funding for performance in higher education in new … 120913 item 8 handout - … · the need for...

December 10, 2013 1 FY 15 Formula White Paper

FUNDING FOR PERFORMANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

IN NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

DECEMBER 2013


Abstract of White Paper:

The Need for a Performance-Based Formula: For the twenty-year period from 1990 until 2010 New Mexico ranks dead last—50 out of 50—among the states in the improvement of the proportion of the population with a college degree. For the first time in NM history older generations, aged 35 and above, are better educated than the younger generation aged 25-34. From 2000-2011 New Mexico was one of nine states actually declining in college attainment among 25-64-year olds. Among persons aged 25-34 with a graduate or professional degree, New Mexico ranked 20th in 1990; in 2010 New Mexico ranked 48th in this category.1

This poor performance is not due to a lack of generosity by taxpayers. New Mexico ranked second among all states in 2011 in higher education support per capita, fully 64% higher than the national average. Relative to state and local tax revenues and lottery profits, NM ranks first in higher education support, 15.3%, more than twice the national average of 6.8%.

Decisive action is needed to reverse the downward trend.

2

The formula: The formula for the upcoming budget for higher education redistributes ten percent of the higher education I&G appropriation in proportion to the performance of each of the 24 institutions. There are three performance measures: total number of awards; awards to students at high risk of not graduating; and awards granted in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and health.

And since Governor Martinez took office the state has been generous in funding higher education, in part because institutions agreed in 2011 to shift to a funding model rewarding each institution’s performance rather than its political clout.

How it works: The number of awards (certificates, degrees) granted by each institution are converted to points. The points reflect the different costs of producing each award. Ten percent of each institution’s appropriation is adjusted in proportion to their performance. If an institution improves its point total more than others, it will receive an increase. If the point total is below the average it will receive less. Only if an institution stopped producing awards altogether would it lose all the 10% incentive pool. If “new” money goes to higher education, the impact of poor performance on the absolute amount of dollars awarded is cushioned and the impact of strong performance is enhanced.

Planners need not worry. Since the formula uses a three-year rolling average to calculate the number of degrees, they already know the exact value of two-thirds of the 10% to be adjusted, and they can make a close estimate of the number of degrees to be granted in the coming year. This averaging cushions the impact of sudden shifts in performance, providing stability. Moreover, the 10% adjustment applies only to the I&G budget. For example, at UNM the I&G budget is only about 18% of the total. This means that only a tiny proportion of the total budget is adjusted, and performance from two prior years is already known. At Eastern the I&G budget is about 50% of the total, again reducing the impact of the adjustment.

1 Data in this paragraph can be verified from two sources: (a) http://proximityone.com/edattain.htm; and (b) NCHEMS data base at http://www.higheredinfo.org/, under the Educational Attainment tab. 2 State Higher Education Executive Officer organization (SHEEO), “FY 12,” 2013, p. 47.

http://proximityone.com/edattain.htm�

http://www.higheredinfo.org/�


Skin in the Game: Changing Direction in Higher Education in New Mexico

Higher Education Performance in New Mexico is Poor and has been Declining

• For the first time in New Mexico history, the older generation is better educated than the younger generation; that is, a greater proportion of persons aged 35 and higher have an associate’s degree or higher than persons aged 25-34. (NCHEMS) This fact alone constitutes a scathing indictment of the long-term performance of higher education in NM.

• New Mexico has been slipping among states in higher education attainment. New Mexico ranks dead last among the 50 states in the improvement in the proportion of adults with a college degree during the past twenty years. (http://proximityone.com/edattain.htm)

• New Mexico was one of nine states that actually declined in college attainment from 2000 to 2011 among 25 to 64 year olds. (NCHEMS)

• Among persons aged 25-34 with a graduate or professional degree, New Mexico ranks 48th as of the 2010 census. In 1990, New Mexico ranked 20th in this category. (proximityone.com)

• New Mexico ranks 49th in the six-year graduation rate for bachelor degrees (41.1%), down from 46th in 1997 (collegemeasures.org). NCHEMS ranks New Mexico 48th on this metric using 2009 data.

• New Mexico ranks dead last, 50th, in first year retention rate (70.1%). (collegemeasures.org). • New Mexico ranks 48th for transition and completion from 9th grade to college (12.1%).

(NCHEMS) • New Mexico ranks 42nd for credentials and degrees awarded per $100,000 of state, local, and

tuition and fee revenues (1.7) . (NCHEMS) All of the surrounding states are more efficient.

Poor Performance in New Mexico Higher Education is not due to a Lack of Generosity

• In 2011 New Mexico ranked second in the nation in higher education support per capita, fully 64% higher than the national average. (SHEEO FY12, p. 47)

• Relative to state and local tax revenues and lottery profits, New Mexico ranks first in the nation in higher education support, at 15.3%, more than twice the national average of 6.8% (SHEEO FY12, p. 47). If lottery funding is removed, NM ranks second.

Decisive Action is Necessary to Reverse the Downward Trend

Diagnosis of the Problem: Much of what is wrong with higher education can be traced to its ineffectiveness in functioning as a coherent system. Colleges and universities tend to act independently, with little accountability to the state. The institutions are often powerful local actors, supported by boosters, donors, athletic supporters, etc. They come to Santa Fe armed with high-paid lobbyists and articulate officials. The state has never subjected them to the kind of accountability demanded of other taxpayer-funded public institutions. The result has been a proliferation of campuses and learning sites

http://proximityone.com/edattain.htm�


(at last count there were 68), duplication of efforts, high cost per degree, and poor performance compared with other states. In short, a poor return on investment.

To reverse direction New Mexico needs to shift from an institution-dominated process of funding to a system-dominated funding process. Performance on statewide, not institutional, goals should be the determining factor in statewide funding at the legislature. The Martinez administration has been working toward this change for three years, and the higher education funding formula is a major step in this direction.

The Martinez Administration: When Governor Martinez came to office in 2011, she immediately began a vigorous campaign to reverse the negative trend in higher education in New Mexico.

In March of that year, she secured a voluntary two-year system-wide moratorium on the construction of new buildings in higher education, cooperating with institutional presidents to put the brakes on the building boom of the previous decade.

That same month a delegation led by higher education officials and including business leaders and federal lab officials, members of the Governor’s staff, and legislators met in Boulder, Colorado, and hammered out an agreement (known as “the Boulder Concordat”) by which the institutions agreed to work with higher education officials to produce a performance-based funding formula.

A technical committee with representatives of all campuses agreed that year on a performance-based funding formula based on three major measures: the total number of awards granted by each institution; the graduation of students who are financially at risk (income that would be Pell-grant-eligible); and graduation of persons with science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and health care degree.

Pleased with the apparent cooperation of the institutions, Governor Martinez agreed to a 5% increase in the higher education budget. She also pledged to support the goals of Complete College America, a national organization affiliated with more than 30 states and dedicated to improve graduation and retention rates at all levels of higher education. Other significant statewide reform efforts have included:

• Research to identify gaps between the supply of degrees from colleges and universities and workforce needs of the future;

• Creation of an online dashboard at each institution for students and parents to be able to compare college costs, graduation and remediation rates, safety, etc.;

• Conference for academic officers to set goals at each institution for completion, retention, graduation rates (complying with Complete College America goals);

• Formation by the Governor of the Higher Education Work Group initiative to reform teacher preparation programs at the colleges and universities to improve the quality of the teacher workforce;

• Stimulation of closer cooperation with boards of regents and governing boards;


• Conferences on remediation (Albuquerque), best practices for at-risk students (Las Cruces), employer workforce partnership with higher education (Albuquerque), and Secondary-Post-secondary education partnership development (Santa Fe);

• A joint initiative with the New Mexico Nursing Consortium to align all public nursing programs for seamless transfer of students from one campus to another, including the creation of a common core curriculum for all nursing programs – most institutions will be in full alignment by Fall 2014;

• Reformation of the research and public service projects (RPSP) process to assure greater accountability for the $100-plus million expenditures, to align them with state goals, and designating specific institutions to undertake research projects relevant to state needs, such as water policy, addressing the nursing shortage, Native Americans and higher education, etc.;

• Alignment of capital projects proposals in higher education to the goals of the funding formula and strengthening of the oversight of capital projects in higher education;

• Proposed reform of the College Endowment Fund to promote stronger partnerships between research institutions, the labs, and private business;

• Proposed funding increases that would increase the number of students in health care (dentistry, nursing, nurse practitioners and other health care professionals) qualifying for student aid and loan-for service programs; and

• Seeking funding for a proposed Native American College Readiness Initiative that would place 15-20% of the New Mexico Native American population in a college readiness program with strong links to the native communities and higher education institutions.

Governor Martinez is Working Hard to Improve Higher Education

About the Funding Formula

Background: The Old Formula: Statutes require the New Mexico Higher Education Department to recommend a budget for higher education to the legislature each year. The formula determines the fund distribution to the 24 institutions. The old formula consisted of a complicated set of algorithms essentially rewarding institutions for accumulating student credit hours and, to a lesser degree, for adding square feet. Only a handful of experts understood it. The decline after 1990 in the performance of higher education in NM is due in part to the failure of the funding formula to provide effective direction or accountability.

The New Formula: Origins, Evolution, and Resistance from Institutions: For several years prior to 2011 the Legislative Finance Committee had asked NMHED to write a new formula that would reward performance, but to no avail. Early in 2011, the Martinez administration assembled political, business, and institutional leaders in Boulder, Colorado to hammer out an agreement (The Boulder Concordat) to write a performance-based funding formula (see above). The agreement included an understanding there would be “skin in the game,” and that the proportion of “skin” dependent on performance would rise each year. The first iteration, funded early in 2012, was entirely produced by this cooperative process between NMHED and the institutions. Institutional representatives worked through a technical


committee to bring forward proposals or suggestions for modifications, adjustments, or change. The result was a straightforward funding formula that was primarily based on outputs, in contrast to the previous one that was based entirely on inputs. In return, the Governor agreed to a generous 5% increase in the overall higher education budget; all institutions were rewarded as the performance metrics began to be put into play.

In 2013 the technical committee addressed various issues. The cost matrix to calculate points was revised to reflect higher costs for graduate education. It agreed to shift to three-year rolling averages for performance metrics in order to cushion one-year temporary peaks or valleys. It began using more up-to-date data on performance. And it began using total performance metrics rather than changes in metrics.

The 2014 higher education budget recommendation for each institution thus reflects a three-year process that has been continuous, transparent, and fair. Nevertheless, some institutions have balked at the concept of putting “skin in the game;” that is, to place a portion of the budget for each institution at risk in an incentive pool that will reward institutions in proportion to their performance. Instead, they argue in favor of guaranteeing the same amount of funding as last year, with performance to be rewarded only for that small portion of the budget that represents “new” money. National experts are in agreement that such a “base-plus” model is not a performance model at all, since “new” money is not significant enough an incentive to change the behavior of institutions. There must be skin in the game.

Recent studies by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) in December 2011 and October 2013 validate this approach. An excerpt from the 2011 report: “Make the performance funding pool large enough to command attention. Controversy almost always surrounds the determination of the proportion of the state appropriation to be allocated based on performance. Institutions typically argue for a small percentage; there is comfort in business as usual. Policy makers take the opposite position; more is better. There is no proven right answer and different states have reached different conclusions in this regard. Tennessee for years allocated 5.4% of the state appropriation on the basis of performance. Under their new model, nearly all of the allocation is outcome based. Legislation in both Colorado and Louisiana sets the amount at 25%. Indiana now has one of the lower amounts at 6.4%. A minimum of 10% is probably a reasonable target.”

The 2013 report updates the paragraph to include, “Given the high institutional dependence on tuition revenues that has emerges as the new normal, a target of at least 25% of state funding being devoted to outcomes is reasonable.” The 2013 report provides additional information about outcomes funding in other states: Arkansas at 10% with a target of 25%; Illinois at 50%; Indiana at 6% in 2014 and 7% in 2015; Maine at 5%; Massachusetts at 50%; Mississippi at 15%; Nevada at 5% per year to 20%; and Tennessee at 100%.

Other institutions argue New Mexico should wait until we understand all of the implications of change. Others have argued in favor of three formulas instead of one. Others have created formulas in competition with the NMHED formula. The net effect of this resistance has been to delay the implementation of a funding formula national experts have called exemplary. The performance of


higher education in New Mexico is among the very worst among the states, and we know all too well the costs of waiting for a perfect formula: the state’s institutions of higher learning will continue as a system to perform at the bottom.

Higher Education Last Year: Last year the two-year sector out-performed the four-year sector on the new funding formula metrics. The NMHED funding recommendation, placing 5% of each institution’s budget at risk, rewarded this sector for its relatively better performance. The LFC, however, proposed instead to reward student credit hours at a high level (a return to the old formula), among other changes to the NMHED formula, and rewarded the research sector more than was indicated by their inferior performance. Moreover, only 1.7% of the funding was based on performance through the three metrics the technical committee had agreed upon. The final appropriations had little to do with the relative performance of each institution and ignored the NMHED formula. The two-year institutions were not rewarded in proportion to their superior performance on measures all had agreed would form the basis of the formula. Many legislators, in the confusion of the legislative process, believed they had distributed the FY 14 appropriation to higher education based on the NMHED formula. They had not.

NMHED Funding Formula Itself

National experts have concluded performance-based formulas will not be effective unless a significant proportion of a school’s budget is based on performance. For FY 15 the New Mexico higher education funding formula distributes 10% of higher education’s budget this year to each institution next year based on performance. New funds allocated to the higher education budget will also be distributed according to each institution’s performance. The concept is simple. Each year some of an institution’s funding will depend on its performance in:

• Graduating more students with certificates and degrees of all types • Graduating financially at-risk students • Graduating more students in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and health (STEMH)

Why these three measures?

• 1. Awards: New Mexico ranks dead last among the states in improving the educational quality of our workforce. Experts estimate higher education in New Mexico needs to add 7% new degrees each year until 2025 in order for us to have a competitive workforce. We need to reward institutions for graduating more students with quality degrees.

• 2. Success with at risk students: a high proportion of New Mexico students come from socio-economic backgrounds associated with high risk of failure. Unless institutions do better at preparing these students to succeed New Mexico will not have a competitive workforce in the future. The know-how to do so exists. But institutions have not scaled up successful remediation, mentoring, counseling, and other practices enough to affect the system as a whole. For that reason the institutions agreed in 2011 to reward those that succeed in


graduating more at-risk students (defined as Pell-eligible, a socio-economic, not ethnic, category) with high quality degrees.

• 3. Workforce: National workforce experts — for example, the Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce — agree that employers increasingly expect workers to have stronger technical (STEMH) skills. For that reason, the institutions agreed to provide a formula incentive for them to graduate more students in these fields with high quality degrees.

The funding formula is a set of mathematical operations, which translate the performance of institutions on these three metrics into dollar terms, as 10% of the current budget for each institution is reserved as an incentive pool to reward the best performing institutions. New money coming into the higher education system is also distributed according to each institution’s performance. Before describing this process, we will turn to the overall performance of the higher education system across the institutions, using the three metrics described above.

2. Performance in the Higher Education System in 2012-2013:

As can be seen in the charts below, performance in 2012-13 was reasonably strong. The only drop in performance occurred in the two-year sector’s performance in the production of STEMH degrees. The three-year rolling average (not shown) smoothed over this effect, continuing to show improvement.

Note: In the charts below the years refer to the beginning of the academic year which ends the following year (thus 2012 refers to the Academic Year 2012-2013)


3. Converting Awards Performance to Points

Point Matrix

Awards granted by each institution are converted to points by using the above Point Matrix, which reflects the relative costs associated with the production of different types of degrees — the matrix was developed by using cost studies from other states, data from the Delta Cost Project, a review of institutional catalogs, and historical funding factors from New Mexico. The methodology used here is similar to the methodology of units used by PED to calculate the funding formula for public education, long considered a model formula.

As can be seen in the Point Matrix, a Tier 3 Doctoral Degree is much more expensive to produce than a Tier 1 Certificate. This Point Matrix produces point totals that reflect different costs associated with different types of degrees granted by each institution. The tier values come from cost studies created in

<1 Year 1-2 Years 2-4 Years Doctorate 1st Prof Post Bach Post MA

1 0.15 0.22 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 3.29 3.29 0.24 0.582 0.22 0.32 0.63 0.63 1.44 1.44 4.75 4.75 0.34 0.843 0.32 0.47 0.93 0.93 2.11 2.11 6.96 6.96 0.50 1.23

Bach Degree Master DegreeDoctoral Grad Cert

TierCertificates

Assoc Degree


the 90’s, and updated several time. It was updated again in 2013, at the request of institutions, to reflect increasing graduate degree costs.

• Tier 1 programs are primarily in the liberal arts, education, business • Tier 2 programs are primarily in science • Tier 3 programs are primarily in engineering and health

The chart below summarizes the total award points, broken down by sector, for each of the past few years. (Remember that 2012 refers to Academic Year 2012-13)

4. The FY 15 Appropriation: Putting it All Together

The table on the next page summarizes the budget recommendation by NMHED for FY15. NMHED is recommending a total of $591.3 million for the higher education I&G budget in 2015. This can be found in column (h) and is broken down by institution and sector. Last year (See column b) the budget was $583.00 million. Of the $591.3 recommendation, $7.9 million represents new money distributed to institutions according to their performance (See column f). In addition, $404,193 is added to the budget because of a system-wide growth in end-of-course student credit hours. The final recommendation is for the higher education appropriation to increase by $8.26 million compared to last year. This represents a net increase in the I&G budget of 1.4%.

Column (c) shows the 10% incentive pool and column (f) shows the reallocation of (c) according to the performance of each institution.3

3 The concept is straightforward. 10% is taken out of each institution’s FY14 total. Then each institution "gets back" an amount based on the change of their percent of total points in the historical distribution (average of 09-10, 10-11, and 11-12) and their percent of total points in the most recent distribution (average of 10-11, 11-12, and 12-13). If an institution’s percentage increases they will get back more than 10%; if their percentage decreases they will get back less than 10%.


Column (g) represents the dollar gain or loss by institution through the 10% reallocation process. Notice that the total system change is zero, since the entire $58.3 million (10%) is returned to the institutions.

Dollars per point (column h): one of the positive characteristics of the funding formula is that it will redistribute any given level of funds, positive or negative, throughout the system. It does so automatically and in accordance with performance, by adjusting only one parameter: the number of dollars assigned per point (column f). For the FY 15 period, "new" money was brought into the system at $138.50 per point. This generated $7,861,676, distributed to each institution according to the same performance algorithm used in calculating the distribution of the 10% incentive pool in column (e).

Student Credit Hours: The technical committee agreed in 2011 to use student credit hour production (referred to as “workload”) to act as a ballast for the first few years of the formula. NMHED is funding each institution’s increase in credit hour production at 5 percent. System-wide this represents $404,000 (see column i) added to the total appropriation of $7.858 million, and adding up to $8.26 million in new money. Notice that 11 of the 24 institutions lost student credit hours compared to the year before and therefore received less funding in proportion to their drop in credit hours.

Total I&G Appropriation Recommendation

Column (k) contains the total FY 15 I&G budget recommendations for each institution, based on the process described above, and the dollar change from FY 14 is contained in column (j). Only 1 institution is presented with a negative budget, although the absolute losses in dollar terms are small: $12,070. In this case the institutions lost money both because of underperformance relative to the rest in the performance metrics and because of a drop in end-of-course student credit hours.


9-D

ec-13

bc

de

fg

hi

jk

lm

no

pq

% of FY

14 Bas

e$ p

er Po

int% W

orkloa

d10

.00%

$138

.505.0

0%

Institu

tion

Total F

Y14

Opera

ting

Distrib

ution

Incen

tive D

ollars

For

Redis

tributi

on

Avg o

f 091

0, 10

11, &

1112

Po

ints, f

or Co

mpari

son

Avg o

f 101

1, 11

12, &

1213

Po

ints

Redis

tribute

d Do

llars B

ased

on Ou

tcome

s Pe

rform

ance

Dollar

Chang

e Bas

ed on

Re

distrib

ution

New D

ollars

from

FY15

Outco

mes

Perfo

rmanc

e

Workl

oad

Chang

e from

EO

C SCH

Total N

ew

Dollar

s

Total F

Y15

I&G (Befor

e Ins

titutio

nal

Share)

Dollar

Chang

e FY1

4 to F

Y15

Perce

nt Ch

ange f

rom

FY14 t

o FY1

5 Du

e to

Redis

tributi

on

Perce

nt Ch

ange f

rom

FY14 t

o FY1

5 Du

e to

New D

ollars

Overa

llPe

rcent

Chang

e from

FY1

4 to F

Y15

Perce

nt Dis

tributi

on of

FY1

4

Perce

nt Dis

tributi

on of

FY1

5

Grand

Total

$5

83,00

6,600

(58,30

0,660

)100

.0%100

.0%$5

8,300

,660

$0$7

,861,6

76$4

04,19

3$8

,265,8

69$5

91,27

2,469

$8,26

5,869

0.0%

1.4%

1.4%

100.0

%10

0.0%

New M

exico

Institu

te of M

ining

and T

echno

logy

$26,6

70,30

0(2,

667,0

30)

3.7%

3.5%

$2,57

0,625

($96,4

05)

$277

,416

$16,2

94$2

93,71

0$2

6,867

,605

$197

,305

-0.4%

1.1%

0.7%

4.6%

4.5%

New M

exico

State U

nivers

ity$1

13,02

2,500

(11,30

2,250

)23.

9%23.

1%$1

0,820

,421

($481

,829)

$1,81

5,735

($34,9

36)

$1,78

0,799

$114

,321,4

70$1

,298,9

70-0.

4%1.6

%1.1

%19

.4%19

.3%Un

iversi

ty of N

ew M

exico

$180

,404,5

00(18

,040,4

50)

38.0%

37.4%

$17,6

55,51

3($3

84,93

7)$2

,939,3

86$2

15,79

3$3

,155,1

79$1

83,17

4,741

$2,77

0,241

-0.2%

1.7%

1.5%

30.9%

31.0%

Resea

rch Un

iversit

y Tota

l$3

20,09

7,300

(32,00

9,730

)65.

7%64.

0%$3

1,046

,559

($963

,171)

$5,03

2,536

$197

,151

$5,22

9,687

$324

,363,8

16$4

,266,5

16-0.

3%1.6

%1.3

%54

.9%54

.9%

Easter

n New

Mexi

co Un

iversi

ty$2

6,160

,600

(2,61

6,060

)4.1

%4.2

%$2

,673,2

77$5

7,217

$327

,276

$108

,807

$436

,083

$26,6

53,89

9$4

93,29

90.2

%1.7

%1.9

%4.5

%4.5

%Ne

w Mexi

co Hig

hland

s Univ

ersity

$26,9

77,70

0(2,

697,7

70)

4.9%

4.8%

$2,64

7,917

($49,8

53)

$376

,720

$6,34

6$3

83,06

6$2

7,310

,913

$333

,213

-0.2%

1.4%

1.2%

4.6%

4.6%

North

ern Ne

w Mexi

co Co

llege

$10,7

25,30

0(1,

072,5

30)

0.8%

0.8%

$1,09

2,184

$19,6

54$6

3,295

($15,6

46)

$47,6

49$1

0,792

,602

$67,3

020.2

%0.4

%0.6

%1.8

%1.8

%We

stern

New M

exico

Unive

rsity

$16,0

07,50

0(1,

600,7

50)

2.0%

2.2%

$1,71

9,977

$119

,227

$170

,632

$35,8

54$2

06,48

6$1

6,333

,213

$325

,713

0.7%

1.3%

2.0%

2.7%

2.8%

Regio

nal Un

iversit

y Tota

l$7

9,871

,100

(7,98

7,110

)11.

7%11.

9%$8

,133,3

55$1

46,24

5$9

37,92

2$1

35,36

1$1

,073,2

83$8

1,090

,628

$1,21

9,528

0.2%

1.3%

1.5%

13.7%

13.7%

Easter

n New

Mexi

co Un

iversi

ty-Ro

swell

$11,6

66,00

0(1,

166,6

00)

1.5%

1.5%

$1,17

6,707

$10,1

07$1

18,97

2$7

,822

$126

,794

$11,8

02,90

0$1

36,90

00.1

%1.1

%1.2

%2.0

%2.0

%Eas

tern N

ew M

exico

Unive

rsity-

Ruido

so$2

,086,5

00(20

8,650

)0.2

%0.2

%$1

85,57

5($2

3,075

)$1

2,050

($1,04

5)$1

1,005

$2,07

4,430

($12,0

70)

-1.1%

0.5%

-0.6%

0.4%

0.4%

New M

exico

State U

nivers

ity-Al

amogo

rdo

$7,63

7,900

(763,7

90)

0.7%

0.7%

$744

,681

($19,1

09)

$52,7

69($1

,009)

$51,7

60$7

,670,5

51$3

2,651

-0.3%

0.7%

0.4%

1.3%

1.3%

New M

exico

State U

nivers

ity-Ca

rlsba

d $4

,371,3

00(43

7,130

)0.4

%0.3

%$4

24,55

7($1

2,573

)$2

7,008

($3,42

5)$2

3,583

$4,38

2,309

$11,0

09-0.

3%0.5

%0.3

%0.7

%0.7

%Ne

w Mexi

co Sta

te Univ

ersity

-Dona

Ana

$22,0

16,10

0(2,

201,6

10)

3.4%

3.3%

$2,17

9,529

($22,0

81)

$260

,796

$12,9

24$2

73,72

0$2

2,267

,738

$251

,638

-0.1%

1.2%

1.1%

3.8%

3.8%

New M

exico

State U

nivers

ity-Gr

ants

$3,56

9,200

(356,9

20)

0.3%

0.3%

$348

,791

($8,12

9)$1

9,806

($11,5

85)

$8,22

1$3

,569,2

92$9

2-0.

2%0.2

%0.0

%0.6

%0.6

%Un

iversi

ty of N

ew M

exico-

Gallu

p$8

,967,6

00(89

6,760

)0.6

%0.6

%$9

12,53

1$1

5,771

$45,8

44($5

,221)

$40,6

23$9

,023,9

93$5

6,393

0.2%

0.5%

0.6%

1.5%

1.5%

Unive

rsity o

f New

Mexi

co-Los

Alam

os$1

,876,0

00(18

7,600

)0.1

%0.1

%$2

01,19

6$1

3,596

$8,31

0$8

48$9

,158

$1,89

8,754

$22,7

540.7

%0.5

%1.2

%0.3

%0.3

%Un

iversi

ty of N

ew M

exico-

Taos

$3,41

8,600

(341,8

60)

0.2%

0.2%

$358

,588

$16,7

28$1

5,651

$8,63

8$2

4,289

$3,45

9,617

$41,0

170.5

%0.7

%1.2

%0.6

%0.6

%Un

iversi

ty of N

ew M

exico-

Valen

cia$5

,350,0

00(53

5,000

)0.3

%0.4

%$5

92,21

3$5

7,213

$31,8

55$5

,915

$37,7

70$5

,444,9

83$9

4,983

1.1%

0.7%

1.8%

0.9%

0.9%

Centra

l New

Mexi

co Co

mmun

ity Co

llege

$51,9

71,70

0(5,

197,1

70)

9.6%

10.3%

$5,60

6,536

$409

,366

$811

,195

$48,9

09$8

60,10

4$5

3,241

,170

$1,26

9,470

0.8%

1.7%

2.4%

8.9%

9.0%

Clovis

Comm

unity

Colle

ge$9

,670,1

00(96

7,010

)0.9

%1.3

%$1

,159,7

03$1

92,69

3$9

9,582

($13,8

45)

$85,7

37$9

,948,5

29$2

78,42

92.0

%0.9

%2.9

%1.7

%1.7

%Lun

a Com

munit

y Coll

ege

$7,39

7,100

(739,7

10)

0.5%

0.5%

$748

,623

$8,91

3$3

9,473

($5,40

3)$3

4,070

$7,44

0,082

$42,9

820.1

%0.5

%0.6

%1.3

%1.3

%Me

salan

ds Co

mmun

ity Co

llege

$4,18

9,300

(418,9

30)

0.3%

0.3%

$415

,669

($3,26

1)$2

5,761

($11,9

39)

$13,8

22$4

,199,8

61$1

0,561

-0.1%

0.3%

0.3%

0.7%

0.7%

New M

exico

Junior

Colle

ge $5

,653,7

00(56

5,370

)0.6

%0.6

%$5

68,23

1$2

,861

$47,7

83($1

3,782

)$3

4,001

$5,69

0,561

$36,8

610.1

%0.6

%0.7

%1.0

%1.0

%San

Juan

Colle

ge $2

3,991

,100

(2,39

9,110

)2.1

%2.2

%$2

,474,0

25$7

4,915

$174

,372

$23,5

87$1

97,95

9$2

4,263

,974

$272

,874

0.3%

0.8%

1.1%

4.1%

4.1%

Santa

Fe Co

mmun

ity Co

llege

$9,20

6,000

(920,6

00)

1.1%

1.3%

$1,02

3,591

$102

,991

$99,9

97$3

0,292

$130

,289

$9,43

9,280

$233

,280

1.1%

1.4%

2.5%

1.6%

1.6%

Comm

unity

Colleg

e Tota

l$1

83,03

8,200

(18,30

3,820

)22.

7%24.

1%$1

9,120

,746

$816

,926

$1,89

1,218

$71,6

81$1

,962,8

99$1

85,81

8,025

$2,77

9,825

0.4%

1.1%

1.5%

31.4%

31.4%

09-12

to 10-

13

funding for performance in higher education in new … 120913 item 8 handout - … · the need for...

Documents