1. Performance Based Funding

2. Background The USFSP strategic plan calls for 10 in 10 (10,000 students in 10 years). It is likely that this will require us to develop new programs. As we start thinking of new programs, we need to be aware of two factors: – The program approval process – The way in which the state of Florida disburses funds to its public universities.

3. The Basics of Performance Based Funding Traditionally, state appropriations have been made on the basis of inputs, i.e. student head count. – Potential drawbacks: Perverse incentive to hold back students; Danger of enrolling under-prepared students. Performance based funding makes (part of) the state appropriations depend on output, i.e. how well the institution does on certain performance criteria. – Potential drawbacks: Rapidly shifting criteria may make long-term planning difficult; Potential tensions between different criteria.

4. Performance based funding in Florida I Performance is measured on 10 criteria. – 8 are more or less the same for all public universities; – 1 is set for each institution by the BOG; – 1 is set for each institution by its BOT. Up to 5 points are awarded for each criterion based on – Absolute performance; OR – Improvement in performance.

5. Performance based funding in Florida II Last year, the BOG withheld $35 million from the base budgets of the public institutions of higher learning. Base budgets restored for institutions with a score over 25. It also distributed around $200M in performance based funding, including restoration of base budget. Notes: 1.The money can be used for whatever purpose the institution deems appropriate (unlike e.g. TEAm grant); 2.USFSP is NOT treated as a separate institution. The USF System is treated as if it were a single institution.

6. Performance based funding in Florida III The USF system received $22M in new funding, of which USFSP received around $2M. Only UF received more in new funding. The PBF becomes part of the base budget for the subsequent year. USFSP used the PBF, among others, to – Strengthen advising – Hire instructors in English – Strengthen international recruitment.

7. PBF 1. Percent of Bachelor’s Graduates Employed and/or Continuing their Education Further 1 Year After Graduation ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 80% +5 75%4 Only reported at system level 70%3 65%2 60%1

8. PBF 2. Median Average Full-time Wages of Undergraduates Employed in Florida, 1 Yr after Graduation ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM $40,0005 $35,0004$35,200Only reported at System Level $30,0003 $25,0002 $20,0001 2013-2014 benchmarks. Currently under review.

9. PBF 3. Average Cost of Undergraduate Degree to the Institution ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM $20,0005 $22,5004$24,583*Only reported at System level $25,0003 $27,5002 $30,0001 * Projection. To be confirmed by BOG.

10. PBF 4. Six Year Graduation Rate (Full-Time and Part-Time FTIC) ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 70% +5 N/A 67.5%4 65%366% 62.5%2 60%1 053% previous 61%* *IPEDS graduation rate is 31% down from 43%

11. PBF 5. Academic Progress Rate (2 nd Year Retention with GPA of 2.0 or higher) ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 90%+5 87.5%4 85%3 87% 82.5%2 80%1 62% Previous 57%* *IPEDS: 65%

12. PBF 6. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded in Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Includes STEM) ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 60%572% 55%4 50%351% 45%2 40%1 36%34%

13. PBF 7. University Access Rate (Percent of Undergraduates with a Pell Grant) ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 30%542% 40%41% 27.5%4 25%3 22.5%2 20%1

14. PBF 8. Graduate Degrees Awarded in Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Includes STEM) ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 50%569%72% 45%4 40%3 35%236%* 30%1 27% *Previous: 34%

15. PBF 9. Percent of Bachelor’s Degrees Without Excess Hours ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 80%5 75%477% 70%3 65%266%65%69% 60%1

16. PBF 10. Number of Postdoctoral Appointees ScoreUSF SystemUSFTUSFSPUSFSM 3005360*Only reported at system level 2754 2503 2252 2001 * Projected

17. Some Concluding Comments I Some of the PBF metrics concern issues that we ought to address, and are addressing, anyway. – Retention To me, a retention rate of 62% is not acceptable QEP, University Success course, TRiO, Student Success Center Establishment of retention task force – Graduation rate – University access – Controlling cost

18. Some Concluding Comments II Should the PBF metrics be a primary driver of our behavior as an institution? – Should we force students who can graduate without excess hours to do so? – Should we only start new programs in areas of strategic emphasis? – How much attention should we pay to starting salaries of graduates when we start a new program? – and so on

19. Questions