Outcomes Based Funding Update HECC FEBRUARY FULL COMMISSION MEETING - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Outcomes Based Funding Update HECC FEBRUARY FULL COMMISSION MEETING 2/12/2015 Brian Fox, Administrator, Public University Budget & Finance

PROCESS 2  OBF Technical Workgroup (TWG) formed in May, 2014  University Presidents, HECC Commission and staff leadership discus TWG Principles (6/5/14)  Discussion & status updates on OBF  With the Subcommittee (7/3/14, 10/2/14, 11/6/14, 12/4/14, 1/26/15, 2/5/15)  With the full Commission (6/12/14, 9/11/14, 2/12/15)

WORKGROUP’S PROCESS & OUTCOMES 3  Use existing States’ models and literature to create an OBF model that builds from others yet meets Oregon’s unique institutional context  Meet the principles articulated in May  Reflect HECC strategic plan and OEIB Equity Lens  Focus on student access and success with an emphasis on underrepresented populations  Encourage high demand/high reward degrees  Recognize/reward differentiation in institutional mission and scope  Use clearly defined, currently available data  Maintain clarity and simplicity  Utilize phase-in period to ensure stability, beginning with 2015-17 biennium  Develop functional model mechanics  “Tee-up” model and policy questions for Commission to endorse  Reconvene to develop implementation plan

TWG MEETI NGS 4  6/6: Review principles and previous OUS effort; hear from consultants on national landscape and best practices  7/7: Review background material, academic and policy literature, scope conversation; review current PUSF framework  9/22: Campuses submit/rank outcome measures/metrics; discuss academic quality; group determines model inputs  Degrees  Student sub-population success  Priority degree types  11/21: Review and adjust proposed model mechanics  12/1: Discuss weighting structures recommendation  12/19: Develop proposed weighting structure range to support Commission/HECC staff recommendation  1/14: Discuss weighting structure and scenarios  1/23: Discuss transition principles and develop transition structures  2/6: Discuss feedback from F&A Committee  2/9: Discuss staff Weighting Factor Recommendation

DI SCUSSI ON GOALS 5  Review OBF Process & Outcomes  Review OBF Model Structure  Establish HECC guidance relative to staff policy recommendations, including  OBF/SCH split  Cost Weighting of SCH & Degrees  Weight factors  Degrees by level – cost weighted  Student subpopulation focus  Priority degrees  Phase-in principles

SSCM MODEL 6 Higher Education Coordinating Commission: University Outcomes-Based Funding Model $288,589,355 Total State Appropriations New Funding Allocations Base Funding Allocation 18% $52,808,152 New Funding Level - Before Stop Loss New Funding Level - With Stop Loss & Stop Gain Amount Allocated: Prior Year Total Allocation SCH & Outcomes Funding Allocation 82% Amount Allocated: $235,781,203 Student Percentage Total Adjusted Student Percentage Inflation Adjusted Credit Outcomes Total Unadjusted Difference in Base Credit Adjusted Outcomes Final Stop Gain Adjustment Difference in Funding Base Allocation Hour Allocation Allocation Funding from Prior Allocation Hour Allocation Allocation from Prior Year SCH 40% Amount Allocated: $94,312,481 FY15 Allocation Year (Non-SCH) Allocation Eastern Oregon University $16,090,954 Outcomes 60% Amount Allocated: $141,468,722 Oregon Institute of Technology $19,788,876 Oregon State University $88,781,387 Portland State University $59,716,834 Southern Oregon University $16,395,459 University of Oregon $52,539,257 Stop Loss/Stop Gain Stop Loss/Gain Needed? Western Oregon University $17,094,584 SL: must be less than 0% 0.0% Yes Total: $270,407,351 SG: must be Greater Than 6.73% 0.0% No Average Value Number of Degrees Total Dollars Allocated (Degree % of Total Appropriations Degree Level Weight Allocation Only) Baccalaureate Degrees 2.0 12,320 $ 96,747,156 $ 7,853 33.5% Masters Degrees 1.0 2,366 $ 10,780,377 $ 4,556 3.7% Student Sub-Populations: 446 $ 5,578,914 $ 12,518 1.9% Doctorate Degrees 1.4 Professional Degrees 175 $ 1,074,032 $ 6,137 0.4% FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY 1.0 Graduate Certificates 0.2 1,374 $ 1,102,518 $ 803 0.4% FY14 Actual FY14-FY15 Act. FY15 Actual FY14-FY15 OBF FY15 OBF Underrepresented minority students • Dollars Allocated Student Populations Dollars Allocated Weight Number of Students Total per occurence % of Total Appropriations Eastern Oregon University $ 16,090,954 0.0% $ 16,090,954 -100.0% $ - Resident Bachelor's Only (All levels) (All levels) Low income students (Pell recipients) 0.8 5,771 $ 14,028,413 $ 2,431 4.9% Oregon Institute of Technology $ 19,788,876 0.0% $ 19,788,876 -100.0% $ - 1 • 2 1.0 1,630 $ 4,953,135 $ 3,039 1.7% Oregon State University $ 88,781,387 0.0% $ 88,781,387 -100.0% $ - 3 1.1 122 $ 408,912 $ 3,343 0.1% Portland State University $ 59,716,834 0.0% $ 59,716,834 -100.0% $ - 4 1.2 5 $ 16,409 $ 3,646 0.0% Southern Oregon University $ 16,395,459 0.0% $ 16,395,459 -100.0% $ - Rural students • 5 0.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% University of Oregon $ 52,539,257 0.0% $ 52,539,257 -100.0% $ - 0.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% 6 Western Oregon University $ 17,094,584 0.0% $ 17,094,584 -100.0% $ - 7 0.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% Total: $ 270,407,351 0.0% $ 270,407,351 -100.0% $ - Veteran students 8 0.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% • 9 0.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% 10 0.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% Dollars Allocated Dollars Allocated Area of Study (All Degrees) Weight Number of Students Total per occurence % of Total Appropriations (All levels) (All levels) 2,813 $ 4,999,719 $ 1,777 1.7% STEM 1.2 Bilingual Education 1.5 2 $ 1,519 $ 760 0.0% Health 1.2 886 $ 1,777,617 $ 2,006 0.6% Other1 1.0 - $ - $ - 0.0% Other2 - $ - $ - 0.0% 1.0 Area of Study (All Degrees) Dollars Allocated % of Total Appropriations $/SCH Total SCH Included in Mission Base (All levels) (included in Base) Dual Credit $ 50.00 30,437 $ 1,521,867 0.5%

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY – FUNCTI ON 7  Provides resources for “base” support for Mission, Research and Regional needs  Allocates appropriations across institutions by performing Outcomes-Based calculations that incorporate:  Weighting factors  Degree completion data, including level, type and student information  Allocates appropriations across institutions by performing Activity-Based calculations that incorporate:  Course instruction cost  Student Credit Hour (SCH) completion, including type and level  Additional capabilities:  Compares each institution’s allocation to prior year  Stop-Loss – redistributes a portion of the post-OBF allocation to provide each institution support equal to a set proportion of the prior year allocation  Stop-Gain – redistributes a portion of the post-OBF allocation if an institution receives allocation greater than a set proportion of the prior year allocation

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY – METHOD 8  Total PUSF Appropriations – Base = (Outcomes-Based Funding + Activity-Based Funding)  OBF & ABF pools are allocated similarly:  Institutional performance x weighting factors = weighted total outcomes/activity basis  The entire OBF/ABF pool is allocated among institutions according to their respective ratio of performance points  The Stop-Loss and/or Stop-Gain functions can then redistribute a portion of allocations to keep all institutions within a bracketed amount of change  The model uses three-year rolling averages to balance predictability and responsiveness

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY - DATA 9  Degree information – used for Outcomes-Based calculations  3-year average of degrees awarded to resident students 1 , organized by institution, degree level, field of study (CIP)  Sub-population statistics of resident degree recipients, organized by institution and number of sub-populations each student represents (more on this later)  SCH information – used for Activity-Based calculation  3-year average of resident SCH completions, organized by institution, degree level, field of study (CIP)  FY 15 RAM/Prior year allocation  Allocation for Regional Support, Mission, and Research are determined by FY 15 RAM and carried forward with adjustments for inflation  Stop-Loss calculations based on prior year allocation (RAM for FY 15, SSCM for FY 16 and through transition period)  Cost-of-instruction data – Used to weight SCH and degree outcomes data according to their relative costs 1 Non-Resident PhD students are included in PhD level calculations

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY 10 Degree area of study weighting example:

RATI ONALE - BASE 11  Research  Major portion of mission, particularly at the three research universities  Serves key economic development and innovation needs of the state  Mission  Provides funding for non-instructional public service mission  Could include base support for certain niche high-cost programs  Regional Support  Provides resources for higher cost mission of the four TRU universities which serve a unique and critical public policy purpose  Dual-Credit  SCH based funding to continue support for dual-credit course offerings