Performance Based Funding

Background

• The USFSP strategic plan calls for 10 in 10 (10,000 students in 10 years).

• It is likely that this will require us to develop new programs.• As we start thinking of new programs, we need to be aware

of two factors:– The program approval process– The way in which the state of Florida disburses funds to

its public universities.

The Basics of Performance Based Funding

• Traditionally, state appropriations have been made on the basis of inputs, i.e. student head count.– Potential drawbacks:

• Perverse incentive to hold back students;• Danger of enrolling under-prepared students.

• Performance based funding makes (part of) the state appropriations depend on output, i.e. how well the institution does on certain performance criteria.– Potential drawbacks:

• Rapidly shifting criteria may make long-term planning difficult;• Potential tensions between different criteria.

Performance based funding in Florida I

• Performance is measured on 10 criteria.– 8 are more or less the same for all public universities;– 1 is set for each institution by the BOG;– 1 is set for each institution by its BOT.

• Up to 5 points are awarded for each criterion based on – Absolute performance; OR– Improvement in performance.

Performance based funding in Florida II

• Last year, the BOG withheld $35 million from the base budgets of the public institutions of higher learning.

• Base budgets restored for institutions with a score over 25.• It also distributed around $200M in performance based

funding, including restoration of base budget.• Notes:

1. The money can be used for whatever purpose the institution deems appropriate (unlike e.g. TEAm grant);

2. USFSP is NOT treated as a separate institution. The USF System is treated as if it were a single institution.

Performance based funding in Florida III

• The USF system received $22M in new funding, of which USFSP received around $2M.

• Only UF received more in new funding.• The PBF becomes part of the base budget for the

subsequent year.• USFSP used the PBF, among others, to– Strengthen advising– Hire instructors in English– Strengthen international recruitment.

PBF 1. Percent of Bachelor’s Graduates Employed and/or Continuing their

Education Further 1 Year After Graduation

Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

80% + 5

75% 4 75% Only reported at system level

70% 3

65% 2

60% 1

PBF 2. Median Average Full-time Wages of Undergraduates Employed in

Florida, 1 Yr after GraduationScore USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

$40,000 5

$35,000 4 $35,200 Only reported at System Level

$30,000 3

$25,000 2

$20,000 1

2013-2014 benchmarks. Currently under review.

PBF 3. Average Cost of Undergraduate Degree to the Institution

Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

$20,000 5

$22,500 4 $24,583* Only reported at System level

$25,000 3

$27,500 2

$30,000 1

* Projection. To be confirmed by BOG.

PBF 4. Six Year Graduation Rate (Full-Time and Part-Time FTIC)

Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

70% + 5

N/A

67.5% 4

65% 3 66% 66%

62.5% 2

60% 1

0 53% previous 61%*

*IPEDS graduation rate is 31% down from 43%

PBF 5. Academic Progress Rate(2nd Year Retention with GPA of 2.0 or

higher)Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

90%+ 5

87.5% 4

85% 3 85% 87%

82.5% 2

80% 1 80%

62%Previous 57%*

*IPEDS: 65%

PBF 6. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded in Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Includes

STEM)Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

60% 5 72%

55% 4

50% 3 51%

45% 2

40% 1

36% 34%

PBF 7. University Access Rate(Percent of Undergraduates with a Pell

Grant)

Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

30% 5 42% 42% 40% 41%

27.5% 4

25% 3

22.5% 2

20% 1

PBF 8. Graduate Degrees Awarded in Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Includes

STEM)Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

50% 5 69% 72%

45% 4

40% 3

35% 2 36%*

30% 1

27%

*Previous: 34%

PBF 9. Percent of Bachelor’s Degrees Without Excess Hours

Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

80% 5

75% 4 77%

70% 3

65% 2 66% 65% 69%

60% 1

PBF 10. Number of Postdoctoral Appointees

Score USF System USFT USFSP USFSM

300 5 360* Only reported at system level

275 4

250 3

225 2

200 1

* Projected

Some Concluding Comments I

• Some of the PBF metrics concern issues that we ought to address, and are addressing, anyway.– Retention

• To me, a retention rate of 62% is not acceptable• QEP, University Success course, TRiO, Student Success

Center• Establishment of retention task force

– Graduation rate– University access– Controlling cost

Some Concluding Comments II

• Should the PBF metrics be a primary driver of our behavior as an institution?– Should we force students who can graduate without

excess hours to do so?– Should we only start new programs in areas of

strategic emphasis?– How much attention should we pay to starting

salaries of graduates when we start a new program?– and so on

Questions