1 / 24

Proposed Higher Education Performance Funding Model

Proposed Higher Education Performance Funding Model. Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting November 30, 2011 Dr. Alan Phillips. Objective. To propose a performance funding model for public universities that is…

leonard-klein
Download Presentation

Proposed Higher Education Performance Funding Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Higher Education Performance Funding Model Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting November 30, 2011 Dr. Alan Phillips IBHE Presentation

  2. Objective • To propose a performance funding model for public universities that is… • Linked directly to the Goals of the Illinois Public Agenda and the principles of Public Act 97-320 • Equipped to recognize and account for each university’s mission and set of circumstances • Adjustable to account for changes in policy and priorities • Not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success IBHE Presentation

  3. What We Have Accomplished Identified the key issues Developed performance funding principles Identified appropriate performance measures and sub-categories Developed performance funding models for both 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Acquired initial data Received input from steering committee members, colleges and universities, other groups, and individuals This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model. IBHE Presentation

  4. Steering Committee Input • Incorporated recommendations where possible. • Some recommendations are still under consideration. • Some will take more time to implement • Necessary data may not currently exist • Some recommendations are beyond the scope of IBHE and Steering Committee responsibilities. • Some recommendations will have to be implemented by colleges and universities. • Some recommendations may require legislation. IBHE Presentation

  5. Carnegie Classifications • Research – Very High • University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign • University of Illinois – Chicago • Research – High • Northern Illinois University • Southern Illinois University – Carbondale • Doctoral/Research • Illinois State University • Masters Colleges & Universities – Large • Southern Illinois University – Edwardsville • Western Illinois University • Eastern Illinois University • Northeastern Illinois University • Chicago State University • Governors State University • University of Illinois – Springfield • Community Colleges IBHE Presentation

  6. Performance Funding ModelCommunity Colleges IBHE Presentation

  7. Performance Funding Measures(Community Colleges) Degree and Certificate Completion. Degree and Certificate Completion of “At Risk” students. Transfer to a four year institution. Remedial and Adult Education Advancement. Momentum Points. Transfer to a community college. IBHE Presentation

  8. Performance Funding Model (Community College Example) • Allocation: $200,000 $10,473 • $19,096 2008 Degrees and Certificates 2009 Degrees and Certificates Greater than Zero Pell Recipient Remedial Hours Pell Recipient Remedial Hours % Change Total Total Allocation $2,994 $2,349 $1,602 -- -- $200,000 College 1 College 2 College 3 College 4 … College 39 272 2,510 355 386 251 11,897 15 295 86 133 88 3,064 287 2,805 441 519 339 14,961 300 2,878 393 420 250 11,248 32 272 85 99 80 2,977 332 3,150 478 519 330 14,225 15.7% 12.3% 8.4% 0.0% -2.7% .157 .123 .084 10,473 Metric 1 – Degree Production of At-Risk students • Data Source – ICCB Annual Enrollment and Completion (A1) IBHE Presentation

  9. Performance Funding Model4-Year Colleges and Universities IBHE Presentation

  10. Performance Funding Model Criteria(4-Year College or University) Measures have to address the performance of a college or university in a holistic manner with primary emphasis on completions. They will be weighted based on each institution’s unique mission, environment, challenges, and ability to meet the State’s Public Agenda goals and objectives. Sub-Categories will address the advancement of students who are first-generation, low-income, traditionally underrepresented, or are in critical programs such as STEM or Health Care. They will be weighted based on State goals and objectives. Data has to be readily available for all colleges and universities, from widely recognized sources, and must be data that can be verified or validated. The data will be normalized (scaled) to ensure that it is comparable across the variables. All measures and results are counts, rather than rates. IBHE Presentation

  11. Performance Funding Model Steps(4-Year College or University) Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals. Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance measures Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables. Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution. Step 6 – Multiply and sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results. Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding. IBHE Presentation

  12. Performance Funding Model • MeasureSource • Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS • Masters Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS • Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS • Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) IPEDS • Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) RAMP • Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) RAMP • Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) RAMP • Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals. IBHE Presentation

  13. Performance Funding Model • Future Measures* • Retention (By Cohort) • Time to Completion (within 100% or 150%) • Students Accumulation of Credit Hours (24/48/72) • Student Transfers • Remediation • Quality • Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals. * The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of sufficient quality to use. IBHE Presentation

  14. Performance Funding Model • MeasureUniversity 1University 2University 3 • Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 3,329 3,921 1,494 • Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1,786 1,552 568 • Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 862 209 0 • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 22.2 23.2 22.0 • Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) 37.6 44.8 39.1 • Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 18,667 10,577 8,908 • Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 8,858 3,756 3,743 • Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 42,980,300 5,526,700 1,333,900 • Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance measures IBHE Presentation

  15. Performance Funding Model • Sub-CategoryWeight • Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 20% • Adult (Age 25 and Older) 20% • Hispanic 40% • Black, non-Hispanic 40% • STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% • Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations IBHE Presentation

  16. Performance Funding Model • Future Sub-Categories* • Part-Time • First-Time • Disabled • Veterans • First Generation • English Language Learners • Residents of Underserved Counties • Additional Ethnic Categories Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations * The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of sufficient quality to use. IBHE Presentation

  17. Performance Funding Model • MeasureUniversities 1-12 (Avg)Scaling Factor • Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 4,445 1.00 • Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1,152 3.86 • Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 796 16.25 • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 26 173.64 • Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) 41 109.74 • Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 11,760 .38 • Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 4,639 .96 • Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 10,803,117 .0004115 • Step 4 – Normalize (Scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables. • Average the measures across all of the institutions • The average number of Bachelors degree will serve as the base value. • Determine a scaling factor that will normalize the rest of the averages to the average number of Bachelors degrees • Multiply all of the initial data by the scaling factor to normalize the data. IBHE Presentation

  18. Performance Funding Model • Measure • Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) • Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) • Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) • Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) • Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) • Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) • Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) University 1University 2University 3 20.0% 20.0% 17.5% 5.0% 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 25.0% 100.0% 30.0% 25.0% 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 100.0% 40.0% 22.5% 0.0% 10.0% 10,0% 7.5% 7.5% 2.5% 100.0% Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution. IBHE Presentation

  19. Performance Funding Model Total Performance Value (Data+Premium) x Scale • Measure • Bachelors Degrees • Masters Degrees • Doctoral and Professional Degrees • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE • Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (?) • Cost per FTE (?) • Education and General Spending per Completion • Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) xWeight = Data Data + Premium Scale 3,921 1,552 209 23.2 44.8 10,577 3,756 5,526,700 6,067 1,786 862 22.2 37.6 18,667 8,858 42,980,300 1.00 3.86 16.25 173.64 109.74 .38 .96 .0004115 6441 6769 3715 4034 4915 -3998 -3599 2274 30.0% 25.0% 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 1932 1692 279 202 369 -200 -180 341 4435 • Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results. IBHE Presentation

  20. Performance Funding Model Percentages for Distribution Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 2,027 17,302 Percentage of Total 62.7% 25.6% 11.7% 100% Distribution: Pro Rata $627,000 $256,000 $117,000 $1,000,000 University 1University 2University 3Total • Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding. IBHE Presentation

  21. Performance Funding Model All steps are identical at each university Accounts for each institution’s unique mission by adding a weight to each measure Each institution’s formula calculation is independent Funding allocation is competitive Distribution of performance funding is on a pro-rata share of each institution’s formula calculation Performance funding appropriations will have to be earned anew each year IBHE Presentation

  22. Performance Funding Model Linked to Goals of the Illinois Public Agenda and the principles of Public Act 97-320 Equipped to recognize and account for each university’s mission and set of circumstances Adjustable to account for changes in policy and priorities Not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success (what, not how). IBHE Presentation

  23. Way Ahead • Finalize adjustment of the model to account for variables unique to each college and university. • Present proposed performance funding model to the IBHE Board on December 6th. • Meet with College and University Presidents to finalize input on the weights and measures. • Present final performance funding recommendation to the Performance Funding Steering Committee • Present final performance funding model recommendation to the IBHE Board February 7th along with the higher education budget submission (will include performance funding recommendation). • Continue work to refine the performance funding model and acquire more accurate and comprehensive data in preparation for the FY 2014 budget submission and performance funding recommendation. This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model. IBHE Presentation

  24. Questions/Comments? IBHE Presentation

More Related