StrategyLabs.LuminaFoundation.org Outcomes-Based Funding & the Student Completion Agenda Presented by: Jimmy Clarke, Ph.D. & Martha Snyder HCM Strategists,

StrategyLabs.LuminaFoundation.org

Outcomes-Based Funding & the

Student Completion Agenda

Presented by:Jimmy Clarke, Ph.D.

& Martha Snyder

HCM Strategists, LLCDecember 7, 2015

StrategyLabs.LuminaFoundation.org 2

Supported by Lumina Foundation

Open platform for leaders and influencers in all 50 states to share research and data, encourage peer learning and professional experiences to advance Goal 2025.


State Policy Agenda

3

Create Smarter Pathways

Improve Student Outcomes

Align Investments

• Attainment and Equity Goals

• Strategic Plans• Data systems

• “Affordability”• Need-based financial

aid & design• Outcomes-based

funding

• Transfer policies• Accelerated programs• K-12 CCR alignment• Returning Adults


Objectives

• Introduce non-partisan research to a broad group of state stakeholders

• Improve awareness of data, the needs of the state, and policy options; and

• Build understanding to inform adoption, enhancement and sustainability of public policies that can help improve student outcomes.

4


Support and Resources Provided• Non-partisan, evidence-based policy expertise

– Writing, webinars, on-site support– Speakers and discussants at meetings

• Convening and Facilitation– Peer learning engagements in states to share lessons, challenges– Multi-state discussions to explore ideas with researchers and experts– Meeting preparation and facilitation (board meetings, workshops)

• Advising Policymakers– Non-partisan testimony– Individualized briefings

• Research– Original data collection and analysis– Written analysis of policy alternatives and alignment to research-

informed best practices– Translational research

5


ALIGNING INVESTMENTS TO SUPPORT STUDENT COMPLETION: OUTCOMES-BASED FUNDING


Policy Rationale for Performance Funding

7

Align funding method with state/system prioritiesCompletion/Attainment

Jobs/Economic Development

Align institution priorities Support Scaling of Proven Student Success

Practices

Programmatic Evaluation and Change

Improve Efficiency & Reward Outcomes


State Funding Models

8

• Allocation based on prior levels of funding• Adjusted +/- based on available funds• Goal: Institutional fiscal stability• Challenge: Equity in institutional funding

Historic

• # of students enrolled at census date• Recent shift to course completion• Goal: expand access• Challenge: Incentive on prolonged persistence/retention

Enrollment

• Reward for reaching performance milestones or goals• Completion not necessarily key objective• Often ‘bonus’ (new allocation) or small % of general allocation• Challenge: Sustainability and funding

Early Performance

• Funding based on student success and completion• Significant portion of general allocation to institutions (not

reliant on new money-only/separate allocation)• Challenge: College’s ability to respond

Outcome-Based


Outcomes-Based vs. Performance-Based Funding: What’s the Difference

• Performance Funding: Broad set of policies linking allocation of resources to accomplishment of certain desired goals. Historically:– Often add-ons or bonuses to institution core state funding or small amounts of

reallocated dollars;– Metrics: broad, contradicting, not tied to state’s completion or attainment goals

(e.g., increased access, diversity in faculty higher expenditures on research)– Design: One-size fits all, vague measures, target-oriented

• Outcomes-Based Funding: Evolved form of performance-based funding– More explicit connection to state needs

• Focus on student progress and completion• Closing gaps in student outcomes (at-risk students prioritized)• More money at stake; part of core allocation to institutions

– Refined development & modeling approaches: all institutions included with differentiation to reflect mission


Arkansas Goals & Finance Policies

Goals & Priorities• Support 2025 Goal of 60%

attainment– Increase number of postsecondary

credentials by 50%– Increase enrollment of adult

students– Raise attainment rate of

underserved students– Affordability/reduce time to degree

• Strategies– Course redesign (remedial &

gateway)– Guided pathways– Student service innovations

Current Funding Model• Primarily enrollment + cost based• Performance component based on

predetermined targets (punitive)• Disconnected from broader

attainment and completion priorities– Does not promote wide-scale

adoption of identified strategies– Limited focus on priority

populations (adult and underserved)

10


Design Principles for Outcomes-Based Funding

Begin with a state goal/clear policy priorities

Use a simple approach

All public institutions

included, reflect mission

Incent success of typically

underrepresented students

Make the money

meaningful

Seek Stakeholder

Input

Phase-in (≠ Hold

Harmless)

Include only measurable

metrics

Plan to evaluate

11


Common Measures

12

Type of Measures ExamplesStudent Progression and Momentum Intermediate outcomes/key milestones important to student’s progression toward completion

• Remedial education success• Completion of first college-level mathematics

and English courses• Credit accumulation (e.g. 15, 30 credit hours)

Completion & OutcomesPromote certificate, degree completion, transfer

• Number or rate of program completers• Number of transfers• Job Placement

Productivity & Institution MissionPromote efficiency, affordability and focusing dollars on core mission functions

• Degrees per 100 FTE• Research• Workforce Training

Priority Student categories and/or degree types that are a priority for the state to meet attainment and job needs. Student focus is on progression and completion, not just access.

• Adult students• Academically underprepared students• Low-income (Pell-eligible) students• Minority students• STEM-H degreesNote: often reflected by providing an extra weight to progression and completion metrics


FY 2015: Implementation of Performance/Outcomes-Based Funding Models

13


Outcomes/Performance-Based Funding as % of Institution Funding Support

* ND and WY formulas are based on course-completions only; no other measures such as degree completions, are used. Nevada’s formula is about 96 percent course completion, with approximately 3.8 percent distributed on degree completion and student progression measures.


Outcomes-Based Funding: Research & Impacts• Focused mostly on early performance funding

policies; beginning to track effect of more robust outcomes-based funding policies

• Research is almost entirely focused on intermediate (institutional change) impacts

• Limited information/ability to understand ultimate impact (scarce research)

15


Research and Impacts

⁺ Change in colleges’ awareness of state priorities & own performance

⁺ Reported increase in use of data in institutional planning• identify student barriers• align institution policies/investments

⁺ Academic program improvements• Academic departments: staffing and structure changes• Academic delivery: program structure (remedial education)

16


Research and Impacts

⁺ Student Services• Registration, graduation procedures, financial aid• First-year retention programs• Targeted student advising, tutoring and supplemental services• Job placement services

⁻ Concern over⁻ Quality⁻ Instability of funding ⁻ Uneven knowledge of performance funding across and within colleges

17


Considerations for Boards of Trustees in Outcomes-Based Funding Environment

• Focus on the Data– Student enrollment– Student progression – Student Completion– Disaggregated

• Support a culture of completion and success– Engage leadership on priorities– Evaluate all aspects of institutional operations– Help communicate support and engage all campus

stakeholders in conversation

18



19

Documents

StrategyLabs.LuminaFoundation.org Outcomes-Based Funding & the Student Completion Agenda Presented by: Jimmy Clarke, Ph.D. & Martha Snyder HCM Strategists,