM and predictive analytics technology and data

  • Paul and Jessica met with Mario, Phil Rhodes, and Laura Wichman on 6/9 to discuss this recommendation.
    • The main question we want to address is this: How can we identify at-risk students earlier?
      • This can be broken down into 2 parts: predictive analytics (recognizing who is at-risk before they even start their classes), and early alert (recognizing who is struggling early in the semester).
    • Early alert:
      • A demo for a product from Brightspace (Performance Plus) is scheduled for June 15th. Jessica will attend.
      • All students in Learning Framework will take the Noel-Levitz CSI instead of the ESAP. That could generate early alert information as well. There’s also a mid-term follow-up.
      • Brightspace already uses Intelligent Agents to help identify students who might be struggling.
    • Predictive Analytics:
      • This might need to be a longer-term goal. Will require a lot of analysis of data to create the models, and then the models change constantly due to our changing student population.
      • SAS Enterprise license that we already have CAN do predictive analytics, but it will take a lot of work to get the data to be useful.
    • What happens with the information generated by early alert or predictive analytics? That process may be something we can help shape through recommendations.
    • A lot of these methods will only be as good as our ability to use attendance registers and the grade book correctly and consistently.
  • The committee agreed that we can focus on early alert methods first since that addresses the students we have now, but we do support continuing to pursue predictive analytics in the future.

Recommendation #2: Establish “circles of care” for students, where cohorts of students have assigned connections with staff members across multiple departments (Admissions, Financial Aid, Advising, Completion Center, NSO, Learning Framework, etc.).

  • Jessica met with the Recruiting and Marketing subcommittee on 6/1. The program they are developing fits well with our recommendation and should increase student connection to supportive employees.  It would provide a supportive relationship from application throughout the student’s time at MCC. It also supports the idea of predictive analytics; we won’t have enough staff to meet with every student, so how can we identify which students would benefit the most from this connection?

Recommendation #3: Expand childcare services on campus for students.

  • Jessica met with Daelynn Copeland on 6/3.
    • MCC is more supportive of the CDC than most colleges are of theirs.
    • Our CDC has the highest accreditation rating possible, and that carries strict rules we must follow.
    • Daelynn has already implemented strategies to prioritize the children of students who are on the waiting list, while also bringing the CDC to a self-sustaining level.
    • The drop-in model at ACC is sponsored by the YMCA, not the college. There are limits to how long the children can be there, they can’t have drinks/snacks, and there is no continuity of care with staffing. We would have to figure out where to put it (it would be separate from our CDC), and predicting how many children will be there on any given day is tricky.
    • Other ideas that might be more in line with our campus:
      • Increase capacity by 30% by expanding to D108 and D109 (would cost around $500K initially but could pay for itself over time).
      • Pursue grants that could increase subsidies we offer, create full scholarship positions, or let us offer a sliding fee scale.
    • The committee agreed that, while we support increasing childcare services, there are other recommendations we should focus on at this time that will have a bigger impact on students overall.
      • Additional questions: do lab fees for the CDEC courses help with the expense of running the CDC? How large is the program? Would it help if the program grew?

Recommendation #4:  Review internal processes that affect retention.

  • This process will begin next week.

Other comments:

  • Should we (and can we) look at recommending more Success Coaches?
    • If we identify at-risk students, it’s the Coaches who will work with them. Yet our number of Coaches dropped to 2 with the restructure, and they’re both males (when our student population is around 65% female).
    • When you look at what topics student report prevented them from staying in school, and what topics are most frequently discussed with Coaches, there is a large overlap (mental and physical health, increase in home responsibilities, falling behind in the course).
    • Let’s gather the information we have (institutional and external sources) to see if this is worth exploring.
  • Learning Framework updates:
    • All Coaches and Advisors will have access to the CSI data, along with the LF instructor.
    • Sections will be grouped by pathway or affinity group.
    • Instructors can apply and interview if they want to teach. Open to staff.  Increased effort for consistency in what is being taught.
  • Get back to our original plan. What helps retention?  Feeling like you belong, “college knowledge”, knowing who to go to when you need help. 

Next meeting: TBD