RFM – Release Figure Method University of Illinois – April 2006 Laura Malley-Schmitt NPC Release...

RFM – Release Figure MethodUniversity of Illinois – April 2006

Laura Malley-Schmitt

NPC Release Figure Team Leader

NPC Delegation Member – Alpha Phi

Purpose of Release Figures(aka Carry Figures)

Goal 1 To give each sorority a statistical chance to attain quota

Goal 2Goal 2 To allow each PNM to investigate available options and ultimately

to match with a sorority for which she has a preference

Goal 3 To optimize the number of matches while coming as close to

chapter size parity as possible

Goal 1: Giving each sorority a statistical chance at quota

The “old” method, which had been in existence for over 30 years, made it statistically impossible for all chapters to make quota

– Created “Threatened Chapter Syndrome”– Many chapters throughout North America struggled and eventually

closed because of it

The “Law of Averages” approach was a flawed premise for release figures

The Law of Averages ApproachThe Theory

Beta

150 PNMs

Iota

150 PNMs

Epsilon

150 PNMs

Estimated Quota = 50. So, theoretically all three of these chapters should make Quota, because each sorority has a one in three chance (33%) with each PNM. The approach assumes all sororities are equal.

Preference Bid List Length

The Law of Averages ApproachThe Reality

Beta

150 PNMs on list

Matches Q of 50 at # 80.

Leaves 70 women below line. Many become QAs to large chapters

1st choices = 60%


Iota

150 PNMs on list


Leaves 20 women below line.

1st choices = 33%

Epsilon

100 PNMs on list

Matches only 20.

1st choices = 15%

The RFM Approach

Beta

100 PNMs on list


1st choices = 60%


Iota

150 PNMs on list


1st choices = 33%

Epsilon

225 PNMs on list


1st choices = 15%

Goal 2: To allow each PNM to investigate options and match with a sorority

The “old” method, which had been in existence for over 30 years, raised expectations for a large number of PNMs that could not be fulfilled

– Created “Recruitment Casualty Syndrome”– Many systems left a large number of PNMs unmatched because of it

The “Law of Averages” approach led many PNMs to believe that affiliation with a popular chapter was possible, and then “cross-cut” them at preference

Sarah Sevencee

150 PNM’s 10-7-4-2

Goal 3: To optimize the number of matches while coming as close to chapter size parity as possible

The “old” method, which had been in existence for over 30 years, made it impossible to place all the PNMs that completed the process in good faith AND achieve relative chapter parity.

Greek life administrators were forced to choose between placing PNMs and keeping weak chapters viable

– QSM #1 placed most all PNMs, but left at least one chapter very weak

– QSM #2 fostered relative parity, but many PNMs were statistically eliminated from the system

RFM: How Are We Doing at Illinois?After 2 years of RFM implementation

Goal 1 To give each sorority a statistical chance to attain quota

– We are succeeding at sending the right number of women to each chapter for them to have a chance

– All chapters in the top half of strength are still making quota even though their lists are shorter

– For several chapters that are not as strong in recruitment, the RFM has made a huge difference in their ability to succeed

– For a couple of chapters, it appears as though the RFM alone may not be the answer


Goal 2Goal 2 To allow each PNM to investigate available options and ultimately

to match with a sorority for which she has a preference

– Successful. More PNMs are receiving their first choice on their MRABA (aka pref cards)

2000 2005

1st Choice 71 % 84%

2nd Choice 22 % 14%

3rd Choice 7% <2%


Goal 3 To optimize the number of matches while coming as close to

chapter size parity as possible

– Making good progress, considering only 2 years of implementation thus far– We are still matching over 98% of bid matching participants– 15 out of 18 chapters made quota in 2005– However, some chapters do not comply with their figures (under-invite)– However, some chapters need to do a better job with preference– There is always a set of PNMs that are unwilling to adjust expectations

regardless and choose to withdraw.

(These women were typically cross-cut before preference under the LOA approach.)

Do we have a Withdrawal Problem at Illinois?

The Most Important Metric Used to Address this is Percentage of the Open House Pool Matched:

Number Matched______

Open House Pool (OHP)

Overall National Average = 76 % National Average for Campuses Using Priority Recruitment = 78%

Under the RFM, two-thirds of all campuses achieve the same overall percentage matched or improve in this metric when compared to the LOA approach


10 Years of Statistics

OHP Matched Matched %

1995 1090 869 79.7%1996 1086 871 80.2%1997 997 811 81.3%1998 1041 810 77.8%1999 1101 911 82.7%2000 1044 906 86.8%2001 934 754 80.7%2002 1085 913 84.1%2003 1070 901 84.2%2004 1191 927 77.8%2005 1256 939 74.8%

• The LOA using QSM #1 was used 1995-2003.

• The RFM was used in 2004 and 2005.


The Answer is Both YES and NO The overall percentage matched at Illinois is within range of current

national average and is in striking distance of the results posted in previous years at Illinois.

The results under the LOA may seem better in this metric, but these results were achieved by making it impossible for all sororities to succeed. (Too few invitations to preference for weaker chapters.)

Results in the 80-85% range for overall percentage matched are possible under the RFM, but two things need to happen:

– A few chapters need to refrain from under-inviting.– Some chapters need to strengthen preference.

HOW WILL RFM IMPACT

OUR CHAPTERS?

RFM Impact

The Impact of the RFM Depends Upon Your Chapter’s Circumstances:

Release Pattern for a Sample of Illinois Chapters:

1st Round 2nd Round3rd Round

Beta 775 250 60Zeta 650 240 50Iota 400 250 90Eta 100 130 50Epsilon 60 70 60

Based on an estimate of 1200 participating in Open House Round

Common Initial Concerns with RFM

How can we make decisions about dropping this many PNMs on Day One?

You’re cutting us to the bone by making us release so many PNMs!

Won’t all the PNMs think we’re superficial snobs for dropping so many of them?

How will we recruit this many women with the relatively few members we have?

Implications for Implications for Chapters with High ReturnsChapters with High Returns

• You must be prepared to release more PNMs earlier in the process.

• You will be inviting fewer PNMs to all events, which may leave you with excess members on the recruitment floor.

• Your lists will be shorter, so there may be an initial fear that you won’t reach quota, or a perception that you’ve “gone to the bottom of your bid list.”

Implications for Chapters with Middle Implications for Chapters with Middle and Lower Returnsand Lower Returns

• All of the women stronger chapters are releasing are looking at your chapter!!

• You may have a lot more PNMs attending your events.

• If you have a small chapter, you may need to double or triple rush.

• You will be entertaining women who have never seriously considered your chapter before – BE READY to sell your experience!!

Implications for All Chapters Implications for All Chapters

• CONVERSATION

• Make it Meaningful

• Focus on Expectations of Membership

• Organizational Values

• Devote more time to this, and less to entertainment/fluff


• MEMBERSHIP SELECTION

• Follow your national group’s guidelines!

• Define your criteria

• Minimize subjective criteria and focus on objective criteria


• PREFERENCE

• The most important round of all

• The RFM will get the right number of PNMs to your preference round. However, the RFM cannot persuade the PNMs to choose your chapter. It is up to your chapter to close the sale.

• If your chapter does poorly in preference compared to previous years, there is a risk your chapter will not make quota.

• Focus on preference conversation, but resist the temptation to bid promise


BID PROMISING

Hurts the PNMs

• It is unethical to lead them to believe that they are assured a bid with your chapter. You can’t possibly affiliate all of the women who will attend your preference. So, if you push them too hard and promise bids, they may ISP. As a result, they may be “cross-cut” out of the system.

Hurts your chapter!

• There are hefty penalties for chapters who are caught promising bids.

• Bid promising can result in an artificially high percentage of first choices. Next year’s bid list will be determined by first choice percentage for your chapter. The higher the first choice percentage this year, the smaller the list for your chapter the following year. Essentially, you risk falling short of quota next year by playing the bid promising game this year.

RFM – Release Figure Method University of Illinois – April 2006 Laura Malley-Schmitt NPC Release...

Documents

Transcript of RFM – Release Figure Method University of Illinois – April 2006 Laura Malley-Schmitt NPC Release...