IBHE Presentation 1 Proposed Higher Education Performance Funding Model Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting November 30, 2011 Dr. Alan Phillips

Objective To propose a performance funding model for public universities that is… – Linked directly to the Goals of the Illinois Public Agenda and the principles of Public Act – Equipped to recognize and account for each universitys mission and set of circumstances – Adjustable to account for changes in policy and priorities – Not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success 2 IBHE Presentation

What We Have Accomplished Identified the key issues Developed performance funding principles Identified appropriate performance measures and sub- categories Developed performance funding models for both 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities. Acquired initial data Received input from steering committee members, colleges and universities, other groups, and individuals IBHE Presentation 3 This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model.

Steering Committee Input Incorporated recommendations where possible. Some recommendations are still under consideration. – Some will take more time to implement – Necessary data may not currently exist Some recommendations are beyond the scope of IBHE and Steering Committee responsibilities. – Some recommendations will have to be implemented by colleges and universities. – Some recommendations may require legislation. IBHE Presentation 4

Carnegie Classifications Research – Very High – University of Illinois – Urbana/Champaign – University of Illinois – Chicago Research – High – Northern Illinois University – Southern Illinois University – Carbondale Doctoral/Research – Illinois State University Masters Colleges & Universities – Large – Southern Illinois University – Edwardsville – Western Illinois University – Eastern Illinois University – Northeastern Illinois University – Chicago State University – Governors State University – University of Illinois – Springfield Community Colleges IBHE Presentation 5

Performance Funding Model Community Colleges IBHE Presentation 6

7 Performance Funding Measures ( Community Colleges) Degree and Certificate Completion. Degree and Certificate Completion of At Risk students. Transfer to a four year institution. Remedial and Adult Education Advancement. Momentum Points. Transfer to a community college.

Performance Funding Model (Community College Example) Metric 1 – Degree Production of At-Risk students Data Source – ICCB Annual Enrollment and Completion (A1) IBHE Presentation 8 College 1 College 2 College 3 College 4 … College Degrees and Certificates2009 Degrees and Certificates Pell Recipient Remedial Hours Total Pell Recipient Remedial Hours Total % Change Greater than Zero Allocation 272 2, , , , , , , , , , % 12.3% 8.4% 0.0% -2.7% ,473 Allocation: $200,000 $10,473 $19,096 $2,994 $2,349 $1, $200,000

IBHE Presentation 9 Performance Funding Model 4-Year Colleges and Universities

Performance Funding Model Criteria ( 4-Year College or University) Measures have to address the performance of a college or university in a holistic manner with primary emphasis on completions. They will be weighted based on each institutions unique mission, environment, challenges, and ability to meet the States Public Agenda goals and objectives. Sub-Categories will address the advancement of students who are first- generation, low-income, traditionally underrepresented, or are in critical programs such as STEM or Health Care. They will be weighted based on State goals and objectives. Data has to be readily available for all colleges and universities, from widely recognized sources, and must be data that can be verified or validated. The data will be normalized (scaled) to ensure that it is comparable across the variables. All measures and results are counts, rather than rates. IBHE Presentation 10

Performance Funding Model Steps (4-Year College or 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 11

Performance Funding Model Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals. IBHE Presentation 12 MeasureSource Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS Masters Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Ave 07-09)IPEDS Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?)IPEDS Cost per FTE (FY11) (?)RAMP Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11)RAMP Research and Public Expenditures (FY11)RAMP

IBHE Presentation 13 Performance Funding Model Step 1 – Identify the performance measures or metrics that support the achievement of the state goals. Future Measures* Retention (By Cohort) Time to Completion (within 100% or 150%) Students Accumulation of Credit Hours (24/48/72) Student Transfers Remediation Quality * The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of sufficient quality to use.

Performance Funding Model Step 2 – Collect the data on the selected performance measures IBHE Presentation 14 Measure University 1 University 2 University 3 Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 3,329 3,921 1,494 Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1,786 1, Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 18,667 10,577 8,908 Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 8,858 3,756 3,743 Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 42,980,300 5,526,700 1,333,900

Performance Funding Model Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations IBHE Presentation 15 Sub-CategoryWeight Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 20% Adult (Age 25 and Older) 20% Hispanic 40% Black, non-Hispanic 40% STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40%

IBHE Presentation 16 Future Sub-Categories* Part-Time First-Time Disabled Veterans First Generation English Language Learners Residents of Underserved Counties Additional Ethnic Categories * The data for these measures is either not currently available or is not of sufficient quality to use. Performance Funding Model Step 3 – Award an additional premium (i.e. 40%) for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations

Performance Funding Model Step 4 – Normalize (Scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables. – Average the measures across all of the institutions – The average number of Bachelors degree 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 – Multiply all of the initial data by the scaling factor to normalize the data. IBHE Presentation 17 Measure Universities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 4, Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) 1, Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) 11, Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) 4, Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 10,803,

Performance Funding Model Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution. IBHE Presentation 18 Measure Bachelors Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Masters Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Doctoral and Professional Degrees (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (3-Yr Avg 07-09) (?) Cost per FTE (FY11) (?) Education and General Spending per Completion (FY11) Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) University1 University 2University % 17.5% 5.0% 7.5% 2.5% 25.0% 100.0% 30.0% 25.0% 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 5.0% 15.0% 100.0% 40.0% 22.5% 0.0% 10.0% 10,0% 7.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Performance Funding Model Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Weighted results. IBHE Presentation 19 Measure Bachelors Degrees Masters Degrees Doctoral and Professional Degrees Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE Graduate Degrees per 100 FTE (?) Cost per FTE (?) Education and General Spending per Completion Research and Public Expenditures (FY11) 3,921 1, ,577 3,756 5,526,700 6,067 1, ,667 8,858 42,980,300 Data Data + Premium Scale (Data+Premium) x Scale xWeight = 30.0% 25.0% 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 5.0% 15.0% Total Performance Value

Performance Funding Model Step 7 – Use the Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding. IBHE Presentation 20 Percentages for Distribution Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 2,027 17,302 Percentage of Total 62.7% 25.6% 11.7% 100% Distribution: Pro Rata$627,000 $256,000 $117,000 $1,000,000 University 1 University 2 University 3 Total

Performance Funding Model All steps are identical at each university Accounts for each institutions unique mission by adding a weight to each measure Each institutions formula calculation is independent Funding allocation is competitive Distribution of performance funding is on a pro-rata share of each institutions formula calculation Performance funding appropriations will have to be earned anew each year IBHE Presentation 21

Performance Funding Model Linked to Goals of the Illinois Public Agenda and the principles of Public Act Equipped to recognize and account for each universitys mission and set of circumstances Adjustable to account for changes in policy and priorities Not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success (what, not how). 22 IBHE Presentation

Way Ahead Finalize adjustment of the model to account for variables unique to each college and university. Present proposed performance funding model to the IBHE Board on December 6 th. Meet with College and University Presidents to finalize input on the weights and measures. Present final performance funding recommendation to the Performance Funding Steering Committee Present final performance funding model recommendation to the IBHE Board February 7 th along with the higher education budget submission (will include performance funding recommendation). Continue work to refine the performance funding model and acquire more accurate and comprehensive data in preparation for the FY 2014 budget submission and performance funding recommendation. IBHE Presentation 23 This is a dynamic process. We will continually work to improve and refine the model.

Questions/Comments? IBHE Presentation 24