REPORT OF THE TAXONOMY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE STATE SUBSIDY CONSULTATION Rosemary Jones (Co-Chair) Darrell Winefordner (Co-Chair)

1
REPORT OF THE TAXONOMY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE STATE
SUBSIDY CONSULTATION Rosemary Jones
(Co-Chair)Darrell Winefordner (Co-Chair)

• Presented to the
• HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING STUDY COUNCIL
• February 23, 2006

2
Committee Membership

• Rosemary Jones, Cuyahoga Community College
  (Co-Chair)
• Darrell Winefordner, Ohio University (Co-Chair)
• Jeff Boudouris, Sinclair Community College
• James Buck, Southern State Community College
• Chris Dalton, Bowling Green State University
• Jan Diegmueller, University of Cincinnati
• Ralph Gutowski, Miami University
• Michael Mayher, Lakeland Community College
• Roger Murphy, Shawnee State University
• Tom Reed, Owens State Community College
• L. Lee Walker, The Ohio State University
• Vikki Williamson, Central State University
• OBR Staff
• Rich Petrick Neal McNally Darrell Glenn
• Andy Lechler Katie Hensel

3
Goals

• Models will have similar costs and
  characteristics
• Models will be predictable and easier to manage
• Models will be easier to understand and
  communicate

4
Process

• Built upon the past
• Clustering work of last biennium
• History of development of current formula
• Data driven
• Iterative (over 25 versions reviewed)
• Assumed that all changes must be funded within
  current funding level, transition will be easier
  with additional funding.
• Conceptual tempered by reality
• Sector, campus impacts evaluated

5
Taxonomy and Data Recommendations

• Identify model costs by a subject-oriented
  grouping taxonomy
• Arts Humanities (AH)
• 4 undergraduate levels
• 2 graduate levels
• Business, Education, and Social Sciences (BES)
• 4 undergraduate levels
• 3 graduate levels
• Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics,
  and Medicine (STEM2)
• 5 undergraduate levels
• 4 graduate levels
• 2 Doctoral Models and 2 Medical Models

6
Taxonomy and Data Recommendations

• Base costs on a six-year average
• Cost evaluation based on total costs
• Revise or eliminate manual adjustments
• Strengthen data consistency and integrity

7
SSI Implementation Recommendations

• Simplify by eliminating or phasing out weightings
  or other adjustments
• Use a Uniform State Share funding model as the
  starting point for SSI allocations.
• Adjust the Uniform State Share in a transparent
  manner
• Doctoral set-aside
• Enhancement (weight) for Graduate models
• Enhancement (weight) for STEM2
• Enhancement (weight) for Medical 2

8
Fiscal Stability

• Transition Strategy Needed
• Balance need for change with fiscal stability
• Measure stability at the campus level
• Eliminating some long-standing funding practices
  will warrant special consideration for funding

9
Strengths

• Variance decreased by 42 overall
• Details of impact of each step available by
  campus, by sector, and in rank order of impact
• Year-to-year fluctuations smoothed
• Streamlined approach to costs and allocations
• Adjustments limited and transparent
• Focus on data integrity
• Able to be evaluated and realigned every biennium