National Center for Higher Education Management Systems 3035 Center Green Drive, Suite 150 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Paying for Results – Performance Funding 2012 Complete College Ohio Conference Columbus, OH November 13, 2012
Feb 25, 2016
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems3035 Center Green Drive, Suite 150Boulder, Colorado 80301
Paying for Results – Performance Funding
2012 Complete College Ohio ConferenceColumbus, OH
November 13, 2012
The Management Cycle of the Past
State
Institution
Institution
Institution
Goal-Setting
ResourceAllocation
Assessment
The Management Cycle Now
State
State
State
Institution
Institution
Institution
Goal-Setting
ResourceAllocation
Assessment
Why the Renewed Interest in Outcomes-Based Funding
• An increase in the number of states defining statewide goals for higher Education
• Outcomes-based funding is the most direct way of linking state funding to these goals
• An alternative to micromanagement – a way to negotiate autonomy with accountability
Outcomes-Based Funding is Not a New Phenomenon
• Enrollment-based funding is a form of outcomes-based funding – it rewards increased access
• What is new is the shift– From a focus on access– To a focus on student success and other outcomes
• A reminder – the importance of tuition and fee revenues to institutions continues to reinforce the importance of access
The Elements of Finance Policy
Students Institutions-Sectors
Operating Support --Outcomes-Based Funding as One
Component
StudentAid
Tuition & Fees
Scholarships &Waivers
Pell& Tax Credits
FederalGovernment
StatesPhilanthropy & Other Sources
StudentAid
Graduates
Currently in the Third Cycle of Outcomes-Based Funding
Round 1 1975 – 1984
Round 2 1985 – 2004
Round 3 2005 - Present
Round 1
• Tennessee breaks new ground• Initially 2%, then 5.4% of each institution’s
appropriation tied to performance• Rewards encouraged good practices rather than
outcomes– Accreditation of programs– Building data capacity– Using national assessments where available– Etc.
• Continued in new model as the Quality Assurance Component
Round 2
Numerous states tried it– California CCs– Florida CCs*– Illinois– Kentucky– Missouri– Ohio
– Oklahoma*– Pennsylvania(PASSHE)
*– South Carolina– South Dakota– Tennessee*
*Still in effect.
Most Faded Away for One or More Reasons
• Right idea but faulty implementation– Too complex – too many elements– Insufficient data – unavailable or unreliable– Didn’t recognize different institutional missions – one
size fits all– Imposed without institutional consultation/buy-in
• Done for the wrong reasons– A resource acquisition device – abandoned when
budgets were tight– An end in itself – not a means to promote goal
attainment
Round 3
The Current State of Development & Implementation
Outcomes-Based Funding 3.0: State Activity
Different states have constructed their performance funding models to reward production
of different combinations of outcomes.
But they have one element in common – increasing the number so students who
successfully complete a postsecondary program of study.
There is every reason for Ohio to follow suit.
Can quibble about the specific goal, but it is hard to argue that Ohio colleges and
universities must produce more – many more – college graduates than is currently the case.
Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group – State, U.S. & Leading OECD Countries, 2010
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample
File
15
Korea
Japan
Canad
aIre
land
Norway
New Zea
land
United Kingdom
Australia
Luxe
mbourg
Israe
l
Belgium
France
United Stat
esOhio
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7065
.0
56.7
56.5
48.2
47.3
46.4
46.0
44.4
44.2
44.2
43.8
42.9
42.3
38.4
46.9 49
.6
56.8
42.3
41.0 42.5
40.6
39.5 41
.4
48.8
39.4
33.8
43.4
38.6
26.7
45.8
46.8
29.8 33
.4
39.1
35.2
34.8
27.9
44.4
30.9
21.7
40.0
33.3
12.8
29.0
42.2
21.5
27.3
33.8
30.0
29.6
25.3
44.6
25.6
18.3
41.0
33.3
25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64
Percentage of Jobs in 2018 that Will Require a Postsecondary Education, by State
slide 16
70 7068
67 6766 66 66
65 6564 64 64 64 64 64
63 6362 62 62 62 62 62
61 61 61 61 6159 59 59 59 59
58 5857 57 57
56 5655 55
54 54 54 5452
5149
45
50
55
60
65
70
75N
DM
NM
A CO WA NE
UT
MD HI CT IL KS VA NH NJ
OR NY
AK MI
WY
MT VT IA SD WI ID RI CA AZ N
CM
E FLM
O DE GA NM OH PA OK TX SC AL IN NV TN MS KY AR LA WV
National Average = 63%
Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce,Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2018; June 2010
Closing the Gap: Annual Percent Increase in Credential Production Needed to get to 60% by
2025Ne
vada
Loui
siana
Texa
s
Tenn
esse
e
Geor
gia
Idah
o
Miss
issip
pi
Alab
ama
Dela
ware
Florid
a
Oreg
on
North
Car
olin
a
Mont
ana
Indi
ana
Miss
ouri
Was
hing
ton
Hawa
ii
Illin
ois
Utah
Kans
as
Virg
inia
New
Jers
ey
Iowa
New
York
New
Ham
pshi
re
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%9.
0%7.
9%7.
5%7.
5%7.
2%7.
1%6.
6%6.
4%6.
2%6.
2%6.
1%6.
1%6.
1%5.
8%5.
7%5.
6%5.
4%5.
4%5.
3%5.
3%5.
1%5.
1%5.
0%4.
8%4.
7%4.
7%4.
6%4.
6%4.
5%4.
4%4.
3%3.
6%3.
5%3.
4%3.
2%3.
1%3.
0%3.
0%2.
8%2.
8%2.
5%2.
5%2.
4%2.
4%2.
2%2.
0%1.
7%1.
3%1.
1%0.
5%-0
.6%
Nor
th D
akot
a
The Price of Inaction
slide 19
Observation 1
The completion gap can’t be closed by– Improving high school completion and college
participation of recent high school grads to best in the nation levels
– Continuing business-as-usual inside higher education
slide 20
slide 21
slide 22
Observation 2
The completion gap won’t be closed even if– High School completion and college participation rates of
recent high school graduates are improved to best in nation levels
And
– Those students graduate from college at rates equal to best in the nation
slide 23
slide 24
slide 25
Observation 3
The completion gap can be fully closed only if a very large number of adults enroll in colleges and complete a postsecondary program of study.
slide 26
slide 27
slide 28
But does outcomes based funding really work?
– In most states it is too early to say– But the evidence is starting to trickle in– The evidence suggests that it promotes
improvement
slide 29
Changes from 2011-12 to 2012-13 in the Three-Year Average Funding Formula Data,
Community Colleges (THECB)
CHSCC CLSCC COSCC DSCC JSCC MSCC NASCC NESCC PSCC RSCC STCC VSCC WSCCTotal Difference + + + + + + - + + + - + +-
Students Accumulating 12 hrs + + - + - - + + + + + + +Students Accumulating 24 hrs + + + + + + + + + + + + +Students Accumulating 36 hrs + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Dual Enrollment + + + + + + + + + + + + +Associates + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Total Certificates - + - + - + - - + - - - -Job Placements + + + + + - - + + - - - -
Remedial & Developmental Success + + + + + + + + + + + + +Transfers Out with 12 hrs + + + - + + + - - + + - +
Workforce Training (Contact Hours) + - - - - + - + + + - + +Awards per 100 FTE - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Data represents a three year average; 2011-12 Formula uses data from 2007-08 through 2009-10; 2012-13 Formula uses data from 2008-09 through 2010-11.
Weighted Outcomes Changes*
Changes from 2011-12 to 2012-13 in the Three-Year Average Funding Formula Data,
Universities (THECB)
APSU ETSU MTSU TSU TTU UM UTC UTK UTMTotal Difference + + + - + + + + +-
Students Accumulating 24 hrs + + + - + + + - -Students Accumulating 48 hrs + + + - + + + - +Students Accumulating 72 hrs + + + - + + + - +
Bachelors and Associates + + + - + + + + +Masters / Ed Specialists + + + - - + + + -
Doctoral / Law Degree + + + + - + + + 0Research and Service + - + + + + - + -
Transfers Out with 12 hrs + + - + - - + - -Degrees per 100 FTE - - - - - - - + -
Six-Year Graduation Rate + - + - + - + + +*Data represents a three year average; 2011-12 Formula uses data from 2007-08 through 2009-10; 2012-13 Formula uses data from 2008-09 through 2010-11.
Weighted Outcomes Changes*
Washington Community Colleges Total Points per College
slide 32
% Change 07–09 % Change 09–10 % Change 10–11 % Change 07–11College 001 19 25 -18 22College 002 16 12 5 37College 003 54 13 2 78College 004 27 4 -5 26College 005 20 14 -1 35College 006 4 6 3 14College 007 22 26 -4 48College 008 32 24 -3 59College 009 25 -12 3 14College 010 27 8 1 38College 011 22 18 -5 37College 012 7 12 -9 9College 013 19 10 1 32College 014 30 24 -6 51College 015 17 12 -2 29College 016 33 33 -6 66College 017 18 16 6 46College 018 37 -4 3 36College 019 28 6 2 37College 020 5 9 5 20College 021 12 11 1 25College 022 12 20 -3 30College 023 12 4 3 20College 024 28 13 -13 26College 025 15 8 -9 13College 026 12 12 12 40College 027 13 0 -10 3College 028 28 0 -6 21College 029 17 13 0 33College 030 22 13 12 54College 031 11 15 1 29College 032 3 1 3 6College 033 10 20 3 36College 034 19 17 -1 38Average per College 19 12 -1 31
Source: CCRC-IHELP Washington State Student Achievement Initiative: Achievement Points Analysis for Academic years 2007-2011
Ohio Community CollegesChanges in Performance on Student Success Factors, 2009-10
slide 33
Institution 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 + + + + + + +2 + + + + + + +3 + + + + + + +4 + + + + + - +5 + - - + - - =6 + + + + + + +7 + + - + + + +8 + + + + + - +9 + + + + + + +
10 + + - + + + +11 + + - + + + -12 + + + + + + +13 + + + + + + +14 + + - + + + +15 + + - + - + +16 + + + + + + +17 + + + + + + +18 + + - + + + +19 + + + + + + +20 + + + + + + +21 + + + + + + +22 + + - + + - +23 + + + + + + +
Success Categories
For More Information Contact:
Dennis Jones
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
http://www.nchems.org/NCHEMSCLASPOhioModel.swf