Performance Funding Annual Report
2004-2005

The Performance Funding Program, coordinated by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, is an incentive-based funding initiative for public higher education that financially rewards exemplary institutional performance on selected measures of effectiveness. Public institutions can earn up to 5.45% of their state operating appropriations.

Performance funding standards and assessments address general education outcomes, program accreditation and peer review, major field assessment, student/alumni/employer satisfaction, job placement, retention/graduation, institutional and state planning goals, and improvement implementation.

The program is administered on five-year cycles; this current cycle covers 2000-01 through 2004-05. The RSCC summary report of scores for the 2004-05 funding year can be viewed at the following link: Summary Page

Standard 4.B
Assessment Implementation
Total Possible Points:	10	Report Submission
Points Requested:	10	Supporting Document 1
Points Received:	10

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for RSCC to incorporate the information obtained through performance funding related assessment into their day-to-day activities. In the last year of the cycle, RSCC will prepare an overall summative evaluation report that incorporates all performance funding related activity into a coherent summary. This standard is built upon the foundation of SACS self-study by requiring institutions to document quality and effectiveness by employing a comprehensive system of planning and evaluation in every major aspect of the institution impacted by performance funding.

Evaluation: RSCC will report annually on all actions taken to incorporate the information gathered from performance funding into their day-to-day activities. Furthermore, RSCC will report on actions taken to remedy weaknesses identified as a result of performance funding assessment activity.

Standard 4.A.2
Job Placement
Total Possible Points:	15	Report Submission
Points Requested:	15
Points Received:	15

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for two-year institutions, such as RSCC, to continue to improve job placement of their career graduates.

Evaluation: Each major field career program (certificate and A.A.S) will be evaluated by the placement rate of its graduates. RSCC will be considered successful in this area if the placement rate is at least 75% of eligible graduates.

 

Standard 4.A.1
Outcome Attainment: Retention/Persistence
Total Possible Points:	5	Report Submission
Points Requested:	5	Supporting Document 1
Points Received:	5	Supporting Document 2

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for RSCC to improve the quality of their undergraduate programs as evaluated by targeting specific retention and/or persistence to graduation strategies.

Evaluation: Evaluation will be accomplished by comparing institutional retention rates for first-time, full-time freshman to state or external norms. Each institution will be compared by their average retention rate over the past ten years, state norms, and national norms. RSCC will be considered successful if they are at/above any of these three indicators.

 

Standard 3.B
State Strategic Master Plan Goals
Total Possible Points:	5	Report Submission
Points Requested:	5	Supporting Document 1
Points Received:	5

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their academic programs by evaluating progress toward specific goals contained in the state strategic mater plan.

Evaluation: Measurable objectives, related to the state strategic master plans, were developed and benchmarks are set for each year of the cycle. Progress will be reported each year.

 

Standard 3.A
Institutional Strategic Plan Goals
Total Possible Points:	5	Report Submission
Points Requested:	5	Supporting Document 1
Points Received:	5

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their academic programs by evaluating progress toward specific goals contained in their institutional strategic plan.

Evaluation: Measurable objectives, related to the institution's strategic plans, were developed and benchmarks are set for each year of the cycle. Progress will be reported each year.

 

Standard 2.A
Alumni/Employer/Enrolled Surveys
Total Possible Points:	10	Report Submission
Points Requested:	10
Points Received:	10

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their undergraduate programs as evaluated by surveys of recent graduates, presently enrolled undergraduates, and regional and/or national employers of recent graduates.

Evaluation: In the 1st (2000-01) & 4th (2003-04) year of the cycle, institutions will administer the Enrolled Student Survey to a representative sample of undergraduate students. In the 2nd (2001-02) and 5th (2004-05) year of the cycle, institutions will administer the Alumni Survey to all alumni who graduated two years before the survey is administered. In the 3rd (2002-03) year of the cycle, RSCC must survey their local, regional, and national employers as applicable. The information gained from all three of these surveys will allow RSCC to have a better gauge of internal and external perceptions of their various clientele groups.

Standard 1.D
Major Field Assessment
Total Possible Points:	15	Report Submission
Points Requested:	15
Points Received:	15

Purpose: This indicator is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of major field program as evaluated by the performance of graduate on approved examinations.

Evaluation: A major field will be considered successful if the test score is either at or above a recognized norm or shows improvement over a previous testing. Each program (including licensure testing) will be reported once during the five-year cycle.

 

Standard 1.C.2
Program Review
Total Possible Points:	5	Report Submission
Points Requested:	5
Points Received:	5

Purpose: All non-accredited degree and certificate programs must be evaluated by program review.

Evaluation: Out-of-state reviewers use a set of objective and qualitative standards; these criteria have been set forth by THEC and Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR).

Standard 1.C.1
Program Accountability- Accreditation of Academic Programs
Total Possible Points:	10	Report Submission
Points Requested:	10
Points Received:	10

Purpose: This assessment is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.

Evaluation: For those program that are accreditable, evaluation will be based on the percentage of eligible programs that are accredited. For those programs that are non-accreditable, evaluation will be based on a set of objective and qualitative standards. Each non-accreditable program must be evaluated once during the five-year performance cycle.

 

Standard 1.B
Pilot Evaluation of General Education Outcomes
Total Possible Points:	5	Report Submission
Points Requested:	5	Supporting Document 1
Points Received:	5

Purpose: Pilot projects provide RSCC with an opportunity to experiment with alternate or supplementary methods of evaluating the undergraduate general education program. The pilot evaluation must measure the performance of associate degree graduates through the use of a testing instrument different from the one used in foundation testing.

Evaluation: While Foundation Testing provides one opportunity for evaluating general education, an institution may choose to research and pilot alternate means of evaluation.

 

Standard 1.A
Foundation Testing of General Education Outcomes
Total Possible Points:	15	Report Submission
Points Requested:	15
Points Received:	15

Purpose: This standard is designed to provide incentives to institutions for improvements in the quality of their undergraduate general education program as measured by the performance of students on an approved standardized test of general education.

Evaluation: Foundation testing is measured by the overall performance (mean score) of an institution. National norms are drawn from the similar two-year institutions that have taken the Academic Profile Examination.

/

General Education




Program Accountability




Major Field Assessment



Student/Employer Satisfaction



Institutional and State Goals




Output Attainment




Assessment Implementation