Transcript ibhesac.org

Illinois Higher Education
Performance Funding Model
Steering Committee Meeting
November 20, 2014
Dr. Alan Phillips
IBHE Presentation
1
Topics of Discussion
• Current Situation
• Where Do We Go From Here?
• Sub-Category Weighting Issue
• Steering Committee Issues
• NCHEMS Performance Funding Guidelines
• University President Concerns
• Timelines
IBHE Presentation
2
Current Situation
IBHE Presentation
3
Current Situation
• A revised Performance Funding Model was
developed for FY15.
• Colleges and universities received essentially level
funding for FY15 (-$2.8M)(-.2%).
• However, the FY15 Performance Funding Model
was not actually used to allocate funding for FY15
based on performance.
• Instead, the FY 15 Appropriations carried over the
FY14 Performance Funding allocations.
IBHE Presentation
4
Actual FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
($ in thousands)
Public Universities
FY2014
FY2015
Appropriatio
n
Base Budget
Level
FY2015
%
Change
$ 1,232,192.0 $ 1,229,438.5 (0.22)
Performance Funding*
FY2015
FY2015
Set Aside
% $
6,161.0 $
Performance
Funds
Net Change
6,161.0 $
FY2015
Appropriatio
n
FY2014 - FY 2015
$ Change
%
Change
0.0 $ 1,229,438.5 $ (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
204,151.8
(432.3)
(0.21)
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
662,083.4
(1,404.3)
(0.21)
307,296.4
306,602.1
(0.23)
1,527.9
1,553.5
25.6
306,627.7
(668.7)
(0.22)
23,602.9
23,549.6
(0.23)
115.8
113.4
-2.3
23,547.3
(55.6)
(0.24)
332,588.4
331,836.9
(0.23)
1,673.3
1,744.8
71.4
331,908.4
(680.0)
(0.20)
Carbondale
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
%
FY2015 Performance Funding is based on results from FY 2014
* calculations.
IBHE Presentation
5
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 likely increase in the
performance funding set-aside for FY16?
IBHE Presentation
6
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
7
FY15 Performance Measures
Measures
Source
• Bachelor’s Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Master’s 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)*
Inst Data
• Persistence- 24 Credit Hours Completed in 1 Year (FY10-12) Inst 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
8
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
9
Sub-Category Weighting Issue
IBHE Presentation
10
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .2)
($ in thousands)
Performance Funding
FY2015 Model
FY2014
Appropriation
Public Universities
Chicago State University
Eastern Illinois University
Governors State
Illinois State University
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
$
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*
$
FY2015
Appropriation
Performance Funds
6,161.0 $
186.3
$
220.4
$
123.4
$
370.4
$
189.2
$
467.1
$
263.8
$
6,161.0
119.3
231.9
153.5
347.3
203.5
405.9
247.9
Net Change
$
FY2014 - FY 2015
%
$ Change
Change
0.5% Set-Aside
0.0
-67.1
11.5
30.1
-23.1
14.3
-61.1
-15.9
$ 1,232,192.0
37,195.7
44,089.6
24,705.1
74,066.1
37,861.7
93,351.5
52,739.2
$
0.0
(67.1)
11.5
30.1
(23.1)
14.3
(61.1)
(15.9)
0.00 %
(0.18)
0.03
0.12
(0.03)
0.04
(0.07)
(0.03)
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale
Edwardsville
**
204,584.1
145,219.3
59,364.8
1,022.9
726.1
296.8
$
$
$
885.0
620.4
264.5
-138.0
-105.7
-32.3
204,446.1
145,113.6
59,332.5
(138.0)
(105.7)
(32.3)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.05)
University of Illinois
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
***
663,487.7
307,296.4
23,602.9
332,588.4
3,317.4
1,536.5
118.0
1,662.9
$
$
$
$
3,566.8
1,564.5
109.3
1,893.0
249.3
28.0
-8.7
230.0
663,737.0
307,324.4
23,594.2
332,818.4
249.3
28.0
(8.7)
230.0
0.04
0.01
(0.04)
0.07
* 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
11
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .4)
($ in thousands)
Performance Funding
FY2015 Model
FY2014
Appropriation
Public Universities
Chicago State University
Eastern Illinois University
Governors State
Illinois State University
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
$
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*
$
FY2015
Appropriation
Performance Funds
6,161.0 $
186.3
$
220.4
$
123.4
$
370.4
$
189.2
$
467.1
$
263.8
$
6,161.0
146.9
246.9
169.2
353.8
235.2
439.1
267.8
Net Change
$
FY2014 - FY 2015
%
$ Change
Change
0.5% Set-Aside
0.0
-39.4
26.5
45.8
-16.6
46.0
-28.0
4.0
$ 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
$
(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
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale
Edwardsville
**
204,584.1
145,219.3
59,364.8
1,022.9
726.1
296.8
$
$
$
910.0
632.7
277.3
-112.9
-93.3
-19.5
204,471.2
145,126.0
59,345.3
(112.9)
(93.3)
(19.5)
(0.06)
(0.06)
(0.03)
University of Illinois
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
***
663,487.7
307,296.4
23,602.9
332,588.4
3,317.4
1,536.5
118.0
1,662.9
$
$
$
$
3,392.1
1,504.9
114.0
1,773.2
74.6
-31.5
-4.1
110.3
663,562.3
307,264.9
23,598.8
332,698.7
74.6
(31.5)
(4.1)
110.3
0.01
(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
12
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .6)
($ in thousands)
Performance Funding
FY2015 Model
FY2014
Appropriation
Public Universities
Chicago State University
Eastern Illinois University
Governors State
Illinois State University
$
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
1,232,192.0
37,262.8
44,078.1
24,675.0
74,089.2
Set Aside*
$
FY2015
Appropriation
Performance Funds
6,161.0 $
186.3
$
220.4
$
123.4
$
370.4
$
6,161.0
170.5
259.6
182.6
359.4
Net Change
$
FY2014 - FY 2015
%
$ Change
Change
0.5% Set-Aside
0.0
-15.9
39.2
59.2
-11.0
$ 1,232,192.0
37,246.9
44,117.3
24,734.2
74,078.2
$
(0.0)
(15.9)
39.2
59.2
(11.0)
(0.00) %
(0.04)
0.09
0.24
(0.01)
37,847.4
93,412.6
52,755.1
189.2
467.1
263.8
$
$
$
262.2
467.3
284.7
72.9
0.3
21.0
37,920.3
93,412.9
52,776.1
72.9
0.3
21.0
0.19
0.00
0.04
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale
Edwardsville
**
204,584.1
145,219.3
59,364.8
1,022.9
726.1
296.8
$
$
$
931.4
643.2
288.1
-91.5
-82.8
-8.7
204,492.6
145,136.5
59,356.1
(91.5)
(82.8)
(8.7)
(0.04)
(0.06)
(0.01)
University of Illinois
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
***
663,487.7
307,296.4
23,602.9
332,588.4
3,317.4
1,536.5
118.0
1,662.9
$
$
$
$
3,243.3
1,454.2
117.9
1,671.2
-74.1
-82.3
-0.1
8.2
663,413.6
307,214.1
23,602.8
332,596.6
(74.1)
(82.3)
(0.1)
8.2
(0.01)
(0.03)
(0.00)
0.00
* 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
13
Preliminary FY15
Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .8)
($ in thousands)
Performance Funding
FY2015 Model
FY2014
Appropriation
Public Universities
Chicago State University
Eastern Illinois University
Governors State
Illinois State University
$
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
1,232,192.0
37,262.8
44,078.1
24,675.0
74,089.2
Set Aside*
$
FY2015
Appropriation
Performance Funds
6,161.0 $
186.3
$
220.4
$
123.4
$
370.4
$
6,161.0
190.8
270.6
194.1
364.2
Net Change
$
FY2014 - FY 2015
%
$ Change
Change
0.5% Set-Aside
0.0
4.4
50.3
70.7
-6.2
$ 1,232,192.0
37,267.2
44,128.4
24,745.7
74,083.0
$
(0.0)
4.4
50.3
70.7
(6.2)
(0.00) %
0.01
0.11
0.29
(0.01)
37,847.4
93,412.6
52,755.1
189.2
467.1
263.8
$
$
$
285.4
491.7
299.4
96.2
24.6
35.6
37,943.6
93,437.2
52,790.7
96.2
24.6
35.6
0.25
0.03
0.07
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale
Edwardsville
**
204,584.1
145,219.3
59,364.8
1,022.9
726.1
296.8
$
$
$
949.8
652.3
297.5
-73.2
-73.8
0.6
204,511.0
145,145.5
59,365.4
(73.2)
(73.8)
0.6
(0.04)
(0.05)
0.00
University of Illinois
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
***
663,487.7
307,296.4
23,602.9
332,588.4
3,317.4
1,536.5
118.0
1,662.9
$
$
$
$
3,115.1
1,410.5
121.4
1,583.2
-202.4
-126.0
3.3
-79.7
663,285.3
307,170.4
23,606.2
332,508.7
(202.4)
(126.0)
3.3
(79.7)
(0.03)
(0.04)
0.01
(0.02)
* 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
14
Performance Funding Allocation
At Different Sub-Category Weights
Sub-Category
Wt - .02
UIUC
UIC
NIU
Sub-Category
Wt - .04
$230.0
.07%
$110.3
$28.0
.01%
-$31.5 -.01%
- $61.1 -.07%
$46.0
.03%
.12%
Sub-Category
Wt - .06
Sub-Category
Wt - .08
.00%
-$79.7 -.02%
-.09%
-$82.3 -.03%
-$126.0 -.04%
-.05%
$8.2
$72.9
.19%
$96.2
.25%
.32%
SIUC - $105.7 -.07%
- $93.3 -.06%
- $82.8 -.06%
- $73.8 -.05%
.02%
ISU
- $23.1 -.03%
- $16.6 -.02%
- $11.0 -.01%
- $6.2 -.01%
.02%
SIUE
- $32.3 - .05%
- $19.5 - .03%
- $8.7 - .01%
- $.6 - .00%
.05%
WIU
- $15.9 - .03%
$4.0
.01%
$21.0
.04%
$35.6
.07%
.10%
EIU
$11.5
.03%
$26.5
.06%
$39.2
.09%
$50.3
.11%
.08%
NEIU
$14.3
.04%
$46.0
.12%
$72.9
.19%
$96.2
.25%
.21%
- $15.9 -.04%
$4.4
.01%
.19%
$70.7
.29%
.17%
- $3.3 -.01%
.03%
CSU
- $67.1 -.18%
GSU
$30.1
UIS
- $4.4 -.04%
IBHE Presentation
.12%
- $39.4 -.11%
$45.8
.19%
- $4.1 -.02%
$59.2
.24%
- $.1 -.00%
15
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
16
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
17
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. (Done)
•
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. (PBF 2.0)
•
We should take into account the institutional capacity to produce degrees.
•
Geographical differences – are these the same people that are counted as “low
income” (PBF 2.0)
•
We need to increase the dollar amounts allocated to performance. (FY16?)
•
We need to reduce the number of measures in the model. (PBF 2.0)
•
We need to include a measure of quality in the performance funding model. (PBF
2.0)
•
We need to look at each institution to see where they need to improve. (PBF 2.0)
•
We should significantly increase the weighting factor for efficiency measures (as
much as 25%-30%) (PBF 2.0)
IBHE Presentation
18
Steering Committee Comments
• Is the percentage devoted to performance funding high enough to make a
difference? (FY16?)
• Discussion on the driving force behind performance funding in other
states. (Governor, legislature, etc.) (Done)
• Would performance funding hurt admission practices and cause some
public universities to be more selective? (Addressed in Existing Model)
• Increased success should be tied to increased funding. (FY16)
• We should identify 3-4 of the greatest shortcomings of each institution and
apply performance funding to that. (PBF 2.0)
• We should see what else is going on in the other states. (Done)
• We should ensure that we are following best practices as outlined by
NCHEMS in their performance funding paper – “Performance Funding;
From Idea to Action”
IBHE Presentation
19
NCHEMS Performance Funding Guidelines
Design Principles
• Get agreement on goals before putting performance funding in place.
– Tailored to the needs of the state.
– Focused on the needs of the state, not the institutions of Higher
Education.
• Do not construct performance metrics too narrowly.
• It is important that all institutions have an opportunity (not a guarantee) to
benefit by excelling at their different missions.
• Design the funding model to promote mission differentiation, not mission
creep.
– Use different metrics for different kinds of institutions.
– Create different pools of resources for different kinds of institutions (i.e.
different funding models for Community Colleges and Public
Universities).
IBHE Presentation
20
NCHEMS Performance Funding Guidelines
Design Principles
• Include provisions that reward success with underserved populations (i.e.
African-American, Hispanic, low income, adult, and academically at-risk).
• Include provisions that reward progress as well as ultimate success (i.e.
degree completion).
• Limit the categories of outcomes to be rewarded.
• Use metrics that are unambiguous and difficult to game (i.e. numbers of
graduates as opposed to graduation rates).
• Reward continuous improvement, not attainment of a fixed goal.
• Make the performance funding pool large enough to command attention.
• Ensure that the incentives in all parts of the funding model align with state
goals.
IBHE Presentation
21
NCHEMS Performance Funding Guidelines
Implementation Principles
• Don’t wait for new money.
• Include a phase-in provision.
• Employ stop-loss, not hold harmless, provisions.
• Continue performance funding in both good times
and bad.
IBHE Presentation
22
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
23
University President Concerns
• The continued implementation of performance funding in an
increasingly difficult fiscal environment.
– Continued decline in State higher education funding.
– The resolution of the tax and pension issues and the potential impact
on the universities.
– The impact of a minimum wage increase.
– Declining enrollment.
– Declining financial aid.
– Unfunded mandates.
• The ability to actually improve performance beyond what is
already taking place.
• Improving performance and still losing funding.
• The potential increase in the performance funding set-aside.
IBHE Presentation
24
Timelines
IBHE Presentation
25
Next Steps
• 21 Aug 14
- Refinement Committee Meeting (IBHE)
• 15 Sep 14
- Steering Committee Meeting (ISU)
• 7 Oct 14
- IBHE Board Meeting (Loyola)
• 30 Oct 14
- Refinement Committee Meeting (IBHE)
• Mid-Nov 14 - First Draft of FY16 Performance Funding Recommendations
• 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
26
Questions?
IBHE Presentation
27
Back-Up
IBHE Presentation
28
Performance Funding Objectives/Mandate
IBHE Presentation
29
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
30
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
31
Performance Funding Model (FY14)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
32
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 (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 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 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities (i.e. Hospitals, Medical,
Dental, and Veterinary Schools).
Step 8 – Use the final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute
performance funding.
IBHE Presentation
33
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
• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11)
• Masters 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 Hours) (FY07-09)
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11)
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11)
IBHE Presentation
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
Institutional Data
Institutional Data
Cost Study
Cost Study
34
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
35
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
36
Scaling Factors
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is
comparable across variables.
Measure
Universities 1-12 (Avg)
2,822
• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11)
1,042
• Masters Degrees (FY09-11)
227
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11)
25
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11)
27
• Grad Rates 100% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
46
• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
50
• Grad Rates 200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
1,644
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
1,453
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
1,350
• Persistence(Completed 72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
346
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11) (Cost Study)
36,566
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11) (Cost Study)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11) 112,914,667
IBHE Presentation
Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor
1.0
1
2.7
1
12.4
2
112.6
200
104.4
50
60.9
50
57.0
50
1.7
2
1.9
2
2.1
2
8.1
-8
.1
-.050
.00002
.00005
37
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
Measure
• Bachelors Degrees
• Masters Degrees
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
• Grad Rates 100% of Time
• Grad Rates 150% of Time
• Grad Rates 200% of Time
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research and Public Service Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
UIUC
17.0%
14.0%
13.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
45.0%
100.0%
UIC
18.0%
15.0%
14.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
42.0%
100.0%
Doctoral/
Research
Research-High
NIU
28.0%
15.0%
10.0%
11.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
28.0%
100.0%
SIUC
28.0%
14.0%
8.0%
13.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
30.0%
100.0%
ISU
33.0%
23.0%
6.0%
12.0%
2.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
15.0%
100.0%
38
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 100% of Time
• Grad Rates 150% of Time
• Grad Rates 200% of Time
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
28.0% 25.0% 26.0% 26.0% 25.0%
2.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
12.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0%
2.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
1.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
1.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
3.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
GSU
UIS
45.0% 43.0%
27.0% 27.0%
1.0%
1.0%
5.0%
8.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
1.0%
5.0%
1.0%
7.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.0%
2.0%
100.0% 100.0%
39
Performance Value Calculation
Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to
produce the Performance Value for each institution.
Data
Measure
2,822
• Bachelors Degrees
1,042
• Masters Degrees
227
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
25
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
27
• Grad Rates 100% of Time
46
• Grad Rates 150% of Time
50
• Grad Rates 200% of Time
1,644
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
1,453
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
1,350
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
346
• Cost per Credit Hour
36,566
• Cost per Completion
$112,914,667
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
(Data+Premium)
Total Performance
Data + Premium Scale x Scale xWeight = Value
3,522
1
3,522
30.0%
1,057
1,454
1
1,454
25.0%
364
240
2
480
5.0%
24
25
200
5,000
10.0%
500
27
50
1,350
1.5%
20
46
50
2,300
1.0%
23
50
50
2,500
0.5%
13
1,644
2
3,288
1.0%
33
1,453
2
2,906
1.5%
44
1,350
2
2,700
2.0%
54
345
-8
-2,760
1.5%
-41
36,566 -.050
-1,828
1.0%
-18
$112,914,667 .00005
5,646
20.0%
1,129
100.0%
3,200
40
Performance Value Calculation
Step 7 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities
(i.e. Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools)
• Divide the amount of the university GRF appropriation allocated to fund
the high cost entity by the total university GRF appropriation.
• Multiply this factor by the university performance value and add the result
back to the performance value.
• This results in a total performance value for institutions with these high
cost entities.
• Example:
$20M/$200M = .10
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
320 + 3200 = 3520 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation
41
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
42
Results for FY14
• Performance funding values increased for all twelve of
the four-year public universities from FY13 to FY14.
• Assuming a .5% funding set-aside:
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance
ranged from +.11% to -.11%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from
+$71K to -$105K.
IBHE Presentation
43
Performance Funding Model (FY15)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
44
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
45
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
46
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
47
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
48
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
49
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
50
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%
51
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%
52
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
53
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
54
High Cost Entities Adjustment
• Current High Cost Entities Adjustment
– Divide the amount of the university GRF appropriation allocated to fund
the high cost entity by the total university GRF appropriation.
– Multiply this factor by the university performance value and add the result
back to the performance value.
– This results in a total performance value for institutions with these high
cost entities.
– Example: $20M/$200M = .10
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
320 + 3200 = 3520 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation
55
Revised 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
56
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
57
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
58