the impact of performance-based funding models on ......12 the college payoff: education,...

The impact of performance-based funding

models on university graduation rates in Florida

Institute for Public Policy Studies

University of Denver

Michael Vente

Master of Public Policy Candidate

November 2014

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary: ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Problem Definition: ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Methods: ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Issue Analysis: ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Proposed Solutions: .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Solution 1, Status Quo: ................................................................................................................................................. 17

Solution 2, Punitive-based Approach:........................................................................................................................... 19

Solution 3, Incentive-based Approach: ......................................................................................................................... 22

Solution 4, Mixed Approach: ........................................................................................................................................ 25

Strategic recommendations: .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Enhanced Support Services: .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Weaknesses and limitations: ................................................................................................................................................. 31

Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix 1: Glossary of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix 2: SB 1076: An act relating to K-20 education (2013):.................................................................................... 35

Appendix 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Tier 1 and Tier 2: .................................................................................................... 38

Appendix 4: Statistical Inputs-Status Quo, Tier 1 and Tier 2 ........................................................................................... 40

Status Quo Calculations: ................................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix 5: Statistical Inputs-Solution 2, Tier 1 and Tier 2 ............................................................................................ 45

Solution 2 Calculations: .................................................................................................................................................... 49





Appendix 8: Sensitivity Analysis: .................................................................................................................................... 60

Bibliography: ........................................................................................................................................................................ 96

3

Executive Summary:

"Our Board will no longer accept low graduation rates, high excess hours, or degrees that don’t create jobs or

address workforce needs. Our Board will continue to demonstrate its ability to lead the System as we advance

into the 21st century. We will continue to improve. Not only do I want our System to be the best System in the

country, I want our System to be one of the best Systems in the world."

Mori Hosseini, chairman of the Florida Board of Governors1

The future role and operations of public higher education institutions in the United States face significant

challenges in the 21st century. As policymakers are faced with limited government revenue, universities and

other institutions of higher education are faced with greater accountability. Universities must continually strive

to justify the appropriations they receive from the state. With calls for greater accountability for limited tax

revenue and a desire for efficient government operations, institutions of higher education must use methods of

accountability for the programs they offer and the services they provide to their students.

Institutions of higher education are forced to adapt to this new paradigm through the use of metrics on their

effectiveness as centers for training the nation’s workforce and supporting a knowledge driven economy. These

metrics assess the effectiveness of the institution through a range of indicators including graduation/completion

rate, research expenditures, and grants awarded.

Each state has challenges and goals for their systems of higher education. Since much of the funding and

oversight for institutions of higher education come at the state level, legislators and policymakers in each state

play a vital role in crafting these metrics and goals to reflect their priorities for their higher education systems.

In Florida, the legislature has created the designation of “preeminent” status for universities that meet various

metrics including higher graduation rates for students. With preeminent status comes additional funding to

enhance academic programs, such as faculty salaries or instructional support. Through the establishment of this

designation, the Florida Legislature hopes to encourage all 12 public universities in Florida to raise their

1 Florida university system chairman sets priorities for coming two years. The Tampa Bay Times. Jeffrey Solochek. 1/16/2014.

4

performance a range of indicators used for assessment. Through this approach, policymakers hope that the

entire system of higher education in Florida will be strengthened.

Recently, the Florida Board of Governors (BOG) has discussed reductions in state funding to universities that

do not show improvement in raising their performance in areas identified by policymakers. One key area of

focus for policymakers in Florida is raising the 6-year graduation rate for students to at least 70 percent. Low

graduation rates at Florida’s universities limit the amount of students that successfully complete their

undergraduate education. These low graduation rates limit a student’s ability to obtain higher paying jobs

compared to their high school graduate counterparts. Many policymakers within the Florida Legislature and the

Florida BOG feel that the graduation rate for students at most Florida universities is too low and students

are not fully able to participate in the Florida economy.

In this memorandum, a cost-benefit analysis will determine the effects of an incentive-based approach

rewarding universities for reaching a 70 percent 6-year graduation rate or punitive-based approach punishing

universities that do not meet a 6-year graduation rate. These policy options will inform policymakers in Florida

on the effects of incentive-based and punitive-based state appropriations practices for universities and their

impact on Florida’s system of higher education as a whole. The recommendation of this memorandum is an

incentive-based approach which rewards universities for achieving higher graduation rates.

5

Problem Definition:

For many years, state support for higher education programs has steadily decreased. According to an analysis

by the Chronicle of Higher Education, Florida universities have experienced a 21.6 percent decrease in state

support since 1987.2 The Great Recession of 2008, which caused severe economic contraction in the first

decade of the 21st century, led many state legislatures to lose substantial revenue from the state sales and

income tax. Since the start of the Great Recession in 2008, 48 states have cut spending on higher education by

an average of 26 percent.3 Additionally, the average state is spending $2,026 per student which represents a 23

percent drop in per student funding compared to before the recession.4 As a result of the Great Recession, state

governments had less revenue to fund all government programs. Additionally, state funding has been unable to

keep up with grow in student populations at many state institutions.

Many areas of state budgets such as K-12 spending and health and human services programs continue to grow.

Increasingly, these entitlement programs take up a larger portion of state budgets. According to the National

Association of State Budget Officers, Medicaid costs have increased on average from 10 percent of states’

budgets to 24 percent.5 With continuing growth for programs such as Medicaid and K-12 education,

policymakers have limited state revenue to fund additional programs. Higher education receives a smaller

proportion of limited state revenue because policymakers have sole discretion when appropriating funding for

higher education whereas funding for entitlement programs is mandatory based on federal guidelines.

In response to declining state support, universities have increased tuition for students. In order to attain post-

secondary education, many students are forced to take on debt in the form of student loans. According to the

Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, graduates with loans borrow

2 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 3/03/2014.

3 Recent Deep State Higher Education Cuts May Harm Students and the Economy for Years to Come. Oliff et al, 2013.

4 States Are Still Funding Higher Education Below Pre-Recession Levels. Mitchell, 2014.

5 From Public Good to Private Good: How Higher Education Got to a Tipping Point. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 3/03/2014.

6

an average of $19,300.6 This represents a 60 percent increase in inflation adjusted dollars compared to

graduates in the 1990s.7 According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of adults do not attend college

because of the high cost. Additionally, 57 percent of adults feel the higher education system fails to provide

good value for the cost.8 In Florida, the average tuition and fees for the 2013-2014 school year totaled $6,155.

9

This rate is largely similar at all Florida universities and has remained unchanged for the past three years.

Florida Governor Rick Scott has vetoed attempts to increase tuition at Florida universities because he views

higher tuition rates as a burden to students in terms of higher debt post-graduation and a contributing factor to

lower graduation rates.10

Even with drastically lower tuition when compared to the rest of the United States, six of the eleven state

universities in Florida have graduation rates lower than 50 percent.11

State policymakers find this rate

unacceptably low and have encouraged universities to raise their 6-year graduation rates to provide the state

with more individuals who have completed their post-secondary education. Lower graduation rates at

universities in Florida leads to few students completing their undergraduate education and limits a student’s

ability to attain better paying jobs. Additionally, politicians and policymakers feel pressure from their

constituents who see rising tuition costs for their children and question the value of the education. To address

these concerns, many states have started to incorporate performance-based funding metrics into their system’s

higher education funding formula.

With these statistics, policymakers and governments are confronted with the problem:

The graduation rate for students at most Florida universities is too low and students are not fully able to

participate in the Florida economy.

6 The Student Debt Dilemma: Debt Aversion as a Barrier to College Access. Burdman, 2005.

7 Ibid

8 Is College Worth It? Pew Research, Social and Demographic Trends, 2011.

9Tuition and Fees 2000-2013. Florida Board of Governors, 2014.

10 Governor Rick Scott’s Statement on University Tuition Action. Executive Office of Governor Rick Scott. 2014.

11Grad Rates at Public Universities in Florida Inch Higher. Florida College Access Network. Troy Miller. 3/13/2013.

7

Methods:

In order to assess and implement policy solutions to raise graduation rates in Florida, data on each university’s

current graduation rate is required. The main source of demographic information was the State University

System of Florida’s Board of Governors (BOG), the governing board for all of the public universities in Florida.

Each year, all universities in Florida submit various pieces of information to the state in the form of a

“Factbook”. These Factbooks include enrollment information and demographic information on all students

enrolled at the universities. This information is made available to the public and is available online through the

university itself or through the BOG. Each university’s 6-year graduation rate is among the data submitted to

the BOG through their Factbook. Additionally, enrollment information gathered from the State University

System of Florida’s Board of Governors was cross referenced with information available from each university

and with data submitted to the federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). In cases

where detailed information on individual cohorts was unavailable, specifically the number of seniors preparing

to graduate from an institution, an extrapolation was done. Generally, seniors comprise 25 percent of a

university’s student population. This percentage was chosen based on the trends from universities (like Florida

State University and the University of Florida) where more detailed class information was available.

While increasing graduation rates is a goal sought by all policymakers, the impact of increased graduation rates

must be quantified. In order to quantify the economic impact of changing graduation rates, data on additional

earnings of college graduates was used. Specifically, information from The College Payoff study conducted by

the Center for Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University found that college graduates make on

average $24,100 more per year than high school graduates each year of their working life.12

This premise is

supported by a recent study by Maria E. Canon and Charles S. Gascon from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis

detailing income disparities between a high school graduate and college graduate. In their analysis, Canon and

12

The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings. Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University. Carnevale et al, 2011.

8

Gascon state that a college graduate makes more than $300,000 more in lifetime earnings compared to a high

school graduate.13

In 2013, the Florida Legislature attempted to move to a more performance based funding system for state

universities. This involved the establishment of a system of metrics to designate a university as “preeminent”.

The preeminent state research universities program was created with the passage of SB 1076.14

In order to be

classified as a preeminent institution, universities had to meet at least 11 or the following 12 metrics as outlined

by policymakers.15

According to these metrics, only Florida State University and the University of Florida

qualified for an additional $15 million per year from the state. One metric necessary for preeminent designation

is a 6-year graduation rate of 70 percent or higher for full-time, first-time-in-college students, as reported

annually to the IPEDS.16

Designation as a preeminent university and the additional dollars associated with that

designation could be used to encourage universities to increase their graduation rates.

In order to quantify the effect of increasing or decreasing state appropriations on graduation rates, three recent

studies were used.

Blose, Porter, and Kokkelenberg:17

In this study, Blose, Porter, and Kokkelenberg measured the effect of institutional funding cuts on baccalaureate

graduations rates in public higher education institutions. The authors used information from The State

University of New York (SUNY) to approximate relative academic program costs per student within the

system. Data on 4-, 5-, and 6-year graduations rates were used based on information reported by 416

institutions to IPEDS. A regression analysis was performed where the relationship between variables could be

determined. Graduation rates were used as depended variables while institutional characteristics such as state

13

Canon and Gascon, 2012. 14

SB 1076. The Florida Senate, 2013. 15

See Appendix 2 16

SB 1076, Lines 3398-3400. 17

The Effect of Institutional Funding Cuts on Baccalaureate Graduation Rates in Public Higher Education. Blose et al, 2006.

9

expenditures were used as independent variables. The analysis attempted to calculate a predicted graduation

rate for each college that is adjusted for institutional characteristics. Their hypothesis was that higher student

expenditure levels should result in more output or higher graduation rates. Through the analysis, the authors

found that a $1,000 increase in university expenditure results in a 1.09 percent increase in graduation rates.

Ryan:18

In his study, John Ryan measured the relationship between institutional expenditures and degree attainment at

baccalaureate colleges. Ryan conducted a regression analysis using IPEDS data from 363 institutions classified

as Carnegie Baccalaureate I or II. Ryan identified the university’s 6-year class cohort as his dependent variable

and the expenditures by universities as his independent variable. In his regression analysis, Ryan attempted to

find a relationship between the dependent and independent variables. His hypothesis was that a positive and

significant relationship exists between expenditure in instruction, academic support, and student services with

student degree attainment as measured by 6-year cohort graduation rates. Through his analysis, Ryan found that

a 1 percent increase in instructional expenditures will lead to more than a 0.25 percent increase in cohort

graduation rates.

Zhang:19

In his analysis, Zhang assessed whether the institutional-level approach enables a direct test of the link between

state funding and college graduation rates at public college and universities. He used IPEDS data on student

populations at institutions which submitted their data to the IPEDS system. This use of this data allowed Zhang

to perform a regression analysis where 6-year graduation rates were the dependent variable and state

appropriations were the independent variable. Based on his analysis, Zhang found that a 10 percent increase in

state funding is associated with a 0.64 percent increase in graduation rates at that institution.

18

The Relationship Between Institutional Expenditures and Degree Attainment at Baccalaureate Colleges. Ryan, 2004. 19

Does State Funding Affect Graduation Rates at Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities? Zhang, 2008.

10

Success of the policy alternatives will be assessed by applying incentive-based and punitive-based state funding

allocations on institutions based on their 6-year graduation rate. The net present value (Potential Benefits –

Potential Costs) of each solution will inform its overall benefit or cost to all stakeholders. Since a 6-year

graduation rate of 70 percent or higher has been outlined by the Florida Legislature as one target metric for

preeminent status, this metric should be the goal for all public universities in Florida. The increased or

decreased number graduates and their earnings will comprise the economic benefit to the individual and to the

state.

11

Issue Analysis:

Low graduation rates present the higher education community with a persistent problem. While institutions of

higher education may be increasing their student populations, roughly half of all undergraduate students do not

complete a bachelor’s degree in 6 years.20

Graduation rates in Florida follow a similar trend with six of the

eleven state universities in Florida having graduation rates lower than 50 percent.21

By including higher 6-year graduation rates as a metric in attaining preeminent status, the State of Florida has

indicated that higher graduation rates should be a priority for all public universities. The movement towards

performance-based funding for higher education in Florida began in 2013 with the state’s designation of

“preeminent” universities. The preeminent state research universities program was created with the passage of

SB 1076. As discussed previously in this memorandum, a university needed to meet 11 of the 12 metrics

outlined by the state to achieve preeminent status. Rewards for achieving preeminent status included an

additional $15 million in their state appropriation. Only Florida State University and the University of Florida

met sufficient metrics to qualify for an additional $15 million per year from the state.

One metric necessary for preeminent designation is a 6-year graduation rate of 70 percent or higher for full-

time, first-time-in-college students, as reported annually to the IPEDS. Designation as a preeminent university

and the additional dollars associated with that designation could be used to encourage universities to push for

high graduation rates. By enticing universities with more money if they meet certain metrics outlined by the

state, policy makers play a key role in directing the goals of the university system and shaping the agenda of the

debate.

20

The Hidden Costs of Low Four-Year Graduation Rates. Sullivan, 2010. 21

Grad Rates at Public Universities in Florida Inch Higher. Florida College Access Network. Troy Miller. 3/13/2013

12

The push for performance-based funding has also spread to the governance board of the university system in

Florida. The Board of Governors (BOG) oversees the public universities in Florida and unveiled a plan to tie

funding to a wider set of performance-based metrics. These include:

Percent of bachelor’s degree graduates employed and/or continuing their education

Average wages of employed baccalaureate graduates

Cost per undergraduate degree

Six-year graduation rate for full-time and part-time first time students

Academic progress rate (2nd-year retention with GPA above 2.0)

Bachelor’s degrees awarded in areas of strategic emphasis (includes STEM)

University access rate (percent of undergraduates with a Pell grant)

Graduate degrees awarded in areas of strategic emphasis (includes STEM)

A metric chosen by the Board of Governors

A metric chosen by each university’s Board of Trustees22

These 10 metrics were placed on a 5 point scale for a total of 50 points. This method enabled the BOG to assess

the success of each individual university in meeting the goals of the system. This performance-based system

does not come without a potential cost to the university. Universities gaining at least 26 points will see an

increase to their base budget. Universities not gaining at least 26 points will see their funding cut. While this

system does not apply to community colleges, the movement towards performance-based funding has begun

and policymakers may use performance-based funding for other institutions of higher education to better reflect

the goals/priorities of the state.

22

Performance Based Funding Model. State University System of Florida: Board of Governors.

13

This “carrot and stick” approach meets the needs of many stakeholders including students and policymakers

that demand more accountability. Students, policy makers, and political leaders have a central component of

their political agendas addressed through initiatives such as performance-based funding.

14

Proposed Solutions:

In this memorandum, an application of different ways to increase the graduation rate at Florida universities will

encompass each policy alternative. Each policy alternative will offer either a “carrot or stick” approach to

increasing graduation rates.

The punitive-based approach will decrease state appropriations for universities with 6-year graduation rates

below 70 percent by 1 percent. State appropriations for universities with graduation rates above 70 percent will

remain unchanged from the previous year. The incentive-based policy approach will increase state

appropriations for universities with 6-year graduation rate of 70 percent or higher by 1 percent. State

appropriations for universities with graduation rates below 70 percent will remain unchanged from the previous

year. For this problem, the stakeholders include students, the state budget, and the institutions of higher

education. All of these stakeholders will experience benefits and costs under that proposed solutions to

increased graduation rates.

The student will benefit from increased graduation rates because they will be more likely to graduate and

increase their lifetime earnings. As stated by The College Payoff study conducted by the Center for Education

and the Workforce at Georgetown University, bachelor’s degree recipients are likely to make on average

$24,100 more per year than their high school diploma counterparts.23

The state will benefit from higher

graduation rates through an increased number of individuals in Florida with bachelor’s degrees with higher

annual earning than those without bachelor’s degrees. A lower graduation rate would limit the benefits to the

state and the individual of attaining an undergraduate education. The more time it takes for an individual to

complete their undergraduate education, the less time that individual is able to use his or her skills to seek full-

time employment and fully participate in the Florida economy through greater spending. In a study by the

Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University found that those receiving a bachelor’s

23

The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings. Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University. Carnevale et al, 2011.

15

degree made $2,268,000 during their lifetimes as opposed to those with only a high school diploma who made

only $1,304,000 during their lifetimes.24

Additionally, universities will benefit from higher graduation rates

because they will be closer to attaining preeminent status as outlined by the Florida Legislature.

The three studies by Blose, Ryan, and Zhang show a positive relationship between increases to the funding

received from the state to universities and college graduation rates at public colleges and universities. For the

purposes of this memorandum, the study by Zhang was chosen for multiple reasons. Zhang’s study is recent

(2008) and uses a large sample size when running his analysis (1,781 observations). In Zhang’s study, a 10

percent increase in state funding is associated with a 0.64 percent increase in graduation rates at that institution.

Since this memorandum will assess the impact of a 1 percent increase or decrease in state funding on a

university’s graduation rate, this finding was modified to show that a 1 percent increase or decrease in state

funding is associated with a 0.064 percent increase or decrease in graduation rates at that institution.

To order to address uncertainty in the CBA output of each proposed solution, a sensitivity analysis was

performed. The sensitivity analysis for this memorandum shows the impact on graduation rates and student

earnings if the theoretical rate of 0.064 percent identified by Zhang is higher or lower when put into practice.

The sensitivity analysis associated with this memorandum was performed using a 0.05 percent and 0.1 percent

change in graduation rates depending on a 1 percent increase or decrease in state appropriations.25

The analysis

helps inform policymakers on how benefits and costs can change for each stakeholder if the 0.064 percent rate

is changed.

Additionally, universities were divided into different tiers for the cost-benefit analysis portion of this

memorandum. Base state appropriations at universities can be vastly different. The difference between the

largest recipients of state appropriations (University of Florida with $657,018,039.69) is drastically different

24

Ibid. 25

See Appendix 8

16

than the smallest recipient of state appropriations (Florida Gulf Coast University with $117,829,139.79). For

the purpose of presenting the effects of each policy alternative on universities with higher base state

appropriations and lower state appropriations, the two-tiered system was used. Universities with yearly base

state appropriations higher than $400,000,000 were placed in Tier 1. Universities with year base state

appropriations lower than $400,000,000 were placed in Tier 2. This tiered approach give a better view of how

each policy alternative effects similar institutions.

Universities in Tier 1 Universities in Tier 2

University of Florida (UF) Florida A&M University (FAMU)

Florida State University (FSU) Florida Atlantic University (FAU)

University of South Florida (USF) University of West Florida (UWF)

Florida International University (FIU) University of North Florida (UNF)

University of Central Florida (UCF) Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU)

For the purposes of this memorandum, budget allocations and graduation rates for New College of Florida

(NCF) and Florida Polytechnic University (FPU) were not included. NCF has been designated as Florida’s

liberal arts college with a very small student population. FPU is a new university in the Florida system and

does not yet have any students. The budgets and student populations for both of these universities is very small

and does not fit well within the tiered approach discussed earlier.

17

Solution 1, Status Quo:

Through SB 1076, state policymakers have set a goal of a 70 percent graduation rate at Florida universities.

Florida universities that do not have a 70 percent graduation rate produce fewer graduates each year due to their

lower graduate rate. Fewer college graduates in Florida yields fewer individuals with the skill necessary to

achieve higher earnings. This represents lost earnings for students who do not attend a university with at least a

70 percent graduation rate.

In order to calculate the lost earnings of students who do not attend a university with a 70 percent graduation

rate for 1 year, the number of graduates each university would produce if their graduation rate was 70 percent

was extrapolated. The potential earnings of these new graduates was then found and represented as lost

earnings and a negative benefit to students.

Loss of Student Earnings with current Graduation Rates

Tier 1 Universities

University of Florida (UF) $0.00

Florida State University (FSU) $0.00

University of South Florida (USF) $34,016,427.00

Florida International University (FIU) $46,050,280.00

University of Central Florida (UCF) $12,362,336.00

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) $22,129,102.00

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) $65,214,600.00

University of West Florida (UWF) $14,595,924.00

University of North Florida (UNF) $19,394,716.00

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) $19,449,423.00

This calculation found that students are missing out on $92,429,043 in earnings at Tier 1 schools and

$140,783,765 in earnings at Tier 2 schools because university graduation rates are below 70 percent.26

The net

present value (NPV) for the status quo was calculated by subtracting the benefits of this solution from the costs

26

See Appendix 4

18

for all stakeholders. No additional earnings are realized by students in the status quo. Additionally, universities

do not receive any additional funding from the state. The loss of earnings for students is the only cost expressed

in the status quo. This yields a negative NPV for the status quo in both Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Net Present Value for Tier 1, Status Quo Net Present Value for Tier 2, Status Quo27

-$92,429,043.00 -$140,783,765.00

As state budgets continue to be stressed through increased needs of programs entitlement programs such as K-

12 education or Medicaid, availability of funding for higher education will continue to be difficult. Large

increases of state funding for universities are unlikely. However, in order to reach at least a 70 percent

graduation rate for all universities in Florida the state would need to spend an additional $6,449,110,525.10 in

addition to current base budgets. Increases needed at each university are listed below:

Base Budget increases needed for Universities to reach 70 percent

Graduation Rate

Tier 1 Universities



University of South Florida (USF) $637,595,180.76

Florida International University (FIU) $1,303,829,388.54

University of Central Florida (UCF) $315,029,297.35

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) $816,050,772.13

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) $1,225,771,890.05

University of West Florida (UWF) $532,082,975.90

University of North Florida (UNF) $504,520,604.02

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) $497,091,683.48

27

See Appendix 3

19

Solution 2, Punitive-based Approach:

Setting a 6-year graduation rate of 70 percent as a goal for preeminent status demonstrates the value the state

sees in higher graduation rates for Florida universities. In order to encourage universities to attain this higher

rate, the state can limit future funding to universities who do not reach this goal. For universities not meeting

this goal, state support could be cut as a punitive-based approach to state appropriations.

In this solution, the base budgets of state universities with 6-year graduation rates lower than 70 percent were

cut by 1 percent. Institutions that were cut included:

University of South Florida (USF)

Florida International University (FIU)

University of Central Florida (UCF)

Florida A&M University (FAMU)

Florida Atlantic University (FAU)

University of West Florida (UWF)

University of North Florida (UNF)

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU)

The only universities that were not cut were Florida State University and the University of Florida due to their

graduation rate of 70 percent or higher. The decreases ranged from $5,040,468.76 at the University of Central

Florida to $1,178,291.40 at Florida Gulf Coast University due to the different base budgets of each institution.28

Change to Base Budgets with Solution 2

Tier 1 Universities



University of South Florida (USF) -$4,534,010.17

Florida International University (FIU) -$4,172,254.04

University of Central Florida (UCF) -$5,040,468.76

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) -$1,684,749.98

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) -$2,614,980.03

University of West Florida (UWF) -$1,216,189.66

University of North Florida (UNF) -$1,467,696.30

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) -$1,178,291.40

28

See Appendix 5

20

Based on these cuts, new graduation rates for each university was extrapolated based on the findings by Zhang

(a 1 percent increase or decrease in state funding is associated with a 0.064 percent increase or decrease in

graduation rates at that institution). Since the base budgets of 10 out of the 12 universities in Florida were cut,

the graduation rate at each of these universities decreased by 0.064 percent.

The number of seniors currently enrolled at each institution was then compiled based on data from the BOG and

individual institutions. Based on the new graduation rate, a projected number of graduates was ascertained.

Using data from The College Payoff study, college graduates make $24,100 more than their high school

graduates. The current and projected number of graduates was multiplied with their increased salaries

(+$24,100) and a total amount of additional earnings for the college graduates was ascertained. Using the

current graduation rates of all institutions, $1,189,047,005 is generated by students’ higher earnings statewide.

Using the projected number of graduates when Solution 2 is applied, $1,188,125,744.90 is generated by

students’ higher earnings statewide.

When Solution 2 is applied, students statewide make $921,260.10 less in earnings.29

Under this proposal,

students received an additional cost from lower earnings of $587,052.86 in Tier 1 universities and $320,695.81

in Tier 2 universities. However, the state received additional revenue through cuts to universities in the amount

of $13,746,732.98 in Tier 1 and $8,406,764.59 in Tier 2.30

29

See Appendix 5 30

See Appendix 5

21

Change in Student Earnings with Solution 2

Tier 1 Universities



University of South Florida (USF) -$241,894.59

Florida International University (FIU) -$147,360.90

University of Central Florida (UCF) -$197,797.38

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) -$45,685.89

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) -$139,124.48

University of West Florida (UWF) -$33,362.11

University of North Florida (UNF) -$56,420.99

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) -$46,102.34

The net present value (NPV) for Solution 2 was calculated by subtracting the benefits of this Solution from the

costs for all stakeholders. This yields a negative NPV for the Solution 2 in both Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Net Present Value for Tier 1, Solution 2 Net Present Value for Tier 2, Solution 231

-$999,454.85 -$565,553.03

31

See Appendix 3

22

Solution 3, Incentive-based Approach:

Another method to encourage universities to attain this higher graduation rates involves an incentive-based

approach. For universities meeting the state’s goal of 70 percent 6-year graduation rates or higher, state support

could be increase as a reward. In this solution, the base budgets of state universities with 6-year graduation

rates 70 percent or higher were increased by 1 percent. Institutions that received an increase included UF and

FSU. The increase for UF was $6,570,180.40. The increase for FSU was $5,050,804.65. Under this solution,

the base budgets of the other universities were not cut.


Tier 1 Universities

University of Florida (UF) $6,570,180.40

Florida State University (FSU) $5,050,804.65

University of South Florida (USF) $0.00

Florida International University (FIU) $0.00

University of Central Florida (UCF) $0.00

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) $0.00

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) $0.00

University of West Florida (UWF) $0.00

University of North Florida (UNF) $0.00

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) $0.00

Based on these increase, new graduation rates for each university were extrapolated based on the findings by

Zhang (a 1 percent increase or decrease in state funding is associated with a 0.064 percent increase or decrease

in graduation rates at that institution). Since the base budgets of 2 out of the 12 universities in Florida were

increased, the graduation rate at UF and FSU increased by 0.064 percent.






23



students’ higher earnings statewide. When Solution 3 is applied, students statewide make $357,003.90 more

compared to the status quo.32

Under this proposal, students received a benefit of higher earnings of $357,003.90 in Tier 1 universities. Since

no universities in Tier 2 have graduation rates higher than 70 percent, these universities did not receive a budget

increase or higher graduation rates. Since these rates remained unchanged, higher earnings for students were

not available. In terms of costs, Solution 3 increased the base budgets of UF and FSU thereby costing the state

$11,620,985.04.


Tier 1 Universities

University of Florida (UF) $204,522.24

Florida State University (FSU) $170,311.81

University of South Florida (USF) $0.00

Florida International University (FIU) $0.00

University of Central Florida (UCF) $0.00

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) $0.00

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) $0.00

University of West Florida (UWF) $0.00

University of North Florida (UNF) $0.00

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) $0.00

32

See Appendix 6

24

The net present value (NPV) for Solution 3 was calculated by subtracting the benefits of this solution from the

costs for all stakeholders. This yields a positive NPV for the Solution 3 in Tier 1 and a value of $0.00 in Tier 2.

Tier 2 universities did not experience a cut to their base budgets in Solution 3. Since their base budgets

remained unchanged, their graduation rates and student earnings remained unchanged. If universities in Tier 2

raise their graduation rates, they would be eligible for additional funding from the state.


$26,204.50 $0.00

33

See Appendix 3

25

Solution 4, Mixed Approach:

In 2012, presidents at eight of the Florida universities agreed to not increase costs for students if the state

increased funding to higher education by $118 million.34

This “Aim Higher” initiative was not fully accepted

by the Florida Legislature but it does show the willingness of universities to hold costs steady in return for

greater state funding.35

In this solution, a mixed approach was implemented. A 1 percent increase was assessed

to the base budgets of any institution with a graduation rate higher than 70 percent. Institutions that received an

increase included FSU and UF. Additionally, a 1 percent cut was assessed to the base budgets of any institution

with a graduation rate lower than 70 percent.


Tier 1 Universities

University of Florida (UF) $6,570,180.40

Florida State University (FSU) $5,050,804.65

University of South Florida (USF) -$4,534,010.17

Florida International University (FIU) -$4,172,254.04

University of Central Florida (UCF) -$5,040,468.76

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) -$1,684,749.98

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) -$2,614,980.03

University of West Florida (UWF) -$1,216,189.66

University of North Florida (UNF) -$1,467,696.30

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) -$1,178,291.40

Based on these increase and decreases, new graduation rates for each university were extrapolated based on the

findings by Zhang (a 1 percent increase or decrease in state funding is associated with a 0.064 percent increase

or decrease in graduation rates at that institution). Graduation rates at UF and FSU increase by 0.064 percent

while graduation rates decreased at all other Florida universities.

34

University presidents would hold the line on tuition if the state would just give them more money. Jim Turner, Sunshine State News, 12/5/2012. 35

University presidents ask legislators for $118 million investment in higher education. FSU News. 12/5/2012.

26








students’ higher earnings statewide. When Solution 4 is applied, students statewide make $564,256.19 less

compared to the status quo.36

Under this proposal, students received a cost of lower earnings in the amount of

$212,218.82 at Tier 1 universities and $320,695.81 at Tier 2 universities. In terms of benefits, Solution 4

resulted in increased revenue for the state in the amount of $8,161,907.37 due to cuts from universities with

graduation rates below 70 percent.


Tier 1 Universities

University of Florida (UF) $204,522.24

Florida State University (FSU) $170,311.81

University of South Florida (USF) -$241,894.59

Florida International University (FIU) -$147,360.90

University of Central Florida (UCF) -$197,797.38

Tier 2 Universities

Florida A&M University (FAMU) -$45,685.89

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) -$139,124.48

University of West Florida (UWF) -$33,362.11

University of North Florida (UNF) -$56,420.99

Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) -$46,102.34

36

See Appendix 7

27

The net present value (NPV) for Solution 4 was calculated by subtracting the benefits of this solution from the

costs for all stakeholders. This yields a negative NPV for the Solution 4 in both Tier 1 and Tier 2.


-$275,991.25 -$565,553.03

37

See Appendix 3

28

Strategic recommendations:

States throughout the nation were forced to reexamine their funding structures for institutions of higher

education. The scarcity of state financial resources and demands for enhanced accountability will further

promote the use of performance-based metrics when assessing the effectiveness of institutions of higher

education. While the status quo limits state expenditure for higher education, the shortage of universities with

graduation rates above 70 percent results in fewer students completing their undergraduate education and costs

student statewide significantly through lower yearly and lifetime earnings.

The memorandum assesses three performance-based methods of state appropriations for universities. Solution

2 cut base budgets by 1 percent for universities with graduation rates of 70 percent or lower as a punitive-based

approach. Solution 3 increased base budgets by 1 percent for universities with graduation rates of 70 percent or

higher as an incentive-based approach. Solution 4 presented a combined punitive and incentive-based approach

by cutting the base budgets by 1 percent for universities with graduation rates of 70 percent or lower and

increasing the base budgets by 1 percent for universities with graduation rates of 70 percent or higher.

While Solution 2 provides the state with additional revenue by cutting universities that have graduation rates

lower than 70 percent, graduation rates at universities are further lowered and students are negatively affected

through lost earnings. The mixed approach in Solution 4 offers rewards for universities with already high

graduation rates and punishes universities with low graduation rates. While universities with high graduation

rates (UF and FSU) benefit from this approach, costs to students and other universities (especially in Tier 2) are

negatively affected through lower earnings and lower graduation rates.

Analytically, an incentive-based approach as outlined by Solution 3 yields the most benefits for students,

universities, and the state. Through this approach, universities with high graduation rates are rewarded for their

efforts and continue to raise their graduation rates with additional funding from the state. Universities with

lower graduation rates (below 70 percent) are not cut and maintain their graduation rates. With the promise of

29

incentives such as a 1 percent increase to their base budgets, universities with lower graduation rates are

encouraged to find methods of raising their graduation rates. As graduation rates rise, more students complete

their undergraduate education and are able to realize the higher earnings that accompany a baccalaureate degree.

The problem presented in this memorandum is: The graduation rate for students at most Florida universities is

too low and students are not fully able to participate in the Florida economy. By implementing Solution 3,

graduation rates rise at high performing universities and more graduates are able to increase their earning

potential. Additionally, graduation rates at lower performing universities are stable with the goal of improving

their graduation rates through an incentive-based approach to state appropriations.

The status quo, Solution 2, and Solution 4 all negatively impact students and the state’s goal of raising 6-year

graduation rates throughout the state. Additionally, the status quo, Solution 2, and Solution 4 yield negative net

present values. Solution 3 in the only solution to yield a positive net present value which increases graduation

rates at Florida universities and positively impacts student populations statewide.

Enhanced Support Services:

While many factors can influence graduation rates at institutions of higher education, enhanced student support

services are critical to student success. In light of dwindling state support, institutions have been forced to find

new and innovative ways at engaging students and supporting their academic pursuits. While these approaches

can yield some support services for students, traditional services cost institutions money in the form of salaries

for advisors or program to assist students in learning about academic services.

Institutions recognize the value of the academic support services and have tailored fundraising initiatives around

providing these services to students. This process has already begun at universities in Florida. Florida State is

currently undertaking a $1 billion fundraising campaign to support the university and its efforts to become a

top-25 public university as ranked by U.S. News. The “Big Ideas” campaign includes many projects that enrich

30

the student experience on campus and provide students with added resources to assist in their academic pursuits.

These projects include an Honors, Scholars, and Fellows house on campus which provides academic support

services to students in the honors program, increased faculty support funding, increased scholarships for

students, enhanced undergraduate research opportunities, and programs that help cultivate students early in their

coursework through assistance in applying for national awards.38

Recognition of the importance of these services and the impact they provide to student population demonstrates

how additional funding can be spent on student support services and improve graduation rates. As shown by

Sullivan, institutions that devote additional resources to academic support services are more likely to be

classified as “highly effective institutions” by the US Department of Education.

In a study of the levels and patterns of spending at twenty highly effective institutions involved in Indiana

University’s Documenting Effective Educational Practices (DEEP) project, for example, the National Center

for Higher Education Management Systems found that these highly effective institutions “spent a noticeably

higher proportion of their available dollars on ‘academic support,’ a category in [the Department of

Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System] under which most institutions report resources

dedicated to such things as faculty development, teaching and learning centers, and academic support staff

such as tutors and counselors.39

Similarly, research done at the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute found that student service

expenditures influence graduation and persistence rates especially for students at institutions with lower

entrance test scores and higher Pell Grant expenditures per student, and currently lower graduation rates.40

The

Cornell study supports the argument that improvements to graduation rates at institutions of higher education is

more effectively achieved through an approach of rewarding institutions for their successes rather than

punishing institutions which do not meet specified metrics.

In the case of Florida universities, only FSU and UF have 6-year graduation rates above 70 percent. Using the

Cornell study’s assertion that added funding for student services has a larger impact at institutions with

38

An Introduction to the Big Ideas. Florida State University, 2014. 39

The Hidden Costs of Low Four-Year Graduation Rates. Sullivan, 2010. 40

Do Expenditures Other Than Instructional Expenditures Affect Graduation and Persistence Rates in American Higher Education? Webber and Ehrenberg, 2009.

31

currently lower graduation rates, Florida’s institutions could benefit greatly in meeting the Florida Legislature’s

desire for higher graduation rates if their funding is not cut due to lower performance.

Weaknesses and limitations:

While changing funding levels for universities is one factor that influences graduation rates for students, many

other factors can influence a student’s completion of a bachelor’s degree. While the findings of Blose et al,

Ryan, and Zhang all link increases or decreases to state appropriations as a driver of graduation rates, all also

concede that other factors such as financial pressures from higher tuition costs can influence graduation rates of

students. As stated by Zhang, the financial pressure caused by high tuition could lead to high rates of drop-out

or stop-out, both resulting in low graduation rates.41

Additionally, the heterogeneity of student populations or

the types of students served by universities could affect graduation rates. For example, Florida A&M

University (FAMU) is the nation’s largest HBCU (historically black college and university) and the only public

HBCU in Florida. According to the US Department of Education, graduation rates for African American

students averages 20.5 percent nationwide as opposed to 42.6 percent for white students.42

Universities in

South Florida such as Florida International University (FIU) and Florida Atlantic University (FAU) serve

significantly large Hispanic populations. Large minority populations could be a stronger influence on the

university’s graduation rate as opposed to its level of state funding.

Additionally, three of the policy solutions recommend keeping state allocations flat for universities that do not

show improvement in their graduation rates. Solution 2 recommends keeping state appropriations flat of

universities achieving a high graduation rate and further cutting universities that do not meet the threshold of 70

percent. While flat appropriations may not directly cut funding to a university, the absence of a funding

increase to address force such as inflation or student population growth could be considered a cut. If the state

41

Zhang, p. 720 42

Graduation rates of first-time, full-time bachelor's degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, and control of institution: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2006. National Center for Education Statistics. 2012.

32

does not fund these yearly increases the university must find funding within their already existing allocation to

address those forces. This cut could limit the funding available for student support services which contributes

further negative pressure on graduation rates.

When extrapolating the effect performance-based funding models will have on Florida’s university system, a

potential weakness arises. Under the proposed performance based funding model, the University of Florida and

Florida State University will receive substantial new funding from the state. These increases are in addition to

$15 million in base funding increases that FSU and UF receive due to their “preeminent” status as outlined by

the Florida Legislature. Florida State University and the University of Florida are also the only two schools

with statewide missions. Every other university in the state has regional focus or a distinct mission. This could

potentially narrow the focus of policymakers to cater to the needs of large, statewide universities leaving

smaller, regional universities marginalized.

Large institutions, such as FSU and UF, may advocate for a performance-based funding models under which

they excel. Policymakers must use a broad array of metrics to judge the success of a university. While

policymakers can have broad goals for their systems of higher education, the yardstick used to measure

institutions must reflect the unique missions of each university. Simply focusing on one metric or a few metrics

may not fully reflect the success of the institution. Performance-based metrics must take various considerations

into account. The needs/desires of policymakers must be addressed but those goals must be balanced with the

dynamics of each individual missions of institutions.

33

Conclusion:

As stated previously, policymakers faced with limited government revenue have required greater accountability

of universities and other institutions of higher education. Universities must continually strive to justify the

appropriations they receive from the state. The application of performance-based funding models forces

universities to confront long-standing problems such as low graduation rates. In Florida, policymakers have

highlighted higher graduation rates as a metrics by which to assess performance of a university. Higher

graduation rates yield more college graduates who have a higher earning potential over the course of their

lifetimes. While tying levels of university funding to performance, an incentive-based approach which rewards

universities for high performance is more effective at reaching the goals outlined by policymakers. A punitive-

based approach which punishes universities for not reaching certain metrics may exacerbate the problems the

universities face.

As shown in this memorandum, decreasing state appropriations for universities in Florida with a graduation rate

of 70 percent or lower only worsens the university’s graduation rate. An incentive-based approach which

rewards universities for high graduation rates (as outlined in Solution 3) assists the university in serving the

goals outlined by the state. Additionally, lower performing universities are presented with an incentive of

higher funding if they work to increase the number of students who complete a baccalaureate degree. Through

the cost-benefit analysis, the incentive-based approach model best serves the goals of the state, students, and

universities.

34

Appendix:

Appendix 1: Glossary of abbreviations

BOG: Board of Governors

IPEADS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

SUS: State University System (of Florida)

Universities:

FAMU: Florida A&M University

FAU: Florida Atlantic University

FGCU: Florida Gulf Coast University

FIU: Florida International University

FPU: Florida Polytechnic University

FSU: Florida State University

UCF: University of Central Florida

UF: University of Florida

UNF: University of North Florida

USF: University of South Florida

UWF: University of West Florida

35

Appendix 2: SB 1076: An act relating to K-20 education (2013):

38

Appendix 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Tier 1 and Tier 2:

Tier 1:

Stakeholders Status Quo Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4

Benefits Students -$92,429,043.00 $0.00 $374,834.05 $0.00

State budgets $0.00 $13,746,732.98 $0.00 $2,125,747.93

Universities $0.00 $0.00 $11,620,985.04 $0.00


Costs Students $0.00 -$587,052.86 $0.00 -$212,218.82

State budgets $0.00 $0.00 -$11,969,614.60 $0.00

Universities $0.00 -$14,159,134.96 $0.00 -$2,189,520.37

Net Present Value, Tier 1 Status Quo Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4

-$92,429,043.00 -$999,454.85 $26,204.50 -$275,991.25

Tier 2:


Benefits Students -$140,783,765.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

State budgets $0.00 $8,161,907.37 $0.00 $8,161,907.37

Universities $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00


Costs Students $0.00 -$320,695.81 $0.00 -$320,695.81

State budgets $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Universities $0.00 -$8,406,764.59 $0.00 -$8,406,764.59


-$140,783,765.00 -$565,553.03 $0.00 -$565,553.03

Benefits to each stakeholder were calculated adding the total impact each solution had on the group. For

example, the benefits/costs to students were calculated by adding the additional earnings students received at all

universities in their respective tiers when each solution was implemented. The benefits/costs to state budgets

were calculated by adding the increases or decreases to the base budgets for universities in their respective tiers

when each solution was implemented.

39

Additionally, the benefits/costs to universities were calculated by adding the increases or decreases to the base

budgets for universities in their respective tiers when each solution was implemented. In the case universities, a

3 percent administration fee was assessed to cuts to account for potential costs associated with the transfer of

those funds back to state budgets.

40

Appendix 4: Statistical Inputs-Status Quo, Tier 1 and Tier 2

Tier 1, Status Quo

STATISTIC VALUE CALCULATION

METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

[Total state appropriations

for universities excluding

special units

($3,445,296,485)] x

[Percentage of total for

each university]

UF: 19.07% of total

FSU: 14.66% of total

USF: 13.16% of total

FIU: 12.11% of total

UCF: 14.63% of total

-“2013-2014 Allocation Summary

and Workpapers”. State

University System of Florida,

Board of Governors. Tallahassee,

FL 2013

6-year graduation rates UF: 86 percent

FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

*Data taken directly from

“Annual Accountability

Report 2012-2013”

-“Annual Accountability Report

2012-2013”. State University

System of Florida, Board of

Governors. Tallahassee, FL 2013

Additional funding

needed to reach 70

percent graduation rates

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: $637,595,180.76

FIU: $1,303,829,388.54

UCF: $315,029,297.35

[Additional percentage

needed to reach 70

percent/0.064 percent] x [1

percent of base budget]

Example:

USF

[9 percent/0.064 percent] x

[$453,401,017.43 x 1

percent] = $637,595,180.76





FL 2013





Number of seniors UF: 13260

FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

*In cases where the number

of seniors was not provided

by the institution, the

number of seniors was

extrapolated based on their

share of the total student

population. On average,

seniors made up 25 percent

of the total student

population at Florida

universities.

-UF: “Final Headcount Enrollment

by Class Level (1989-2013)”.

Office of Institutional Planning

and Research- UF Factbook.

Gainesville, FL 2013.

-FSU: “Headcount Enrollment-

Fall Semesters”. Office of

Institutional Research –FSU

Factbook. Tallahassee, FL 2013

-USF: “Student Headcount- Fall

2013”. University of South

Florida, Info Center. Tampa, FL

2013.

-FIU: “Historical Fall Headcount

by Student Level”. Florida

International University, Factbook.

Miami, FL 2013.

41

-UCF: “2013-2014 Enrollment”.

University of Central Florida,

Institutional Knowledge

Management. Orlando, FL 2013

Number of graduates UF: 11404

FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

[Number of seniors] x

[Each university’s 6-year

graduation rate]

Example:

USF

[15683] x [61 percent] =

9567

-See above

Projected graduation

rate

UF: 86 percent

FSU: 76 percent

USF: 70 percent

FIU: 70 percent

UCF: 70 percent

[University’s graduation

rate] + [percent needed to

reach 70 percent]

Example:

USF

[61 percent] + [9 percent] =

70 percent

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11404

FSU: 8392

USF: 10978

FIU: 6688

UCF: 8977


[Projected graduation rate

policy solution applied]

Example:

USF

[15683] x [70 percent] =

10978

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

[Number of graduates] x

[$24,100 additional earning

with completion of an

undergraduate education]

Example:

USF

[$24,100] x [9567] =

$230,555,783.00

-“The College Payoff; Education,

Occupation, Lifetime Earnings”.

Center on Education and the

Workforce, Georgetown

University. Washington D.C. 2011.

Potential Earnings -

Actual Earnings

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: $34,016,427.00

FIU: $46,050,280.00

UCF: $12,362,336.00

([Projected number of

graduates] x [$24,100

additional earnings with

completion of an

undergraduate education]) –

([Actual number of



completion of an

undergraduate education])

Example:

USF

[$264,572,210.00] –

[$230,555,783.00] =

$34,016,427.00






42

Tier 2, Status Quo:


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

FAMU: 4.89% of total

FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total

FGCU: 3.42% of total





FL 2013

6-year graduation rates FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent



Report 2012-2013”





Additional funding

needed to reach 70


FAMU: $816,050,772.13

FAU: $1,225,771,890.05

UWF: $532,082,975.90

UNF: $504,520,604.02

FGCU: $497,091,683.48


needed to reach 70



Example:

UWF:

[28 percent/0.064 percent]

x [$121,618,965.92 x 1

percent] = $532,082,975.90





FL 2013





Number of seniors FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.

-FAMU: “Demographics, 2008-

2009 (entering year of 6-year

cohort)”. Florida A&M

University, Overview. Tallahassee,

FL 2013.

-FAU: “Headcount Enrollment by

Level & Gender”. Florida Atlantic

University, Factbook. Boca Raton,

FL 2013.

-UWF: “Enrollment by

Race/Ethnicity - Ethnicity by

Gender, Level, and Load”.

Institutional Research and

Effectiveness Support. University

of West Florida, Factbook.

Pensacola, FL 2013.

-UNF: “Fall Student Headcount by

Student Level”. University of

North Florida, Factbook.

Jacksonville, FL 2013

43

-FGCU: “Headcount Enrolled by

Class, Fall Terms”. Florida Gulf

Coast University, Board of

Trustees Quarterly Report. Fort

Myers, FL 2012.

Number of graduates FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

Example:

UWF

[2163] x [42 percent] = 908

-See above


rate

FAMU: 70 percent

FAU: 70 percent

UWF: 70 percent

UNF: 70 percent

FGCU: 70 percent


rate] + [percent needed to

reach 70 percent]

Example:

UWF

[42 percent] + [28 percent]

= 70 percent

Projected number of

graduates

FAMU: 2073

FAU: 6314

UWF: 1514

UNF: 2561

FGCU: 2092


[Projected graduation rate


Example:

UWF

[2163] x [70 percent] =

1514

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00





Example:

UWF

[$24,100] x [908] =

$21,893,886.00







Actual Earnings

FAMU: $22,129,102.00

FAU: $65,214,600.00

UWF: $14,595,924.00

UNF: $19,394,716.00

FGCU: $19,449,423.00




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


Example:

UWF

[$36,489,810.00] –

[$21,893,886.00]

] = $14,595,924.00






44

Status Quo Calculations:

School

UF

FSU

FAMU

FAU

UWF

USF

UNF

FIU

FGCU

UCF

Other

Total

School Percent of Total Base Budgets 6-year Graduation Rates Graduation rate increase needed to 70% Additional funding needed to reach 70% New Base New projected graduation rate

UF 19.07% $657,018,039.69 86.00% 0.00% $0.00 $657,018,039.69 86.00%

FSU 14.66% $505,080,464.70 76.00% 0.00% $0.00 $505,080,464.70 76.00%

FAMU 4.89% $168,474,998.12 39.00% 31.00% $816,050,772.13 $984,525,770.24 70.000%

FAU 7.59% $261,498,003.21 40.00% 30.00% $1,225,771,890.05 $1,487,269,893.27 70.000%

UWF 3.53% $121,618,965.92 42.00% 28.00% $532,082,975.90 $653,701,941.82 70.000%

USF 13.16% $453,401,017.43 61.00% 9.00% $637,595,180.76 $1,090,996,198.18 70.000%

UNF 4.26% $146,769,630.26 48.00% 22.00% $504,520,604.02 $651,290,234.28 70.000%

FIU 12.11% $417,225,404.33 50.00% 20.00% $1,303,829,388.54 $1,721,054,792.88 70.000%

FGCU 3.42% $117,829,139.79 43.00% 27.00% $497,091,683.48 $614,920,823.26 70.000%

UCF 14.63% $504,046,875.76 66.00% 4.00% $315,029,297.35 $819,076,173.10 70.000%

Other 1.02% $35,142,024.15

Total 98.34% $3,445,296,485.00 $5,831,971,792.23

*does not equal

100% because

New College of

Florida and

Florida

Polytechic

University

removed

Number of seniors Number of graduates Projected number graduates Actual money per graduate Additional money made by graduates Potential Earnings - Actual Earnings

13260 11404 11404 $274,826,760.00 $274,826,760.00 $0.00

11042 8392 8392 $202,245,272.00 $202,245,272.00 $0.00

2962 1155 2073 $27,839,838.00 $49,968,940.00 $22,129,102.00

9020 3608 6314 $86,952,800.00 $152,167,400.00 $65,214,600.00

2163 908 1514 $21,893,886.00 $36,489,810.00 $14,595,924.00

15683 9567 10978 $230,555,783.00 $264,572,210.00 $34,016,427.00

3658 1756 2561 $42,315,744.00 $61,710,460.00 $19,394,716.00

9554 4777 6688 $115,125,700.00 $161,175,980.00 $46,050,280.00

2989 1285 2092 $30,975,007.00 $50,424,430.00 $19,449,423.00

12824 8464 8977 $203,978,544.00 $216,340,880.00 $12,362,336.00

51316 60993 $1,236,709,334.00 $1,469,922,142.00 $233,212,808.00

45

Appendix 5: Statistical Inputs-Solution 2, Tier 1 and Tier 2

Tier 1, Solution 2


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base Budgets UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x

[Percentage of total for each

university]

UF: 19.07% of total






and Workpapers”. State University




FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent



Report 2012-2013”





Application of Solution 2

on base budgets

UF: $0.00*

FSU: $0.00*

USF: -$4,534,010.17

FIU: -$4,172,254.04

UCF: -$5,040,468.76

[1 percent of base budget] x -

1

*UF and FSU did not receive

a cut to their base budget

because their graduation rate

is higher than 70 percent.

Example:

USF

([$453,401,017.43] x [1

percent]) x -1 =

-$4,534,010.17










FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*



by the institution, the number

of seniors was extrapolated

based on their share of the

total student population. On

average, seniors made up 25

percent of the total student


universities.


by Class Level (1989-2013)”. Office

of Institutional Planning and

Research- UF Factbook.


-FSU: “Headcount Enrollment- Fall

Semesters”. Office of Institutional

Research –FSU Factbook.

Tallahassee, FL 2013


2013”. University of South Florida,

Info Center. Tampa, FL 2013.

-FIU: “Historical Fall Headcount by

Student Level”. Florida


Miami, FL 2013.


46





FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

[Number of seniors] x [Each

university’s 6-year

graduation rate]

Example:

USF

[15683] x [61 percent] =

9567

-See above

Projected graduation rate UF: 86.00 percent

FSU: 76.00 percent

USF: 60.936 percent

FIU: 49.936 percent

UCF: 65.936 percent


rate] – [0.064 percent]

*UF and FSU did not receive

a cut therefore their

graduation rates remained

unchanged.

Example:

USF

[61 percent] + [0.064

percent] = 60.936 percent

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11404

FSU: 8392

USF: 9557

FIU: 4771

UCF: 8456


university’s graduation rate

when each policy solution

applied]

Example:

USF

[15683] x [60.936 percent] =

9557

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00





Example:

USF

[$24,100] x [9567] =

$230,555,783.00




Workforce, Georgetown University.

Washington D.C. 2011.


Actual Earnings

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: -$241,894.59

FIU: -$147,360.90

UCF: -$197,797.38




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


Example:

USF [$230,313,888.41] –

[$230,555,783.00] =

-$241,894.59






Tier 2, Solution 2:

47


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]


FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent



Report 2012-2013”





Application of Solution

2 on base budgets

FAMU: -$1,684,749.98

FAU: -$2,614,980.03

UWF: -$1,216,189.66

UNF: -$1,467,696.30

FGCU: -$1,178,291.40

[1 percent of base budget] x

-1

Example:

UWF

([$121,618,965.92] x [1

percent]) x -1 =

-$1,216,189.66





FL 2013






FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.





FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.







48



Myers, FL 2012.


FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

Example:

UWF

[2163] x [42 percent] = 908

-See above


rate

FAMU: 38.936 percent

FAU: 39.936 percent

UWF: 41.936 percent

UNF: 47.936 percent

FGCU: 42.936 percent



Example:

UWF

[42 percent] - [0.064


Projected number of

graduates

FAMU: 1153

FAU: 3602

UWF: 907

UNF: 1753

FGCU: 1283


[Each university’s

graduation rate when each


Example:

UWF

[2163] x [41.936 percent] =

907

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00





UWF

[$24,100] x [908] =

$21,893,886.00







Actual Earnings

FAMU: -$45,685.89

FAU: -$139,124.48

UWF: -$33,362.11

UNF: -$56,420.99

FGCU: -$46,102.34




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


Example:

UWF

[$21,860,523.89] –

[$21,893,886.00] =

-$33,362.11






49

Solution 2 Calculations:

Schoo

lPe

rcent

of To

talTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates

Solut

ion 2

New B

aseNe

w proj

ected

grad

uatio

n rate

Numb

er of

senior

sNu

mber

of gra

duate

sPro

jected

numb

er gra

duate

sAc

tual m

oney

per g

radua

teAd

dition

al mon

ey m

ade b

y grad

uates

Poten

tial Ea

rning

s - Ac

tual Ea

rning

s

UF19.

07%$65

7,018,

039.69

86.00%

$0.00

$657,0

18,039

.6986.

00%132

60114

04114

04$27

4,826,

760.00

$274,8

26,760

.00$0.

00

FSU14.

66%$50

5,080,

464.70

76.00%

$0.00

$505,0

80,464

.7076.

00%110

42839

2839

2$20

2,245,

272.00

$202,2

45,272

.00$0.

00

FAMU

4.89%

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%-$1

,684,7

49.98

$166,7

90,248

.1438.

936%

2962

1155

1153

$27,83

9,838.

00$27

,794,1

52.11

-$45,6

85.89

FAU

7.59%

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%-$2

,614,9

80.03

$258,8

83,023

.1839.

936%

9020

3608

3602

$86,95

2,800.

00$86

,813,6

75.52

-$139,

124.48

UWF

3.53%

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%-$1

,216,1

89.66

$120,4

02,776

.2641.

936%

2163

908907

$21,89

3,886.

00$21

,860,5

23.89

-$33,3

62.11

USF

13.16%

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%-$4

,534,0

10.17

$448,8

67,007

.2560.

936%

15683

9567

9557

$230,5

55,783

.00$23

0,313,

888.41

-$241,

894.59

UNF

4.26%

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%-$1

,467,6

96.30

$145,3

01,933

.9647.

936%

3658

1756

1753

$42,31

5,744.

00$42

,259,3

23.01

-$56,4

20.99

FIU12.

11%$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

-$4,17

2,254.

04$41

3,053,

150.29

49.936

%955

4477

7477

1$11

5,125,

700.00

$114,9

78,339

.10-$1

47,360

.90

FGCU

3.42%

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%-$1

,178,2

91.40

$116,6

50,848

.3942.

936%

2989

1285

1283

$30,97

5,007.

00$30

,928,9

04.66

-$46,1

02.34

UCF

14.63%

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%-$5

,040,4

68.76

$499,0

06,407

.0065.

936%

12824

8464

8456

$203,9

78,544

.00$20

3,780,

746.62

-$197,

797.38

Othe

r1.0

2%$35

,142,0

24.15

Total

98.34%

$3,445

,296,4

85.00

-$21,9

08,640

.35$3,

331,05

3,898.

85831

55513

16512

78$1,

236,70

9,334.

00$1,

235,80

1,585.

33-$9

07,748

.67

*doe

s not

equa

l

100% b

ecause

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

50


Tier 1, Solution 3


METHOD

SOURCE(S)


FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


university]

UF: 19.07% of total










FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent



Report 2012-2013”






on base budgets

UF: $6,570,180.40

FSU: $5,050,804.65

USF: $0.00*

FIU: $0.00*

UCF: $0.00*

[1 percent of base budget]

*USF, FIU, and UCF did not

receive an increase to their

base budget because their

graduation rate is below 70

percent.

Example:

FSU

[$505,080,464.70] x [1

percent] = $5,050,804.65










FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*










universities.
















Miami, FL 2013.




51



FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464



graduation rate]

*USF, FIU, and UCF did not

receive an increase to their

graduation rate because they

did not receive additional

funding.

Example:

FSU

[11042] x [76 percent] =

8392

-See above


FSU: 76.064 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent


rate] + [0.064 percent]

Example:

FSU

[76 percent] + [0.064


Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11412

FSU: 8399

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464




applied]

Example:

FSU

[11042] x [76.064 percent] =

8399

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00





Example:

USF

[$24,100] x [9567] =

$230,555,783.00







Actual Earnings

UF: $204,522.24

FSU: $170,311.81

USF: $0.00

FIU: $0.00

UCF: $0.00




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


Example:

FSU

[$202,415,583.81] – [$202,245,272.00] =

$170,311.81






52

Tier 2, Solution 3


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]


FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent



Report 2012-2013”






3 on base budgets

FAMU: $0.00*

FAU: $0.00*

UWF: $0.00*

UNF: $0.00*

FGCU: $0.00*


*No Tier 2 universities

received an increase to their

base budget because their

graduation rates are below

70 percent.





FL 2013






FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.





FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.





53





Myers, FL 2012.


FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

Example:

UWF

[2163] x [42 percent] = 908

-See above

Projected number of

graduates

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285





*Rates are unchanged

because no Tier 2

university received an

increase to their base

budgets

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00





Example:

UWF

[$21,860,523.89] –

[$21,893,886.00] =

-$33,362.11







Actual Earnings

FAMU: $0.00*

FAU: $0.00*

UWF: $0.00*

UNF: $0.00*

FGCU: $0.00*




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


*Graduation rates remain

unchanged at Tier 2

universities in Solution 3

therefore no additional

money is made by

graduates






54


Sch

ool

Perce

nt of

Total

Total

6-yea

r Grad

uatio

n Rate

s (2013

)So

lution

3Ne

w Base

New p

roject

ed gr

adua

tion r

ateNu

mber

of sen

iorsN

umbe

r of g

radua

tesPro

jected

numb

er gra

duate

sActu

al mon

ey pe

r grad

uate

Addit

ional m

oney

mad

e by g

radua

tesPo

tentia

l Earni

ngs -

Actua

l Earni

ngs

UF19.

07%$65

7,018,

039.69

86.00%

$6,570

,180.4

0$66

3,588,

220.09

86.064

00%132

60114

04114

12$27

4,826,

760.00

$275,0

31,282

.24$20

4,522.

24

FSU14.

66%$50

5,080,

464.70

76.00%

$5,050

,804.6

5$51

0,131,

269.35

76.064

00%110

42839

2839

9$20

2,245,

272.00

$202,4

15,583

.81$17

0,311.

81

FAMU

4.89%

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%0

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%296

2115

5115

5$27

,839,8

38.00

$27,83

9,838.

00$0.

00

FAU

7.59%

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%0

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%902

0360

8360

8$86

,952,8

00.00

$86,95

2,800.

00$0.

00

UWF

3.53%

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%0

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%216

3908

908$21

,893,8

86.00

$21,89

3,886.

00$0.

00

USF

13.16%

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%0

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%156

83956

7956

7$23

0,555,

783.00

$230,5

55,783

.00$0.

00

UNF

4.26%

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%0

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%365

8175

6175

6$42

,315,7

44.00

$42,31

5,744.

00$0.

00

FIU12.

11%$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

0$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

9554

4777

4777

$115,1

25,700

.00$11

5,125,

700.00

$0.00

FGCU

3.42%

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%0

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%298

9128

5128

5$30

,975,0

07.00

$30,97

5,007.

00$0.

00

UCF

14.63%

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%0

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%128

24846

4846

4$20

3,978,

544.00

$203,9

78,544

.00$0.

00

Othe

r1.0

2%$35

,142,0

24.15

Total

s98.

34%$3,

445,29

6,485.

00-$1

1,620,

985.04

83155

51316

51331

$1,236

,709,3

34.00

$1,237

,084,1

68.05

$374,8

34.05

*doe

s not

equa

l

100% b

ecause

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

55


Tier 1, Solution 4


METHOD

SOURCE(S)


FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


university]

UF: 19.07% of total










FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent



Report 2012-2013”






on base budgets

UF: $6,570,180.40

FSU: $5,050,804.65

USF: -$4,534,010.17

FIU: -$4,172,254.04

UCF: -$5,040,468.76

-For universities with 70

percent or higher graduation

rates: [1 percent of base

budget]

Example:

FSU

[$505,080,464.70] x [1

percent] = $5,050,804.65

-For universities with lower

than 70 percent graduation

rates: [1 percent of base

budget] x -1

Example:

USF

([$453,401,017.43] x [1

[percent]) x -1 =

-$4,534,010.17










FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*










universities.













56




Miami, FL 2013.






FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464



graduation rate]

Example:

FSU

[11042] x [76 percent] =

8392

-See above


FSU: 76.064 percent

USF: 60.936 percent

FIU: 49.936 percent

UCF: 65.936 percent


rate] + [0.064 percent]

Example:

FSU

[76 percent] + [0.064


Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11412

FSU: 8399

USF: 9557

FIU: 4771

UCF: 8456




applied]

Example:

USF

[15683] x [60.936 percent] =

9557

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00





Example:

USF

[$24,100] x [9567] =

$230,555,783.00






Additional money made

by graduates

UF: $204,522.24

FSU: $170,311.81

USF: -$241,894.59

FIU: -$147,360.90

UCF: -$197,797.38




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


Example: FSU

[$202,415,583.81] –

[$202,245,272.00] =

$170,311.81






57

Tier 2, Solution 4:


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]


FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent



Report 2012-2013”






2 on base budgets

FAMU: -$1,684,749.98

FAU: -$2,614,980.03

UWF: -$1,216,189.66

UNF: -$1,467,696.30

FGCU: -$1,178,291.40


-1

Example:

UWF

([$121,618,965.92] x [1

percent]) x -1 =

-$1,216,189.66





FL 2013






FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.





FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.





58





Myers, FL 2012.


FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

Example:

UWF

[2163] x [42 percent] = 908

-See above


rate

FAMU: 38.936 percent

FAU: 39.936 percent

UWF: 41.936 percent

UNF: 47.936 percent

FGCU: 42.936 percent



Example:

UWF

[42 percent] - [0.064


Projected number of

graduates

FAMU: 1153

FAU: 3602

UWF: 907

UNF: 1753

FGCU: 1283





Example:

UWF

[2163] x [41.936 percent] =

907

-See above

Actual money per

graduate

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00





UWF

[$24,100] x [908] =

$21,893,886.00







Actual Earnings

FAMU: -$45,685.89

FAU: -$139,124.48

UWF: -$33,362.11

UNF: -$56,420.99

FGCU: -$46,102.34




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an


Example:

UWF

[$21,860,523.89] –

[$21,893,886.00] =

-$33,362.11







59

Sch

ool

Perce

nt of

Total

Total

6-yea

r Grad

uatio

n Rate

sSo

lution

4Ne

w Base

New p

roject

ed gr

adua

tion r

ateNu

mber

of sen

iors

Numb

er of

gradu

ates

Projec

ted nu

mber

gradu

ates

Actua

l mon

ey pe

r grad

uate

Addit

ional m

oney

mad

e by g

radua

tesPo

tentia

l Earni

ngs -

Actua

l Earni

ngs

UF19.

07%$65

7,018,

039.69

86.00%

$6,570

,180.4

0$66

3,588,

220.09

86.064

00%132

60114

04114

12$27

4,826,

760.00

$275,0

31,282

.24$20

4,522.

24

FSU14.

66%$50

5,080,

464.70

76.00%

$5,050

,804.6

5$51

0,131,

269.35

76.064

00%110

42839

2839

9$20

2,245,

272.00

$202,4

15,583

.81$17

0,311.

81

FAMU

4.89%

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%-$1

,684,7

49.98

$166,7

90,248

.1438.

93600%

2962

1155

1153

$27,83

9,838.

00$27

,794,1

52.11

-$45,6

85.89

FAU

7.59%

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%-$2

,614,9

80.03

$258,8

83,023

.1839.

93600%

9020

3608

3602

$86,95

2,800.

00$86

,813,6

75.52

-$139,

124.48

UWF

3.53%

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%-$1

,216,1

89.66

$120,4

02,776

.2641.

93600%

2163

908907

$21,89

3,886.

00$21

,860,5

23.89

-$33,3

62.11

USF

13.16%

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%-$4

,534,0

10.17

$448,8

67,007

.2560.

93600%

15683

9567

9557

$230,5

55,783

.00$23

0,313,

888.41

-$241,

894.59

UNF

4.26%

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%-$1

,467,6

96.30

$145,3

01,933

.9647.

93600%

3658

1756

1753

$42,31

5,744.

00$42

,259,3

23.01

-$56,4

20.99

FIU12.

11%$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

-$4,17

2,254.

04$41

3,053,

150.29

49.936

00%955

4477

7477

1$11

5,125,

700.00

$114,9

78,339

.10-$1

47,360

.90

FGCU

3.42%

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%-$1

,178,2

91.40

$116,6

50,848

.3942.

93600%

2989

1285

1283

$30,97

5,007.

00$30

,928,9

04.66

-$46,1

02.34

UCF

14.63%

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%-$5

,040,4

68.76

$499,0

06,407

.0065.

93600%

12824

8464

8456

$203,9

78,544

.00$20

3,780,

746.62

-$197,

797.38

Othe

r1.0

2%$35

,142,0

24.15

Total

s98.

34%$3,

445,29

6,485.

00$10

,287,6

55.30

83155

51316

51294

$1,236

,709,3

34.00

$1,236

,176,4

19.38

-$532,

914.62

*doe

s not

equa

l

100% b

ecause

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

60

Appendix 8: Sensitivity Analysis:

The sensitivity analysis for this memorandum follows the same format and statistical inputs as referenced in the

proposed solutions. In order to increase the understanding of the relationships between state appropriations and

student earnings, two additional rates relating to state appropriations and graduation rates was used.

As seen by Zhang, a 1 percent increase (or decrease) in state appropriations leads to a 0.064 percent increase (or

decrease) in graduation rates at a university. In this sensitivity analysis, a 0.05 percent rate and a 0.1 percent

rate were substituted in the calculations for each policy solution. For the purposes of this memorandum, the

sensitivity analysis shows the impact the different rates have on a university’s 6-year graduation rate and on

student earnings.

61

Tier 1, 0.05 percent:



State budgets $0.00 $13,746,732.98 $0.00 $2,125,747.93

Universities $0.00 $0.00 $11,620,985.04 $0.00


Costs Students $0.00 -$458,635.05 $0.00 -$179,725.75

State budgets $0.00 $0.00 -$11,969,614.60 $0.00

Universities $0.00 -$14,159,134.96 $0.00 -$2,189,520.37


-$121,325,184.00 -$871,037.04 $8,374.35 -$243,498.19




State budgets $0.00 $8,161,907.37 $0.00 $8,161,907.37

Universities $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00


Costs Students $0.00 -$261,099.40 $0.00 -$261,099.40

State budgets $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Universities $0.00 -$8,406,764.59 $0.00 -$8,406,764.59


-$145,516,041.00 -$505,956.62 $0.00 -$505,956.62

62




State budgets $0.00 $13,746,732.98 $0.00 $2,125,747.93

Universities $0.00 $0.00 $11,620,985.04 $0.00


Costs Students $0.00 -$917,270.10 $0.00 -$359,451.50

State budgets $0.00 $0.00 -$11,969,614.60 $0.00

Universities $0.00 -$14,159,134.96 $0.00 -$2,189,520.37


-$121,325,184.00 -$1,329,672.09 $209,189.05 -$423,223.94




State budgets $0.00 $8,161,907.37 $0.00 $8,161,907.37

Universities $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00


Costs Students $0.00 -$522,198.80 $0.00 -$522,198.80

State budgets $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Universities $0.00 -$8,406,764.59 $0.00 -$8,406,764.59


-$145,516,041.00 -$767,056.02 $0.00 -$767,056.02

Benefits to each stakeholder were calculated adding the total impact each solution had on the group. For

example, the benefits/costs to students were calculated by adding the additional earnings students received at all

universities in their respective tiers when each solution was implemented. The benefits/costs to state budgets

were calculated by adding the increases or decreases to the base budgets for universities in their respective tiers

when each solution was implemented.

Additionally, the benefits/costs to universities were calculated by adding the increases or decreases to the base

budgets for universities in their respective tiers when each solution was implemented. In the case universities, a

63

3 percent administration fee was assessed to cuts to account for potential costs associated with the transfer of

those funds back to state budgets.

64

Statistical Inputs, Sensitivity Analysis-Status Quo

Status Quo, 0.05 percent:


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent

--- -“Annual Accountability Report




Additional funding

needed to reach 70


UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: $816,121,831.37

FIU: $1,668,901,617.33

UCF: $403,237,500.60

FAMU:

$1,044,544,988.32

FAU: $1,568,988,019.27

UWF: $681,066,209.15

UNF: $645,786,373.15

FGCU: $636,277,354.85


needed to reach 70







FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.










65




2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

-See above

66

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11404

FSU: 8392

USF: 10978

FIU: 6688

UCF: 8977

FAMU: 2073

FAU: 6314

UWF: 1514

UNF: 2561

FGCU: 2092





-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: $34,016,427.00

FIU: $46,050,280.00

UCF: $12,362,336.00

FAMU: $22,129,102.00

FAU: $65,214,600.00

UWF: $14,595,924.00

UNF: $19,394,716.00

FGCU: $19,449,423.00




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







67

Sensitivity Analysis, Status Quo, 0.05 percent Calculations

School Percent of Total Total 6-year Graduation Rates Graduation rate increase needed to 70% Additional funding needed to reach 70% New Base Status Quo New projected graduation rate

UF 19.07% $657,018,039.69 86.00% 0.00% $0.00 $657,018,039.69 $657,018,039.69 86.00%

FSU 14.66% $505,080,464.70 76.00% 0.00% $0.00 $505,080,464.70 $505,080,464.70 76.00%

FAMU 4.89% $168,474,998.12 39.00% 31.00% $1,044,544,988.32 $1,213,019,986.44 $168,474,998.12 70.000%

FAU 7.59% $261,498,003.21 40.00% 30.00% $1,568,988,019.27 $1,830,486,022.48 $261,498,003.21 70.000%

UWF 3.53% $121,618,965.92 42.00% 28.00% $681,066,209.15 $802,685,175.08 $121,618,965.92 70.000%

USF 13.16% $453,401,017.43 61.00% 9.00% $816,121,831.37 $1,269,522,848.79 $453,401,017.43 70.000%

UNF 4.26% $146,769,630.26 48.00% 22.00% $645,786,373.15 $792,556,003.41 $146,769,630.26 70.000%

FIU 12.11% $417,225,404.33 50.00% 20.00% $1,668,901,617.33 $2,086,127,021.67 $417,225,404.33 70.000%

FGCU 3.42% $117,829,139.79 43.00% 27.00% $636,277,354.85 $754,106,494.64 $117,829,139.79 70.000%

UCF 14.63% $504,046,875.76 66.00% 4.00% $403,237,500.60 $907,284,376.36 $504,046,875.76 70.000%

Other 1.02% $35,142,024.15

Totals 98.34% $3,445,296,485.00 $7,464,923,894.05 -$3,352,962,539.20

*does not equal

100% because

New College of

Florida and

Florida

Polytechic

University

removed

School

UF

FSU

FAMU

FAU

UWF

USF

UNF

FIU

FGCU

UCF

Other

Totals


13260 11404 11404 $274,826,760.00 $274,826,760.00 $0.00

11042 8392 8392 $202,245,272.00 $202,245,272.00 $0.00

2962 1155 2073 $27,839,838.00 $49,968,940.00 $22,129,102.00

9020 3608 6314 $86,952,800.00 $152,167,400.00 $65,214,600.00

2163 908 1514 $21,893,886.00 $36,489,810.00 $14,595,924.00

15683 9567 10978 $230,555,783.00 $264,572,210.00 $34,016,427.00

3658 1756 2561 $42,315,744.00 $61,710,460.00 $19,394,716.00

9554 4777 6688 $115,125,700.00 $161,175,980.00 $46,050,280.00

2989 1285 2092 $30,975,007.00 $50,424,430.00 $19,449,423.00

12824 8464 8977 $203,978,544.00 $216,340,880.00 $12,362,336.00

51316 60993 $1,236,709,334.00 $1,469,922,142.00 $233,212,808.00

68

Status Quo, 0.1 percent:


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent





Additional funding

needed to reach 70


UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: $408,060,915.68

FIU: $834,450,808.67

UCF: $201,618,750.30

FAMU: $522,272,494.16

FAU: $784,494,009.63

UWF: $340,533,104.58

UNF: $322,893,186.57

FGCU: $318,138,677.42


needed to reach 70







FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.











69



2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

-See above

Projected number of UF: 11404 [Number of seniors] x -See above

70

graduates FSU: 8392

USF: 10978

FIU: 6688

UCF: 8977

FAMU: 2073

FAU: 6314

UWF: 1514

UNF: 2561

FGCU: 2092




Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: $34,016,427.00

FIU: $46,050,280.00

UCF: $12,362,336.00

FAMU: $22,129,102.00

FAU: $65,214,600.00

UWF: $14,595,924.00

UNF: $19,394,716.00

FGCU: $19,449,423.00




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







71

Sensitivity Analysis, Status Quo, 0.1 percent Calculations

School Percent of Total Total 6-year Graduation Rates Graduation rate increase needed to 70% Additional funding needed to reach 70% New Base Status Quo New projected graduation rate

UF 19.07% $657,018,039.69 86.00% 0.00% $0.00 $657,018,039.69 $657,018,039.69 86.00%

FSU 14.66% $505,080,464.70 76.00% 0.00% $0.00 $505,080,464.70 $505,080,464.70 76.00%

FAMU 4.89% $168,474,998.12 39.00% 31.00% $522,272,494.16 $690,747,492.28 $168,474,998.12 70.000%

FAU 7.59% $261,498,003.21 40.00% 30.00% $784,494,009.63 $1,045,992,012.85 $261,498,003.21 70.000%

UWF 3.53% $121,618,965.92 42.00% 28.00% $340,533,104.58 $462,152,070.50 $121,618,965.92 70.000%

USF 13.16% $453,401,017.43 61.00% 9.00% $408,060,915.68 $861,461,933.11 $453,401,017.43 70.000%

UNF 4.26% $146,769,630.26 48.00% 22.00% $322,893,186.57 $469,662,816.84 $146,769,630.26 70.000%

FIU 12.11% $417,225,404.33 50.00% 20.00% $834,450,808.67 $1,251,676,213.00 $417,225,404.33 70.000%

FGCU 3.42% $117,829,139.79 43.00% 27.00% $318,138,677.42 $435,967,817.21 $117,829,139.79 70.000%

UCF 14.63% $504,046,875.76 66.00% 4.00% $201,618,750.30 $705,665,626.06 $504,046,875.76 70.000%

Other 1.02% $35,142,024.15

Totals 98.34% $3,445,296,485.00 $3,732,461,947.02 -$3,352,962,539.20

*does not equal

100% because

New College of

Florida and

Florida

Polytechic

University

removed

School

UF

FSU

FAMU

FAU

UWF

USF

UNF

FIU

FGCU

UCF

Other

Totals


13260 11404 11404 $274,826,760.00 $274,826,760.00 $0.00

11042 8392 8392 $202,245,272.00 $202,245,272.00 $0.00

2962 1155 2073 $27,839,838.00 $49,968,940.00 $22,129,102.00

9020 3608 6314 $86,952,800.00 $152,167,400.00 $65,214,600.00

2163 908 1514 $21,893,886.00 $36,489,810.00 $14,595,924.00

15683 9567 10978 $230,555,783.00 $264,572,210.00 $34,016,427.00

3658 1756 2561 $42,315,744.00 $61,710,460.00 $19,394,716.00

9554 4777 6688 $115,125,700.00 $161,175,980.00 $46,050,280.00

2989 1285 2092 $30,975,007.00 $50,424,430.00 $19,449,423.00

12824 8464 8977 $203,978,544.00 $216,340,880.00 $12,362,336.00

51316 60993 $1,236,709,334.00 $1,469,922,142.00 $233,212,808.00

72

Statistical Inputs, Sensitivity Analysis-Solution 2

Solution 2, 0.05 percent:


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent






2 on base budgets

UF: $0.00*

FSU: $0.00*

USF: -$4,534,010.17

FIU: -$4,172,254.04

UCF: -$5,040,468.76

FAMU: -$1,684,749.98

FAU: -$2,614,980.03

UWF: -$1,216,189.66

UNF: -$1,467,696.30

FGCU: -$1,178,291.40


-1

*UF and FSU did not

receive a cut to their base

budget because their

graduation rate is higher

than 70 percent.





FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989




















73

universities.




2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756



graduation rate]

-See above

74

FGCU: 1285

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11404

FSU: 8392

USF: 9559

FIU: 4772

UCF: 8457

FAMU: 1154

FAU: 3603

UWF: 907

UNF: 1754

FGCU: 1284





-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: -$188,980.15

FIU: -$115,125.70

UCF: -$154,529.20

FAMU: -$35,692.10

FAU: -$108,691.00

UWF: -$26,064.15

UNF: -$44,078.90

FGCU: -$36,017.45




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







75

Sensitivity Analysis, Solution 2, 0.05 percent Calculations:

Schoo

lPerc

ent o

f Tota

lTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates

Solut

ion 2

New

Base

New

projec

ted gr

adua

tion r

ateNu

mber

of se

niors

Numb

er of

gradu

ates

Projec

ted nu

mber

gradu

ates

Actua

l mon

ey pe

r grad

uate

Addit

ional

mone

y mad

e by g

radua

tesPo

tentia

l Earn

ings -

Actua

l Earn

ings

UF19

.07%

$657

,018,0

39.69

86.00

%$0

.00$6

57,01

8,039

.6986

.00%

1326

011

404

1140

4$2

74,82

6,760

.00$2

74,82

6,760

.00$0

.00

FSU

14.66

%$5

05,08

0,464

.7076

.00%

$0.00

$505

,080,4

64.70

76.00

%11

042

8392

8392

$202

,245,2

72.00

$202

,245,2

72.00

$0.00

FAMU

4.89%

$168

,474,9

98.12

39.00

%-$1

,684,7

49.98

$166

,790,2

48.14

38.95

0%29

6211

5511

54$2

7,839

,838.0

0$2

7,804

,145.9

0-$3

5,692

.10

FAU

7.59%

$261

,498,0

03.21

40.00

%-$2

,614,9

80.03

$258

,883,0

23.18

39.95

0%90

2036

0836

03$8

6,952

,800.0

0$8

6,844

,109.0

0-$1

08,69

1.00

UWF

3.53%

$121

,618,9

65.92

42.00

%-$1

,216,1

89.66

$120

,402,7

76.26

41.95

0%21

6390

890

7$2

1,893

,886.0

0$2

1,867

,821.8

5-$2

6,064

.15

USF

13.16

%$4

53,40

1,017

.4361

.00%

-$4,53

4,010

.17$4

48,86

7,007

.2560

.950%

1568

395

6795

59$2

30,55

5,783

.00$2

30,36

6,802

.85-$1

88,98

0.15

UNF

4.26%

$146

,769,6

30.26

48.00

%-$1

,467,6

96.30

$145

,301,9

33.96

47.95

0%36

5817

5617

54$4

2,315

,744.0

0$4

2,271

,665.1

0-$4

4,078

.90

FIU12

.11%

$417

,225,4

04.33

50.00

%-$4

,172,2

54.04

$413

,053,1

50.29

49.95

0%95

5447

7747

72$1

15,12

5,700

.00$1

15,01

0,574

.30-$1

15,12

5.70

FGCU

3.42%

$117

,829,1

39.79

43.00

%-$1

,178,2

91.40

$116

,650,8

48.39

42.95

0%29

8912

8512

84$3

0,975

,007.0

0$3

0,938

,989.5

5-$3

6,017

.45

UCF

14.63

%$5

04,04

6,875

.7666

.00%

-$5,04

0,468

.76$4

99,00

6,407

.0065

.950%

1282

484

6484

57$2

03,97

8,544

.00$2

03,82

4,014

.80-$1

54,52

9.20

Othe

r1.0

2%$3

5,142

,024.1

5

Total

s98

.34%

$3,44

5,296

,485.0

0$2

1,908

,640.3

551

316

5128

6$1

,236,7

09,33

4.00

$1,23

6,000

,155.3

5-$7

09,17

8.65

*doe

s not

equa

l

100%

becau

se

New

Colle

ge of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

76

Solution 2, 0.1 percent


METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent






2 on base budgets

UF: $0.00*

FSU: $0.00*

USF: -$4,534,010.17

FIU: -$4,172,254.04

UCF: -$5,040,468.76

FAMU: -$1,684,749.98

FAU: -$2,614,980.03

UWF: -$1,216,189.66

UNF: -$1,467,696.30

FGCU: -$1,178,291.40


-1

*UF and FSU did not

receive a cut to their base

budget because their

graduation rate is higher

than 70 percent.





FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.











77



2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

-See above


78

graduates FSU: 8392

USF: 9551

FIU: 4767

UCF: 8451

FAMU: 1152

FAU: 3599

UWF: 906

UNF: 1752

FGCU: 1282




Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $0.00

FSU: $0.00

USF: -$377,960.30

FIU: -$230,251.40

UCF: -$309,058.40

FAMU: -$71,384.20

FAU: -$217,382.00

UWF: -$52,128.30

UNF: -$88,157.80

FGCU: -$72,034.90




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







79


Schoo

lPerc

ent o

f Tota

lTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates

Solut

ion 2

New

Base

New

projec

ted gr

adua

tion r

ateNu

mber

of sen

iors

Numb

er of

gradu

ates

Projec

ted nu

mber

gradu

ates

Actua

l mon

ey pe

r grad

uate

Addit

ional m

oney

mad

e by g

radua

tesPo

tentia

l Earni

ngs -

Actua

l Earni

ngs

UF19

.07%

$657

,018,0

39.69

86.00

%$0

.00$6

57,01

8,039

.6986

.00%

1326

011

404

1140

4$2

74,82

6,760

.00$2

74,82

6,760

.00$0

.00

FSU

14.66

%$5

05,08

0,464

.7076

.00%

$0.00

$505

,080,4

64.70

76.00

%11

042

8392

8392

$202

,245,2

72.00

$202

,245,2

72.00

$0.00

FAMU

4.89%

$168

,474,9

98.12

39.00

%-$1

,684,7

49.98

$166

,790,2

48.14

38.90

0%29

6211

5511

52$2

7,839

,838.0

0$2

7,768

,453.8

0-$7

1,384

.20

FAU

7.59%

$261

,498,0

03.21

40.00

%-$2

,614,9

80.03

$258

,883,0

23.18

39.90

0%90

2036

0835

99$8

6,952

,800.0

0$8

6,735

,418.0

0-$2

17,38

2.00

UWF

3.53%

$121

,618,9

65.92

42.00

%-$1

,216,1

89.66

$120

,402,7

76.26

41.90

0%21

6390

890

6$2

1,893

,886.0

0$2

1,841

,757.7

0-$5

2,128

.30

USF

13.16

%$4

53,40

1,017

.4361

.00%

-$4,53

4,010

.17$4

48,86

7,007

.2560

.900%

1568

395

6795

51$2

30,55

5,783

.00$2

30,17

7,822

.70-$3

77,96

0.30

UNF

4.26%

$146

,769,6

30.26

48.00

%-$1

,467,6

96.30

$145

,301,9

33.96

47.90

0%36

5817

5617

52$4

2,315

,744.0

0$4

2,227

,586.2

0-$8

8,157

.80

FIU12

.11%

$417

,225,4

04.33

50.00

%-$4

,172,2

54.04

$413

,053,1

50.29

49.90

0%95

5447

7747

67$1

15,12

5,700

.00$1

14,89

5,448

.60-$2

30,25

1.40

FGCU

3.42%

$117

,829,1

39.79

43.00

%-$1

,178,2

91.40

$116

,650,8

48.39

42.90

0%29

8912

8512

82$3

0,975

,007.0

0$3

0,902

,972.1

0-$7

2,034

.90

UCF

14.63

%$5

04,04

6,875

.7666

.00%

-$5,04

0,468

.76$4

99,00

6,407

.0065

.900%

1282

484

6484

51$2

03,97

8,544

.00$2

03,66

9,485

.60-$3

09,05

8.40

Othe

r1.0

2%$3

5,142

,024.1

5

Total

s98

.34%

$3,44

5,296

,485.0

0$2

1,908

,640.3

583

155

5131

651

257

$1,23

6,709

,334.0

0$1

,235,2

90,97

6.70

-$1,41

8,357

.30

*doe

s not

equa

l

100%

becau

se

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

80




METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent






3 on base budgets

UF: $6,570,180.40

FSU: $5,050,804.65

USF: $0.00*

FIU: $0.00*

UCF: $0.00*

FAMU: $0.00*

FAU: $0.00*

UWF: $0.00*

UNF: $0.00*

FGCU: $0.00*


*Only UF and FSU

received an increase of 1

percent to their base budget

because their graduation

rate is higher than 70

percent.





FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989




















81

universities.




2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756



graduation rate]

-See above

82

FGCU: 1285

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11410

FSU: 8397

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 908

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285





-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $159,783.00

FSU: $133,056.10

USF: $0.00

FIU: $0.00

UCF: $0.00

FAMU: $0.00

FAU: $0.00

UWF: $0.00

UNF: $0.00

FGCU: $0.00




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







83


Schoo

lPerc

ent o

f Tota

lTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates

Solut

ion 3

New B

aseNe

w proj

ected

grad

uatio

n rate

Numb

er of

senior

sNu

mber

of gra

duate

sPro

jected

numb

er gra

duate

sAc

tual m

oney

per g

radua

teAd

dition

al mon

ey m

ade b

y grad

uates

Poten

tial Ea

rning

s - Ac

tual Ea

rning

s

UF19.

07%$65

7,018,

039.69

86.00%

$6,570

,180.4

0$66

3,588,

220.09

86.050

00%132

60114

04114

10$27

4,826,

760.00

$274,9

86,543

.00$15

9,783.

00

FSU14.

66%$50

5,080,

464.70

76.00%

$5,050

,804.6

5$51

0,131,

269.35

76.050

00%110

42839

2839

7$20

2,245,

272.00

$202,3

78,328

.10$13

3,056.

10

FAMU

4.89%

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%0

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%296

2115

5115

5$27

,839,8

38.00

$27,83

9,838.

00$0.

00

FAU

7.59%

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%0

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%902

0360

8360

8$86

,952,8

00.00

$86,95

2,800.

00$0.

00

UWF

3.53%

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%0

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%216

3908

908$21

,893,8

86.00

$21,89

3,886.

00$0.

00

USF

13.16%

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%0

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%156

83956

7956

7$23

0,555,

783.00

$230,5

55,783

.00$0.

00

UNF

4.26%

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%0

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%365

8175

6175

6$42

,315,7

44.00

$42,31

5,744.

00$0.

00

FIU12.

11%$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

0$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

9554

4777

4777

$115,1

25,700

.00$11

5,125,

700.00

$0.00

FGCU

3.42%

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%0

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%298

9128

5128

5$30

,975,0

07.00

$30,97

5,007.

00$0.

00

UCF

14.63%

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%0

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%128

24846

4846

4$20

3,978,

544.00

$203,9

78,544

.00$0.

00

Othe

r1.0

2%$35

,142,0

24.15

Total

s98.

34%$3,

445,29

6,485.

00-$1

1,620,

985.04

83155

51316

51328

$1,236

,709,3

34.00

$1,237

,002,1

73.10

$292,8

39.10

*doe

s not

equa

l

100% b

ecause

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

84



METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent






3 on base budgets

UF: $6,570,180.40

FSU: $5,050,804.65

USF: $0.00*

FIU: $0.00*

UCF: $0.00*

FAMU: $0.00*

FAU: $0.00*

UWF: $0.00*

UNF: $0.00*

FGCU: $0.00*


*Only UF and FSU

received an increase of 1

percent to their base budget

because their graduation

rate is higher than 70

percent.





FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989











universities.











85



2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285



graduation rate]

-See above


86

graduates FSU: 8403

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 908

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285




Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $319,566.00

FSU: $266,112.20

USF: $0.00

FIU: $0.00

UCF: $0.00

FAMU: $0.00

FAU: $0.00

UWF: $0.00

UNF: $0.00

FGCU: $0.00




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







87


Schoo

lPerc

ent o

f Tota

lTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates

Solut

ion 3

New B

aseNe

w proj

ected

grad

uatio

n rate

Numb

er of

senior

sNu

mber

of gra

duate

sPro

jected

numb

er gra

duate

sAc

tual m

oney

per g

radua

teAd

dition

al mon

ey m

ade b

y grad

uates

Poten

tial Ea

rning

s - Ac

tual Ea

rning

s

UF19.

07%$65

7,018,

039.69

86.00%

$6,570

,180.4

0$66

3,588,

220.09

86.100

00%132

60114

04114

17$27

4,826,

760.00

$275,1

46,326

.00$31

9,566.

00

FSU14.

66%$50

5,080,

464.70

76.00%

$5,050

,804.6

5$51

0,131,

269.35

76.100

00%110

42839

2840

3$20

2,245,

272.00

$202,5

11,384

.20$26

6,112.

20

FAMU

4.89%

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%0

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%296

2115

5115

5$27

,839,8

38.00

$27,83

9,838.

00$0.

00

FAU

7.59%

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%0

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%902

0360

8360

8$86

,952,8

00.00

$86,95

2,800.

00$0.

00

UWF

3.53%

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%0

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%216

3908

908$21

,893,8

86.00

$21,89

3,886.

00$0.

00

USF

13.16%

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%0

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%156

83956

7956

7$23

0,555,

783.00

$230,5

55,783

.00$0.

00

UNF

4.26%

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%0

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%365

8175

6175

6$42

,315,7

44.00

$42,31

5,744.

00$0.

00

FIU12.

11%$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

0$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

9554

4777

4777

$115,1

25,700

.00$11

5,125,

700.00

$0.00

FGCU

3.42%

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%0

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%298

9128

5128

5$30

,975,0

07.00

$30,97

5,007.

00$0.

00

UCF

14.63%

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%0

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%128

24846

4846

4$20

3,978,

544.00

$203,9

78,544

.00$0.

00

Othe

r1.0

2%$35

,142,0

24.15

Total

s98.

34%$3,

445,29

6,485.

00-$1

1,620,

985.04

83155

51316

51340

$1,236

,709,3

34.00

$1,237

,295,0

12.20

$585,6

78.20

*doe

s not

equa

l

100% b

ecause

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

88




METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent






4 on base budgets

UF: $6,570,180.40

FSU: $5,050,804.65

USF: -$4,534,010.17

FIU: -$4,172,254.04

UCF: -$5,040,468.76

FAMU: -$1,684,749.98

FAU: -$2,614,980.03

UWF: -$1,216,189.66

UNF: -$1,467,696.30

FGCU: -$1,178,291.40


* UF and FSU received an

increase of 1 percent to

their base budget because

their graduation rate is

higher than 70 percent.

*Base budgets at all other

universities were cut by 1

percent because their

graduation rate is lower

than 70 percent.





FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163
















89

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989



universities.






2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608



graduation rate]

-See above

90

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756

FGCU: 1285

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11410

FSU: 8397

USF: 9559

FIU: 4772

UCF: 8457

FAMU: 1154

FAU: 3603

UWF: 907

UNF: 1754

FGCU: 1284





-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $159,783.00

FSU: $133,056.10

USF: -$188,980.15

FIU: -$115,125.70

UCF: -$154,529.20

FAMU: -$35,692.10

FAU: -$108,691.00

UWF: -$26,064.15

UNF: -$44,078.90

FGCU: -$36,017.45




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







91


Schoo

lPerc

ent o

f Tota

lTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates (2

013)

Solut

ion 4

New B

aseNe

w proj

ected

grad

uatio

n rate

Numb

er of

senior

sNu

mber

of gra

duate

sPro

jected

numb

er gra

duate

sAc

tual m

oney

per g

radua

teAd

dition

al mon

ey m

ade b

y grad

uates

Poten

tial Ea

rning

s - Ac

tual Ea

rning

s

UF19.

07%$65

7,018,

039.69

86.00%

$6,570

,180.4

0$66

3,588,

220.09

86.050

00%132

60114

04114

10$27

4,826,

760.00

$274,9

86,543

.00$15

9,783.

00

FSU14.

66%$50

5,080,

464.70

76.00%

$5,050

,804.6

5$51

0,131,

269.35

76.050

00%110

42839

2839

7$20

2,245,

272.00

$202,3

78,328

.10$13

3,056.

10

FAMU

4.89%

$168,4

74,998

.1239.

00%-$1

,684,7

49.98

$166,7

90,248

.1438.

95000%

2962

1155

1154

$27,83

9,838.

00$27

,804,1

45.90

-$35,6

92.10

FAU

7.59%

$261,4

98,003

.2140.

00%-$2

,614,9

80.03

$258,8

83,023

.1839.

95000%

9020

3608

3603

$86,95

2,800.

00$86

,844,1

09.00

-$108,

691.00

UWF

3.53%

$121,6

18,965

.9242.

00%-$1

,216,1

89.66

$120,4

02,776

.2641.

95000%

2163

908907

$21,89

3,886.

00$21

,867,8

21.85

-$26,0

64.15

USF

13.16%

$453,4

01,017

.4361.

00%-$4

,534,0

10.17

$448,8

67,007

.2560.

95000%

15683

9567

9559

$230,5

55,783

.00$23

0,366,

802.85

-$188,

980.15

UNF

4.26%

$146,7

69,630

.2648.

00%-$1

,467,6

96.30

$145,3

01,933

.9647.

95000%

3658

1756

1754

$42,31

5,744.

00$42

,271,6

65.10

-$44,0

78.90

FIU12.

11%$41

7,225,

404.33

50.00%

-$4,17

2,254.

04$41

3,053,

150.29

49.950

00%955

4477

7477

2$11

5,125,

700.00

$115,0

10,574

.30-$1

15,125

.70

FGCU

3.42%

$117,8

29,139

.7943.

00%-$1

,178,2

91.40

$116,6

50,848

.3942.

95000%

2989

1285

1284

$30,97

5,007.

00$30

,938,9

89.55

-$36,0

17.45

UCF

14.63%

$504,0

46,875

.7666.

00%-$5

,040,4

68.76

$499,0

06,407

.0065.

95000%

12824

8464

8457

$203,9

78,544

.00$20

3,824,

014.80

-$154,

529.20

Othe

r1.0

2%$35

,142,0

24.15

Total

s98.

34%$3,

445,29

6,485.

00$10

,287,6

55.30

83155

51316

51298

$1,236

,709,3

34.00

$1,236

,292,9

94.45

-$416,

339.55

*doe

s not

equa

l

100% b

ecause

New C

olleg

e of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

92



METHOD

SOURCE(S)

University Base

Budgets

UF: $657,018,039.69

FSU: $505,080,464.70

USF: $453,401,017.43

FIU: $417,225,404.33

UCF: $504,046,875.76

FAMU: $168,474,998.12

FAU: $261,498,003.21

UWF: $121,618,965.92

UNF: $146,769,630.26

FGCU: $117,829,139.79



special units

($3,445,296,485)] x


each university]

UF: 19.07% of total






FAU: 7.59% of total

UWF: 3.53% of total

UNF: 4.26% of total






FL 2013


FSU: 76 percent

USF: 61 percent

FIU: 50 percent

UCF: 66 percent

FAMU: 39 percent

FAU: 40 percent

UWF: 42 percent

UNF: 48 percent

FGCU: 43 percent






4 on base budgets

UF: $6,570,180.40

FSU: $5,050,804.65

USF: -$4,534,010.17

FIU: -$4,172,254.04

UCF: -$5,040,468.76

FAMU: -$1,684,749.98

FAU: -$2,614,980.03

UWF: -$1,216,189.66

UNF: -$1,467,696.30

FGCU: -$1,178,291.40


* UF and FSU received an

increase of 1 percent to

their base budget because

their graduation rate is

higher than 70 percent.

*Base budgets at all other

universities were cut by 1

percent because their

graduation rate is lower

than 70 percent.





FL 2013






FSU: 11042

USF: 15683

FIU: 9554*

UCF: 12824*

FAMU: 2962*

FAU: 9020

UWF: 2163

UNF: 3658*

FGCU: 2989




















93

universities.




2013.




Miami, FL 2013.









FL 2013.




FL 2013.







Pensacola, FL 2013.









Myers, FL 2012.


FSU: 8392

USF: 9567

FIU: 4777

UCF: 8464

FAMU: 1155

FAU: 3608

UWF: 952

UNF: 1756



graduation rate]

-See above

94

FGCU: 1285

Projected number of

graduates

UF: 11417

FSU: 8403

USF: 9551

FIU: 4767

UCF: 8451

FAMU: 1152

FAU: 3599

UWF: 906

UNF: 1752

FGCU: 1282





-See above

Actual money per

graduate

UF: $274,826,760.00

FSU: $202,245,272.00

USF: $230,555,783.00

FIU: $115,125,700.00

UCF: $203,978,544.00

FAMU: $27,839,838.00

FAU: $86,952,800.00

UWF: $21,893,886.00

UNF: $42,315,744.00

FGCU: $30,975,007.00











by graduates

UF: $319,566.00

FSU: $266,112.20

USF: -$377,960.30

FIU: -$230,251.40

UCF: -$309,058.40

FAMU: -$71,384.20

FAU: -$217,382.00

UWF: -$52,128.30

UNF: -$88,157.80

FGCU: -$72,034.90




completion of an


([Actual number of



completion of an







95


Schoo

lPerc

ent o

f Tota

lTo

tal6-y

ear G

radua

tion R

ates

Solut

ion 4

New

Base

New

projec

ted gr

adua

tion r

ateNu

mber

of se

niors

Numb

er of

gradu

ates

Projec

ted nu

mber

gradu

ates

Actua

l mon

ey pe

r grad

uate

Addit

ional

mone

y mad

e by g

radua

tesPo

tentia

l Earn

ings -

Actua

l Earn

ings

UF19

.07%

$657

,018,0

39.69

86.00

%$6

,570,1

80.40

$663

,588,2

20.09

86.10

000%

1326

011

404

1141

7$2

74,82

6,760

.00$2

75,14

6,326

.00$3

19,56

6.00

FSU

14.66

%$5

05,08

0,464

.7076

.00%

$5,05

0,804

.65$5

10,13

1,269

.3576

.1000

0%11

042

8392

8403

$202

,245,2

72.00

$202

,511,3

84.20

$266

,112.2

0

FAMU

4.89%

$168

,474,9

98.12

39.00

%-$1

,684,7

49.98

$166

,790,2

48.14

38.90

000%

2962

1155

1152

$27,8

39,83

8.00

$27,7

68,45

3.80

-$71,3

84.20

FAU

7.59%

$261

,498,0

03.21

40.00

%-$2

,614,9

80.03

$258

,883,0

23.18

39.90

000%

9020

3608

3599

$86,9

52,80

0.00

$86,7

35,41

8.00

-$217

,382.0

0

UWF

3.53%

$121

,618,9

65.92

42.00

%-$1

,216,1

89.66

$120

,402,7

76.26

41.90

000%

2163

908

906

$21,8

93,88

6.00

$21,8

41,75

7.70

-$52,1

28.30

USF

13.16

%$4

53,40

1,017

.4361

.00%

-$4,53

4,010

.17$4

48,86

7,007

.2560

.9000

0%15

683

9567

9551

$230

,555,7

83.00

$230

,177,8

22.70

-$377

,960.3

0

UNF

4.26%

$146

,769,6

30.26

48.00

%-$1

,467,6

96.30

$145

,301,9

33.96

47.90

000%

3658

1756

1752

$42,3

15,74

4.00

$42,2

27,58

6.20

-$88,1

57.80

FIU12

.11%

$417

,225,4

04.33

50.00

%-$4

,172,2

54.04

$413

,053,1

50.29

49.90

000%

9554

4777

4767

$115

,125,7

00.00

$114

,895,4

48.60

-$230

,251.4

0

FGCU

3.42%

$117

,829,1

39.79

43.00

%-$1

,178,2

91.40

$116

,650,8

48.39

42.90

000%

2989

1285

1282

$30,9

75,00

7.00

$30,9

02,97

2.10

-$72,0

34.90

UCF

14.63

%$5

04,04

6,875

.7666

.00%

-$5,04

0,468

.76$4

99,00

6,407

.0065

.9000

0%12

824

8464

8451

$203

,978,5

44.00

$203

,669,4

85.60

-$309

,058.4

0

Othe

r1.0

2%$3

5,142

,024.1

5

Total

s98

.34%

$3,44

5,296

,485.0

0$1

0,287

,655.3

083

155

5131

651

281

$1,23

6,709

,334.0

0$1

,235,8

76,65

4.90

-$832

,679.1

0

*doe

s not

equa

l

100%

becau

se

New

Colle

ge of

Florid

a and

Florid

a

Polyt

echic

Unive

rsity

remov

ed

96

Bibliography:

Alana Davis, Brittany. "PRESS RELEASE: Board of Governors unveils performance funding metrics." State University

System of Florida: Board of Governors. January 16, 2014. http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/news.php?id=516

(accessed April 15, 2014).

Blose, Gary L, John D Porter, and Edward C Kokkelenberg. "The Effect of Institutional Funding Cuts on Baccalaureate

Graduation Rates in Public Higher Education." In What's Happening to Public Higher Education?, by Ronald

Ehrenberg, 71-82. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2006.

Burdman, Pamela. The Student Debt Dilemma: Debt Aversion as a Barrier to College Access. Discussion Paper,

Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley, 2005.

Canon, Maria, and Charles Gascon. College Degrees: Why Aren't More People Making the Investment? St. Louis: Federal

Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2012.

Carnevale, Anthony, Stephen Rose, and Ban Cheah. The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, and Lifetime Earnings.

Washington DC: Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, 2011.

CollegeBoard. Trends in College Pricing. New York: CollegeBoard, 2014.

CollegeBoard. Trends in Higher Education: Average Rates of Growth of Published Charges by Decade. New York:

CollegeBoard, 2014.

Executive Office of Governor Rick Scott. "Governor Rick Scott's Statement on University Tuition Action." 2014.

Florida A&M University. FAMU Factbook: Demographics. Tallahassee: Florida A&M University, 2014.

Florida Atlantic University Office of Institutional Effectiveness & Analysis. FAU Factbook: Headcount Enrollment by

Level & Gender, Fall 2007 - 2012. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University, 2014.

Florida Board of Governors. Annual Accountability Report, 2014. Tallahassee: Florida Board of Governors, 2014.

97

—. "Tuition & Fees." State University System of Florida, Board of Governors. 2014.

http://www.flbog.edu/about/budget/current.php.

Florida Gulf Coast University Board of Trustees. FGCU Headcount Enrolled by Class, Fall Term. Fort Myers: Florida

Gulf Coast University Board of Trustees, 2012.

Florida International University Office of Planning and Instiutional Research. FIU Factbook: HISTORICAL FALL

HEADCOUNT BY STUDENT LEVEL. Florida International University, 2013.

Florida Senate. "SB 1070, An act relating to K-20 education." 2013.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1076/BillText/er/PDF (accessed March 14, 2014).

Florida State University. "An Introduction to the Big Ideas." 2014. http://one.fsu.edu/file/Florida-State-Big-Ideas-

Brochure.pdf.

Florida State University Office of Institutional Research. FSU Factbook: Headcount Enrollment, Fall Semesters.

Tallahassee: Florida State University, 2014.

Florida State University. "University presidents ask legislators for $118 million investment in higher education." FSU

News. December 5, 2012. http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/24-7-News-Archive/2012/December/University-

presidents-ask-legislators-for-118-million-investment-in-higher-education.

Miller, Troy. "Grad Rates at Public Universities in Florida Inch Higher." Florida College Access Network, March 3, 2013.

Mitchell, Michael, Vincent Palacios, and Michael Leachman. States Are Still Funding Higher Education Below Pre-

Recession Levels. Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2014.

Oliff, Phil, Vincent Palacios, Ingrid Johnson, and Michael Leachman. Recent Deep State Higher Education Cuts May

Harm Students and the Economy for Years to Come. Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

2013.

Pew Research: Social and Demographic Trends. "Is College Worth It?" May 15, 2011.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/05/15/is-college-worth-it/.

98

Ryan, John. "The Relationship Between Institutional Expenditures and Degree Attainment at Baccalaureate Colleges."

Research in Higher Education 45, no. 2 (2004).

Solochek, Jeffrey. "Florida university system chairman sets priorities for coming two years." The Tampa Bay Times.

January 16, 2014. http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/florida-university-system-chairman-sets-priorities-

for-coming-two-years/2161292 (accessed April 15, 2014).

State University System of Florida, Board of Governors. Performance Based Funding Model. Tallahassee: State

University System of Florida, Board of Governors, 2014.

Sullivan, Daniel. "The Hidden Costs of Low Four-Year Graduation Rates." Association of American Colleges and

Universities 96, no. 3 (2010): 24-31.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. 25 Years of Declining State Support for Public Colleges. Washington D.C.: The

Chronicle of Higher Education, 2014.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. From Public Good to Private Good: How Higher Education Got to a Tipping Point.

Washington D.C.: The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2014.

Turner, Jim. "University Presidents Would Hold the Line on Tuition if the State Would Just Give Them More Money."

Sunshine State News, December 5, 2012.

University of Central Florida Institutional Knowledge Management. 2013-14 Enrollment. Orlando: University of Central

Florida, 2014.

University of Florida Office on Instiutional Planning and Research. UF Factbook: Final Headcount Enrollment by Class

Level, Gender and Ethnicity (1997-2013). Gainesville: University of Florida, 2014.

University of North Florida. UNF Factbook: Fall Student Headcounts by Student Level. Jacksonville: University of North

Florida, 2013.

University of South Florida Info Center. USF Factbook: Student Headcount by Ethnicity. Tampa: University of South

Florida, 2014.

99

University of West Florida Institutional Research and Effectiveness Support. UWF Factbook: Enrollment by

Race/Ethnicity - Ethnicity by Gender, Level, and Load. Pensacola: University of West Florida, 2014.

US Department of Education. Graduation rates of first-time, full-time bachelor's degree-seeking students at 4-year

postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, and control of institution: Selected cohort

entry years, 1996 through 2006. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 2012.

Webber, Douglas, and Ronald Ehrenberg. Do Expenditures Other Than Instructional Expenditures Affect Graduation and

Persistence Rates in American Higher Education. Ithaca: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, 2009.

Zhang, Liang. "Does State Funding Affect Graduation Rates at Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities?" Educational

Policy, 2009: 714-731.

the impact of performance-based funding models on ......12 the college payoff: education,...

Documents