Upload
anne-lesley-greene
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IBHE Presentation 1
Illinois Higher EducationPerformance Funding Model
Steering Committee MeetingNovember 20, 2014
Dr. Alan Phillips
Topics of Discussion
• Current Situation
• Where Do We Go From Here?
• Sub-Category Weighting Issue
• Steering Committee Issues
• NCHEMS Performance Funding Guidelines
• University President Concerns
• Timelines
IBHE Presentation 2
Current Situation
IBHE Presentation 3
Current Situation
• A revised Performance Funding Model was developed for FY15.
• Colleges and universities received essentially level funding for FY15 (-$2.8M)(-.2%).
• However, the FY15 Performance Funding Model was not actually used to allocate funding for FY15 based on performance.
• Instead, the FY 15 Appropriations carried over the FY14 Performance Funding allocations.
IBHE Presentation 4
IBHE Presentation 5
Actual FY15 Performance Funding Allocation
Performance Funding* ($ in thousands) FY2014 FY2015 FY2015 FY2015 FY2015 FY2015 FY2014 - FY 2015
Appropriatio
n Base Budget
Level %
Change Set AsidePerformance
Funds Net ChangeAppropriatio
n $ Change %
Change
Public Universities $
1,232,192.0
$
1,229,438.5 (0.22) %
$ 6,161.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 0.0
$
1,229,438.5
$
(2,753.5)
(0.22)
%
Chicago State University
37,262.8
37,209.4 (0.14) 186.5 143.8 -42.8
37,166.6
(96.2)
(0.26)
Eastern Illinois University
44,078.1
43,927.8 (0.34) 220.2 257.2 37.0
43,964.8
(113.3)
(0.26)
Governors State
24,675.0
24,591.4 (0.34) 123.3 147.7 24.5
24,615.9
(59.1)
(0.24)
Illinois State University
74,089.2
73,882.4 (0.28) 370.4 377.2 6.8
73,889.2
(200.0)
(0.27)
Northeastern Illinois University
37,847.4
37,708.3 (0.37) 189.0 228.8 39.8
37,748.1
(99.3)
(0.26)
Northern Illinois University
93,412.6
93,247.1 (0.18) 467.4 409.7 -57.6
93,189.5
(223.1)
(0.24)
Western Illinois University
52,755.1
52,622.0 (0.25) 263.7 271.0 7.3
52,629.3
(125.8)
(0.24)
Southern Illinois University
204,584.1
204,261.5 (0.16) 1,023.5 913.8 -109.7 204,151.8
(432.3)
(0.21)
Carbondale
145,219.3
144,990.3 (0.16) 726.6 621.5 -105.0
144,885.3
(334.0)
(0.23)
Edwardsville
59,364.8
59,271.2 (0.16) 296.9 292.2 -4.7
59,266.5
(98.3)
(0.17)
University of Illinois
663,487.7
661,988.6 (0.23) 3,317.0 3,411.7 94.7 662,083.4
(1,404.3)
(0.21)
Chicago
307,296.4
306,602.1 (0.23) 1,527.9 1,553.5 25.6
306,627.7
(668.7)
(0.22)
Springfield
23,602.9
23,549.6 (0.23) 115.8 113.4 -2.3
23,547.3
(55.6)
(0.24)
Urbana/Champaign
332,588.4
331,836.9 (0.23) 1,673.3 1,744.8 71.4
331,908.4
(680.0)
(0.20)
* FY2015 Performance Funding is based on results from FY 2014 calculations.
Where Do We Go From Here?
• Do we stay with the original FY15 recommendation for FY16?
• Do we need to further revise the FY15 model, and if so, how?
• Do we work to address Steering Committee comments/concerns, and if so, which ones?
• How do we address the likely increase in the performance funding set-aside for FY16?
IBHE Presentation 6
Refinement Committee Recommendations• Do we stay with the original FY15 recommendation
for FY16?
– Yes.
– However, In light of the board's recent progress on the Public Agenda that showed significant gaps of achievement for African-Americans, Hispanics and adult learners, Professor Karnes proposed that we double those premiums.
– His view is that we need to send a strong signal to our universities that they need to commit resources to reduce and eliminate the gaps.
IBHE Presentation 7
FY15 Performance Measures
IBHE Presentation 8
Measures Source• Bachelor’s Degrees (FY10-12) IPEDS• Master’s Degrees (FY10-12) IPEDS• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12) IPEDS• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12) IPEDS• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13) RAMP• Graduation Rate - 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)* Inst Data• Persistence- 24 Credit Hours Completed in 1 Year (FY10-12) Inst Data• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12) Cost Study• Cost per Completion (FY10-12) Cost Study
*Incorporate transfers per the CCA transfer category definitions (i.e. 30 or fewer credits, 31 to 59 credits, or 60 or more credits).
FY15 Sub-Categories
IBHE Presentation 9
Sub-Category Weight• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 40% - Institutional
Data• Adult (Age 25 and Older) 40%• Hispanic 40%• Black, non-Hispanic 40%• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS* + CIP 51**
*HLS – Homeland Security**CIP 51 – Health Professions & Related Programs
Sub-Category Weighting Issue
IBHE Presentation 10
IBHE Presentation 11
Preliminary FY15 Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .2)
Performance Funding FY2015 ($ in thousands) FY2014 FY2015 Model Appropriation FY2014 - FY 2015
Appropriation Set Aside* Performance Funds Net Change 0.5% Set-Aside $ Change %
Change
Public Universities $ 1,232,192.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,232,192.0 $ 0.0 0.00 % Chicago State University 37,262.8 186.3 $ 119.3 -67.1 37,195.7 (67.1) (0.18) Eastern Illinois University 44,078.1 220.4 $ 231.9 11.5 44,089.6 11.5 0.03 Governors State 24,675.0 123.4 $ 153.5 30.1 24,705.1 30.1 0.12 Illinois State University 74,089.2 370.4 $ 347.3 -23.1 74,066.1 (23.1) (0.03) Northeastern Illinois University 37,847.4 189.2 $ 203.5 14.3 37,861.7 14.3 0.04 Northern Illinois University 93,412.6 467.1 $ 405.9 -61.1 93,351.5 (61.1) (0.07) Western Illinois University 52,755.1 263.8 $ 247.9 -15.9 52,739.2 (15.9) (0.03)
Southern Illinois University ** 204,584.1 1,022.9 $ 885.0 -138.0 204,446.1 (138.0) (0.07) Carbondale 145,219.3 726.1 $ 620.4 -105.7 145,113.6 (105.7) (0.07) Edwardsville 59,364.8 296.8 $ 264.5 -32.3 59,332.5 (32.3) (0.05)
University of Illinois *** 663,487.7 3,317.4 $ 3,566.8 249.3 663,737.0 249.3 0.04 Chicago 307,296.4 1,536.5 $ 1,564.5 28.0 307,324.4 28.0 0.01 Springfield 23,602.9 118.0 $ 109.3 -8.7 23,594.2 (8.7) (0.04) Urbana/Champaign 332,588.4 1,662.9 $ 1,893.0 230.0 332,818.4 230.0 0.07
* FY2015 Set Aside is based on a 0.5% reallocation of the final FY2014 budget level.
** SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the Carbondale Campus.
*** UI Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
IBHE Presentation 12
Preliminary FY15 Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .4)
Performance Funding FY2015 ($ in thousands) FY2014 FY2015 Model Appropriation FY2014 - FY 2015
Appropriation Set Aside* Performance Funds Net Change 0.5% Set-Aside $ Change %
Change
Public Universities $ 1,232,192.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,232,192.0 $ (0.0) (0.00) % Chicago State University 37,262.8 186.3 $ 146.9 -39.4 37,223.4 (39.4) (0.11) Eastern Illinois University 44,078.1 220.4 $ 246.9 26.5 44,104.6 26.5 0.06 Governors State 24,675.0 123.4 $ 169.2 45.8 24,720.8 45.8 0.19 Illinois State University 74,089.2 370.4 $ 353.8 -16.6 74,072.6 (16.6) (0.02) Northeastern Illinois University 37,847.4 189.2 $ 235.2 46.0 37,893.4 46.0 0.12 Northern Illinois University 93,412.6 467.1 $ 439.1 -28.0 93,384.6 (28.0) (0.03) Western Illinois University 52,755.1 263.8 $ 267.8 4.0 52,759.1 4.0 0.01
Southern Illinois University ** 204,584.1 1,022.9 $ 910.0 -112.9 204,471.2 (112.9) (0.06) Carbondale 145,219.3 726.1 $ 632.7 -93.3 145,126.0 (93.3) (0.06) Edwardsville 59,364.8 296.8 $ 277.3 -19.5 59,345.3 (19.5) (0.03)
University of Illinois *** 663,487.7 3,317.4 $ 3,392.1 74.6 663,562.3 74.6 0.01 Chicago 307,296.4 1,536.5 $ 1,504.9 -31.5 307,264.9 (31.5) (0.01) Springfield 23,602.9 118.0 $ 114.0 -4.1 23,598.8 (4.1) (0.02) Urbana/Champaign 332,588.4 1,662.9 $ 1,773.2 110.3 332,698.7 110.3 0.03
* FY2015 Set Aside is based on a 0.5% reallocation of the final FY2014 budget level.
** SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the Carbondale Campus.
*** UI Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
IBHE Presentation 13
Preliminary FY15 Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .6)
Performance Funding FY2015 ($ in thousands) FY2014 FY2015 Model Appropriation FY2014 - FY 2015
Appropriation Set Aside* Performance Funds Net Change 0.5% Set-Aside $ Change %
Change
Public Universities $ 1,232,192.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,232,192.0 $ (0.0) (0.00) % Chicago State University 37,262.8 186.3 $ 170.5 -15.9 37,246.9 (15.9) (0.04) Eastern Illinois University 44,078.1 220.4 $ 259.6 39.2 44,117.3 39.2 0.09 Governors State 24,675.0 123.4 $ 182.6 59.2 24,734.2 59.2 0.24 Illinois State University 74,089.2 370.4 $ 359.4 -11.0 74,078.2 (11.0) (0.01)
Northeastern Illinois University 37,847.4 189.2 $ 262.2 72.9 37,920.3 72.9 0.19 Northern Illinois University 93,412.6 467.1 $ 467.3 0.3 93,412.9 0.3 0.00 Western Illinois University 52,755.1 263.8 $ 284.7 21.0 52,776.1 21.0 0.04
Southern Illinois University ** 204,584.1 1,022.9 $ 931.4 -91.5 204,492.6 (91.5) (0.04) Carbondale 145,219.3 726.1 $ 643.2 -82.8 145,136.5 (82.8) (0.06) Edwardsville 59,364.8 296.8 $ 288.1 -8.7 59,356.1 (8.7) (0.01)
University of Illinois *** 663,487.7 3,317.4 $ 3,243.3 -74.1 663,413.6 (74.1) (0.01) Chicago 307,296.4 1,536.5 $ 1,454.2 -82.3 307,214.1 (82.3) (0.03) Springfield 23,602.9 118.0 $ 117.9 -0.1 23,602.8 (0.1) (0.00) Urbana/Champaign 332,588.4 1,662.9 $ 1,671.2 8.2 332,596.6 8.2 0.00
* FY2015 Set Aside is based on a 0.5% reallocation of the final FY2014 budget level.
** SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the Carbondale Campus.
*** UI Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
IBHE Presentation 14
Preliminary FY15 Performance Funding Allocation
FY 2015 PBF Allocation with 0.5% Performance Funding Set-Aside (Subcategory Weights - .8)
Performance Funding FY2015 ($ in thousands) FY2014 FY2015 Model Appropriation FY2014 - FY 2015
Appropriation Set Aside* Performance Funds Net Change 0.5% Set-Aside $ Change %
Change
Public Universities $ 1,232,192.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 6,161.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,232,192.0 $ (0.0) (0.00) % Chicago State University 37,262.8 186.3 $ 190.8 4.4 37,267.2 4.4 0.01 Eastern Illinois University 44,078.1 220.4 $ 270.6 50.3 44,128.4 50.3 0.11 Governors State 24,675.0 123.4 $ 194.1 70.7 24,745.7 70.7 0.29 Illinois State University 74,089.2 370.4 $ 364.2 -6.2 74,083.0 (6.2) (0.01)
Northeastern Illinois University 37,847.4 189.2 $ 285.4 96.2 37,943.6 96.2 0.25 Northern Illinois University 93,412.6 467.1 $ 491.7 24.6 93,437.2 24.6 0.03 Western Illinois University 52,755.1 263.8 $ 299.4 35.6 52,790.7 35.6 0.07
Southern Illinois University ** 204,584.1 1,022.9 $ 949.8 -73.2 204,511.0 (73.2) (0.04) Carbondale 145,219.3 726.1 $ 652.3 -73.8 145,145.5 (73.8) (0.05) Edwardsville 59,364.8 296.8 $ 297.5 0.6 59,365.4 0.6 0.00
University of Illinois *** 663,487.7 3,317.4 $ 3,115.1 -202.4 663,285.3 (202.4) (0.03) Chicago 307,296.4 1,536.5 $ 1,410.5 -126.0 307,170.4 (126.0) (0.04) Springfield 23,602.9 118.0 $ 121.4 3.3 23,606.2 3.3 0.01 Urbana/Champaign 332,588.4 1,662.9 $ 1,583.2 -79.7 332,508.7 (79.7) (0.02)
* FY2015 Set Aside is based on a 0.5% reallocation of the final FY2014 budget level.
** SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the Carbondale Campus.
*** UI Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
IBHE Presentation
Performance Funding AllocationAt Different Sub-Category Weights
UIUC
UIC
NIU
SIUC
ISU
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
GSU
UIS
$230.0
$28.0
- $61.1
- $105.7
- $23.1
- $32.3
- $15.9
$11.5
$14.3
- $67.1
$30.1
- $4.4
.07%
.01%
-.07%
-.07%
-.03%
- .05%
- .03%
.03%
.04%
-.18%
.12%
-.04%
$110.3
-$31.5
$46.0
- $93.3
- $16.6
- $19.5
$4.0
$26.5
$46.0
- $39.4
$45.8
- $4.1
.03%
-.01%
.12%
-.06%
-.02%
- .03%
.01%
.06%
.12%
-.11%
.19%
-.02%
$8.2
-$82.3
$72.9
- $82.8
- $11.0
- $8.7
$21.0
$39.2
$72.9
- $15.9
$59.2
- $.1
.00%
-.03%
.19%
-.06%
-.01%
- .01%
.04%
.09%
.19%
-.04%
.24%
-.00%
-$79.7
-$126.0
$96.2
- $73.8
- $6.2
- $.6
$35.6
$50.3
$96.2
$4.4
$70.7
- $3.3
-.02%
-.04%
.25%
-.05%
-.01%
- .00%
.07%
.11%
.25%
.01%
.29%
-.01%
Sub-CategoryWt - .02
Sub-CategoryWt - .04
Sub-CategoryWt - .06
Sub-CategoryWt - .08
15
-.09%
-.05%
.32%
.02%
.02%
.05%
.10%
.08%
.21%
.19%
.17%
.03%
Refinement Committee Recommendations
• Do we need to further revise the FY15 model, and if so, how?– Other than possible minor adjustments to the
FY15 performance funding model for FY16, we should start with the performance funding baseline we have established and not make any further changes in the existing model for at least three years.
– There is concern that additional changes at this time will only serve to move funding, not based on performance, from one set of institutions to another set of institutions.
IBHE Presentation 16
Refinement Committee Recommendations• Do we work to address Steering Committee
comments/concerns, and if so, which ones?– At this point in time we should start work on version 2.0 of
the performance funding model for implementation in the future (i.e. after 3 years).
• This would provide time for ILDS to come on line and for the data to mature.
• This would give us time to address performance funding issues such as first generation students, the inclusion of other high value programs to the STEM sub-category, quality, institutional capacity, geographical differences, efficiency measures, and assess the effectiveness of performance based funding on the institutions.
IBHE Presentation 17
Steering Committee Comments• The committee should look at what is being done in other states to see if there is a
simpler or better way to do this. (Done)
• We should look at providing a premium to other “High Value” programs in addition to the Homeland Security (HLS) and CIP Code 51 (STEM) programs. (PBF 2.0)
• We should take into account the institutional capacity to produce degrees.
• Geographical differences – are these the same people that are counted as “low income” (PBF 2.0)
• We need to increase the dollar amounts allocated to performance. (FY16?)
• We need to reduce the number of measures in the model. (PBF 2.0)
• We need to include a measure of quality in the performance funding model. (PBF 2.0)
• We need to look at each institution to see where they need to improve. (PBF 2.0)
• We should significantly increase the weighting factor for efficiency measures (as much as 25%-30%) (PBF 2.0)
IBHE Presentation 18
Steering Committee Comments
• Is the percentage devoted to performance funding high enough to make a difference? (FY16?)
• Discussion on the driving force behind performance funding in other states. (Governor, legislature, etc.) (Done)
• Would performance funding hurt admission practices and cause some public universities to be more selective? (Addressed in Existing Model)
• Increased success should be tied to increased funding. (FY16)
• We should identify 3-4 of the greatest shortcomings of each institution and apply performance funding to that. (PBF 2.0)
• We should see what else is going on in the other states. (Done)
• We should ensure that we are following best practices as outlined by NCHEMS in their performance funding paper – “Performance Funding; From Idea to Action”
IBHE Presentation 19
NCHEMS Performance Funding GuidelinesDesign Principles• Get agreement on goals before putting performance funding in place.
– Tailored to the needs of the state.– Focused on the needs of the state, not the institutions of Higher
Education.• Do not construct performance metrics too narrowly.• It is important that all institutions have an opportunity (not a guarantee) to
benefit by excelling at their different missions.• Design the funding model to promote mission differentiation, not mission
creep.– Use different metrics for different kinds of institutions.– Create different pools of resources for different kinds of institutions (i.e.
different funding models for Community Colleges and Public Universities).
IBHE Presentation 20
NCHEMS Performance Funding GuidelinesDesign Principles
• Include provisions that reward success with underserved populations (i.e. African-American, Hispanic, low income, adult, and academically at-risk).
• Include provisions that reward progress as well as ultimate success (i.e. degree completion).
• Limit the categories of outcomes to be rewarded.
• Use metrics that are unambiguous and difficult to game (i.e. numbers of graduates as opposed to graduation rates).
• Reward continuous improvement, not attainment of a fixed goal.
• Make the performance funding pool large enough to command attention.
• Ensure that the incentives in all parts of the funding model align with state goals.
IBHE Presentation 21
NCHEMS Performance Funding Guidelines
Implementation Principles
• Don’t wait for new money.
• Include a phase-in provision.
• Employ stop-loss, not hold harmless, provisions.
• Continue performance funding in both good times and bad.
IBHE Presentation 22
Refinement Committee Recommendations
• How do we address the potential increase in the performance funding set-aside for FY16?
– Any increase in the performance funding allocation, assuming that there will be no additional funds allocated for performance funding, should be gradual and on the order of no more than 1% per year.
– There is great concern regarding the impact of lower tax rates on higher education funding along with the potential impact of a pension cost transfer.
IBHE Presentation 23
University President Concerns• The continued implementation of performance funding in an
increasingly difficult fiscal environment.– Continued decline in State higher education funding.– The resolution of the tax and pension issues and the potential impact
on the universities.– The impact of a minimum wage increase.– Declining enrollment.– Declining financial aid.– Unfunded mandates.
• The ability to actually improve performance beyond what is already taking place.
• Improving performance and still losing funding.• The potential increase in the performance funding set-aside.
IBHE Presentation 24
Timelines
IBHE Presentation 25
Next Steps
• 21 Aug 14 - Refinement Committee Meeting (IBHE)
• 15 Sep 14 - Steering Committee Meeting (ISU)
• 7 Oct 14 - IBHE Board Meeting (Loyola)
• 30 Oct 14 - Refinement Committee Meeting (IBHE)
• Mid-Nov 14 - First Draft of FY16 Performance Funding Recommendations
• 20 Nov 14 - Steering Committee Meeting (Heartland Community College)
• 2 Dec 14- IBHE Board Meeting
• TBD - Refinement Committee Meeting
• TBD - Steering Committee Meeting
• 3 Feb 14 (T) - IBHE Board Meeting (IBHE Higher Education Budget/Performance Funding Recommendations
to Board)IBHE Presentation 26
Questions?
IBHE Presentation 27
Back-Up
IBHE Presentation 28
Performance Funding Objectives/Mandate
IBHE Presentation 29
Performance Funding Objectives
• To develop performance funding models for public universities and community colleges that are…
– 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
30IBHE Presentation
• Performance Metrics Shall:– Focus on the fundamental goal of increasing completion.– 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.
– Maintain the quality of degrees, certificates, courses, and programs.
– Recognize the unique and broad mission of public community colleges.
IBHE Presentation 31
Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503)
IBHE Presentation 32
Performance Funding Model (FY14)
4-Year Public Universities
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 to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
• Step 6 – Multiply and sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results.
• Step 7 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities (i.e. Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools).
• Step 8 – Use the final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding.
IBHE Presentation 33
Performance Measures
IBHE Presentation 34
Measure Source• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11) IPEDS• Masters Degrees (FY09-11) IPEDS• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11) IPEDS• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11) IPEDS• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY10-12) RAMP• Grad Rates 100%/150%/200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort) Institutional Data• Persistence (Completed 24/48/72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09) Institutional
Data• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11) Cost Study• Cost per Completion (FY09-11) Cost Study
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)
Sub-Categories
IBHE Presentation 35
Sub-Category Weight• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 40% - Institutional
Data• Adult (Age 25 and Older) 40%• Hispanic 40%• Black, non-Hispanic 40%• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51
Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
Scaling Factors
• 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.
IBHE Presentation 36
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
Scaling Factors
IBHE Presentation 37
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
Measure Universities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11)• Masters Degrees (FY09-11)• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11) • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11)• Grad Rates 100% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)• Grad Rates 200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort) • Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)• Persistence(Completed 72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11) (Cost Study)• Cost per Completion (FY09-11) (Cost Study)• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11)
2,8221,042
22725274650
1,6441,4531,350
34636,566
112,914,667
1.02.7
12.4112.6104.4
60.957.0
1.71.92.18.1
.1.00002
112
200505050
222
-8-.050
.00005
Performance Measure Weights
IBHE Presentation 38
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
Doctoral/ Research-Very High Research-High Research
Measure• Bachelors Degrees• Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE • Grad Rates 100% of Time• Grad Rates 150% of Time • Grad Rates 200% of Time • Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) • Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) • Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours) • Cost per Credit Hour • Cost per Completion• Research and Public Service Expenditures
UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU17.0% 18.0% 28.0% 28.0% 33.0%14.0% 15.0% 15.0% 14.0% 23.0%13.0% 14.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0%
4.0% 4.0% 11.0% 13.0% 12.0%1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0%0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.5%0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.5%
45.0% 42.0% 28.0% 30.0% 15.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Performance Measure Weights
IBHE Presentation 39
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)
Measure• Bachelors Degrees• Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE • Grad Rates 100% of Time• Grad Rates 150% of Time • Grad Rates 200% of Time • Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) • Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) • Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours) • Cost per Credit Hour • Cost per Completion• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 45.0% 43.0%28.0% 25.0% 26.0% 26.0% 25.0% 27.0% 27.0%
2.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%12.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 5.0% 8.0%
2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0%1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 7.0% 2.0%2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%1.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%1.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%3.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Performance Value Calculation
IBHE Presentation 40
Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Performance Value for each institution.
Measure• Bachelors Degrees• Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE • Grad Rates 100% of Time• Grad Rates 150% of Time • Grad Rates 200% of Time • Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) • Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) • Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours) • Cost per Credit Hour • Cost per Completion• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
2,8221,042
22725274650
1,6441,4531,350
34636,566
$112,914,667
3,5221,454
240 25274650
1,6441,4531,350
34536,566
$112,914,667
Data Data + Premium112
200505050
222
-8-.050
.00005
(Data+Premium)x Scale3,5221,454
4805,0001,3502,3002,5003,2882,9062,700
-2,760-1,8285,646
30.0%25.0%
5.0%10.0%
1.5%1.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%1.5%1.0%
20.0%100.0%
Total PerformanceValue
1,057 364
24 500
20 23 13 33 44 54
-41 -18
1,1293,200
xWeight = Scale
Performance Value Calculation
IBHE Presentation 41
Step 7 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities (i.e. Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools)
• Divide the amount of the university GRF appropriation allocated to fund the high cost entity by the total university GRF appropriation.
• Multiply this factor by the university performance value and add the result back to the performance value.
• This results in a total performance value for institutions with these high cost entities.
• Example: $20M/$200M = .10
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
320 + 3200 = 3520 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation 42
Percentages for Distribution
Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 3,200 17,302Percentage of Total 58.7% 24.0% 17.3% 100%
Distribution: Pro Rata $587,000 $240,000 $173,000 $1,000,000
University 1 University 2 University 3 Total
Funding AllocationBased on Performance
Step 8 – 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.
Results for FY14
• Performance funding values increased for all twelve of the four-year public universities from FY13 to FY14.
• Assuming a .5% funding set-aside:
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance ranged from +.11% to -.11%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from +$71K to -$105K.
IBHE Presentation 43
IBHE Presentation 44
Performance Funding Model (FY15)
4-Year Public Universities
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 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 to reflect the priority of the Measure to 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 final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) - excluding high cost entities - to distribute performance funding.
• Step 8 – Add an adjustment factor (Carve-out) for high cost entities (i.e. Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools).
IBHE Presentation 45
Performance Measures
IBHE Presentation 46
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 (FY10-12) IPEDS• Masters Degrees (FY10-12) IPEDS• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12) IPEDS• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12) IPEDS• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13) RAMP• Graduation Rate - 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)* Institutional
Data• Persistence-Completed 24 Semester Hours in One Year (FY10-12)* Institutional
Data• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12) Cost Study• Cost per Completion (FY10-12) Cost Study*Incorporate transfers per the CCA transfer category definitions
(i.e. 30 or fewer credits, 31 to 59 credits, or 60 or more credits).
Sub-Categories
IBHE Presentation 47
Sub-Category Weight*• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 40% - Institutional
Data• Adult (Age 25 and Older) 40%• Hispanic 40%• Black, non-Hispanic 40%• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51
Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
Sub-Categories
IBHE Presentation 48
• Only weighted Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate and Professional Degrees• Did not weight Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
- To avoid overweighting sub-populations throughout the model, the percentage weight given to the subcategories would have to be reduced from the current 40%. Otherwise, schools with high numbers of Master and Doctoral students graduating from the subpopulations would be negatively impacted, as credit given to these populations is reduced.
- The change would benefit smaller masters degree schools but would disproportionately harm research institutions.
• Did not weight Cost per Completion
- It is only possible to weight the completion portion of the ratio, a weighted cost is unavailable. Weighting completions without weighting cost does not provide an accurate measure of differential costs to educate particular sub groups.
Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
Scaling Factors
• 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.
IBHE Presentation 49
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
Scaling Factors
IBHE Presentation 50
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
Measure Universities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12) • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY10-12)• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12) • Cost per Completion (FY10-12)• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
2,8461,056
2362546
1,511353
37,129124,059,383
1.02.7
12.1113.0
60.31.88.1.07
.00002
112
20050
2-8
-.05.00005
Performance Measure Weights
IBHE Presentation 51
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
Doctoral/ Research-Very High Research-High Research
Measure• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12) • Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 05-07 Cohort)• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hrs) (FY 10-12)• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12) • Cost per Completion (FY10-12)• Research /Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU18.0% 18.0% 28.0% 28.0% 33.0%15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 22.0%13.0% 13.0% 8.0% 8.0% 5.0%
5.0% 5.0% 13.0% 13.0% 16.0%3.0% 3.0% 4.0% 4.0% 5.0%3.0% 3.0% 4.0% 4.0% 5.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0%
41.0% 41.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Performance Measure Weights
IBHE Presentation 52
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the institution.
Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)
Measure• Bachelors Degrees• Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE • Grad Rates 150% of Time • Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) • Cost per Credit Hour • Cost per Completion• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS35.0% 39.0% 38.5% 38.5% 39.0% 46.0% 43.0%25.0% 23.0% 24.0% 24.0% 23.0% 30.0% 25.0%
2.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 8.0% 10.0%
3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0%3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0% 3.0%2.0% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%2.0% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%6.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Performance Value Calculation
IBHE Presentation 53
Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Performance Value for each institution.
Measure• Bachelors Degrees• Masters Degrees• Doctoral and Professional Degrees• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE • Grad Rates 150% of Time • Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) • Cost per Credit Hour • Cost per Completion• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
2,7221,012
2072546
1,511353
37,129124,059,383
2,8461,056
2362546
1,511353
37,129124,059,383
Data Data + Premium112
20050
2-8
-.05.00005
(Data+Premium)x Scale2,8461,056
4725,0002,3003,022
-2,824-1,8566,203
30.0%25.0%
5.0%10.0%
2.5%2.5%2.5%2.5%
20.0%100.0%
Total PerformanceValue
854 264
24 500
58 76
-71 -46
1,2412,898
xWeight = Scale
Performance Value Calculation
IBHE Presentation 54
Step 7 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities (i.e. Hospitals, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools)
• Step 1: Allocate performance set-aside funds based on and adjusted state appropriation that removes state funds for high cost entities.
• Step 2: Calculate performance funding allocations per funding model using adjusted performance set-aside amount.
• Step 3: Add back funds to institutions with high cost entities by applying performance funding set-aside percentage (i.e. .5% for FY14) to the high cost entities state appropriation.
• Step 4: Total allocated funds equal performance funding without high cost entities plus set-aside for high cost entities.
High Cost Entities Adjustment
• Current High Cost Entities Adjustment– Divide the amount of the university GRF appropriation allocated to fund
the high cost entity by the total university GRF appropriation.
– Multiply this factor by the university performance value and add the result back to the performance value.
– This results in a total performance value for institutions with these high cost entities.
– Example: $20M/$200M = .10
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
320 + 3200 = 3520 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation 55
Revised High Cost Entities Adjustment• Step 1: Allocate performance set-aside funds based on and adjusted state appropriation that
removes state funds for high cost entities.– Example: Total State Appropriation – High Cost Entities = Funds Allocated via Performance
$2.0 billion – $250 million = $1.75 billion x 0.5% (performance set-aside for FY 14) = $8.75 million
• Step 2: Calculate performance funding allocations per funding model using adjusted performance set-aside amount.
– Reallocate $8.75 million based on performance to higher education institutions per performance model
• Step 3: Add back funds to institutions with high cost entities by applying performance funding set-aside percentage (i.e. .5% for FY14) to the high cost entities state appropriation.
– Example: University A – High Cost Entity Appropriation = $100 million x 0.5% = $0.5 million University B – High Cost Entity Appropriation = $150 million x 0.5% = $0.75 million
• Step 4: Total allocated funds equal performance funding without high cost entities plus set-aside for high cost entities.
– Example: University A - $1.25 M (performance funds) + $0.5 M (high cost add back) = $1.75 M University B - $2.0 M (performance funds) + $.075 M (high cost add back) = $2.75 M
University C - $0.75 M (performance funds)
IBHE Presentation 56
IBHE Presentation 57
Percentages for Distribution
Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 3,200 17,302Percentage of Total 58.7% 24.0% 17.3% 100%
Distribution: Pro Rata $587,000 $240,000 $173,000 $1,000,000
University 1 University 2 University 3 Total
Funding AllocationBased on Performance
Step 8 – 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.
Results for FY15
• Performance funding values increased for eight of the twelve four-year public universities from FY14 to FY15.
• Assuming a .5% funding set-aside and level GRF Funding:
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance ranged from +.19% to -.11%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from +$110.3K to -$93.3K.
IBHE Presentation 58