1. REPORT OF THE TAXONOMY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE STATE SUBSIDY CONSULTATION Rosemary Jones (Co-Chair) Darrell Winefordner (Co-Chair) Presented to the HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING STUDY COUNCIL February 23, 2006

2. Committee Membership Rosemary Jones, Cuyahoga Community College (Co-Chair) Darrell Winefordner, Ohio University (Co-Chair) Jeff Boudouris, Sinclair Community College James Buck, Southern State Community College Chris Dalton, Bowling Green State University Jan Diegmueller, University of Cincinnati Ralph Gutowski, Miami University Michael Mayher, Lakeland Community College Roger Murphy, Shawnee State University Tom Reed, Owens State Community College L. Lee Walker, The Ohio State University Vikki Williamson, Central State University OBR Staff: * Rich Petrick* Neal McNally* Darrell Glenn * Andy Lechler* Katie Hensel

3. Goals Models will have similar costs and characteristics Models will be predictable and easier to manage Models will be easier to understand and communicate

4. Process Built upon the past Clustering work of last biennium History of development of current formula Data driven Iterative (over 25 versions reviewed) Assumed that all changes must be funded within current funding level, transition will be easier with additional funding. Conceptual tempered by reality Sector, campus impacts evaluated

5. Taxonomy and Data Recommendations Identify model costs by a subject-oriented grouping taxonomy Arts & Humanities (AH) 4 undergraduate levels 2 graduate levels Business, Education, and Social Sciences (BES) 4 undergraduate levels 3 graduate levels Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEM 2 ) 5 undergraduate levels 4 graduate levels 2 Doctoral Models and 2 Medical Models

6. Taxonomy and Data Recommendations Base costs on a six-year average Cost evaluation based on total costs Revise or eliminate manual adjustments Strengthen data consistency and integrity

7. SSI Implementation Recommendations Simplify by eliminating or phasing out weightings or other adjustments Use a “Uniform State Share” funding model as the starting point for SSI allocations. Adjust the “Uniform State Share” in a transparent manner Doctoral set-aside Enhancement (weight) for Graduate models Enhancement (weight) for STEM 2 Enhancement (weight) for Medical 2

8. Fiscal Stability Transition Strategy Needed Balance need for change with fiscal stability Measure stability at the campus level Eliminating some long-standing funding practices will warrant special consideration for funding

9. Strengths Variance decreased by 42% overall Details of impact of each step available by campus, by sector, and in rank order of impact Year-to-year fluctuations smoothed Streamlined approach to costs and allocations Adjustments limited and transparent Focus on data integrity Able to be evaluated and realigned every biennium