Presentation on theme: "The Sweeping Tide of State-Level Performance-Based Funding: What Does it Mean to Rural Community Colleges? Presentation at Rural Community College Alliance."— Presentation transcript:
1The Sweeping Tide of State-Level Performance-Based Funding: What Does it Mean to Rural Community Colleges?Presentation atRural Community College AllianceAnnual ConferenceSeptember 25, 2014
2Presenters Janice Nahra Friedel, PhD Zoë Mercedes Thornton, M.S. Associate ProfessorSchool of EducationCollege of Human SciencesIowa State UniversityZoë Mercedes Thornton, M.S.Doctoral Candidate - Higher EducationGraduate Assistant, School of EducationStephen G. Katsinas, PhDProfessor of Higher EducationDirector, Education Policy CenterThe University of Alabama
3The recession and decline in state revenues has caused a shift in the proportion of public college revenues generated from state aid to tuition and fees.
4Many policymakers are no longer satisfied with providing incremental funding increases or using enrollment-driven formulae for public colleges and universities.
5Increasing accountability coupled with declining revenues has led many states to implement strategies to hold colleges accountable in meeting state needs and to ensure quality. These strategies range from uniform performance indicators to performance-based funding (PBF).
6PBF is a key policy response to the call for greater transparency and accountability in public higher education.
7What is Performance-Based Funding? “A system based on allocating a portion of a state’s higher education budget according to specific performance measures.”(Miao, 2012, p. 1)(PBF) “rewards institutions that meet state goals,…is based on outputs instead of inputs,…(and) the more goals that institutions meet, the more funding they receive.”(Blankenberger, 2011, slide 12)
8Brief History of Performance-Based Funding The first state to attempt PBF was Tennessee in 1979, and as many as 30 states have a history of some consideration of performance in budgeting processes (Burke & Modarresi, 1999)Typical percentage of funding allocated based on performance ranged from 1-5% (Sanford & Hunter, 2011)South Carolina was the most extreme early example – 37 performance indicators and 100% of public funding (Alexander, 1998)
9Three Models of Performance-Based Funding Output-based Funding FormulaRewards improvement of specific metrics, using a portion of the annual base.Often weighted for institutional mission.Performance Set-asideAwards high-performing institutions with some percentage of reserved funding.Incentivizes competition between institutions.Performance ContractBonus funding is awarded upon goal attainment.May be initiated by the state or institution.(Miao, 2012)
10Types of Performance Indicators General outcome indicators: graduation rate, number of degrees/certificates awarded, number of degrees/certificates awarded per FTE, research or grant funding awarded, job placement rates, student success on licensing examsProgress outcome indicators: number of students completing 12, 24, 48 and 72 semester credits, developmental course completion, retention rates, gateway course completion, course completion after transfer, dual enrollment credit completionSubgroup outcome indicators: low-income status, at-risk status, Pell Grant recipients, nontraditional students, first-generation students, minority group identificationHigh-need subject outcome indicators: STEM fields, nursing, job placement rates in high-need fields(Dougherty & Reddy, 2011; Harnisch, 2011; Miao, 2012; NCSL, 2013; WHECB, 2011)
11Comparing Design Types PBF 1.0PBF 2.0Some designed without input from higher education leadersInstitutional goals and mission may be disregardedEmphasis on outcomes measures, less on progress measuresSmall percentage of bonus funding - often new moneyJoint planning processAlignment with the state’s agenda and institutional prioritiesSoft landing: learning year and/or stop lossProgress and completion measuresWeighted formula to ensure access and equityPercentage of base appropriations
13A Note of CautionIt is important to note that PBF is not the answer to the larger issue of declining support and funding for higher education, and thus should not be used to meet the greater funding issues of higher education.
14A Performance-Based Funding Bandwagon? Despite recent attention, there is not compelling evidence of the link between PBF and improved student outcomes at this time.
15Performance-Based Funding: The National Landscape Policy Brief
16Updates to State Activity Details Table StatusAmount of PBFMetricsAlabamaUPDATED:Formal discussionsThe Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education (overseeing community and technical colleges) commissioned a study in 2013 to propose a new funding formula to allocate state appropriations.Hawai’iIn place2008 HB2978Up to 2% of annual appropriationsUsing 5 year averages as baseline data, public universities and community colleges metrics include the following:Number of transfer studentsNumber of graduatesNumber of job placements in major workforce shortage areasIowaIn transitionBeginning FY16 -40% of annual appropriations based on performance indicators.The Board of Regents has approved a PBF model for the three public universities with the following formula:5% - Progress measures10% - Degree completion10% - Access measures5% - Sponsored research5% - Graduate/Professional enrollment5% - Customized metrics to be distributed by the Board of RegentsKansasStatute dPerformance agreementsNew funds, in excess of total appropriations received the previous fiscal year, are available for performance fundingInstitutions submit performance agreements every three years, which are evaluated annually for funding. Performance indicators for all sectors include:First year to second year retention ratesNumber of certificates and degrees awardedGraduation ratesStudent performance on institutional assessments or quality measures.Additional sector-specific measures are also in place.
17State Activity PBF Activity Number of States PBF in Place 25 Transitioning to PBF6Formal Discussions of PBF9No Formal Activity Found10Updated from Friedel, Thornton, D'Amico & Katsinas (2013).
18Current PBF Status Across the States PBF In PlaceTransitioning to PBFFormal Discussions of PBFNo Formal Activity FoundUpdated from Friedel, Thornton, D'Amico & Katsinas, 2013.
19Future Updates National Conference of State Legislatures
20A Review of the Literature Proposed AdvantagesPossible DisadvantagesIncreased awareness and alignment of the institutional mission and goals with the state’s agendaIncreased college self-awareness of actual outcomesIncreased healthy competition between collegesIncreased use of data during institutional planning and decision makingIndicators measure only a portion of the entire institutional picturePotential negative effects on institutional quality, access, equity, mission, or stabilityPotential for additional loss of fundsDisregard for institution-specific factors
21How do members of the leadership team describe the impacts of a mandated performance-based funding policy on their rural community college?How do members of the leadership team at a rural community college describe the organizational impacts of a mandated PBF policy?How does the level of organizational impact felt within the rural community college vary depending on the amount of funding at risk due to performance?What is the extent of the adverse effects of the PBF policy, as described by members of the leadership team?PBF not yet in Iowa, however approved by the Board of Regents for three public universities. CC’s locally governed in Iowa, without a unified system. Iowa’s CC’s are classified as rural by the Carnegie classification system for public Associate granting institutions.Primary question guiding the research - However, can be approached in multiple ways…leading to three secondary questions.
22Discussion What does it mean to rural community colleges? What has been the real impact of PBF policies on rural community colleges?
23The Importance of Telling the Rural Community College Story It is extremely important that the full effects of PBF on institutions are understood and that appropriate planning takes place for implementation and adjustment.In particular, rural community colleges, already facing multiple challenges in their distinct role of economic, workforce and community development, require greater understanding and preparation for the potential effects of this funding option.
24NoteThis presentation contains slides which have been utilized in presentations given at conferences and provided upon invitation to groups exploring performance-based funding models.Iowa Board of Regents, Performance-Based Revenue Task ForceAmerican College Personnel Association, 2014 Higher Education Webinar SeriesCouncil for the Study of Community Colleges, 2014 conferenceNational Education Finance Conference, 2014
25ReferencesAlexander, F. K. (1998, November). The endless pursuit of efficiency: The international movement to increase accountability and performance in higher education. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.Blankenberger, B. (2011). Performance-based funding and higher education institutions in the state of Illinois. Presented at the Illinois Association of Institutional Research Conference, November 2011.Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (1999). Performance funding and budgeting: Popularity and volatility--the third annual survey. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Public Higher Education Program.Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations (Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 37). Retrieved fromFriedel, J. N., Thornton, Z. M, D'Amico, M. M. & Katsinas, S. G. (2013). Performance-based funding: A national landscape. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Education Policy Center. Retrieved fromHarnisch, T. L. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
26References cont.Miao, K. (2012). Performance-based funding of higher education: A detailed look at best practices in 6 states. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved fromNational Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2013). Performance funding for higher education. Retrieved fromSanford, T., & Hunter, J. M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1-30.Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (WHECB) Performance-based funding (Policy brief). Olympia, WA: Author.