That's correct, Dubai Sis. There is a presumption made when the campus goes on RFM. And actually before RFM, there was a methodology for that but it's tighter now. So, once a campus has a history under RFM, that percentage will be used the following year, with adjustments year to year based upon the chapter's return rates each year. So it's fluid in that it can go up or down each year depending on a chapter's performance the previous year.

And AOIIAngel, at one time that was the general formula..depending on how many prefs you had. The basic assumption was that with 2 prefs you had to have 2.5 times quota (which had already been set earlier in rush) in order to have quota at the end. Obviously, that only worked on campuses where there was parity. With RFM, that assumption is gone and it is based on chapter performance averages.

It was my assumption, and I could totally be wrong, that quota forecasting was being done throughout recruitment, and tweaked each day depending on overall PNM retention. I can only speak for my limited experience, but it seems that a strong Greek Advisor and/or RFM specialist will be able to make decent predictions (within a range) of how many PNMs who start the process will be placed on Bid Day.

I've never had the Greek Advisor give me the return targets for each round of recruitment ahead of time - usually I get the figure during that day's parties, depending on drop rates.

Yes, they start out with a range assumption based on the number of PNMs at that point. It will adjust as the week goes on. And you should be given the number you can invite back each day - not all days at the beginning. The number may need a little tweaking based on your return numbers each day. So if one day was waaaaay off, they would adjust for that for the following day.

Make sense?

My super-great pnm pledged Kappa!

A big change with RFM is that they also take into account the % of women who list a chapter first on their bid cards.

So, old system at a school with 2 prefs: If quota is forecasted to be 50, invite numbers would be set so that every chapter would get 100 girls at prefs. 50% return rate? You get to invite 200 girls. 75% return rate? You get to invite 133 girls.

However, you can see that this is predicated on the assumption that all the chapters suddenly equalize and half the PNM's at each chapter pick it. That is obviously NOT the case. If ABC is so awesome that every PNM will list them first, they don't need 100 girls, they only need 50. Letting them have 100 can be disastrous for the weaker chapters.


Another change with RFM is better forecasting. Previously, they used a 3-year or 5-year moving average to calculate return rates. So let's say ABC had 50% in 2009, 60% in 2010, and 70% in 2011. Their forecasting return rate would be 60% in 2012. Well, anyone paying attention would say that is a low assumption, because they are clearly doing better, and it makes sense to assume they'd have at least 70% in 2012. These types of things are now taken into consideration.

I read more than I post, but I just wanted to chime in here to clear up a few questions/misconceptions about RFM, changes to QAs, etc.

The first campus started using RFM in 2003 and each year small improvements are made by the leadership team. We are in good hands.

Someone asked about the averages - they are weighted averages and most recent performance is the most critical. Someone mentioned the numbers are watched closely each day so that adjustments can be made. However, if a chapter under performs at a preference event they may not have enough women attend to made quota. It happens from time to time to even the strongest recruiting chapters.

The change remove the 5% cap for QAs was removed in 2008. This change has allow the specialists to do what is best for each situation without having their hands tied. There have been a few campuses over the years where the QAs have been distributed in an unusual manner but this is the exception rather than the rule. The overall goal is to grow the community.

There are very few campuses where a chapter are still listing women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. Where this situation exists the Delegates and NPC AA are working to fix this issue as it is counterproductive to the process and often leads to other issues.

The 2011 MRABA clearly states that a PNM may only list on her MRABA chapters whose preference event she attended. We actually have them initial this section as well as sign.

All in all the statics are amazing to see the numbers of chapters making quota and the % of PNMs matched. Many NPC groups are working on retention as that is the other critical piece to the puzzle!

Right. This is what I was saying. In the past you wanted about 3x quota at prefs. They don't necessarily let the higher power chapters get that many at prefs anymore...as explained well by DBB below.
BTW, I think we're saying the same thing.

Would those campuses most likely be the ones where pref = the first invite only event and RFM has been employed perhaps too zealously?

It's on the form, but is it actually in the Green Book? Again - what happens at campuses where there was no cutting before pref?

I know you know where I'm coming from on this. :)

Yes, I do know where you are coming from! I should have clarified that I was talking about schools that have fully or partially structured recruitment. There are very few of those schools where chapters list women who did not attend their preference event on their bid list. I can think of one who just corrected the situation on the chapter and PNM side last year, thankfully!

For schools that use minimally structured or continuous recruitment they still use the MRABA script and those women sign the COB acceptance binding agreement.

Yes, the info is in the MOI again in the "What Every Potential New Member Needs to Know About Recruitment" section in the recruitment handbook. The info is also on the script and on the form. Hopefully covering all bases!

The school you are thinking about isn't using RFM and we are still working on figuring out the best format. Always a work in progress, onward and upward!

This took me forever to find considering it was in this actual thread! Sad. Now that I have read it through, DBB, can you please explain the second scenario? Maybe I'm tired, but I am not understanding that one. Are there five women who list A and then B second and another set of five women who only attend pref at A and therefore are not listing B at all?

Yes, that is what I mean. I am trying to think of a situation where a higher quota helps a small chapter, and I can't come up with one at all.

I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters.

I tried to make a model with A and B, but I think the quota additions don't model correctly with only two chapters. Instead, if you think of a cluster of stronger-recruiting chapters and a cluster of weaker-recruiting chapters, then the problem becomes more clear. There will be women who get to pref that only preffed at two or three of the stronger-recruiting chapters. EVEN IF the campus uses the idea that QAs go to the smaller chapter, that would be the smaller of the strong cluster.

Then what happens is some of the stronger-recruiting chapters end up with quota +15, which still leaves the smaller chapters behind, even if they technically made quota.

If, as Titchou said, quota is now about matching as many women as possible to as many chapters as possible, then I can accept that we are saying it is no longer a tool to try to keep chapters at relatively the same sizes. Then, however, we should no longer judge our chapters on whether or not they made quota.

Right, there was a long thread on QA's a while back, and I got attacked for the opinion that we should just let women go bidless if they pref two (three, on some campuses) strong recruiting chapters and aren't high enough on anybody's list. As long as someone missed quota, there would be opportunities for COB.

I think you hit it right on the head. Chapters tend to compete in clusters for more or less the very same girls. I do think the idea is achieving overall relative parity- not ten chapters all of equal size or necessarily equal recruiting strength. Still, when a chapter hits quota or quota plus they should be at or over chapter total, so that most chapters, and certainly not half or the majority of chapters meeting quota are having to COR all year all long to fill spots.

The other question I have is how does RFM account for or compensate for a situation where a chapter starts competing in a different cluster? That seems to me the most likely unknown variable that causes a chapter to be off quota. Or maybe RFM doesn't address that variable?

Well that's what keeps us all on our toes, right? Suddenly this sleeper is competing with the big girls and throws everything into chaos. I'd definitely rather have it that way than the 75 year, fixed in stone tiers that no one can break.