Transcript Slide 1

Illinois Higher Education
Performance Funding Model
Steering Committee Meeting
November 13, 2013
Dr. Alan Phillips
IBHE Presentation
1
Topics of Discussion
• Update on National Trends – Lumina Conference
• Metrics Review
• FY15 Performance Funding Recommendations
– Funding Model
– Amount Allocated to Performance
IBHE Presentation
2
Update on National Trends
IBHE Presentation
3
Lumina Performance Funding Conference
• Purpose of the Conference was to compare and
contrast performance funding models across
different states.
• Conference was attended by representatives
from:
–
–
–
–
–
Arizona
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
IBHE Presentation
–
–
–
–
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Lumina Foundation
HCM Strategists
4
Performance Funding Conference
(Discussion Points)
Indiana
•
In Indiana, higher education funding to the institutions is in
support of the state’s goals.
•
One model that applies to all institutions with variations in
metrics for Research Campuses, Non-Research Campuses, and
2-Year Institutions.
– Degree Completion (55%), Progression Points (15%), and
Productivity Metrics (30%)
– Six-years of Data
– The University School of Medicine and Dentistry is Excluded
– Set-Aside is 5% in FY13, 6% in FY14, and 7% in FY15
IBHE Presentation
5
Performance Funding Conference
(Discussion Points)
Tennessee
•
Tennessee has had had various iterations of performance funding
models since 1979 (Enrollment Plus). Current Outcomes Based
model in place since 2011 with a three year phase-in.
•
Separate models for two and four-year institutions tied to the state
Master Plan.
•
Rational Allocation Model - 100% Allocation (includes Fixed Cost
Allocation (20%) and QA Score (5%))
•
Every dollar they receive for next year will be based on what they do
this year.
•
If state funding is level, the institutional variation from year to year
can be as high as +/- 5%.
IBHE Presentation
6
Performance Funding Conference
(Discussion Points)
• Although there are many similarities, every state’s situation is
different.
• Most states that transitioned to a performance funding model
started with an enrollment model.
• The availability and quality of data (to include definitional and
personnel turnover issues) is a challenge for all of the states.
• Some states incorporate workforce data into their model from
either an alumni survey or existing workforce database.
• Only certificates approved by the Board of Regents are
counted, and they only count the highest level achieved.
IBHE Presentation
7
Performance Funding Conference
(Quality)
• Even though a few states have incorporated a quality
component into their model, the effective assessment of
quality continues to be a major challenge.
• The concern is that to increase performance, the institutions
will lower quality, but this does not seem to be the case.
• None of the states see a reduction in quality at any of their
institutions, and the college and university presidents say that it
is not a problem for reasons listed below:
– Oversight (State, Administration, Faculty)
– Accreditation
– Perception of the institution (Want to be viewed as a quality
institution).
IBHE Presentation
8
Performance Funding Conference
(Performance and Funding)
• How much funding should be allocated to institutions based on
performance?
• It depends – Performance funding forces changes in business
processes to achieve desired outcomes, and you want to
allocate enough to change behavior, but every state’s situation
is different.
• It is very difficult, if not impossible, to tie any overall
improvement in performance solely to the implementation of
performance funding.
• You can, however, identify programs and initiatives that have
been put into place to improve outcomes as a result of
performance funding.
IBHE Presentation
9
Metric Review
IBHE Presentation
10
Metric Review
(Bachelors Degrees)
University*
FY13 FY14 FY15
Change
UIUC
UIC
NIU
SIUC
ISU
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
GSU
UIS
7,249
3,329
3,921
4,240
4,203
2,125
2,501
2,322
1,494
656
851
638
139 / 109
88 / 144
143 / -35
-263 / -96
73 / 112
51 / 25
-68 / -55
-32 / -47
112 / 43
94 / 12
-7 / 61
5 / 18
7,388
3,417
4,064
3,977
4,276
2,176
2,433
2,290
1,606
750
844
643
7,497
3,561
4,029
3,881
4,388
2,201
2,378
2,243
1,649
762
905
661
* School order based on Carnegie Classification and Enrollment.
IBHE Presentation
11
Metric Review
(Masters Degrees)
University
FY13
FY14
FY15
UIUC
UIC
NIU
SIUC
ISU
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
GSU
UIS
2,638
1,786
1,552
933
682
687
633
590
568
308
999
597
2,950
1,982
1,568
970
752
720
677
622
541
278
905
537
3,131
2,052
1,582
962
800
737
677
590
539
249
795
563
IBHE Presentation
Change
312 / 181
196 / 70
16 / 14
37 / -8
70 / 48
33 / 17
44 / 0
32 / -32
-27 / -2
-30 / -29
-94 /-110
-60 / 26
12
Metric Review
(Doctoral and Prof Degrees)
University
FY13
FY14
FY15
Change
UIUC
UIC
NIU
SIUC
ISU
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
GSU
UIS
1,055
862
209
325
50
74
8
0
0
1
0
3
1,084
910
200
331
51
122
9
0
0
2
10
3
1,127
930
195
345
53
121
6
0
0
25
23
1
29 / 43
48 / 20
-9 / -5
6 / 14
1/ 2
48 / -1
1 / -3
0
0
1 / 23
10 / 13
0 / -2
IBHE Presentation
13
Metric Review
(Undergrad Degrees Per 100 FTE)
University
FY13
UIUC
UIC
NIU
SIUC
ISU
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
GSU
UIS
22.4
22.2
23.2
32.8
24.9
21.6
24.1
23.7
22.0
16.5
45.7
28.0
IBHE Presentation
FY14
22.3
21.7
24.9
32.0
24.8
21.1
24.5
24.1
22.8
17.4
39.5
25.7
FY15
22.5
22.2
25.4
31.7
25.2
21.1
24.1
24.3
23.0
17.5
39.7
25.8
Change
-0.15 / 0.20
-0.57 / 0.50
1.70 / 0.50
-0.84 / -0.30
-0.17 / 0.40
-0.50 / 0.00
0.35 / -0.40
0.37 / 0.20
0.80 / 0.20
0.88 / 0.10
-6.20 / 0.20
-2.28 / 0.10
14
Metric Review
(Performance Values)*
University
UIUC
UIC
NIU
SIUC
ISU
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
GSU
UIS
FY13
FY14
14,815 17,402
11,565 15,493
3,870
4,086
4,789
6,199
3,435
3,762
2,438
2,914
2,287
2,703
2,206
2,565
1,941
2,282
1,180 1,434
1,079 1,473
566
1,131
FY15
Change
18,194
11,888
4,620
4,636
3,723
2,685
2,818
2,598
2,476
1,546
1,780
1,199
2,587/ 792
3,928 /-3,605
216 / 534
1,410 /-1,563
327 /
-39
476 / -229
416 / 115
359 /
33
342 /
194
254 /
112
394 /
307
566 /
68
Net $ Change
$71,400 / $110,257
$25,600 / -$31,548
-$57,600 / -$27,977
-$105,000 / -$93,349
$6,800 / -$16,605
-$4,700 / -$19,544
$7,300 /
$3,997
$37,000 / $26,471
$39,800 / $45,960
-$42,800 / -$39,409
$24,500 / $45,806
-$2,300 /
-$4,058
It is possible to improve your overall performance from year to year,
and still lose funding based on performance.
IBHE Presentation
15
Performance Funding Model (FY15)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
16
Performance Funding Model Steps
(4-Year Public 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 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 to reflect the priority
of the Measure to 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 final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) excluding high cost entities - to distribute performance funding.
• Step 8 – Add an adjustment factor (Carve-out) for high cost entities (i.e.
Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools).
IBHE Presentation
17
Performance Measures
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
(3-year averages)
Measure
Source
• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
RAMP
• Graduation Rate - 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)*
Institutional Data
• Persistence-Completed 24 Semester Hours in One Year (FY10-12)*Institutional Data
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12)
Cost Study
• Cost per Completion (FY10-12)
Cost Study
*Incorporate transfers per the CCA transfer category definitions
(i.e. 30 or fewer credits, 31 to 59 credits, or 60 or more credits).
IBHE Presentation
18
Sub-Categories
Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production
of certain desired outcomes such as completions by
underserved or underrepresented populations
Sub-Category
Weight*
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible)
40% - Institutional Data
• Adult (Age 25 and Older)
40%
• Hispanic
40%
• Black, non-Hispanic
40%
• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51
IBHE Presentation
19
Sub-Categories
Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production
of certain desired outcomes such as completions by
underserved or underrepresented populations
•
Only weighted Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate and Professional Degrees
•
Did not weight Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
•
-
To avoid overweighting sub-populations throughout the model, the percentage
weight given to the subcategories would have to be reduced from the current
40%. Otherwise, schools with high numbers of Master and Doctoral students
graduating from the subpopulations would be negatively impacted, as credit
given to these populations is reduced.
-
The change would benefit smaller masters degree schools but would
disproportionately harm research institutions.
Did not weight Cost per Completion
-
It is only possible to weight the completion portion of the ratio, a weighted cost
is unavailable. Weighting completions without weighting cost does not provide
an accurate measure of differential costs to educate particular sub groups.
IBHE Presentation
20
Scaling Factors
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is
comparable across variables.
• Averaged the measures across all of the institutions.
• The average number of bachelors degrees 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.
• Adjust the scaling factors as appropriate (i.e. Masters &
Doctorates).
• Multiply all of the initial data by the scaling factor to
normalize the data.
IBHE Presentation
21
Scaling Factors
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is
comparable across variables.
Measure
Universities 1-12 (Avg)
2,846
• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)
1,056
• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)
236
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12)
25
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)
46
• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)
1,511
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY10-12)
353
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12)
37,129
• Cost per Completion (FY10-12)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13) 124,059,383
IBHE Presentation
Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor
1.0
1
2.7
1
12.1
2
113.0
200
60.3
50
1.8
2
8.1
-8
.07
-.05
.00002
.00005
22
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect
the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
Research-Very High
UIUC
Measure
18.0%
• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)
15.0%
• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)
13.0%
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12)
5.0%
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)
• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)
3.0%
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hrs) (FY 10-12) 3.0%
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12)
1.0%
• Cost per Completion (FY10-12)
1.0%
• Research /Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
41.0%
100.0%
IBHE Presentation
UIC
18.0%
15.0%
13.0%
5.0%
3.0%
3.0%
1.0%
1.0%
41.0%
100.0%
Doctoral/
Research
Research-High
NIU
28.0%
15.0%
8.0%
13.0%
4.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
25.0%
100.0%
SIUC
28.0%
15.0%
8.0%
13.0%
4.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.5%
25.0%
100.0%
ISU
33.0%
22.0%
5.0%
16.0%
5.0%
5.0%
2.0%
2.0%
10.0%
100.0%
23
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect
the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)
Measure
• Bachelors Degrees
• Masters Degrees
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
• Grad Rates 150% of Time
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
35.0% 39.0% 38.5% 38.5% 39.0%
25.0%
23.0% 24.0% 24.0% 23.0%
2.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
16.0%
16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.0%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
2.0%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
6.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
GSU
UIS
46.0% 43.0%
30.0% 25.0%
0.5%
0.5%
8.0% 10.0%
0.0%
3.0%
6.0%
3.0%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
0.5%
0.5%
100.0% 100.0%
24
Performance Value Calculation
Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to
produce the Performance Value for each institution.
Data
Measure
2,722
• Bachelors Degrees
1,012
• Masters Degrees
207
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
25
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
46
• Grad Rates 150% of Time
1,511
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
353
• Cost per Credit Hour
37,129
• Cost per Completion
124,059,383
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
(Data+Premium)
Total Performance
Data + Premium Scale x Scale xWeight = Value
2,846
1
2,846
30.0%
854
1,056
1
1,056
25.0%
264
236
2
472
5.0%
24
25
200
5,000
10.0%
500
46
50
2,300
2.5%
58
1,511
2
3,022
2.5%
76
353
-8
-2,824
2.5%
-71
37,129
-.05
-1,856
2.5%
-46
124,059,383 .00005
6,203
20.0%
1,241
100.0%
2,898
25
Performance Value Calculation
Step 7 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities
(i.e. Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools)
• Step 1: Allocate performance set-aside funds based on and
adjusted state appropriation that removes state funds for high
cost entities.
• Step 2: Calculate performance funding allocations per funding
model using adjusted performance set-aside amount.
• Step 3: Add back funds to institutions with high cost entities
by applying performance funding set-aside percentage (i.e.
.5% for FY14) to the high cost entities state appropriation.
• Step 4: Total allocated funds equal performance funding
without high cost entities plus set-aside for high cost entities.
IBHE Presentation
26
High Cost Entities Adjustment
•
Step 1: Allocate performance set-aside funds based on and adjusted state appropriation that
removes state funds for high cost entities.
– Example: Total State Appropriation – High Cost Entities = Funds Allocated via Performance
$2.0 billion – $250 million = $1.75 billion x 0.5% (performance set-aside for FY 14) = $8.75 million
•
Step 2: Calculate performance funding allocations per funding model using adjusted
performance set-aside amount.
– Reallocate $8.75 million based on performance to higher education institutions per
performance model
•
Step 3: Add back funds to institutions with high cost entities by applying performance funding
set-aside percentage (i.e. .5% for FY14) to the high cost entities state appropriation.
–
•
Example: University A – High Cost Entity Appropriation = $100 million x 0.5% = $0.5 million
University B – High Cost Entity Appropriation = $150 million x 0.5% = $0.75 million
Step 4: Total allocated funds equal performance funding without high cost entities plus setaside for high cost entities.
–
Example: University A - $1.25 M (performance funds) + $0.5 M (high cost add back) = $1.75 M
University B - $2.0 M (performance funds) + $.075 M (high cost add back) = $2.75 M
University C - $0.75 M (performance funds)
IBHE Presentation
27
Funding Allocation
Based on Performance
Step 8 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to
distribute funding based on a Pro Rata Share of the total
amount of funds set aside for performance funding.
Percentages for Distribution
Total Performance Value
Percentage of Total
Distribution: Pro Rata
IBHE Presentation
University 1
University 2
University 3
Total
10,840
58.7%
4,435
24.0%
3,200
17.3%
17,302
100%
$240,000
$173,000
$1,000,000
$587,000
28
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside
($ in thousands)
Public Universities
Chicago State University
Eastern Illinois University
Governors State
Illinois State University
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
Southern Illinois University
FY2014
Appropriation
$
**
Carbondale
Edwardsville
University of Illinois
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
***
1,232,192.0
37,262.8
44,078.1
24,675.0
74,089.2
37,847.4
93,412.6
52,755.1
Set Aside*
$
6,161.0
186.3
220.4
123.4
370.4
189.2
467.1
263.8
Performance Funding
FY2015 Model
Performance Funds
$
6,161.0
146.9
246.9
169.2
353.8
235.2
439.1
267.8
Net Change
$
0.0
-39.4
26.5
45.8
-16.6
46.0
-28.0
4.0
FY2015
Appropriation
0.5% Set-Aside
$
1,232,192.0
37,223.4
44,104.6
24,720.8
74,072.6
37,893.4
93,384.6
52,759.1
FY2014 - FY 2015
$ Change
% Change
$
(0.0)
(39.4)
26.5
45.8
(16.6)
46.0
(28.0)
4.0
(0.00) %
(0.11)
0.06
0.19
(0.02)
0.12
(0.03)
0.01
204,584.1
1,022.9
910.0
-112.9
204,471.2
(112.9)
(0.06)
145,219.3
59,364.8
726.1
296.8
632.7
277.3
-93.3
-19.5
145,126.0
59,345.3
(93.3)
(19.5)
(0.06)
(0.03)
663,487.7
3,317.4
3,392.1
74.6
663,562.3
74.6
0.01
307,296.4
23,602.9
332,588.4
1,536.5
118.0
1,662.9
1,504.9
114.0
1,773.2
-31.5
-4.1
110.3
307,264.9
23,598.8
332,698.7
(31.5)
(4.1)
110.3
(0.01)
(0.02)
0.03
* FY2015 Set Aside is based on a 0.5% reallocation of the final FY2014 budget level.
** SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the Carbondale Campus.
*** UI Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
IBHE Presentation
29
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 2% in Additional Funds Allocated Via Performance
($ in thousands)
FY2014
Appropriation
Public Universities
Chicago State University
Eastern Illinois University
Governors State
Illinois State University
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
Southern Illinois University
$
*
Carbondale
Edwardsville
University of Illinois
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
**
1,232,192.0
37,262.8
44,078.1
24,675.0
74,089.2
37,847.4
93,412.6
52,755.1
Performance Fuding
FY 2015 Model
Performance Funds
$
24,643.8
587.6
987.4
676.7
1,415.4
940.8
1,756.3
1,071.1
FY2015
Appropriation
2% New Dollars
$
1,256,835.8
37,850.4
45,065.5
25,351.7
75,504.6
38,788.2
95,168.9
53,826.2
FY2014 - FY 201
$ Change
% Change
$
24,643.8
587.6
987.4
676.7
1,415.4
940.8
1,756.3
1,071.1
2.00 %
1.58
2.24
2.74
1.91
2.49
1.88
2.03
204,584.1
3,640.1
208,224.2
3,640.1
1.78
145,219.3
59,364.8
2,531.0
1,109.1
147,750.3
60,473.9
2,531.0
1,109.1
1.74
1.87
663,487.7
13,568.4
677,056.1
13,568.4
2.05
307,296.4
23,602.9
332,588.4
6,019.7
455.8
7,092.8
313,316.1
24,058.7
339,681.2
6,019.7
455.8
7,092.8
1.96
1.93
2.13
SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the Carbondale Campus.
** University of Illinois Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
*
IBHE Presentation
30
Results for FY15
• Performance funding values increased for eight of the
twelve four-year public universities from FY14 to FY15.
• Assuming a .5% funding set-aside and level GRF
Funding:
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance ranged
from +.19% to -.11%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from +$110.3K
to -$93.3K.
IBHE Presentation
31
Results for FY15
• Performance funding values increased for eight of the
twelve four-year public universities from FY14 to FY15.
• Assuming a 2.0% funding increase in addition to level
GRF Funding:
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance ranged
from +1.58% to +2.74%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from +$.458M
to +$6.0M.
IBHE Presentation
32
Timelines
IBHE Presentation
33
Next Steps
•
•
•
•
10 Dec 13
19 Dec 13
14 Jan 14
4 Feb 14
IBHE Presentation
- IBHE Board Meeting
- Refinement Committee Meeting
- Steering Committee Meeting
- IBHE Board Meeting (IBHE Higher Education
Budget/Performance Funding Recommendation
to Board)
34
Questions?
IBHE Presentation
35