Kathleen Massey is Vice Provost (Students) at the University of Lethbridge, where she has led student services and success initiatives since 2017. With prior senior leadership roles at McGill and the University of Calgary, she brings nearly two decades of expertise in enrolment, student experience, and academic administration.

Matt Stiegemeyer has been working in higher education since 2001 at three different public universities. After 5 years at the University of Memphis and 5 years at the University of Victoria (BC), he spent over a decade at Concordia University, working as the Director for Student Recruitment.


CRI: In tight budget cycles, retention is often one of the first things pushed to the sidelines. We’ve often heard the line: “It’s too costly to be a top priority right now.” But the flip side is that losing students comes at a cost, too. What’s your experience been with making the financial case for retention and shifting the mindset from expense to investment?

Kathleen: At Lethbridge, I haven’t seen the kind of skepticism you mentioned, though I’m sure it exists elsewhere. Here, people are committed to retention – it’s a priority. I do use numbers like tuition revenue to make the case for strategic financial investments in retention tools and programs. That’s part of the job: making the case with real data.

And in general, people are receptive. I’ve had good experiences securing funding for various initiatives, but it always means showing how the numbers work. For example, I calculate what an improvement in retention means in tuition revenue, not just in student headcount. I break it down by student type and program over one, two, even five years. That’s proven to be a compelling way to present the opportunity. But again, I don’t get the same resistance to retention initiatives that you mentioned. People here understand the value – and I’m grateful for that.

I think part of it is that we’re a community-based, access-oriented university which offers both competitive programs and accessible program initiatives. I was previously at another larger university where admission for almost all programs was extremely competitive, and the characteristics of the student bodies are quite different in some ways. Here, we have students with a wide variety of backgrounds and strengths, and it’s understood that we need to be thoughtful and intentional about the programming we put in place. So that’s probably why I haven’t faced that skepticism.

Matt: I think I’ve definitely heard that more skeptical approach. Retention, for me, is always a tricky one, especially if there isn’t a dedicated office or a singular owner of the global enrollment management perspective. Because it’s that old adage: when it’s everyone’s problem, nobody takes ownership.

Nobody on campus is saying, “I don’t care about retention.” If you work at a university, fundamentally, student success and progression matter to you. But aligning resources behind that care is the hard part. At Concordia, where I worked with CRI and HeadStart, we heard concerns like, “Agh, spending money on this right now – what are we getting out of it?”

The key was using data to show that when you apply a set of targeted activities and compare outcomes to a control group, you see a difference in retention. It’s not subjective; it’s a provable outcome. And yet somehow, there’s still reluctance to let the data tell that story. I think part of that is because aligning broad institutional goals around student success with how different parts of the organization operate day-to-day isn’t always straightforward.

At Concordia, when we were working on these early retention initiatives, it meant getting people who really should have been working together to start collaborating in different ways. And that had to fit in with all the other work going on. I oversaw recruitment, and to me, retention was part of that mission. You recruit students because you want them to graduate. But that means figuring out who’s likely to struggle and how to support them. Triaging isn’t always intuitive – especially in student services. There’s a mindset that “we offer services to everyone,” and the idea of prioritizing some students can feel wrong.

But I think we need to get over that. If you think about a bell curve, not everyone needs the same level of support. Just like in recruitment, you have to target your efforts. Trust the data – it’s about applying resources where they can have the greatest impact. 

“Perfect alignment? I’ve never seen it. I’ve seen people who are willing to come along. You build a coalition around something factual, something that’s evidence-based and compelling.”

CRI: We’ve run into that too. No one says they don’t care about retention, but somehow it ends up on the back burner. And there’s this perspective that it’s really the student’s job to persist: “Yeah, we support retention, but it’s ultimately on them to stick with it.” How would you respond to that?

Matt: The institution has a big responsibility here. Even purely at the financial level: if you’re reporting to your board, your job is to be fiscally responsible for the institution. Retention is part of that – it’s cheaper to keep a student than to recruit a new one. That’s just the dollars and cents.

And beyond that, universities already offer services – mental health, tutoring, residence life – all aimed at supporting student success. So if someone says, “It’s on the student,” I’d push back. We already have an entire infrastructure that proves we don’t really believe that.
What I liked about HeadStart was that it helped students navigate those resources. Navigating universities can feel like trying to drink from a firehose. HeadStart was like a card catalog for success: it guided students to the three things that best aligned with them.

So yes, institutions can do a better job actively targeting support because just blasting everyone with the same message isn’t going to cut it.

Kathleen: Yeah, I agree. Saying, “Well, they should just figure it out,” is such a generic, old-school way of thinking.

As Matt knows, recruiting is now a segmented approach. We bring in students from all sorts of backgrounds – different communities, different academic profiles, different parts of the world. That means we’re inviting in people who may not have a clear understanding of how our institution works – our jargon, services, academic expectations.

So I think we have a moral and ethical responsibility to help them navigate – not in a cynical hand-holding way, but as guides. To help them make their way through our unique context. It’s also fiscally responsible. I report to the board. If enrollment dips, I have to explain why and what we’re doing about it. That includes retention.

If we help students get through to graduation, it strengthens our reputation – we become the institution that helps people reach their goals. It also helps financially and builds a long-term, engaged alumni community. To me, it’s a decades-long view. Not just getting them across the stage, but keeping them involved as citizens, donors, champions.

That doesn’t mean there’s no accountability for students. Of course there is. But part of what we’re doing in helping them is educational: teaching them how to engage, what’s expected, how to reach out, follow policy, and take advantage of high-impact experiences that will help them beyond the classroom.

We’re not removing accountability, we’re showing them how to own it.

“If you think about a bell curve, not everyone needs the same level of support. Just like in recruitment, you have to target your efforts. Trust the data – it’s about applying resources where they can have the greatest impact.”

CRI: That’s great. Let’s say someone recognizes retention is important but struggles to get traction because alignment is hard. In your experience, what’s the risk of waiting for perfect alignment? And what advice would you give to someone trying to make progress without it?

Kathleen: I’ll maybe just start there, Matt, because I’m not someone who waits for perfect alignment. Frankly, I don’t think it ever happens.

What I’ve seen is opportunity – and need. For example, in our case, we saw a 6% drop in first-year retention among undergraduates during the pandemic. Then we had a faculty strike in February 2022. That whole period resulted in a lot of attrition. It affected retention across the board, but especially in first year.

So I didn’t wait for alignment. What I needed – and what I used – was a sense of urgency. That data point was compelling. It had broader implications for enrollment, which in turn affects revenue and reputation. Students who drop out also have their own stories about the institution, especially after events like a pandemic and a strike – those are defining moments.

To me, it was more important to create urgency around something real. Then I could start talking to key decision-makers, figure out how to influence them, and start moving forward.

Perfect alignment? I’ve never seen it. I’ve seen people who are willing to come along. You build a coalition around something factual, something that’s evidence-based and compelling. That’s where you start.

Matt: Yeah. I’d say the same. Nothing should wait for perfect alignment. In fact, the bigger the group, the more difficult it is to build any momentum.

I’ve seen initiatives die simply because they tried to form a 40-person steering committee – every possible voice included, and suddenly it becomes too big to move. You’re trying to account for every factor that influences student success, but in reality, you can’t stop day-to-day operations to build the perfect solution.

At Concordia, we started with a small group that was willing to try something. We demonstrated that it worked, then built on it year after year. Whether that starts from a smaller academic unit or – like in our case – from enrollment services and student services working together in a different way, it has to begin somewhere.

You learn what fits your org and your students by trying, not by committee. Retention should be on everyone’s radar – especially now. No one thinks enrollment is smooth sailing in 2025. Retention is critical. And yet, there’s still this response: “I don’t think it’s the right time for us.” Which blows my mind.

It’s just... hard. People are stretched. To take on something new, they may have to stop doing something else. That’s a tough ask. But if the data’s clear – you’ve got a solid foundation to ask for change.

CRI: That leads perfectly into our last question. Higher ed is often resistant to change. Institutions are big ships – there’s hesitation to even turn the wheel slightly. What advice do you have for people trying to push past that resistance and drive meaningful change?

Kathleen: Speaking generally, I think encouraging people to be open to change really starts with listening.

You listen to understand how they perceive the problems or the opportunities. Listening helps you build trust – that you’re not coming in with something top-down or arbitrary. I’ve had a lot of success with just asking, “Tell me what you’re seeing. What are the issues? What do you think the opportunities are?” And then saying, “Okay, I have some thoughts too. Are you seeing what I’m seeing?”

From there, I’ll invite them to bring data. I’ll bring mine. If they don’t have data yet, I’ll say, “Let’s work together to collect it.” I take their lived experience seriously. If something feels off to them, it matters. We should dig into it. And that becomes a foundation – not just for trust, but for actual collaboration.

With HeadStart (which we call StartSmart), for example, I didn’t just announce it and expect everyone to say yes. I asked people what they were seeing in their own retention data. Were students disengaging? Were they hearing more complaints? And when I did introduce the tool, I positioned it as a pilot. I said: “Let’s try it. If it doesn’t work after a year, we can make a decision then.” That created both on-ramps and off-ramps. Some people got involved because they were curious. Others could walk away if it didn’t resonate.

For my team, I emphasized: this is important, but bring your expertise, your skepticism, your experience. Let’s build this together.

Our StartSmart facilitators are constantly presenting. We’re working with the Teaching and Learning Centre to hold joint sessions and share findings with faculty. And every time we present, we’re real about what’s working – and what still has question marks. For example, one associate dean I really respect said, “Of course the best students are going to do the Start Smart quiz. They’re already motivated. So obviously their retention rate will be higher.”

I said: “Great – let’s make that a research question.”

So we looked at who was completing the quiz, broke it down by entry average, and compared it to retention outcomes. And what we found is actually the opposite of what she expected. The students with the lowest entering averages – our most at-risk group – had the biggest boost in retention. A 30.8 percentage point improvement. The top-performing students had a smaller impact – around 17.6%. The middle group had the least.

So you use skepticism to refine the analysis. You go deeper. And often, the results are even more powerful.

Matt: That’s such a great point. It mirrors my own experience.

Back in the day, I had a group of friends – we all went from the same high school to the same university, all of us on scholarship. By the end of the first semester, only one of us still had our scholarship.

If something like HeadStart had existed, at least one or two more of us probably would’ve made it. Because that transition – from high school to post-secondary – is a big leap. Whether you’re a top student or just squeaked in, it’s not just about course content. It’s a whole new set of skills.

And the reality is, we assume students show up ready for all of it – academic workload, time management, navigating bureaucracy, asking for help – but most of us didn’t. I know I didn’t.

That’s why I believe in tools like HeadStart. Not because they’re a magic bullet, but because they give students a map before they get lost. And if we can offer that kind of orientation early – especially to the ones who need it most – we’re not just improving retention stats. We’re changing their trajectory.

And really, that’s the job. Helping them stay, yes – but more importantly, helping them succeed once they’re here.

Retention efforts make a difference.
Let us show you where to start.

Call us at (514)-250-4495 or let us reach out.