Performance Funding Model Community Colleges IBHE

Document Sample
Performance Funding Model Community Colleges IBHE Powered By Docstoc
					                 Illinois Higher Education
               Performance Funding Model

                       Performance Funding
                    Steering Committee Meeting
                           January 6, 2012

                          Dr. Alan Phillips



IBHE Presentation                                1
                                 Purpose

       The purpose of this presentation is to propose
           a performance funding model that will be
                    incorporated in the FY 2013 budget
           recommendations that meet the intent of
       Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503), the Performance
       Funding legislation, and that support the goals
                       of the Illinois Public Agenda.
IBHE Presentation                                        2
                         Topics to be Covered
        • The status of higher education in the State of Illinois
             – The current situation
             – How we are doing
             – What we are doing to improve the situation
        • Performance Funding
             –   What we have accomplished
             –   The recommended four-year model
             –   The recommended two-year model
             –   Performance funding results
        • Budgetary considerations and preliminary
          recommendations


IBHE Presentation                                                   3
                    The Status of Higher Education
                        in the State of Illinois




IBHE Presentation                                    4
                    The Illinois Public Agenda for
                     College and Career Success
 • A tale of two Illinois
       – One Illinois is well educated and prosperous
       – The other is vastly underserved educationally and struggling economically,
         with severely constricted opportunities.
 • Between these two states of Illinois is a “prosperity gap” that
   relates directly to disparities in educational attainment, by
   race/ethnicity, by income, and by region.
 • The bottom line is that “Illinois needs effective and quality
   education for all people”.
 • Our vision is the pathway to one Illinois, where all residents have
   affordable access to high-quality educational opportunities that
   prepare them for the jobs of the present and future.

IBHE Presentation                                                                     5
                       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                                                   6
                            The Challenge
   • According to the Higher Education Finance Study
     Commission :
         – Colleges and Universities are starving for dollars.
         – Illinois’ student financial aid system has been eroded at a
           time when low-income families have less ability to pay for
           college.
         – Unfunded state mandates and regulatory requirements
           undermine efficiency and productivity.
         – Institutions often squeeze cost savings out of instruction
           and student support services.
         – The burden of financing a college education has
           increasingly fallen on students and families.


IBHE Presentation                                                        7
                           The Challenge

    • State funding for higher education has declined steadily over
      the last 15 years.
    • The State is currently experiencing a debt crisis.
    • Pensions costs are exceeding the rate of state revenue growth.
    • The State funding situation has created a cash flow problem
      for colleges and universities.
    • Over the past few years there has been very little funding for
      capital projects, to include renovation and remodeling.
    • The State is facing potential decreases in financial aid funding
      for both MAP and Pell.



IBHE Presentation                                                        8
                                How Are We Doing?
                              Below Average – But Not By Much


                           Measure                                    Range*    US Average* Illinois*
    • College-Going Rates of HS Graduates                         (45.7%-77.4%) 63.3%          57.4%
    • Transition & Completion Rates HS to College/100 Students       (6.6-30.2)   20.5         20.4
    • % of 18-24 Year Olds Enrolled in College                  (18.6%-52.8%)     36.2%       34.9%
    • Credentials and Degrees Awarded/100 FTE (2 Yr)               (8.6-31.8)      14.5        12.9
    • Credentials Awarded /$100K of Ed and Related Exp              (1.01-2.69)    1.78        1.75
    • Average Loan Amount Students Borrow Each Year            ($4,122-$5427) $4,608       $4,698
    • Bachelors Degrees Awarded/100 Undergraduates                    (5-14.7)      9.7         9.6
    • State and Local Spt for Higher Ed Operational Exp/Capita     ($104-$710)     $294      $293
    • Undergrad Credentials/100 FTE Students (Race/Ethnic Gap) (-0.1%-7.4%)       3.5%       3.6%
    • 6 Yr Grad Rates at 4 Yr Institutions (Race/Ethnic Gap)     (-13.7%-27.6%) 11.1%        19.1%
    • % of Adults w/Assoc Degree or Higher (Race/Ethnic Gap) (-5.75%-26.12%) 13.74% 15.84%


  *Data is from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (www.higheredinfo.org).

IBHE Presentation                                                                                       9
                                How Are We Doing?
                                          Above Average

                          Measure                                  Range*       US Average* Illinois*
   • 1st Time Freshmen to Sophomore Retention Rates (4-Yr)       (64.6%-85.4%) 76.9% 80.0%
   • % of Adults 25-64 with an Associates Degree or Higher       (26.4%-50.2%) 38.11% 41.4%
   • Degrees and Credentials Awarded/100 Enrolled (2-Yr)            (3.6-32.7)       14.0   14.4
   • Associate Degrees Awarded/100 Graduates 3 Yrs Earlier         (10.8-53.8)      23.8    25.3
   • % of Adults 25-64 with a Bachelors Degree or Higher       (19.34%-41.76%) 29.76% 33.24%
   • Credentials & Degrees Awarded/100 FTE Students (4 Yr)          (15.2-25.3)       20.8 24.3
   • Bachelors Degrees Awarded/100 Graduates 6 Yrs Earlier         (21.4-97.7)       53.5   55.4
   • Six Yr Graduation Rates of Bachelor’s Students              (26.9%-69.2%) 55.5% 58.6%
   • Credentials & Degrees Awarded/$100K Total Revenues              (.90-2.96)       1.84 1.86
   • Total Education Revenues/Full-Time Equivalent Student    ($8,580-$19,523) $11,026 $10,779
   • Family Share of Public Higher Ed Operating Expenses        (11.5%-79.3%)       36.2% 28.9%
   • Grant Aid to Low-Income Families as a % of Pell Grant         (0.0-108.4)      45.9   82.3
   • State and Local Support Per FTE Student                   ($3,167-$15,151) $7,059 $7,585

  *Data is from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (www.higheredinfo.org).
IBHE Presentation                                                                                       10
                       Degrees & Certificates awarded per FTE vs.
                           Total Funding per FTE (2006-2007)
                      32
                            Low Resources, High Production                           High Resources, High Production

                                                     CO
                      29
                                                           UT
                                                          OK
                                                                               KY
                                         FL          WA                  NH
                                                                          IA
                      26                                   KS WI
            Performance:                       ND         SDGA MNAZ                                         CT
              Degrees                              WV                                   MI     VT
            Awarded per                             MT     IDIL
                                                     LA        VA IN               PA                  HI
              100 FTE 23                                      OH SC                                               DE
                                                             US                 ME AL MD      NJ
                                                               NE                             MA
                                                     AR OR     TX TN           NY                                WY
                                                     MS MO                                                             AK
                                                           NC NM
                      20                                                                          RI


                                                                NV

                      17

                                              CA
                            Low Resources, Low Production                            High Resources, Low Production
                      14
                       5,000             8,000                     11,000                14,000             17,000          20,000
                                                                  Resources: Total Funding per FTE



                             We are in the quadrant where we want to be.

                    Source: SHEEO State Higher Education Finance Survey 2008: NCES IPEDS Completions Survey

IBHE Presentation                                                                                                                    11
               State Initiatives To Achieve the Goals
                        of the Public Agenda
    • The development of a K-12 college and career curriculum
      (Common Core) and improved teacher and school leader
      standards.
    • The implementation of the Illinois Articulation Initiative to
      align curriculum from high schools through community
      colleges to four year universities.
    • Establishment of a Statewide P-20 Longitudinal Data System.
    • The implementation of Performance Funding for colleges and
      universities in the State of Illinois.

                Plus all of the programs and initiatives implemented by the colleges
                 and universities to further the achievement of the Public Agenda


IBHE Presentation                                                                      12
                    Performance Funding




IBHE Presentation                         13
                    Performance Funding Objective
    • To develop 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                                                       14
                         Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503)
    • Performance Metrics Shall:
       – 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.
         – Focus on the fundamental goal of increasing completion.
         – Recognize the unique and broad mission of public
           community colleges.
         – Maintain the quality of degrees, certificates, courses, and
           programs.
IBHE Presentation                                                                  15
                    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.
    • Finalized the performance funding model for both four-year
      and two-year colleges and universities.

IBHE Presentation                                                  16
                    Performance Funding Model

                     4-Year Public Universities




IBHE Presentation                                 17
                    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 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                                                              18
                      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 (FY07-09)                               IPEDS
      • Masters Degrees (FY07-09)                                 IPEDS
      • Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09)               IPEDS
      • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY07-09)               IPEDS
      • Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11)   RAMP
      • Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11)        RAMP
      • Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY07-09) (?)                IPEDS
      • Cost per FTE (FY09-11) (?)                                RAMP


IBHE Presentation                                                          19
                           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%
                • Adult (Age 25 and Older)         40%
                • Hispanic                         40%
                • Black, non-Hispanic              40%
                • STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40%



IBHE Presentation                                                    20
                                         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.
  Measure                                          Universities 1-12 (Avg)   Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor
  • Bachelors Degrees (FY07-09)                                    4,445              1.00          1.00
  • Masters Degrees (FY07-09)                                       1,152             3.86          1.00
  • Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09)                       796           16.25           2.00
  • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE FY(07-09)                        26          173.64          200.00
  • Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11)        4,639              -.96          -1.00
  • Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11)        10,803,117         .0004115       .0005000



IBHE Presentation                                                                                                21
                          Performance Measure Weights
      Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects
               the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution.
                                                                                                           Doctoral/
                                            Research-Very High               Research-High                 Research
Weights Based on Institutional Mission      UIUC          UIC             NIU             SIUC               ISU
Bachelors Degrees                              22.5%         22.5%           37.5%             37.5%           40.0%
Masters Degrees                                15.0%         15.0%           20.0%             20.0%           22.5%
Doctoral and Prof Degrees                      15.0%         15.0%           10.0%             10.0%            7.5%
Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE                    5.0%         5.0%           10.0%             10.0%           12.5%
Education Spending/Completion                    2.5%         0.0%            2.5%              0.0%            2.5%
Research and Public Service Expenditures       40.0%         42.5%           20.0%             22.5%           15.0%
                                              100.0%        100.0%         100.0%             100.0%          100.0%

                                                                 Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)
 Weights Based on Institutional Mission     SIUE        WIU           EIU         NEIU           CSU            GSU       UIS
 Bachelors Degrees                             45.0%      45.0%         45.0%       45.0%          47.5%          50.0%     50.0%
 Masters Degrees                               25.0%      25.0%         27.5%       27.5%          25.0%          37.5%     37.5%
 Doctoral and Prof Degrees                       5.0%      2.5%          0.0%         0.0%          2.5%           0.0%       2.5%
 Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE                 15.0%      15.0%         15.0%       15.0%          15.0%           0.0%       0.0%
 Education Spending/Completion                   2.5%     10.0%         10.0%       10.0%           7.5%          10.0%       7.5%
 Research and Public Service Expenditures        7.5%      2.5%          2.5%         2.5%          2.5%           2.5%       2.5%
                                              100.0%     100.0%        100.0%      100.0%         100.0%         100.0%    100.0%




IBHE Presentation                                                                                                             22
                      Performance Value Calculation

          Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to
                   produce the Total Performance Value.


                                                                             (Data+Premium) Total Performance
Measure                                           Data    Data + Premium Scale    x Scale xWeight = Value
• Bachelors Degrees                               3,921         6,813        1    6,813     35.0%   2385
• Masters Degrees                                 1,552         1,754        1    1,754     25.0%     438
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees                 209            229       2       458     5.0%      23
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE                23.2           23.2     200    4,646     10.0%     464
• Education and General Spending per Completion 3,788           3,788       -1   -3,788      5.0%    -189
• Research and Public Service Expenditures    5,486,590     5,486,590    .0005    2,743     20.0%     549
                                                                                           100.0%   3580




IBHE Presentation                                                                                         23
                               Funding Allocation
                              Based on Performance
      Step 7 – 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
                                 University 1   University 2   University 3      Total
     Total Performance Value        10,840         4,435         2,027          17,302
     Percentage of Total             62.7%         25.6%         11.7%          100%

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




IBHE Presentation                                                                          24
                    Performance Funding Model
    • All steps are identical at each university
    • The model accounts for each institution’s unique mission by
      adding a weight to each measure.
    • Each institution’s formula calculation is independent.
    • The formula calculation for each institution will change each
      year based on annually updated data.
    • The funding allocation is competitive.
    • Funds are distributed on a pro rata basis according to each
      institution’s formula calculation.
    • The model is not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence
      and success (what, not how).


IBHE Presentation                                                     25
                    Performance Funding Model

                       Community Colleges




IBHE Presentation                               26
                    Performance Funding Model
                          (Community Colleges)
  • There are thirty-nine community colleges.
  • The community college model contains six separate measures.
  • Each measure is allocated an equal portion of the total
    performance funding amount.
  • Each college competes for a portion of the funding for each
    measure.
  • Those colleges that show a decrease in performance receive no
    funds based on performance.
  • Those colleges that show an increase in performance receive a
    pro-rata share of the funding allocation for that measure based
    on the increase in their performance.

IBHE Presentation                                                     27
                    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                                             28
                        Performance Funding Model
                               (Community College Example)
      • Measure 1 – Students who completed a degree or certificate
      • Model (Part 1) = Percentage change in number of associate degrees
                         awarded from FY08-FY09.
           FY 2008 Number of          FY 2009 Number of            Greater
           Associate Degrees          Associate Degrees     %       than
                Awarded                    Awarded        Change    Zero     Allocation
   College 1           575                     533         -7.3%      --           --
   College 2         1,803                   2,361         30.9%    .309      $9,579
   College 3           270                     243        -10.0%       --          --
   College 4         1,484                   1,630          9.8%    .098      $3.045
   ….                  …..                      ….            ….      ….          ….
   College 39          329                     350          6.4%    .064      $1,976
                    25,130                  26,460                 2.585     $80,000

       •   Pro Rata Share = $80,000/2.585 = $30,951
       •   Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
            –   (i.e. .309 X 30,951 = $9,579)


IBHE Presentation                                                                       29
                    Degree & Certificate Completion
    • Measure 1 – Students who completed a degree or certificate
    • Model (Part 1) = Percentage change in number of associate degrees
                        awarded from FY08-FY09.
    • Range of Results = - 14.3% to +30.9%
    • Number of colleges receiving funding – 26
    • Range of Increase = (.2%-30.9%) or (.002 to .309)
    • Funding Allocation = $80,000
    • Total of increase for all 26 schools = 2.585
    • Pro Rata Share = $80,000/2.585 = $30,951 (i.e. 1 share = $30,951)
    • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
         – (i.e. .002 X $30,951 = $74)
    • Range of Allocation = $74 to $9,579




IBHE Presentation                                                         30
                    Degree & Certificate Completion
    • Measure 1 – Students who completed a degree or certificate
    • Model (Part 2) = Percentage change in number of certificates awarded from
                        FY08-FY09.
    • Range of Results = - 49.6% to +103.8%
    • Number of colleges receiving funding – 24
    • Range of Increase = (.9%-103.8%) or (.009 to 1.038)
    • Funding Allocation = $40,000
    • Total of increase for all 24 schools = 5.324
    • Pro Rata Share = $40,000/5.324 = $7,512 (i.e. 1 share = $7,512)
    • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
         – (i.e. .009 X $7,512 = $64)
    • Range of Allocation = $64 to $7,797

                         •   Total Allocation for Measure 1 = $120,000
       Measure 1         •   Total Number of colleges receiving funding = 35
                         •   Range of Allocation = $331 to $9,579
IBHE Presentation                                                              31
                    Degree Production of At-Risk Students
    • Measure 2 – At-risk students who completed a degree or certificate (i.e.
                    students with Pell or taking remedial courses)
    • Model = Percentage change (number of Pell recipients + number of
                students who have taken remedial courses) from FY08-FY09.
    • Range of Results = - 28.1% to +26.5%
    • Number of colleges receiving funding – 20
    • Range of Increase = (2.3%-26.5%) or (.023 to .265)
    • Funding Allocation = $120,000
    • Total of increase for all 20 schools = 2.913
    • Pro Rata Share = $120,000/2.913 = $41,201 (i.e. 1 share = $41,201)
    • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
         – (i.e. .023 X $41,201 = $938)
    • Range of Allocation = $938 to $10,936



IBHE Presentation                                                                32
                    Transfer to a Four Year Institution
    • Measure 3 – Students who transfer to a four year institution within 3 years
    • Model = Percentage of Fall 2006 entrants who transferred to 4-year
                institutions by Fall 2010.
    • Range of Results = 12.3% to 35.8%
    • Number of colleges receiving funding – 39
    • Range of Increase = (12.3%-35.8%) or (.123 to .358)
    • Funding Allocation = $120,000
    • Total of increase for all 39 schools = 10.778
    • Pro Rata Share = $120,000/10.72 = $11,134 (i.e. 1 share = $11,134)
    • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
         – (i.e. .123 X $11,134 = $1,375)
    • Range of Allocation = $1,375 to $3,988




IBHE Presentation                                                                   33
                    Remedial and Adult Education Advancement

    • Measure 4 – Remedial students who advance to college level work.
    • Model = Percentage of FY 2009 remedial students who advanced to college
                level courses.
    • Range of Results = 43.8% to 100%
    • Number of colleges receiving funding – 39
    • Range of Increase = (43.8%-100%) or (.438 to 1.0)
    • Funding Allocation = $120,000
    • Total of increase for all 39 schools = 23.82
    • Pro Rata Share = $120,000/23.82 = $5,039 (i.e. 1 share = $5,039)
    • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
         – (i.e. .438 X $5,039 = $2,207)
    • Range of Allocation = $2,207 to $5,039




IBHE Presentation                                                               34
                                        Momentum Points
 • Measure 5 – 1st time/PT students completing 12 credit hours w/in the first year,
                  1st time/PT students completing 24 credit hours w/in the first year,
                  and Adult Education and Family Literacy level (AEFL) gains.
 • Model = % change (number of students completing 12 CR + number of students
             completing 24 CR + number of students with an AEFL level gain) from
              FY08-FY09).
 • Range of Results = -53.9% to 69.6%
 • Number of colleges receiving funding – 22
 • Range of Increase = (.9% to 69.6%) or (.009 to .696)
 • Funding Allocation = $120,000
 • Total of increase for all 22 schools = 6.478
 • Pro Rata Share = $120,000/6.478 = $18,529 (i.e. 1 share = $18,529)
 • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
      – (i.e. ..009 X $18,529 = $171)
 • Range of Allocation = $171 to $12,898

IBHE Presentation                                                                   35
                    Transfer to Another Community College
    • Measure 6 – Community college students that transfer to other community
      colleges.
    • Model = Percentage change (students transferring from one community
      college to another community college) from (FY06-FY09) to (FY07-FY10).
    • Range of Results = 53.7% to 155.4%
    • Number of colleges receiving funding – 39
    • Range of Increase = (53.7%-155.4%) or (.537 to 1.554)
    • Funding Allocation = $120,000
    • Total of increase for all 39 schools = 37.01
    • Pro Rata Share = $120,000/37.01 = $3,242 (i.e. 1 share = $3,242)
    • Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share
         – (i.e. .537 X $3,242 = $1,741)
    • Range of Allocation = $1,741 to $5,038



IBHE Presentation                                                               36
                    Performance Funding Model
                            (Community Colleges)
    • All steps are identical for each measure.
    • Each college competes independently for funding associated with each
      measure.
    • Funds are distributed on a pro rata basis according to each institution’s
      increase in performance.
    • No funds are allocated for a decrease in performance.
    • The formula calculation for each institution will change each year based
      on annually updated data.
    • The model can be scaled relative to the amount of funds allocated to
      performance funding.
    • The funds allocated to the community colleges based on this
      performance funding model range from $30,587 to $8,914 based on a
      total performance funding allocation of $720K.



IBHE Presentation                                                                 37
                    Budgetary Considerations
                     and Recommendations




IBHE Presentation                              38
                    Budgetary Considerations

    • Declines in State funding for colleges and universities may
      continue.
    • Colleges and universities continue to address unfunded state
      mandates and regulatory requirements.
    • The availability of financial aid continues to be a problem.
    • The performance funding model needs to be more fully
      developed in order to refine the measures and sub-categories.
    • Colleges and universities have not been able to impact their
      performance as the current model is based on performance
      prior to the implementation of performance funding.



IBHE Presentation                                                     39
                      Performance Funding
                    Budget Recommendations

    • Additional funding should be allocated to performance if
      possible.
    • Performance funding should be implemented slowly starting
      with small funding amounts and then increasing the amount
      allocated to performance over time.
    • There should be a stop-loss provision that can be increased
      over time.




IBHE Presentation                                                   40
                        Proposed Performance Funding
                           Budget Recommendation
     Step Budget Recommendation (4-Year Institutions)
     • Step 1 – Flat or Level Budget from FY 12 Funding.
          – Flat budget with no more than .5% (stop-loss) of the budget set aside
            for Performance Funding (approx $6M)
     • Step 2 – Restoration of Budget to FY 11 Level.
          – Restoration of the 1.1% reduction in FY12 funding, with the 1.1%
            restoration allocated to performance funding.
     • Step 3 – Same as for Step 2 with regard to performance
       funding. Additional base funding will be requested for specific
       initiatives and programs
      Budget Recommendation (Community Colleges)
     • A set-aside of $720K of which $120K will be allocated to each
       of the six performance measures.
IBHE Presentation                                                                   41
                                    Way Ahead

    • Present final performance funding model recommendations
      to the IBHE Board February 7th along with the FY2013 higher
      education budget submission, which will include our
      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                                                         42
                    Questions/Comments?




IBHE Presentation                         43

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:10/12/2012
language:English
pages:43