Br ian Fox , Di rec tor, Pub l i c Un ivers i t y Budge t & F inance 4/2/2015
Student Success and
Completion Model HECC FUNDING & ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
2
Frame HECC requirements and funding
structure
Review budget model development process
Overview of Student Success and Completion
Model components
Action Recommendation to full Commission on
OARs.
DISCUSSION GOALS
3
ORS 351.735(3)(d)
3) The Higher Education Coordinating Commission shall:
d) Adopt rules governing the distribution of
appropriations from the Legislative Assembly to
community colleges, public universities listed in ORS
352.002 and student access programs. These rules must be
based on allocation formulas developed in consultation
with the state’s community colleges and public universities,
as appropriate.
OAR 715-013-0025 – SSCM Structure
OAR 715-013-0040 – SSCM Weighting Factors
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
4
HECC STRATEGIC PLAN
5
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
WORKGROUP CHARGE
6
Focus on academic quality as threshold for any
outcome
Supporting funding model with institutional
evaluation framework which identify metrics
focusing on:
Institutional capacity
Educational process
Externally validated measures of student learning
Long-term outcomes of graduates
Include comprehensive qualitative and quantitative measures
Recognize multifaceted nature of academic quality
ACADEMIC QUALITY
7
University Presidents, HECC Commission and staff leadership discus TWG Principles (6/5/14)
OBF Technical Workgroup (TWG) formed in June, 2014 and concluded February, 2015
HECC Staff met with VPFAs as a group throughout the model development process
HECC staff met individually with campus leadership
HECC F&A briefed and provided feedback on model development process monthly since October, 2014 to March, 2015
HECC briefed on model development on: 6/12/14, 9/11/14, 2/12/15
PROCESS
8
Use existing States’ funding allocation models and literature to create an the SSCM which builds from others yet meets Oregon’s unique institutional context
Meet the principles ar ticulated in the workgroup charge: 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 Commission endorsed weighting structure on Feb. 12, 2015
Advise on transition and implementation plan
WORKGROUP’S PROCESS & OUTCOMES
9
6/6: Review principles and previous OUS effor t; hear from consultants on national landscape and best pract ices
7/7: Review background material , academic and policy l i terature, scope conversation; review cur rent PUSF framework
9/22: Campuses submit/rank outcome measures/metrics; discuss academic quality; g roup 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 transit ion principles and develop transit ion structures
2/6: Discuss feedback from F&A Committee
2/9: Discuss staff Weighting Factor Recommendation
2/27: Final ize model and conclude workgroup
TWG MEETINGS
10
SSCM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
11
Miss ion Different ia l a l locat ion
Act iv i ty -Based Al locat ion (S tudent Cred i t Hour Complet ions)
Outcomes -Based Al locat ion (Deg ree Complet ions) Degrees & degree level
Baccalaureate
Masters
Doctoral
Professional
Graduate Certificates
Transfer Student Degrees
Student Sub-populations
Underrepresented minority students
Low income students (Pell recipients)
Rural students
Veteran students
Degree type
STEM
Health
Bilingual Education
Act iv i ty -Based Al locat ion/Outcome -Based Al locat ion Sp l i t
Transi t ion Pathway
MODEL VARIABLES EMBEDDED IN RULES
12
SSCM MODEL SUMMARY – FUNCTION
Mission Differentiation Allocation: Mission Support
Research Support
Regional Support
Allocates funding based on credit hour completions: Course instructional cost weighting factors
Including subject area and level of study
Allocates funding based on degree completions: Degree duration and cost weighting factors
Priority student populations
Targeted degree programs
Provides smooth transition path: Stop-Loss – sets a funding change “floor” for all institutions
Stop-Gain – sets a funding change “ceiling” for all institutions
Graduated Increase in degree completion funding
Uses 3-year data averages
13
State’s General Fund contribution to educational activities of public universities.
Combined with student tuition and other revenues that are not included in the State budget, the PUSF provides basic institutional support.
Separate from State Programs appropriation for certain institutes, centers, and programs that address economic development, natural resources and other issues.
49% allocated in first year, 51% in second year
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SUPPORT FUND (PUSF)
14
Tuition Offset continuation (HB 5101)
OAR provides deference to legislative intent by treating one-
off allocations outside of the SSCM until they role into CSL
OARs set aside funds associated with POP 101 which
continues HB 5101 tuition offset into the 2015-17 biennium
PUSF ADJUSTMENTS
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
HB 5101 Tuition Offset
ContinuationSection 9
15
TRU Shared Services and Operational Expenses
$12,097,683 over biennium to TRU institutions
Offsets new cost to TRUs associated with dissolution of
OUS
Current SSCM version removes from PUSF in FY16 and
allocates to institutions as scheduled in 2/23/15 VPFA letter
Included in PUSF in FY17 and subsequent years in Regional
Support funding
PUSF ADJUSTMENTS
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
TRU Shared Services Section 6(a)(i) Section 3
16
[Adjusted FY16 PUSF] – [Mission Differentiation] = [Credit Hour and Degree Completion pools]
OBF & ABF pools are allocated similarly: Institutional performance x weighting factors = weighted total
outcomes/activity basis
The entire credit hour and degree completion pool is allocated among institutions according to their respective ratio of performance points
Degree completions gradually become larger proportion of funding allocation
The Stop-Loss and/or Stop-Gain functions bracket variability during the transition period
Three-year rolling averages used in the SSCM balance predictability and responsiveness
SSCM MODEL SUMMARY – METHOD
17
All factors increase by Portland CPI inflation annually
Research Major portion of institutional mission at the three research universities
Serves key economic development and innovation needs of the state
Mission Provides funding for non-instructional public service mission
Includes base support for certain niche high-cost programs
Regional Support Provides resources for higher cost mission of TRU and OSU-Cascades which
serve a unique and critical educational need
Dual-Credit SCH-based funding to continue support for dual -credit course offerings
Based on 3-year average of Dual Credit completions
$50 per completed credit
SSCM – MISSION DIFFERENTIATION
18
Mission Differentiation
Largely unchanged from prior enrollment funding model
Not systematically evaluated by workgroup
Continues “base” support for public service type activities
Included in latest model version:
EOU Resident/Fundable subsidy (FY16: $1.99 Million)
OIT Terminal Degrees in health fields (FY16: $200,000)
Minor re-categorization across sub-categories
SSCM – MISSION DIFFERENTIATION
19
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION - OAR
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Mission Differentiation:
Regional Support Section 6(a)(i) Section 3
Mission Support Section 6(a)(ii) Section 3
Research Support Section 6(a)(iii) Section 3
Dual Credit Funding Section 6(a)(iv) Section 4
20
Replicate cost-based weighting factor approach
in previous funding model
Supports and incentivizes enrollment, and
provides intermediate payment
Continues to support partnerships between
institutions and across sectors
Funds enrollment and courses for all resident
students
SSCM – CREDIT HOUR COMPLETIONS
21
CREDIT HOUR COST WEIGHTING
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Student Credit Hour
Completions:
Section 1(c)
Section 6(b) Section 5
Section 6(b)(iii)
Cost Weighting
CIP Fr./Soph. Jr/Sr.Mast./
Prof.Ph.D.
1 1.8 2.44 2.82 3.27
2 1.8 2.44 2.82 3.27
3 1 1.29 1.45 2.73
4 1.8 2.44 1.96 2.73
5 1 1.29 1.45 2.73
9 1.26 1.61 1.96 3.27
10 1.26 1.61 1.96 2.73
11 1.26 1.81 2.82 4.13
13 1.26 1.61 1.45 3.27
14 1.8 2.44 2.82 4.13
15 1.8 2.44 2.82 3.73
Engineering
Engineering Technologies
Architecture
Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, Group Studies
Communication, Journalism
Communication, Technologies
Computer and Information Science
Education
Table 4 SCH Cost Weighting
Description
Agriculture
Agricultural Sciences (Legacy)
Natural Resources, Conservation
Sample from Proposed OAR:
22
Re-evaluation to take place in FY16 for
implementation in FY17
Cost-weighting redesign will be a complex cost-accounting
exercise
Process to involve institution stakeholders
Current cost-weighting factors are from 1999
If updating of cost-weighting factors is significant a phased
implementation may be required
This re-evaluation is fundamental to institutional
agreement to move forward with SSCM
COST WEIGHT RE-EVALUATION
23
More tightly link state funding to state’s ambitious
40-40-20 goal
Matches “Tight-Loose” and funds institutions for
meeting students needs, particularly for those
hardest to reach and most underserved students
Complements enrollment based funding and tuition
Supports institutional investment in student services
and attracting and retaining equity lens students
Focuses institutional and state discussion and
accountability on student success and completion
SSCM – DEGREE COMPLETIONS
24
Why focus on degree completion?
Investments in degree outcomes enjoyed overwhelming
support of all TWG participants
Simple, un-“game-able” measure
Incentivizes transfer & articulation, aligning student
pathways
Focuses on high-quality offerings and investing in student
success
All levels (BA, MA, Prof., PhD) are important to Oregon and
the Oregon economy. Cannot meet goals of top-40 without
advanced degrees
SSCM – OUTCOME METRICS
25
Matches investment level with program duration
DEGREE LEVEL WEIGHTING
Table 5 Degree Level Weighting
Degree Level Weight
Baccalaureate Degrees 2.0
Masters Degrees 1.0
Doctorate Degrees 1.4
Professional Degrees 1.0
Graduate Certificates 0.2
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Section 6(c)
Section 6(c)(vii)
Section 1(a)
Section 6(c)(i) Section 6
Section 1(n)
Section 6(c)(i) Section 6
Section 1(f)
Section 6(c)(i) Section 6
Section 1(q)
Section 6(c)(i) Section 6
Section 1(h)
Section 6(c)(i) Section 6
Doctoral Degree
First Professional Degree
Graduate Certificate
Master’s Degree
Degree Completions:
Bachelor’s Degree
26
Cost-weighting consistent with Student Credit Hour cost-
weighting
Based on RAM cost methodology
Example:
DEGREE COST WEIGHTING
CIP BA/BS
Masters/P
rof/Grad.
Cert
PhD
1 1.85 2.46 2.86
2 1.85 2.46 2.86
3 1 1.27 2.39
4 1.85 1.72 2.39
5 1 1.27 2.39
9 1.25 1.72 2.86
10 1.25 1.72 2.39
11 1.25 2.46 3.61
13 1.25 1.27 2.86
14 1.85 2.46 3.61
Degree Cost Weighting
Description
Agriculture
Agricultural Sciences (Legacy)
Natural Resources, Conservation
Architecture
Education
Engineering
Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, Group Studies
Communication, Journalism
Communication, Technologies
Computer and Information Science
Table 6
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Section 6(c)
Section 6(c)(vii)
Section 1(c)
Section 6(c)(ii) Section 7
Degree Completions:
Cost Weighting
27
Students who transfer from Community College
and complete BA/BS degrees
Cost-burden of degree production reduced for degree
granting institution
TRANSFER DEGREES
Table 9 Transfer Student Discount Factor
Bachelor’s Degree Discount Factor: 62.54%
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Section 6(c)
Section 6(c)(vii)
Section 1(bb)
Section 6(c)(v)Transfer Degrees
Degree Completions:
28
Student sub-populations – key to meeting equity lens goals and meeting demographic challenges Include:
Underrepresented minority students
Low income students (Pell recipients)
Rural students
Veteran students
Methodology: “Additive”
Student completion in any one category receives additional weighting
Increased weighting with increased number of categories up to a set cap
Targeted sub-populations need additional resources/offer unique challenges and are more expensive to serve, yet are key to 40 -40-20
1 Category = approximately 1/3 additional resources on a degree bases
SSCM – OUTCOME METRICS
29
STUDENT SUB-POPULATIONS FACTOR
Table 8 Targeted Student Populations
Number of Targeted Student Population Categories Weight
1 0.8
2 1.0
3 1.1
4 1.2
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Section 1(aa)
Section 6(c)(iv) Section 9
Veterans Students Section 1(ee) Section 9
Low Income Students Section 1(k) Section 9
Rural Students Section 1(u) Section 9
Underrepresented Minority
StudentsSection 1(cc) Section 9
Priority Student Sub-
Population Completions:
30
Oregon Employment Department forecasts for
high-wage/high-demand occupations:
Nearly all STEM, health or business related
Rewards institution to focus on critical areas of
the State’s economy
Bilingual Education is a key need for K-12
partners and changing demographic make up of
the state – links universities and K-12 system
This section will require periodic re-evaluation
process
RATIONALE – DEGREE TYPE
31
RATIONALE – DEGREE TYPE
32
Priority Degree Weight Factors
PRIORITY DEGREE WEIGHT FACTORS
Table 7 Priority Degrees
CIP Description Area of Study Weight Category
11 Computer and Information Sciences 1.2 STEM
14 Engineering 1.2 STEM
15 Engineering Technologies 1.2 STEM
26 Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1.2 STEM
27 Mathematics and Statistics 1.2 STEM
30.01 Biological and Physical Sciences 1.2 STEM
30.06 Systems Science and Theory 1.2 STEM
30.08 Mathematics and Computer Science 1.2 STEM
30.18 Natural Sciences 1.2 STEM
40 Physical Sciences 1.2 STEM
51 Health Professions, Related Programs 1.2 Health
BLE Bilingual Education 2.2 Bilingual Education
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Targeted Degree
Program Completions:Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8
STEM Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8
Health Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8
Bilingual Education Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8
33
Degree Level Weight (BA/BS)
x Degree Area Weight (STEM)
x CIP-based Cost Weight (CIP 14)
Raw Degree Value
+ Sub-Population Bonus (1 category)
= Final Degree Value
DEGREE COMPLETIONS CALCULATION:
2.0
x 1.2
x 1.85
4.44
+ .80
5.24 Basis Points
Example: Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering (CIP 14) earned by student
representing 1 targeted student sub-population
34
TRANSITION
OBF/ABF Split Transition:
Stop Loss/Stop Gain:
If, during Fiscal Year 2016 through Fiscal Year 2020 the year-over-year change in the PUSF is less than the Stop Loss threshold for that fiscal year the designated Stop Loss is reset to the year-over-year change in the PUSF, such that the change in funding level for all public universities is pro rata.
Table 1 Activity-Based and Outcomes-Based Funding Proportions
Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Outcomes-Based Allocation
Proportion
20% 40% 60% 60% 60%
Activity-Based Allocation
Proportion
80% 60% 40% 40% 40%
(1) Table 10 Stop Loss and Stop-Gain
Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Stop Loss 4.5% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Disengaged
Stop Gain 1.5 x |ΔPUSF| 2016+10% 2017+10% 2018+10% Disengaged
35
TRANSITION - OAR
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Transition:
Graduated Phase-In Section 6 Section 2
Stop Loss Section 7 Section 11
Stop Gain Section 7 Section 11
36
Updating Cost-Weighting Factors HECC asked staff to examine the possibility of updating the
cost weighting factors included within the model
Staff, in conjunction with the workgroup established that this is a complex cost-accounting task
Developed process to revisit cost-weighting factors next year, and implement changes beginning with FY 17
Model Reexamination Timeline Weight factors and priority degrees: As appropriate
Strategic evaluation: Even year of every third biennium
FUTURE ITEMS
SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040
Reexamination Timeline Section 11
37
Natural tension:
Institutional Focus Student Focus
MODEL IMPLICATIONS
38
FY16 Assumptions:
Degree and Credit Hour completions constant
PUSF at Co-Chairs ($635 Million)
Transition path:
20/80 OBF/ABF split
4.5% Stop Loss
1.5 x PUSF growth Stop Gain
FY15 RAM & PROJECTED FY16 SSCM
39
FY15 PER DEGREE
40
FY16 PER DEGREE
41
FY15 TOTAL ALLOCATION
42
FY16 TOTAL ALLOCATION
43
FY15 TO FY16 COMPARISON
44
FY15 TO FY16 COMPARISON
45
FY15 TO FY16 COMPARISON
46
QUESTIONS
47
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION COMPONENTS
48
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION COMPONENTS
49
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION COMPONENTS
50
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION COMPONENTS
51
MISSION DIFFERENTIATION COMPONENTS