ibhe presentation 1 proposed higher education performance funding model performance funding steering...

IBHE Presentation 1

Proposed Higher EducationPerformance Funding Model

Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting

November 30, 2011

Dr. Alan Phillips

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

2IBHE Presentation

What We Have Accomplished

• Identified the key issues• Developed performance funding principles• Identified appropriate performance measures and sub-

categories• 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

IBHE Presentation 3

This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model.

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 4

Carnegie Classifications• Research – Very High

– University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign– University of Illinois – Chicago

• Research – High– Northern Illinois University– Southern Illinois University – Carbondale

• Doctoral/Research– Illinois State University

• Masters Colleges & Universities – Large– 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

IBHE Presentation 5

Performance Funding Model

Community Colleges

IBHE Presentation 6

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.

Performance Funding Model (Community College Example)

Metric 1 – Degree Production of At-Risk students • Data Source – ICCB Annual Enrollment and Completion (A1)

IBHE Presentation 8

College 1College 2College 3College 4…College 39

2008 Degrees and Certificates 2009 Degrees and Certificates

PellRecipient

RemedialHours Total

PellRecipient

RemedialHours Total

%Change

GreaterthanZero Allocation

2722,510

355386

25111,897

15295

86133

883,064

2872,805

441519

33914,961

3002,878

393420

25011,248

32272

8599

802,977

3323,150

478519

33014,225

15.7%12.3%

8.4%0.0%

-2.7%

.157

.123

.084

10,473

• Allocation: $200,000

$10,473

$19,096

$2,994$2,349$1,602

--

--$200,000

IBHE Presentation 9


4-Year Colleges and Universities

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. They 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 first-generation, 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 10

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.



• Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals.


Measure Source• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Ave 07-09) IPEDS• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) IPEDS• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) RAMP• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) RAMP• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) RAMP



• 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.


• Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance measures


Measure University 1 University 2 University 3• Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 3,329 3,921 1,494• Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1,786 1,552 568• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 862 209 0• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 22.2 23.2 22.0• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) 37.6 44.8 39.1• Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 18,667 10,577 8,908• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 8,858 3,756 3,743• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 42,980,300 5,526,700 1,333,900


• 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%


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.


• Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations

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


• Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution.


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)

University 1 University 2 University 320.0%20.0%17.5%

5.0%7.5%2.5%2.5%

25.0%100.0%

30.0%25.0%

7.5%5.0%7.5%5.0%5.0%

15.0%100.0%

40.0%22.5%

0.0%10.0%10,0%

7.5%7.5%2.5%

100.0%


• Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results.


Measure• Bachelors Degrees • Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE• Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (?)• Cost per FTE (?)• Education and General Spending per Completion• Research and Public Expenditures (FY11)

3,9211,552

209 23.244.8

10,5773,756

5,526,700

6,0671,786

862 22.237.6

18,6678,858

42,980,300

Data Data + Premium Scale1.003.86

16.25173.64109.74

.38

.96.0004115

(Data+Premium)x Scale64416769371540344915

-3998-35992274

xWeight =

30.0%25.0%

7.5%5.0%7.5%5.0%5.0%

15.0%

Total PerformanceValue19321692

279202369

-200-180341

4435


• Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding.


Percentages for Distribution

Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 2,027 17,302Percentage of Total 62.7% 25.6% 11.7% 100%

Distribution: Pro Rata $627,000 $256,000 $117,000 $1,000,000

University 1 University 2 University 3 Total


• 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



• 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).

22IBHE Presentation

Way Ahead• Finalize adjustment of the model to account for variables unique to each college

and university.

• Present proposed performance funding model to the IBHE Board on December 6th.

• 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.

Questions/Comments?Questions/Comments?


ibhe presentation 1 proposed higher education performance funding model performance funding steering...

Documents

ibhe presentation slide

performance funding

performance funding

performance funding

individuals ibhe presentation

year colleges

illinois public agenda

scope of ibhe