Illinois Higher Education
Performance Funding Model
Performance Funding
Steering Committee Meeting
January 14, 2013
Dr. Alan Phillips
IBHE Presentation
1
Purpose
The purpose of this presentation is to propose a
performance funding model that will allocate funding
based on performance as a part of the FY 2014 IBHE
Higher Education budget submission, in accordance
with the intent of Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503), the
Performance Funding legislation, and that supports
the goals of the Illinois Public Agenda.
IBHE Presentation
2
Topics to be Covered
• Performance Funding Background
• Performance Funding (FY2013)
• Refinement Committee Effort
• Performance Funding Model Refinements
• FY14 Budget Considerations
IBHE Presentation
3
Background
IBHE Presentation
4
Higher Education Landscape
• 33 States have expressed interest or are currently
implementing performance-based funding systems,
up from fewer than 10 states just two years ago.
• States are now turning their attention to how –
rather than how much state funding is distributed to
public colleges and universities.
• As states have less money to spend, they also want
to ensure that they are getting a better return on
investment for the money they do have.
IBHE Presentation
5
Principles of a Good Performance
Funding Model
• There is agreement on the goals before performance funding
is put into place.
– Consensus around a “Public Agenda” for the state which
contains goals that are tailored to the needs of the state.
• The model contains performance metrics that are constructed
broadly.
• The design of the model promotes mission differentiation.
• The model includes provisions that reward success with
underserved populations.
• The model includes provisions that reward progress as well as
ultimate success (i.e. degree completion).
IBHE Presentation
6
Principles of a Good Performance
Funding Model
• The categories of outcomes to be rewarded are limited.
• The measures/metrics are unambiguous and difficult to game.
• Continuous improvement is rewarded, not attainment of a
fixed goal.
• Incentives in all parts of the funding model align with state
goals.
• The performance funding pool is large enough to command
attention.
IBHE Presentation
7
Performance Funding Objective
• 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
IBHE Presentation
8
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
9
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
10
Performance Funding Model (FY13)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
11
Performance Funding Model
(4-Year Universities)
• 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
12
Performance Funding Model (FY13)
Community Colleges
IBHE Presentation
13
Performance Funding Model
(Community Colleges)
• All steps are identical for each measure.
• Each community college district 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.
IBHE Presentation
14
Did We Accomplish the Objective?
• Developed workable performance funding models.
• Model and budget recommendations approved by both the
Steering Committee and the IBHE Board.
• A performance funding component was included in the FY
2013 Higher Education Budget Submission.
• The IBHE funding recommendation was included in the
Governor’s Budget without change.
• The GA allocated funding based on performance consistent
with the IBHE performance funding recommendation.
On this basis, we accomplished the objective.
IBHE Presentation
15
Refinement Effort
IBHE Presentation
16
Four Refinement Goals
• Refine the existing measures and sub-categories to the extent
possible or find replacement measures that capture what we
are trying to measure in a better way (i.e. Research
Expenditures, Low Income Students, Cost per FTE, etc.).
1. Identify additional measures and sub-categories to add to
the model.
2. Identify better and more current sources of data.
3. See if there is a better way to scale (normalize) the data.
4. Discuss ways to account for other factors (i.e. Hospitals,
Medical Schools, Dental Schools, etc.)
IBHE Presentation
17
Goal 1
1. Identify additional measures and sub-categories to add to the
model.
– The Committee considered which existing measures should be
revised.
– Want to keep the additional measures and sub-categories to a
minimum.
– The Committee also reviewed a number of additional
measures and sub-categories for addition to the model.
• Many of the measures had significant drawbacks.
• Data still does not exist for many of the measures.
IBHE Presentation
18
Current Measures and Sub-Categories
•
•
•
•
•
•
Measure
Bachelors Degrees (IPEDS)
Masters Degrees (IPEDS)
Doctoral and Professional Degrees (IPEDS)
Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (IPEDS)
Education and General Spending per Completion (RAMP) - Replace
Research and Public Service Expenditures (RAMP)
•
•
•
•
•
Sub-Category
Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) (ISAC) – Find Better Data
Adult (Age 25 and Older) (CCA)
Hispanic (IPEDS)
Black, non-Hispanic (IPEDS)
STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) (IPEDS) – Better Define CIP Codes
IBHE Presentation
19
Possible Measures to Add
•
Input measures
– SAT/ACT Scores - ILDS
– Students Requiring Remediation - ILDS
– Transfer Students (Articulation) - ILDS
•
•
•
Transfers with Associates Degree
Transfers with partial credit
Process measures (Persistence)
– Credit Hour Accumulation (24/48/72) - ILDS
– Retention by Cohort – ILDS
– Retention after transfer - ILDS
•
Completion measures
–
–
–
–
–
Bachelors Degrees - IPEDS
Masters Degrees - IPEDS
Doctoral and Professional Degrees - IPEDS
Time to Completion (within 100%, 150%, or 200%) - ILDS
# of graduates working in jobs related to their education - ?
IBHE Presentation
20
Possible Measures to Add
•
Efficiency measures (Affordability)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Institutional measures
–
–
–
–
–
•
Research and Public Service Expenditures - RAMP
Success in generating additional funding from contract activities (i.e. research, teaching, etc.) - ?
Private Support – RAMP/IPEDS
Investment in Facilities – RAMP
Cost Structure (i.e. Hospital, Medical School, Dental School, etc) - ?
Quality measures
–
–
–
–
–
•
Undergraduate Degrees per FTE – IPEDS
Education and General Spending per Completion - RAMP
Tuition and Fees – Tuition & Fee Report
Cost per Completion – Cost Study
Cost per FTE (?) – IBHE/IPEDS
Unit Cost – Unit Cost Report
Instructional Cost per Credit Hour – Cost Study
Faculty Productivity - ?
Ratio of Tenured to Non-Tenured faculty - IBHE
Ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time faculty - IBHE
Alumni, enrolled students, or employer survey results - ?
National Survey of Student Engagement – College Board
Satisfaction Assessment - ?
Diversity Measures
–
–
Faculty/Staff Diversity - IPEDS
Student Characteristics and Student Diversity - ILDS
IBHE Presentation
21
Changes to the Measures
• Deleted Education and General Spending per
Completion (RAMP)
• Added:
– Cost per Credit Hour. (Cost Study)
– Cost per Completion. (Cost Study)
– Credit Hour Accumulation. (Survey)
– Time to Completion. (Survey)
IBHE Presentation
22
Changes to Sub-Categories
• Did not change the sub-categories.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
IBHE Presentation
Low Income (Pell/MAP Eligible) – ISAC/ILDS
Adult (Age 25 and Older) – CCA/ILDS
Hispanic - IPEDS
Black, non-Hispanic - IPEDS
STEM & Health Care (By CIP Code) – IPEDS
Part-Time - ILDS
Disabled - ILDS
Veterans - ILDS
First Generation - ILDS
English Language Learners (?)
Residents of Underserved Counties - ILDS
Additional Ethnic Categories – ILDS/IPEDS
23
Goal 2
2. Identify better and more current sources of data.
– IPEDS (FY09-11)
•
•
•
•
•
Bachelors/Masters/Doctoral and Professional Degrees
Undergraduate Degrees per FTEs
Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
STEM & Health Care (By CIP Code) - HLS STEM List + 51 (Health Professions and
Related Programs)
– Cost Study
• Cost per Completion
• Cost per Credit Hour
– RAMP (FY09-12)
• Education and General Spending per Completion - Replaced
• Research and Public Service Expenditures
– CCA (FY09-10)
• Adult Students (Age 25 and older)
– ISAC (FY09-11)
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) – Used Survey Data from the Universities
IBHE Presentation
24
Possible Additional Sources of Data
• ILDS
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Age – (Date of Birth)
Ethnicity
Location – (County/Zip)
ACT/SAT
High School GPA/Class Rank (%)
Entry Enrollment (First Time/Transfer)
Enrollment (Part-Time/Full-time)
Remediation (GED/Math/Language Arts)
Credit Hours (Total/by Term)
Income (Pell/MAP Eligible)
First Generation.
• ILDS Not ready for Prime-Time
IBHE Presentation
25
Goal 3
3. Determine if there is a better way to scale (normalize) the data.
The Question:
How can you scale the data so that the measures are
roughly equivalent, without creating more problems than
you solve, while at the same time keeping it simple
enough that an individual can understand what you did?
Result:
For FY14 we will continue with the present approach.
IBHE Presentation
26
Goal 4
4. Discuss ways to account for other factors (i.e. Hospitals,
Medical Schools, Dental Schools, etc.)
– The Committee agreed to look at removing these entities
from the calculation for spending per completion.
– Added a factor to the model to account for these entities
based on a proportional share their funding relative to the
institution’s total GRF funding.
– Used Cost Study data, which does not include most of this
information in the calculation of cost data.
IBHE Presentation
27
Refinement Issues
• Data continues to be an issue.
– Although we have received our first ILDS submission, the
quality of the data is not sufficient to use at this time.
– The timeliness of data also continues to be a problem.
– May have to request the specific data we need from the
universities.
• Quality
– We still have significant challenges in defining quality as it
pertains to universities, and determining how best to
assess that quality.
• Sub-Categories
– First Generation (Definition/Data issues)
– Geographic Area (IERC – Students from Disadvantaged HS)
IBHE Presentation
28
Performance Funding Model (FY14)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
29
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 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities.
• Step 8 – Use the final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to
distribute performance funding.
IBHE Presentation
30
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
• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11)
• Masters Degrees (FY09-11)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11)
• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY10-12)
• Grad Rates 100%/150%/200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
• Retention (Completed 24/48/72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11)
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11)
IBHE Presentation
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
RAMP
Survey
Survey
Cost Study
Cost Study
31
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% - Survey Data
• Adult (Age 25 and Older)
40%
• Hispanic
40%
• Black, non-Hispanic
40%
• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51
IBHE Presentation
32
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.
IBHE Presentation
33
Scaling Factors
Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is
comparable across variables.
Measure
Universities 1-12 (Avg)
2,822
• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11)
1,042
• Masters Degrees (FY09-11)
227
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11)
25
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11)
27
• Grad Rates 100%of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
46
• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
50
• Grad Rates 200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
1,644
• Retention (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
1,453
• Retention (Completed 48 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
1,350
• Retention (Completed 72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
346
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11) (Cost Study)
36,566
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11) (Cost Study)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11) 112,914,667
IBHE Presentation
Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor
1.0
1
2.7
1
12.4
2
112.6
200
104.4
50
60.9
50
57.0
50
1.7
2
1.9
2
2.1
2
8.1
-8
.1
-.050
.00002
.00005
34
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects
the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution.
Research-Very High
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
• Retention (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Retention (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
• Retention (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research and Public Service Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
UIUC
17.0%
14.0%
13.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
45.0%
100.0%
UIC
18.0%
15.0%
14.0%
4.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
42.0%
100.0%
Doctoral/
Research
Research-High
NIU
28.0%
15.0%
10.0%
11.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
28.0%
100.0%
SIUC
28.0%
14.0%
8.0%
13.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
30.0%
100.0%
ISU
33.0%
23.0%
6.0%
12.0%
2.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.5%
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
15.0%
100.0%
35
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects
the priority of the Measure and 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
• Retention (Completed 24 Sem Hrs)
• Retention (Completed 48 Sem Hrs)
• Retention (Completed 72 Sem Hrs)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
SIUE
WIU
EIU
NEIU
CSU
42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
28.0% 25.0% 26.0% 26.0% 25.0%
2.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
12.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0%
2.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
1.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
1.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
3.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
GSU
UIS
45.0% 43.0%
27.0% 27.0%
1.0%
1.0%
5.0%
8.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
1.0%
5.0%
1.0%
7.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.0%
2.0%
100.0% 100.0%
36
Performance Value Calculation
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
• Retention (Completed 24 Sem Hrs)
• Retention (Completed 48 Sem Hrs)
• Retention (Completed 72 Sem Hrs)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
Data
2,822
1,042
227
25
27
46
50
1,644
1,453
1,350
346
36,566
$112,914,667
(Data+Premium)
Total Performance
Data + Premium Scale x Scale xWeight = Value
3,522
1
3,522
30.0%
1,057
1,454
1
1,454
25.0%
364
240
2
480
5.0%
24
25
200
5,000
10.0%
500
27
50
1,350
1.5%
20
46
50
2,300
1.0%
23
50
50
2,500
0.5%
13
1,644
2
3,288
1.0%
33
1,453
2
2,906
1.5%
44
1,350
2
2,700
2.0%
54
345
-8
-2,760
1.5%
-41
36,566 -.050
-1,828
1.0%
-18
$112,914,667 .00005
5,646
20.0%
1,129
100.0%
3,200
37
Performance Value Calculation
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 give you a total performance value for institutions with these high
cost entities.
• Example:
$20M/$200M = .10
•
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
•
320 + 3200 = 3550 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation
38
Funding Allocation
Based 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.
Percentages for Distribution
Total Performance Value
Percentage of Total
Distribution: Pro Rata
IBHE Presentation
University 1
University 2
University 3
Total
10,840
58.7%
4,435
24.0%
3,200
17.3%
17,302
100%
$240,000
$173,000
$1,000,000
$587,000
39
Budget Considerations
IBHE Presentation
40
Budget Considerations
• The State budget situation is not stable and declines in State funding for
colleges and universities may continue.
• The pension cost transfer continues to be a concern.
• Colleges and universities continue to address unfunded state mandates and
regulatory requirements.
• The availability of financial aid continues to be a problem and funding levels
for both MAP and Pell are declining.
• Enrollment declines continue to create significant challenges for colleges and
universities.
• The performance funding model needs to be more fully developed in order
to refine the measures and sub-categories and we need better sources of
data to support the model (ILDS)
• 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
41
Way Ahead
• Present final performance funding model recommendations
to the IBHE Board February 5th along with the FY2014 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 2015 budget submission and performance funding
recommendation.
IBHE Presentation
42
Questions/Comments?
IBHE Presentation
43
Back-Up Charts
IBHE Presentation
44
Performance Funding Model (FY13)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
45
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
46
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
• Bachelors Degrees (FY07-09)
• Masters Degrees (FY07-09)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY07-09)
• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11)
IBHE Presentation
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
RAMP
47
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
48
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)
• Bachelors Degrees (FY07-09)
4,445
• Masters Degrees (FY07-09)
1,152
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09)
796
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE FY(07-09)
26
• Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11)
4,639
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11)
10,803,117
IBHE Presentation
Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor
1.00
1.00
3.86
1.00
16.25
2.00
173.64
200.00
-.96
-1.00
.0004115
.0005000
49
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects
the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution.
Research-Very High
Weights Based on Institutional Mission
Bachelors Degrees
Masters Degrees
Doctoral and Prof Degrees
Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE
Education Spending/Completion
Research and Public Service Expenditures
UIUC
22.5%
15.0%
15.0%
5.0%
2.5%
40.0%
100.0%
Doctoral/
Research
Research-High
UIC
22.5%
15.0%
15.0%
5.0%
0.0%
42.5%
100.0%
NIU
37.5%
20.0%
10.0%
10.0%
2.5%
20.0%
100.0%
SIUC
37.5%
20.0%
10.0%
10.0%
0.0%
22.5%
100.0%
ISU
40.0%
22.5%
7.5%
12.5%
2.5%
15.0%
100.0%
Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)
Weights Based on Institutional Mission
Bachelors Degrees
Masters Degrees
Doctoral and Prof Degrees
Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE
Education Spending/Completion
Research and Public Service Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
SIUE
45.0%
25.0%
5.0%
15.0%
2.5%
7.5%
100.0%
WIU
45.0%
25.0%
2.5%
15.0%
10.0%
2.5%
100.0%
EIU
45.0%
27.5%
0.0%
15.0%
10.0%
2.5%
100.0%
NEIU
45.0%
27.5%
0.0%
15.0%
10.0%
2.5%
100.0%
CSU
47.5%
25.0%
2.5%
15.0%
7.5%
2.5%
100.0%
GSU
50.0%
37.5%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
2.5%
100.0%
UIS
50.0%
37.5%
2.5%
0.0%
7.5%
2.5%
100.0%
50
Performance Value Calculation
Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to
produce the Total Performance Value.
Data
Measure
• Bachelors Degrees
3,921
• Masters Degrees
1,552
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
209
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
23.2
• Education and General Spending per Completion 3,788
• Research and Public Service Expenditures
5,486,590
IBHE Presentation
(Data+Premium) Total Performance
Value
x Scale xWeight =
Data + Premium Scale
6,813
1
6,813
35.0%
2385
1,754
1
1,754
25.0%
438
229
458
2
5.0%
23
23.2
4,646
200
10.0%
464
3,788
-1
-3,788
5.0%
-189
5,486,590
.0005
2,743
20.0%
549
100.0%
3580
51
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
Total Performance Value
Percentage of Total
Distribution: Pro Rata
IBHE Presentation
University 1
University 2
University 3
Total
10,840
62.7%
4,435
25.6%
2,027
11.7%
17,302
100%
$256,000
$117,000
$1,000,000
$627,000
52
Performance Funding Model (FY13)
Community Colleges
IBHE Presentation
53
Performance Funding Model
(Community Colleges)
• There are thirty-nine community college districts.
• 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
54
Performance Funding Measures
(Community Colleges)
1. Degree and Certificate Completion.
2. Degree and Certificate Completion of “At Risk”
students.
3. Transfer to a four year institution.
4. Remedial and Adult Education Advancement.
5. Momentum Points.
6. Transfer to a community college.
IBHE Presentation
55
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
Associate Degrees
Awarded
District1
District 2
District 3
District 4
….
District 39
•
•
575
1,803
270
1,484
…..
329
25,130
FY 2009 Number of
Associate Degrees
Awarded
533
2,361
243
1,630
….
350
26,460
%
Change
-7.3%
30.9%
-10.0%
9.8%
….
6.4%
Greater
than
Zero
-.309
-.098
….
.064
2.585
Allocation
-$9,579
-$3.045
….
$1,976
$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
56
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 districts 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
57
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
Measure 1
IBHE Presentation
•
•
•
Total Allocation for Measure 1 = $120,000
Total Number of colleges receiving funding = 35
Range of Allocation = $331 to $9,579
58
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
59
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
60
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
61
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
62
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
63