Transcript Best Practices Regarding Performance Funding

Paying for Results – Performance Funding
2012 Complete College Ohio Conference
Columbus, OH
November 13, 2012
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
3035 Center Green Drive, Suite 150
Boulder, Colorado 80301
The Management Cycle of the Past
Goal-Setting
Institution
State
Assessment
Resource
Allocation
Institution
Institution
The Management Cycle Now
State
Goal-Setting
Institution
State
State
Assessment
Resource
Allocation
Institution
Institution
Why the Renewed Interest in Outcomes-Based
Funding
• An increase in the number of states defining statewide
goals for higher Education
• Outcomes-based funding is the most direct way of
linking state funding to these goals
• An alternative to micromanagement – a way to negotiate
autonomy with accountability
Outcomes-Based Funding is Not a New
Phenomenon
• Enrollment-based funding is a form of outcomes-based
funding – it rewards increased access
• What is new is the shift
– From a focus on access
– To a focus on student success and other outcomes
• A reminder – the importance of tuition and fee revenues
to institutions continues to reinforce the importance of
access
The Elements of Finance Policy
States
Philanthropy &
Other Sources
Operating Support -Outcomes-Based
Funding as One
Component
Student
Aid
Student
Aid
Students
Tuition & Fees
Scholarships &
Waivers
Pell
& Tax Credits
Institutions
-Sectors
Graduates
Federal
Government
Currently in the Third Cycle of Outcomes-Based
Funding
Round 1
1975 – 1984
Round 2
1985 – 2004
Round 3
2005 - Present
Round 1
• Tennessee breaks new ground
• Initially 2%, then 5.4% of each institution’s
appropriation tied to performance
• Rewards encouraged good practices rather than
outcomes
–
–
–
–
Accreditation of programs
Building data capacity
Using national assessments where available
Etc.
• Continued in new model as the Quality Assurance
Component
Round 2
Numerous states tried it
–
–
–
–
–
–
California CCs
Florida CCs*
Illinois
Kentucky
Missouri
Ohio
*Still in effect.
–
–
–
–
–
Oklahoma*
Pennsylvania(PASSHE)*
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee*
Most Faded Away for One or More Reasons
• Right idea but faulty implementation
–
–
–
–
Too complex – too many elements
Insufficient data – unavailable or unreliable
Didn’t recognize different institutional missions – one size fits all
Imposed without institutional consultation/buy-in
• Done for the wrong reasons
– A resource acquisition device – abandoned when budgets were
tight
– An end in itself – not a means to promote goal attainment
Round 3
The Current State of Development & Implementation
Outcomes-Based Funding 3.0: State Activity
Different states have constructed their performance
funding models to reward production of different
combinations of outcomes.
But they have one element in common – increasing the
number so students who successfully complete a
postsecondary program of study.
There is every reason for Ohio to follow suit.
Can quibble about the specific goal, but it is hard
to argue that Ohio colleges and universities must
produce more – many more – college graduates
than is currently the case.
45 to 54
55 to 64
33.3
33.3
38.4
38.6
42.3
43.4
40.0
41.0
42.9
33.8
21.7
18.3
30.9
44.2
48.8
44.4
44.6
43.8
39.4
25.6
27.9
25.3
29.6
34.8
39.5
44.2
41.4
44.4
46.0
40.6
35.2
33.8
30.0
27.3
12.8
20
33.4
41.0
29.8
21.5
29.0
26.7
40
30
46.4
42.5
39.1
47.3
48.2
42.3
46.8
42.2
46.9
50
49.6
45.8
60
35 to 44
56.5
56.8
25 to 34
56.7
70
65.0
Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by
Age Group – State, U.S. & Leading OECD Countries, 2010
10
0
15
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
American Community Survey One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample File
Percentage of Jobs in 2018 that Will Require a
Postsecondary Education, by State
70
70
75
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
68
70
63
63
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
62
National Average = 63%
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
59
59
59
59
59
60
51
52
54
54
54
54
55
ND
MN
MA
CO
WA
NE
UT
MD
HI
CT
IL
KS
VA
NH
NJ
OR
NY
AK
MI
WY
MT
VT
IA
SD
WI
ID
RI
CA
AZ
NC
ME
FL
MO
DE
GA
NM
OH
PA
OK
TX
SC
AL
IN
NV
TN
MS
KY
AR
LA
WV
45
49
50
slide 16
Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce,
Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2018; June 2010
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
Nevada
Alaska
7.9%
Louisiana
7.5%
Arkansas
7.5%
Texas
7.2%
Arizona
7.1%
Tennessee
6.6%
New Mexico
6.4%
Georgia
6.2%
Kentucky
6.2%
Idaho
6.1%
West Virginia
6.1%
Mississippi
6.1%
Oklahoma
5.8%
Alabama
5.7%
California
5.6%
Delaware
5.4%
South Carolina
5.4%
Florida
5.3%
Maine
5.3%
Oregon
5.1%
Michigan
5.1%
North Carolina
5.0%
Ohio
4.8%
Montana
4.7%
US
4.7%
Indiana
4.6%
Wyoming
4.6%
Missouri
4.5%
Wisconsin
4.4%
Washington
4.3%
Maryland
3.6%
Hawaii
3.5%
Pennsylvania
3.4%
Illinois
3.2%
Colorado
3.1%
Utah
3.0%
Vermont
3.0%
Kansas
2.8%
Nebraska
2.8%
Virginia
2.5%
Rhode Island
2.5%
New Jersey
2.4%
South Dakota
2.4%
Iowa
2.2%
Connecticut
2.0%
New York
1.7%
Minnesota
1.3%
New Hampshire
1.1%
Massachusetts
0.5%
North Dakota
-0.6%
9.0%
10%
Closing the Gap: Annual Percent Increase in Credential
Production Needed to get to 60% by 2025
The Price of Inaction
slide 19
Observation 1
The completion gap can’t be closed by
– Improving high school completion and college participation of
recent high school grads to best in the nation levels
– Continuing business-as-usual inside higher education
slide 20
slide 21
slide 22
Observation 2
The completion gap won’t be closed even if
– High School completion and college participation rates of recent
high school graduates are improved to best in nation levels
And
– Those students graduate from college at rates equal to best in
the nation
slide 23
slide 24
slide 25
Observation 3
The completion gap can be fully closed only if a very large
number of adults enroll in colleges and complete a
postsecondary program of study.
slide 26
slide 27
slide 28
But does outcomes based funding really work?
– In most states it is too early to say
– But the evidence is starting to trickle in
– The evidence suggests that it promotes improvement
slide 29
Changes from 2011-12 to 2012-13 in the
Three-Year Average Funding Formula Data,
Community Colleges (THECB)
Weighted Outcomes Changes*
Total Difference
Students Accumulating 12 hrs
Students Accumulating 24 hrs
Students Accumulating 36 hrs
Dual Enrollment
Associates
Total Certificates
Job Placements
Remedial & Developmental Success
Transfers Out with 12 hrs
Workforce Training (Contact Hours)
Awards per 100 FTE
CHSCC
CLSCC
COSCC
DSCC
JSCC
MSCC
NASCC
NESCC
PSCC
RSCC
STCC
VSCC
WSCC
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
*Data represents a three year average; 2011-12 Formula uses data from 2007-08 through 2009-10; 2012-13 Formula uses data from 2008-09 through 2010-11.
Changes from 2011-12 to 2012-13 in the
Three-Year Average Funding Formula Data,
Universities (THECB)
Weighted Outcomes Changes*
Total Difference
APSU
ETSU
MTSU
TSU
TTU
UM
UTC
UTK
UTM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
Students Accumulating 24 hrs
Students Accumulating 48 hrs
Students Accumulating 72 hrs
Bachelors and Associates
Masters / Ed Specialists
Doctoral / Law Degree
Research and Service
Transfers Out with 12 hrs
Degrees per 100 FTE
Six-Year Graduation Rate
*Data represents a three year average; 2011-12 Formula uses data from 2007-08 through 2009-10; 2012-13 Formula uses data from 2008-09 through
2010-11.
Washington
Community Colleges
Total Points per
College
slide 32
% Change 07–09
% Change 09–10
% Change 10–11
% Change 07–11
College 001
College 002
College 003
College 004
College 005
College 006
College 007
College 008
College 009
College 010
College 011
College 012
College 013
College 014
College 015
College 016
College 017
College 018
College 019
College 020
College 021
College 022
College 023
College 024
College 025
College 026
College 027
College 028
College 029
College 030
College 031
College 032
College 033
College 034
19
16
54
27
20
4
22
32
25
27
22
7
19
30
17
33
18
37
28
5
12
12
12
28
15
12
13
28
17
22
11
3
10
19
25
12
13
4
14
6
26
24
-12
8
18
12
10
24
12
33
16
-4
6
9
11
20
4
13
8
12
0
0
13
13
15
1
20
17
-18
5
2
-5
-1
3
-4
-3
3
1
-5
-9
1
-6
-2
-6
6
3
2
5
1
-3
3
-13
-9
12
-10
-6
0
12
1
3
3
-1
22
37
78
26
35
14
48
59
14
38
37
9
32
51
29
66
46
36
37
20
25
30
20
26
13
40
3
21
33
54
29
6
36
38
Average per College
19
12
-1
31
Source: CCRC-IHELP Washington State Student Achievement Initiative:
Achievement Points Analysis for Academic years 2007-2011
Ohio Community Colleges
Changes in Performance on Student Success Factors, 2009-10
Institution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
slide 33
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Success Categories
3
4
5
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
7
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
For More Information Contact:
Dennis Jones
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
[email protected]
303-497-0301
http://www.nchems.org/NCHEMSCLASPOhioModel.swf