Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model

IBHE Presentation 1

Illinois Higher EducationPerformance Funding Model

Performance FundingSteering Committee Meeting

January 14, 2013

Dr. Alan Phillips

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

Topics to be Covered

• Performance Funding Background

• Performance Funding (FY2013)

• Refinement Committee Effort

• Performance Funding Model Refinements

• FY14 Budget Considerations

IBHE Presentation 3

Background

IBHE Presentation 4

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.

5IBHE Presentation

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).

6IBHE Presentation

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.

7IBHE Presentation

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

8IBHE Presentation

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

• 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)

IBHE Presentation 11

Performance Funding Model (FY13)

4-Year Public Universities

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).



Community Colleges


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.


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.


On this basis, we accomplished the objective.

Refinement Effort


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.)


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.


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


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 - ?


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


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)


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


Goal 22. 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


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


Goal 3

3. Determine if there is a better way to scale (normalize) the data.


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.

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.


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)


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.


Performance Measures


Measure Source• 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)

Sub-Categories


Sub-Category Weight• 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

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.


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

Scaling Factors



Measure Universities 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)

2,8221,042

22725274650

1,6441,4531,350

34636,566

112,914,667

1.02.7

12.4112.6104.4

60.957.0

1.71.92.18.1

.1.00002

112

200505050

222

-8-.050

.00005

Performance Measure Weights


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-High Research

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

UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU17.0% 18.0% 28.0% 28.0% 33.0%14.0% 15.0% 15.0% 14.0% 23.0%13.0% 14.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0%

4.0% 4.0% 11.0% 13.0% 12.0%1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5%1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0%0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.5%0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.5%

45.0% 42.0% 28.0% 30.0% 15.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




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

SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS42.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 45.0% 43.0%28.0% 25.0% 26.0% 26.0% 25.0% 27.0% 27.0%

2.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%12.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 5.0% 8.0%

2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.0%1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 7.0% 2.0%2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%1.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%1.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%3.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Performance Value Calculation


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

2,8221,042

22725274650

1,6441,4531,350

34636,566

$112,914,667

3,5221,454

240 25274650

1,6441,4531,350

34536,566

$112,914,667

Data Data + Premium112

200505050

222

-8-.050

.00005

(Data+Premium)x Scale3,5221,454

4805,0001,3502,3002,5003,2882,9062,700

-2,760-1,8285,646

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 PerformanceValue

1,057 364

24 500

20 23 13 33 44 54

-41 -18

1,1293,200

xWeight = Scale



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


Percentages for Distribution

Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 3,200 17,302Percentage 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 AllocationBased 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.

Budget Considerations


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.


Way Ahead

• Present final performance funding model recommendations to the IBHE Board February 5th 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.


Questions/Comments?


Back-Up Charts


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.


Performance Measures


Measure Source• 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)

Sub-Categories


Sub-Category Weight• 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

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.


Measure Universities 1-12 (Avg) Scaling Factor Adjusted Scaling Factor• Bachelors Degrees (FY07-09) 4,445 1.00 1.00• Masters Degrees (FY07-09) 1,152 3.86 1.00• Doctoral and Professional Degrees (FY07-09) 796 16.25 2.00• 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





UIUC UIC NIU SIUC ISU22.5% 22.5% 37.5% 37.5% 40.0%15.0% 15.0% 20.0% 20.0% 22.5%15.0% 15.0% 10.0% 10.0% 7.5%

5.0% 5.0% 10.0% 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% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Doctoral/ Research-Very High Research-High Research

Masters Colleges & Universities (Large)

SIUE WIU EIU NEIU CSU GSU UIS45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 47.5% 50.0% 50.0%25.0% 25.0% 27.5% 27.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5%

5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2.5% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 7.5% 10.0% 7.5%7.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Weights Based on Institutional MissionBachelors DegreesMasters Degrees Doctoral and Prof DegreesUndergrad Degrees per 100 FTEEducation Spending/CompletionResearch and Public Service Expenditures

Weights Based on Institutional MissionBachelors DegreesMasters Degrees Doctoral and Prof DegreesUndergrad Degrees per 100 FTEEducation Spending/CompletionResearch and Public Service Expenditures



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

3,9211,552

209 23.2

3,7885,486,590

6,8131,754

229 23.2

3,7885,486,590

Data Data + Premium Scale112

200-1

.0005

(Data+Premium)x Scale6,8131,754

4584,646

-3,7882,743

xWeight = 35.0%25.0%

5.0%10.0%

5.0%20.0%

100.0%

Total PerformanceValue2385

43823

464-189549

3580

Step 6 – Multiply and Sum the Scaled Data times the Weight to produce the Total Performance Value.


Percentages for Distribution

Total Performance Value 10,840 4,435 2,027 17,302Percentage 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 AllocationBased 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.


Community Colleges



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.


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.

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.


District1District 2District 3District 4….District 39

FY 2009 Number ofAssociate Degrees

Awarded%

Change

GreaterthanZero Allocation

5751,803

2701,484

…..329

25,130

5332,361

2431,630

….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 ofAssociate 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)

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


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)



• Total Allocation for Measure 1 = $120,000• Total Number of colleges receiving funding = 35• Range of Allocation = $331 to $9,579

Measure 1

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)



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


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)



Momentum Points• Measure 5 – 1st time/PT students completing 12 credit hours w/in the first year,

1st 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)



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)



Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model

Documents

Transcript of Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model