For Presidents and Chancellors

Cabinet answers and board figures you can trust

Presidents and Chancellors use Clema to give the cabinet current, sourced answers, the board figures it can trust, and the institution strategic agility grounded in defensible data.

How Clema helps

Institutional agility, on figures you can defend.

Cabinet answers, sourced

Ask in plain English and get the figure with its source and method. The cabinet decides on current, defensible data, with an audit trail behind it.

Board-ready figures

Every answer carries its source and methodology. Board memos and accreditor responses move on verified, consistent numbers with an audit trail behind them.

Institutional agility

Pull enrollment, finance, outcomes, and peer-comparison figures in one conversation, with the federal source shown. Make strategic calls on current data you can defend.

A week in the president's office

The Wednesday before the board meets

Without Clema

It's 48 hours before the board meets, and the number you need isn't there.

You need updated peer-comparison figures, freshman retention against eight aspirant peers, for the strategic plan update. The IR director is out sick and no one else on staff knows the query, so your chief of staff asks the board chair to push the item to next month.

Two days earlier, the CFO's slide at finance committee showed one retention number and the provost's board memo showed another. That meeting spent its credibility on the gap instead of the strategy question it was supposed to answer.

None of this is a staffing problem you can hire your way out of.

  • Our whitepaper study of 50+ IR/IE offices across 19 states found typical fulfillment for an ad-hoc request runs 3 to 14 days.
  • 73.5% of requests arrive too vague to answer on the first pass.

At the president's altitude, the cost isn't that you're waiting on IR. It's that your cabinet is operating on numbers that don't yet agree with each other, in the room where that matters most.

With Clema

Same week, same board packet, but this time the number holds.

You ask Clema for the freshman retention trend against your eight aspirant peers yourself, IR director out or not, and get a sourced figure with the IPEDS comparison group and methodology attached before the chief of staff finishes the agenda.

When the CFO and the provost both ask for the same fall retention rate ahead of finance committee, they get the same figure with the same as-of date.

IR still owns the definitions and the data model; nothing about Clema changes who's accountable for the methodology. What changes is that a plain-English question no longer has to wait behind whoever built the original pull, or survive whoever's out sick that week.

The old way vs. the Clema way

Same board questions, a very different wait.

Board question about retention

CFO, provost, and IR each pull the number from a different dashboard or spreadsheet; 2 to 5 rounds of clarification before anyone agrees on a definition.

Cabinet asks the same governed source and gets the same sourced figure, methodology attached, in minutes.

Trustee peer-comparison email

IR's queue is already backlogged with budget-season requests, so you wait a few days or answer with an impression instead of a number.

Ask Clema directly and get a sourced peer comparison before the trustee follows up.

Accreditation self-study figures

Three deans send three different numbers for "the IPEDS graduation rate" because each pulled from a different cohort year or definition.

One figure, tagged with cohort year and source component, that the self-study team can cite directly.

State budget hearing question

"We'll get back to you" reads as evasive when a legislator asks about your cohort default rate trend on the spot.

Pull the Department of Education's official CDR trend live, with the citation attached.

Succession risk

85%

of institutions depend on a single person for institutional knowledge, and 55% sit in what our study calls the "Large Gap" tier, where definitions and methodology are one resignation away from gone. That is a succession risk for your cabinet, not just a workflow inconvenience: when your most experienced analyst leaves, the institution's ability to answer its own questions can leave with them.

Read the Institutional Intelligence Gap study
Ask Clema

A conversation with Clema

Before Wednesday's board meeting, I need our first-to-second-year retention rate for full-time, first-time degree-seeking students, how it's trended over the last three falls, and how we compare to the national public four-year average IPEDS reports.

C

Here's the trend (example figures for this walkthrough): 78%, 76%, then 77% over the last three fall cohorts, against a national public four-year average in the mid-70s per the latest IPEDS release. Source: your SIS census-date extract, reconciled against your IPEDS Fall Enrollment (EF) submission and the NCES IPEDS Data Center comparison group you've set for peer reporting. Methodology: full-time, first-time, degree-seeking cohort, fall-to-fall persistence, consistent with the IPEDS retention-rate definition. Want this broken out by Pell status or by college for the board appendix?

Example figures for this walkthrough · First-to-second-year retention

CohortYour rateNational public 4-yr avg
Fall 202178%~74%
Fall 202276%~74%
Fall 202377%~74%

Yes, break it out by Pell status, and separately pull our 150%-of-normal-time graduation rate for the last three IPEDS cohorts for the accreditation self-study. Flag if the Pell completion gap has narrowed or widened.

C

Graduation rate (GR component, 150% of normal time) for the three most recent reporting cohorts is trending in the range typical for your sector; you'll see the exact percentages once we're querying your live IPEDS submission instead of this walkthrough. On the Pell gap: using your Outcome Measures and College Scorecard Pell-recipient completion figures alongside the overall GR component, the gap between Pell and non-Pell completion has narrowed over the period, but it's still open. Both figures are tagged with their cohort year and source component so the self-study team can cite them directly.

One of our trustees read that a peer institution's three-year cohort default rate improved. What's ours been over the last three cohort years, and where do we rank against the peer set I've flagged for the board?

C

Pulling from the Department of Education's official Cohort Default Rate file, your three-year rate for the most recent published cohort years is trending down, consistent with the sector-wide pattern as repayment options have expanded. Against your flagged peer set, you're currently in the middle of the pack. I can rank the full list and note which peers moved up or down since the prior release, so you have the answer, and the citation, before the trustee follows up.

Example conversation. Your figures, sources, and methodology reflect your connected systems.

What the research says

The pressure on your desk isn't just anecdotal

WICHE, Knocking at the College Door, 11th edition

US high school graduates are projected to peak around 2025, then decline 13% by 2041.

  • By 2030, graduate counts are projected roughly 3.1% below 2023 levels.
  • By 2041, about 3.4 million graduates: roughly 10.5% fewer than in 2023.
  • The decline is regional and uneven. The Midwest and Northeast are already shrinking, the South keeps growing before a later slide, and 38 states are projected to see declines by 2041.

That's the demographic backdrop behind every enrollment strategy conversation on your calendar.

Inside Higher Ed, 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents

Governing boards increasingly expect presidents to run data-driven management, with measurable results reported back at regular intervals.

Conducted with Hanover Research across 298 respondents, the survey found a quarter of presidents named financial constraints the hardest part of the job. "Too many responsibilities, too little time" and enrollment challenges weren't far behind.

Huron Consulting Group, reported by NPR

More than a quarter of the roughly 1,700 private nonprofit four-year colleges in the US are at genuine risk of closure or forced merger within the next decade.

  • 442 institutions are at risk, with more than 120 at the highest risk level.
  • At least 16 nonprofit institutions announced closures in 2025 alone.

AGB (Association of Governing Boards)

43% of trustees aren't fully confident in their own or their board's understanding of fiduciary responsibilities and governance boundaries.

Higher stakes and a less confident board raise the bar for how legible your board materials need to be.

AIR, policy paper on institutional research capacity

Most IR offices are significantly underresourced relative to the accreditation, compliance, and federal data-quality work asked of them.

Data fragmentation across systems is a recurring barrier. That matches what we heard directly: our own whitepaper study of 50+ IR/IE offices found the same fragmentation problem from the inside.

See our whitepaper study

Fewer applicants, a less forgiving balance sheet, and a board that wants more data-driven proof, all landing on an IR office that's already stretched. That's the gap Clema is built to close.

No new procurement fight

Where Clema sits with the rest of your stack

Clema isn't another dashboard competing with the SIS, data warehouse, or BI investment your CIO already made. It's a conversational layer that queries those systems read-only, plus the public federal sources your cabinet already cites. Extending it to the cabinet, and eventually the board, isn't a new procurement fight or a new security review; it's a read-only connection your CISO can approve like any other reporting tool.

Clema

Read-only. A conversational layer your CISO can approve like any other reporting tool.

sits on top of, doesn't replace

Your systems

SISData warehouseBI layer

That matters because a data governance project and a BI rollout don't automatically make every department agree. A single source of truth is the most common goal institutions set for those projects, and the most common way they fall short of it: different offices still pull from different dashboards and reach different conclusions on the same question. Clema routes everyone back to the same governed answer instead of giving them a new place to look.

Every answer stays governed by your existing role-based access and SOC 2 and FERPA compliance.

What Clema gives your institution

55%

of institutions sit in the "Large Gap" tier for institutional knowledge continuity

SOC 2 Type II

Certified today, FERPA-ready by design

Full audit trail

Every board and accreditor figure traceable to source

President and Chancellor FAQs

What does Clema give a President or Chancellor?

A single place to ask for enrollment, retention, finance, or peer-comparison figures in plain English and get the sourced answer in minutes. The cabinet moves on current, defensible data and the board sees figures it can trust.

Is Clema secure enough for an institution-wide deployment?

Yes. Clema is SOC 2 Type II certified and FERPA-ready by design, with read-only credentials, SAML 2.0 SSO, and full audit logging on every answer that reaches your board or accreditors. Your CISO or general counsel can review the compliance pack under NDA before an institution-wide rollout.

Can Clema support board and accreditor reporting?

Yes. Every answer includes sources and methodology, so figures are board-ready and accreditor-verifiable. You get the audit trail and the consistency that governance reviews expect.

How long does it take to get value from Clema?

Most institutions are live in two to four weeks, including data connections and training, whether that is a full cabinet rollout or a single division piloting first. The free plan connects a sample data source so your team can see a sourced answer before the institution-wide connection begins.

How does Clema keep the provost, CFO, and VP of Enrollment from bringing three different numbers to the same board meeting?

Because everyone asks against the same governed data sources instead of copying figures into separate slide decks or dashboards built at different times. When the CFO and the provost both ask for the fall retention rate, they get the same sourced figure with the same methodology and as-of date, so the cabinet walks into the board meeting aligned instead of reconciling numbers in the hallway beforehand.

We just finished a data governance project with our BI vendor. Why do we need Clema too?

Clema doesn't replace your data warehouse, SIS, or BI tool investment; it sits on top of them as a conversational layer, and it also connects directly to public federal sources like IPEDS, College Scorecard, Pell, EADA, PSEO, and Cohort Default Rate. It closes a gap a governance project alone often can't: our whitepaper research found 64.7% of institutions report self-service dashboards still get bypassed because staff and cabinet members don't know where to look or can't interpret what they find. Clema gives them a plain-English way in without building new dashboards.

What happens if our most senior IR analyst retires or leaves? Are we exposed?

That's the succession risk our continuity study describes. Clema keeps definitions, methodology, and query logic in a governed system the whole cabinet can query directly, not locked in one person's head or a personal spreadsheet. Our Institutional Intelligence Gap study found 85% of institutions depend on a single person for institutional knowledge and 55% sit in a "Large Gap" tier where that knowledge is one resignation from gone. Clema is built to move an institution out of that tier.

Can a trustee use Clema directly, or is it only for the cabinet and IR staff?

Access is set by your institution. Most presidents start by rolling Clema out to the cabinet and the IR/IE staff who prepare board materials, then decide whether to extend read access to trustees for pre-meeting questions. Every answer carries its source and methodology regardless of who asks, so if you do extend access to the board, the figures a trustee pulls independently will match what the cabinet presents.

How do we know Clema's answers are accurate enough to put in front of an accreditor or state board?

Every answer is sourced and shows its methodology, and for institutional data it draws from your connected systems of record rather than a cached copy. For the two machine-learning models we publish accuracy on: our term-to-term retention model was evaluated on 276,519 unseen student-term records at roughly 86.6% accuracy and 91 to 92% recall, and our graduation-within-150%-time model was evaluated on 36,000 unseen students from a six-year institutional dataset at roughly 0.911 AUC. For factual lookups like IPEDS figures, peer comparisons, or historical trends, Clema surfaces the source rather than generating a number, so what reaches an accreditor or state board traces back to the federal or institutional dataset it came from.

We're mid-way through a strategic enrollment planning process with an outside consultant. Does Clema compete with that?

No, Clema is a data-access layer, not a strategy consultant. It gives your team and your consultant faster, sourced access to the enrollment, retention, and IPEDS-based outcomes figures that a strategic enrollment plan is built on, so scenario modeling moves faster and stays grounded in current numbers instead of a data pull from months earlier.

Get started

Give your cabinet current, defensible data

Start free on the Free plan, or book a demo with institution-level scenarios built for your strategic questions.