UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUCCESS AND COMPLETION MODEL OSU 1 THE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUCCESS AND COMPLETION MODEL OSU 1

THE RESOURCE ALLOCATI ON MODEL ( RAM) – RETI RED FOR 2015-16 2 The RAM allocated the Public University Support Fund (PUSF) to the seven public universities The RAM contained two primary funding items: line item and enrollment funding • The majority of funds flowed through a cost-weighted enrollment driven formula (84%) • A set of line items, including Regional Support, Research and Public Service were supported (23%) • A small incentive fund for student success allocated resources based on degrees completed and emphasizes underrepresented minority or rural students (1%) RAM used single year data and was highly volatile, particularly dangerous for institutions that are more reliant on state funding and are enrollment dependent

I NT RODUCT I ON T O T HE SSCM, GROUNDI NG PRI NCI PL E S Re wa rd pub lic Suppo rt va lua b le Pro vide unive rsitie s fo r pub lic se rvic e tra nsitio na l a nd re side nt stude nt a c tivity a nd institutio na l suc c e ss re g io na l c o nte xt sta b ility Inc e ntivize pr ogr e ss to Diffe r e ntial mission de gr e e Data ave r aging suppor t Inc e ntivize de gr e e outc ome s Re gional unive r sity Phase d- in foc us on suppor t c omple tion Inc e ntivize unde r r e pr e se nte d population c omple tions Re se ar c h suppor t Stop L oss/ Stop Gain Inc e ntivize in- de mand de gr e e s 3

STUDENT SUCCESS AND COMPLETI ON MODEL 4 The Student Success and Completion Model (SSCM) has three primary components: • Mission Differentiation Funding supporting the regional, research and public service mission of each university • Activity-Based Funding which invests in credit hour enrollment of Oregon resident students • Completion Funding which focuses investment in degree and certificate completion of Oregon resident students with particular emphasis on underrepresented student populations and priority degree areas Transition mechanisms are in place to smooth the transition from the prior enrollment-based Resource Allocation Model (RAM) to the SSCM: • Graduated increase in completion funding and measured transition from enrollment funding • Stop-loss and stop-gain mechanism to ensure all institutions have predictable funding levels and share in increased resources The SSCM uses three-year rolling average to reduce volatility in funding to universities

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY - DATA 5  Degree information – used for Outcomes-Based calculations  3-year average of RESIDENT 1 degrees awarded, organized by institution, degree level, field of study (CIP)  Sub-population statistics of 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 1 SCH completions, organized by institution, degree level, field of study (CIP)  FY 15 RAM/Prior year allocation  Allocation for Regional Support, Mission, and Research were initially determined by FY 15 RAM  Stop Loss calculations based on prior year allocation  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

MI SSI ON DI FFERENTI ATI ON ALLOCATI ON 6 There are three types of mission differentiation funding: • Regional Support allocations provide resources for the higher cost mission of the four Technical and Regional Universities (TRU) and OSU Cascades which serve a unique and critical public purpose • Research Support allocations provide resources for key economic development and innovation needs of the state • Mission Support allocations provide funding for non-instructional activities, as diverse as the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (OSU) and NEW Leadership Oregon (PSU), Oregon Wide Area Network (UO) Funding indexed to Portland CPI/legislative funding Mission Differentiation Funding comes “off the top”

ACTI VI TY BASED ALLOCATI ON 7 Supports and Continues to support Utilizes cost-based incentivizes partnerships between weighting factor for enrollment, and institutions and across student credit hours provides intermediate sectors payment Work continues to Funds enrollment and develop replacement courses for all resident cost-weights to those students developed over 15 years ago

F UNDI NG F OR COMPL E T I ONS De g re e s a t a ll le ve ls a re funde d: Ba c he lo r’ s thro ug h PhD’ s a s we ll a s g ra dua te c e rtific a te s Co st a djustme nts a re ma de to re fle c t pro g ra m dura tio n, pro g ra m type , a nd fo r tra nsfe r stude nts Additio na l we ig hting is pro vide d • L o w inc o me , fo r stude nts who c o mple te fro m unde rre pre se nte d mino rity, tra ditio na lly unde rse rve d stude nt rura l, a nd ve te ra n stude nts po pula tio ns, inc luding : Additio na l we ig hting is pro vide d fo r • ST E M, He a lthc a re stude nts who c o mple te in a re a s o f c ritic a l a nd Biling ua l ne e d fo r the sta te , inc luding : E duc a tio n 8

TRANSI TI ONI NG TO NEW FUNDI NG SYSTEM 9 Stop loss Stop gain • Brackets downside risk for institutions. • The stop-gain tool is designed to During the transition period, the stop prevent an institution from receiving loss is set such that no institution can an abnormally large increase in lose funding and ensures that during allocation in excess of a pre- the first year all institutions see at least determined threshold when compared a 4.5% increase in funding. to the prior year Phase-in of completion funding • During the first year a relatively small portion of total funding is based on degree completions. Over subsequent years completion funding will increase until it accounts for 60% of formula based allocation.

I NCRE ASI NG F OCUS ON COMPL E T I ONS 2014- 15 2016- 17 2018- 19 (GRB) 1% $114 18% 20% 84% 32% 14% $4,980 49% 33% $7,963 48% Missio n $2,354 Diffe re ntia tio n 16% 18% 18% Ac tivity-b a se d 49% $7,775 33% 66% Co mple tio ns 2015- 16 2017- 18 (GRB) 10 So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n.

SSCM – I NCRE ASI NG VAL UE OF E ACH DE GRE E T ransitioning to Stronge r Comple tion Inc e ntive $9,000 $90 $7,963 $8,000 $79 $80 Pe r Cre dit Ho ur Allo c a tio n $7,000 Pe r De g re e Allo c a tio n Pe r Cre dit Ho ur Allo c a tio n $6,000 $70 $5,000 $60 $4,000 $3,000 $50 $45 $2,000 Pe r De g re e Allo c a tio n $40 $1,000 $114 $- $30 2014-15 (Pre - 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (GRB) 2018-19 (GRB) SSCM) Avg . De g re e Co mple tio n Avg . Stude nt Cre dit Ho ur 11 So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n.

SSCM – I NCRE ASI NG VAL UE OF E ACH DE GRE E T ra nsitioning to Strong e r Comple tion Inc e ntive $3,000 Ave ra g e De g re e Co mple tio n Inc e ntive b y Ca te g o ry $2,564 $2,500 $2,144 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $526 $500 $- 2014-15 (Pre -SSCM) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (GRB) 2018-19 (GRB) Avg . Und e rre pre se nte d Suppo rt Avg . I n-De ma nd De g re e Suppo rt So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n. 12

T HI S BI E NNI UM PRE SE NT S A UNI QUE OPPORT UNI T Y T O L E VE RAGE I NCE NT I VE S F Y18: An Opportunity to L e ve rage De gre e Comple tion Inc e ntive Comparison against GRB ($665M) $10,536 $10,372 21.5% $10,225 16.9% $10,078 12.6% $9,931 8.4% 7.68% 6.02% 4.2% 4.51% 3.01% 1.50% $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Inc re a se fro m GRB (millio ns) Pro je c te d De g re e I nc e ntive ($) Cha ng e in PUSF % Cha ng e in De g re e I nc e ntive (%) 13 So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n.

PUSF I NCREASE GREATER THAN I NFLATI ON, YEAR-OVER-YEAR ( 2016-2020) 14 MD PUSF Institution Allocation OBF (PUSF – MD) x OBF% OBF SL/SG SCH MD SCH

PUSF I NCREASE LESS THAN I NFLATI ON OR DECREASE, YEAR-OVER-YEAR ( 2016-2020) 15  Each institution receives pro-rata cut to total allocation (prior year as base);  Mission Differentiation receives a pro-rata cut on a line-item basis (prior year as base);  Implementation schedule in not suspended.

EVALUATI ON FRAMEWORK AND TI MELI NE 16 In line with national best practices a prescribed re-evaluation process for the SSCM was built into the model Every other year, the HECC, in consultation with stakeholders, will examine definitions, weighting factors and similar items to ensure that unintended consequences are understood and accounted for and adjustments are made if necessary Every six years the HECC will undertake a more comprehensive process to ensure that the Model reflects the needs of institutions and priority of the state in directing resources Through the evaluation of institutions with institutional boards the HECC will focus on academic quality, financial integrity and productivity of institutions to inform funding model re-evaluations