1. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 Accountability in Washington State Four-year Institutions

2. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 2 Purpose of Presentation To describe accountability/performance reporting in Washington: When did it start? What is the HECB’s role? What indicators are used? What are the most recent results? What does the HECB recommend?

3. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 3 Accountability in Washington: When Did It Start? 1997-1999: The Budget (ESSB 6108) directed the HECB to implement an accountability system in consultation with the public four-year institutions Two percent of the non-instructional base budget was linked to accountability plans and performance

4. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 4 Accountability in Washington: Current System “Performance reporting”: funding is not linked to performance Legislature sets long-term goals; institutions set intermediate targets SBCTC is responsible for two-year college accountability; HECB is responsible for four-year college accountability

5. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 5 HECB Role in Accountability Review and approve intermediate targets Review institution performance annually Direct preparation of institutional plans Submit a report on progress toward goals with recommendations for the ensuing biennium

6. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 6 Accountability Indicators Used in Washington at Four-year Colleges Four common measures 1.The percentage of freshmen who graduate within five years 2.The percentage of undergraduates who return the following year (retention) 3.Graduation efficiency (freshmen) 4.Graduation efficiency (transfers) Graduation efficiency measures credits to degree Calculated as: total credits required for degree Minus transfer credits/ Total credits attempted

7. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 7 Accountability Indicators Used in Washington at Four-year Colleges Two Institution-Specific Measures 1) Faculty Productivity – defined differently by each institution. For example: –Student/faculty ratio –Faculty work with students on undergraduate research, internships, senior theses, independent study 2) An institution-specific measure. For example: –Public service internships –Retention of students of color

8. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 8 Performance on Common Measures: Graduation Efficiency (Freshmen) 100 percent is “perfect” efficiency Long-term goal set by legislature =.95 Institution 1996-99 Baseline2002-03 Performance Central 88.085.5 Eastern 87.991.7 Evergreen 93.091.0 Univ of Wash 89.690.1 Wash State Univ 90.091.3 Western 86.686.8

9. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 9 Performance on Common Measures: Graduation Efficiency (Transfers) 100 percent is “perfect” efficiency Long-term goal set by legislature =.90 Institution 1996-99 Baseline2002-03 Performance Central 83.881.6 Eastern 77.976.6 Evergreen 90.090.0 Univ of Wash 81.782.3 Wash State Univ 81.084.3 Western 80.580.0

10. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 10 Performance on Common Measures: Undergraduate Retention Percentage of students returning the next year Long-term goal set by legislature =.95 for research universities;.90 for comprehensives Institution 1996-99 Baseline2002-03 Performance Central 80.583.1 Eastern 88.587.1 Evergreen 76.081.0 Univ of Wash 87.289.2 Wash State Univ 84.486.6 Western 85.587.9

11. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 11 Performance on Common Measures: Five- Year Graduation Rate Percentage of freshmen students graduating within five years Long-term goal set by legislature =.65 for research universities;.55 for comprehensives Institution 1996-99 Baseline2002-03 Performance Central 39.441.5 Eastern 41.735.5 Evergreen 45.049.0 Univ of Wash 63.864.0 Wash State Univ 53.854.7 Western 54.056.2

12. House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004 12 HECB Recommendations Continue to monitor graduation and retention rates and the graduation efficiency index Support institution-specific measures Tie accountability processes to the strategic master plan Support performance contract pilot project If current accountability reporting continues, change timeline so that report is due to legislature in December