1. An Alternative Formula Funding the College of Southern Nevada March 8, 2012 Charleston Campus Cheyenne Campus Henderson Campus Green Valley Center Mesquite Center Moapa Valley Center Nellis AFB Center Sahara West Center Summerlin Center Western Center

2. CSN Objectives  A formula that keeps CSN and NSHE viable;  A formula that addresses equity issues;  A formula that fixes current problems;  A formula whose data are reliable and credible; and  A formula that can be explained to people. 2

3. Outcome-based Funding Formulas “We are seeing a growing emphasis on outcomes-based funding. It’s a result of the economic environment, but it’s also being seen as a way to measure what colleges are doing.” --John Curtis, American Association of University Professors 3

4. State Strategies: The Trend is Outcomes - Based Funding  Tennessee: Petri dish for performance funding—100%  Texas  Colorado  Illinois  Utah  Indiana  Mississippi  California: Student Success Act of 2012  Louisiana  Pennsylvania  Ohio  Florida  Hawaii  Washington  Arkansas 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9 The new model determines General Fund support for the seven teaching institutions only – not non-formula budgets.

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. Example $100,000,000 GF $100 price x weight in each 1,000,000 SCH discipline cluster 13 =

14. 14 After taking into account an adjustment for two rural community colleges, weighted student credit hours are multiplied by the “price” to determine the base funding amount for each institution.

15. 15

16. 16 Reward performance that contributes to the goals of the Board of Regents, its institutions and the needs of the state:  Will focus on the number of students completing degrees and certificates of value;  Will recognize and support the different missions of each institution;  Continuous improvement will be measured and rewarded; and  Institutions will be rewarded for achievement, not for the means by which they make progress.

17. Community College Metrics  Increase in the number of graduates (one-year certificates, associate and bachelor’s degrees) each year.  Increase in the number of graduates from underserved populations (minorities, students with disabilities, Pell grant recipients).  Increase in the number of industry-recognized certificates (less than one year) produced through workforce training.  Increase in the number of remediated students who successfully complete a college-level course in the subject area that was remediated. 17

18. Community College Metrics  Increase in number of students who reach momentum points of 24 credit hours and increase in number of students who transfer with 24 or more credit hours to any four-year institution (public or private, in-state or out-of-state) in the next regular semester of enrollment.  Increase in external dollars for workforce instruction or training and increase in number of non-credit contact hours for workforce instruction or training.  A unique performance factor selected by the institution. 18

19. Draft Implementation  FY 2012Baseline set for all performance measures  FY 2013Collect data on progress from FY 2012 baseline  FY 2015 5% in performance pool to be distributed based on performance in FY 2013  FY 20168% in performance pool to be distributed based on performance in FY 2014  FY 201712% in performance pool to be distributed based on performance in FY 2015  FY 201815% in performance pool to be distributed based on performance in FY 2016 19

20. 20

21. Open Issues  Should O&M be in the SCH?  How will institutions transition to the new model?  What should be covered by the Knowledge Fund?  Should local funding be considered? 21

22. Questions