Title: Integrating PerformanceBased Funding into New Mexicos Adult Basic Education Funding System PBF Task
1Integrating Performance-Based Funding into New
Mexicos Adult Basic Education Funding
SystemPBF Task Force MeetingAlbuquerque, NM
- Michelle Tolbert
- Kristen Kulongoski
- MPR Associates, Inc.
- June 17-18, 2009
2Agenda Overview
- Welcome and Introductions
- Overview of PBF Project
- Review of NMs PBF Work
- Introduction to PBF
- Identification of NMs Funding Priorities
- Discussion of NMs Current Funding Structure
- Formula Considerations
3Project Background
- Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education
- Provides support to states on developing PBF
systems through national workshops and technical
assistance opportunities - Technical Assistance to States
- Develop technical assistance work plan
- Provide 9-months of support
4TA Work Plan and Timeline
- Establish Technical Assistance Needs (April 2009)
- Design PBF system for New Mexico that
- Rewards local programs for outcomes
- Is fair and transparent, simple and
understandable - Includes both a base and performance components
- Has built-in safeguards to ensure data quality
- Review Current Funding System (May 2009)
- Review PBF Basics and Define Funding Criteria
(June 2009) - Conduct first task force meeting
- Model Alternative Formulas (July-August 2009)
5TA Work Plan and Timeline (Continued)
- Refine Formula Operation (August/September 2009)
- Conduct second task force meeting in early
September - Revise funding models based on task force input
- Complete Formula Development and Discuss
Implementation Steps (October/November 2009) - Conduct second webinar in October
- Make task force recommendation on adoption and
brief key stakeholders - Transition project materials to NM Higher
Education Department - Work and Timeline After Project
- Resolve Remaining Issues (January-June 2010)
- Implement New Formula (July 2010)
6Task Force Roles and Responsibilities
- Understand PBF system benefits and challenges
- Identify NMs funding priorities
- Select formula components and funding criteria
- Review alternative funding models
- Maintain transparent process
- Recommend final funding formula
- Support New Mexico Higher Education Department in
introducing new funding system
7NM ABE Funding Task Force Discussion
- Incentivize all programs not just a few
- Increasing emphasis on student transition
- Unexpected consequences
- Impact on annual allocations
- Leading indicators of student success
- Qualitative vs. quantitative measures
- Weighting
- Cost per student
- Model review
- Connection to assessment and data
collection/reporting
8PBF in New Mexico
- State vision for PBF
- Federal ABE formula
- National PBF Workshop
- Application for PBF project
9What is Performance-Based Funding?
- Performance-based funding (PBF) is an approach
for rewarding providers who achieve state-defined
performance outcomes. - Providers who achieve state-defined performance
outcomes may qualify for additional resources
(incentives), while those who fall short may face
deductions from a previous years funding.
10Components of a PBF System
- Base Funding
- Guaranteed resources allocated to providers
irrespective of their program performance.
Examples include - Institutional grant
- Enrollment
- Needs-based criteria
- Performance-Based Funding
- Resources that providers earn for achieving
state-defined targets. Examples include - Number of outcomes achieved
- Number of state performance targets achieved
- Other state-defined criteria
11Rationale for PBF
- Equity
- Fair share based on need and demand
- Accountability
- Increased emphasis on performance
- Program Improvement
- Tangible driver or incentive to improve program
operations
To spur creativity and innovation and reward
exceptional results
12Benefits of PBF
- Improved Data Quality
- Fiscal incentive to review accuracy and
completeness of data - Increased System Effectiveness
- Focuses attention on program performance
- Aligns program incentives with statewide goals
- Political Support
- Bolsters credibility among state legislators and
the public - Improve Program Accountability
- Holds programs accountable for learner
performance - Places an emphasis on staff development
13Guiding Principles
- Simple
- Use existing data currently collected and
reported - Ensure that the model is understandable by those
who will use it - Transparent
- Clearly explain how funding is allocated and why
- Openly communicate system development process
- Equitable
- Treat all providers fairly
- Adjust for provider, program, and learner
characteristics that can affect relative program
costs - Auditable
- Monitor for data quality and compliance
14New Mexico Considerations
- Learner Characteristics
- Demographics (e.g., special needs, ESL, hardest
to serve) - Program Characteristics
- Provider type (e.g., CBO, LEA, community college)
- Program size
- Program mix (e.g., ABE, ESL, ASE)
- Location (rural vs. urban)
- Other
- Distance learning
15Steps in Building a PBF System
- Establish State Commitment to PBF
- Convene State Task Force
- Specify State Funding Goals and Priorities
- Define Criteria for Allocating Resources
- Base funding
- Performance-based funding
- Identify Appropriate Data Sources
- Model Alternative Funding Formulas
- Design Implementation Strategies
16New Mexico Funding Goals
- Step 1 Purposes of Adult Education in New Mexico
- What are the state goals for providing services?
- Are these goals realistic? Measurable?
- State Mission and Goals
- Research
- Marketing
- Integration of services
- Learning gains and student outcomes
- Program Performance Goals
- Post-testing
- Learning gains
- GED
- Student transition
- Employment
17New Mexico Funding Goals (Cont.)
- Step 2 Classifying Goals and Assigning Priority
- What goals should our funding system address?
- Are all goals equally important?
- How should funds be allocated to support goals?
- Program Quality
- Learning gains
- Student Success
- Transition
- GED
- Access
- Increased funding
18Discussion of NMs Funding Goals
- Program Quality
- Student Success
- Access
- Are there any missing elements?
- Are these the goals that should be used as a
framework for developing a PBF formula?
19ABE Funding in New Mexico
- State Funding Formula (see handout)
- Formula Operation
- Non-competitive grant
- State funds distributed to institutions
- Based on a base, head count and contact hours
- Weighted toward most effort (CHs) at level
- Providers
- Funds allocated to 24 adult education programs
- Mix of provider types (LEA, postsecondary)
- State performance check and auditing process
20ABE Funding in NM (Cont.)
- Benefits and Alignment with State Goals
- Weighted HC Equity, Effort
- CH Access, Effort
- R/UR Expenditures Access
- Base Access
- Challenges and areas for Improvement
- Discourages quality for quantity
- Incentivizes inputs not outcomes
- Need measures for program quality and student
success - Weighting, flexible vs. constant level weighting,
base - One-year vs. three-year average HC
21Activity NM Funding Allocation Tables
- State Allocations
- Enrollment
- Performance Measures and Outcomes
- Funding Allocation Table connecting funding,
enrollment, and performance
22Formula Considerations
- Determine resource pool and allocation amount
- Select funding formula criteria
- Core formula funding
- PBF
- Address provider needs
- Supplemental weighting
- Discuss implementation issues
- Model and revise alternative funding formulas
23Resources
- Determining funding source
- Where is the money coming from?
- Federal Title II funds
- State ABE funds
- Other
- Determining an allocation amount
- Is there a threshold level of PBF that is likely
to motivate providers to improve? - Flat amount each year (e.g., 1,000,000)
- of state formula (e.g., 25)
24Resources State Examples
State Examples of PBF Allocations
25 Selecting Core Formula Criteria
- Considerations
- Should core formula funding be sufficient to
operate programs irrespective of their
performance? If not, how much is reasonable? - Should providers be guaranteed a level amount of
funding irrespective of other factors? (e.g.,
base) - Should need for services be accounted for?
- How should provider characteristics be addressed?
26Core Formula Criteria Options
- Institutional grant
- Grant can be a flat amount (base) given to every
provider or tiered based on provider
characteristics - Can establish a minimum threshold for grant
eligibility - Enrollment allocation
- Allocates funds to providers based on their total
enrollment or an averaged enrollment over a
certain number of years - Needs-based grant
- Allocation size accounts for provider
characteristics or population demographics - Historical allocations
- Other?
27Core Formula Criteria State Examples
- Kansas
- Core formula funding 12 percent state resources
- Allocation criteria
- Institutional grant evenly distributed among
providers - Indiana
- Core formula funding 95 percent state resources
- Allocation criteria
- Federal funds Qualify for 90 of previous years
base funding - State funds Qualify for 90 of reimbursed
expenses from previous year - Remaining funds distributed based on enrollment
28State Examples (continued)
- Oregon (proposed)
- Core formula funding 85 percent state resources
in first year (proposed to decrease to 75 percent
by third year) - Allocation criteria
- Institutional grant (flat base amount)
- Regional need allocation (target population,
poverty, and unemployment) - Enrollment allocation
29Core Formula Criteria Data Sources
- Where does it come from?
- Who can get it for you?
- How old is it?
- Is it available across the state?
- Is it reliable to use at both state and local
levels?
30Wrap Up and Looking Ahead
- Tomorrow
- Reviewing and identifying core formula and PBF
criteria - Address provider needs supplemental weighting
- Discuss Implementation issues
- Discuss modeling alternative funding formulas
- Wrap Up Thoughts, Questions, Comments
31Formula Considerations
- Select funding formula criteria
- Core formula funding
- PBF
- Address provider needs
- Supplemental weighting
- Discuss Implementation issues
- Model and revise alternative funding formulas
32Core Formula Funding Activity
- What makes sense to NM?
- Core formula funding remain the same or revise?
- Remain the same ensure state goals are aligned
with funding criteria - Revise formula criteria to better align with
state goals - Program quality
- Student success
- Access
33Activity Selecting Core Formula Funding Criteria
- Select formula criteria that align with state
goals - Consider advantages and disadvantages of each
- Provide justification for including them in your
funding system - Identify data sources, availability, and
reliability
34Selecting PBF Criteria
- Which performance measures will promote state
goals? - Can all providers compete equally for resources,
regardless of their size or location? - Are performance data representative of actual
conditions? - Should funding eligibility be contingent on
provider performance?
35PBF Criteria Options
- Number of Outcomes Achieved
- Achieving Core NRS Measures
- Achieving Secondary NRS Measures
- Achieving other state-established measures
- Process Indicators
- Meeting state quality indicators
- Evaluating performance on desk audits
- Attaining other state-established measures
- Performance Targets
- Achieving state or local performance targets
36PBF Criteria State Examples
- Indiana core NRS secondary NRS
state-negotiated performance targets - Kansas core NRS secondary NRS quality measures
- Missouri select core NRS (educational gain and
GED attainment) - Ohio desk review ratings core NRS
- Oregon core NRS state-negotiated performance
targets pre-and post-test rates
37PBF Criteria Data Sources
- Where does it come from?
- Who can get it for you?
- How old is it?
- Is it available across the state?
- Is it reliable to use at both state and local
levels?
38Activity Selecting Performance Funding Criteria
- Select formula criteria that align with state
goals - Consider advantages and disadvantages of each
- Provide justification for including them in your
funding system - Identify data sources, availability, and
reliability
39Provider Contexts
- Do all learner populations achieve at the same
rate? - Do providers serve different population bases?
- Do providers face similar costs in delivering
services?
40PBF State Examples Supplemental Weighting
- Indiana Core NRS measure outcomes weighted twice
that of secondary NRS measures - Kansas Outcomes doubled for learners in the 2
lowest ABE and 3 lowest ESL functioning levels of
the NRS - Missouri Differential rates established for 7
different ABE and ESL functioning levels of the
NRS - Ohio Outcomes doubled for 2 lowest literacy and
3 lowest ESL functioning levels, and GED
attainment and PS placement - Oregon No weighting
- Wyoming Outcomes doubled for 2 lowest literacy
and 3 lowest ESL functioning levels Rural
adjustment
41PBF Implementation
- Timeliness and quality of data
- Harm limit
- Formula rollout/phase-in
- Stakeholder buy-in
- Dynamic and evolving system
- Other
42Next Steps
- MPR Develop funding models based on task force
recommendations - New Mexico Provide additional data for models,
if necessary - Task Force
- Resolve remaining issues from first meeting
during webinar meeting, late June (if needed) - Review models at second meeting, late August or
early September - What is the effect of the selected measures on
provider allocations as seen in the model
results? Is the formula achieving its desired
effect? What refinements need to be made?