DSPS Weights and Allocation Study
July Webinar
July 2015
1
Goals of the Allocations and Weights Study
1) Revisit funding formula components such as college
effort and the 95% guarantee and simulate changes
suggested by the Advisory Group and CCCCO
2) Capture the relative cost of serving students in different
disability categories
3) Identify costs of serving students in potentially new
disability categories (Autism, ADHD) and redefined
categories (LD to include some students currently
reported Other)
2
Timeline
Outreach
Webinars
Spring 2014
Data
Analysis
Fall 2014
Data
Collection
Summer 2014
Simulations
Presented to
Advisory Group
Winter 2015
Draft Weights
Created
Winter 2015
Development of Proposed
Allocation Formula
Winter – Spring 2015
Feedback from
Advisory Group
and Stakeholders
2015
Consultation Counsel and
Board of Governors– after
review of advisory groups
and internal approval
Winter – Spring 2015
LD Subcommittee
Spring 2015 –
Summer 2015
Revisit in three
years
Implementation — see
next steps slide!
3
Outreach
1. Informational Webinars about Study, June 2014
2. DHH Committee Meeting, September 2014
3. CAPED, October 2014
4. Regional Coordinator Meeting, October 2014
5. Regional Coordinator Meeting, February 2015
6. Region 1 Call, February 2015
7. Regional Coordinator Meeting, June 2015
4
Current Formula Overview
Current Formula
Total Funds
Step 1
Baseline
Baseline
Each
college receives approximately $72,000 to provide a
baseline amount that can fund a Coordinator.
College Effort
Step 2
10% of the post-baseline
funds are allocated to
college effort. College
effort is calculated based
upon the total amount
of general funds that the
college contributes to
DSPS, relative to the
total amount
contributed statewide.
Weighted Student Count
90% of the post-baseline funds are
distributed based on colleges’
weighted student counts,
determined by student counts of
different disability categories and
their corresponding weights,
relative to the total WSC
statewide.
95% Guarantee
Step 3
Colleges receive no less than 95% of their previous years’
allocation, funds permitted.
Establish a Maximum
Step 4
Based upon the amount needed to fund the 95% Guarantee, a
maximum is established that limits funding increases relative to
the previous year’s allocation
Implications of Current Formula
Cumulative DSPS Funding Gained Due to 95% Guarantee Over Three Years
$786,268
$800,000
$746,479
Dollars Gained
$700,000
$623,636
$600,000
$500,000
$492,155
$430,552
$400,000
$300,000
$255,707
$219,394
$200,000
$123,697
$113,369
$90,236
$70,835
$20,830
Year 1+ 2+ 3
$100,000
$Year 1
Year 1 + 2
Difference Between Formula Allocations and
Actual Amounts Received Due to 95% Guarantee
Year 1 = 2011-12
Year 2 = 2012-13
Year 3 = 2013-14
College
College 1
College 2
College 3
College 4
College 5
College 6
College 7
College 8
College 9
College 10
College 11
College 12
Year 1
$272,200
$328,380
$159,638
$217,467
$241,234
$115,923
$121,399
$63,934
$52,286
$27,039
$24,530
$9,554
Year 1 + 2
$630,586
$637,705
$453,032
$418,440
$406,839
$245,218
$197,100
$112,180
$105,737
$56,473
$49,457
$15,884
Year 1+ 2+ 3
$786,268
$746,479
$623,636
$492,155
$430,552
$255,707
$219,394
$123,697
$113,369
$90,236
$70,835
$20,830
6
Implications of Current Formula
Cumulative DSPS Funding Lost Due to Reaching Maximum Level Over Three Years
$800,000
$716,347
Dollars Lost
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$482,447
$428,784
$395,797
$400,000
$300,000
$277,082
$200,000
$194,641
$152,043
$107,999
$100,000
$-
Year 1
Year 1 + 2
Year 1+ 2+ 3
Amount of formula-allocated funds lost due to maximum
Year 1 = 2011-12
Year 2 = 2012-13
Year 3 = 2013-14
College
College 1
College 2
College 3
College 4
College 5
College 6
College 7
College 8
Year 1
$275,091
$138,590
$139,831
$198,391
$90,292
$63,302
$64,813
$48,424
Year 1 + 2
$610,966
$305,686
$292,036
$327,892
$213,772
$150,899
$140,684
$107,220
Year 1+ 2+ 3
$716,347
$482,447
$428,784
$395,797
$277,082
$194,641
$152,043
$107,999
7
Proposed Formula
Current Formula
Total Funds
Total Funds
College Effort
Step 1
Step 2
Baseline
Baseline
Each
college receives approximately $72,000 to provide a
baseline amount that can fund a Coordinator.
College Effort
10% of the post-baseline
funds are allocated to
college effort. College
effort is calculated based
upon the total amount
of general funds that the
college contributes to
DSPS, relative to the
total amount
contributed statewide.
Step 1
Weighted Student Count
Step 3
90% of the post-baseline funds are
distributed based on colleges’
weighted student counts,
determined by student counts of
different disability categories and
their corresponding weights,
relative to the total WSC
statewide.
Step 4
80% of funds are
distributed based on
weighted student counts of
students’ primary disability
only from two years prior,
determined by student
counts of different
disability categories and
their corresponding
weights. Secondary
disabilities will no longer
be used in funding
allocations.
Weighted student counts and college effort amounts from two years prior
will be used in the allocation calculation.
95% Guarantee
Colleges receive no less than 95% of their previous years’
allocation, funds permitted.
Weighted Student Count
Prior-Prior
Step 2
Step 3
20% of the total allocation is
distributed based upon college
effort. College effort is calculated as
a proportion of the total amount of
general funds that the college
contributes to DSPS, divided by their
DSPS budget. Each proportion is
ranked across the state and given a
decile with corresponding weight.
The assigned weight is multiplied by
the original college effort amount.
This weighted college effort amount
is then compared to the total
amount of weighted college effort
for the state.
90% Guarantee
Colleges receive no less than 90% of their previous years’ budget, funds
Colleges receive no less than 90% of their previous years’ budget,
permitted.
funds permitted.
Establish a Maximum
Step 3
Based upon the amount needed to fund the 90% Guarantee, a
maximum is established that limits funding increases relative to
the previous year’s allocation
Establish a Maximum
Step 4
Based upon the amount needed to fund the 95% Guarantee, a
maximum is established that limits funding increases relative to
the previous year’s allocation
Coordinator Funding Guarantee (CFG)
Step 4
The CFG applies after the allocation has been calculated, and
brings any college that receives less than $150,000 up to that
amount.
Proposed College Effort Calculations
9
Weights
Weights
10
Current Study: Methodological Considerations
Options for Methodology: Challenges
1) Current Data (real-time capture or a modified experience sampling)
a. Logistics of data collection (staff burden, representation of services
provided across term)
b. Build an online platform for data collection customized for each college
c. Current practice affected by budget cuts
2) End of Year Financial Information
a. Missing length of time
b. Cannot determine who provided services
3) Standards of Practice
a. Not based on cost data
b. Stronger advocates may introduce bias
c. Consensus on standards of practice
4) Historical Data Collection
a. Not all costs are captured (only direct service time is captured)
b. Not all colleges will have the data necessary from years prior
11
College Sample
Colleges in our Sample
Region 1– Butte
Region 2– American River College
Region 2– Sierra (counseling)
Region 4– Evergreen
Region 5– Fresno
Region 5– Porterville
Region 6– Santa Barbara
Region 7– West LA (counseling)
Region 8– Mt. SAC
Region 9– Chaffey
Region 10– San Diego Mesa
Region 10– Southwestern
[08-09]
[08-09]
[08-09]
[08-09]
[08-09]
[09-10]
[08-09]
[13-14]
[11-12]
[08-09]
[08-09]
[09-10]
12
College Sample Representativeness of Disabilities
DHH
ABI
LD
Vision
Mobility OTHER
DDL
Speech PSYCH
State Distribution in
13-14
4%
4%
16%
3%
11%
39%
7%
1%
16%
College Sample
Distribution
4%
4%
20%
2%
10%
42%
5%
1%
13%
13
Number of Student-level Records
ABI
DHH
DDL
LD
Mob
Psych
Speech
Vision
Other
Autism
Other ADHD
Other LD
Unassessed
Other
Others
Total
American
River
41
70
16
180
56
195
5
28
15
63
34
429
1132
Butte
40
22
51
49
49
50
0
20
X
X
X
50
331
Chaffey
34
32
49
50
43
43
1
35
6
56
67
71
487
Evergreen
20
9
31
51
51
24
7
12
8
18
51
25
307
Fresno
37
23
36
33
23
42
2
21
1
2
4
43
267
Mt. SAC
50
172
50
50
53
51
26
29
45
59
62
647
Porterville
6
3
0
36
0
15
0
4
0
4
1
18
87
San Diego
Mesa
80
50
17
177
98
132
10
6
X
X
X
250
820
Santa
Barbara
29
28
27
54
50
49
6
19
2
24
39
208
535
Sierra
24
24
28
51
81
50
15
13
11
32
53
31
413
Southweste
rn
19
31
31
353
91
161
41
21
X
X
X
240
988
West LA
5
10
23
118
32
69
0
12
25
27
18
50
389
Total
385
474
359
1202
627
881
113
220
113
285
267
1477
6,403
X
14
Methodological Decisions
1. Initial Intake
2. Speech and Other were be combined into one category
3. Proctoring Data
4. DHH Line Item Adjustments
5. Sierra and West LA Data
6. Other LD
7. LD Assessment Time
15
Weights
Calculating Weights
16
Calculation of Costs Formula
Cost of each Service Contact = Who provided the
service and how long was the service contact
Cost of
Service
Contact
=
Staff Salary/Benefits Rate * Length of time
Staffing Survey – College Responses
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5
American
River
Cosumnes
Feather River
River
Butte
Lassen
Redwoods
Folsom Lake
Region 6
Region 7 Region 8
Region 9 Region 10
Alameda
Cabrillo
Bakersfield
Allan Hancock
Compton
Cerritos
Barstow
Cuyamaca
Berkeley
(peralta)
Chabot
Columbia
Antelope Valley
East LA
Citrus
Cerro Coso
Grossmont
Canada
DeAnza
Fresno
College of the
Canyons
El Camino
Coastline
Chaffey
Imperial Valley
Evergreen
Reedley
Cuesta
Glendale
Cypress
Crafton Hills
Mira Costa
Lake Tahoe Contra Costa
College of the
Palomar
Desert
Laney
Copper
Siskiyous Napa Valley
Gavilan
Modesto
Oxnard
LA Harbor Golden West
San Diego City
(peralta)
Mountain
Sacramento
San Diego
Los Medanos Hartnell
Porterville Santa Barbara LA Mission Irvine Valley
Moreno
City
Mesa
San Joaquin
San Dieo
Sierra
Marin
Los Positas
Taft
LA Pierce
Long Beach Mt San Jacinto
Delta
Miramar
Merrit
Mt San
Solano
Mission
Sequoias
Ventura
LA Southwest
Norco
Southwestern
(peralta)
Antonio
Monterey
West Hills
North Orange
Woodland San Francisco
LA Trade
Palo Verde
Peninsula
Coalinga
District
West Hills
Yuba
San Mateo
Ohlone
LA Valley Orange Coast
Riverside
Lemoore
San
Santa Rosa
San Jose
Pasadena
Santa Ana
Bernardino
Blue Box = we
Shasta
Mendocino Diablo Valley
received a survey
Total Surveys
Received = 60
Skyline
Vista
Foothill
West Valley
Merced
Moorpark
LA City
Fullerton
Santa Monica
Rio Hondo
West LA
Saddleback
Victor Valley
18
Cost Calculation
Step 1: Calculate the cost for an
individual student
Each documented service has a cost
calculated for it by looking at who
provided the service, their hourly cost,
and the length of a service. All service
cost calculations are then combined to
create a total cost for that individual
student.
Step 2: Calculate the average cost
for a disability group
Average all total costs for each student
to create an average for the disability,
and then average the disability average
with other colleges (colleges with over
50 students were capped in their
weighting at 50 for most categories).
This creates an average cost for each
disability category.
Step 3: Calculate the weights
using the average cost for a
disability
Divide every disability group’s average
cost by the cost of the disability group
with the lowest average cost, creating
the weights.
19
History of Weights
Established in 1991
The weights in effect today were established from a study conducted in
1991. The study developed weights by forming an Allocations Task Force
composed of CCCCO staff and DSPS representatives. This group identified
services different disabilities received and then estimated how many
services an average student could expect to receive. Using hourly, salary,
and benefit data, weights were calculated by using staffing data to estimate
how much it cost to serve students who received different kinds of services.
Issues, prepared for the Chancellor’s Office California Community
Colleges and the Allocations Task Force, June 1991.
*
Proposed in 2000
To the right we provide the recommend weights proposed by a study
conducted by MPR Associates in 2000. This study collected data from 9
colleges in 4 regions and established new weight recommendations from
those data. The weights were not adopted. We provide this information
to add more context to the current study and its findings.
* In May of 2013, MPR Associates was acquired by RTI International
S. Choy, Allocating Funds for Disabled Student Programs
and Services: Disability Group Weights and Other Funding
20
Weights
Proposed Weights
21
Category Weights
Disability Weights
MPR Proposed
Current Weights
ABI
1.19
ABI
DDL
0.93
11
1.21
0.59
0.64
1.79
1.00
0.72
DDL
DHH
LD
Mobility
Psych
Vision
Speech
Other
DHH
LD
Mobility
Psych
Vision
Speech
Other
3.34
1.29
4.87
3.15
1.32
0.38
2.25
1.00
1.32
Allocation and Weights Study
Informed Weights
ABI
2.6
DDL
DHH
LD
Mobility
Psych
Vision
2
23.7
3.5
1.9
2.5
2.9
Other (with
Speech)
2.6
ADHD
1.0
Autism
3.8
22
Recommended Weights Adjustments
Three Changes to Presentation of Weights
1) Using one decimal point
2) Simplified weights across similar weight categories (Average costs were collapsed across all
categories within a group and recalculated)
3) The lowest weight should always equate to a value of 1.0
Allocation and Weights Study
Informed Weights
DHH
23.7
Allocation and Weights Study
Informed Weights
DHH
23.7
Autism
3.8
Autism
3.8
LD
3.5
LD
3.5
Vision
2.9
Vision
2.9
ABI
2.6
ABI
2.6
Other (with Speech)
2.6
Others (with Speech)
2.6
Psych
2.5
Psych
2.6
DDL
2.0
DDL
2.0
Mobility
1.9
Mobility
2.0
ADHD
1.0
ADHD
1.0
23
Disability Category
Weights
Calculating
‘relative’
weights
To try to compare between the current and the informed weights, we first added
up the value of all the weights (18.92 for the current weights; 41.7 for the informed
weights), as seen below. We then calculated the percent of each weight relative to
that total (for example, for the current weights, for ABI that calculation would be
3.34/18.92=18%). Making comparisons like this is difficult, so we provide this
calculation—and the graphs on the next page--for discussion.
Allocation and Weights
Study Informed Weights
Current Weights
ABI
DDL
DHH
LD
Mobility
Psych
Vision
Speech
Other
Sum
3.34
1.29
4.87
3.15
1.32
0.38
2.25
1.00
1.32
18.92
18%
ABI
2.6
6%
7%
DDL
2
5%
26%
DHH
23.7
57%
17%
LD
3.5
8%
7%
Mobility
1.9
5%
2%
Psych
2.5
6%
Vision
7%
Other
2.9
2.6
Sum
41.7
12%
5%
7%
6%
24
Disability Weights
Percentage Distribution of Weights (without ADHD and Autism)
60%
57%
50%
40%
30%
26%
18%
20%
17%
12%
10%
6%
6%
8%
6%
12%
7%
5%
7%
2%
5%
7%
0%
DHH
Psych
ABI
LD
proposed
Other and
Speech
Vision
DDL
Mobility
current
25
Next Steps
1.
Build new allocation spreadsheet, in order to run 15-16 P1 simulated
allocations, using all components of proposed changes, with actual / current
data.
→ How will you handle Autism / ADHD?
2.
“Real time” simulations for side-by-side comparison (current/actual P1 vs
proposed vs proposed with LD’s rec weight).
3.
Review with Workgroup to finalize recommendations.
4.
Internal vetting and review by CCCO, Consultation (earliest Dec.) and
eventually BOG.
→Earliest implementation would allow for 2017-18 allocations being
run with new formula.
5. Revisit in three years
26
Discussion
Discussion
27