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

1

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUCCESS AND COMPLETION MODEL

OSU

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

THE RESOURCE ALLOCATI ON MODEL ( RAM) – RETI RED FOR 2015-16

Re wa rd pub lic unive rsitie s fo r re side nt stude nt suc c e ss

Inc e ntivize pr

• gr

e ss to de gr e e Inc e ntivize de gr e e

• utc ome s

Inc e ntivize unde r r e pr e se nte d population c omple tions Inc e ntivize in- de mand de gr e e s

Suppo rt va lua b le pub lic se rvic e a c tivity a nd re g io na l c o nte xt

Diffe r e ntial mission suppor t Re gional unive r sity suppor t Re se ar c h suppor t

Pro vide tra nsitio na l a nd institutio na l sta b ility

Data ave r aging Phase d- in foc us on c omple tion Stop L

• ss/ Stop Gain

I NT RODUCT I ON T O T HE SSCM, GROUNDI NG PRI NCI PL E S

3

4

The Student Success and Completion Model (SSCM) has three primary components:

• Mission Differentiation Funding supporting the regional, research and public service mission
• f 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

STUDENT SUCCESS AND COMPLETI ON MODEL

5

 Degree information – used for Outcomes-Based calculations

• 3-year average of RESIDENT1 degrees awarded, organized by institution, degree

level, field of study (CIP)

• Sub-population statistics of degree recipients, organized by institution and number
• f sub-populations each student represents (more on this later)

 SCH information – used for Activity-Based calculation

• 3-year average of RESIDENT1 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

• utcomes data according to their relative costs

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY - DATA

1 Non-Resident PhD students are included in PhD

level calculations

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”

MI SSI ON DI FFERENTI ATI ON ALLOCATI ON

7

Utilizes cost-based weighting factor for student credit hours 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 Work continues to develop replacement cost-weights to those developed over 15 years ago

ACTI VI TY BASED ALLOCATI ON

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

• L
• w inc o me ,

unde rre pre se nte d mino rity, rura l, a nd ve te ra n stude nts

Additio na l we ig hting is pro vide d fo r stude nts who c o mple te fro m tra ditio na lly unde rse rve d stude nt po pula tio ns, inc luding :

• ST

E M, He a lthc a re a nd Biling ua l E duc a tio n

Additio na l we ig hting is pro vide d fo r stude nts who c o mple te in a re a s o f c ritic a l ne e d fo r the sta te , inc luding :

8

9

Stop loss

• Brackets downside risk for institutions.

During the transition period, the stop loss is set such that no institution can lose funding and ensures that during the first year all institutions see at least a 4.5% increase in funding.

Stop gain

• The stop-gain tool is designed to

prevent an institution from receiving an abnormally large increase in allocation in excess of a pre- determined threshold when compared 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.

TRANSI TI ONI NG TO NEW FUNDI NG SYSTEM

18% 33% 49% Missio n Diffe re ntia tio n Ac tivity-b a se d Co mple tio ns

10

I NCRE ASI NG F OCUS ON COMPL E T I ONS

So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n.

2014- 15 2015- 16 2016- 17 2018- 19 (GRB)

18% 66% 16% 20% 48% 32% 18% 33% 49%

2017- 18 (GRB)

14% 84%

1% $114

$7,775 $7,963 $2,354 $4,980

11

SSCM – I NCRE ASI NG VAL UE OF E ACH DE GRE E

So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n.

$114 $7,963 $79 $45 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 2014-15 (Pre - SSCM) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (GRB) 2018-19 (GRB) Pe r Cre dit Ho ur Allo c a tio n Pe r De g re e Allo c a tio n

T ransitioning to Stronge r Comple tion Inc e ntive

Avg . De g re e Co mple tio n Avg . Stude nt Cre dit Ho ur

Pe r Cre dit Ho ur Allo c a tio n Pe r De g re e Allo c a tio n

12

SSCM – I NCRE ASI NG VAL UE OF E ACH DE GRE E

$526 $2,564 $2,144 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 2014-15 (Pre -SSCM) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (GRB) 2018-19 (GRB) Ave ra g e De g re e Co mple tio n Inc e ntive b y Ca te g o ry

T ra nsitioning to Strong e r Comple tion Inc e ntive

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.

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

So urc e : HE CC Offic e o f Unive rsity Co o rdina tio n.

$9,931 $10,078 $10,225 $10,372 $10,536 1.50% 3.01% 4.51% 6.02% 7.68% 4.2% 8.4% 12.6% 16.9% 21.5%

$10 $20 $30 $40 $50

Inc re a se fro m GRB (millio ns)

F Y18: An Opportunity to L e ve rage De gre e Comple tion Inc e ntive Comparison against GRB ($665M)

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

14

PUSF I NCREASE GREATER THAN I NFLATI ON, YEAR-OVER-YEAR ( 2016-2020)

PUSF MD OBF SCH Institution Allocation

OBF SCH MD

(PUSF – MD) x OBF% SL/SG

15

Each institution receives pro-rata cut to total allocation (prior year as base); Mission Differentiation receives a pro-rata cut

• n a line-item basis (prior year as base);

Implementation schedule in not suspended.

PUSF I NCREASE LESS THAN I NFLATI ON OR DECREASE, YEAR-OVER-YEAR ( 2016-2020)

16

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 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 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 In line with national best practices a prescribed re-evaluation process for the SSCM was built into the model

EVALUATI ON FRAMEWORK AND TI MELI NE