In an April 8, 2002, memorandum to the Presidents of USM Institutions, USM Interim Chancellor Joseph Vivona expressed the concern of the Board of Regent's Committee on Finance that the "enrollment projections (of USM institutions) might not adequately respond to the implicit goal of the strategic plan, namely, growth."  The Board's Committee on Educational Policy expressed similar concerns.  Mr. Vivona charged all USM institutions to revisit their previous enrollment projections, "taking into consideration the Regent's concerns" assuming "that we will add 5,000 more students to our (USM) projections through 2011. If it decides to approve the revised projections, the Board will realign capital budgets accordingly as it works through the capital program decisions in May and June."
The Executive Staff, the Dean of Enrollment Management, and the Director of Institutional Research, Assessment, & Accountability quickly convened to reconsider enrollment projections.  Based on Mr. Vivona's memo, it was evident that institutions that were willing to respond to the State's initiatives would receive priority status in current and future capital projects.  Although the University had submitted updated enrollment projections in January 2002, projections which had been increased to respond both to the State's needs and to reflect a realistic assessment of growth trends, the May 2002 submittal added an additional 500 students to those previous levels.
These projections are extremely aggressive. The primary goal is to ensure that Salisbury University remains positioned at the forefront in receiving funding for future capital projects. A secondary goal is to respond to the State's initiatives.  In submitting these projections, Salsibury University is operating under several overarching assumptions: without additional operating funds to hire ample faculty and other personnel to maintain our current service levels and student to faculty ratios, without additional operating funds to provide for increased educational expenses, and without funding for capital projects, these enrollment levels will not materialize.  Further to ensure that our capital projects remain a high priority, higher enrollment was predicted in the earlier years, although given our current capacity levels, it is likely that future growth will occur at a much more controlled pace—assuming the State fulfills SU's operational and capital needs.  Therefore, these projections should be interpreted with these factors in mine, and that little future growth will occur without the State's financial commitment to SU's operational and capital funding needs.
Revised
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
Institution: Salisbury University
		Fall										Change From
Fall Student Data	Actual	Projections										Fall 2001 to Fall 2011
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Number	Percent
Headcount Total	6,682	6,888	7,126	7,334	7,542	7,726	7,910	8,080	8,225	8,364	8,483	1,801	27.0%
Undergraduate Total	6,060	6,250	6,471	6,661	6,851	7,011	7,171	7,311	7,431	7,550	7,669	1,609	26.6%
Full-time	5,280	5,480	5,701	5,891	6,081	6,241	6,401	6,541	6,661	6,780	6,899	1,619	30.7%
Part-time	780	770	770	770	770	770	770	770	770	770	770	(10)	-1.3%
Grad./First Prof. Total	622	638	655	673	691	715	739	769	794	814	814	192	30.9%
Full-time	118	123	125	127	129	135	139	139	139	139	139	21	17.8%
Part-time	504	515	530	546	562	580	600	630	655	675	675	171	33.9%
FTDE or FTNE Students	4,743	4,890	5,059	5,206	5,354	5,484	5,615	5,736	5839	5937	6,022	1279	27.0%
Fiscal Year Full-Time Equivalent Data
		FISCAL YEAR										Change From
	Actual	Projections										FY 2002 to FY 2012
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	Number	Percent
FTE Students	5,689	5,898	6,134	6,318	6,507	6,637	6,770	6,906	7,009	7,114	7,221	1,532	26.9%
Comments: Assumptions: capital projects, the Construction of an Educational and Technology Center, the renovation of other facilities, and the construction of a new library facility and a business
education and economic development center will parallel enrollment growth; in order to fund faculty PINs and enhance scholarships, the University will be funded according to guidelines. Without
progress in capital construction AND funding to guideline levels, the University will be unable to support growth, will freeze enrollment in 2004, & will return to maximum current capacity levels.
Completed by:  Bryan Price, Dir. Of Instnl Rsrch, Assessmnt, & Accountability; in consultation with President Dudley-Eshbach, the Executive Staff, & the Dean of Enrollment Management; May 06, 2002
Phone:  410-543-6023
E-Mail:  rbprice@salisbury.edu