1. Productivity Gains and Cost-Effectiveness in Higher Education Presented to the SHEEO Annual Meeting Anchorage, Alaska July 20, 2006 National Center for Higher Education Management Systems – Boulder, CO

2. 2 The Imperative The Need for More Human Capital The Reality Limitations on Available Resources

3. 3 Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Young and Older Adults, 2000 Source: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, American Community Survey

4. 4 Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Young and Older Adults, 2000 Source: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, American Community Survey Massachusetts Minnesota North DakotaConnecticut ColoradoNew York New Jersey Vermont New Hampshire Maryland Nebraska IllinoisVirginia Iowa Rhode Island South Dakota WisconsinWashington PennsylvaniaKansas Delaware HawaiiUtah United States Montana Michigan North Carolina Georgia OhioMissouri OregonWyoming California Florida Maine Indiana IdahoSouth CarolinaArizona Texas Alabama TennesseeAlaska Oklahoma Kentucky New MexicoMississippi Louisiana West Virginia Arkansas Nevada

5. 5 Educational Attainment in U.S. of Young Workforce (Age 25-34) Indexed to Most Educated Country, 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Samples (based on 2000 Census), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Females Males White Females Males African-American Females Males Hispanic/Latino Females Males Native American/AK Native Females Males Asian/Pacific Islander NorwayCanada Bachelor's Degree or HigherAll College Degrees (Associate or Higher) U.S. Index = 0.86U.S. Index = 0.77

6. 6 Additional Degrees (Associate and Above) Needed in Adult Population Age 25-44 to Meet Top Country Performance* *In Canada, 50% of adults age 25-44 have college degrees (Associate and above). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OECD 1,092,994 1,334,696 California Texas FloridaOhioGeorgia PennsylvaniaMichiganNorth CarolinaNew YorkTennesseeIndiana Illinois Arizona LouisianaKentuckyMissouriAlabamaOklahomaArkansas WisconsinSouth Carolina NevadaMississippiVirginia New JerseyWashingtonOregon West VirginiaMaryland Colorado New Mexico UtahIowaIdahoKansasMinnesota Maine NebraskaConnecticutMontana Rhode Island AlaskaHawaii Delaware New HampshireSouth DakotaWyoming Vermont North Dakota Massachusetts -47,432

7. 7 Prose Literacy Levels for College-Level Populations 2 4 1 2 3 1 16 20 11 10 14 6 58 56 65 49 53 56 23 19 23 40 31 38 0102030405060708090100 Associate 1992 (NALS) Associate 2003 (NAAL) 2-Year College Students (NCACS) College Graduate 1992 (NALS) College Graduate 2003 (NAAL) 4-Year College Students (NCACS) Below BasicBasicIntermediateProficient

8. 8 Document Literacy Levels for College-Level Populations Below BasicBasicIntermediateProficient Associate 1992 (NALS) Associate 2003 (NAAL) 2-Year College Students (NCACS) College Graduate 1992 (NALS) College Graduate 2003 (NAAL) 4-Year College Students (NCACS) 3 3 1 3 2 1 12 15 7 9 11 5 60 66 69 52 62 55 25 16 23 37 25 40 0102030405060708090100

9. 9 Quantitative Literacy Levels for College-Level Populations Below BasicBasicIntermediateProficient Associate 1992 (NALS) Associate 2003 (NAAL) 2-Year College Students (NCACS) College Graduate 1992 (NALS) College Graduate 2003 (NAAL) 4-Year College Students (NCACS) 0102030405060708090100 8 7 4 5 4 1 29 30 29 21 22 19 45 49 44 43 46 18 31 34

10. 10 Projected State and Local Budget Surplus (Gap) as a Percent of Revenues, 2013 Source: NCHEMS; Don Boyd (Rockefeller Institute of Government), 2005 Utah Montana New Hampshire Delaware New Jersey Maine Maryland Massachusetts Wisconsin Vermont Ohio North Dakota Connecticut Kansas Arkansas Virginia Nebraska Oklahoma Minnesota Colorado West Virginia Kentucky Michigan Arizona New York Georgia Hawaii Illinois Pennsylvania Alaska Rhode Island United States New Mexico California Iowa Indiana North Carolina Florida Idaho South Carolina South Dakota Missouri Washington Oregon Texas Nevada Tennessee Mississippi Louisiana Alabama

11. 11 Another Reality Can't Get the Results Needed with the Resources Available and Maintain Business as Usual Improvements in System Productivity Must Become a Priority

12. 12 The Evidence that Improvements Are Possible—Comparing Results and Funding

13. 13 Units of Analyses System (All Institutions, Public and Private) Research Universities Baccalaureate and Masters Institutions Community Colleges

14. 14 Measures of Performance—System Instructional Service Levels—FTE Undergraduates per 100 18-44 with High School Diploma Degree Production—Undergraduate Credentials Awarded per 100 FTE Undergraduates (continued)

15. 15 Measures of Performance—System (continued) PhD Production—PhDs per 1,000 Degrees Awarded (Baccalaureate and Above) Competitive Research—Federal and Industry R&D per Capita Baccalaureate Degrees per 100 High School Graduates Six Years Earlier (continued)

16. 16 Measures of Performance—System (continued) Student Pipeline Results—For Every 100 9th Graders, How Many:  Graduate from High School on Time  Go Directly to College  Graduate Within 150% of Program Time

17. 17 Measures of Performance—Research Universities Total Baccalaureate Awards per 100 FTE Undergraduates Six-Year Graduation Rate Doctorates per 1,000 Degrees (Baccalaureate and Above) Research Expenditures per FTE Faculty

18. 18 Measures of Performance—Baccalaureate and Masters Institutions Total Baccalaureate Awards per 100 FTE Undergraduates Six-Year Graduation Rates

19. 19 Measures of Performance—Community Colleges Total Undergraduate Awards per 100 FTE Undergraduates Three-Year Graduation Rates Associate Degrees Awarded at Two-Year Colleges per 10,000 Adults 25-64 with an Associate Degree

20. 20 The Measure of Funding (State and Local Appropriations + Tuition) per FTE Student * State Financial Aid Included in Systemwide Analysis

21. 21 Benchmarks The Average Funding Level for the 10 States (80th Percentile) with the Highest Levels on Each of the Performance Measures

22. 22 State Systems of Higher Education

23. 23 Undergraduate Credentials Awarded per 100 FTE Undergraduates, 2002-03 30 Performance 10 15 20 25 $5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000 AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NV NJ NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SD UT VT VA WA WI US FL ID MI MN MO NH NM NY SC TN TX WV WY Total Funding Per FTE

24. 24 Federal and Industry R&D Per Capita, 2002 $5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000 50 100 150 200 250 Total Funding Per FTE Performance 0 AL AK AZ AR CA CO DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MA MS MT NE NV NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD UT VT VA WA WI US CT FL ID MI MN MO NH NM RIRI TN TX WV WY MD

25. 25 Bachelor’s Degrees as a Percent of High School Graduates Six Years Earlier, 2003 NH 20 40 60 80 100 $5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000 AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NV NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI US FL ID MI MN MO NM TN TX WV WY Total Funding Per FTE Performance

26. 26 Public Research Institutions

27. 27 Six-Year Baccalaureate Graduation Rate, 2003 Total Funding Per FTE Performance AK 20 40 60 80 $5,000$10,000$15,000$30,000 AL AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI FL ID MI MN MO NV NH NM TN TX WV WY US $20,000$25,000

28. 28 Bachelor’s Degrees per 100 FTE Undergraduates, 2002-03 10 15 20 25 30 $5,000$15,000$25,000$30,000$10,000$20,000 AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NJ NY NC ND OH OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI US FL ID MI MN MO NV NH NM OK TN TX WV WY Total Funding Per FTE Performance

29. 29 Public Baccalaureate and Master’s Institutions

30. 30 Bachelor’s Degrees per 100 FTE Undergraduates, 2002-03 5 10 15 20 25 $2,000$7,000$12,000$22,000$15,000 FL AL AK AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI US ID MI MN MO NH NM TN TX WV Total Funding Per FTE Performance

31. 31 Public Two-Year Institutions

32. 32 Total Credentials Awarded per 100 FTE Undergraduates, 2003 5 15 25 35 45 $4,000$6,000$12,000$16,000$14,000$8,000$10,000 AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NV NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI US FL ID MI MN MO NH NM TN TX WV WY Total Funding Per FTE Performance

33. 33 What Can Be Done to Improve Productivity?

34. 34 Government-Wide Increases in Productivity Eliminate Some of the (Educational Activity) Overlap Between Higher Education and Other Branches of State Government

35. 35 System-Level Productivity Increases Give Funding Priority to Institutions that Can Accommodate Increased Demand at Least Cost  Consider Nonpublic Institutions in Equation Pay Attention to the Reentry Pipeline Remove Procedural Barriers to Efficient Operation (e.g., Transfer of Credit) Develop Systemwide Strategies for Gaining Efficiencies in Very Large Courses—Look to Lower Division (continued)

36. 36 System-Level Productivity Increases (continued) Develop Funding Policies Consistent with Productivity Goals Deregulate—Autonomy with Accountability (but Define Accountability a priori) Develop New Components of the Delivery System (e.g., an "Open" University) Optimize Balance Between Institutional and Student Aid  Explicitly Build Work into the Aid Package

37. 37 Focus the Allocation—Narrow the Portfolio of State Investments in Higher Education Program Eliminations/Consolidations Make Greater Use of Regional/Interstate Consortia Require Selected Programs to Be Operated as Enterprises

38. 38 For more information, contact Dennis Jones dennis@nchems.org and visit the National Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis www.higheredinfo.org

39. 39 Student Pipeline Result, 2002 Total Funding Per FTE Performance 10 15 20 25 30 $5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000 AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NV NJ NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI FL ID MI MN MO NH NM NY TN TX WV WY US

40. 40 State Systems of Higher Education—Overall Index Score— Average Performance Relative to Funding per FTE Utah Massachusetts Colorado California North Dakota MarylandRhode Island IowaArizona VirginiaMissouri New HampshireWashington Illinois Nebraska Florida South DakotaKansas Delaware MinnesotaWisconsinConnecticutNorth CarolinaNew YorkTexasPennsylvania OhioAlabama Michigan Georgia OregonMontanaIndianaIdaho New MexicoOklahomaMississippi Tennessee Nevada New JerseyWyoming Louisiana South Carolina ArkansasKentuckyVermont Hawaii West VirginiaMaine Alaska

41. 41 Research Expenditures per Full-Time Faculty ($), 2003 10 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 $5,000$15,000$25,000$30,000$10,000$20,000 AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NV NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI US FL ID MI MN MO NH NM TN TX WV WY Total Funding Per FTE Performance

42. 42 Public Research Institutions—Overall Index Score— Average Performance Relative to Funding Per FTE ColoradoNew Hampshire California Wisconsin Georgia Texas New Jersey Washington Virginia NebraskaKansas Florida Illinois Rhode Island Iowa Michigan Arizona Delaware Oklahoma Minnesota Ohio New York Montana Utah Louisiana Pennsylvania Oregon Maryland South Carolina Massachusetts Mississippi North DakotaHawaiiConnecticut Indiana South Dakota New Mexico Nevada Alabama Missouri North Carolina Kentucky Arkansas West Virginia Idaho Maine TennesseeWyoming Alaska Vermont

43. 43 Six-Year Baccalaureate Graduation Rate, 2003 Total Funding Per FTE Performance 20 30 40 50 60 70 $2,000$7,000$12,000$22,000$15,000 AL AR CA CO CT DE GA HI IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MS MT NE NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD UT VT VA WA WI FL ID MI MN MO NH NM TN TX WV US AK (17.7)

44. 44 Public Bachelor’s and Master’s Institutions—Overall Index Score—Average Performance Relative to Funding per FTE WashingtonIowaNew Jersey Virginia WisconsinColoradoNew HampshireNew YorkMinnesotaPennsylvania Massachusetts South CarolinaKansas Illinois Utah California Nebraska MissouriOklahoma South Dakota MarylandAlabamaRhode IslandWest Virginia Texas Arkansas ConnecticutMichiganTennesseeNorth CarolinaNorth Dakota MaineGeorgiaFloridaLouisiana Hawaii Kentucky Oregon VermontMississippi MontanaIdaho Ohio Indiana New MexicoDelaware Alaska

45. 45 Public Two-Year Institutions—Overall Index Score— Average Performance Relative to Funding per FTE South Dakota MississippiCalifornia WashingtonIowa Florida Utah GeorgiaIllinois Kansas OklahomaVirginiaAlabama North DakotaMinnesotaNebraskaArizona Arkansas ColoradoMontanaTexas KentuckyAverage StateMissouriWest Virginia South CarolinaNew York Louisiana New HampshireNorth CarolinaMichiganNew Jersey MaineVermont Wyoming OhioMassachusetts WisconsinTennesseeIndianaHawaiiOregonIdaho New MexicoRhode IslandMaryland ConnecticutPennsylvania DelawareNevada Alaska