Illinois Higher Education
Performance Funding Model
Steering Committee Meeting
May 8, 2013
Dr. Alan Phillips
IBHE Presentation
1
Purpose
• The purpose of this presentation is to identify and
address issues associated with the refinement of
the performance funding model that will allocate
funding based on performance as a part of the FY
2015 IBHE Higher Education budget submission.
• Accomplish this in accordance with the intent of
Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503), the Performance
Funding legislation, and the goals of the Illinois
Public Agenda.
IBHE Presentation
2
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
3
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.
– Maintain the quality of degrees, certificates, courses, and
programs.
– Recognize the unique and broad mission of public
community colleges.
IBHE Presentation
4
Considerations
• All things being equal, simple is always better.
• The model has to be complex enough to do what it needs to do and
yet be simple enough that it can be explained to all stakeholders
• The more measures we add, the more we dilute the weights for the
existing measures.
• This is not an exact science, and in some cases we are using proxies
for what we really want to measure because direct measures are
not available.
• You cannot capture the infinite number of variables with nine
measures and five sub-categories.
• Data availability continues to be a problem, so we will use the best
data we have.
IBHE Presentation
5
FY13 Performance Measures
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
6
FY13 Sub-Categories
Sub-Category
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible)
• Adult (Age 25 and Older)
• Hispanic
• Black, non-Hispanic
• STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code)
IBHE Presentation
7
FY14 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.).
– Identify additional measures and sub-categories to add to
the model.
– Identify better and more current sources of data.
– See if there is a better way to scale (normalize) the data.
– Discuss ways to account for other factors (i.e. Hospitals,
Medical Schools, Dental Schools, etc.)
IBHE Presentation
8
FY14 Changes to the Performance Measures
• Deleted:
– Education and General Spending per Completion
(RAMP)
• Added:
–
–
–
–
Cost per Credit Hour. (Cost Study)
Cost per Completion. (Cost Study)
Credit Hour Accumulation. (Institutional Data)
Graduation Rates (Institutional Data)
IBHE Presentation
9
FY14 Changes to the Sub-Categories
• Did not change the sub-categories.
• Changed some of the sources of data.
• Sub-Categories were:
–
–
–
–
–
IBHE Presentation
Low Income (Pell/MAP Eligible) – Institutional Data
Adult (Age 25 and Older) – CCA/ILDS
Hispanic - IPEDS
Black, non-Hispanic - IPEDS
STEM & Health Care (By CIP Code) – HLS + CIP 51
10
Performance Funding Model (FY14)
4-Year Public Universities
IBHE Presentation
11
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 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
12
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)
• 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)
IBHE Presentation
Source
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
IPEDS
RAMP
Institutional Data
Institutional Data
Cost Study
Cost Study
13
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% - Institutional 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
14
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
15
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
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
1,453
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)
1,350
• Persistence(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
16
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect
the priority of the Measure to 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
• 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
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%
17
Performance Measure Weights
Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures to reflect
the priority of the Measure to 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
• 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
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%
18
Performance Value Calculation
Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to
produce the Performance Value for each institution.
Data
Measure
2,822
• Bachelors Degrees
1,042
• Masters Degrees
227
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees
25
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE
27
• Grad Rates 100% of Time
46
• Grad Rates 150% of Time
50
• Grad Rates 200% of Time
1,644
• Persistence (Completed 24 Semester Hours)
1,453
• Persistence (Completed 48 Semester Hours)
1,350
• Persistence (Completed 72 Semester Hours)
346
• Cost per Credit Hour
36,566
• Cost per Completion
$112,914,667
• Research & Public Svc Expenditures
IBHE Presentation
(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
19
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 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
20
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
21
Results for FY14
• Performance funding values increased for all twelve of
the four-year public universities from FY13 to FY14.
• Assuming a .5% funding set-aside and a 4.95%
reduction in GRF Funding:
– Variance in funding allocations due to performance ranged
from +.21% to -.22%.
– The actual funding amount variance ranged from +$70K to
-$101K.
IBHE Presentation
22
FY14 Performance Funding Allocation
($ in thousands)
FY2013
FY2014
Budget
Reduction
Appropriation
$ 1,230,092.0
$
1,169,202.4
FY2014
% Change
(4.95) %
Set Aside*
$
Performance Funding
FY2014
FY2014
Performance
Funds
Net Change
5,866.3 $
5,866.3
$
FY2014
Final Allocation
FY2013 - FY 2014
%
$ Change
Change
0.0
$ 1,169,202.4
$ (60,889.6)
(4.95)
Chicago State University
36,805.6
34,983.7
(4.95)
175.4
136.9
-38.5
34,945.2
(1,860.4)
(5.05)
Eastern Illinois University
44,041.1
41,861.1
(4.95)
210.2
244.9
34.7
41,895.8
(2,145.3)
(4.87)
Governors State
24,650.5
23,430.3
(4.95)
117.7
140.7
23.0
23,453.3
(1,197.2)
(4.86)
Illinois State University
Northeastern Illinois
University
74,082.4
70,415.3
(4.95)
353.3
359.2
5.9
70,421.2
(3,661.2)
(4.94)
37,807.6
35,936.1
(4.95)
180.4
217.9
37.5
35,973.6
(1,834.0)
(4.85)
Northern Illinois University
93,470.2
88,843.4
(4.95)
445.6
390.1
-55.4
88,788.0
(4,682.2)
(5.01)
Western Illinois University
52,147.8
49,566.5
(4.95)
248.7
258.1
9.4
49,575.8
(2,572.0)
(4.93)
204,693.8
194,561.5
(4.95)
975.8
870.1
-105.7
194,455.7
(10,238.1)
(5.00)
145,316.4
138,123.2
(4.95)
692.8
591.8
-101.0
138,022.2
(7,294.2)
(5.02)
59,377.4
56,438.2
(4.95)
283.0
278.2
-4.7
56,433.5
(2,943.9)
(4.96)
662,393.0
629,604.5
(4.95)
3,159.3
3,248.5
89.3
629,693.8
(32,699.2)
(4.94)
305,571.6
290,445.8
(4.95)
1,457.4
1,479.2
21.8
290,467.6
(15,104.0)
(4.94)
23,152.7
22,006.6
(4.95)
110.5
108.0
-2.5
22,004.1
(1,148.6)
(4.96)
333,668.7
317,152.1
(4.95)
1,591.4
1,661.3
70.0
317,222.1
(16,446.6)
(4.93)
Southern Illinois University
**
Carbondale
Edwardsville
University of Illinois
***
Chicago
Springfield
Urbana/Champaign
FY2014 Set Aside for allocation per performance funding is based on a 0.5% reallocation of a $1.173 billion budget for
public universities.
Governor's budget proposal cuts public university funding by 4.95% from the FY2013
appropriation.
SIU Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus, SIU School of Medicine is included with the
Carbondale Campus.
UI Administration is allocated on a pro-rated basis to each campus.
IBHE Presentation
23
Refinement Issues for FY15
• What is the best way to account for the difficulty of getting
underrepresented students through to completion throughout
the model?
• What is the best way to account for less prepared students in
the model?
• 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?
• What is the best way to address the issue of transfer students
and part-time students?
IBHE Presentation
24
Refinement Issues for FY15
• Are there other high value degrees and programs, in addition to
the STEM programs, that we should add to the model?
• Are we giving enough priority to measures of efficiency?
• What is the best way to account for high cost entities (i.e.
Hospitals and Medical, Dental, and Veterinary schools)?
• Are we adequately accounting for institutional improvement
from year to year?
• Do we change the measures or the sub-categories?
• Do we change the sources of the data for the model?
IBHE Presentation
25
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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
26
Refinement Issues for FY15
• What is the best way to account for less prepared students 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
27
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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
28
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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
29
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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).
IBHE Presentation
30
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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
31
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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
32
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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
33
Refinement Issues for FY15
• 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)?
• 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
34
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. – (No change to the Scaling Methodology)
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.
Bold - Indicates Steps that are under review by the Refinement Committee
IBHE Presentation
35
FY15 Performance Measures
Measure
Source
• Bachelors Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Masters Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY10-12)
IPEDS
• Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY11-13)
RAMP
• Graduation Rate - 150% of Time (Fall 03-05 Cohort)*
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.
IBHE Presentation
36
FY15 Sub-Categories
Sub-Category
Weight
• Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible)
40% - Institutional 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
37
Other FY15 Issues Yet to be Resolved
• Determine whether or not to carry the weighted sub-categories
all the way through the model.
• Develop a better methodology to account for the high cost
entities in the model.
• Continue to work with the institutions to improve the quality of
available data for use in the performance funding model.
IBHE Presentation
38
Next Steps
• Steering Committee Meeting – May 8, 2013.
• Incorporate input from the Steering Committee.
• Continue work to resolve the issues.
• IBHE Board Meeting – June 4, 2013.
• Recommend changes to the model at the next refinement
committee meeting – June 27, 2013.
• Continue work to resolve the issues.
• Steering Committee Meeting – July 17, 2013
IBHE Presentation
39
Questions/Comments?
IBHE Presentation
40