Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

21
TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD WEBINAR APRIL 9, 2014 Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

description

Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Webinar April 9, 2014. GAIFAC Recommendation – Funding Totals. $ 235 million in outcomes-based funding pool OBF pool is equal to 10% of undergraduate formula funding, but: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

Page 1: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD

WEBINARAPRIL 9 , 2014

Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

Page 2: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

3

GAIFAC Recommendation – Funding Totals

$235 million in outcomes-based funding pool

OBF pool is equal to 10% of undergraduate formula funding, but:

Is outside of and in addition to the I&O formula

Fund I&O and Infrastructure at requested amounts first Series1

$0M

$500M

$1,000M

$1,500M

$2,000M

$2,500M

$3,000M

$3,500M

$4,000M

$4,500M

$5,000M

E&G Support; $734M

I&O - Graduate; $1,569M

I&O-Under-graduate,

$2,346

OBF - 5.1% More Funding Equal to

10% of Under-graduate I&O;

$235M

Total; 4884OBF

Page 3: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

4

GAIFAC Recommendation– Success Metrics

Total Undergraduate Degrees

• Total number of Bachelor’s Degrees awarded by an institution in a given year.

Total Undergraduate Degrees by Graduation

Rate

• Total Bachelor’s Degrees multiplied by the school’s six-year graduation rate, to incent timely completion.

Total Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTSE

• Degrees divided by Full Time Student Equivalents (FTSEs) and multiplied by 100. This aggregate measure adjusts for part-time and transfer students, providing a common framework for comparing degree productivity .

At-Risk Undergraduate Degrees

• Degrees awarded to students who meet federal criteria for being at high risk for non-completion.

Retention Metrics • Points awarded for students who complete their 30th, 60th, or 90th hour at the institution, to incentivize the use of effective persistence policies.

Page 4: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

5

GAIFAC Recommendation – Allocation

Allocate Funds based on: Points earned on the 7

success metrics The average of the three

most recent years of data

Points scaled statewide Points weighted by

institutions Phased-in over three

biennia

Page 5: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

6

GAIFAC Recommendation- Allocation

Allocation based on each institution’s percent of statewide total points

Points are based on an average of the three most recent years of performance data

Institution Total PointsPercent of

Total PointsFunding (millions)

A 100 25 $58.75B 125 31 $72.85C 175 44 $103.4

Total 400 100 $235

Page 6: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

9

GAIFAC Recommendation- Point Scales

Scaling adjusts each metrics’ points to ensure comparability and significance in the model

Factor

Three-Year

Average

Percent of Total Scale

Scaled Points

(A)Percent of Total

Total Undergraduate Degrees

5,800 23.0% 1

5,800 7.2%

By Graduation Rate 3,000 11.9% 7

21,000 26.2%

Per 100 FTSE 32 0.1% 25

800 1.0%

At-Risk Degrees 3,500 13.9% 7

24,500 30.5%

Retention to 30 7,000 27.7% 1.5

10,500 13.1%

Retention to 60 4,000 15.9% 2.5

10,000 12.5%

Retention to 90 1,900 7.5% 4

7,600 9.5%

Total 25,232 100.0%  

80,200 100.0%

Page 7: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

10

GAIFAC Recommendation - Weights Each institution decides how

to weight its metrics from a predetermined set of options

Each option is used once Each institution’s weights

must total 100 percent Omit 1 metric – a weight of

0% Remain in place for 3 biennia

100% 25%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5% 0%

Value

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Option

Weight Factor

5%Total Undergraduate Degrees

25% By Graduation Rate

0% Per 100 FTSE25% At-Risk Degrees20% Retention to 3015% Retention to 6010% Retention to 90100% Total

Page 8: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

11

Factor

Scaled Points

(A)

Percent of Total

Weight(B)

Scaled and

Weighted Points(A*B)

Percent of Total

Total Undergraduate Degrees

5,800 7.2% 5% 290 1.8%

By Graduation Rate 21,000 26.2% 25% 5,250 32.8%

Per 100 FTSE 800 1.0% 0% 0 0.0%At-Risk Degrees 24,500 30.5% 25% 6,125 38.2%Retention to 30 10,500 13.1% 20% 2,100 13.1%Retention to 60 10,000 12.5% 15% 1,500 9.4%Retention to 90 7,600 9.5% 10% 760 4.7%Total 80,200 100.0% 100% 16,025 100.0%

GAIFAC Recommendation - Weights

Example Institution

Page 9: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

13

GAIFAC Recommendation – Phase-in

The difference between an institution’s percent of statewide OBF funding and percent of statewide undergraduate I&O funding can vary no more than 0.5 percent for FY16-17 and 1 percent for FY18-19.

A2.50%

B14.50%

C19.75%

D28.25%

E35.00%

Outcomes-Based Funding (OBF) Percent Funded

A5.00%

B15.00%

C20.00%

D25.00%

E35.00%

Undergraduate Instruction and Operations (UGIO)

Formula Percent Funded

Page 10: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

14

GAIFAC Recommendation– Phase-in

A Set-Aside, 2% A, 2.50%

B, 14.50%

C, 19.75%

D, 28.25%

E, 35.00%OBF 98%

Page 11: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

15GAIFAC Recommendation – Point Distribution: Statewide

Total Undergraduate Degrees1.6%

by Graduation Rate30.6%

per 100 FTSE0.5%At-Risk

34.4%

Retention to 30 Hours7.5%

Retention to 60 Hours12.8%

Retention to 90 Hours12.5%

Page 12: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

16

GAIFAC Example Point Distribution: Regional Institution

Total Undergraduate Degrees

3.5%by Gradu-ation Rate

15.5%

per 100 FTSE27.9%

At-Risk42.9%

Retention to 30 Hours9.2%

Retention to 60 Hours1.1%

Statewide

Page 13: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

17

GAIFAC Example Point Distribution:Research Institution

Statewide

Total Undergraduate Degrees

1.5%

by Graduation Rate

43.5%

At-Risk16.6%

Retention to 30 Hours

4.9%

Retention to 60 Hours

10.8%

Retention to 90 Hours

22.7%

Page 14: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

18

GAIFAC Recommendation – Next Steps

Considered by full Coordinating Board on April 25

Request weights from each institutionConduct a study of the At-Risk Degrees

measureSubmit Initial Model to the LBB (November

1)Update with FY 2014 dataSubmit Final Model to the LBB (March 1)

Page 15: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

19

Total Undergraduate DegreesTotal number of Bachelor’s Degrees awarded by an institution in a given year.

Accountability measure #10 Number of degrees reported on the CBM009 –

Graduation Report for the fiscal year Fiscal year 2012 includes fall 2011, spring 2012, and summer

2012 reports Multiple degrees earned by a single student are included Double Majors are counted as a single degree Degrees included

Baccalaureate Associate of Applied Science (AAS)

Excludes certificates

Page 16: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

20

Total Undergraduate Degrees by 6-Year Graduation RateTotal Bachelor’s Degrees multiplied by the school’s six-year graduation rate

To incent timely completion.

6-Year Graduation Rate – Accountability measure #9 First-time entering degree-seeking students who enrolled in an

minimum of 12 semester credit hours their first fall semester who graduated from the same institution or another Texas public or independent institution after four, five, and six academic years. This metric includes Social Security Number changes submitted on the CBM00N. First-time determined by the first-time student flag on the CBM001. Sources: CBM001, CBM002, CBM009, CBM00N

Same Fiscal Year as degrees reported For fiscal year 2012, cohort started in fall 2006

Includes same and other institutions Upper-Level institutions use 3-Year Completion Rate

First-time junior level students transferring in who graduated from the same institution or another Texas public or independent institution after three academic years.

UT-Brownsville, TAMU-Texarkana, UH-Clear Lake, UH-Victoria, and Sul Ross Rio Grande.

New institutions calculated with parent graduation rate TAMU-Central Texas, TAMU-San Antonio, and UNT-Dallas.

Example

Institution Degrees Rate Points

A 9,000 80% 7,200B 200 30% 60

Page 17: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

21

Total Undergraduate Degrees per 100 FTSEDegrees divided by Full-Time Student Equivalents (FTSEs) and multiplied by 100.

This aggregate measure adjusts for part-time and transfer students, providing a common framework for comparing degree productivity among institutions with different missions and student bodies.

Degrees same as the first factor Undergraduate Full-time student equivalents (FTSE) –

Accountability measure #2 Number of semester credit hours (SCH) reported on the

CBM004 – Class Report for the fall of the fiscal year For fiscal year 2012, fall 2011

Includes state funded undergraduate semester credit hours

Excludes non-state funded and graduate semester credit hours

Undergraduate Semester Credit Hours divided by 15 to convert to FTSE

ExampleDegrees SCH

FTSE (SCH/15)

Points (Degrees/(FTSE/100))

4,930 255,000

17,000 29

Page 18: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

22

At-Risk DegreesDegrees awarded to students who meet federal criteria for being at high risk for non-completion.

Indicators are being a federal Pell Grant recipient, below average SAT/ACT score, part-time student, GED recipient, or entering higher education at age 20 or older.

One point for each student awarded degrees in the first measure that meets one or more of the conditions1. Reported by any institution as a “Pell Grant

recipient” in the Financial Aid Database System (FADS) during the last 10 years

2. Earned an SAT or ACT score below the national average Scores reported on the CBM00B – Admissions Report or by the College

Board National Averages posted on www.collegeboard.org or www.act.org

3. Part-Time (taking less than 12 hours) when reported as first-time in college on the CBM001 – Student Report

4. General Education Degree (GED) recipients for the last six years Data provided by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) upon request

5. 20 or older by date of birth field on the CBM001 – Student Report when reported as first-time in college

Student

Received Pell Grant

Earned a Below Average SAT or

ACT Score

First-Time in College

and Attended less than

12Received a GED

First-Time

in College and 20 or Older Points

A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1

B No No Yes No No 1

C No No No No No 0

Page 19: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

23

At-Risk – Data ElementsDegrees awarded to students who meet federal criteria for being at high risk for non-completion.

Indicators are being a federal Pell Grant recipient, below average SAT/ACT score, part-time student, GED recipient, or entering higher education at age 20 or older.

CBM009 - Graduation2 - Institution Code3 - Student Identification Number6 - Date of Birth7 - Degree Conferred8 - Level of Degree or Certificate Conferred9 - Major

CBM001 – Student2 - Institution Code3 - Student Identification Number5 - Classification6 - Date of Birth9 - Transfer Student or First-Time-in-College10A - Semester Credit Hour Load, On-Campus10 - B Semester Credit Hour Load, Off-Campus13 - Semester14 - Year31 - Dual Credit Course Semester Credit Hours

CBM00N – Student Number Change2 - Institution Code 3 - Current Student Identification Number 4 - Current Date of Birth 6 - Prior Student Identification Number7 - Prior Date of Birth

FAD - Financial Aid Database

1B - FICE 1D - Student Social Security Number/ID Number 31A - Federal Pell

CBM00B - Admissions2 - Institution Code3 - Student Identification Number24 - Application Year25 - ACT Composite Score26 - SAT Combined Score

TEA GED DataStudent Identification NumberGED Certification Date

SAT and ACT National Averageswww.collegeboard.orgwww.act.org

Page 20: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

24

Retention to 30, 60, and 90 HoursPoints awarded for students who complete their 30th, 60th, or 90th hour at the institution.

To incentivize the use of effective persistence policies.

 

One point awarded for students successfully completing 30, 60, or 90 hours at the institution as reported on the CBM00S – Student Schedule Report Last five years – FY 2012 includes data from fall 2007 to summer 2012 Successful completion reported as A, B, C, D, or Credit/Passed in 24 Prior to summer 2011, students receiving a failing grade are included in counts

All undergraduate students enrolled at the institution College-level hours earned at the institution currently

enrolled Exclude hours earned at other institutions Exclude developmental education hours

Examples

Student

Hours Earned at the

Institution in prior Fiscal

Years

Hours Earned at

the Institution in current Fiscal Year Total Points

1 0 30 30 12 21 24 45 13 30 30 60 14 45 12 57 05 60 30 90 16 75 30 105 17 90 30 120 08 29 45 74 2

Page 21: Outcomes-Based Formula Funding for Universities

25

Retention– Data ElementsPoints awarded for students who complete their 30th, 60th, or 90th hour at the institution.

To incentivize the use of effective persistence policies.

 

CBM001 – Student 2 - Institution Code3 - Student Identification Number5 - Classification6 - Date of birth18 - Semester

CBM00N – Student Number change2 - Institution Code 3 - Current Student Identification Number 4 - Current Date of Birth 6 - Prior Student Identification Number7 - Prior Date of Birth

Prior to summer 2011 CBM002 – Texas Success Initiative

2 - Institution Code3 - Student Identification Number4 - Reporting period5 - Year10A - Semester Credit Hours Completed

Summer 2011 and after CBM00S – Student Schedule

2 - Institution Code3 - Student Identification Number10 - Semester Credit Hour Value19 - Developmental Education Course/Intervention Level (value=0)24 - Course Grade (value=1, 2, 3, 4, 8)29 - Semester