Overview of Performance Funding Model for Ohio’s Community Colleges2014 University System of Ohio Trustees Conference

November 18, 2014

Ohio Higher Education FundingFY 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

Align state investment with state priorities

Completion/Attainment

Jobs/Economic Development

Drive institutional

behavior

Campus resource allocation

Programmatic evaluation and

change

Alternative delivery models

Student Success Agenda & Best

Practices

Ohio SSI Community College Formula History, 2009-2015

FY 2015Elimination of enrollment component

Combination of course completion (50%), success points (25%) & completion metrics (25%) At-risk or access category application

No stop loss

FY 201450% enrollment + 25% course completion + 25% success points

97% stop loss

FY 2009-2013Primarily enrollment-based with inclusion of success points (5% to 10%)Stop Loss (99%-96%)

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 at- risk 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:oHold true to the mission and priorities of community colleges

including access, completion, quality, and workforce developmento Incentivize institutions to adopt evidence-based practices to help

them succeedo Include metrics grounded in student success research and best

practicesoAlign with state priorities and initiativesoBe simple to understand and communicateoDevelop a model that is sustainable, consistent, and reliable

FY 2015 Framework Summary

Cost-Based Course

Comple-tions*

50%

Success Points 25%

Cost-Based Completion

Milestones* 25%

*Access Categories Applied

• Adult (age 25 and over at time of enrollment)

• Low-Income, Pell Eligible (ever in college career)

• Minority (African American, Hispanic, Native American)

All data averaged over three years

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 college-level math course (1 point)

• # of Students completing developmental education English & enrolling in first college-level English course (1 point)

12 Credit Hours• # of students earning first 12

college-level credits (1 point)

24 Credit Hours• # of students earning first 24

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 categories150% for three access categories

Access Categories for Weighting Course Completions and Completion Milestones

FY 15 Access Categories: Adult - 25 and older at enrollmentLow-income - Pell-eligible (ever)

Minority: American Indian, Hispanic, African American

Policy: Focus on student background, not enrollment status (e.g. part-time, enrollment in developmental education courses)

Narrow-In: Correlation between factors & policy informed recommended final categories

Significance: How much less likely are students from these groups to complete/graduate compared to students not from group

Data run to determine significance related to graduation and course completion

Aligned with Data or Potential Proxies (9 in total)

Colleges submitted suggested populations (15 distinct categories)

Completion Milestones (COMPLETION)(% of total cost-based completion milestones earned + % of total completion

milestones access add-on earned) *25% of FY 2015 Allocation)

Success Points (PROGRESSION/MOMENTUM)(% share success points earned * 25% FY 2015 Allocation)

Course Completion (ENTRY)(% of (total cost-based Completed FTE Earned + % of total completed

FTE Access Add-on Earned) * 50% of FY 2015 Allocation)

Review of Distribution MethodA proportional distribution model for each component is utilized, consistent with prior methods. Institutions receive a proportional share of the total earned across each component.

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!