S YSTEM P ERFORMANCE F UNDING P ROGRAM January 2005 Administration Building Dixon University Center

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FUNDING PROGRAM

January 2005

Administration BuildingDixon University Center

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Chancellor Hample

Purposes of the Workshop

President Grunenwald

Distributed Materials

A Copy of this PresentationGlossary of Terms (in Order of Presentation)

The Accountability MatrixPerformance Funding Naming Conventions

Distributed Prior to the Meeting:

Performance Funding Guidelines (Board of Governors)Performance Funding Definitions and Documentation

Glossary of Terms (in Alphabetical Order)Peer Institutions by University

PA Public Peer InstitutionsCSRDE Peer Institutions

Presentation Agenda Overview

Morning Session: 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Accountability ObjectivesData Collection and Data ProcessingPerformance Evaluation MethodologyThere will be a 15 minute break around 11:00 a.m.

Lunch: 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Afternoon Session: 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.Performance Funding MethodologyThere will be a 15 minute break around 2:15 p.m.

Closing Comments: 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.Chancellor and University Presidents

Morning Session Topics Covered

Review of Accountability Objectives:System Accountability and Performance Funding ProgramsSystem Strategic Plan

Data Collection and Data Processing:Data Collection and Processing Data Definitions and Documentation Question and Answer Period

Performance Evaluation Methodology:Development of Baselines, Benchmarks and System Performance TargetsQuestion and Answer Period

System Performance Funding Program

Board of Governors approved the original System Performance Funding Program in 2000

Substantial revisions were made to the program in 2002To align the program with the System Accountability Plan

Eight of the 17 measures used in the System Accountability Plan (SAP) were identified for use in performance funding

and a method for allocation was described.

Since 2002, the Program has been expanded to includeEvaluation based on Benchmark comparisonsEvaluation based on System Performance Target

comparisons

The Accountability Matrix and

Accountability Measures

Accountability Matrix

System Values:Stimulating Intellectual Growth; Applying Knowledge;Serving the Common Good; Fostering Citizenship, Social

Responsibility, & Diversity; and, Practicing Stewardship

Standards of Performance:Enhancing Organizational Effectiveness; Pursuing and

Rewarding Excellence; and, Enhancing Operational Efficiency

Organizes Accountability Measures and Narrative Assessment

Statements relative to System Values and Standards

The Accountability Measures

(1) Degrees

Awarded

(2) Persistence

Rates (3) Accredited Programs

(4) 4 & 6 year

Graduation Rates

(5) Faculty

Productivity(6) Distance Education

(7) PRAXIS (Teacher exams)

(8) Internships

(9) Transfers from Community

Colleges (or Associate

degrees awarded)

(10) Diversity of Entering

Class

(11) Minority Enrollment

(12) Staff and Faculty

Diversity

(13) Programs with few

Graduates

(14) Personnel Ratio

(15) Private Support

(16) Instructional

Costs/FTES

(17) Faculty with

Terminal Degrees

The Performance Funding Measures

(1) Degrees Awarded (by level);

(2) Two-Year Persistence Rates (overall and by ethnicity);

(3) Six-Year and Four-Year Graduation Rates (overall and by ethnicity);

(4) Faculty Productivity (student credit hours/full-time equivalent faculty);

(5) Faculty Diversity (Minority Faculty - fall semester only);

(6) Personnel Ratio (Total E&G Compensation/Total E&G Expenditures);

(7) Cost Per FTES (annualized undergraduate and graduate); and(8) Full-Time Tenured and Probationary Non-tenured (tenure track)

Faculty with Terminal Degrees.

The 8 Measures Are:

Data Collection and Data Processing

The purpose of this section is to review the process of data collection through

the calculation of the measures

Data Collection and Data ProcessingTopics Covered

Historical Context for Performance Funding Measures

Data Collection PracticesEdit Checks, University Review and ReconciliationData SubmissionsOutliers and Missing Data

Data Definitions and Calculation of Measures

Question and Answer Period

Historical Context for Performance Funding Measures

PASSHE has been reporting data on performance measures for many years.

Some measures have been reported each year in the Factbook since the 1980’s.

24 Performance Indicators were developed in 1998, including:

Second Year PersistenceSix-Year Overall Graduation RateSix-Year Underrepresented

Graduation RateUnderrepresented Racial/Ethnic

FacultyInstructional Costs (Undergraduate

& Graduate)

Historical Context for Performance Funding

MeasuresPerformance and Outcomes Plan

Adopted by Board of Governors in 2000

Set three year targets set for both quantitative and qualitative measures

Quantitative measures included:Faculty productivitySecond year persistenceMinority faculty

Data Collection Practices

Data Collection, Data Integrity, University

Review and Reconciliation

Data CollectionGeneral Observations

Data submitted by the universities To be used in constructing the measures.

External data sourcesInclude state and federal reporting bodies as well as university consortiums and private agencies.

Definitions and criteria are regularly reviewed To ensure relevance, consistency and comparability (particularly for external benchmarking data sources).

Data CollectionGeneral Observations

System data collection has evolved

More comprehensive and integrated; trends that will continue with the implementation of Campus Management

Future improvements

Web-based tools and applications will enable staff at each university to see their data and predict performance evaluations before report is distributed


Data Collection PracticesTopics Covered

Data Integrity

Types of Data Requests

Sources of Data

Internal Data

External Data

Data Collection Process

Data Collection PracticesData Integrity

Universities are the source of all internal data

Submissions are documented and audit trails are established

Edit checking and reconciliation of data are next steps in the process

Data loaded to the Data Warehouse are reviewed by each University

University data is periodically audited

Internal Review Group Data Audits


Data Submissions

Data Collection PracticesTypes of Data Requests

Regular/Recurring:Annual Data Collection PlanSubmissions to National and State Agencies

Ad Hoc:Special RequestsExtraction and Compilation of National Databases

Data Collection PracticesSources of Data

Internal Sources (University Submissions)Student DataCompletionsTerminal DegreesCommon Cost AccountingFinancial Information (FIN) Report

External SourcesConsortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE)

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems(NCHEMS)


Internal DataStudent and Completions Data

Submitted multiple times each year

Terminal Degree DataSpecial request made each Spring

Common Cost Accounting DataSubmitted in December and reconciled through the Spring

Internal Financial DataFinancial Information (FIN) Report submitted;

Report is official once audits are completed.


External DataIPEDS

Data are obtained by using IPEDS Peer Analysis System

Degrees Awarded - IPEDS Completions and IPEDS Fall Enrollment

Faculty Diversity - IPEDS Fall Staff

Personnel Ratio - IPEDS Finance

CSRDEDatabase is purchased annually from CSRDE

Used for Second Year Persistence and Graduation – Four Year and Six Year

Data Collection Practices Data Collection Process

1.Data Submission and/or Extraction

2.Data Loading (to Staging Area)

3.Edit Checks and Error Reports

4.University Reviews

5.Resubmission Process (if required)

6.Reconciliation and Acceptance

7.Data Loading to Data Warehouse


Student and Completions SubmissionsData submitted via FTP server

Loaded into staging area; edit checks run

If inconsistencies are found, error report is generated

University reviews error report

Data is reconciled and a new resubmission is submitted

Process begins again until no errors are found

Data loaded to data warehouse


Terminal Degree Submissions

University provided with a list of faculty as of freeze date

EIS supplies data from HRIS or SAP-HR

Data are updated by the university

Submitted and loaded into a staging area where edit checks are run

If errors are found they are corrected

Data loaded to the data warehouse


Common Cost Accounting SubmissionsData submitted via FTP server

Data loaded into staging area; edit checks are run

If inconsistencies are found; error report is generated and sent to University contact person

Process repeats until no errors are found

Data is accepted by University

Loaded into data warehouse

Data Collection PracticesFinancial Information Reports (FIN)

Data submitted to Office of the Chancellor

Submitted to Administration and Finance

Edit checks run by Administration and Finance

If inconsistencies are found, they are communicated to universities and corrected

FIN Report data available for use after financial audits

Data Processing:Outliers and Missing

Data

Data Processing Treating Outliers and Incorrect or Missing Data for

Benchmark Comparisons

Outliers (in Benchmark Comparison Data):Reported data values that are sufficiently extreme to cause skewed results for the calculated average and standard

deviation of comparison groups.

Inclusion of outliers would cause an inappropriate comparison of performance, therefore they are excluded.

A statistical rule is used that excludes data that are in excess of 2.8 standard deviations (above or below the average)

Incorrect or Missing Data:Occasionally, peer data may be missing or in error. If correct data cannot be obtained, the peer is excluded.

Data Definitions and Calculation of

Measures

In this portion of the presentation

Review sub-measures and definitions for each of the 8

measures

Provide representative calculations for each

measure using university data



National (federal) definitions used whenever possibleFor some measures, System definitions are used (e.g., Common Cost Accounting)

Benchmarks and System Performance Targets referencedValues for Benchmarks and System Performance Targets provided, but discussion will be deferred until later in the workshop

Numerical examples providedFor each sub-measure, examples of actual data and calculations will be presented

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #1: Degrees

AwardedFour Sub-Measures

Bachelor’s, Masters Number and Degree to Enrollment Ratio for each

Includes All degrees awarded and submitted by universities between 7/1-6/30 of current fiscal year

Bachelor’s DegreeAn award (baccalaureate or equivalent degree) that normally requires at least four but not more than five years of full-time equivalent college-level work.

Masters DegreeAn award that requires the successful completion of a program of study of at least the full-time equivalent of one or more academic years of work beyond the bachelor's degree.

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #1: Degrees

AwardedFTE for Degree to Enrollment Ratio

Includes all Fall undergraduate or graduate, not just degree-seeking students

BenchmarkIPEDS data used for institutional peers for Benchmark

System Performance TargetFor Degree to Enrollment Ratios

Bachelor’s 21.5% Master’s 67.0%

Degree to Enrollment RatioBloomsburg University

Measure #1: Degrees Awarded

Degrees Awarded: Number - Bachelor's 2003-2004 1,539

Fall 1998 6,562

Fall 1999 6,515

Fall 2000 6,509

Undergraduate FTE Average 6,528.8

Degree to Enrollment Ratio - Bachelor's Calculation 23.57%

Degrees Awarded: Number - Masters 2003-2004 308

Fall 2002 385.6

Fall 2003 437.4

Graduate FTE Average 411.5

Degree to Enrollment Ratio - Masters Calculation 74.76%

Undergraduate FTE

Graduate FTE

Measure #1: Degrees Awarded

Bachelor’s Degree to Enrollment Ratio

(1) Count Applicable Bachelor Degrees

Awarded = 1,539

(2) Three-Year Average of Undergraduate

FTE = 6,528.8

(3) Degree to Enrollment Ratio = (1,539 /

6,528.8) = 23.57%

Masters Degree to Enrollment Ratio

(1) Count Applicable Masters Degrees Awarded

= 308

(2) Two-Year Average of Graduate FTE = 411.5

(3) Degree to Enrollment Ratio = (308 / 411.5) =

74.76%

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #2: Second

Year PersistenceFour Sub-Measures:

Number of persisters (Overall and Black and Hispanic combined)

Retention Rate (Overall and Black and Hispanic combined)White and Hispanic used for Cheyney

IncludesAll fall semester, first-time, full-time baccalaureate degree seeking freshmen (as coded and submitted by universities)

Baccalaureate degree students who become associate degree students before they start their second year are counted in the cohort and as persisters

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #2: Second Year

Persistence

Persisting studentCohort student who is still enrolled in the institution the following fall semester

Second Year Retention RateThe number of cohort students still enrolled at the institution at the beginning of the subsequent fall semester divided by the number in the cohort group

BenchmarkBased on national cluster from CSRDE by SAT selectivity and Carnegie Classification, based on fall 2002 average combined SAT score

System Performance Target Overall and Minority Rate 79.0%

Average SAT Scores, Selectivity and Benchmark Averages

Retention4 Year Grad

Rate6 Year Grad

Rate

Bloomsburg 1,015 MA Moderate Selective 73.84% 17.88% 42.49%

California 969 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

Cheyney 760 MA Less Selective HBCU 74.63% 19.45% 40.44%

Clarion 959 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

East Stroudsburg 963 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

Edinboro 944 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

Indiana 991 Doctoral Moderate Selective 75.60% 20.76% 48.21%

Kutztown 985 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

Lock Haven 964 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

Mansfield 980 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

Millersville 1,053 MA Selective 78.45% 25.09% 50.83%

Shippensburg 1,046 MA Selective 78.45% 25.09% 50.83%

Slippery Rock 962 MA Less Selective 70.43% 13.11% 36.58%

West Chester 1,045 MA Selective 78.45% 25.09% 50.83%

UniversityFall 2002

SAT AverageSelectivity Category

Benchmark Averages for Appropriate Peer Cluster (CSRDE Data)

Measure #2: Second Year Persistence Overall, Black and Hispanic Combined,

Millersville University

Overall Black Hispanic Black and Hispanic

Entering Cohort Fall 2002 1,262 120 43 163

Students Persisting - Overall in Fall 2003

1,023 86 29 115

Retention Rate - Overall and Black and Hispanic

81.06% 71.67% 67.44% 70.55%

Measure #2: Second Year Persistence

Overall Retention Rate

(1) Count of Entering Cohort = 1,262

(2) Count of Persisting Students (Fall

Freeze) = 1,023

(3) Overall Retention Rate = (1,023 / 1262) =

81.06%

Minority Retention Rate

(1) Count of Minority Entering Cohort = 163

(2) Count of Persisting Students (Fall Freeze)

= 115

(3) Minority Retention Rate = (115 / 163) =

70.55%

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #3:

Graduation – 4 and 6 YearEight Sub-Measures

Number of graduates and graduation rate for all students and Black and Hispanic combined (4 year and 6 year)

White and Hispanic combined for Cheyney

Includes

All first-time, full-time baccalaureate degree seeking freshmen (as coded and submitted by universities)

Graduates from fall, spring and summer commencements (through August 2003 graduation)

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #3:

Graduation – 4 and 6 YearSpecial cases

Associate degree completers who begin as baccalaureate degree-seeking freshmen are counted in cohort but NOT as graduates unless they go on and earn a bachelor’s degree

Students who begin in cohort but transfer and graduate elsewhere (even in another System university) are counted in cohort but NOT as graduates

Students not in the cohort who earn a bachelor’s degree (e.g., transfers) are NOT included in number of graduates or graduation rate

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #3: Graduation – 4

and 6 YearGraduation rate

The number of graduated cohort students divided by the total number in the cohort group

Totals can varyDue to changes in student ethnicity and exclusions to cohort

BenchmarkBased on national cluster from CSRDE by SAT selectivity, based on fall 2002 average SAT score

System Performance TargetsFour year 30.0%Six year 55.0%Same targets for Overall and Black & Hispanic combined (White & Hispanic)

Measure #3: Graduation – 4 and 6 Year Overall and Black and Hispanic combined,

West Chester University

Four Year Graduation Rate

Overall Black HispanicBlack and Hispanic


Graduated by Fall 2003 437 22 1 23

Percent Graduated by Fall 2003

25.54% 15.28% 5.88% 14.29%

Six Year Graduation Rate Overall Black HispanicBlack and Hispanic


Graduated by Fall 2003 931 65 14 79

Percent Graduated by Fall 2003

59.07% 46.10% 40.00% 44.89%

Measure #3: Graduation – 4 Year

Overall Graduation Rate

(1) Count Entering Cohort (Fall Freeze) =

1,711

(2) Count Initial Cohort Students Graduated

= 437

(3) Percent of Students Who Graduated =

(437/1,711) = 25.54%

Minority Graduation Rate

(1) Count Entering Cohort (Fall Freeze) = 161

(2) Count Initial Cohort Students Graduated = 23

(3) Percent of Students Who Graduated = (23 /

161) = 14.29%

Measure #3: Graduation – 6 Year

Overall Graduation Rate

(1) Count Entering Cohort (Fall Freeze) =

1,576

(2) Count Initial Cohort Students Graduated

= 931

(3) Percent of Students Who Graduated =

(931/1,576) = 59.07%

Minority Graduation Rate

(1) Count Entering Cohort (Fall Freeze) = 176

(2) Count Initial Cohort Students Graduated = 79

(3) Percent of Students Who Graduated = (79 /

176) = 44.89%

Data Definitions and Calculations Measure #4: Faculty

Productivity (Student credit hours per FTE instructional faculty)

Measure #4 has no sub-measures.

Instructional faculty includes teaching faculty and release time for department chairs, assistant department chairs, graduate program coordinators, and internship coordinators (Common Cost Accounting standard)

Data SourceUniversities submit student, cost, and faculty workload data via Common Cost Accounting submission (2002-03 data used for current year)

Data Definitions and Calculations

Measure #4: Faculty Productivity

One credit hour15 contact hours, represents 50 minutes of instruction per week

One FTE faculty12 contract hours per semester, 24 per year. Full and part-time faculty included

BenchmarkSystem average of 545.95 (excludes outliers of California and Cheyney)

System Performance Target565.0

Measure #4: Faculty Productivity Slippery Rock University

2002-03Total Credit

HoursFTE Instructional

Faculty

Total Credit Hours per FTE Instructional

FacultySlippery Rock University 211,976.0 378.47 560.09

Measure #4: Faculty Productivity

Credits Per Instructional FTE Faculty

(1) Total Credit Hour Production = 211,976.0

(2) Sum of FTE Instructional Faculty =

378.47

(3) Faculty Productivity = (211,976 / 378.47) =

560.09


Measure #5: Employee DiversityMeasure #5 Sub-Measures

Number of minority faculty membersPercent of faculty who are minority (fall 2003)

Includes Full-time, tenured and tenure-track individuals (instructional and non-instructional)

Ethnic groupsBlack, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American (White used instead of Black for Cheyney)

Source of dataHRIS

BenchmarkBased on institutional peers

System Performance Target 15.0%

Measure #5: Employee Diversity East Stroudsburg University

Fall 2003 FacultyEthnicity On Tenure Track Tenured

American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 1 2Asian or Pacific Islander 2 4 6

Black Non-Hispanic 2 16 18Hispanic 2 3 5

White Non-Hispanic 46 163 209Minority 7 24 31

Total 53 187 240Calculated 12.92%

Tenure StatusTotal

Measure #5: Employee Diversity

Percent of Faculty who are Minority

(1) Overall Count of Faculty = 240

(2) Count of Minority Faculty = 31

(3) Faculty Diversity = (31 / 240) = 12.92%


Measure #6: Personnel Ratio (inverted measure)Measure #6 (no Sub-Measures)

Total Personnel Compensation Costs as a percent of Total Expenditures and Transfers (2002-03)

Sources of dataFIN reports and IPEDS Finance for institutional peers

Measure was modified in 2001-02 to conform to GASB requirements

BenchmarkBased on institutional peers

System Performance Target73.0%


Measure #6: Personnel Ratio Formula(1) Numerator = [E&G Total Personnel Compensation]+[Restricted Total Personnel Compensation]+[Plant Total Personnel Compensation]-[E&G Compensated Absence adjustment - Sick]-[E&G Compensated Absence adjustment - Annual]-[E&G Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go]-[Restricted Compensated Absence adjustment - Sick]-[Restricted Compensated Absence adjustment - Annual]-[Restricted Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go]-[Plant Compensated Absence adjustment - Sick]-[Plant Compensated Absence adjustment - Annual]-[Plant Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go]

(2) Denominator = [E&G Total Expenditures and Transfers]+[Restricted Total Expenditures and Transfers]-[E&G Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go]-[E&G Student Aid Expense]-[Restricted Student Aid Expense]

(3) Personnel Ratio = [Numerator]/[Denominator]

Personnel Ratio CaliforniaRestricted530 Compensated Absence adjustment - Sick $0531 Compensated Absence adjustment - Annual $0562 Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go $0Total Personnel Compensation $2,109,168Plant Fund530 Compensated Absence adjustment - Sick $0531 Compensated Absence adjustment - Annual $0562 Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go $0Total Personnel Compensation $43,914E&G530 Compensated Absence adjustment - Sick $556,865531 Compensated Absence adjustment - Annual $12,623562 Postretirement in Excess of Pay-as-you-go $1,521,604Total Personnel Compensation $53,290,349Numerator $53,352,339

E&G695 - Student Aid Expense $326,070Total Expenditures and Transfers $63,768,198Postretirement in excess of pay-as-you-go reported in Minor Object 562 $1,521,604Restricted695 - Student Aid Expense $3,295,245Total Expenditures and Transfers $8,376,308Denominator $67,001,587Personnel Ratio 79.63%

Measure #6: Personnel Ratio

Measure #6: Personnel Ratio

Personnel Ratio

(1) Total Personnel Compensation = $

53,352,339

(2) Total Adjusted Expenditures = $

67,001,587

(3) Personnel Ratio = ($53,352,339 /

$67,001,587) = 79.63%


Measure #7: Instructional Cost (inverted measure)Measure #7 includes two Sub-Measures:

Undergraduate Cost per FTE StudentMasters Cost per FTE Student

Annualized data from 7/1/02 to 6/30/03

SourceCommon Cost Accounting Report submitted by universities

BenchmarkSystem average: $4,627 for undergraduate, $5,713 for masters

System Performance Targets 3.5% increase per year for undergraduate; 7.0% increase per year for masters


Measure #7: Instructional Cost (inverted measure)

Annualized FTE studentsOne undergraduate FTE student equals 30 credit hours per year; one graduate FTE student equals 24 credit hours per year

Total instructional costGeneral academic instructional costs of programs, including release time for department chairs, assistant department chairs, and internship coordinators (Common Cost Accounting standard)

Measure #7: Instructional Cost (inverted measure)Shippensburg University

Lower Division Cost $17,090,495.77Upper Division Cost $10,106,486.28

Total Undergraduate Cost $27,196,982.05Lower Division FTE 4,454.63Upper Division FTE 1,920.13

Total Undergraduate FTE 6,374.77Instructional Cost:

Undergraduate Cost per FTE Student

$4,266

Total Masters Instructional Cost $3,161,569.40Masters FTE 505.71

Instructional Cost: Masters Cost per FTE Student

$6,252

Measure #7: Instructional Cost (inverted measure)

Undergraduate Cost per FTE

(1) Total Undergraduate Cost = $ 27,196,982

(2) Total Undergraduate FTE = 6,374.77

(3) Undergraduate Instructional Cost =

($27,196,982 / 6,374.77) = $4,266

Masters Cost per FTE

(1) Total Masters Cost = $ 3,161,569

(2) Total Masters FTE = 505.71

(3) Masters Instructional Cost = ($3,161,569 /

505.71) = $6,252


Measure #8: Faculty Terminal DegreesMeasure #8 (no Sub-Measures)

Percent of full-time permanent tenured and tenure track instructional faculty with terminal degrees (Fall 2003)

Degrees approved are PhD, EdD, DEd, DBA, ScD, JD, and MFACommittee of CAO’s considering inclusion of other terminal degrees

Source

Special data submission from universitiesBenchmark

System average of 80.77%System Performance Target

90.0%

Measure #8: Faculty Terminal Degrees Clarion University, Fall 2003

Number of Full-Time Tenured or Tenure Track Instructional

Faculty with Terminal Degrees

Total Full-Time Tenured of

Tenure Track Faculty

Percent of Full-Time Tenured or Tenure Track Instructional Faculty with

Terminal Degrees215 247 87.04%

Measure #8: Faculty Terminal Degrees

Percent of Tenured or Tenure Track Faculty with

Terminal

Degrees

(1) Count of Tenured or Tenure Track

Instructional Faculty = 247

(2) Count of Tenured and Tenure Track

Instructional Faculty

with Terminal Degrees = 215

(3) Faculty Terminal Degrees = (215 / 247) =

87.04%

Data Definitions, Documentation and the Calculation of Measures

Questions & Answers

Performance Evaluation Methodology

Performance Evaluation MethodologyTopics Covered

Development of Baselines

Review of 4 Prediction Methods

Development of the Baseline

Evaluation and Reporting of Performance

Establishing BenchmarksDevelopment of the Benchmark


Performance Target AttainmentDevelopment of the System Performance Targets


Question and Answer Period



ObjectiveTo develop for each measure historical baselines and

statistical bounds that provide an appropriate expectation of future performance outcomes

CalculationBaselines are calculated by averaging four different

trend estimates, 2 short-term, 2 long-term Seven-year trends,Three-year trends, Two-year change, and Seven-year System trends



Uses each university’s own dataThus, reflects the individual institution’s history

Value of methodologyThe combination of 2 short-term and 2 long-term projections reduces the impact of data anomalies, and no one methodology drives subsequent analysis

Projected baseline values represent expected performanceAssuming no significant changes from the trend line



A detailed description of statistical methodology

Development of BaselinesTopics Covered

The Four Methods of Prediction

Calculating the Baseline

Adding Statistical Bounds

Evaluation of Performance

Performance Evaluation Methodology Development of Baselines

Baselines are unique for each university and each measure

Uses the university’s own dataSeven years of historical data (for the 2003-2004 System

Accountability Report)

Current Year Actual (Year 8) is evaluatedBut not included in the baseline calculations – shown on the

following graphs in yellow

Starting Point, University Seven Years of Historical Data

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26%

8Fall 1997-Fall 2003 (Current

Year)59.07%

Data for Baseline Calculations

Actual Data: Seven Years of History and Current Year Actual

50%

51%

52%

53%

54%

55%

56%

57%

58%

59%

60%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002

Fall 1997-Fall2003 (Current

Year)Actuals

The Four Prediction Methods

Method A Seven Year University Trend

Method BThree Year University Trend

Method CTwo Year University Change

Method DSeven Year System Trend

Method A(Seven Year University Trend)

Unique for each university

Uses the university’s own historical data Seven years of history (for the 2003-2004 System

Accountability Report) and fits the trend of those data points

New data is added each yearThe prior year actual is added to the history

Long-term trends are captured

Method A (Seven Year University Trend)

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals

Method A: 7-Year University

Trend

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 55.11%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 55.48%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 55.85%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 56.21%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 56.58%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 56.95%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 57.32%


Year)59.07% 57.68%


Method A (Seven-Year University Trend)

50%

51%

52%

53%

54%

55%

56%

57%

58%

59%

60%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Method A: 7-Year University Trend

Method B(Three Year University Trend)


Uses the university’s own historical data Uses the last three data points of the university’s own

historical data and fits the trend

In 2003-2004, the System Accountability Report three-year trend is calculated using years 5, 6 and 7 of history

Intermediate term trends are captured

Method B(Three Year University Trend)

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals

Method B: 3 Year University

Trend

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 49.51%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 50.98%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 52.45%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 53.91%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 55.38%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 56.85%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 58.32%


Year)59.07% 59.78%


Method B (Three Year University Trend)

45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

55%

57%

59%

61%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Method B

Method C(Two Year University Change)


Applies the calculated 2 year rate of change (between the two prior years) to the prior year to project the

next year

Reflects short term trends

Method C(Two Year University Change)

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals

Method C: 2 Year Change

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 56.51%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 53.64%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 50.91%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 60.41%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 54.83%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 52.82%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 61.63%


Year)59.07% 55.61%


Method C (Two Year Change)

45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

55%

57%

59%

61%

63%

Fall 1990-Fall 1996

Fall 1991-Fall 1997

Fall 1992-Fall 1998

Fall 1993-Fall 1999

Fall 1994-Fall 2000

Fall 1995-Fall 2001

Fall 1996-Fall 2002

Fall 1997-Fall 2003(Current

Year)

Actuals Method C

Method D(Seven Year System Trend)

Uses historical data for all 14 universitiesSeven years of history (for the 2003-2004 System

Accountability Report) and fits the trend of those data points

Each university has a unique intercept, but all slopes are the same

New data is added each yearThe prior year actual is added to the history

Long term System-wide trends are captured

Method D(Seven Year System Trend)

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals

Method D: 7 Year System

Trend

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 57.32%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 56.95%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 56.58%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 56.21%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 55.84%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 55.47%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 55.10%


Year)59.07% 54.73%


Method D (Seven Year System Trend)

50%

51%

52%

53%

54%

55%

56%

57%

58%

59%

60%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Method D

Resulting Predictions from the 4 Methods

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals


Trend


Trend



Trend

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 55.11% 49.51% 56.51% 57.32%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 55.48% 50.98% 53.64% 56.95%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 55.85% 52.45% 50.91% 56.58%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 56.21% 53.91% 60.41% 56.21%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 56.58% 55.38% 54.83% 55.84%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 56.95% 56.85% 52.82% 55.47%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 57.32% 58.32% 61.63% 55.10%


Year)59.07% 57.68% 59.78% 55.61% 54.73%


Resulting Predictions from the 4 MethodsAlternative Prediction Strategies - Actuals and 4 Projection Methods

45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

55%

57%

59%

61%

63%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Method A Method B Method C Method D

Calculation of the BaselineAverage of Four Prediction Methods

For each year a ‘baseline’ value is calculated:

Baseline for Year X = Sum of 4 Methods for Year X / 4

Sum of 4 methods =

Method A (Seven Year Trend) Predicted Value +Method B (Three Year Trend) Predicted Value +Method C (Two Year Change) Predicted Value +Method D (Seven Year System Trend) Predicted Value

Calculated Baseline as Average of 4 Prediction Methods

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals


Trend


Trend



TrendBaseline

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 55.11% 49.51% 56.51% 57.32% 54.94%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 55.48% 50.98% 53.64% 56.95% 54.26%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 55.85% 52.45% 50.91% 56.58% 53.95%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 56.21% 53.91% 60.41% 56.21% 56.69%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 56.58% 55.38% 54.83% 55.84% 55.66%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 56.95% 56.85% 52.82% 55.47% 55.52%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 57.32% 58.32% 61.63% 55.10% 58.09%


Year)59.07% 57.68% 59.78% 55.61% 54.73% 56.95%


Calculated Baseline as Average of 4 Prediction Methods

45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

55%

57%

59%

61%

63%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Method A Method B Method C

Method D Baseline

Calculation of the Baseline and Bounds

Statistical BoundsCalculated using the standard

deviation of the seven years of university historical data

Upper BoundBaseline + 1 Standard Deviation

Lower BoundBaseline – 1 Standard Deviation

Final Baseline Used for Evaluation of Performance

YearObservations

(Years)Actuals Baseline Lower Bound Upper Bound

1Fall 1990-Fall

199656.51% 54.94% 53.13% 56.74%

2Fall 1991-Fall

199753.64% 54.26% 52.46% 56.07%

3Fall 1992-Fall

199856.92% 53.95% 52.14% 55.75%

4Fall 1993-Fall

199955.87% 56.69% 54.88% 58.49%

5Fall 1994-Fall

200054.33% 55.66% 53.86% 57.46%

6Fall 1995-Fall

200158.96% 55.52% 53.72% 57.33%

7Fall 1996-Fall

200257.26% 58.09% 56.29% 59.89%


Year)59.07% 56.95% 55.15% 58.76%



Final Baseline

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Baseline Lower Bound Upper Bound

Performance Evaluation: BaselinesTarget Attainment Categories

Target Comparison Interpretation

Target Exceeded

Actual performance is at or above the upper bound for measures for which greater values are the preferred outcome (and at or below the lower bound for measures for which lower values are the desired outcome).*

Target Met

Actual performance is within the established bounds (at or above the lower bound and below the upper bound for most measures; the reverse is true for measures for which lower values are desired).

Target Not Met

Actual performance is below the lower bound for measures for which greater values are the preferred outcome (and above the upper bound for measures for which lower values are the desired outcome).*

*These performance funding measures are Personnel ratio and Instructional costs per full-time equivalent student.

Final Baseline

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

Fall 1990-Fall1996

Fall 1991-Fall1997

Fall 1992-Fall1998

Fall 1993-Fall1999

Fall 1994-Fall2000

Fall 1995-Fall2001

Fall 1996-Fall2002


Year)Actuals Baseline Lower Bound Upper Bound


Target Exceeded

Target Met

Target Not Met (below lower bound)

Baseline & Boundaries: SAP Report Presentation

33%

34%

35%

36%

37%

38%

39%

40%

41%

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

Lower Bound Baseline Actuals Upper Bound

Actuals, Baseline, Upper and Lower Bounds

University # DescriptionExplanation or Sub-

Measure

University A 2Second Year

Persistence Rate - Overall

Retention RateFall 2001-Fall

200233.80% 35.80% 34.20% 37.50% Target Not Met

Table 4-2: Summary of Target Attainment 2002-03

MEASURESTime Period

Current Year

Actual

Current Year

Baseline

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Target Attainment

Current year data in Table 4-2

represents the most recent year

data points for the actuals, baseline,

upper & lower bounds.

Baselines and Performance Evaluations

Questions and Answers

Establishing Benchmarks

Categories of External StandardBenchmark Peer Groups

Pennsylvania Department of Education or other state agencies

State-wide Public Averages

System-wide AveragesMost current data from all System Universities

National Cluster AveragesNational sources using selectivity in admissions and institutional type

Institutional Peer Averages

15 peer universities for each of the 14 universities using national data

Establishing BenchmarksBenchmark Average

For each measure, the average and standard deviation of the appropriate peer group are calculated

The benchmark bound (Upper Bound) is calculated by adding one standard deviation to the average

For Personnel Ratio and Instructional Cost per FTE Student (decreasing measures), the benchmark bound (Lower Bound) is calculated by subtracting one standard deviation from the average

Benchmark Performance EvaluationThe university result is compared to the peer average and the benchmark bound

Establishing Benchmarks

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Benchmark Average

Benchmark Upper Bound

Determination of Benchmark Average and Bound

Evaluation Based on BenchmarkComparative Achievement Performance Categories

Benchmark Comparison

For measures that are expected to increase in value over time:

For measures that are expected to

decrease in value over time:*

Benchmark Exceeded

One standard deviation or more above the average level of

performance for the external standard

One standard deviation or more below the average level of


Benchmark Met

Above or equal to the average level of performance for the

external standard but below the average plus one standard

deviation

Below or equal to the average level of performance for the

external standard but above the average minus one standard

deviation

Benchmark Not Met

Below the average level of performance for the external

standard

Above the average level of



Evaluation Based on Benchmark

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

University

University Actuals External Standard Average Average + 1 Standard Deviation

4-Y

ear

Gra

du

ati

on

Ra

te

Performance Relative to an External StandardExample: Comparision of University Performance to the National Average

Benchmark Not Met

Benchmark Met

Benchmark Exceeded

Evaluation Based on BenchmarkInstitutional Peer Averages

University Selected Peers

Degrees Awarded: Degree to Enrollment RatioBachelor's and Masters

Employee Diversity: Percent of Faculty who are Minority

Personnel Ratio: Total Personnel Compensation as a Percent of Total Expenditures and Transfers

Data Sources: IPEDS (National Center for Education Statistics) Surveys

Completions, Fall Enrollment, Fall Staff, Finance

Employee Diversity: Percent of Faculty who are Minority

Example:

East Stroudsburg University

Evaluation Based on BenchmarkInstitutional Peer Averages

University Selected Peers

Peer InstitutionTotal Minority

FacultyTotal

FacultyPercent

MinorityNORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY 4 169 2.37%

WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY 12 274 4.38%FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY 9 194 4.64%PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY 18 241 7.47%

HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY 10 120 8.33%EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY 19 214 8.88%

FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY 20 214 9.35%SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY 16 154 10.39%

SUNY COLLEGE AT CORTLAND 27 231 11.69%WINTHROP UNIVERSITY 26 217 11.98%

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA 22 179 12.29%MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY 19 153 12.42%

SUNY COLLEGE AT OSWEGO 32 257 12.45%EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY 31 240 12.92%

SUNY COLLEGE AT NEW PALTZ 41 251 16.33%CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-BAKERSFIELD 56 225 24.89%

Average of 15 Institutions 10.52%

Standard Deviation of 15 Institutions 5.42%

Benchmark Upper Bound 15.94%

East Stroudsburg UniversityEmployee Diversity: Percent of Faculty who are Minority

East Stroudsburg University Employee Diversity: Percent of Faculty who are Minority

Avg = 10.52%

Bound = 15.94%

12.92%

2%

7%

12%

17%

22%

27%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Peers Average Benchmark Bound East Stroudsburg



National Cluster Averages

Peers Selected by Selectivity Range (Fall 2002 Average Combined SAT Score) and Carnegie

Classification

Data Source: CSRDE (Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange)

Graduation - Four Year and Six Year: Percent of Students who Graduated – Overall and

Minority (Black and Hispanic)

Second Year Persistence: Overall and Minority (Black and Hispanic)

Evaluation Based on BenchmarkNational Cluster Averages

Percent of Students who Graduated in Four Years -

Overall

Example:


Peers: Selective Masters Institutions

Peer Institution Four Year Overall Rate

California State University-San Marcos 9.00%

Humboldt State University 11.90%

University of Michigan-Dearborn 12.60%

University of West Florida 19.80%

Georgia College and State University 20.84%

North Georgia College and State University 24.27%

SUNY College-Potsdam 25.20%

West Chester University 25.54%Rutgers, State University of NJ-Camden 27.10%

Western Washington University 28.80%

Winthrop University 32.40%

Appalachian State University 35.33%

Rowan University 38.30%

University of North Carolina-Wilmington 40.67%

Average of 13 Institutions (also, Lower Bound) 23.93%

Standard Deviation of 13 Institutions 8.99%

Benchmark Upper Bound 32.92%

West Chester UniversityPercent of Students who Graduated in Four Years - Overall


Graduation - Four Year and Six Year: Percent of Students who Graduated in

Four Years - Overall

7%

12%

17%

22%

27%

32%

37%

42%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Four Year Overall Rate

#REF!

Benchmark Bound

West Chester

West Chester UniversityGraduation - Four Year and Six Year: Percent of Students who Graduated

in Four Years - Overall

Avg = 25.09%

Bound = 35.21%

25.54%

7%

12%

17%

22%

27%

32%

37%

42%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Peers Average Benchmark Bound West Chester



System-wide AveragesMost current data from all System Universities.

Instructional Cost: Undergraduate and Graduate (Masters) Cost per FTE

Student

Faculty Terminal Degrees: Percent of Full-time Tenured or Tenure Track

Instructional Faculty

Faculty Productivity: Total Credits per FTE Instructional Faculty

Data Sources: Common Cost Accounting Report, University

Submissions



Example:

All Universities

System-wide Averages

University Masters Instructional Cost

Bloomsburg $5,817

California $4,000

Cheyney $4,193

Clarion $7,160

East Stroudsburg $6,148

Edinboro $6,571

Indiana $7,204

Kutztown $6,393

Lock Haven $4,187

Mansfield $5,460

Millersville $4,592

Shippensburg $6,252

Slippery Rock $6,497

West Chester $5,509

Average of 14 Institutions $5,713

Standard Deviation of 14 Institutions $1,094

Benchmark Lower Bound $4,619


Evaluation Based on BenchmarkSystem-wide Averages


Avg = $5,713

Bound = $4,619

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

CA LO CH MI MA WE BL EA SH KU SL ED CL IN

Masters Instructional Cost Average Benchmark Bound

Benchmark Evaluation Report Presentation

University # DescriptionExplanation or Sub-Measure

University A 1Degree to

Enrollment RatioBachelor's

Institutional Peers

2001-2002 19.20% 23.38% 26.48%Benchmark Not

Met

University A 2Second Year

Persistence Rate - Overall

Retention RateNational Cluster

Fall 2001-Fall 2002

79.02% 74.38% 79.97% Benchmark Met

University A 4Four-Year

Graduation Rate - Overall

Percent of Students who Graduated in

Four Years

National Cluster

Fall 1998-Fall 2002

33.02% 17.34% 24.76%Benchmark Exceeded

University A 5Faculty

ProductivityTotal Credits per FTE Instructional Faculty

System Average

2001-2002 540.17 535.95 564.54 Benchmark Met

University A 10Diversity of

Entering Class

Percent of New Students who are

Black

Public State-wide Average

Fall 2002 5.25% 6.75% 14.65%Benchmark Not

Met

University A 14 Personnel Ratio

Total Employee Compensation as a

Percent of Total Expenditures

Institutional Peers

FY 2001-02 80.61% 73.72% 68.95%Benchmark Not

Met

University A 15 EndowmentRate of Change in Market Value of

Endowment

Institutional Peers

FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02

4.55% -3.88% 2.76%Benchmark Exceeded

University A 16Undergraduate Instructional

Cost

Undergraduate Cost per FTE Student

System Average

FY 2001-02 $4,376 $4,718 $4,282 Benchmark Met

Table 6-2: Summary of Current Year Performance Compared to Benchmarks

MEASURESExternal Standard

Time Period ActualBenchmark

AverageBenchmark

BoundBenchmark Comparison

Type of External Standard

Actual (33.02%) is higher than benchmark upper bound (24.76%) = Benchmark Exceeded

Actual ($4,376) is between the benchmark average ($4,718) and the benchmark upper bound ($4,282) = Benchmark Met

Benchmarking and Performance Evaluations


System Performance Targets


“Leading the Way”System Strategic Plan

Approved by Board of Governors on October 14, 2004 Adds third category of comparison

Quantitative System performance targetsTo be reached by 2009Consistent with the strategic goals and vision of the Plan

Progress and achievementReflected in performance funding program allocations


Designed to raise the level of performanceBy establishing targets for System-wide performance

Established for each measureSets a target for the System average level of performance

Targets set using one of the following:a) External benchmarks,b) System performance projections,c) Top peers for each university, and d) Top five performing System universities for

each measure

The targets and boundsDesigned to be challenging yet achievable

System Performance TargetsPerformance targets are expectations of overall improvement

with some universities expected to improve more than others.

71%

73%

75%

77%

79%

81%

83%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Performance Target-System Average

Current System Average

Current University Actuals

Hypothetical Performance MeasureCurrent Actuals, Current System Average, Performance Target, Upper & Lower

Bounds

System Performance TargetsNumber Measure Sub-Measures

Performance Targets

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

1 Degree to Enrollment Ratio - Bachelor's 21.50% 22.64% 20.36%

1 Degree to Enrollment Ratio - Masters 67.00% 74.19% 59.81%

2 Retention Rate - Overall 79.00% 80.88% 77.12%

2 Retention Rate - Black and Hispanic combined 79.00% 91.08% 66.92%

3Percent of Students who Graduated in Four Years -

Overall30.00% 31.97% 28.03%

3Percent of Students who Graduated in Four Years -

Black and Hispanic combined30.00% 38.79% 21.22%

3Percent of Students who Graduated in Six Years -

Overall55.00% 57.52% 52.48%

3Percent of Students who Graduated in Six Years -

Black and Hispanic combined55.00% 67.30% 42.71%

4 Faculty Productivity Total Credits per FTE Instructional Faculty 565 581.51 548.49

5 Employee Diversity Percent of Faculty who are Minority 15.00% 16.02% 13.98%

6 Personnel RatioTotal Personnel Compensation as a Percent of Total

Expenditures and Transfers73.00% 75.04% 70.96%

7 Masters Cost per FTE Student (annual increase) 7.00% 13.00% 1.00%

7 Undergraduate Cost per FTE Student (annual increase) 3.50% 6.00% 1.00%

8Faculty Terminal

DegreesPercent of Full-time Tenured or Tenure Track

Instructional Faculty90.00% 92.98% 87.02%

Instructional Cost

System Performance Targets, Upper Bound and Lower Bound

Degrees Awarded

Second Year Persistence

Graduation - Four Year and Six Year


71%

73%

75%

77%

79%

81%

83%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


Current University Actuals


Bounds

Comparison to System Performance Target

Evaluation of PerformanceSystem

Performance Targets

evaluation

Exceeded

Met

Not MetTarget is not met if performance is below the lower bound for measures that are expected to increase (above the upper bound for measures that

are expected to decrease*)


How well a university did as compared to the System Performance Targets for the current year

Target is exceeded if performance is at or above the upper bound for measures that are expected to increase (at or below the lower bound for

measures for measures that are expected to decrease*)

Target is met if performance is below the upper bound and equal to or greater than the lower bound around the target (above the lower bound and at or below the upper bound for measures expected to decrease*)

Comparison to System Performance Target

Evaluation of Performance

71%

73%

75%

77%

79%

81%

83%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



Bounds

System Performance Target Not Met

System Performance Target Met

System Performance Target Exceeded

Comparison to System Performance TargetEvaluation of Performance

University Sub-MeasuresSystem

PerformanceTargets

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Current Year Actual

Evaluation

Bloomsburg Degree to Enrollment Ratio - Bachelor's 21.50% 22.64% 20.36% 23.57% Exceeded

Millersville Retention Rate - Black and Hispanic combined 79.00% 91.08% 66.92% 70.55% Met

West ChesterPercent of Students who Graduated in Four

Years - Overall30.00% 31.97% 28.03% 25.54% Not Met

CaliforniaTotal Personnel Compensation as a Percent of

Total Expenditures and Transfers73.00% 75.04% 70.96% 79.63% Not Met

ShippensburgUndergraduate Cost per FTE Student (annual

increase) [converted to university dollar amounts]

3.5% [$4,469]

6% [$4,577]

1% [$4,361]

$4,266 Exceeded

Inverted Evaluations: Total Personnel Compensation as a Percent of Total Expenditures and Transfers and Masters/Undergraduate Cost per FTE Student

System Performance Targets and Performance Evaluations


Afternoon Session Topics Covered

Performance Funding Methodology:Performance and Distribution MethodologyReview of FY 2004-2005 Performance Funding Calculations and Distributions Question and Answer Period

Wrap-up Session: 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Comments:University PresidentsChancellor

Afternoon Session Topics Covered

Afternoon Session: 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Performance Funding Methodology:Performance and Distribution Methodology

Review of FY 2004-2005 Performance Funding Calculations and Distributions Question and Answer Period

Closing Comments: 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Comments:University PresidentsChancellor

Performance Funding Program Guidelines

The distribution of performance funding dollars to performance categories, measures, and sub-measures based on performance is as follows:

Divided equally among the three comparison categoriesInstitutional Improvement (comparison to historical baseline)Comparative Achievement (comparison to benchmarks)Performance Target Attainment (comparison to System

Performance Target).

Within the three performance categoriesDollars are then divided evenly across the eight measures, and, equally across the sub-measures.

Performance Funding Program Guidelines

Distribution to Exceeded vs. Met CategoriesDollars awarded in the Exceeded performance category should be (approximately) twice that awarded in the Met category.

RuleUniversities with performance in the Exceeded category receive an award that is (usually) three times that of those with performance in the Met category.

Size AdjustmentThe total University performance award is adjusted to

University size as measured by full-time equivalent students at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

University Measure Sub-measureFall 2003 FTE Students per University

Baseline/ Target Evaluation

BL Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 7,562.5 Target Exceeded

CL Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 5,822.9 Target Exceeded

ED Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 6,966.2 Target Exceeded

LO Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 4,523.2 Target Exceeded

MI Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 6,821.5 Target Exceeded

SH Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 6,766.7 Target Exceeded

SL Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 7,177.7 Target Exceeded

WE Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 10,643.0 Target Exceeded

CA Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 5,584.3 Target Met

CH Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 1,346.2 Target Met

EA Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 5,348.5 Target Met

IN Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 12,210.0 Target Met

KU Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 8,037.0 Target Met

MA Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 3,114.7 Target Met

8 Universities Exceeded

6 Universities Met

Calculating Allocations to Performance CategoriesCounts of Universities in Exceeded and Met Performance Categories

Total Exceeded Met Not Met

14 8 6 0

$225,747 $180,598 $45,149 $0

91,924 56,284 35,641 0

$180,598 divided by

56,284 equals $3.209

$3.209 $1.267

$45,149 divided by

35,641 equals $1.267

Performance Funding Plan: Allocation Overview

Total FTES in Performance Category (Sum of University

FTES)

Dollars Per FTES for Performance Category

Number of Universities in each Performance Category

Dollars in each of the performance levels

University Measure Sub-measureFall 2003 FTE Students per University

Baseline/ Target Evaluation

BL Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 7,562.5 Target Exceeded

CL Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 5,822.9 Target Exceeded

ED Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 6,966.2 Target Exceeded

LO Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 4,523.2 Target Exceeded

MI Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 6,821.5 Target Exceeded

SH Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 6,766.7 Target Exceeded

SL Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 7,177.7 Target Exceeded

WE Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 10,643.0 Target Exceeded

CA Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 5,584.3 Target Met

CH Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 1,346.2 Target Met

EA Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 5,348.5 Target Met

IN Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 12,210.0 Target Met

KU Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 8,037.0 Target Met

MA Degrees Awarded Number - Bachelor's 3,114.7 Target Met

Total FTES for Universities in

Exceeded Category

= 56,283.8

Calculating Per FTES Allocations to Performance CategoriesTotal FTES in Exceeded and Met Performance Categories

Total FTES for Universities in Met

Category

= 35,640.6

University $/FTES FTES Exceeded Met Not Met Total

BL $3.209 7,562 $24,266 $24,266CL $3.209 5,823 $18,684 $18,684ED $3.209 6,966 $22,353 $22,353LO $3.209 4,523 $14,514 $14,514MI $3.209 6,822 $21,888 $21,888SH $3.209 6,767 $21,712 $21,712SL $3.209 7,178 $23,031 $23,031WE $3.209 10,643 $34,150 $34,150

56,284 Sub-totalCA $1.267 5,584 $7,074 $7,074CH $1.267 1,346 $1,705 $1,705EA $1.267 5,348 $6,775 $6,775IN $1.267 12,210 $15,468 $15,468KU $1.267 8,037 $10,181 $10,181MA $1.267 3,115 $3,946 $3,946

35,641 Sub-total$0.000 0 $0 $0

Totals 91,924 $180,598 $45,149 $0 $225,747

Final Allocation to 14 Universities for the Sub-Measure

Performance Funding Plan: Allocation Overview

X equals

X equals

Allocation Baseline/Target Attainment Pool for Measure (1) Degrees Awarded

Total Performance Funding Pool $21,671,750Baseline/Target Funding Pool $7,223,917Funding Pool for this Measure $902,990

Total Dollars per sub-measure

# In Category

Shares%

Allocation

Total Dollars Performance

Category

Fall 2003 FTE

Students$/FTE

$225,747.40 14 30 100.0% 91,924.4

EXCEEDED 8 24 80.0% $180,597.92 56,283.8 $3.21MET 6 6 20.0% $45,149.48 35,640.6 $1.27

$225,747.40 14 22 100.0% 91,924.4

EXCEEDED 4 12 54.5% $123,134.94 27,118.3 $4.54MET 10 10 45.5% $102,612.45 64,806.1 $1.58

$225,747.40 14 30 100.0% 91,924.4

EXCEEDED 8 24 80.0% $180,597.92 60,318.5 $2.99MET 6 6 20.0% $45,149.48 31,605.9 $1.43

$225,747.40 13 19 100.0% 87,401.2

EXCEEDED 3 9 47.4% $106,932.98 20,965.5 $5.10MET 10 10 52.6% $118,814.42 66,435.7 $1.79

Total $902,989.58

Sub- Measure : Bachelor's Degrees, Percent

Sub- Measure : Masters Degrees, Number

Sub- Measure : Masters Degrees, Percent

Sub- Measure : Bachelor's Degrees, Number

Total Allocation for Measure by University: Degrees Awarded - Baseline/Target Attainment

Outcome Dollars $/FTE Outcome Dollars $/FTE Outcome Dollars $/FTE Outcome Dollars $/FTE

BL $94,772 7,562.5Target

Exceeded$24,266 $3.21

Target Exceeded

$34,339 $4.54Target

Exceeded$22,643 $2.99 Target Met $13,525 $1.79

CA $33,881 5,584.3 Target Met $7,074 $1.27 Target Met $8,842 $1.58 Target Met $7,977 $1.43 Target Met $9,987 $1.79

CH $8,168 1,346.2 Target Met $1,705 $1.27 Target Met $2,132 $1.58 Target Met $1,923 $1.43 Target Met $2,408 $1.79

CL $72,971 5,822.9Target

Exceeded$18,684 $3.21

Target Exceeded

$26,440 $4.54Target


EA $32,450 5,348.5 Target Met $6,775 $1.27 Target Met $8,469 $1.58 Target Met $7,640 $1.43 Target Met $9,565 $1.79

ED $110,372 6,966.2Target

Exceeded$22,353 $3.21

Target Exceeded

$31,631 $4.54Target

Exceeded$20,857 $2.99

Target Exceeded

$35,531 $5.10

IN $93,194 12,210.0 Target Met $15,468 $1.27 Target Met $19,333 $1.58Target


KU $48,761 8,037.0 Target Met $10,181 $1.27 Target Met $12,726 $1.58 Target Met $11,481 $1.43 Target Met $14,373 $1.79

LO $28,137 4,523.2Target

Exceeded$14,514 $3.21 Target Met $7,162 $1.58 Target Met $6,461 $1.43

Target Not Met

$0 $0.00

MA $23,773 3,114.7 Target Met $3,946 $1.27 Target Met $4,932 $1.58Target


MI $87,906 6,821.5Target


Target Exceeded

$20,424 $2.99Target

Exceeded$34,793 $5.10

SH $74,206 6,766.7Target

Exceeded$21,712 $3.21

Target Exceeded

$30,725 $4.54 Target Met $9,666 $1.43 Target Met $12,102 $1.79

SL $92,496 7,177.7Target


Target Exceeded

$21,491 $2.99Target

Exceeded$36,609 $5.10

WE $101,902 10,643.0Target


Target Exceeded

$31,866 $2.99 Target Met $19,034 $1.79

Total $902,990

Masters PercentageFTE

StudentsTotal for Measure

Bachelor's Number Bachelor's Percentage Masters Number

Total Allocation for Measure by University: Degrees Awarded - Baseline/Target Attainment

Number Percent Number Percent

BL $94,772 $24,266 $34,339 $22,643 $13,525

CA $33,881 $7,074 $8,842 $7,977 $9,987

CH $8,168 $1,705 $2,132 $1,923 $2,408

CL $72,971 $18,684 $26,440 $17,434 $10,414

EA $32,450 $6,775 $8,469 $7,640 $9,565

ED $110,372 $22,353 $31,631 $20,857 $35,531

IN $93,194 $15,468 $19,333 $36,557 $21,836

KU $48,761 $10,181 $12,726 $11,481 $14,373

LO $28,137 $14,514 $7,162 $6,461 $0

MA $23,773 $3,946 $4,932 $9,326 $5,570

MI $87,906 $21,888 $10,801 $20,424 $34,793

SH $74,206 $21,712 $30,725 $9,666 $12,102

SL $92,496 $23,031 $11,365 $21,491 $36,609

WE $101,902 $34,150 $16,852 $31,866 $19,034

Total $902,990 $225,747 $225,747 $225,747 $225,747

$902,990 Total

65.5%

34.5%

100.0%

$591,264Funding to "Exceeded"

Performance

$311,726Funding to "Met"

Performance

Total for Measure

Bachelor's Masters

System Performance Funding Program Guidelines

Special Cases: Redistribution of unallocated funds

When No University performance falls in either the Met or Exceeded categories

The funding pool for those measures is evenly redistributed to the Met and Exceeded portions of the other measures, depending upon the performance area where this occurs

When no University performance falls in the Exceeded categoryThe total funds for that particular measure are reduced to 1/3

the original allocation to that sub-measure. The remaining 2/3 of these funds are redistributed to the Exceeded portions of the other measures, depending upon the performance area where

this occurs

System Performance Funding Program Guidelines

Special Cases (continued):

In the evaluation of performance relative to historical baseline (individual university target attainment):

if a University’s performance result for a measure is “baseline/target not met”; and,

the University’s performance result for a measure is “System Performance Target Exceeded”; then,

the University’s performance result for comparisons to baseline is modified to “baseline/target met” for the purposes of performance funding.

Allocation of Undistributed

Performance Funds

Allocation of Undistributed Performance Funds

Resulting from no universities performing at an “Exceeded” level

Total Undistributed Funds = $1,954,477

Baseline/Target Attainment = $0

Benchmarking = $902,990

System Performance Target = $1,053,488

$21,671,750.00

$7,223,916.67

$7,223,916.67

$0.00

UniversityTotal Dollars Excluding

Redistribution

Exceeded Dollars Excluding

Redistribution

Share of Exceeded

Total

Redistributed Exceeded Dollars

Met DollarsBaseline / Target Funding Allocation

Bloomsburg $666,559.67 $337,285.20 9.63% $0.00 $329,274.48 $666,559.67

California $410,208.43 $156,559.27 4.47% $0.00 $253,649.16 $410,208.43

Cheyney $242,459.43 $215,733.45 6.16% $0.00 $26,725.98 $242,459.43

Clarion $504,217.67 $218,106.79 6.23% $0.00 $286,110.88 $504,217.67

East Stroudsburg $291,276.30 $92,527.39 2.64% $0.00 $198,748.91 $291,276.30

Edinboro $428,706.82 $219,969.85 6.28% $0.00 $208,736.97 $428,706.82

Indiana $743,442.89 $324,429.52 9.26% $0.00 $419,013.37 $743,442.89

Kutztown $699,250.03 $309,434.23 8.84% $0.00 $389,815.79 $699,250.03

Lock Haven $321,007.54 $144,477.03 4.13% $0.00 $176,530.51 $321,007.54

Mansfield $310,965.25 $161,127.20 4.60% $0.00 $149,838.05 $310,965.25

Millersville $630,897.58 $333,759.34 9.53% $0.00 $297,138.24 $630,897.58

Shippensburg $501,816.50 $118,655.33 3.39% $0.00 $383,161.17 $501,816.50

Slippery Rock $882,025.69 $678,224.80 19.37% $0.00 $203,800.88 $882,025.69

West Chester $591,082.88 $191,943.41 5.48% $0.00 $399,139.47 $591,082.88

Total $7,223,917 $3,502,233 100% $0 $3,721,684 $7,223,917

Total Dollars Allocated to Performance

Unallocated Dollars (available for redistribution)

Allocation of Performance Funding to Baseline/Target Performance

Redistribution of Unallocated "Exceeded" Pool

Total Performance Funding Pool

Baseline/Target Attainment Funding Pool

$21,671,750.00

$7,223,916.67

$6,320,927.08

$902,989.58


Redistribution


Redistribution

Share of Exceeded

Total


Met DollarsBenchmark Funding

Total Funding Allocation

Bloomsburg $581,486.98 $231,117.69 6.69% $60,437.09 $350,369.29 $641,924.07

California $582,199.28 $428,365.79 12.41% $112,017.31 $153,833.49 $694,216.59

Cheyney $86,663.80 $54,732.42 1.59% $14,312.48 $31,931.39 $100,976.29

Clarion $475,480.44 $187,821.80 5.44% $49,115.25 $287,658.64 $524,595.69

East Stroudsburg $222,900.90 $17,663.66 0.51% $4,619.03 $205,237.24 $227,519.93

Edinboro $45,125.28 $23,006.48 0.67% $6,016.18 $22,118.81 $51,141.46

Indiana $281,567.95 $146,832.89 4.25% $38,396.68 $134,735.06 $319,964.64

Kutztown $838,250.81 $656,564.29 19.01% $171,691.04 $181,686.52 $1,009,941.85

Lock Haven $341,397.66 $163,676.30 4.74% $42,801.22 $177,721.36 $384,198.89

Mansfield $144,720.75 $69,972.62 2.03% $18,297.78 $74,748.13 $163,018.53

Millersville $877,627.83 $393,638.63 11.40% $102,936.19 $483,989.20 $980,564.02

Shippensburg $759,979.39 $587,587.45 17.02% $153,653.65 $172,391.94 $913,633.04

Slippery Rock $374,098.29 $133,041.92 3.85% $34,790.36 $241,056.37 $408,888.64

West Chester $709,427.72 $359,103.57 10.40% $93,905.30 $350,324.15 $803,333.01

Total $6,320,927 $3,453,126 100% $902,990 $2,867,802 $7,223,917



Allocation of Performance Funding to BenchmarkingRedistribution of Unallocated "Exceeded" Pool


Benchmark Funding Pool

Allocation of Undistributed Performance FundsBenchmarking Pool = $902,990

Allocation of Undistributed Performance Funds

Benchmarking Pool = $902,990

BL received a total of $231,117.69 in performance funding for exceeding benchmarks (across all measures).

$231,117.69 is 6.69% of $3,453,126, the total Distributed to the benchmark

Exceeded category

Therefore, BL receives $60,437.09 of the pool of undistributed Exceeded

funds of $902,990.

$902,990 * .0669 = $60,437.09

UniversityExceeded Dollars

Excluding Redistribution

Share of Exceeded

Total


Bloomsburg $231,117.69 6.69% $60,437.09California $428,365.79 12.41% $112,017.31

Cheyney $54,732.42 1.59% $14,312.48

Clarion $187,821.80 5.44% $49,115.25

East Stroudsburg $17,663.66 0.51% $4,619.03

Edinboro $23,006.48 0.67% $6,016.18

Indiana $146,832.89 4.25% $38,396.68

Kutztown $656,564.29 19.01% $171,691.04

Lock Haven $163,676.30 4.74% $42,801.22

Mansfield $69,972.62 2.03% $18,297.78

Millersville $393,638.63 11.40% $102,936.19

Shippensburg $587,587.45 17.02% $153,653.65

Slippery Rock $133,041.92 3.85% $34,790.36

West Chester $359,103.57 10.40% $93,905.30

Total $3,453,126 100% $902,990

$21,671,750.00

$7,223,916.67

$6,170,428.82

$1,053,487.85


Redistribution


Redistribution

Share of Exceeded

Total


Met DollarsSystem Performance

Target Funding Allocation

Bloomsburg $726,464.54 $523,086.25 15.05% $158,545.32 $203,378.28 $885,009.86

California $469,873.22 $370,551.46 10.66% $112,312.64 $99,321.76 $582,185.86

Cheyney $749,596.04 $730,423.46 21.01% $221,388.39 $19,172.58 $970,984.43

Clarion $353,347.44 $71,706.61 2.06% $21,733.98 $281,640.83 $375,081.42

East Stroudsburg $76,056.99 $35,282.48 1.02% $10,693.98 $40,774.50 $86,750.97

Edinboro $118,403.96 $85,786.54 2.47% $26,001.55 $32,617.43 $144,405.51

Indiana $372,652.27 $150,360.93 4.33% $45,573.79 $222,291.34 $418,226.06

Kutztown $337,623.55 $98,972.63 2.85% $29,998.20 $238,650.92 $367,621.75

Lock Haven $127,995.55 $55,701.71 1.60% $16,882.96 $72,293.84 $144,878.51

Mansfield $71,584.55 $20,546.92 0.59% $6,227.69 $51,037.63 $77,812.24

Millersville $1,025,386.60 $712,542.33 20.50% $215,968.69 $312,844.27 $1,241,355.29

Shippensburg $750,934.95 $284,057.11 8.17% $86,096.56 $466,877.83 $837,031.51

Slippery Rock $327,679.83 $41,041.22 1.18% $12,439.43 $286,638.61 $340,119.26

West Chester $662,829.33 $295,697.37 8.51% $89,624.67 $367,131.96 $752,454.01

Total $6,170,429 $3,475,757 100% $1,053,488 $2,694,672 $7,223,917



Allocation of Performance Funding to System Performance Target

Redistribution of Unallocated "Exceeded" Pool


System Performance Target Attainment Funding Pool

Allocation of Undistributed Performance FundsBenchmarking Pool = $1,053,488

Performance Funding Allocations

Totals by University

$21,671,750

$19,715,273

$1,956,477


Redistribution

Exceeded Dollars

Excluding Redistribution


Total Exceeded Dollars Including Redistribution

Total Met Dollars

Total Funding Allocation

Bloomsburg $1,974,511 $1,091,489 $218,982 $1,310,472 $883,022 $2,193,494

California $1,462,281 $955,477 $224,330 $1,179,806 $506,804 $1,686,611

Cheyney $1,078,719 $1,000,889 $235,701 $1,236,590 $77,830 $1,314,420

Clarion $1,333,046 $477,635 $70,849 $548,484 $855,410 $1,403,895

East Stroudsburg $590,234 $145,474 $15,313 $160,787 $444,761 $605,547

Edinboro $592,236 $328,763 $32,018 $360,781 $263,473 $624,254

Indiana $1,397,663 $621,623 $83,970 $705,594 $776,040 $1,481,634

Kutztown $1,875,124 $1,064,971 $201,689 $1,266,660 $810,153 $2,076,814

Lock Haven $790,401 $363,855 $59,684 $423,539 $426,546 $850,085

Mansfield $527,271 $251,647 $24,525 $276,172 $275,624 $551,796

Millersville $2,533,912 $1,439,940 $318,905 $1,758,845 $1,093,972 $2,852,817

Shippensburg $2,012,731 $990,300 $239,750 $1,230,050 $1,022,431 $2,252,481

Slippery Rock $1,583,804 $852,308 $47,230 $899,538 $731,496 $1,631,034

West Chester $1,963,340 $846,744 $183,530 $1,030,274 $1,116,596 $2,146,870

Total $19,715,273 $10,431,115 $1,956,477 $12,387,593 $9,284,157 $21,671,750

57.16% 42.84% 100.00%



Allocation of Performance Funding: TOTALSRedistribution of Unallocated "Exceeded" Pool


UniversityBaseline/ Target

BenchmarkingSystem Performance

TargetsTotal

Bloomsburg $666,560 $641,924 $885,010 $2,193,494

California $410,208 $694,217 $582,186 $1,686,611

Cheyney $242,459 $100,976 $970,984 $1,314,420

Clarion $504,218 $524,596 $375,081 $1,403,895

East Stroudsburg $291,276 $227,520 $86,751 $605,547

Edinboro $428,707 $51,141 $144,406 $624,254

Indiana $743,443 $319,965 $418,226 $1,481,634

Kutztown $699,250 $1,009,942 $367,622 $2,076,814

Lock Haven $321,008 $384,199 $144,879 $850,085

Mansfield $310,965 $163,019 $77,812 $551,796

Millersville $630,898 $980,564 $1,241,355 $2,852,817

Shippensburg $501,816 $913,633 $837,032 $2,252,481

Slippery Rock $882,026 $408,889 $340,119 $1,631,034

West Chester $591,083 $803,333 $752,454 $2,146,870

Total $7,223,917 $7,223,917 $7,223,917 $21,671,750

Performance Funding Allocation for Fiscal Year 2004-05

Performance Funding AllocationsTotals by University

System Performance Targets and Performance Evaluations


Closing Comments

University PresidentsChancellor

Documents

S YSTEM P ERFORMANCE F UNDING P ROGRAM January 2005 Administration Building Dixon University Center