Peer Selection Study

May 10, 2011

Today’s Agenda1. Intro/Welcome2. Background on Current Peers3. Role of Peers in Performance

Funding4. Demo of Peer Selection Tool5. Discussion of Criteria for

Selecting New Peers

Purpose of Task Force

To develop a set of official institutional peers for WCU for both internal and external use.

General Functions of Peer Groups

Set Performance Benchmarks

Target Best Practices

Uniform and Consistent Institutional and program Comparisons

Set Minimum Targets for Key Performance Metrics (GA Performance Funding Model)

Parameters for peer selection

•Guidelines from GA say* peer sets must:• include between 22-25 institutions• be the result of campus discussions and include clear rationale•NOT include any UNC campus•NOT include more than ½ of current peers•Use 2009 data

•Information communicated to campus CAOs on 4/14/11 in Chapel Hill. No formal communication from GA has been provided.

Timeline for Selection of New Peers

S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 1110 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 1817 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 2524 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30

S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 1717 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 2424 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 3031

S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S S M T W Th F S1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 2423 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 3130 31

First meeting of WCU Peer Selection Task ForceWork time to establish initial peer setRefinement of peer set; feedback from campus administratorsInitial peer set due to UNC GAFinal peer set due to UNC GAReview and approval of campus peer sets by UNC Board of Governors.

2011April May June

SeptemberAugustJuly

October November December

Current Peers:Who are they and

how did we get them?

Current Peers – Established in 2006

Bloomsburg State UniversityGeorgia Southern UniversityJames Madison UniversityMurray State UniversityNorthern Michigan UniversityRadford UniversitySalisbury UniversityShippensburg University of PA

Sonoma State UniversitySUNY College at BrockportTowson UniversityU. of Wisconsin-LaCrosseU. of Wisconsin-Stevens PointWestern Kentucky UniversityWinona State University

How were current peers selected?

•Process led by UNC GA -Step 1: subset defined based on control, land grant status, broad Carnegie class

Step 2: subset refined based on size, FT/PT mix, distribution of degrees by level, program mix, research emphasis, selectivity

Step 3: negotiations with campuses, identification of ‘competitive peers’

Current Peer Characteristics/Key MetricsInstitution Carnegie Classification HC Enrollment 6-Yr Graduation FY/FT RetentionWestern Carolina University Masters (larger pgms) 9,429 49 76

Sonoma State University Masters (larger pgms) 8,546 53 76

Georgia Southern University Doctoral / Research 19,086 47 81

Murray State University Masters (larger pgms) 10,071 49 72

Western Kentucky University Masters (larger pgms) 20,712 44 74

Salisbury University Masters (larger pgms) 8,204 66 80

Towson University Masters (larger pgms) 21,177 72 84

Northern Michigan University Masters (larger pgms) 9,428 46 73

Winona State University Masters (medium pgms) 8,657 52 75

SUNY College at Brockport Masters (larger pgms) 8,490 61 86

Bloomsburg University of PA Masters (larger pgms) 9,512 64 81

Shippensburg University of PA Masters (larger pgms) 8,253 63 72

James Madison University Masters (larger pgms) 18,971 81 92

Radford University Masters (larger pgms) 8,878 56 78

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Masters (larger pgms) 10,009 69 84

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Masters (medium pgms) 9,209 60 78

Five Year Performance Targets – Set in 2008Phase I - Accountability Plan and Performance Measures Targets

MeasureMost Recent Year --WCU 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Distance Learning 17,425 19,550 21,850 24,000 26,000 29,000Retention - first year 66.4% 69% 73% 75% 75% 76%*Four-year Graduation 26.4% 27% 27.5% 28% 29% 30%*Six-Year Graduation 47.4% 48.5% 49.5% 51.5% 53% 55%*CC Four-Year Graduation 76.0% 76.5% 77% 77.5% 78% 79%Remaining NeedQuintile 1 $ 6,405 $ 5,695 $ 4,765 $ 4,885 $ 5,005 $ 5,125 Quintile 2 $ 5,740 $ 5,480 $ 5,100 $ 5,220 $ 5,340 $ 5,460 Quintile 3 $ 5,074 $ 4,264 $ 4,484 $ 4,704 $ 4,924 $ 5,004

Debt LoadQuintile 1 $ 12,559 $ 12,200 $ 11,750 $ 11,900 $ 10,200 $ 9,500 Quintile 2 $ 12,423 $ 11,950 $ 11,600 $ 11,200 $ 9,800 $ 9,200 Quintile 3 $ 13,896 $ 13,500 $ 13,200 $ 12,300 $ 11,900 $ 12,200

Teacher Education Separate Process n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aTextbooks Finance Process n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* These are the targets previously approved by Gen'l Administration.

Impact of Peers on Funding

Enrollment Growth vs. Performance Funding

Enrollment Growth

• Priority = Student Access• Change model based on SCH

projections• 10% cost factor applied to

primarily UG institutions (incl. WCU)

• WCU as a ‘Focused Growth’ campus

• No restraints on growth• Peer performance averages

NOT a hindrance to funding

Performance Funding

• Priority = Student Success (i.e., retention, graduation, degree production, etc.)

• Elimination of ‘Focused Growth’ status

• Current 10% UG cost factor replaced by factors for diseconomies of scale/service of low SES students

• New UG cost factors to recognize retention (5%), graduation (5%), and degree production (10%)

Relation of Performance to Growth

Enrollment Growth/ChangeOptions for Growth/Change*

Freshman Enrollment None, Restricted, NormalRetention Improvement Enrollment None, Restricted, NormalAA Transfer Enrollment None, Restricted, NormalOther Transfer Enrollment None, Restricted, NormalGraduate Enrollment Change in Relationto Undergraduate Performance

None, Restricted, Normal

*Growth rates at different campuses vary, so this depends on past growth/change levels. The overall budgetary situation in the State may require redefinition of ‘normal’.

Application of UG Cost Factors Based on Performance

Performance-Related Funding OptionsRelated to Retention Yes, NoRelated to Graduation Yes, NoRelated to Degree Production and Efficiency

Yes, No

Related to Overall High Performance Yes, No

WCU’s Status Relative to New Funding Model

Potential Characteristics for Peers

Institutional Characteristics

• Region• Level• Control• Highest Degree

Level• Locale• Carnegie Class• Size

Student Characteristics

• Total Headcount/FTE• % UG/GR• % Minority• Persistence• Student:Faculty ratio• SAT/ACT Pctiles• Selectivity

Student Finances

• % Receiving Aid (grants, Pell, loans)

• Avg. Amt. of Aid (grants, Pell, Loans)

• Tuition and Fees (UG, GR, in-state, out-of-state)

Faculty & Expenses

• # instructional faculty• % FT instructional

faculty• Avg. Faculty Salary• % Expenditures

(Instruction, Research, Public Service)

Degrees Awarded

• # Awarded• Degrees/Avg. 100 HC

enrollment• % by level (Bacc,

Masters, Doctoral)• % by Discipline

categories (Human/Soc. Scie, Educ., Agric/STEM, Bus/Pub. Adm, Commun/Art, Hleath Professions, etc.

Peer Selection Tool - Demo

http://fred.northcarolina.edu/pub/html/peers.html

Questions for Discussion•As we look at criteria for peer selection, on what should we focus?•What criteria are most important as we move forward? •What trade-offs are we willing to make as we selectively weight certain criteria?•What should be the role, if any, of ‘competitive peers’?

Institutional Characteristics

Characteristic

High Importance

(8-10)

ModerateImportance

(5-8)

Low Importance

(1-4)

Not Important

(0)Filter(99)

Region–SELevel–4+ yrsControl–PublicHighest degree level-DoctorsLocale-RuralCarnegie-Master’s LargeSize-5-9,999HBCU-No

Student Characteristics

Characteristic

High Importance

(8-10)

ModerateImportance

(5-8)

Low Importance

(1-4)

Not Important

(0)Total Headcount

Total FTE

6-Yr FTE Growth Rate

% UG FTE/% GR FTE

% Minority

% over/under 25 years

6-Yr Graduation Rate

4-Yr Graduation Rate

FY/FT Retention Rate

Student:Faculty Ratio

25th Pctile SAT/ACT

75th Pctile SAT/ACT

Selectivity

Student Finances

Characteristic

High Importance

(8-10)

ModerateImportance

(5-8)

Low Importance

(1-4)Not Important

(0)% UG Receiving Grant Aid

Avg. Amt. of Grant Aid

% UG Receiving Pell

Avg. Amt. of Pell

% UG Receiving Federal Loans

Avg. Amount of Federal Loans

In-State UG Tuition & Fees

Out-of-State UG Tuition & Fees

In-State GR Tuition & Fees

Out-of-State GR Tuition & Fees

Faculty and Expenses

Characteristic

High Importance

(8-10)

ModerateImportance

(5-8)

Low Importance

(1-4)Not Important

(0)Total Instructional Faculty

% of FT Instructional Faculty

Avg. Faculty Salary

% Expenditures on Instruction% Expenditures on Research

% Expenditures on Public Service

Degrees Awarded

Characteristic

High Importance

(8-10)

ModerateImportance

(5-8)

Low Importance

(1-4)Not Important

(0)# Degrees Awarded

Degrees/Avg. 100 HC Enrollment

% Bachelors

% Masters

% Doctors

% Human. & Soc. Scie.

% Education

% Agric. & STEM

% Business & Pub. Admin.

% Communication & Art

% Health Professions