Overview of Performance Funding Model for Ohio`s Community

Report
Overview of Performance
Funding Model for Ohio’s
Community Colleges
2014 University System of Ohio
Trustees Conference
November 18, 2014
Ohio Higher Education Funding
FY 2015 State Share of Instruction (SSI)
Universities
(14 main campuses
plus branches)
$1.4 billion
Community
Colleges
(23 campuses)
$419 million
Total
$1.8 billion
Performance Funding Major Milestones
Sept.
2012
Governor Kasich’s call to recast Ohio’s funding formula for
higher education to reward student success and completion
Nov.
2012
Ohio Higher Education Commission Funding
Recommendations
June
2013
House Bill 59 Adopted (FY 2014 – FY 2015 Biennial Budget)
• V1 of PBF Model for FY 2014
Dec.
2013
OACC SSI Allocation Recommendations
• Transition to 100% PBF model for FY 2015
May
2014
Mid-Biennium Budget Review (MBR) Adopted
• V2 of PBF Model for FY 2015
June
2015?
Adoption of FY 2016 – FY 2017 Biennial Budget
• V3 of PBF Model
Performance (Outcomes-Based) Funding Models
Completion/
Align state
investment with
state priorities
Drive
institutional
behavior
Attainment
Jobs/Economic
Development
Campus
resource
allocation
Programmatic
evaluation and
change
Alternative
delivery models
Student Success
Agenda & Best
Practices
Ohio SSI Community College Formula
History, 2009-2015
FY 2009-2013
Primarily enrollment-based with inclusion of success points (5% to 10%)
Stop Loss (99%-96%)
FY 2014
50% enrollment + 25% course completion + 25% success points
97% stop loss
FY 2015
Elimination of enrollment component
Combination of course completion (50%), success points (25%) & completion metrics (25%)
At-risk or access category application
No stop loss
Background
Higher Education Funding Commission
report and House Bill 59 charges:
At-Risk Factors
• …identify the socio-economic,
demographic, academic, personal,
and other factors that identify a
student as being "at-risk" of
academic failure….
• study the most appropriate
formula weights to: “reward
schools that are successful in
educating non-traditional and atrisk student populations”
Success & Completion Measures
• …research the most appropriate
success points and completion
measures that occur during the
academic career of community
college students…
• Determine how funding shall be
distributed among its success
points, completion measures and
course completion funding…
• Requirement to develop
institutional completion plans
OACC Community College Funding
Consultation Process
Began meeting in March 2013
• Majority of institutions represented
• Included representatives from the Ohio Board of Regents,
the Higher Education Funding Commission and the Ohio
Office of Budget and Management
Facilitated by the OACC and HCM Strategists
• Consultation from HCM provided through Lumina Strategy
Labs
Working group formed in August 2013
• Developed formula framework & technical details
• Recommendations presented to full consultation
Engagement of OACC Presidents
• Presentation and discussion each month from
September to December 2013
FY 2015 Proposed Model: Guiding Principles
Multiple models were reviewed and evaluated based on
data, policy implications, and the consultation’s guiding
principles:
o Hold true to the mission and priorities of community colleges
including access, completion, quality, and workforce development
o Incentivize institutions to adopt evidence-based practices to help
them succeed
o Include metrics grounded in student success research and best
practices
o Align with state priorities and initiatives
o Be simple to understand and communicate
o Develop a model that is sustainable, consistent, and reliable
FY 2015 Framework Summary
Cost-Based
Completion
Milestones*
25%
Success
Points 25%
*Access Categories
Applied
Cost-Based
Course
Completions*
50%
All data averaged over three years
•
Adult (age 25 and
over at time of
enrollment)
•
Low-Income, Pell
Eligible (ever in
college career)
•
Minority (African
American, Hispanic,
Native American)
Component 1: Course Completion (50%)
Cost-Based Calculation
• Average statewide cost based on level of course and subject
area (aggregation of CIP codes)
• # of FTE who pass course * determined cost
Access category weight:
15% for any student with one (or more) risk factors
Component 2: Success Points (25%)
Developmental Education Success
• # of Students completing developmental
education Math and enrolling in first collegelevel math course (1 point)
• # of Students completing developmental
education English & enrolling in first collegelevel English course (1 point)
24 Credit Hours
• # of students earning first 24
college-level credits (1 point)
12 Credit Hours
• # of students earning first 12
college-level credits (1 point)
36 Credit Hours
• # of students earning first 36
college-level credits (1 point)
Component 3: Completion Milestones (25%)
Associate
Degree
Completions
Certificate
Completions
Transfer
w/12+ credit
hours
Cost-Based Model
Access Category Weights:
25% for one access category
66% for two access categories
150% for three access categories
Access Categories for Weighting Course
Completions and Completion Milestones
Colleges submitted suggested populations (15 distinct categories)
Aligned with Data or Potential Proxies (9 in total)
Data run to determine significance related to graduation and course
completion
Significance: How much less likely are students from these groups to
complete/graduate compared to students not from group
Narrow-In: Correlation between factors & policy informed recommended
final categories
Policy: Focus on student background, not enrollment status (e.g. part-time,
enrollment in developmental education courses)
FY 15 Access Categories:
Adult - 25 and older at enrollment
Low-income - Pell-eligible (ever)
Minority: American Indian, Hispanic, African American
Review of Distribution Method
A proportional distribution model for each component is utilized, consistent
with prior methods. Institutions receive a proportional share of the total
earned across each component.
Course Completion (ENTRY)
(% of (total cost-based Completed FTE Earned + % of total completed
FTE Access Add-on Earned) * 50% of FY 2015 Allocation)
Success Points (PROGRESSION/MOMENTUM)
(% share success points earned * 25% FY 2015 Allocation)
Completion Milestones (COMPLETION)
(% of total cost-based completion milestones earned + % of total completion
milestones access add-on earned) *25% of FY 2015 Allocation)
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Formula
Process for FY 2016-17
 Work group began meeting again in March 2014 and
followed the same process with regular updates to the full
consultation and OACC Presidents.
 A guiding principle of the work for the FY 2016 framework
development was to maintain as much consistency as
possible from the FY 2015 funding model and support
institutions in understanding the formula and evaluating the
outcomes.
The OACC has engaged HCM Strategists for ongoing
facilitation support as well as institutional data analysis.
Recommendations for FY 2016-17
Data
SSI models have traditionally used projected data for distributions of
first-half fiscal year allocations. With inclusion of additional metrics and
measures like access populations, projections become more difficult
and could result in inaccurate modeling and estimates.
 Course completions: The model will continue to use most
recent three-year average for course completions. This variable
relates most directly to enrollment volume, which has direct
current cost implications for institutions.
 Success Points & Completion Milestones: The model will use
an additional year lagged three-year average for success points
and completion milestones.
 Projection & Reporting Guidelines: The OACC will work to
provide institutions with guidelines and considerations for
developing projections for course completions.
Recommendations for FY 2016-17, continued
Add Academic Preparation Access Category


Establish HEI reporting process for placement scores
Align to Ohio Remediation Free Standards
Short-term certificates and certificates of value
 Continue to establish common definitions and data collection
processes for short-term certificates (less than 1-year)
 Seek alternative funding stream
Next Steps: Evaluate & Refine
Additional Policy Issues:
Evaluate existing model to
understand relation to additional policy priorities and goals. Such as:
 Course equivalents/Prior Learning Assessment
 Dual Enrollment
 Job placement/workforce training
 Adjusted allocation across components
Continuous Improvement & Best Practices
 Support institutions in the evaluation of student outcomes
 Identify and share best practices for student success
 Evaluate and refine the formula to ensure fairness and
alignment with statewide priorities and goals
Thank You!

similar documents