Performance Agreements
Guidelines and Procedures Proposal
August 2003
Table of Contents
I. Preamble: Senate Bill 647..........................................................................................3
II. Overview of Performance Agreements.......................................................................4
III. Performance Agreements on the Institutional Level ..................................................5
IV. Performance Agreements on the System Level ..........................................................7
V. The Future...................................................................................................................8
Appendices
Appendix One: Funding Statement.....................................................................................9
Appendix Two: Request for Approval of an Institutional Goal as a Part of the
Performance Agreement ...........................................................................................10
Appendix Three: Memorandum of Agreement.................................................................14
Appendix Four: Summary Template for Reporting Progress toward
Institutional Goals..................................................................................................16
Appendix Five: Examples.................................................................................................17
Appendix Six: Draft Timeline ..........................................................................................23
Appendix Seven: Implementation Timeline .....................................................................24
Appendix Eight: System Indicators (see separate pdf file)...............................................28
I. Preamble: Senate Bill 647
Senate Bill 647 established Performance Agreements for Kansas public postsecondary education. Relevant portions of the bill are reproduced below. Bold text is used to highlight portions of the act that are particularly relevant for implementation of Performance Agreements. (d) Commencing on July 1, 2004, the
state board shall have authority to review and approve institutional improvement plans, and, on the basis of each plan, shall develop and implement a performance agreement with each postsecondary educational institution.Performance agreements shall incorporate the goals
, priorities, policies and mission objectives identified in the institutional improvement plans, and the performance measures, which will be used to demonstrate compliance and progress. (e) Commencing on July 1, 2005, each postsecondary educational institution’s receipt of new state funds shall be contingent on achieving compliance with its performance agreement. As used in this subsection, ‘‘new state funds’’ means that amount of state funds by which the amount received by a postsecondary educational institution for a fiscal year exceeds the amount received by that postsecondary educational institution for the preceding fiscal year. The state board shall determine the amount of new state funds to be received by each postsecondary educational institution, taking into account the postsecondary educational institution’s level of compliance with its performance agreement and the funds available for distribution. Any new state funds received by a postsecondary educational institution pursuant to a performance agreement shall be deemed to be part of the state funds received in the preceding fiscal year for the purposes of determining new state funds for the postsecondary educational institution pursuant to a performance agreement for the ensuing fiscal year. If a postsecondary educational institution is not allocated any portion of new state funds in a fiscal year, the new state funds which the institution was eligible to be allocated by the state board in such fiscal year shall be deemed part of the state funds received by such institution in such fiscal year for the purpose of determining such institution’s base budget and any new state funds for the ensuing fiscal year. The failure of a postsecondary educational institution to enter a performance agreement with the state board shall prevent that postsecondary educational institution from receiving any new state funds. Any funds designated by the legislature for a specific postsecondary educational institution or purpose shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.II. Overview of Performance Agreements
Senate Bill 647 brings "Performance-based Funding" to Kansas public postsecondary education in the form of Performance Agreements. As conceptualized by the Performance Agreements Task Force, the Performance Agreement Project will move forward on two levels simultaneously.
• The Institutional Level: Each institution will negotiate a Performance Agreement with the Board; the degree of compliance with this agreement will determine the proportion of new funding available to the institution. (See the Funding Statement in Appendix One.)•
The System Level: The Performance Agreement project will provide a means of monitoring the System of higher education in Kansas; a System report will communicate the "State of the System" to the Kansas Legislature. The KBOR has adopted a set of goals to guide the Performance Agreement Project. These Regents' System Goals (see below) play a role in both levels of the Performance Agreement Project.•
The Institutional Level: As a part of its Performance Agreement, each institution will propose (1) institutional goals that support the Regents' System Goals. (In addition, the institution may propose institutional goals that are unrelated to the Regents' System Goals.), and (2) a set of "institutional indicators" for measuring progress toward the institutional goals. The amount of new funding awarded will be determined by the amount of directional improvement toward the institutional goals included in the Performance Agreement. See below for details.•
The System Level: Progress of the System as a whole will be evaluated using a set of "system indicators" for measuring progress toward the Regents' System Goals. A System Report will describe these system indicators for the Legislature and the general public. Performance of the System on these measures will be used to set priorities for the System and to evaluate the Performance Agreement Project as a whole and will NOT be used to make funding decisions for individual institutions.Regents' System Goals
During the first year of the Performance Agreement Project, Regents' System Goals A, B, C, and D below will be targeted.
Regents' System Goal A: Increase System Efficiency/Effectiveness/Seamlessness
Institutions will initiate, strengthen or extend collaborative efforts within and across sectors that result in a postsecondary education system that is more efficient, effective, and seamless.Regents' System Goal B: Improve Learner Outcomes
Institutions will facilitate improved learner outcomes in competency areas where Kansas needs to advance.Regents' System Goal C: Improve Workforce Development
Institutions will initiate, strengthen or extend collaborative efforts within and across sectors that result in career preparation, job placement, and lifelong learning activities that better reflect the current and emerging needs of the state.Regents' System Goal D: Increase Targeted Participation/Access
Institutions will increase participation of under-served populations in postsecondary education and organized lifelong learning activities.Regents' System Goal E: Increase External Resources
Institutions will increase or leverage financial support from extramural sources for research, scholarship, or program development activities that more effectively enhance economic development within the state.Regents' System Goal F: Improve Community/Civic Engagement
Institutions will initiate, strengthen or extend efforts that result in improved civic/community engagement of postsecondary educational institutions and students to the benefit of Kansas’ communities.III. Performance Agreements on the Institutional Level
Each institutional Performance Agreement will be comprised of a set of institutional goals and a set of institutional "indicators" for measuring progress toward the institutional goals.
Institutional Goals
•
A total of three to six institutional goals (too many institutional goals could diffuse the effort) should be included in the Institutional Performance Agreement. Institutional goals must support at least three Regents' System Goals. At least one institutional goal must support Regents' System Goal A (System Efficiency/ Effectiveness/ Seamlessness). Institutional goals must support two additional Regents’ System Goals selected from Regents' System Goals B, C, and D. o Up to three institutional goals may be unrelated to the Regents' System Goals (with the understanding that these institutional goals may not conflict with or detract from the Regents' System Goals).•
Institutional goals should be consistent with the institution's mission.•
All institutional goals should be "stretch" goals.Institutional Indicators
For each institutional goal, the institution will propose no more than five specific measures of performance (institutional "indicators"). Progress toward the institutional goals will be defined as directional improvement in the institutional indicators.
Establishing the Performance Agreement
The Institutional Performance Agreement will be negotiated between the institution and the KBOR. Each institution will submit the following:
•
The Memorandum of Agreement (see Appendix Three; see Timeline in Appendix Six for due dates)•
For each institutional goal, one Request for Approval of an Institutional Goal form (see Appendix Two and Appendix Five). The collection of these forms will constitute the Institutional Improvement Plan. The collection of these documents (the MOA and the Institutional Improvement Plan) will constitute the Performance Agreement. Board staff will conduct a preliminary review of the submission. Any questions about the appropriateness of a particular submission will be referred to the Academic Affairs Standing Committee. The Academic Affairs Standing Committee will either recommend revision of the proposed Performance Agreement or will recommend that the proposed Performance Agreement be forwarded to the Board for consideration as submitted.Evaluation of Compliance and Funding
Each institution will report its compliance with the Performance Agreement in a five page narrative and a summary template (see Appendix Four and Appendix Five for summary template). Staff will conduct a preliminary review and make recommendations to the Academic Affairs Standing Committee. The Academic Affairs Standing Committee will make funding recommendations to the Board. Funding will be based upon levels of compliance with the Performance Agreement. Levels of compliance will be defined as follows:
Compliance Level 2: The institution has shown directional improvement in the majority of the institutional goals that support Regents’ System Goals AND the majority of the institutional goals that are unrelated to Regents’ System Goals. The highest level of performance funding is warranted.
Compliance Level 1: The institution has made a good faith effort to meet both institutional goals that support Regents’ System Goals AND institutional Goals that are unrelated to Regents’ System Goals. This effort has resulted in directional improvement in less than the majority of the institutional goals that support Regents’ System Goals OR less than the majority of the institutional goals that are unrelated to Regents’ System
Goals. IN ADDITION, the institution recognizes the concerns and issues AND has specific plans for improving future performance. Performance funding is warranted. Compliance Level 0: The institution has failed to make a good faith effort. The effort to meet both institutional goals that support Regents’ System Goals AND institutional goals that are unrelated to Regents’ System goals has been unsatisfactory. Performance funding is not warranted. Funding increments among categories 1 and 2 will be relatively small. (Rationale: Recognize that all institutional goals are "stretch" goals and are difficult to achieve. Provide significant positive incentive for professional effort and good performance while at the same time provide small reward for outstanding performance.) The following illustrates how the institutions' portion of new state funds will be allocated for the first fiscal year:
•
Level 2 – Percentage to be determined by Board•
Level 1 – Percentage to be determined by Board•
Level 0 – no new funding (but funding will be added to the base for the next fiscal year, as stipulated by SB647)The Board will review this funding schedule each year. Consistent failure to show a good faith effort will negatively impact funding. (See also the Funding Statement in Appendix One.)
IV. Performance Agreements on the System Level
A set of "System Indicators" will monitor statewide progress toward Regents' System Goals A through D (see appendix Seven for System Indicators). Selection of these System Indicators is extremely important. Ideal System Indicators would have the following characteristics:
Meaningful for all sectors and institutions•
•
Easily understood by the general public•
Appropriate for the goal being measuredThese System Indicators will be incorporated into a System Report designed to present the Kansas Public Postsecondary Educational System to the legislature and the general public. This System Report will be relatively brief and will incorporate effective marketing techniques. For example, particularly noteworthy projects and/or achievements might be highlighted. A limited number of testimonials from students and/or parents might also be included.
V. The Future
After the first year of implementation of Performance Agreements, the Board will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Performance Agreement Project. Goals, guidelines and procedures are subject to modification by the Board.
Appendix One: Funding Statement
P
ERFORMANCE FUNDING FOR KANSAS PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Pursuant to 2002 Senate Bill 647Pursuant to SB 647, commencing July 1, 2005 (Fiscal Year 2006), each public postsecondary educational institution’s receipt of new state funds shall be contingent upon achieving compliance with its performance agreement, as determined by the Kansas Board of Regents. This provision will apply to all new state funds received by (1) state universities for operating grant increases; (2) community colleges for operating grant increases; (3) technical schools and colleges for postsecondary aid increases; (4) Washburn university for operating grant increase; and (5) any postsecondary institution for other state funding increases, such as capital outlay aid for technical schools and colleges, or technology grant funding for community colleges and Washburn University.
This provision will also apply to any new state funds received by any postsecondary institution under the original 1999 Senate Bill 345 provisions for 2% performance grant funding, which continue in force.
Pursuant to SB 647, the Board of Regents will determine the amount of new state funds to be received by each institution, taking into account the institution’s level of compliance with its performance agreement and the funds available for distribution. New state funds will equal the amounts of additional state funding appropriated for the fiscal year in excess of state funding appropriated for the previous fiscal year. Commencing with FY 2006, the Board will determine the amount of new state funds each institution is eligible to receive if the institution is determined to be in full compliance with its performance agreement. If the Board determines that an institution is not in full compliance with its performance agreement, the Board may allocate to the institution none or a portion of the new state funds for which the institution would otherwise be eligible. Any portion not allocated to an institution in the fiscal year will be deemed to be part of the institution’s base budget for the purpose of determining the following fiscal year’s allocation. This provision is contained in Senate Bill 647 to preclude an institution from permanently losing state funding due to noncompliance with its performance agreement. The intended effect of this provision is that such loss of funds would be only for one fiscal year.
Pursuant to SB 647, the implementation of performance funding in FY 2006 is to be preceded by execution of a performance agreement between the Board and each institution, commencing on July 1, 2004 (FY 2005). The failure of an institution to enter such performance agreement with the Board prevents the institution from receiving any new state funds.
Pursuant to SB 647, any funds designated by the Legislature for a specific institution or purpose shall be exempted from these provisions related to performance funding.
Kansas Board of Regents
April 29, 2003
Appendix Two
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN INSTITUTIONAL GOAL
Respond to the items below, using the format and numbering indicated below.
1.)
Summary. In 50 words or less, briefly describe the institutional goal.2.)
Regents’ System Goal. If applicable, in 75 words or less, describe how the institutional goal supports the indicated Regents’ System Goal.3.)
Institutional Indicators. SB647 requires the performance agreement to include "performance measures which will be used to demonstrate compliance and progress." These measures are referred to below as institutional "indicators." Describe each of the institutional indicators as noted below (use the institutional indicator numbers in the box above).a) Exactly how will this institutional indicator be used to measure performance? (Be specific enough so that the reviewer could direct the data collection effort.)
Contact Information
____________________________________ _____________
Institution Date
_______________________________________________________
Individual to be contacted
_______________________________________________________
Contact phone number and email
Summary
Institutional Goal:______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Check one:
____ Supports Regents System Goal ____ Institutional Goal Only
(name goal most centrally addressed below)
______________________________________________
Summary of institutional indicators (no more than 5) for this institutional goal:
1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appendix Two
11b) Against what benchmark will progress be judged? For example:
i) Describe baseline measurement including year collected and source of data OR
ii) Describe peer measurement to be used including year collected and source of data OR
iii) Describe preset measurement, including source of data, and explain how
measurement was selected OR
iv) Other
c) Describe target measurements for the next three years and describe how the targets were
selected.
Appendix Two
12Board use only
According to the information provided, does this institutional goal have the capacity to make a
significant improvement to (check all that apply) ____ Regents' System _____ Institution
Comments
:____ Institutional Indicator 1 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 1 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys
on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 1
:____ Institutional Indicator 2 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 2 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys
on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 2
:____ Institutional Indicator 3 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 3 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys
on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 3
:____ Institutional Indicator 4 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 4 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys
on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 4
:____ Institutional Indicator 5 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 5 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys
on the basis of performance.
Appendix Two
13Comments about institutional indicator 5
:Is this institutional goal recommended for approval?
_____accept _____return for revision _____not accepted
_________________________________ ______________________________
Signature Signature
Comments:
Appendix Three
14Appendix Three: Memorandum of Agreement
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
THIS PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT, by and between THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS (hereinafter the Board), Suite 520, 1000 S.W. Jackson, Topeka,
Kansas 66612-1368, U.S.A. and
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(hereinafter the institution).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Board is authorized to enter into reciprocal agreements regarding institutional performance/improvement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto are mutually desirous of entering into such an agreement with relation to institutional performance/improvement; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is to their mutual benefit and interest to set forth the terms of their understanding and agreement in writing;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the individual and mutual promises of the parties hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto:
1. That the term of this agreement shall begin on the _____ day of ______________, 200__, and terminate on the _____ day of __________, 200__; provided, however, that the agreement shall continue thereafter automatically for successive one year terms, subject, however, to the right of either party at any time to terminate this agreement upon provision of written notice to the other of intent to terminate the contract within one (1) year from the date of the written notice.
2. That the institution shall pursue the institutional goals and implement the institutional indicators described in the attached documents "Request for Approval of
Institutional Goal as a part of the Performance Agreement".
3. That the Board approved the Request for Approval referenced in Paragraph 2.
4. That the Board shall determine the level of the institution’s compliance with the terms of the institutional Performance Agreement.
5. That the Board will determine the amount of new state funds to be received by the institution, taking into paragraph 4 and the funds available for distribution.
6. That the institution, if governed by the Board, shall follow all coordination and governance policies established by the Board; that the institution, if coordinated by the Board, shall follow all coordination policies established by the Board.
Appendix Three
157. Any notices or other communications required or permitted to be given or delivered hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the parties at their addresses first appearing above, or at such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate to the other in writing, and such notice or other communication shall be deemed to be given as of the date it was personally delivered or deposited in the mail, as the case may be.
_______________________________________ _____________________________
Institutional Signature Date
_______________________________________
Title
_______________________________________ _____________________________
Kansas Board of Regents Chairperson Date
Appendix Four
16Appendix Four
:Sample Reporting Template for Reporting Progress toward Institutional Goals
This document would be submitted along with a 5-page narrative.
Date______________
Name of Institution: Performance Summary
Institutional Goal 1:
Regents' System Goal*: A. Efficiency/ Effectiveness/Seamlessness
Institutional
Indicator Target
# Performance Amount of Directional Improvement1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Institutional Goal 2:Regents' System Goal*: selected from B, C, or D
Institutional
Indicator
Target
#Performance Amount of Directional Improvement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
And so on up to six institutional goals. All institutional goals included in the approved Performance Agreement must be reported. *If the institutional goal supports a Regents' System Goal, list the Regents' System Goal most clearly supported.
#
List target for the reporting year.Regents' System Goals
A. Efficiency/Effectiveness/Seamlessness
B. Learner Outcomes
C. Workforce Development
D. Targeted Participation/Access
Appendix Five
17Appendix Five: Examples
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN INSTITUTIONAL GOAL
Respond to the items below, using the format and numbering indicated below.
)
Summary. In 50 words or less, briefly describe the institutional goal.The goal is to improve the success of first generation college students.
2) Regents’ System Goal.
If applicable, in 75 words or less, describe how the institutional goal supports the indicated Regents’ System Goal."Engaging" students in the academic community (e.g. membership in student organizations and participation in internship/research/service learning courses) has been shown to result in improved academic performance and increased retention and graduation rates. Thus, Regents’
System Goal B Improve Learner Outcomes will be supported.
Contact Information
Institution Date
_____
Josie Smith____________________________________Individual to be contacted
______ 785-123-4567 jsmith@ks.edu
_____________Contact phone number and email
Summary
Institutional Goal:__
Improve Outcomes for First Generation College Students__(FGCS)___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Check one:
_
X_ Supports Regents' System Goal ____ Institutional Goal Only(name goal most centrally addressed below)
__
Improve Learner Outcomes____________________Summary of institutional indicators (no more than 5) for this institutional goal:
1.
Goal attainment of FGCS2.
Fall-to-spring retention rates of FGCS3.
Membership rates of FGCS in recognized student organizations and participation in selected activitiesAppendix Five
183) Institutional Indicators
. SB647 requires the performance agreement to include "performance measures which will be used to demonstrate compliance and progress." These measures are referred to below as institutional "indicators." Describe each institutional indicator as noted below (use the institutional indicator numbers in the box above).Institutional Indicator 1
: Goal attainment rates of FGCS.a) Exactly how will this institutional indicator be used to measure performance? (Be specific enough so that the reviewer could direct the data collection effort.)
FGCS will be identified from information on the application and from surveys conducted in freshman orientation classes. Goal attainment will be calculated according to procedures established by the Kansas Postsecondary Core Institutional Indicator of Effectiveness Implementation Manual.b) Against what benchmark will progress be judged?
A baseline will be established by analyzing data from the past 10 academic years. The average of the 2000 through 2003 years will be used to judge future progress.c) Describe target measurements for the next three years and describe how the targets were selected.
Improvements in goal attainment will be slow since the maximum impact of the initiative will be on freshmen admitted in the 2003-2004 academic year.Target year 1: 0.5% increase over three year average described above
Target year 2: 1.0% increase over three year average described above
Target year 3: 3.0% increase over three year average described above
Institutional Indicator 2
: Fall-to-spring retention rates of FGCSa) Exactly how will this institutional indicator be used to measure performance? (Be specific enough so that the reviewer could direct the data collection effort.)
FGCS will be identified as described above. Fall-to-spring retention of first-time full-time freshmen will be determined as recommended by IPEDS.b) Against what benchmark will progress be judged?
A baseline will be established as described above. The average of the 2000 through 2003 years will be used to judge future progress.Appendix Five
19c) Describe target measurements for the next three years and describe how the targets were selected.
Progress in this area will increase in years 2 and 3, as more experience is gained with the new programs/procedures.Target year 1: 2% increase over three year average described above
Target year 2: 4% increase over three year average described above
Target year 3: 5% increase over three year average described above
Institutional Indicator 3
: Membership rates of FGCS in recognized student organizations and participation in selected activitiesa) Exactly how will this institutional indicator be used to measure performance? (Be specific enough so that the reviewer could direct the data collection effort.)
FGCS will be identified as described above. A composite figure will be derived from adding the number of identified students who are members in recognized student organizations or enrolled in internship/research/service learning courses.b) Against what benchmark will progress be judged?
In the 03-04 academic year, baseline data will be collected. During the 03-04 year, while the baseline data are being collected, interim progress will be determined by the number of planned recruiting/marketing events and by the attendance at these events.c) Describe target measurements for the next three years and describe how the targets were selected.
Target year 1: 15 planned recruiting/marketing events with total attendance of 150 students/prospective students
Target year 2: 4% increase over baseline described above
Target year 3: 10% increase over baseline described above
We anticipate relatively rapid progress in this area once students become aware of the opportunities and their benefits.
Appendix Five
20Board use only
According to the information provided, does this institutional goal have the capacity to make a significant improvement to (check all that apply) ______Regents' System ____ Institution
Comments
:This example is shown only to illustrate use of the format. This example is not intended to represent an outstanding application or even an acceptable application.
____ Institutional Indicator 1 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 1 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 1
:____ Institutional Indicator 2 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 2 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 2
:____ Institutional Indicator 3 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 3 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 3
:____ Institutional Indicator 4 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 4 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 4
:Appendix Five
21____ Institutional Indicator 5 is recommended for approval as a performance measure.
____ Institutional Indicator 5 is recommended for approval for use in the allocation of state moneys on the basis of performance.
Comments about institutional indicator 5
:Is this institutional goal recommended for approval?
___ accept ___ return for revision ___ not accepted
_____________________________ ______________________________
Signature Signature
Comments
:Appendix Five
22Example of Performance Summary for Institutional Goal 2.
This document would be submitted along with a 5
-page narrative.Date_____xx/xx____
Sample Institution: Performance Summary
Institutional Goal 1:
Regents' System Goal*: A. Efficiency/ Effectiveness/ Seamlessness
Institutional
Indicator Target
# Performance Amount of Directional Improvement1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Institutional Goal 2: Improve Outcomes for First Generation College Students
Regents' System Goal
*: B. Learner OutcomesInstitutional
Indicator Target
# Performance Amount of Directional Improvement1. Goal attainment rates of FGCS 0.5% increase Increased by 0.4% Obvious directional improvement; goal nearly met
2. Fall-to-spring retention FGCS 2% increase Increased by 2.5% Obvious directional improvement; goal exceeded
3. membership + internship / research / service courses Establish baseline; 15 recruiting / marketing events with total attendance 150 Baseline established at 2217; 16 recruiting/marketing events; Total attendance 100 Obvious directional improvement; 2 of 3 parts met or exceeded
4. NA
5. NA
And so on up to six institutional goals. All institutional goals included in the approved
Performance Agreement must be reported.
*If the institutional goal supports a Regents' System Goal, list the Regents' System Goal most clearly supported.
#List target for the reporting year.
Regents' System Goals
A. Efficiency/Effectiveness/Seamlessness
B. Learner Outcomes
C. Workforce Development
D. Targeted Participation/Access
Appendix Six
23Appendix Six: D
RAFT TIMELINE 12/17/02Revised 4/28/03
Revisions are in
bold textJanuary 15, 2003 Task force develops proposal for specific charge #1
February 19, 2003 Task force finalizes proposal for specific charge #1
Task force develops proposal for specific charge #2
Board receives status report and provides input March 26, 2003 Councils discuss proposal for specific charge #1 Task force finalizes proposal for specific charge #2 Task force develops proposal for specific charge #3 & 4 Board receives status report and provides input April 16, 2003 Task force considers council input to proposal for specific charge #1 Councils discuss proposal for specific charge #2 Task force finalizes proposal for specific charge #3 & 4 Board receives status report and provides input May 14, 2003 Task force considers council input to proposal for specific charge #2 Councils discuss proposal for specific charge #3 & 4 Board receives status report and provides input
Board considers proposal for specific charge #1
June 25, 2003 Task force considers council input to proposal for specific charge #3 & 4 Board receives status report and provides input
Board begins discussion of performance agreement policies and procedures
---
September 17, 2003 Board conducts first reading on proposed performance agreement policies and procedures October 15, 2003 Board approves performance agreement policies and procedures
---
December 17, 2003 Campuses submit plans for campus implementation of performance agreement policies and procedures
April 14, 2004 Campuses submit pilot performance agreements for review and approval
October __, 2004 KBOR completes review and approval of pilot performance agreements
March __, 2005 Campuses submit report on pilot performance agreements
Campuses submit proposals for modification of pilot performance agreements
June ___, 2005 KBOR completes review and approval of modifications of Pilot performance agreements
July 1, 2005 Campuses receive funding contingent on compliance with Pilot performance agreements
Appendix Seven
24Implementation Timeline
After the first "pilot" year, the Performance Agreement will cover activities during the
calendar year. This will allow time for the institutions to prepare their Performance Agreement Report during the spring semester, and for the Board to review the reports and determine funding by July 1.Pilot Year
October 15, 2003 Final Board approval of Performance Agreements guidelines/procedures
February 15, 2004 Deadline for submission of Proposed Pilot Performance Agreement (covering performance from July 1 through December 31) to Board
staff
April/May, 2004 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any Proposed Pilot Performance Agreements recommended for return for resubmission
June, 2004 Board Action on Pilot Performance Agreement Proposals
July 1, 2004 Institutions actualize Pilot Performance Agreement
March, 2005 Deadline for submission of report on compliance with Pilot Performance Agreement
April/May, 2005 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any reports recommended for less than maximum funding
June, 2005 Final Board action on Pilot Performance Agreement Report
July 1, 2005 Funding awarded
Appendix Seven
25Subsequent Years
July Deadline for submission of Performance Agreement proposal covering activities in the upcoming calendar year September/October Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any proposal recommended for revision November Board Action on proposals for Performance Agreements
January 1 Institutions actualize Performance Agreements
March Deadline for submission of report on compliance with Performance Agreement
April/May Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any reports recommended for less than maximum funding
June Board action on reports on compliance with Performance Agreements
July 1 Funding awarded
Appendix Seven
26Integrated timeline from fall 2003 through fall 2006
The entries are color-coded as follows:
Italic
= Performance Agreement for pilot yearBold Black
= Performance Agreement for 2005 yearALL CAPS = Performance Agreement for 2006 year
Shaded = Performance Agreement for 2007 year
October 15, 2003 Final Board approval of Performance Agreements guidelines/procedures
February 15, 2004 Deadline for submission of proposed pilot Performance Agreement (covering performance from July 1 through
December 31) to Board staff
April/May, 2004 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any proposed pilot Performance Agreements recommended for return for resubmission.
June, 2004 Board Action on pilot Performance Agreement Proposals
July 1, 2004 Institutions actualize pilot Performance Agreement
July, 2004 Deadline for submission of Performance Agreement
proposal covering activities in the 2005 calendar year
October/November, 2004 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any proposal (for 2005 calendar year) recommended for revision
November, 2004 Board Action on proposals for Performance Agreements (for 2005 calendar year)
December, 2004 End of actualization of pilot performance agreement
January 1, 2005 Institutions actualize Performance Agreements for 2005 calendar year
March, 2005 Deadline for submission of report on compliance with pilot Performance Agreement
April/May, 2005 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any reports (pilot performance agreement) recommended for less than maximum funding.
June, 2005 Final Board action on pilot Performance Agreement Report
Appendix Seven
27July 1, 2005 Funding awarded for pilot Performance Agreement
JULY, 2005 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT PROPOSAL COVERING ACTIVITIES IN THE 2006 CALENDAR YEAR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER, 2005 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE REVIEWS ANY PROPOSAL (FOR 2006) RECOMMENDED FOR REVISION NOVEMBER, 2005 BOARD ACTION ON PROPOSALS FOR PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS (FOR 2006)
December, 2005 Actualization of 2005 Performance Agreement ends JANUARY, 2006 INSTITUTIONS ACTUALIZE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT FOR 2006 March, 2006 Deadline for submission of report on compliance with Performance Agreement (for 2005) April/May, 2006 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any reports (for 2005) recommended for less than maximum funding. June, 2006 Board action on reports on compliance with Performance Agreements (for 2005) July 1, 2006 Funding awarded (for 2005) uly, 2006 Deadline for submission of Performance Agreement proposal covering activities in the 2007 calendar year September/October, 2006 Academic Affairs Standing Committee reviews any proposal (for 2007) recommended for revision November, 2006 Board Action on proposals for Performance Agreements (for 2007) DECEMBER, 2006 ACTUALIZATION OF 2006 PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS ENDSPerformance Agreements
Proposed Statewide Measures
Appendix Eight 29
Goal:
Goal A – Collaboration: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and SeamlessnessMeasure:
Graduation RatesRationale:
Seamlessness in a system facilitates a student's transition from high school to entrance into college to graduation from college. This measure is an evaluation of the performance of Kansas in the level of success in transitioning of students from 9th grade through the various levels of education to college graduation.
Appendix Eight 30
Chart 1 - Graduation Rates:
Of 100 9th Graders -- Loss at Each Stage of Transition (2000)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Alaska (6.2)
Nevada (10.8)
Texas (10.8)
New Mexico (11.2)
Georgia (11.6)
Oklahoma (11.9)
Louisiana (12.0)
Arkansas (12.1)
Mississippi (12.5)
Hawaii (12.5)
Kentucky (13.1)
Alabama (13.3)
Tennessee (13.5)
Idaho (13.5)
South Carolina (13.8)
Arizona (14.5)
Florida (14.5)
Oregon (14.5)
West Virginia (15.2)
Washington (15.5)
Utah (15.9)
Montana (16.7)
California (16.9)
Ohio (17.5)
Maryland (17.9)
North Carolina (18.0)
Michigan (18.3)
Wyoming (18.3)
Colorado (18.3)
New York (18.4)
Missouri (18.5)
Illinois (19.0)
Delaware (19.2)
Virginia (20.3)
Indiana (20.9)
Vermont (21.4)
Kansas (21.6)
South Dakota (22.2)
Wisconsin (22.3)
Nebraska (22.4)
Maine (23.2)
North Dakota (23.5)
New Jersey (23.7)
Minnesota (25.1)
Connecticut (25.6)
Rhode Island (26.3)
New Hampshire (27.0)
Pennsylvania (27.1)
Iowa (28.0)
Massachusetts (28.3)
Percentages
9th to 12th Grade HS Graduation to College College Entrance to Graduation State (College Graduation Rate) Source: NCHEMS News, May 2003
Appendix Eight 31
Table 1 - Student Pipeline Data: Graduation Rates - 2000
State For every 100 Ninth Graders Graduate from High School Enter College Graduate within 150% Time Definitions & Sources of Data:
Massachusetts (28.3) 100 74.8 51.6 28.3
Iowa (28.0) 100 83.0 53.5 28.0
Pennsylvania (27.1) 100 74.9 46.1 27.1
New Hampshire (27.0) 100 73.9 43.6 27.0
Rhode Island (26.3) 100 69.5 45.8 26.3
Connecticut (25.6) 100 77.0 47.9 25.6
Minnesota (25.1) 100 83.7 53.5 25.1
New Jersey (23.7) 100 86.1 54.8 23.7
North Dakota (23.5) 100 84.1 58.4 23.5
Maine (23.2) 100 76.6 41.6 23.2
Nebraska (22.4) 100 83.8 49.7 22.4
Wisconsin (22.3) 100 78.0 44.6 22.3
South Dakota (22.2) 100 74.2 47.5 22.2
Kansas (21.6) 100 74.4 50.2 21.6
Vermont (21.4) 100 78.7 35.7 21.4
Indiana (20.9) 100 68.2 40.9 20.9
Virginia (20.3) 100 73.9 39.2 20.3
Delaware (19.2) 100 60.7 36.4 19.2
Illinois (19.0) 100 71.1 42.5 19.0
Missouri (18.5) 100 73.0 39.0 18.5
New York (18.4) 100 58.6 37.4 18.4
Colorado (18.3) 100 70.5 37.2 18.3
Wyoming (18.3) 100 75.0 39.2 18.3
Michigan (18.3) 100 68.7 40.3 18.3
North Carolina (18.0) 100 58.7 38.4 18.0
Maryland (17.9) 100 73.3 40.1 17.9
Ohio (17.5) 100 69.6 39.0 17.5
California (16.9) 100 68.7 32.8 16.9
Montana (16.7) 100 78.1 42.5 16.7
Utah (15.9) 100 83.9 32.0 15.9
Washington (15.5) 100 70.8 31.6 15.5
West Virginia (15.2) 100 74.8 39.2 15.2
Oregon (14.5) 100 67.4 34.4 14.5
Florida (14.5) 100 55.2 31.7 14.5
Arizona (14.5) 100 59.3 29.7 14.5
South Carolina (13.8) 100 51.0 33.8 13.8
Idaho (13.5) 100 76.9 34.5 13.5
Tennessee (13.5) 100 54.8 34.1 13.5
Alabama (13.3) 100 58.9 34.2 13.3
Kentucky (13.1) 100 65.8 38.6 13.1
Hawaii (12.5) 100 64.2 38.4 12.5
Mississippi (12.5) 100 56.0 35.5 12.5
Arkansas (12.1) 100 73.6 38.9 12.1
Louisiana (12.0) 100 56.2 33.3 12.0
Oklahoma (11.9) 100 72.8 36.2 11.9
Georgia (11.6) 100 52.3 31.6 11.6
New Mexico (11.2) 100 60.3 35.5 11.2
Texas (10.8) 100 61.9 32.5 10.8
Nevada (10.8) 100 68.8 27.7 10.8
Alaska (6.2) 100 62.3 27.6 6.2
United States (17.5) 100 67.1 38.0 17.5
All data were downloaded from the NCHEMS www.higheredinfo.org website.
Ninth Graders: Number of ninth graders enrolled. Source: U.S. Department of Education Common Core Data (CCD)Graduation from High School:
Number of students receiving high school diplomas. Source: U.S. Department of Education Common Core Data (CCD) Enter College: Number of first-time, fulltimefreshman students at postsecondary institutions. Source: U.S. Department of Education IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey Graduate within 150% Time: Number of first-time, fulltime freshman students who graduate within 150% of normal time to graduate. For 2-yr institutions, 150% is considered 3 years. For 4-yr institution, 150% is considered 6 years. Source: U.S. Department of Education IPEDS Graduation Survey Source: NCHEMSAppendix Eight 33
Chart 2 - Retention Rates:
Of 100 9th Graders -- Loss at Each Stage of Transition (2000)
124120 20 40 60 80 100
Arizona (18.5)
Nevada (19.1)
Texas (19.5)
Utah (21.1)
Georgia (21.3)
Hawaii (21.5)
Louisiana (21.7)
New Mexico (22.0)
California (22.1)
Washington (22.2)
Alabama (22.6)
Oregon (22.7)
Florida (22.8)
Tennessee (22.9)
Oklahoma (23.0)
Mississippi (23.1)
Idaho (23.1)
South Carolina (23.3)
Kentucky (25.1)
Arkansas (25.9)
Colorado (26.5)
Missouri (27.0)
West Virginia (27.5)
Vermont (27.6)
North Carolina (27.6)
Ohio (27.8)
Delaware (27.8)
New York (28.0)
Michigan (28.1)
Montana (28.3)
Illinois (28.5)
Maryland (29.7)
Indiana (30.1)
Virginia (30.1)
South Dakota (30.9)
Maine (30.9)
Kansas (32.1)
Wisconsin (32.8)
New Hampshire (34.3)
Pennsylvania (35.8)
Connecticut (36.7)
Rhode Island (37.1)
Iowa (37.1)
Nebraska (37.6)
Minnesota (37.7)
New Jersey (40.1)
Massachusetts (40.5)
North Dakota (42.4)
Percentages
9th to 12th Grade High School Graduate to College College Entrance to 2nd Year State (College Retention Rate) Source: NCHEMS: ACT Institutional Questionnaire
Appendix Eight 34
Table 2 - Student Pipeline Data: Retention Rates - 2000
State
For every
100 Ninth
Graders
Graduate
from High
School
Enter
College
Are Still Enrolled
Their Sophomore
Year
Definitions & Sources of Data
Wyoming (NA) 100 75.0 39.2 NA
Alaska (NA) 100 62.3 27.6 NA
North Dakota (42.4) 100 84.1 58.4 42.4
Massachusetts (40.5) 100 74.8 51.6 40.5
New Jersey (40.1) 100 86.1 54.8 40.1
Minnesota (37.7) 100 83.7 53.5 37.7
Nebraska (37.6) 100 83.8 49.7 37.6
Iowa (37.1) 100 83.0 53.5 37.1
Rhode Island (37.1) 100 69.5 45.8 37.1
Connecticut (36.7) 100 77.0 47.9 36.7
Pennsylvania (35.8) 100 74.9 46.1 35.8
New Hampshire (34.3) 100 73.9 43.6 34.3
Wisconsin (32.8) 100 78.0 44.6 32.8
Kansas (32.1) 100 74.4 50.2 32.1
Maine (30.9) 100 76.6 41.6 30.9
South Dakota (30.9) 100 74.2 47.5 30.9
Virginia (30.1) 100 73.9 39.2 30.1
Indiana (30.1) 100 68.2 40.9 30.1
Maryland (29.7) 100 73.3 40.1 29.7
Illinois (28.5) 100 71.1 42.5 28.5
Montana (28.3) 100 78.1 42.5 28.3
Michigan (28.1) 100 68.7 40.3 28.1
New York (28.0) 100 58.6 37.4 28.0
Delaware (27.8) 100 60.7 36.4 27.8
Ohio (27.8) 100 69.6 39.0 27.8
North Carolina (27.6) 100 58.7 38.4 27.6
Vermont (27.6) 100 78.7 35.7 27.6
West Virginia (27.5) 100 74.8 39.2 27.5
Missouri (27.0) 100 73.0 39.0 27.0
Colorado (26.5) 100 70.5 37.2 26.5
Arkansas (25.9) 100 73.6 38.9 25.9
Kentucky (25.1) 100 65.8 38.6 25.1
South Carolina (23.3) 100 51.0 33.8 23.3
Idaho (23.1) 100 76.9 34.5 23.1
Mississippi (23.1) 100 56.0 35.5 23.1
Oklahoma (23.0) 100 72.8 36.2 23.0
Tennessee (22.9) 100 54.8 34.1 22.9
Florida (22.8) 100 55.2 31.7 22.8
Oregon (22.7) 100 67.4 34.4 22.7
Alabama (22.6) 100 58.9 34.2 22.6
Washington (22.2) 100 70.8 31.6 22.2
California (22.1) 100 68.7 32.8 22.1
New Mexico (22.0) 100 60.3 35.5 22.0
Louisiana (21.7) 100 56.2 33.3 21.7
Hawaii (21.5) 100 64.2 38.4 21.5
Georgia (21.3) 100 52.3 31.6 21.3
Utah (21.1) 100 83.9 32.0 21.1
Texas (19.5) 100 61.9 32.5 19.5
Nevada (19.1) 100 68.8 27.7 19.1
Arizona (18.5) 100 59.3 29.7 18.5
United States 100 67.1 38.0 25.9
All data were downloaded from the NCHEMS www.higheredinfo.org website.
Ninth Graders:
Number of ninth graders enrolled. Source: U.S. Department of Education Common Core Data (CCD)
Graduation from High School:
Number of students receiving high school diplomas. Source: U.S. Department of Education Common Core Data (CCD)
Enter College:
Number of first-time, fulltime freshmen students at postsecondary institutions. Source: U.S. Department of Education IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey
Are Still Enrolled Their Sophomore Year:
Number of first-time, fulltimestudents enrolled in the fall term who enroll at the same institution during the next fall term. Source: ACT InstitutionalData Questionnaire (conducted every 2 years) Source: NCHEMS
Appendix Eight 35
Goal:
Goal B - Learner OutcomeMeasure:
Adult Basic Education Performance MeasuresRationale:
Adult Basic Education provides programs in basic literacy skills, English literacy skills, and high school completion. Adult literacy is a stepping stone for entrance into higher education and a building block for an educated workforce. Many of the participants of adult basic education programs are members of high risk or of limited English proficiency populations. The performance measures built into adult basic education programs provide some information about learner outcomes for the participants. This measure provides an evaluation of the performance of Kansas programs to national averages. Since the target goals for these programs are negotiated individually by state, it is difficult to compare by state.
Appendix Eight 36
Chart 3 - Adult Basic Education Performance Measures (2000-2001)
28
30
21
38
18
19
30
42
25
23
25
31
62
53
31
50
25
25
33
50
32
42
36
53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
U.S. - Retained Employment
KS - Retained Employment
U.S. - Entered Employment
KS - Entered Employment
U.S. - Entered Postsec Ed or Training
KS - Entered Postsec Ed or Training
U.S. - H.S. Completion (diploma or GED)
KS - H.S. Completion (diploma or GED)
U.S. - English Literacy Skills
KS - English Literacy Skills
U.S. - Basic Literacy Skills
KS - Basic Literacy Skills
Performance
Measures
Percentages
Performance Target Actual Performance
Performance Measure I -
Adult Basic & Secondary Education
Performance Measure II -
High School Completion
Performance Measure III -
Entered Postsec Ed or Training
Performance Measure IV -
Entered Employment
Performance Measure V -
Retained Employment
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Appendix Eight 37
Adult Basic Education Definitions:
Basic Literacy
- Percent of adults enrolled who acquired the level of basic skills needed to complete at least one education level (minimum Grade Level Equivalent – 2 years).English Literacy
- Percent of enrolled adults who acquired the level of English language skills needed to complete at least one educational level.High School Completion
- Percent of enrolled adults with a high school completion goal who earned a high school diploma or GED.Entered Postsecondary Education or Training
- Percent of enrolled adults with a goal to transition to postsecondary education or training who enrolled in postsecondary education or training after exiting the program.Entered Employment
- Percent of enrolled adults with an employment goal who were employed one quarter after program exit.Retained Employment
- Percent of adults who retained a job three quarters after program exit.Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Appendix Eight 38
Goal:
Goal C - Workforce DevelopmentMeasure:
Educational Attainment of 25-64 Year OldsRationale:
From NCHEMS*:
"Today, a high school diploma or equivalent is generally considered the minimum requirement for even the lowest-level jobs. It also is required for continuing to postsecondary education. Raising the educational levels attainment of the adult population is one of the most important objectives for any state. This is in part because of the positive relationships between an educated citizenry, successful business and industry, and high paying jobs." This measure evaluates the educational attainment of the working age population (25-64) in Kansas compared to other states.
* National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
Appendix Eight 39
Chart 4 - Educational Attainment of 25-64 Year Olds
Percent of Population with HS Education or Above - 2000
30918
28
25
20
19
21
22
18
17
21
19
25
26
25
24
30
24
29
22
29
32
21
24
33
27
23
23
26
34
27
24
35
37
35
29
29
27
29
25
25
25
32
25
27
24
31
23
27
26
30
270 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mississippi (77.6)
California (78.2)
Texas (78.3)
Louisiana (79.2)
Kentucky (79.7)
Alabama (80.5)
South Carolina (80.6)
Arkansas (80.9)
West Virginia (81.1)
Tennessee (81.1)
Nevada (82.1)
New Mexico (82.1)
Georgia (82.4)
Arizona (82.5)
North Carolina (82.6)
New York (82.6)
Florida (82.8)
Rhode Island (83.8)
Oklahoma (84.8)
Illinois (85.1)
Virginia (85.3)
Indiana (86.1)
Missouri (86.2)
New Jersey (86.3)
Delaware (86.4)
Ohio (87.3)
Idaho (87.5)
Pennsylvania (87.6)
Maryland (87.6)
Oregon (87.6)
Michigan (87.8)
Connecticut (88.1)
Massachusetts (88.4)
Colorado (89)
Kansas (89.3)
Washington (89.3)
Utah (89.3)
Hawaii (89.6)
Maine (89.7)
Wisconsin (89.8)
South Dakota (90.1)
Vermont (90.4)
Alaska (90.5)
Nebraska (90.6)
Iowa (90.7)
New Hampshire
Wyoming (90.9)
Montana (91.1)
North Dakota (91.7)
Minnesota (92.4)
Percentages
Bach Degree or Higher Some College or Assoc Degree HS Grad
State (Percent HS Grad or Higher) National Average: 83.9Source: NCHEMS: US Census Bureau 2000 Statistics
Appendix Eight 40
Table 4 - Educational Attainment of 25-64 Year Olds
Percent 25-64 Year Olds with a High School Diploma or Above (%) Percent with Non-HS Completion Percent with High school graduate (includes equivalency) 2000 Percent with Some college, no degree 2000 Percent with Associate degree 2000 Percent with Bachelor's degree 2000 Percent with Graduate or professional degree 2000
Minnesota (92.4) 92.4 7.59 27.26 25.77 8.90 21.47 9.01
North Dakota (91.7) 91.7 8.31 27.81 26.64 11.59 19.54 6.11
Montana (91.1) 91.1 8.94 30.25 27.32 6.76 19.12 7.61
Wyoming (90.9) 90.9 9.14 29.65 28.72 9.08 16.08 7.33
Iowa (90.7) 90.7 9.25 34.30 23.30 9.04 16.98 7.14
New Hampshire (90.7) 90.7 9.26 29.30 20.91 9.84 20.24 10.44
Nebraska (90.6) 90.6 9.43 28.82 25.87 8.88 18.91 8.09
Alaska (90.5) 90.5 9.54 27.98 29.37 7.64 16.79 8.68
Vermont (90.4) 90.4 9.59 32.34 17.69 8.73 19.99 11.66
South Dakota (90.1) 90.1 9.90 32.24 24.72 8.61 18.00 6.53
Wisconsin (89.8) 89.8 10.25 33.65 22.33 8.90 17.16 7.72
Maine (89.7) 89.7 10.32 35.98 20.30 8.58 16.51 8.31
Hawaii (89.6) 89.6 10.41 27.23 24.18 9.46 19.81 8.91
Kansas (89.3) 89.3 10.73 27.83 25.92 6.84 19.24 9.44
Washington (89.3) 89.3 10.74 23.40 27.34 9.07 19.72 9.74
Utah (89.3) 89.3 10.73 23.10 29.94 8.79 19.01 8.43
Colorado (89) 89 11.04 21.84 24.68 7.71 23.15 11.58
Massachusetts (88.4) 88.4 11.60 25.15 17.99 8.18 22.03 15.06
Connecticut (88.1) 88.1 11.86 27.09 18.87 7.47 20.27 14.44
Michigan (87.8) 87.8 12.24 30.42 25.33 8.11 15.26 8.64
Pennsylvania (87.6) 87.6 12.44 37.79 17.12 7.14 16.11 9.39
Maryland (87.6) 87.6 12.42 26.20 21.61 5.96 19.51 14.29
Oregon (87.6) 87.6 12.35 24.74 28.38 7.56 17.90 9.06
Idaho (87.5) 87.5 12.49 27.13 28.79 8.27 16.18 7.15
Ohio (87.3) 87.3 12.72 35.50 21.45 7.03 15.26 8.03
Delaware (86.4) 86.4 13.58 31.21 20.82 7.45 17.01 9.93
New Jersey (86.3) 86.3 13.72 27.95 19.02 6.08 21.21 12.02
Missouri (86.2) 86.2 13.78 32.41 23.70 5.95 15.85 8.31
Indiana (86.1) 86.1 13.88 36.60 21.33 6.76 13.77 7.66
Virginia (85.3) 85.3 14.70 25.73 21.47 6.31 19.44 12.36
Illinois (85.1) 85.1 14.92 26.16 22.93 7.01 18.54 10.44
Oklahoma (84.8) 84.8 15.20 31.59 24.97 6.30 14.82 7.12
Rhode Island (83.8) 83.8 16.22 27.15 19.32 8.36 18.17 10.78
Florida (82.8) 82.8 17.16 27.52 22.91 8.46 15.63 8.32
North Carolina (82.6) 82.6 17.43 28.69 21.91 7.77 16.67 7.53
New York (82.6) 82.6 17.36 26.42 17.91 8.28 17.35 12.70
Arizona (82.5) 82.5 17.51 22.94 27.28 7.61 16.16 8.50
Georgia (82.4) 82.4 17.65 28.94 21.52 5.77 17.34 8.78
Nevada (82.1) 82.1 17.93 28.58 27.87 6.72 12.73 6.18
New Mexico (82.1) 82.1 17.91 26.64 24.17 6.74 14.39 10.15
West Virginia (81.1) 81.1 18.89 41.29 18.09 5.23 9.97 6.53
Tennessee (81.1) 81.1 18.88 32.68 21.57 5.50 14.14 7.23
Arkansas (80.9) 80.9 19.07 35.64 22.32 4.75 12.24 5.98
South Carolina (80.6) 80.6 19.36 30.85 20.62 7.62 14.34 7.21
Alabama (80.5) 80.5 19.53 31.08 22.24 6.35 13.43 7.36
Kentucky (79.7) 79.7 20.31 35.14 20.07 5.72 11.30 7.46
Louisiana (79.2) 79.2 20.80 33.20 21.94 3.97 13.33 6.76
Texas (78.3) 78.3 21.65 24.54 23.31 5.81 16.78 7.90
California (78.2) 78.2 21.84 18.99 23.49 7.67 18.17 9.83
Mississippi (77.6) 77.6 22.44 30.20 22.56 6.65 12.04 6.11
Nation (83.9) 83.9 16.06 27.84 22.33 7.23 17.11 9.43
Source: NCHEMS: US Census Bureau 2000 Statistics
Appendix Eight 41
Goal:
Goal C - Workforce DevelopmentMeasure:
Teacher Education Certification Testing Pass RatesRationale:
Passing rates on Teacher Education Certification Testing provide information about the potential number of teaching professionals entering the workforce. This measure evaluates pass rates in Kansas with the national pass rates.
Appendix Eight 42
Chart 5 - Teacher Education Certification Testing
Pass Rates by State (2000-2001)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
District of Columbia
Pennsylvania
Maine
Hawaii
Arizona
Massachusetts
Texas
Maryland
Louisiana
Ohio
Delaware
Rhode Island
Virginia
New Mexico
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vermont
Oklahoma
Colorado
Kentucky
New York
Connecticut
Indiana
Nevada
Florida
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Missouri
New Jersey
California
Mississippi
Kansas
Illinois
Minnesota
Georgia
Alaska
Arkansas
Michigan
Montana
Oregon
West Virginia
Percentages
National
Average: 94%
Source: US Office of Postsecondary Education
Appendix Eight 43
Table 5 - Title II Reported Pass Rates by Aggregate Testing Area and by State:
2000-2001
Summary
2000-01
# Tested # Passing Pass Rate
Alabama --- --- --
Arkansas 1,231 1,231 100
Michigan 6,516 6,516 100
Montana 704 702 100
Oregon 1,573 1,573 100
West Virginia 1,180 1,180 100
Georgia 2,809 2,768 99
Alaska 214 212 99
Illinois 8,690 8,484 98
Minnesota 3,380 3,315 98
New Jersey 3,267 3,181 97
California 18,728 18,205 97
Mississippi 1,382 1,347 97
Kansas 1,713 1,670 97
Florida 4,929 4,749 96
North Carolina 4,927 4,746 96
New Hampshire 676 646 96
Missouri 3,622 3,462 96
Indiana 4,191 3,972 95
Nevada 851 805 95
New York 16,241 15,203 94
Connecticut 1,658 1,562 94
Oklahoma 1,825 1,694 93
Colorado 1,898 1,748 93
Kentucky 2,166 2,014 93
Virginia 2,465 2,267 92
New Mexico 859 793 92
South Carolina 1,878 1,736 92
Tennessee 2,791 2,580 92
Vermont 485 445 92
Delaware 459 413 90
Rhode Island 800 721 90
Louisiana 1,961 1,753 89
Ohio 7,562 6,728 89
Texas 11,094 9,772 88
Maryland 2,076 1,830 88
Massachusetts 3,215 2,783 87
Hawaii 415 356 86
Arizona 439 376 86
Pennsylvania 9,933 8,334 84
Maine 561 472 84
District of Columbia 288 227 79
All States 141,652 132,571 94
Source: US Office of Postsecondary Education
Appendix Eight 44
Goal:
Goal C - Workforce DevelopmentMeasure:
WIA Performance Measures for Adult and Dislocated WorkersRationale:
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs are designed to train or retrain adults and young adults for the workforce. While many of these programs are administered through state agencies, many others are conducted through or in partnership with postsecondary education institutions. This measure is used to evaluate the performance of Kansas programs to the national average in meeting the training and employment needs of participants in the WIA programs. Although at this time, the WIA programs are administered by the Kansas Department of Human Resources through WIA boards, Lieutenant Governor Moore has proposed that Centers of Excellence be stablished in institutions of higher education to administer these programs. In anticipation of the approval of this proposal, data for this measure will be collected and followed. For this measure, we will only include adults and dislocated workers since the young adults would be served primarily by the secondary institutions.
Appendix Eight 45
Chart 6 - WIA Annual Performance Report 2001
56.2
50.0
86.6
86.0
73.0
77.0
51.5
50.0
78.1
79.0
68.4
72.0
66.0
64.0
69.1
67.0
61.8
63.0
87.6
91.2
81.6
78.4
57.8
63.1
80.8
85.1
75.7
73.0
74.5
80.0
77.9
82.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
US Emplmnt & Credentl Rate
KS Emplmnt & Credentl Rate
US Retention Rate
KS Retention Rate
US Entered Employment Rate
KS Entered Employment Rate
Dislocated Workers
US Emplmnt & Credentl Rate
KS Emplmnt & Credentl Rate
US Retention Rate
KS Retention Rate
US Entered Employment Rate
KS Entered Employment Rate
Adults
US Employer Score
KS Employer Score
US Program Participant Score
KS Program Participant Score
Customer Satisfaction
Percentages
Negotiated Score Actual Score
Performance Measurement Areas
Source: US Department of Labor, WIA Annual Summary
Appendix Eight 46
Table 6 - PY2001 WIA STATISTICS & COMPARISONS
Kansas National
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
2001 2001ACTUAL NEGOT % NEG ACTUAL NEGOT % NEG
Customer Satisfaction Program Participant Score 82.0 67.0 122% 77.9 69.1 113%
Employer Score 80.0 64.0 125% 74.5 66.0 113%
Adults Entered Employment Rate 73.0 72.0 101% 75.7 68.4 111%
Retention Rate 85.1 79.0 108% 80.8 78.1 103%
Earnings Change in Six Mo. $2,358 $2,600 91% $3,312 $3,361 99%
Emplmnt & Credentl Rate 63.1 50.0 126% 57.8 51.5 112%
Dislocated Workers Entered Employment Rate 78.4 77.0 102% 81.6 73.0 112%
Retention Rate 91.2 86.0 106% 87.6 86.6 101%
Earnings Replcmt in Six Mo. 83.5 83.0 101% 100.7 101.0 100%
Emplmnt & Credentl Rate 63.0 50.0 126% 61.8 56.2 110%
Source: WIA State Annual Reports
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Statistics Definitions
Definitions
Participant Satisfaction
The weighted average of participant ratings on each of the three
American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) questions regarding overall satisfaction are reported on a 0-100 point scale. The score is a weighted average, not a percentage.Employer Satisfaction
The weighted average of employer ratings on each of the three ACSI questions regarding overall satisfaction are reported on a 0-100 point scale. The score is a weighted average, not a percentage.
Adult Entered Employment Rate
Of those who are not employed at registration:
Number of adults who have entered employment by the end of the first quarter after exit divided by the number of adults who exit during the quarter.Adult Employment and Credential Rate
Of those adults who received training services:
Number of adults who were employed in the first quarter after exit and received a credential by the end of the third quarter after exit divided by the number of adults who exited services during the quarter.Adult Employment Retention Rate at Six Months
Of those who are employed in the first quarter after exit:
Number of adults who are employed in the third quarter after exit divided by the number of adults who exit during the quarter.Adult Average Earnings Change in Six Months
Of those who are employed in the first quarter after exit:
Total post-program earning (earning in qtr. 2 + qrt. 3 after exit) minus preprogram earnings (earnings in qtr. 2 + qtr. 3 prior to registration) divided by the number of adults who exit during the quarter.Dislocated Worker Entered Employment Rate
Number of dislocated workers who have entered employment by the end of the first quarter after exit divided by the number of dislocated workers who exit during the quarter.
Dislocated Worker Employment and Credential Rate
Of those dislocated workers who received training services:
Number of dislocated workers who were employed in the first quarter after exit and received a credential by the end of the third quarter after exit divided by the number of dislocated workers who exited services during the quarter.Dislocated Worker Employment Retention Rate at Six Months
Of those who are employed in the first quarter after exit:
Number of dislocated workers who are employed in the third quarter after exit divided by the number of dislocated workers who exit during the quarter.Dislocated Worker Employment Replacement Rate in Six Months
Of those who are employed in the first quarter after exit:
Total post-program earnings (earnings in qtr. 2 + qtr. 3 after exit) divided by the pre-dislocation earnings (earnings in qtr. 2 + qtr. 3 prior to dislocation).Source: "Performance Reporting Under WIA Title 1B" Presentation by Candace Graham-Young, ETA Performance
Accountability Team, 2001.
Appendix Eight 47
Goal:
Goal D - Targeted AccessMeasure:
Hispanic High School Diploma Recipients and College First-time Entering Class Percentages
Rationale:
The increases in the Hispanic population of the state, as well as nationally, is an area that warrants inspection in evaluating how states are meeting the educational needs of this population. This measure evaluates the performance of Kansas in providing access to postsecondary education to the Hispanic population with national averages. Due to the difficulty in obtaining state-level data with race/ethnicity breakdowns, this measure employs high school completions and first-time entering freshmen data to provide the comparisons. For comparison purposes, data for other minority racial/ethnic groups are included in the graphs.
Appendix Eight 48
Chart 7 - Percentage of HS Diploma Recipients & First-time Entering Students by Race (2001)
11.7
11.1
5.1
5.7
1.0
1.1
12.9
14.3
4.1
4.5
5.9
2.5
2.4
2.2
0.8
0.9
2.1
5.6
6.3
7.7
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
HS Student Intention (KS) - Attend College
Percent of H.S. Diploma Recipients
Percent of First-Time Freshman*
HS Student Intention (KS) - Attend College
Percent of H.S. Diploma Recipients
Percent of First-Time Freshman*
HS Student Intention (KS) - Attend College
Percent of H.S. Diploma Recipients
Percent of First-Time Freshman*
HS Student Intention (KS) - Attend College
Percent of H.S. Diploma Recipients
Percent of First-Time Freshman*
Percentages
US KS
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
*
Percent of First-Time Freshman does not include Non-Resident Alien or Unknown race categories in the calculation.
Source: NCES, Common Core of Data and IPEDS
Appendix Eight 49
Source: NCES, Common Core of Data and IPEDS
High School Diploma and First-Time Freshman Definitions:
H.S. Diploma Recipient - This is the number of students who received a diploma during the school year and subsequent summer school. These data are taken from the CCD State Non-fiscal Survey. First-Time Entering Freshman - This is the number of full-time and part-time degree-seeking students who enrolled in a postsecondary institution for the first time this year. These data are taken from the IPEDS Fall Enrollment
Survey.
H.S. Intention to Attend College - This is the number of H.S. seniors who planned to attend a four year college or university, a two year college, some other kind of college, or some other type of postsecondary education. These data are taken from a survey conducted by KSDE. Percent of First-time Freshman Calculation - This is calculated by dividing the number in the race category by the total number of white, Asian, American Indian, African American, and Hispanic first-time freshman. For the purpose of this report, neither the unknown or non-resident alien totals were used.
Appendix Eight 50
Goal:
Goal D - Targeted AccessMeasure:
State Need-Based Grants Compared to Federal Pell GrantsRationale:
A state's policy on meeting the needs of its lowest income college-bound students is an indication of the state's commitment to providing access to postsecondary education to lowincome populations. According to NCHEMS*, it is assumed "that a state's methodology for awarding state need-based aid is similar enough to the federal methodology that the students awarded need-based aid in the state are the same students covered by the Pell Grant program." Therefore, comparing the state's funding of need-based grants compared to Pell grants may provide some measure of the state's commitment to providing aid to low-income students. This measure evaluates state need-based grants provided by Kansas with need-based grants provided by other states.
Appendix Eight 51
Chart 8 - State Need-Based Grants
as a Percent of Federal Pell Grants - 2001
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1,000.0
Alaska (0%)
Georgia (0%)
South Dakota (0%)
Wyoming (0%)
Louisiana (.9%)
Alabama (1.1%)
Mississippi (1.2%)
Idaho (1.5%)
Arizona (1.8%)
Hawaii (2.3%)
North Dakota (2.9%)
Utah (2.9%)
Montana (6.6%)
New Hampshire (6.9%)
Delaware (8.3%)
Nebraska (13.2%)
Florida (15.7%)
Oklahoma (16.4%)
Kansas (16.8%)
Texas (18.6%)
Rhode Island (19%)
Missouri (19.2%)
Tennessee (20.2%)
Oregon (22.6%)
New Mexico (25.4%)
Nevada (27.1%)
West Virginia (29.3%)
North Carolina (30.9%)
Arkansas (34.5%)
South Carolina (35.6%)
Kentucky (36.9%)
Ohio (37.5%)
Maine (39.9%)
Maryland (41.9%)
Colorado (42.6%)
Virginia (45.1%)
California (47.2%)
Michigan (48.3%)
Iowa (60.2%)
Wisconsin (65.8%)
Washington (67.6%)
Indiana (78%)
Massachusetts (90.1%)
Vermont (90.9%)
New York (92.3%)
Connecticut (95.7%)
New Jersey (105.9%)
Minnesota (107.9%)
Pennsylvania (110.6%)
Illinois (132.5%)
Millions
State Need-Based Grants Federal Pell Grants
State (% State Grants to Pell)
Source: NCHEMS: Measuring Up: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education, US Department of Education, NASSGAP
Appendix Eight 52
Table 8 - States' Need-Based Grants as a Percent of Federal Pell Grant Aid 2001
State Need-Based Aid as a Percent of Federal Pell Grant Aid (%) State Grant Total ($) Federal Pell Grant Total ($)
Alaska (0%)
- - 7,511,499.00Georgia (0%)
- - 196,708,435.00South Dakota (0%)
- - 28,344,782.00Wyoming (0%)
- - 14,116,985.00Louisiana (.9%)
0.90 1,463,000.00 167,803,233.00Alabama (1.1%)
1.10 1,820,000.00 162,124,617.00Mississippi (1.2%)
1.20 1,563,000.00 127,528,659.00Idaho (1.5%)
1.50 700,000.00 45,303,454.00Arizona (1.8%)
1.80 2,990,000.00 169,167,794.00Hawaii (2.3%)
2.30 535,000.00 22,862,557.00North Dakota (2.9%)
2.90 779,000.00 27,170,994.00Utah (2.9%)
2.90 2,511,000.00 85,805,610.00Montana (6.6%)
6.60 2,204,000.00 33,165,721.00New Hampshire (6.9%)
6.90 1,488,000.00 21,596,988.00Delaware (8.3%)
8.30 1,057,000.00 12,757,032.00Nebraska (13.2%)
13.20 5,975,000.00 45,292,556.00Florida (15.7%)
15.70 66,193,000.00 422,730,483.00Oklahoma (16.4%)
16.40 19,608,000.00 119,685,497.00Kansas (16.8%)
16.80 12,692,000.00 75,385,353.00Texas (18.6%)
18.60 106,382,000.00 571,810,302.00Rhode Island (19%)
19.00 6,164,000.00 32,513,082.00Missouri (19.2%)
19.20 28,058,000.00 145,772,058.00Tennessee (20.2%)
20.20 29,304,000.00 144,810,180.00Oregon (22.6%)
22.60 19,711,000.00 87,334,867.00New Mexico (25.4%)
25.40 17,469,000.00 68,750,338.00Nevada (27.1%)
27.10 6,529,000.00 24,114,800.00West Virginia (29.3%)
29.30 18,217,000.00 62,146,423.00North Carolina (30.9%)
30.90 58,769,000.00 189,906,108.00Arkansas (34.5%)
34.50 30,887,000.00 89,569,464.00South Carolina (35.6%)
35.60 39,098,000.00 109,801,644.00Kentucky (36.9%)
36.90 45,327,000.00 122,739,040.00Ohio (37.5%)
37.50 98,607,000.00 262,646,573.00Maine (39.9%)
39.90 11,961,000.00 29,979,319.00Maryland (41.9%)
41.90 43,665,000.00 104,256,989.00Colorado (42.6%)
42.60 41,884,000.00 98,424,456.00Virginia (45.1%)
45.10 70,260,000.00 155,640,738.00California (47.2%)
47.20 461,914,000.00 978,162,304.00Michigan (48.3%)
48.30 102,164,000.00 211,636,001.00Iowa (60.2%)
60.20 52,632,000.00 87,413,167.00Wisconsin (65.8%)
65.80 65,356,000.00 99,335,122.00Washington (67.6%)
67.60 90,651,000.00 134,195,788.00Indiana (78%)
78.00 110,147,000.00 141,166,979.00Massachusetts (90.1%)
90.10 114,058,000.00 126,613,764.00Vermont (90.9%)
90.90 14,327,000.00 15,761,052.00New York (92.3%)
92.30 645,090,000.00 698,535,021.00Connecticut (95.7%)
95.70 44,364,000.00 46,379,610.00New Jersey (105.9%)
105.90 174,554,000.00 164,820,381.00Minnesota (107.9%)
107.90 120,426,000.00 111,573,663.00Pennsylvania (110.6%)
110.60 325,234,000.00 294,110,323.00Illinois (132.5%)
132.50 359,932,000.00 271,696,267.00Nation (44.2%)
44.20 3,515,729,000.00 7,956,304,184.00Source: NCHEMS: Measuring Up: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education, US Department of Education, NASSGAP
Appendix Eight 53
Performance Agreements
Possible Targets
Appendix Eight 54
Possible Targets:
The Performance Agreements Data Subcommittee (IR Advisory Group) recommends that the statewide measures be collected for three years to establish a baseline before targets are set. The rationale for this is that as a new system, we have not had the availability of comparable data for the entire system, nor have we had a history of looking at data for the entire system. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that system-level data be collected and evaluated for several years to understand where the system is in order to understand where the system should be headed.