IBHE Presentation
Steering Committee Meeting
July 17, 2013
Dr. Alan Phillips
1

•
•
IBHE Presentation 2

•
– 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 3

IBHE Presentation 4

• 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.
– Maintain the quality of degrees, certificates, courses, and programs.
– Recognize the unique and broad mission of public community colleges.
IBHE Presentation 5

IBHE Presentation
6

(No Change from FY14/Issues Resolved for FY15)
1. Are there differences in the cost per completion for different sub-categories of students (i.e. is cost for completion for an adult student different than that of a STEM student)? Should that be integrated in the model?
2. Are less prepared students adequately addressed in the model?
3. What is the best way to address the issue of transfer students and part-time students?
4. Do we change the measures or the sub-categories.
5. Do we change the sources of the data for the model?
IBHE Presentation 7

(Deferred Issues)
6. Are there other high value degrees and programs, in addition to the STEM programs, that we should add to the model?
7. Are we giving enough priority to measures of efficiency?
8. Are we adequately accounting for institutional improvement from year to year?
IBHE Presentation 8

(Issues Pending Resolution for FY15)
9. What is the best way to account for the difficulty of getting underrepresented students through to completion throughout the model?
10. What is the best way to account for high cost entities (i.e.
Hospitals and Medical, Dental, and Veterinary schools)?
IBHE Presentation 9

• What is the best way to account for the difficulty of getting underrepresented students through to completion throughout the model?
– Four of the five sub-categories address underrepresented students and these sub-categories are weighted in the Bachelors, Masters, and
Doctoral completion measures.
– They are, however, not weighted in the Cost per Completion or the
Completion per 100 FTE measures.
– Do we weight the completions in these two categories, and if so, do we readjust the sub-category weights so as to not overweight these subpopulations in the model?
IBHE Presentation 10

• Existing Model vs. Weighting Throughout the Model Without
Changing Sub-Populations Premium (40%)
FY 2014 Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model
0.5% ($6,160,960 set aside)
Performance Funding
Less:
UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS
1,744,792 1,553,474 409,736 621,548 377,192 292,206 271,016 257,223 228,848 143,759 147,718 113,449
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14)
1,673,344 1,527,858 467,351 726,582 370,412 296,887 263,739 220,206 189,038 186,528 123,253 115,764
$ 71,449 $ 25,616 $ (57,615) $ (105,034) $ 6,780 $ (4,681) $ 7,277 $ 37,017 $ 39,810 $ (42,769) $ 24,466 $ (2,314)
0.02% 0.01% -0.06% -0.07% 0.01% -0.01% 0.01% 0.08% 0.11% -0.11% 0.10% -0.01%
Performance Funding
Less:
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14)
Scenario 1: Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE/Cost per Completion Weighted by Sub-Populations with 40% Premium
UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS
1,570,573 1,415,248 413,462 648,009 377,821 308,518 292,151 279,556 289,946 240,916 182,570 142,189
1,673,344 1,527,858 467,351 726,582 370,412 296,887 263,739 220,206 189,038 186,528 123,253 115,764
$ (102,771) $ (112,610) $ (53,889) $ (78,573) $ 7,409 $ 11,631 $ 28,412 $ 59,350 $ 100,908 $ 54,388 $ 59,317 $ 26,425
-0.03% -0.04% -0.06% -0.05% 0.01% 0.02% 0.05% 0.13% 0.27% 0.15% 0.24% 0.11%
IBHE Presentation 11

• Existing Model vs. Weighting Throughout the Model With Changing Sub-Populations
Premiums to 20% and 10%
FY 2014 Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model
0.5% ($6,160,960 set aside)
UIUC UIC
1,744,792 1,553,474 Performance Funding
Less:
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14)
NIU
409,736
SIUC
621,548
ISU
377,192
SIUE
292,206
WIU
271,016
EIU
257,223
NEIU
228,848
CSU
143,759
GSU
147,718
UIS
113,449
1,673,344
$ 71,449
0.02%
1,527,858
$ 25,616
0.01%
467,351 726,582 370,412
$ (57,615) $ (105,034) $ 6,780
-0.06% -0.07% 0.01%
296,887 263,739
$ (4,681) $ 7,277
-0.01% 0.01%
220,206
$ 37,017
0.08%
189,038
$ 39,810
0.11%
186,528
$ (42,769) $ 24,466
-0.11%
123,253
0.10%
115,764
$ (2,314)
-0.01%
Scenario 2: Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE/Cost per Completion Weighted by Sub-Population with 20% Premium
UIUC UIC
1,663,769 1,478,985
NIU
395,100
SIUC
635,340
ISU
358,513
SIUE WIU
288,246 277,147
EIU
265,699
NEIU
265,989
CSU
222,629
GSU
170,005
UIS
139,540 Performance Funding
Less:
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14)
1,673,344 1,527,858 467,351 726,582 370,412 296,887 263,739 220,206 189,038 186,528 123,253 115,764
$ (9,575) $ (48,873)
0.00% -0.02%
$ (72,251) $ (91,242)
-0.08% -0.06%
$ (11,899) $ (8,641)
-0.02% -0.01%
$ 13,408 $ 45,494 $ 76,951 $ 36,101
0.03% 0.10% 0.20% 0.10%
$ 46,753
0.19%
$ 23,776
0.10%
Scenario 3: Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE/Cost per Completion Weighted by Sub-Populations with 10% Premium
UIUC
1,716,656
UIC
1,515,170
NIU
384,678
SIUC
628,150
ISU
347,554
SIUE
276,739
WIU
268,630
EIU
257,834
NEIU
252,391
CSU GSU
212,249 162,873
UIS
138,036 Performance Funding
Less:
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14)
1,673,344 1,527,858 467,351 726,582 370,412 296,887 263,739 220,206 189,038 186,528 123,253 115,764
$ 43,312
0.01%
$ (12,688) $ (82,673) $ (98,432) $ (22,858) $ (20,148) $ 4,891
0.00% -0.09% -0.07% -0.03% -0.03% 0.01%
$ 37,629
0.09%
$ 63,353
0.17%
$ 25,721
0.07%
$ 39,621
0.16%
$ 22,273
0.10%
IBHE Presentation 12

•
– Need to be accounted for in the model in some way.
– Current methodology - Does not account for all of the costs.
– Complete Carve-Out – Some schools benefit in the model from these entities (i.e. Completions & Research and Public Service
Expenditures).
IBHE Presentation 13

• Current High Cost Entities Adjustment
– 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 results in a total performance value for institutions with these high cost entities.
– Example: $20M/$200M = .10
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
320 + 3200 = 3520 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation 14

• Proposed High Cost Entities Adjustment (Carve Out)
– Step 1: Allocate performance set-aside funds based on an adjusted state appropriation that removes state funds for high cost entities.
– Step 2: Calculate performance funding allocations per funding model using adjusted performance set-aside amount.
– Step 3: Add back funds to institutions with high cost entities by applying performance funding set-aside percentage (i.e. .5% for FY14) to the high cost entities state appropriation.
– Step 4: Total allocated funds equal performance funding without high cost entities plus set-aside for high cost entities.
•
– Adjustment results in all appropriated funds being counted in the performance funding allocation and pro rata set aside.
– Performance funding dollars allocated to high cost entities are not truly performance based as these funds are added back after performance funding computation.
IBHE Presentation 15

• Step 1: Allocate performance set-aside funds based on and adjusted state appropriation that removes state funds for high cost entities.
– Example: Total State Appropriation – High Cost Entities = Funds Allocated via Performance
$2.0 billion – $250 million = $1.75 billion x 0.5% (performance set-aside for FY 14) = $8.75 million
• Step 2: Calculate performance funding allocations per funding model using adjusted performance set-aside amount.
– Reallocate $8.75 million based on performance to higher education institutions per performance model
• Step 3: Add back funds to institutions with high cost entities by applying performance funding set-aside percentage (i.e. .5% for FY14) to the high cost entities state appropriation.
– Example: University A – High Cost Entity Appropriation = $100 million x 0.5% = $0.5 million
University B – High Cost Entity Appropriation = $150 million x 0.5% = $0.75 million
• Step 4: Total allocated funds equal performance funding without high cost entities plus setaside for high cost entities.
– Example: University A - $1.25 M (performance funds) + $0.5 M (high cost add back) = $1.75 M
University B - $2.0 M (performance funds) + $.075 M (high cost add back) = $2.75 M
University C - $0.75 M (performance funds)
IBHE Presentation 16

• Existing Model vs. Carve-Out
FY 2014 Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model
0.5% ($6,160,960 set aside)
Performance Funding
Less:
UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS
1,744,792 1,553,474 409,736 621,548 377,192 292,206 271,016 257,223 228,848 143,759 147,718 113,449
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
1,673,344 1,527,858 467,351 726,582 370,412 296,887 263,739 220,206 189,038 186,528 123,253 115,764
$ 71,449 $ 25,616 $ (57,615) $ (105,034) $ 6,780 $ (4,681) $ 7,277 $ 37,017 $ 39,810 $ (42,769) $ 24,466 $ (2,314)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14) 0.02% 0.01% -0.06% -0.07% 0.01% -0.01% 0.01% 0.08% 0.11% -0.11% 0.10% -0.01%
FY 2014 Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model with alternative for high cost entities
UIUC UIC NIU
Performance Funding (without high cost entities) 1,663,941 1,162,949 403,841
SIUC ISU
483,812 371,765
SIUE
266,657
WIU
267,117
EIU
253,522
NEIU
225,555
CSU
141,690
GSU
145,593
UIS
111,817
1,707,331 1,567,029 403,841 675,497 371,765 290,204 267,117 253,522 225,555 141,690 145,593 111,817 Total Performance Funding
Less:
Set Aside Pro Rata Share
Net Impact (FY14)
Percent Change (FY13 - FY14)
1,673,344 1,527,858 467,351 726,582 370,412 296,887 263,739 220,206 189,038 186,528 123,253 115,764
$ 33,988 $ 39,171
0.01% 0.01%
$ (63,510) $ (51,085) $ 1,353
-0.07% -0.04% 0.00%
$ (6,683) $ 3,378 $ 33,316 $ 36,517 $ (44,838) $ 22,340 $ (3,947)
-0.01% 0.01% 0.08% 0.10% -0.12% 0.09% -0.02%
IBHE Presentation 17

(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 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 to reflect the priority of the
Measure to 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 final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) - excluding high cost entities - to distribute performance funding.
• Step 8 – Add an adjustment factor (Carve-out) for high cost entities (i.e. Hospitals,
Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Schools).
IBHE Presentation 18

Measure
• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)
• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
• Graduation Rate - 150% of Time (Fall 03-05 Cohort)*
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
Institutional Data
• Persistence-Completed 24 Semester Hours in One Year (FY08-10)*Institutional Data
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY10-12) Cost Study
• Cost per Completion (FY10-12) Cost Study
*Incorporate transfers per the CCA transfer category definitions
(i.e. 30 or fewer credits, 31 to 59 credits, or 60 or more credits).
IBHE Presentation 19

Sub-Category
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible)
• Adult (Age 25 and Older)
• Hispanic
Weight
40% - Institutional Data
40%
40%
• Black, non-Hispanic 40%
• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51
IBHE Presentation 20

• The committee should look at what is being done in other states to see if there is a simpler or better way to do this.
• We should look at providing a premium to other “High Value” programs in addition to the Homeland Security (HLS) and CIP Code 51 (STEM) programs.
• We should take into account the institutional capacity to produce degrees.
• Geographical differences – are these the same people that are counted as
“low income”
• We need to increase the dollar amounts allocated to performance.
• We need to include a measure of quality in the performance funding model.
• We need to look at each institution to see where they need to improve.
• We should significantly increase the weighting factor for efficiency measures
(as much as 25%-30%)
IBHE Presentation 21

• Incorporate input from the Steering Committee.
• Continue work to resolve the issues.
• IBHE Board Meeting – August 6, 2013.
• Recommend changes to the model at the next refinement committee meeting – August 22, 2013.
• Continue work to resolve the issues.
• Steering Committee Meeting – September 11, 2013
• Distribute data collection survey to institutions & begin data collection.
IBHE Presentation 22

IBHE Presentation
23

IBHE Presentation
24

1. Are there differences in the cost per completion for different sub-categories of students (i.e. is cost for completion for an adult student different than that of a STEM student)? Should that be integrated in the model?
– There are differences in the costs between sub-categories.
– The costs for each sub-category would vary by institution.
– There is no data available to determine those costs.
– We do not know how we would incorporate these cost differentials into the model.
• Refinement Committee – No change to the model. Would significantly complicate the model, with marginal benefit.
IBHE Presentation 25

2. Are less prepared students adequately addressed in the model?
– We do not currently have a good way to track these students.
– These students tend to be underrepresented students which are already captured in the sub-category weightings.
– One possibility would be to add another subcategory for remedial students
• (defined as first-time undergraduate students who complete remedial education courses in math, English/reading, or both, and are awarded a bachelors degree – (CCA Definition))
• Refinement Committee – No change to the model. These students are adequately accounted for in the existing model.
IBHE Presentation 26

3. What is the best way to address the issue of transfer students and part-time students?
– By definition, IPEDS data does not include transfer or part-time students in the calculation of graduation rates or retention measures.
– Based on survey input provided by the institutions, with few exceptions, part-time students were low density students and did not significantly affect the model outcome.
– For transfer students, it might be possible to use CCA transfer categories
(i.e. 30 or fewer credits, 31 to 59 credits, or 60 or more credits)
• Refinement Committee – Part-time student numbers will not be included due to their low density. Transfer student numbers will be incorporate in the Graduation Rate and Persistence Measures. As these numbers are not reflected in IPEDS, transfer student numbers will be provided by the institutions.
IBHE Presentation 27

4. Do we change the measures or the sub-categories
– Do we change the Graduation Rate Measure(s)?
– Do we change the Credit Hour Accumulation Measure(s)?
– Do we add to the sub-categories (i.e. a remediation measure)?
5. Do we change the sources of data for the model?
– IPEDs
– Survey
– CCA
– Cost Study
• Refinement Committee
– Use the 150% of Time, Graduation Rate Measure, but incorporate transfer students per the CCA definitions. (Survey Data)
– Use the 24 Semester Credit Hours Completed in the First Year Measure, to include credits earned at other institutions. (Survey Data)
– Do not add any additional sub-categories.
– Continue to use the existing data sources.
IBHE Presentation 28

6. Are there other high value degrees and programs, in addition to the STEM programs, that we should add to the model?
– The current STEM program list consists of the Homeland Security (HLS)
STEM program list and the CIP Code 51.
– There are other programs that could be added to the list of STEM programs such as behavioral or health/nutrition related fields.
– When you begin to move away from clearly defined criteria, the determination of what should or should not be STEM, becomes much less clear and much more subject to interpretation.
• Refinement Committee – Stay with the current list of STEM programs (i.e. HLS List + CIP 51) for now.
IBHE Presentation 29

7. Are we giving enough priority to measures of efficiency?
– Current measures of efficiency include:
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTEs
• Graduation rates per percentage of time
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
– Should these measures be given increased weighting?
– Should we add additional efficiency measures?
• Refinement Committee – No change to the model. Given there are four efficiency measures, the Refinement Committee viewed the existing weighting to be sufficient and expressed concern that the addition of another efficiency measure would only serve to dilute the weighting of the other existing performance measures.
IBHE Presentation 30

8. Are we adequately accounting for institutional improvement from year to year?
– Every institution improved its performance funding scores from FY13 to
FY14.
– There has been some discussion that each institution should be measured against itself.
• Until the performance funding model is stabilized, the scores from the current year are not directly comparable to the scores from the previous year due to changes in the model from year to year.
• In the future, the performance value for each institution could be compared against the previous performance value for that institution.
• The scores for each individual measure at each institution can be compared against the previous scores for those measures at each institution where they are consistent from year to year.
• Refinement Committee – No change to the model at this time. We can relook this issue once we get to a point where the model does not change from year to year.
IBHE Presentation 31

9. What is the best way to account for the difficulty of getting underrepresented students through to completion throughout the model?
– Four of the five sub-categories address underrepresented students and these sub-categories are weighted in the Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral completion measures.
– They are, however, not weighted in the Cost per Completion or the Completion per 100 FTE measures.
– Do we weight the completions in these two categories, and if so, do we readjust the sub-category weights so as to not overweight these two categories in the model?
– Are there other ways to account for the challenge of educating these students that we should consider?
• Refinement Committee: Take a look at the results of the current methodology relative to the results of weighting these students throughout the model to determine which method would produce better results.
IBHE Presentation 32

10. What is the best way to account for high cost entities (i.e.
Hospitals and Medical, Dental, and Veterinary schools)?
– Need to be accounted for in the model in some way.
– Current methodology - Does not account for all of the costs.
– Complete Carve-Out – However, some schools benefit in the model from these entities (i.e. Completions and Public Service Expenditures).
– Is there another method that would better account for these nonperformance costs in the model?
– Are their other high cost entities that should be added to the list?
• Refinement Committee – A complete carve-out would create additional problems and issues. Therefore, we will work to develop a better methodology to account for these entities. No other high cost entities should be added at this time.
IBHE Presentation 33

Other States Performance Funding Initiatives
• West Virginia – Legislation pushed by the Senate did not make it through the house due to concerns about long term implications. The performance benchmarks would have included: Student success as represented by certificate or degree completion; student progression and persistence; affordability and productivity represented by on-time certificate or degree completion; institution differentiation as represented by a mission focus on research, job placement, workforce training, etc.; educating priority populations of adult and low-income students; and increasing certificates or degrees in high need fields.
IBHE Presentation 34

Other States Performance Funding Initiatives
• Mississippi – From enrollment to completions (i.e. degrees awarded and STEM graduates), cost of individual courses, cost of operating the campus, number of at-risk students served by the university.
• Missouri – 10% of the funding would go toward performancebased funding. Performance measures would include increased student retention, better graduation rates or improved learning. Stop loss at 98%.
• Louisiana – Creating a task force to develop a funding mechanism for public universities based on school performance. Model would be based on student retention rates, timely progression toward degree completion, certificate and degree production, alignment with projected workforce needs, potential earning power of graduates.
IBHE Presentation 35

Other States Performance Funding Initiatives
• Montana – Moving from an enrollment based model to a completion model. In 2015, 5% of university funding would be based on how well each campus is doing with graduating students and speeding up the six years it typically takes students to graduate. Details have yet to be worked out.
• Indiana – Rewards schools for growth in number of overall degrees, on-time graduation rates, student retention, number of degrees in STEM and to those receiving federal PELL grants.
Remediation rates and a productivity metric defined by each school also factor into the calculation. Current allocation to performance is 5%, which will increase to 6% in 2014 and 7% in 2015.
IBHE Presentation 36

IBHE Presentation
37

(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 to reflect the priority of the
Measure to 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 (i.e. Hospitals, Medical,
Dental, and Veterinary Schools).
• Step 8 – Use the final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding.
IBHE Presentation 38

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)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY10-12)
• Grad Rates 100%/150%/200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
• Persistence (Completed 24/48/72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11)
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11)
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
Institutional Data
Institutional Data
Cost Study
Cost Study
IBHE Presentation 39

Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations
Sub-Category
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible)
Weight
40% - Institutional Data
•
• Adult (Age 25 and Older)
Hispanic
40%
40%
• Black, non-Hispanic 40%
• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51
IBHE Presentation 40

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 41

Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.
Measure
• Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11)
• Masters Degrees (FY09-11)
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11)
Universities 1-12 (Avg)
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11)
• Grad Rates 100% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
• Grad Rates 150% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
• Grad Rates 200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
2,822
1,042
227
25
27
46
50
1,644
1,453
Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor
1.0
2.7
12.4
112.6
104.4
60.9
57.0
1.7
1.9
1
1
2
200
50
50
50
2
2
• Persistence(Completed 72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
• Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11) (Cost Study)
• Cost per Completion (FY09-11) (Cost Study)
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11)
1,350
346
36,566
112,914,667
2.1
8.1
.1
.00002
2
-8
-.050
.00005
IBHE Presentation 42

Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the 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
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research and Public Service Expenditures
Research-Very High
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%
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%
Doctoral/
Research
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%
IBHE Presentation 43

Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect the priority of the Measure to the mission of the 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
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)
SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS
42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 45.0% 43.0%
28.0% 25.0% 26.0% 26.0% 25.0% 27.0% 27.0%
2.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
12.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 5.0% 8.0%
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%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.0%
5.0% 1.0%
7.0% 2.0%
0.0% 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%
4.0%
4.0%
2.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
IBHE Presentation 44

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
Data
2,822
1,042
227
25
27
46
50
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
• Cost per Credit Hour
• Cost per Completion
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
1,644
1,453
1,350
346
36,566
$112,914,667
Data + Premium
3,522
1,454
240
25
27
46
50
1,644
1,453
1,350
345
36,566
$112,914,667
(Data+Premium)
Scale
1
1
2
200
50
50
50
2
2
2
-8
-.050
.00005
x Scale
3,522
1,454
480
5,000
1,350
2,300
2,500
3,288
2,906
2,700
-2,760
-1,828
5,646 xWeight =
30.0%
25.0%
5.0%
10.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
20.0%
Total Performance
Value
1,057
364
24
500
20
23
13
33
44
54
-41
-18
1,129
100.0% 3,200
IBHE Presentation 45

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 results in a total performance value for institutions with these high cost entities.
• Example: $20M/$200M = .10
.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320
320 + 3200 = 3520 = Total Performance Value
IBHE Presentation 46

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
University 1 University 2 University 3 Total
Total Performance Value
Percentage of Total
10,840
58.7%
4,435
24.0%
3,200
17.3%
17,302
100%
Distribution: Pro Rata $587,000 $240,000 $173,000 $1,000,000
IBHE Presentation 47

•
•
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance ranged from +.11% to -.11%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from +$71K to
-$105K.
IBHE Presentation 48