Faculty Spring 2015 Presentation 20150122 (5)x

Report
Performance Based Funding
Background
• The USFSP strategic plan calls for 10 in 10 (10,000 students in
10 years).
• It is likely that this will require us to develop new programs.
• As we start thinking of new programs, we need to be aware
of two factors:
– The program approval process
– The way in which the state of Florida disburses funds to
its public universities.
The Basics of Performance Based Funding
• Traditionally, state appropriations have been made on the basis of inputs,
i.e. student head count.
– Potential drawbacks:
• Perverse incentive to hold back students;
• Danger of enrolling under-prepared students.
• Performance based funding makes (part of) the state appropriations
depend on output, i.e. how well the institution does on certain
performance criteria.
– Potential drawbacks:
• Rapidly shifting criteria may make long-term planning difficult;
• Potential tensions between different criteria.
Performance based funding in Florida I
• Performance is measured on 10 criteria.
– 8 are more or less the same for all public universities;
– 1 is set for each institution by the BOG;
– 1 is set for each institution by its BOT.
• Up to 5 points are awarded for each criterion based on
– Absolute performance;
OR
– Improvement in performance.
Performance based funding in Florida II
• Last year, the BOG withheld $35 million from the base budgets
of the public institutions of higher learning.
• Base budgets restored for institutions with a score over 25.
• It also distributed around $200M in performance based
funding, including restoration of base budget.
• Notes:
1. The money can be used for whatever purpose the
institution deems appropriate (unlike e.g. TEAm grant);
2. USFSP is NOT treated as a separate institution. The USF
System is treated as if it were a single institution.
Performance based funding in Florida III
• The USF system received $22M in new funding, of which
USFSP received around $2M.
• Only UF received more in new funding.
• The PBF becomes part of the base budget for the
subsequent year.
• USFSP used the PBF, among others, to
– Strengthen advising
– Hire instructors in English
– Strengthen international recruitment.
PBF 1. Percent of Bachelor’s Graduates
Employed and/or Continuing their
Education Further 1 Year After Graduation
Score
80% +
5
75%
4
70%
3
65%
2
60%
1
USF System
75%
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
Only reported at system level
PBF 2. Median Average Full-time Wages of
Undergraduates Employed in Florida, 1 Yr
after Graduation
Score
$40,000
5
$35,000
4
$30,000
3
$25,000
2
$20,000
1
USF System
$35,200
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
Only reported at System Level
2013-2014 benchmarks. Currently under review.
PBF 3. Average Cost of Undergraduate
Degree to the Institution
Score
$20,000
5
$22,500
4
$25,000
3
$27,500
2
$30,000
1
USF System
$24,583*
* Projection. To be confirmed by BOG.
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
Only reported at System level
PBF 4. Six Year Graduation Rate
(Full-Time and Part-Time FTIC)
Score
70% +
5
67.5%
4
65%
3
62.5%
2
60%
1
USF System
USFT
66%
66%
0
*IPEDS graduation rate is 31% down from 43%
USFSP
USFSM
N/A
53%
previous 61%*
PBF 5. Academic Progress Rate
(2nd Year Retention with GPA of 2.0 or
higher)
Score
90%+
5
87.5%
4
85%
3
82.5%
2
80%
1
USF System
USFT
85%
87%
USFSP
80%
62%
Previous 57%*
*IPEDS: 65%
USFSM
PBF 6. Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded in
Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Includes
STEM)
Score
60%
5
55%
4
50%
3
45%
2
40%
1
USF System
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
36%
34%
72%
51%
PBF 7. University Access Rate
(Percent of Undergraduates with a Pell
Grant)
Score
USF System
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
30%
5
42%
42%
40%
41%
27.5%
4
25%
3
22.5%
2
20%
1
PBF 8. Graduate Degrees Awarded in
Areas of Strategic Emphasis (Includes
STEM)
Score
USF System
USFT
50%
5
69%
72%
45%
4
40%
3
35%
2
30%
1
USFSP
USFSM
36%*
27%
*Previous: 34%
PBF 9. Percent of Bachelor’s Degrees
Without Excess Hours
Score
80%
5
75%
4
70%
3
65%
2
60%
1
USF System
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
77%
66%
65%
69%
PBF 10. Number of Postdoctoral
Appointees
Score
USF System
300
5
360*
275
4
250
3
225
2
200
1
* Projected
USFT
USFSP
USFSM
Only reported at system level
Some Concluding Comments I
• Some of the PBF metrics concern issues that we ought to
address, and are addressing, anyway.
– Retention
• To me, a retention rate of 62% is not acceptable
• QEP, University Success course, TRiO, Student Success
Center
• Establishment of retention task force
– Graduation rate
– University access
– Controlling cost
Some Concluding Comments II
• Should the PBF metrics be a primary driver of our
behavior as an institution?
– Should we force students who can graduate without
excess hours to do so?
– Should we only start new programs in areas of
strategic emphasis?
– How much attention should we pay to starting
salaries of graduates when we start a new program?
– and so on
Questions

similar documents