Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Higher Education Performance-Based Funding Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee April 23, 2014 Lou Adams, CPA, Deputy Director of Performance Audit Tom Furgeson, Senior Performance Auditor. Why we did this audit. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Washington State Auditor’s Office
Troy KelleyI n d e p e n d e n c e • R e s p e c t • I n t e g r i t y
Higher Education Performance-Based Funding
Joint Legislative Audit & Review CommitteeApril 23, 2014
Lou Adams, CPA, Deputy Director of Performance Audit Tom Furgeson, Senior Performance Auditor
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 2
To help inform policy-makers as they consider a performance-based funding system for Washington’s
public four-year schools of higher education
Why we did this audit
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 3
Report on higher education performance funding systems for public four-year schools in other states
Create an inventory of policy goals and measures used in other states
Determine which of these measures are collected by Washington’s four-year schools
Compare Washington data with other states
Audit approach
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 4
Review of other states
We researched 11 states that use performance-based funding
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) list of states with active systems at start of audit
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 5
We developed an inventory of policy goals and performance measures used by other states with performance-based funding systems
Review of other states
Policy goals Increase degrees completed Increase high-demand degrees and
certifications Increase graduation rates Encourage student progress Close access gaps Close achievement gaps Improve education quality Improve institutional efficiency Promote research and development Increase private funding Increase faculty and staff diversity Improve operations and
maintenance
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 6
Washington schools collect data for most metrics used by other states
Around 70% of all data collected by some or all schools
Around 40% of data we identified is already reported in the Public Centralized Higher Education Enrollment System (PCHEES)
All Washington schools have data for the five most common metrics1. Number of degrees completed2. Number of students completing degrees on time3. Student retention rates4. Number of STEM and high demand degrees completed5. Student credit hours completed
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 7
Washington schools collect data for most metrics used by other states
Washington results
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 8
Online materials
http://www.sao.wa.gov/state/Pages/HigherEd.aspx
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 9
Washington schools collect data for most metrics
Washington results – online materials
Goal
Metrics
Data elements
Location of data
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 10
State performance systems vary
Variation between systems in other states
No off-the-shelf system
Tennessee 15 metricsIllinois 5 metricsOhio 2 metrics
Metrics used
Tennessee 100%Ohio 10%Illinois 0.5%
Performance funding
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 11
Metrics
Address education quality
Account for differing institutional missions
Ensure student access and equity
Recognize importance of progress and completion
Identify and address unintended consequences
Leading practices
Pennsylvania uses a core of several mandatory common metrics, schools choose from among optional metrics
Indiana measures enrollment at the end of a semester rather than at the beginning
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 12
Leading Practices
Implementation
Keep the model simple
Be aware of time needed to develop, adjust to model
Phase-in model to account for lack of initial data
Encourage and maintain stakeholder participation
Emphasize shared goals and objectives
Dedicate the right amount of funding
Address and communicate technical details of funding
South Carolina’s attempt at performance-based funding failed
New Mexico developed its model through a task force with members from the state’s public four-year schools as well as state government
W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e A u d i t o r ’ s O ffi c e 13
Contacts
Chuck Pfeil, CPADirector of Performance
Audit(360) 902-0366
Website: www.sao.wa.gov
Troy KelleyState Auditor(360) 902-0360
Tom FurgesonSenior Performance Auditor
(360) [email protected]
