Funding Formula (ACT 1203)
Jackie Holloway
Jackie.Holloway@adhe.edu or 501-371-2026
The Future of Higher Education In
Arkansas
“I realize that, without
improvement in higher
education, our
economic development
efforts will face
enormous barriers.”
Why is Change Necessary?
“Our woefully low rates of degree completion must change if we are
to truly claim educational success. With thousands more Arkansans
now receiving academic scholarships, we have begun addressing the
financial barriers that block some students from obtaining their
degree.
“With this increased enrollment and increased opportunity, I am
committed to seeing increased responsibility for results. I want to tie
funding for higher-education institutions more closely to coursework
completion and graduation rates, not simply to enrollment.
“These tax dollars must produce college graduates, not just fill up
seats. We can and must double the number of college graduates in
Arkansas by 2025 if we are to stay competitive. This is a lofty goal
aimed at the future, but we must begin implementing it today.”
~ State of the State Address, January 11, 2011
Current Needs-Based Funding Model
• The initial funding formula was a Needs-Based model and was
based on course type, level of enrollment, missions and
various other components.
• ADHE has incorporated performance (completion) incentives
in the model the past few sessions.
– 2009-11 funding recommendations were based on 90% census SSCH
and 10% end of term SSCH
– 2011-13 funding recommendations were based on 80% census SSCH
and 20% end of term SSCH
Act 1203
Amends Current Model
• Amends Arkansas Code 6-61-224 to instruct ADHE, in
collaboration with the Presidents & Chancellors, to develop
funding formulas with a
– Needs-Based component
– Outcomes-Centered component (Performance)
• The Outcomes-Centered component will be implemented
beginning in the 2012-13 school year with funding
recommendations affected for the 2013-14 school year.
Act 1203 Implementation
Funding Allocations
School Year
Needs-Based
Outcomes-Centered
2013-2014
95%
5%
2014-2015
90%
10%
2015-2016
85%
15%
2016-2017
80%
20%
2017-2018
75%
25%
Act 1203
Goals
• To increase the educational attainment levels of Arkansans by:
– Addressing the state’s economic development and workforce needs
– Promoting increased certificate and degree production while
maintaining a high level of rigor
– Acknowledging the unique mission of each institution and allowing for
collaboration and minimal redundancy in degree offerings and
competitive research
– Promoting a seamless and integrated system of postsecondary
education designed to meet the needs of all students
– And, addressing institutional accountability for the quality of
instruction and student learning, including remedial instruction
The Needs-Based Component
Need-Based Component
Need
Based Funding
Model
Expenditure
Functions
4 Year Funding
6 SSCH/FTE-based
Expenditure functions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Teaching Salaries
Instructional Support
Library
General Institutional
Support
Public Service
Research
2 Year Funding
5 SSCH/FTE-based
Expenditure functions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Teaching Salaries
Academic Support
Student Services
General Institutional
Support
Workforce Education
Teaching Salaries-Cost Categories
Universities
All SSCHs are allocated to a cost category
Cost Categories and Levels
Universities
Calculate Teaching Salaries
SSCH, Cost Categories & Levels = Faculty FTEs
12
Four Year-Needs Formula
Faculty FTEs x SREB Salary
All Costs based on SSCH
University Model
Facilities
M &onOSquare footage
Expenditure Function
based
Universities
Facilities M
& O for Universities
Calculation of Space Needs:
Academic Space
The needed square footage is determined using the
5-Factor Academic Space Prediction Model. Space
needs are determined in five categories:
• Teaching
• Library
• Research
Academic Offices
Academic Support
Space Needs Estimation Model
The model’s objective is to estimate the Academic Space Needs of Universities. The
Academics Space needs are considered in five categories: Teaching (Classroom), Library,
Research, Academic Offices and Academic Support Space. After the determination of the
academic space needs, administrative support space requirements for services which support
the academic mission are computed as 50% of the academic space requirements. Auxiliary
spaces are excluded.

Teaching Space Classrooms, class labs, special class labs, self-study labs, physical
education, demonstration, animal quarters, assembly, etc.
The student full-time equivalents (FTE) are multiplied by the appropriate square
footage in the table below.
Undergraduate
Graduate
Doctoral

Teaching Space per Student FTE by Program Cost Category
Cost Categories
I
II
III & IV
55.0
75.0
95.0
40.0
50.0
65.0
22.5
30.0
37.5
Library Space – Reading/study rooms, stack space, offices and computer labs &
technology, library services space.
Needs are determined for stack space, study space, staff offices, and technology and
library service space based upon library volumes standards and FTE students.
Research Space – Research labs and lab service rooms.
9,000 square feet for each $1 million of research funding.

Academic Office Space – Faculty and non-faculty offices, conference rooms,
reception areas, lounges, and similar spaces.
Faculty office space is computed as 190 square feet per faculty FTE needed. Nonfaculty office spaces are computed at 1.8 times the FTE faculty times170 square feet.

Academic Support Space – Data processing, computer labs, shops, storage, vehicle
storage, and associated area (barns, greenhouses, etc.)
Academic Support is (9%) of the sum of the space for Teaching, Library, Research
and Academic Offices.

Administrative Support Space – Administration, Student Services, Computing
Center, Recreation, and Physical Plant Spaces.
Administrative Support Space is 50% of the academic space.
Facilities M & O
Universities
• General Institutional Support - 50% of the Academic
Space.
• Auxiliary Space is excluded.
• Calculation of Funding Needs:
• Excess/Shortage Sq. Ft. = Total Sq. Ft. – Model Sq.
Ft.
• The needed square feet produced by the model will be
funded at a set dollar amount per square foot. ($7.30)
• Excess/shortage square feet will be funded at a lesser
dollar amount per square foot. ($3.20)
Expenditure Function
for
Special
Missions
Universities
Universities
Special Mission
Calculation:
• Federal Land Grant Institution = 10% of
Teaching Salaries
• Traditional Minority Institution = 15% of
FTE based Funding
Expenditure Function
for Diseconomy of Scale
Universities
Universities
Diseconomy of Scale
Percent to be added
•
•
•
•
•
FTE Enrollment
0 to 2,000
2,001 to 2,500
2,501 to 3,000
3,001 to 3,500
the Formula Need
10%
5.0%
2.1%
1.0%
Deduct
Tuition
and
Fees
Universities
Universities
Tuition and Mandatory Fee Income
• Calculations:
= Undergraduate SSCH X $175
= Graduate SSCH X $240
= Doctoral SSCH X $270
Total = Sum of above calculations
Needs Based Component
Needs-Based
Funding Model
Universities
21
What Should be Reviewed on the
Needs-Based Component?
• To ensure the most accurate need is generated, we will need
to:
–
–
–
–
–
Review the tuition rates
Review the faculty salary rates
Review the census date SSCH (late start programs)
Review that the Distance Education Policy is implemented
Review the Facilities maintenance amount per square foot
The Outcomes-Centered
Component
Where to Start?
What should be considered on the
Outcomes-centered Component?
• Each institution’s unique mission
• Flexibility and the ability to accommodate future shifts in mission
or productivity emphasis
• Performance measures (but not limited to)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student Retention
Student progression toward credential completion
Number of credentials awarded
High-demand credentials (STEM)
Minority, nontraditional, and economically disadvantaged students
Student transfer activity
Research activity
Attributes of Successful Models
• Commitment of political leaders, trustees, institutional leadership, faculty,
staff and students
• Mission sensitivity – not every institution is expected to have high
performance in every area
• No funding cliffs – effects phased in over time
• Transparency/accountability with periodic reports on results
• One size does not fit all: Each state approach has been unique, with some
sharing of components
• Improvement focus
 Institutions should be able to influence the results over a reasonable
timeframe
 Institutions should be able to use the information to develop strategies for
improving student achievement
Ohio Models
Four Year
• The University Campuses vary depending on their
mission:
– Main Campuses
• Course and degree completions
• Contribution to state’s strategic plan
• Campuses’ mission
– Regional Campuses
• Course and degree completion
• Participation in low-cost 2 + 2 program (CC and University credits)
• Mission-specific contribution to state’s strategic plan
Ohio Model
2 Year
• The community colleges will continue to provide a
large portion of funding on enrollment, since they
are expected to serve the underprepared,
nontraditional.
• Student success will be determined by achievements
(complete remedial coursework, 15 hours, 30 hours,
associates degree)
Ohio Models
2 Year
• The Community and Technical College Funding model
consists of 3 components
– An enrollment component
– A student success component
– An institutional specific goals component
– With a stop-loss component
– Pending adoption “at-risk” component
Tennessee Model
• Theory that cohort survival determined largely by
demographics and academic backgrounds
• Data reviewed for past 10 years
• The Model:
– Generates enrollment & graduation projections for
different student groups
– Two overall groups: Freshmen and Non-Freshmen
Tennessee Model
• Freshmen Cohort (6 groups – First time entering)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Dual Enrollment credit
Remedial
Non-resident
Other
20-24 years of age
25 years of age and over
Tennessee Model
• Non-Freshmen Cohort (5 groups)
–
–
–
–
–
Returning students
Readmitted students
Non-degree seeking students
Community college transfers
Transfers from other institutions
Who Else is Leading the Way
• Louisiana
– Tied 25% of state funds to completion/ transfer and articulation/workforce
outcomes; graduates ages 25 and older, racial/ ethnic minorities, low income
groups; STEM fields
• Indiana
– Degrees awarded; course completions for low-income students; on-time
graduation; transfer
• Washington
– Recognized students in all mission areas (including adult basic education and
developmental education); reflects diverse communities served by colleges
Websites to Review
• http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=693
• http://www.usg.edu/news/release/regents_get_first_look
_at_new_performance-based_funding_model/
• http://cpe.ky.gov/policies/budget/fundingmodel.htm
• http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/e_studentachievement.
aspx
Important Points
• There will be two separate pools of funding: one for the
Needs-Based Component and one for the Outcomes-Centered
Component
• No institution will lose more than 5% of the previous year’s
base.
• Only the performance pool will be subject to reallocation
based on the institutions’ predetermined measures.
Challenges Ahead
• It will be important to:
– Involve all stakeholders early on
– Recognize funds needed to support institutions’ core functions
– Determine how to account for differences in missions
– Maintain consistency in data among institutions
– Know your institution and what is needed to be successful
– Ensure grade inflation is avoided
Timeline
Determine
Update AHECB on
Outcomesprogress made with
Centered
Outcomes-Centered
components and
measures
Distribution
methodologies
Spring 2011
July 2011
Review
changes to
Needs-Based
formula
Present
changes to
Needs-Based
formula if
necessary
Present OutcomesPresent
Centered Formula
recommended
to Governor,
Outcomes-Centered
President Pro
Formula to AHECB
Tempore and
for approval
Speaker
October 2011
Present Funding
recommendations
for FY2013 to
AHECB for
approval
Winter 2011
Prepare Budget
Manuals for
Fiscal Session
(February 2012)
Begin working on
Funding
Recommendations
using both
Components
Present Funding
Recommendations
for FY2014 to
AHECB for
approval
Spring 2012
July 2012
Prepare
Personnel &
Capital Recs.
Present
Personnel &
Capital Recs.
Committee Timeline
Presentation on
Changes in
Funding
Meet to determine Run Scenarios and
Update AHECB
Present
measures for
make adjustments on on progress made
recommended
Outcomes-Centered
Performance
with Outcomes- Outcomes-Centered
components and
Measures
Centered measures Formula to AHECB
Distribution
for approval
methodologies
April 2011
May 2011
Create
Performance
Committee
Discuss
Changes to
Needs-Based
Component
June 2011
Run Scenarios
and make
adjustments
on Needs
component
July 2011
Present changes
to Needs-Based
formula if
necessary
October
2011
Present Funding
recommendations
for FY2013 to
AHECB for
approval
Present OutcomesCentered Formula
to Governor,
President Pro
Tempore and
Speaker
December
2011
Recap/Summary
• The work other states have done to implement OutcomesCentered formulas will be helpful in our preparation, but
Arkansas and its institutions are unique and this must be kept
in mind throughout the process
• Many sets of standards may be created because of the
differences that exist between institutions
• What doesn’t work will be just as important as what does
work
• The process will start immediately with the Presidents and
Chancellors working with ADHE to develop standards
Questions???
To review this presentation, click on the
link shown below.
http://www.adhe.edu/aboutadhe/ahecboard/
Pages/board_presentations.aspx