Resources
Tools, guides, and resources to help your institution strengthen systems, support students, and drive meaningful change.
Pricing Guide
Interested in working together? Download our pricing guide to learn more about our service tiers and investment levels.
Student Caregiver Institutional Self-Assessment
“Seeing the Unseen: A Student Caregiver Support Self-Assessment for Higher Education Leaders” — a FREE 40-question self-assessment across 8 categories to help your institution honestly evaluate its support for student caregivers.
Case Studies
Building What Lasts: How Three Health Sciences Programs Became a Department
Institution: Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University
Engagement Period: 2011–2026
Role: Director, Office of Academic Assistance
Services Demonstrated: Academic Program Development, Policy Design, Enrollment Strategy, Institutional Infrastructure Design
At a Glance
| 6 | Nearly 400 | +25% | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programs built or expanded | Students enrolled across these programs (Fall 2025) | College enrollment growth, 2011–2025 | New academic department established (2023) |
The Situation
Georgia State University’s Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions underwent a significant reorganization in the early 2010s. Several academic programs were transferred to other colleges and an institute that eventually became the School of Public Health, reducing the number of majors within the college. While remaining programs — including the flagship nursing major — maintained strong enrollment, college leadership recognized that a smaller academic portfolio created long-term vulnerability.
As Director of Academic Assistance, Felisha Norrington was tracking these enrollment shifts in real time. During the reorganization period, she consistently surfaced data showing how the loss of majors would affect the college’s long-term enrollment trajectory and academic breadth. When institutional leaders identified an opportunity to develop a new undergraduate program in health informatics, Felisha recognized the opportunity to build the institutional infrastructure that would allow new programs to launch successfully and grow.
The Approach
Felisha’s work spanned 15 years and three distinct phases of program development and institutional growth. Her role was not to design academic curricula — that expertise belonged to the faculty — but to build and manage the institutional systems, policies, and processes that made each program viable and sustainable.
Phase 1: Launching the BIS in Health Informatics (2011–2013)
- Partnered with faculty to develop admission requirements and academic policies for the new program
- Ensured the program aligned with the college’s core curriculum requirements and university standards
- Coordinated the first admission cycles, managing the infrastructure for recruiting, admitting, and onboarding students
- Supported all marketing and communication efforts to build awareness of the new program
Result: After two years of planning, the program welcomed its first cohort in Fall 2013 with 46 students — immediate validation of market demand.
Phase 2: Expanding the Portfolio (2013–2020)
- Leveraged the success and lessons learned from the BIS in Health Informatics to support development of two additional programs
- Coordinated the launch of the BIS in Health Sciences (Fall 2019), applying the same framework of policy development, admission infrastructure, and enrollment coordination
- Supported the launch of the MS in Health Sciences with a concentration in Health Informatics (Spring 2020)
Result: The BIS in Health Sciences launched with 3 students in Fall 2019, and the MS in Health Sciences enrolled 8 students in its inaugural Spring 2020 term — amid the early disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating real demand even under the most challenging conditions. Both programs have grown substantially since launch and remain among the college’s most in-demand offerings more than five years later — a testament to the strength of the institutional foundation built during their early years.
Phase 3: Building the Case for a Department (2020–2023)
- As the programs grew rapidly and began meaningfully contributing to college enrollment, Felisha identified and elevated the data showing the need for dedicated departmental infrastructure
- Spearheaded the push to create a formal Health Sciences Department to house the programs, ensure more efficient data tracking and assessment, and position them for continued resource investment
- The Health Sciences Department was officially established in 2023 — creating the permanent institutional home these programs needed to thrive
Building on the department’s early momentum, Felisha also led the same institutional infrastructure work — policy development, admissions criteria, and enrollment coordination — behind two more programs: the Graduate Certificate in Healthcare Leadership and the PhD in Health Sciences, both launched in 2022–2023. This built on the Clinical Informatics Certificate, the department’s first graduate-level offering in health informatics, which Felisha had helped launch years earlier in Fall 2017 with a single inaugural student.
The department’s growth has continued beyond this engagement, with a new stackable pathway now allowing students to combine multiple certificates toward the MSHS in Healthcare Leadership and Informatics — building on the institutional foundation established during this work.
The Results
The programs that launched and grew under Felisha’s institutional stewardship have become cornerstones of the Byrdine F. Lewis College:
- The BIS in Health Informatics grew from 46 students in its first year (Fall 2013) to 74 students by Fall 2025
- The BIS in Health Sciences grew from 3 students in its first year (Fall 2019) to 197 students by Fall 2025 — now one of the college’s largest majors
- The MS in Health Sciences with a Health Informatics concentration grew from 8 students at launch (Spring 2020) to 93 students by Fall 2025
- The Clinical Informatics Certificate grew from a single student at launch (Fall 2017) to 10 students by Fall 2025
- The PhD in Health Sciences grew from 4 students at launch (Fall 2022) to 12 students by Fall 2025
- The Graduate Certificate in Healthcare Leadership launched in Fall 2023 with 2 students, part of the department’s continued growth in offerings
Combined, these programs now enroll nearly 400 students — contributing to a 25% increase in college-wide enrollment, from 2,459 students in Fall 2011 to 3,075 students in Fall 2025.
The Health Sciences Department, established in 2023, now provides these programs with dedicated infrastructure for assessment, resource allocation, and continued growth.
In Their Own Words
“Felisha provided expert guidance on developing policies and requirements for our academic programs while ensuring we maintained compliance with all necessary standards. She was consistently engaged with our department, regularly attending meetings to share important updates and insights from her office. Her support was instrumental during the formation of the Department of Health Sciences, where we worked closely together to build a strong foundation for the department.”
— Cedric Truss, DHA, MSHI, CPHIMS, FHIMSS Program Director for Health Informatics | Department Chair, Health Sciences Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University
What This Means for Your Institution
This case study illustrates what Resilience + Hope Consulting brings to academic program development engagements: not just ideas, but the institutional infrastructure that makes programs viable, scalable, and sustainable.
If your institution is launching new programs, rebuilding after a reorganization, or looking to grow enrollment strategically, the work described here is exactly what we do — and we bring more than two decades of experience doing it from the inside.
Ready to build something that lasts?
No Precedent, No Playbook
How Two Directors Built a Reorganization Framework From Scratch at Georgia State University
When Georgia State University announced a major college reorganization in 2010, there was no committee, no project manager, and no institutional playbook. Two directors built the implementation framework from scratch — coordinating 21 campus offices, updating thousands of records, and managing the human side of change simultaneously. The framework they built was later adopted for future reorganizations at GSU.
Getting Ahead of the Problem: A Policy Solution for Pre-Nursing Transfer and Transition Student Success at Georgia State University
Institution: Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University
Role: Director, Office of Academic Assistance
Policy Passed: November 2025
Services Demonstrated: Policy Development, Student Success Strategy, Enrollment Management, Institutional Equity
At a Glance
| 431 | 0 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer & transition students, Fall 2025 | Stakeholders who pushed back | Year policy was passed |
The Situation
Across the country, academic institutions are grappling with a well-documented national trend: declining academic preparation among college students, particularly in science, mathematics, reading, and writing. For nursing programs — which require rigorous science preparation and carry strict accreditation standards — this trend has created a growing enrollment challenge for institutions nationwide. Recent national assessment data shows continued declines in math, reading, and science preparation among graduating seniors — only 30% of the Class of 2024 met college readiness benchmarks across core subjects.
At Georgia State University’s Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, the challenge was taking a specific form. Transfer students from other institutions and transition students — those enrolled at Perimeter College who meet the requirements to transition to the Atlanta Campus and wish to continue their education in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree — were being admitted to the university and declaring nursing as their major, even when their academic profiles made entry into the nursing program unlikely or impossible.
Under existing university policy, these students met the general requirements for admission to GSU. But the nursing program requires a minimum 3.0 Overall GPA and Science GPA for entry — standards that many transfer and transition students could not meet. With no institutional mechanism to redirect these students at the point of admission, they were entering the university, enrolling in the pre-nursing major, and in many cases spending semesters retaking science courses in hopes of improving their GPAs — a strategy that was creating both inequity and inefficiency.
The inequity was real: transfer students could repeat science courses in ways that native GSU freshmen could not, creating an uneven playing field that still didn’t necessarily result in nursing program entry. Meanwhile, students who might have thrived in other health sciences programs were sitting in limbo — receiving little meaningful guidance and accumulating time and tuition costs without a clear path forward.
In Fall 2025 alone, 431 transfer and transition students were admitted to the university in these categories. While enrollment numbers vary by semester, the volume had grown too large to manage through advising alone. A systemic solution was needed.
The Approach
As Director of Academic Assistance, Felisha Norrington had been tracking the patterns of transfer and transition student outcomes for years. She understood the data, knew the students’ stories, and recognized that the only sustainable solution was a policy intervention — one that addressed the problem upstream, before students ever arrived at a nursing advisor’s desk.
The policy she developed and championed addressed the challenge on two fronts:
1. Clear Academic Standards for Pre-Nursing Major Retention
- Transfer and transition students must maintain a minimum 3.0 Overall GPA and a minimum 3.0 Science GPA to remain in the nursing major
- Science course repeats cannot be used toward nursing program entry requirements — closing the loophole that created inequity with native GSU students while rarely resulting in actual nursing program admission
2. Upstream Intervention at the Point of University Admission
- The policy is applied at the point of university admission — before students arrive on campus, before they sit in an advisor’s office, and before they invest a semester in a major that may not serve them
- Students who do not meet the nursing major retention standards are redirected to other programs within the college or across the university that may be a stronger fit for their academic profile and career goals
- This approach protects students from losing time and tuition on an unlikely path while connecting them to programs where they can succeed
The policy was developed in collaboration with college leadership, student success, and admissions leadership, and presented with clear data on the scope of the problem. The result was remarkable: no pushback from any stakeholder group. The problem had become visible enough that the solution was welcomed.
The Results
The nursing transfer and transition policy passed in November 2025 — Felisha’s final policy contribution before her retirement from Georgia State University. While the policy is newly implemented and long-term outcome data will emerge over time, its immediate impact is clear:
- Transfer and transition students will now be assessed against clear, consistent standards at the point of university admission — rather than discovering the mismatch after they arrive
- Students who do not meet nursing major retention requirements will be redirected earlier, preserving their time, financial resources, and academic momentum
- The playing field between transfer students and native GSU freshmen is leveled — science course repeats no longer create an inequitable advantage that rarely translated to nursing program entry
- Nursing advisors can focus their energy on students with realistic pathways to program entry, improving the quality of advising for everyone
- Students redirected to other programs may find stronger academic fits within the college or university, supporting their long-term success and overall institutional enrollment
Why This Matters Beyond GSU
This case study is not just about one policy at one institution. It illustrates a broader pattern: institutions admitting students into competitive programs without a mechanism to assess fit and redirect students earlier in their academic journey.
The nursing pipeline challenge — declining science preparation, increasing transfer student populations, and competitive program entry requirements — is one that colleges and universities across the country are navigating right now. A well-designed policy, implemented at the right moment in the student journey, can address all three dimensions simultaneously.
This is the kind of work Resilience + Hope Consulting brings to institutions: not reactive advising interventions, but proactive policy solutions that work at scale.
Is your institution facing a similar challenge?
Let’s talk about what a policy solution could look like for your institution.
Building from Scratch: How Custom Early Alert Markers Transformed Student Advising at Georgia State University
Institution: Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University
Engagement Period: 2012–2013 (Implementation); Ongoing monitoring through retirement
Role: Director, Office of Academic Assistance
Services Demonstrated: Technology Implementation, Student Success Strategy, Data Analytics, Enrollment Services
At a Glance
| 1,811 | 4–5 | 2012 | 100% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Students monitored across the college | Advisors serving the full population | Early adoption year | Custom markers built for your students |
The Situation
Georgia State University’s 2011 strategic plan placed a renewed institutional focus on student retention and graduation, and the 2012 rollout of EAB Navigate was a direct outgrowth of that plan. The predictive analytics and proactive advising platform gave the university a powerful new way to monitor academic risk — but a tool of that scale needed to be configured for each college’s student population to be fully effective. At the time of rollout, EAB Navigate did not offer standardized markers for colleges to draw from, which meant that academic leaders across the university, including those in similar roles to Felisha’s, were tasked with determining which markers were most critical for their own students.
For the Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, this distinction was critical. The college’s undergraduate programs — including nursing, the largest major — had specific academic gatekeepers: science, mathematics and other courses that students needed to pass to remain competitive for program entry. A student struggling in general chemistry or anatomy wasn’t just having a bad semester. They were falling behind on the exact prerequisites that would determine whether they could apply to their intended program.
With 4–5 advisors supporting approximately 1,811 students across the college, early identification wasn’t just helpful — it was essential. Without a way to flag at-risk students quickly and accurately, advisors were often learning about academic struggles too late to make a meaningful difference.
The Approach
As Director of Academic Assistance, Felisha Norrington was among the academic leaders at GSU charged with determining which early alert markers would be most critical for their students, since EAB Navigate did not yet offer standardized markers at the time of rollout. She took a proactive role in shaping how the tool would be configured and used at the college level — working directly with GSU’s central administration to develop custom early alert markers tailored specifically to the Byrdine F. Lewis College population, much as academic leaders in similar roles did for their own colleges and majors across the university.
Identifying the Right Gateway Courses
The foundation of the custom configuration was identifying which courses and milestones served as true academic gatekeepers for the college’s undergraduate majors. These included science and mathematics courses, as well as English and other coursework, that students needed to complete successfully — not just pass — to remain competitive for program entry. The markers also tracked other key benchmarks, such as progress on general education requirements and minimum GPA thresholds required to apply to the program. By mapping these courses and milestones explicitly in Navigate, the system could flag students who were underperforming before the semester ended and before irreversible academic damage was done.
Building College-Specific Markers
Working with central administration, Felisha developed alert markers that reflected the specific academic standards and program requirements of the Byrdine F. Lewis College — not the university at large. These markers were calibrated to identify students who were not progressing at the level needed to meet admissions requirements for the college’s competitive programs, giving advisors a much more actionable and accurate picture of student risk.
Coordinating Across Offices
The college’s advising population was shared between the central advisement office and Felisha’s Office of Academic Assistance, divided by student classification. In practice, students moved between both offices — particularly as they approached program application requirements. The Navigate implementation created a shared data infrastructure that supported coordination across both offices, ensuring students received consistent monitoring regardless of which advisor they saw.
The Results
The custom EAB Navigate implementation transformed how advisors in the Byrdine F. Lewis College identified and supported at-risk students:
- Advisors could identify students who were not progressing in gateway courses earlier in the semester — creating more time and opportunity for meaningful intervention
- Earlier identification enabled earlier redirection — connecting students to support resources, alternative course strategies, or more appropriate academic pathways before academic damage became irreversible
- The 4–5 advisors serving 1,811 students gained a data-informed tool that made their work more targeted and efficient
- The Navigate implementation supported the college’s and university’s broader retention efforts, contributing to improved student persistence over time
- The college became an early adopter of customized Navigate configurations — a model for how college-level advisement offices can tailor enterprise tools to serve their specific student populations
What This Means for Your Institution
Many institutions have invested in EAB Navigate or similar student success platforms. As with any enterprise tool, the value an institution sees from it depends heavily on how it is configured. A platform set up with broad, institution-wide settings alone may not generate the same level of actionable insight as one that has also been tailored to the specific academic realities of an individual college or program. Advisors need alerts that reflect the realities of their own student population for the platform to drive meaningful action, rather than simply becoming one more thing to manage.
The work described in this case study — identifying the right gateway courses, building college-specific markers, and coordinating across advising offices — is exactly the kind of functional implementation expertise that Resilience + Hope Consulting brings to technology engagements.
If your institution has Navigate or another student success platform that isn’t delivering the insights your advisors need, the answer is rarely to buy something new. The answer is to configure what you have to reflect your students.
Is your student success technology working as hard as it should?
Let’s talk about what better configuration could mean for your students and your advisors.