1. IBHE Presentation 1 Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting January 14, 2013 Dr. Alan Phillips

2. Purpose The purpose of this presentation is to propose a performance funding model that will allocate funding based on performance as a part of the FY 2014 IBHE Higher Education budget submission, in accordance with the intent of Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503), the Performance Funding legislation, and that supports the goals of the Illinois Public Agenda. IBHE Presentation 2

3. Topics to be Covered Performance Funding Background Performance Funding (FY2013) Refinement Committee Effort Performance Funding Model Refinements FY14 Budget Considerations IBHE Presentation 3

4. Background IBHE Presentation 4

5. Higher Education Landscape 33 States have expressed interest or are currently implementing performance-based funding systems, up from fewer than 10 states just two years ago. States are now turning their attention to how – rather than how much state funding is distributed to public colleges and universities. As states have less money to spend, they also want to ensure that they are getting a better return on investment for the money they do have. 5 IBHE Presentation

6. Principles of a Good Performance Funding Model There is agreement on the goals before performance funding is put into place. – Consensus around a “Public Agenda” for the state which contains goals that are tailored to the needs of the state. The model contains performance metrics that are constructed broadly. The design of the model promotes mission differentiation. The model includes provisions that reward success with underserved populations. The model includes provisions that reward progress as well as ultimate success (i.e. degree completion). 6 IBHE Presentation

7. Principles of a Good Performance Funding Model The categories of outcomes to be rewarded are limited. The measures/metrics are unambiguous and difficult to game. Continuous improvement is rewarded, not attainment of a fixed goal. Incentives in all parts of the funding model align with state goals. The performance funding pool is large enough to command attention. 7 IBHE Presentation

8. 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 8 IBHE Presentation

9. Public Agenda Goals 1.Increase Educational Attainment. 2.Ensure college affordability for students, families, and taxpayers. 3.Increase the number of high-quality post-secondary credentials. 4.Better integrate Illinois’ education, research, and innovation assets to meet economic needs of the state. IBHE Presentation 9

10. 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. – Recognize the unique and broad mission of public community colleges. – Maintain the quality of degrees, certificates, courses, and programs. IBHE Presentation 10 Public Act 97-320 (HB 1503)

11. IBHE Presentation 11 Performance Funding Model (FY13) 4-Year Public Universities

12. Performance Funding Model (4-Year Universities) All steps are identical at each university The model accounts for each institution’s unique mission by adding a weight to each measure. Each institution’s formula calculation is independent. The formula calculation for each institution will change each year based on annually updated data. The funding allocation is competitive. Funds are distributed on a pro rata basis according to each institution’s formula calculation. The model is not prescriptive in how to achieve excellence and success (what, not how). IBHE Presentation 12

13. Performance Funding Model (FY13) Community Colleges IBHE Presentation 13

14. Performance Funding Model (Community Colleges) All steps are identical for each measure. Each community college district competes independently for funding associated with each measure. Funds are distributed on a pro rata basis according to each institution’s increase in performance. No funds are allocated for a decrease in performance. The formula calculation for each institution will change each year based on annually updated data. The model can be scaled relative to the amount of funds allocated to performance funding. IBHE Presentation 14

15. Did We Accomplish the Objective? Developed workable performance funding models. Model and budget recommendations approved by both the Steering Committee and the IBHE Board. A performance funding component was included in the FY 2013 Higher Education Budget Submission. The IBHE funding recommendation was included in the Governor’s Budget without change. The GA allocated funding based on performance consistent with the IBHE performance funding recommendation. IBHE Presentation 15 On this basis, we accomplished the objective.

16. Refinement Effort IBHE Presentation 16

17. Four 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.). 1.Identify additional measures and sub-categories to add to the model. 2.Identify better and more current sources of data. 3.See if there is a better way to scale (normalize) the data. 4.Discuss ways to account for other factors (i.e. Hospitals, Medical Schools, Dental Schools, etc.) IBHE Presentation 17

18. Goal 1 1.Identify additional measures and sub-categories to add to the model. – The Committee considered which existing measures should be revised. – Want to keep the additional measures and sub-categories to a minimum. – The Committee also reviewed a number of additional measures and sub-categories for addition to the model. Many of the measures had significant drawbacks. Data still does not exist for many of the measures. IBHE Presentation 18

19. Current Measures and Sub-Categories Measure Bachelors Degrees (IPEDS) Masters Degrees (IPEDS) Doctoral and Professional Degrees (IPEDS) Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (IPEDS) Education and General Spending per Completion (RAMP) - Replace Research and Public Service Expenditures (RAMP) Sub-Category Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) (ISAC) – Find Better Data Adult (Age 25 and Older) (CCA) Hispanic (IPEDS) Black, non-Hispanic (IPEDS) STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) (IPEDS) – Better Define CIP Codes IBHE Presentation 19

20. Possible Measures to Add Input measures – SAT/ACT Scores - ILDS – Students Requiring Remediation - ILDS – Transfer Students (Articulation) - ILDS Transfers with Associates Degree Transfers with partial credit Process measures (Persistence) – Credit Hour Accumulation (24/48/72) - ILDS – Retention by Cohort – ILDS – Retention after transfer - ILDS Completion measures – Bachelors Degrees - IPEDS – Masters Degrees - IPEDS – Doctoral and Professional Degrees - IPEDS – Time to Completion (within 100%, 150%, or 200%) - ILDS – # of graduates working in jobs related to their education - ? IBHE Presentation 20

21. Possible Measures to Add Efficiency measures (Affordability) – Undergraduate Degrees per FTE – IPEDS – Education and General Spending per Completion - RAMP – Tuition and Fees – Tuition & Fee Report – Cost per Completion – Cost Study – Cost per FTE (?) – IBHE/IPEDS – Unit Cost – Unit Cost Report – Instructional Cost per Credit Hour – Cost Study – Faculty Productivity - ? Institutional measures – Research and Public Service Expenditures - RAMP – Success in generating additional funding from contract activities (i.e. research, teaching, etc.) - ? – Private Support – RAMP/IPEDS – Investment in Facilities – RAMP – Cost Structure (i.e. Hospital, Medical School, Dental School, etc) - ? Quality measures – Ratio of Tenured to Non-Tenured faculty - IBHE – Ratio of Full-Time to Part-Time faculty - IBHE – Alumni, enrolled students, or employer survey results - ? – National Survey of Student Engagement – College Board – Satisfaction Assessment - ? Diversity Measures – Faculty/Staff Diversity - IPEDS – Student Characteristics and Student Diversity - ILDS IBHE Presentation 21

22. Changes to the Measures Deleted Education and General Spending per Completion (RAMP) Added: – Cost per Credit Hour. (Cost Study) – Cost per Completion. (Cost Study) – Credit Hour Accumulation. (Survey) – Time to Completion. (Survey) IBHE Presentation 22

23. Changes to Sub-Categories Did not change the sub-categories. – Low Income (Pell/MAP Eligible) – ISAC/ILDS – Adult (Age 25 and Older) – CCA/ILDS – Hispanic - IPEDS – Black, non-Hispanic - IPEDS – STEM & Health Care (By CIP Code) – IPEDS – Part-Time - ILDS – Disabled - ILDS – Veterans - ILDS – First Generation - ILDS – English Language Learners (?) – Residents of Underserved Counties - ILDS – Additional Ethnic Categories – ILDS/IPEDS IBHE Presentation 23

24. Goal 2 2. Identify better and more current sources of data. – IPEDS (FY09-11) Bachelors/Masters/Doctoral and Professional Degrees Undergraduate Degrees per FTEs Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic STEM & Health Care (By CIP Code) - HLS STEM List + 51 (Health Professions and Related Programs) – Cost Study Cost per Completion Cost per Credit Hour – RAMP (FY09-12) Education and General Spending per Completion - Replaced Research and Public Service Expenditures – CCA (FY09-10) Adult Students (Age 25 and older) – ISAC (FY09-11) Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) – Used Survey Data from the Universities IBHE Presentation 24

25. Possible Additional Sources of Data ILDS – Age – (Date of Birth) – Ethnicity – Location – (County/Zip) – ACT/SAT – High School GPA/Class Rank (%) – Entry Enrollment (First Time/Transfer) – Enrollment (Part-Time/Full-time) – Remediation (GED/Math/Language Arts) – Credit Hours (Total/by Term) – Income (Pell/MAP Eligible) – First Generation. ILDS Not ready for Prime-Time IBHE Presentation 25

26. Goal 3 3. Determine if there is a better way to scale (normalize) the data. IBHE Presentation 26 The Question: How can you scale the data so that the measures are roughly equivalent, without creating more problems than you solve, while at the same time keeping it simple enough that an individual can understand what you did? Result: For FY14 we will continue with the present approach.

27. Goal 4 4.Discuss ways to account for other factors (i.e. Hospitals, Medical Schools, Dental Schools, etc.) – The Committee agreed to look at removing these entities from the calculation for spending per completion. – Added a factor to the model to account for these entities based on a proportional share their funding relative to the institution’s total GRF funding. – Used Cost Study data, which does not include most of this information in the calculation of cost data. IBHE Presentation 27

28. Refinement Issues Data continues to be an issue. – Although we have received our first ILDS submission, the quality of the data is not sufficient to use at this time. – The timeliness of data also continues to be a problem. – May have to request the specific data we need from the universities. Quality – We still have significant challenges in defining quality as it pertains to universities, and determining how best to assess that quality. Sub-Categories – First Generation (Definition/Data issues) – Geographic Area (IERC – Students from Disadvantaged HS) IBHE Presentation 28

29. IBHE Presentation 29 Performance Funding Model (FY14) 4-Year Public Universities

30. 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 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 – Add an adjustment factor for high cost entities. Step 8 – Use the final Weighted results (or Total Performance Value) to distribute performance funding. IBHE Presentation 30

31. Performance Measures IBHE Presentation 31 MeasureSource Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11) IPEDS Masters Degrees (FY09-11) IPEDS Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11) IPEDS Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY09-11) IPEDS Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11) RAMP Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY10-12) RAMP Grad Rates 100%/150%/200% of Time (Fall 02-04 Cohort)Survey Retention (Completed 24/48/72 Semester Hours) (FY07-09)Survey Cost per Credit Hour (FY09-11)Cost Study Cost per Completion (FY09-11)Cost Study 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)

32. Sub-Categories IBHE Presentation 32 Sub-CategoryWeight Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 40% - Survey Data Adult (Age 25 and Older) 40% Hispanic 40% Black, non-Hispanic 40% STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% - HLS + CIP 51 Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations

33. Scaling Factors 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 33 Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.

34. Scaling Factors IBHE Presentation 34 Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables. MeasureUniversities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor Bachelors Degrees (FY09-11) Masters Degrees (FY09-11) Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY09-11) 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) Retention (Completed 24 Semester Hours) (FY07-09) Retention (Completed 48 Semester Hours) (FY07-09) Retention (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) 2,822 1,042 227 25 27 46 50 1,644 1,453 1,350 346 36,566 112,914,667 1.0 2.7 12.4 112.6 104.4 60.9 57.0 1.7 1.9 2.1 8.1.1.00002 1 2 200 50 2 -8 -.050.00005

35. Performance Measure Weights IBHE Presentation 35 Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution. Doctoral/ Research-Very High Research-HighResearch 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 Retention (Completed 24 Semester Hours) Retention (Completed 48 Semester Hours) Retention (Completed 72 Semester Hours) Cost per Credit Hour Cost per Completion Research and Public Service Expenditures UIUCUICNIUSIUCISU 17.0%18.0%28.0% 33.0% 14.0%15.0% 14.0%23.0% 13.0%14.0%10.0%8.0%6.0% 4.0% 11.0%13.0%12.0% 1.5% 2.0% 1.0% 1.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.5% 1.0%0.5%1.5% 0.5% 1.0%0.5%1.5% 45.0%42.0%28.0%30.0%15.0% 100.0%

36. Performance Measure Weights IBHE Presentation 36 Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and 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 Retention (Completed 24 Sem Hrs) Retention (Completed 48 Sem Hrs) Retention (Completed 72 Sem Hrs) Cost per Credit Hour Cost per Completion Research & Public Svc Expenditures SIUEWIUEIUNEIUCSUGSUUIS 42.0%40.0% 45.0%43.0% 28.0%25.0%26.0% 25.0%27.0% 2.5%1.0%0.0% 1.0% 12.0%13.0% 5.0%8.0% 2.0%2.5% 0.0%2.5% 1.5%2.0% 0.0%2.0% 1.0% 0.0%1.0% 5.0%1.0% 1.5%2.0% 7.0%2.0% 2.5% 0.0%2.5% 1.5%4.0% 1.5%4.0% 3.5%2.0% 100.0%

37. Performance Value Calculation IBHE Presentation 37 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 Retention (Completed 24 Sem Hrs) Retention (Completed 48 Sem Hrs) Retention (Completed 72 Sem Hrs) Cost per Credit Hour Cost per Completion Research & Public Svc Expenditures 2,822 1,042 227 25 27 46 50 1,644 1,453 1,350 346 36,566 $112,914,667 3,522 1,454 240 25 27 46 50 1,644 1,453 1,350 345 36,566 $112,914,667 DataData + Premium 1 2 200 50 2 -8 -.050.00005 (Data+Premium) 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 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% 100.0% Total Performance Value 1,057 364 24 500 20 23 13 33 44 54 -41 -18 1,129 3,200 xWeight =Scale

38. Performance Value Calculation IBHE Presentation 38 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 give you a total performance value for institutions with these high cost entities. Example: $20M/$200M =.10.10 X 3200 (PV) = 320 320 + 3200 = 3550 = Total Performance Value

39. IBHE Presentation 39 Percentages for Distribution Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 3,200 17,302 Percentage of Total 58.7% 24.0% 17.3% 100% Distribution: Pro Rata$587,000 $240,000 $173,000 $1,000,000 University 1 University 2 University 3 Total 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.

40. Budget Considerations IBHE Presentation 40

41. Budget Considerations The State budget situation is not stable and declines in State funding for colleges and universities may continue. The pension cost transfer continues to be a concern. Colleges and universities continue to address unfunded state mandates and regulatory requirements. The availability of financial aid continues to be a problem and funding levels for both MAP and Pell are declining. Enrollment declines continue to create significant challenges for colleges and universities. The performance funding model needs to be more fully developed in order to refine the measures and sub-categories and we need better sources of data to support the model (ILDS) Colleges and universities have not been able to impact their performance as the current model is based on performance prior to the implementation of performance funding. IBHE Presentation 41

42. Way Ahead Present final performance funding model recommendations to the IBHE Board February 5 th along with the FY2014 higher education budget submission, which will include our performance funding recommendation. Continue work to refine the performance funding model and acquire more accurate and comprehensive data in preparation for the FY 2015 budget submission and performance funding recommendation. IBHE Presentation 42

43. Questions/Comments? IBHE Presentation 43

44. Back-Up Charts IBHE Presentation 44

45. IBHE Presentation 45 Performance Funding Model (FY13) 4-Year Public Universities

46. 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 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 46

47. Performance Measures IBHE Presentation 47 MeasureSource Bachelors Degrees (FY07-09)IPEDS Masters Degrees (FY07-09)IPEDS Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09)IPEDS Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE (FY07-09)IPEDS Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11) RAMP Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11) RAMP 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)

48. Sub-Categories IBHE Presentation 48 Sub-CategoryWeight Low Income (Pell/Map Eligible) 40% Adult (Age 25 and Older) 40% Hispanic 40% Black, non-Hispanic 40% STEM & Health Care (by CIP Code) 40% Step 3 – Award an additional premium for the production of certain desired outcomes such as completions by underserved or underrepresented populations

49. Scaling Factors 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 49 MeasureUniversities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor Bachelors Degrees (FY07-09) 4,445 1.001.00 Masters Degrees (FY07-09) 1,152 3.861.00 Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09) 796 16.252.00 Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE FY(07-09) 26 173.64 200.00 Education and General Spending per Completion (FY09-11) 4,639 -.96 -1.00 Research and Public Service Expenditures (FY09-11) 10,803,117.0004115.0005000 Step 4 – Normalize (scale) the data, if necessary, so it is comparable across variables.

50. Performance Measure Weights IBHE Presentation 50 Step 5 – Weight each of the Performance Measures that reflects the priority of the Measure and the mission of the institution. UIUCUICNIUSIUCISU 22.5% 37.5% 40.0% 15.0% 20.0% 22.5% 15.0% 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 10.0% 12.5% 2.5%0.0%2.5%0.0%2.5% 40.0%42.5%20.0%22.5%15.0% 100.0% Doctoral/ Research-Very High Research-HighResearch Masters Colleges & Universities (Large) SIUEWIUEIUNEIUCSUGSUUIS 45.0% 47.5%50.0% 25.0% 27.5% 25.0%37.5% 5.0%2.5%0.0% 2.5%0.0%2.5% 15.0% 0.0% 2.5%10.0% 7.5%10.0%7.5% 2.5% 100.0% Weights Based on Institutional Mission Bachelors Degrees Masters Degrees Doctoral and Prof Degrees Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE Education Spending/Completion Research and Public Service Expenditures Weights Based on Institutional Mission Bachelors Degrees Masters Degrees Doctoral and Prof Degrees Undergrad Degrees per 100 FTE Education Spending/Completion Research and Public Service Expenditures

51. Performance Value Calculation IBHE Presentation 51 Measure Bachelors Degrees Masters Degrees Doctoral and Professional Degrees Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTE Education and General Spending per Completion Research and Public Service Expenditures 3,921 1,552 209 23.2 3,788 5,486,590 6,813 1,754 229 23.2 3,788 5,486,590 Data Data + Premium Scale 1 2 200.0005 (Data+Premium) x Scale 6,813 1,754 458 4,646 -3,788 2,743 xWeight = 35.0% 25.0% 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 20.0% 100.0% Total Performance Value 2385 438 23 464 -189 549 3580 Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Total Performance Value.

52. IBHE Presentation 52 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 Funding Allocation Based on Performance Step 7 – 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.

53. Performance Funding Model (FY13) Community Colleges IBHE Presentation 53

54. IBHE Presentation 54 Performance Funding Model ( Community Colleges) There are thirty-nine community college districts. The community college model contains six separate measures. Each measure is allocated an equal portion of the total performance funding amount. Each college competes for a portion of the funding for each measure. Those colleges that show a decrease in performance receive no funds based on performance. Those colleges that show an increase in performance receive a pro-rata share of the funding allocation for that measure based on the increase in their performance.

55. IBHE Presentation 55 Performance Funding Measures ( Community Colleges) 1.Degree and Certificate Completion. 2.Degree and Certificate Completion of “At Risk” students. 3.Transfer to a four year institution. 4.Remedial and Adult Education Advancement. 5.Momentum Points. 6.Transfer to a community college.

56. Performance Funding Model (Community College Example) Measure 1 – Students who completed a degree or certificate Model (Part 1) = Percentage change in number of associate degrees awarded from FY08-FY09. IBHE Presentation 56 District1 District 2 District 3 District 4 …. District 39 FY 2009 Number of Associate Degrees Awarded % Change Greater than Zero Allocation 575 1,803 270 1,484 ….. 329 25,130 533 2,361 243 1,630 …. 350 26,460 -7.3% 30.9% -10.0% 9.8% …. 6.4% --.309 --.098 …..064 2.585 -- $9,579 -- $3.045 …. $1,976 $80,000 FY 2008 Number of Associate Degrees Awarded Pro Rata Share = $80,000/2.585 = $30,951 Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share –(i.e..309 X 30,951 = $9,579)

57. Degree & Certificate Completion Measure 1 – Students who completed a degree or certificate Model (Part 1) = Percentage change in number of associate degrees awarded from FY08-FY09. Range of Results = - 14.3% to +30.9% Number of districts receiving funding – 26 Range of Increase = (.2%-30.9%) or (.002 to.309) Funding Allocation = $80,000 Total of increase for all 26 schools = 2.585 Pro Rata Share = $80,000/2.585 = $30,951 (i.e. 1 share = $30,951) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e..002 X $30,951 = $74) Range of Allocation = $74 to $9,579 IBHE Presentation 57

58. Degree & Certificate Completion Measure 1 – Students who completed a degree or certificate Model (Part 2) = Percentage change in number of certificates awarded from FY08-FY09. Range of Results = - 49.6% to +103.8% Number of colleges receiving funding – 24 Range of Increase = (.9%-103.8%) or (.009 to 1.038) Funding Allocation = $40,000 Total of increase for all 24 schools = 5.324 Pro Rata Share = $40,000/5.324 = $7,512 (i.e. 1 share = $7,512) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e..009 X $7,512 = $64) Range of Allocation = $64 to $7,797 IBHE Presentation 58 Total Allocation for Measure 1 = $120,000 Total Number of colleges receiving funding = 35 Range of Allocation = $331 to $9,579 Measure 1

59. Degree Production of At-Risk Students Measure 2 – At-risk students who completed a degree or certificate (i.e. students with Pell or taking remedial courses) Model = Percentage change (number of Pell recipients + number of students who have taken remedial courses) from FY08-FY09. Range of Results = - 28.1% to +26.5% Number of colleges receiving funding – 20 Range of Increase = (2.3%-26.5%) or (.023 to.265) Funding Allocation = $120,000 Total of increase for all 20 schools = 2.913 Pro Rata Share = $120,000/2.913 = $41,201 (i.e. 1 share = $41,201) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e..023 X $41,201 = $938) Range of Allocation = $938 to $10,936 IBHE Presentation 59

60. Transfer to a Four Year Institution Measure 3 – Students who transfer to a four year institution within 3 years Model = Percentage of Fall 2006 entrants who transferred to 4-year institutions by Fall 2010. Range of Results = 12.3% to 35.8% Number of colleges receiving funding – 39 Range of Increase = (12.3%-35.8%) or (.123 to.358) Funding Allocation = $120,000 Total of increase for all 39 schools = 10.778 Pro Rata Share = $120,000/10.72 = $11,134 (i.e. 1 share = $11,134) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e..123 X $11,134 = $1,375) Range of Allocation = $1,375 to $3,988 IBHE Presentation 60

61. Remedial and Adult Education Advancement Measure 4 – Remedial students who advance to college level work. Model = Percentage of FY 2009 remedial students who advanced to college level courses. Range of Results = 43.8% to 100% Number of colleges receiving funding – 39 Range of Increase = (43.8%-100%) or (.438 to 1.0) Funding Allocation = $120,000 Total of increase for all 39 schools = 23.82 Pro Rata Share = $120,000/23.82 = $5,039 (i.e. 1 share = $5,039) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e..438 X $5,039 = $2,207) Range of Allocation = $2,207 to $5,039 IBHE Presentation 61

62. Momentum Points Measure 5 – 1 st time/PT students completing 12 credit hours w/in the first year, 1 st time/PT students completing 24 credit hours w/in the first year, and Adult Education and Family Literacy level (AEFL) gains. Model = % change (number of students completing 12 CR + number of students completing 24 CR + number of students with an AEFL level gain) from FY08-FY09). Range of Results = -53.9% to 69.6% Number of colleges receiving funding – 22 Range of Increase = (.9% to 69.6%) or (.009 to.696) Funding Allocation = $120,000 Total of increase for all 22 schools = 6.478 Pro Rata Share = $120,000/6.478 = $18,529 (i.e. 1 share = $18,529) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e...009 X $18,529 = $171) Range of Allocation = $171 to $12,898 IBHE Presentation 62

63. Transfer to Another Community College Measure 6 – Community college students that transfer to other community colleges. Model = Percentage change (students transferring from one community college to another community college) from (FY06-FY09) to (FY07-FY10). Range of Results = 53.7% to 155.4% Number of colleges receiving funding – 39 Range of Increase = (53.7%-155.4%) or (.537 to 1.554) Funding Allocation = $120,000 Total of increase for all 39 schools = 37.01 Pro Rata Share = $120,000/37.01 = $3,242 (i.e. 1 share = $3,242) Funding Allocation = Amount of Increase X Pro Rata Share – (i.e..537 X $3,242 = $1,741) Range of Allocation = $1,741 to $5,038 IBHE Presentation 63