Transcript Proposed Higher Education Performance Funding Model IBHE Board Meeting December 6, 2011 Dr. Alan Phillips IBHE Presentation.

Proposed Higher Education
Performance Funding Model
IBHE Board Meeting
December 6, 2011
Dr. Alan Phillips
IBHE Presentation
1
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
2
Illinois Public Agenda Goals
1. Increase Educational Attainment.
2. Ensure college affordability for students, families, and
taxpayers.
3. Increase the number of high-quality post-secondary
credentials.
4. Better integrate Illinois’ education, research, and
innovation assets to meet economic needs of the state.
IBHE Presentation
3
Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503)
Performance metrics shall be developed in accordance with the following principles:
•
•
•
Consult with public institutions of
•
higher education, as well as other state
educational agencies and other higher
education organizations, associations,
interests, and stakeholders as deemed •
appropriate by the IBHE;
Include provisions for recognizing the
demands on and rewarding
performance of institutions in
advancing the success of students who
are academically or financially at risk,
including first-generation students,
low-income students, and students
•
traditionally underrepresented in
higher education;
Focus on the fundamental goal of
increasing completion of college
courses, certificates, and degrees;
Recognize the unique and broad
mission of public community colleges
through consideration of additional
factors including, but not limited to,
enrollment, progress through key
academic milestones, transfer to
baccalaureate institutions, and degree
completion; and
Maintain the quality of degrees,
certificates, courses, and programs.
Recognize and account for the
differentiated missions of institutions
and sectors of higher education;
IBHE Presentation
4
What We Have Accomplished
• Identified the key issues
• Developed performance funding principles
• Identified appropriate performance measures and subcategories
• 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
5
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
6
Performance Funding Model
Community 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)
Metric 1 – Degree Production of At-Risk students
• Data Source – ICCB Annual Enrollment and Completion (A1)
• Allocation: $200,000
$10,473
$19,096
2008 Degrees and Certificates
Pell Remedial
Recipient Hours Total
College 1
272
College 2 2,510
College 3
355
College 4
386
…
College 39 251
11,897
IBHE Presentation
15
295
86
133
2009 Degrees and Certificates
Pell
Remedial
Recipient Hours Total
287
2,805
441
519
300
2,878
393
420
88
339
3,064 14,961
250
11,248
32
272
85
99
Greater
than
%
Change Zero
Allocation
332
3,150
478
519
15.7%
12.3%
8.4%
0.0%
80
330
2,977 14,225
-2.7%
.157
.123
.084
$2,994
$2,349
$1,602
--
-10,473 $200,000
9
Performance Funding Model
4-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.
• Measures 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 firstgeneration, 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 Measures
• Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that
support the achievement of the state goals.
Measure
• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)
• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Ave 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)
IBHE Presentation
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
13
Performance Funding Model
• Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that
support the achievement of the state goals.
Future Measures*
• Retention (By Cohort)
• Time to Completion (within 100% or 150%)
• Students Accumulation of Credit Hours (24/48/72)
• Student Transfers
• Remediation
• Quality
* The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of
sufficient quality to use.
IBHE Presentation
14
Performance Funding Model
• Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance
measures
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)
IBHE Presentation
University 1 University 2 University 3
3,329
3,921
1,494
1,786
1,552
568
862
209
0
22.2
23.2
22.0
37.6
44.8
39.1
18,667
10,577
8,908
8,858
3,756
3,743
42,980,300
5,526,700 1,333,900
15
Performance Funding Model
• Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the
production of certain desired outcomes such as completions
by underserved or underrepresented populations
Sub-Category
Weight
• 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%
IBHE Presentation
16
Performance Funding Model
• Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the
production of certain desired outcomes such as completions
by underserved or underrepresented populations
Future Sub-Categories*
• Part-Time
• First-Time
• Disabled
• Veterans
• First Generation
• English Language Learners
• Residents of Underserved Counties
• Additional Ethnic Categories
* The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of
sufficient quality to use.
IBHE Presentation
17
Performance Funding Model
• 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.
Measure
Universities 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
IBHE Presentation
18
Performance Funding Model
• Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that
reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the
institution. Carnegie Classifications
•
Research – Very High
–
–
•
Research – High
–
–
•
IBHE Presentation
Illinois State University
Masters Colleges & Universities – Large
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Northern Illinois University
Southern Illinois University – Carbondale
Doctoral/Research
–
•
University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign
University of Illinois – Chicago
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
19
Performance Funding Model
• Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that
reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the
institution.
Measure
University 1
• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09)
20.0%
• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09)
20.0%
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09)
17.5%
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09)
5.0%
• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?)
7.5%
• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?)
2.5%
• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11)
2.5%
• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11)
25.0%
100.0%
IBHE Presentation
University 2
30.0%
25.0%
7.5%
5.0%
7.5%
5.0%
5.0%
15.0%
100.0%
University 3
40.0%
22.5%
0.0%
10.0%
10,0%
7.5%
7.5%
2.5%
100.0%
20
Performance Funding Model
• Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight
to produce the Weighted results.
Data
Measure
• Bachelors Degrees
3,921
• Masters Degrees
1,552
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
209
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
23.2
• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (?)
44.8
• Cost per FTE (?)
10,577
• Education and General Spending per Completion 3,756
• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11)
5,526,700
IBHE Presentation
(Data+Premium) Total Performance
Value
x Scale xWeight =
Data + Premium Scale
6,067
1.00
6067
30.0%
1932
1,786
3.86
6769
25.0%
1692
862
16.25
3715
7.5%
279
22.2
173.64
4034
5.0%
202
37.6
109.74
4915
7.5%
369
18,667
.38
-3998
5.0%
-200
8,858
.96
-3599
5.0%
-180
42,980,300 .0004115
2274
15.0%
341
4435
21
Performance Funding Model
• Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance
Value) to distribute 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
62.7%
4,435
25.6%
2,027
11.7%
17,302
100%
$256,000
$117,000
$1,000,000
$627,000
22
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
23
Conclusion
Performance Based Funding is:
• 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
24
Way Ahead
•
Finalize adjustment of the model to account for variables unique to each college
and university.
•
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
25
Questions/Comments?
IBHE Presentation
26