Transcript Slide 1

Illinois Higher Education
Performance Funding Model
Steering Committee Meeting
September 15, 2014
Dr. Alan Phillips
IBHE Presentation
1
Topics of Discussion
• Performance Funding Objectives/Mandate
• Current Situation
• Metrics for Four-Year Public Institutions
• Refinement Issues
• Steering Committee Comments/Concerns
• Where Do We Go From Here?
• Refinement Committee Recommendations
• Timeline
IBHE Presentation
2
Performance Funding Objectives/Mandate
IBHE Presentation
3
Performance Funding Objectives
• To develop performance funding models for public
universities and community colleges that are…
– 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
4
Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503)
• Performance Metrics Shall:
– Focus on the fundamental goal of increasing completion.
– Reward performance of institutions in advancing the
success of students who are:
•
•
•
•
Academically or financially at risk.
First generation students.
Low-income students.
Students traditionally underrepresented in higher education.
– Recognize and account for the differentiated missions of
institutions of higher education.
– Maintain the quality of degrees, certificates, courses, and
programs.
– Recognize the unique and broad mission of public
community colleges.
IBHE Presentation
5
Current Situation
IBHE Presentation
6
Current Situation
• A revised Performance Funding Model was
developed for FY15.
• Colleges and universities received essentially level
funding for FY15 (-$2.8M)(-.2%).
• However, the FY15 Performance Funding Model
was not actually used to allocate funding for FY15
based on performance.
• Instead, the FY 15 Appropriations carried over the
FY14 Appropriations along with the FY14
Performance Funding allocations.
IBHE Presentation
7
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside
($ 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
8
Actual FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
($ in thousands)
FY2014
Appropriation
Public Universities
FY2015
Base Budget
Level
$ 1,232,192.0 $ 1,229,438.5
Performance Funding*
FY2015
FY2015
Performance
Set Aside
Funds
Net Change
FY2015
% Change
(0.22)
%
$
6,161.0 $
6,161.0 $
FY2015
Appropriation
0.0 $ 1,229,438.5
FY2014 - FY 2015
%
$ Change
Change
$ (2,753.5)
(0.22)
Chicago State University
37,262.8
37,209.4
(0.14)
186.5
143.8
-42.8
37,166.6
(96.2)
(0.26)
Eastern Illinois University
44,078.1
43,927.8
(0.34)
220.2
257.2
37.0
43,964.8
(113.3)
(0.26)
Governors State
24,675.0
24,591.4
(0.34)
123.3
147.7
24.5
24,615.9
(59.1)
(0.24)
Illinois State University
74,089.2
73,882.4
(0.28)
370.4
377.2
6.8
73,889.2
(200.0)
(0.27)
Northeastern Illinois University
37,847.4
37,708.3
(0.37)
189.0
228.8
39.8
37,748.1
(99.3)
(0.26)
Northern Illinois University
93,412.6
93,247.1
(0.18)
467.4
409.7
-57.6
93,189.5
(223.1)
(0.24)
Western Illinois University
52,755.1
52,622.0
(0.25)
263.7
271.0
7.3
52,629.3
(125.8)
(0.24)
Southern Illinois University
204,584.1
204,261.5
(0.16)
1,023.5
913.8
-109.7
(432.3)
(0.21)
Carbondale
145,219.3
144,990.3
(0.16)
726.6
621.5
-105.0
144,885.3
(334.0)
(0.23)
Edwardsville
59,364.8
59,271.2
(0.16)
296.9
292.2
-4.7
59,266.5
(98.3)
(0.17)
University of Illinois
663,487.7
661,988.6
(0.23)
3,317.0
3,411.7
94.7
(1,404.3)
(0.21)
Chicago
307,296.4
306,602.1
(0.23)
1,527.9
1,553.5
25.6
306,627.7
(668.7)
(0.22)
Springfield
23,602.9
23,549.6
(0.23)
115.8
113.4
-2.3
23,547.3
(55.6)
(0.24)
Urbana/Champaign
332,588.4
331,836.9
(0.23)
1,673.3
1,744.8
71.4
331,908.4
(680.0)
(0.20)
204,151.8
662,083.4
%
FY2015 Performance Funding is based on results from FY 2014
* calculations.
IBHE Presentation
9
Performance Funding Metrics
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
10
FY14 Performance Measures
Measures
• Bachelor’s Degrees (FY09-11)
• Master’s Degrees (FY09-11)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY10-12)
• Grad Rates 100%/150%/200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort
• Persistence (Completed 24/48/72 Semester Hrs) (FY07-09)
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11)
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11)
IBHE Presentation
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
Inst Data
Inst Data
Cost Study
Cost Study
11
FY15 Performance Measures
Measures
• Bachelor’s Degrees (FY10-12)
• Master’s Degrees (FY10-12)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
• Graduation Rate - 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)*
• Persistence- 24 Credit Hours Completed in 1 Year (FY10-12)
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12)
• Cost per Completion (FY10-12)
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
Inst Data
Inst Data
Cost Study
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
12
FY14/FY15 Sub-Categories
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**
*HLS – Homeland Security
**CIP 51 – Health Professions & Related Programs
IBHE Presentation
13
Performance Funding
Refinement Issues
IBHE Presentation
14
Refinement Issues
(Issues That Were Pending Resolution for FY15)
• What is the best way to account for the difficulty of
getting underrepresented students through to
completion throughout the model?
• What is the best way to account for high cost entities
(i.e. Hospitals and Medical, Dental, and Veterinary
schools)?
IBHE Presentation
15
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
16
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 Bachelor’s, Master’s, 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 and those institutions with higher
levels of masters and doctoral students.
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
17
Performance Value Calculation
Step 8 – 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 an 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.
Issues
• Adjustment results in all appropriated funds being counted in the performance
funding allocation and pro rata set aside.
• Performance funding dollars allocated to high cost entities are not truly
performance based as these funds are added back after performance funding
computation.
IBHE Presentation
18
Steering Committee
Comments
IBHE Presentation
19
Steering Committee Comments
• The committee should look at what is being done in other states to see if
there is a simpler or better way to do this.
• We should look at providing a premium to other “High Value” programs in
addition to the Homeland Security (HLS) and CIP Code 51 (STEM) programs.
• We should take into account the institutional capacity to produce degrees.
• Geographical differences – are these the same people that are counted as
“low income”
• We need to increase the dollar amounts allocated to performance.
• We need to reduce the number of measures in the model.
• We need to include a measure of quality in the performance funding model.
• We need to look at each institution to see where they need to improve.
• We should significantly increase the weighting factor for efficiency measures
(as much as 25%-30%)
IBHE Presentation
20
Steering Committee Comments
• Is the percentage devoted to performance funding high enough to make a
difference?
• Would performance funding hurt admission practices and cause some
public universities to be more selective?
• Increased success should be tied to increased funding.
• We should identify 3-4 of the greatest shortcomings of each institution and
apply performance funding to that.
IBHE Presentation
21
Where Do We Go From Here?
• Do we stay with the original FY15 recommendation
for FY16?
• Do we need to further revise the FY15 model, and if
so, how?
• Do we work to address Steering Committee
comments/concerns, and if so, which ones?
• How do we address the potential increase in the
performance funding set-aside for FY16?
IBHE Presentation
22
Refinement Committee Recommendations
• Do we stay with the original FY15 recommendation
for FY16?
– Yes.
– However, In light of the board's recent progress
on the Public Agenda that showed significant
gaps of achievement for African-Americans,
Hispanics and adult learners, Professor Karnes
proposed that we double those premiums.
– His view is that we need to send a strong signal
to our universities that they need to commit
resources to reduce and eliminate the gaps.
IBHE Presentation
23
Refinement Committee Recommendations
• Do we need to further revise the FY15 model, and if
so, how?
– Other than possible minor adjustments to the FY15
performance funding model for FY16, we should
start with the performance funding baseline we
have established and not make any further changes
in the existing model for at least three years.
– There is concern that additional changes at this
time will only serve to move funding, not based on
performance, from one set of institutions to
another set of institutions.
IBHE Presentation
24
Refinement Committee Recommendations
• Do we work to address Steering Committee
comments/concerns, and if so, which ones?
– At this point in time we should start work on version 2.0 of
the performance funding model for implementation in the
future (i.e. after 3 years).
• This would provide time for ILDS to come on line and for
the data to mature.
• This would give us time to address performance funding
issues such as first generation students, the inclusion of
other high value programs to the STEM sub-category,
quality, institutional capacity, geographical differences,
efficiency measures, and assess the effectiveness of
performance based funding on the institutions.
IBHE Presentation
25
Refinement Committee Recommendations
• How do we address the potential increase in the
performance funding set-aside for FY16?
– Any increase in the performance funding
allocation, assuming that there will be no
additional funds allocated for performance
funding, should be gradual and on the order of
no more than 1% per year.
– There is great concern regarding the impact of
lower tax rates on higher education funding
along with the potential impact of a pension cost
transfer.
IBHE Presentation
26
Timeline
IBHE Presentation
27
Timeline
• 21 Aug 14
- Refinement Committee Meeting (IBHE)
• 15 Sep 14
- Steering Committee Meeting (ISU)
• 7 Oct 14
- IBHE Board Meeting (Loyola)
• 15 Oct 14
- RAMP/Survey Data Due to IBHE by the End of October.
• 30 Oct 14
- Refinement Committee Meeting (IBHE)
• 20 Nov 14
- Steering Committee Meeting (Heartland Community College)
• 2 Dec 14
- IBHE Board Meeting
• TBD
- Refinement Committee Meeting
• TBD
- Steering Committee Meeting
• 3 Feb 14 (T)
- IBHE Board Meeting (IBHE Higher Education
Budget/Performance Funding Recommendations to Board)
IBHE Presentation
28
Questions/Discussion
IBHE Presentation
29