ERIC ED462901: Funding Guidelines Peer Performance Analysis: University System of Maryland, Morgan State University.

63 Pages·1.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 034 777
ED 462 901
Funding Guidelines Peer Performance Analysis: University
TITLE
System of Maryland, Morgan State University.
Maryland State Higher Education Commission, Annapolis.
INSTITUTION
2002-01-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
89p.
AVAILABLE FROM For full text: http://www.mhec.state.md.us.
Evaluative (142)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Educational Finance; Evaluation Methods; *Financial Support;
DESCRIPTORS
Higher Education; *Peer Institutions; *Performance Based
Assessment; Resource Allocation; Selection; *Universities
*Morgan State University MD; *University of Maryland System
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
In September 1999, the Maryland Higher Education Commission
adopted a peer-based model for the establishment of funding guidelines for
the University System of Maryland and Morgan State University. The guidelines
are designed to inform the budget process by providing a funding standard and
a basis for comparison between institutions. The basic concept is to identify
funding peers that are similar to Maryland institutions on a variety of
characteristics, and then to compare these funding peers to inform resource
questions and assess performance. Each applicable Maryland institution is to
select 10 performance peers from its list of funding peers. Seventeen
measures have been identified for the University System of Maryland
institutions and 14 for Morgan State University. These indicators are
compared with the state's Managing for Results initiative. Maryland
institutions are expected to perform at or above the level of their
performance peers on most indicators. This report contains a comprehensive
assessment of the performance of each University System of Maryland
institution and Morgan State University in comparison with their performance
peers. It includes a discussion of the performance measures, criteria used to
assess institutional performance, and issues related to data availability. In
addition, each institution was given the opportunity to respond to the
assessment of its performance, and these responses and comments are
summarized in the analysis section. Three appendixes discuss methodology for
selecting performance peers and operational definitions for performance
indicators for the University System and Morgan State University.
(SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
COMMISSION
MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION
FUNDING GUIDELINES
ANALYSIS
PEER PERFORMANCE
MARYLAND
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MEIN=
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Offide of Educational Research and Improvernent
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
CENTER (ERIC)
arr.:This document has
been reproduced as
BEEN GRANTED BY
received from the person or organization
originating it.
1:1 Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
document do not necessarily represent
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy.
1
January 2002
COMMISSION
MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION
16 Francis Street, Annapolis, Maryland 21401
www.rnhec.state.rnd.us
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
COMMISSION
MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION
John J. Oliver, Jr., Chairman
Dorothy Dixon Chaney
Edward 0. Clarke, Jr.
Micah Coleman
Anne Osborn Emery
John L. Green
George S. Malouf, Jr.
David S. Oros
R. Kathleen Perini
Charles B. Saunders, Jr.
Donald J. Slowinski, Sr.
Richard P. Streett, Jr.
Karen R. Johnson, J.D.
Secretary of Higher Education
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Executive Summary
Background
1
.
Refining Funding Guidelines
1
2
Performance Measures
2
Assessing Institution Performance
3
Data Availability
Peer Performance Analysis
11
Bowie State University
15
Coppin State College
19
Frostburg State University
23
Salisbury University
27
Towson University
31
University of Baltimore
35
University of Maryland, Baltimore
39
University of Maryland Baltimore County
43
University of Maryland, College Park
47
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
51
University of Maryland University College
55
Morgan State University
Appendices
61
Methodology for Selecting Performance Peers
Appendix A.
University System of Maryland Operational Definitions for Performance
Appendix B
63
Indicators
Morgan State University Operational Definitions for Performance
Appendix C
73
Indicators
Tables
Table 1. University System of Maryland Performance Measures for Funding
5
Guidelines
Table 2. Morgan State University Performance Measures for Funding Guidelines
7
4
Executive Summary
Education Commission adopted a peer-based
In September 1999, the Maryland Higher
Maryland
guidelines for the University System of
model for the establishment of funding
guidelines are designed to inform the budget process
and Morgan State University. The
institutions.
and a basis for comparison between
by providing both a funding standard
similar
is to identify peer institutions that are
The basic concept of the funding guidelines
These 'funding peers' are
variety of characteristics.
to Maryland institutions on a
and assess
to inform resource questions
the Maryland institutions
compared to
performance.
accountability
is an annual performance
Included in the funding guidelines process
from
institution selects 10 "performance peers"
component. Each applicable Maryland
from
in consultation with representatives
their list of "funding peers." The Commission,
Budget
State University, the Department of
the University System of Maryland, Morgan
Legislative Services, identified a set of
and Management and the Department of
Maryland
compare
to
measures
performance
outcome-oriented
comprehensive,
institutions
There are 17 measures for USM
institutions against their performance peers.
Results
consistent with the State's Managing for
and 14 for Morgan. These indicators are
which data are currently available. In some
(MFR) initiative and include indicators for
reflective of the
institutions added specific indicators that were more
instances,
institution's role and mission.
above their performance peers on
Maryland institutions are expected to perform at or
institution's performance
Furthermore, Commission staff assessed the
most indicators.
Commission staff examined trend data
within the context of the State's MFR initiative.
the peer performance indicators. In
and benchmarks for indicators that are comparable to
the
is below the performance of its peers,
instances where an institution's performance
it will take to improve performance. An
institution was required to identify actions that
its
demonstrates progress towards achieving
exception was made for an institution that
the MFR initiative.
benchmarks on related indicators established within
of the performance of each University
This report contains a comprehensive assessment
their
State University in comparison to
System of Maryland institution and Morgan
the performance measures,
The report includes a discussion of
performance peers.
and issues related to data availability. In
criteria used to assess institutional performance,
opportunity to respond to the Commission's
addition, each institution was given an
Institutional responses and
to its peers.
assessment of its performance in comparison
Comments are summarized in the analysis section.
5
Background
Education Commission adopted funding
In September 1999, the Maryland Higher
budget process by providing both
guidelines; a peer-based model designed to inform the
The basic concept of
basis for comparison between institutions.
a funding standard and a
similar
institutions (i.e. 'funding peers') that are
the funding guidelines is to identify peer
size, program mix,
(i.e. "home" institution) in mission,
to the Maryland institution
characteristics. These funding peers are then
enrollment composition, and other defining
institution.
compared and contrasted with the Maryland
institutions
whether the State's higher education
One component critical in determining
To
accountability.
level of their funding peers is performance
are performing at the
the University
presidents of each Maryland institution (except
compare performance, the
State
of Maryland, Baltimore; and Morgan
of Maryland, College Park; University
The
from their list of 'funding' peers.
University) selected ten 'performance' peers
their specific institutional objectives.
presidents based this selection on criteria relevant to
'aspirational
Park is measured only against its
The University of Maryland, College
and
Park aspires to emulate in performance
peers' - those institutions that College
Baltimore (UMB), 'composite peers' are
For the University of Maryland,
reputation.
public academic health and law university
used to recognize UMB's status as the State's
classified by the
UMB's peers include institutions
with six professional schools.
I'
as 'Research
classified
and institutions
'specialized'
Carnegie Foundation as
funding
performance peers are the same as its
institutions. Morgan State University's
select their performance
the criteria used by each institution to
peers. Appendix A lists
peers.
Refining Funding Guidelines
of
funding guidelines influenced the allocation
Fiscal Year 2002 was the second year that
provided a report to the General
For the first time, the Commission
State resources.
Maryland's performance relative to their
Assembly on the University System of
expressed concern that this report was not
performance peers. The budget committees
did not place enough emphasis on
comprehensive because the performance indicators
Commission
The committees requested that the
outcome and achievement measures.
and outcome-oriented accountability
address this gap by developing more comprehensive
indicators.
representatives from the University System of
The Commission, in consultation with the
the Department of Legislative
Maryland, the Department of Budget and Management,
workgroup to address the gap in the
Services and Morgan State University, established a
Based on collaborative
of the funding guidelines.
peer performance component
to compare Maryland
decisions, the workgroup identified a set of performance measures
In addition, the workgroup developed a
institutions against their 'performance' peers.
method to assess institutional performance.
1
6
performance of each University
This report contains a comprehensive assessment of the
University in comparison to their
System of Maryland institution and Morgan State
criteria used to assess
A discussion of the performance measures,
performance peers.
availability follow.
institutional performance, and issues related to data
Performance Measures
17 performance measures
For the University System of Maryland institutions, there are
provide data on all of the measures.
(see Table 1). Not all institutions are required to
comprehensive institutions and for
There are separate sets of indicators for Maryland's
specific
Furthermore, institutions have the flexibility to add
the research universities.
The indicators include
mission.
indicators that are more reflective of their role and
such as licensure examination
retention and graduation rates and outcome measures
and employer satisfaction rates.
passing rates, the number of faculty awards, and student
for Results initiative and reflect
All indicators are consistent with the State's Managing
definitions for each indicator.
statewide policy goals. Appendix B lists the operational
These
University (see Table 2).
There are 14 performance measures for Morgan State
and employer satisfaction rates,
indicators include retention and graduation rates, student
(an assessment that measures teacher
and the passing rate on the Praxis II examination
Appendix C lists the
teach).
candidate's knowledge of the subjects that they will
operational definitions for Morgan's indicators.
Assessing Institution Performance
above their performance peers on
Maryland institutions are expected to perform at or
institutional performance
Furthermore, Commission staff assessed
most indicators.
In general,
(MFR) initiative.
within the context of the State's Managing for Results
achieving their benchmarks
institutions were expected to make progress towards
Commission staff examined trend data and
established within the MFR initiative.
In
performance indicators.
benchmarks for indicators that are comparable to the peer
the performance of its peers, the
instances where an institution's performance is below
improve performance. An
institution is required to identify actions that it will take to
towards achieving its
exception will be made for an institution that demonstrates progress
ihe MFR initiative.
benchmarks on related indicators established within
respond to the Commission's
For this report, each institution was given an opportunity to
Institutional responses and
its peers.
assessment of its performance in comparison to
of this report.
comments are summarized in the analysis section
the integration of aspirational
In future years, the performance component will influence
Institutions may be eligible for enhanced
peers into the funding guideline process.
of the approved indicators
guideline funding if the institution's performance on a set
In the coming year, the Commission will
meets or exceeds the performance of its peers.
and Management and the
work with the public campuses, the Department of Budget
which an institution would
Department .of Legislative Services to develop criteria under
be eligible for enhanced guideline funding.
Data Availability
obtain nationally comparable outcome-based
It should be noted that it was difficult to
identified for peer
To the extent possible, the measures
performance measures.
currently available from national data
comparisons use data that are verifiable and
Education Statistics' Integrated Postsecondary
systems such as the National Center for
Foundation, and US. News
Education Database Systems (1PEDS), the National Science
Education Statistics is currently in
and World Report. Although the National Center for
indicators, many of these data
the process of designing methods to gather outcome-based
giving,
For example, peer data are not available for alumni
are not readily available.
passing rates on several professional
graduate satisfaction, employers' satisfaction, and
through national data
In cases where data are not available
licensure examinations.
either directly from their peer institutions or
systems, Maryland institutions obtained data
that are in the same Carnegie
compared its performance to Maryland institutions
institutions are compared
classification. For one measure, employers' satisfaction, USM
institutions that are of the same Carnegie
to the University of North Carolina System
conducts an annual survey of
classification. The University of North Carolina System
comparable to University System
employers who hire their graduates and this survey is
available, the
In the future, as more data become
of Maryland's annual survey.
the peer
into
outcome-based measures
additional
incorporate
will
Commission
performance process.
the Praxis II examination,
It should be noted that for one measure, the pass rate on
lines is not advisable
research suggests that comparisons of pass rates across state
from one state to another. Since
because of major differences in the testing requirements
of performance required for teacher
each state independently determines the level
institutional performance to other
certification, this indicator is useful only for comparing
Maryland institutions.
operational definitions found in this
In addition, there are subtle differences between the
For
performance indicators.
analysis and the definitions used in the MFR for several
and the six-year graduation rate
example, in this analysis, the second-year retention rate
full-time degree seeking undergraduate students
measures the proportion of first-time,
college or university. In addition, the
who either returned to or graduated from the same
Federal Graduation Rate Survey
graduation data used in this analysis are based on the
by the Student Right-to-Know Act
(GRS), a federal initiative that collects data required
re-enroll or graduate from the same
of 1990. In contrast, the MFR captures students who
Maryland public four-year
institution as well as those students who transfer to any
possible to assess institutional
institution. Because of these subtle differences, it was not
of the MFR initiative.
performance on retention and graduation within the context
difficulties in obtaining nationally comparable performance measures,
\ Despite the overall
data on all performance
institutions were expected to take appropriate steps to collect
institutions were asked to identify actions
measures. In the analysis section of this report,
that they are taking to collect data.
0
C
1
U
M
U
S
E
M
U
P
C
0
M
U
C
B
0
a
M
U
m
.
w
B d t W
r
n
e
a
M
a
e
M S
h
L
D
U
P
w
B
a
U
L
s
n
U
e
o
T
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
i

r
U
e
e
S
S
p

E
e
h
t
N

W
n
U
a
I
S
h
S
L
t
F

r
e
E
h
.
t
n
a
D
C
e
r

m
e
S
I
c
h
C
U
n
s
e
e
r
r
D
G
e
f

f
g
e
U
n
N
r

i
r
e
S
G
e
t
A
B
a
t
n
,
i
d
r
N
e
p
L
e
r
o
d
o
r
I
u
Y
f
n
p

l
D
e
g
o
p
c
r
x
s
a
n
R
o
e
i

N
r
i
c
e

a
v
s
e
h
A
p
5
i

b
t
T
U
m
g

e
s
A
l

M
l
o
b
e
i
i
S
w
c
F
n
r
y

u
m
.
f
r
a
s
s
o
e

t
m
e
F
n

R
i
e
u
e
r
d
o

p
u
l
l
e
O
n
i
i

a
t
t
t
O
t
r
i
u
n
a
e
d
o
t
e
d
r
p
n
f
i

t

c
5
F
g
e
a
M
s
x
d
r
n
n
p
r
e
e
e
y

g
i
i
x
s
p
s

t
S
M
e
u
r
D

E s
l
h

e
u

a
S
D
e
E
t
r
&
d
I
p
c
5
T
b
U
o
&

a
n
7
s

d
2
R
R

t
R
l

f
t
r
u
l
S
n
a
d
i
s
o
n

s
w
m

.
a

T
.
c
l
n
m
f
l
s
a
e
U
e
e
m

Y
l

a
a
i
y
d
a
s
c
F
y
i a
d
g
d
a

r
r
l
t
t
i
a
A
h
o
x
d
a

t
a
u
e
a
i
n
x
S
r
S
l
t
r
r
o
e
M
D
d
e
r
t
5
u
e
I
-
e
g
o
h
s
m
e

2
n
A

e

p
c

r
.
g
e
c
l
n
v
s
e

l
e
f

g
Y
a
e
a

a
e
s
s
c
n
e
i

a
r
s
l
s
c
n
d
f
r

b
h
n
m
'
E
n
u
t
r
e
s
e
i
/
e

i
a
t
e
a
i
n
s
e i
T
0
'
s
a r
v

r
m
r
m

l
g
e
u
n
M
u
u
t
i
o
n
f
h 0 u
l
m
a
5
a
n
p
m
e
l A
d

e
I

t
o
e
t 1 s
v
,
a
i

r
l
i
t
s
s
w
s
c
r
,
a
4
a
S
a
s
c
e
l
c
d

a
B

3
e
n
o
u
a

g
r
i
y
r
: :

e
i

t
n
n
x
o
r
t
M
o
l
e

E
e e
n
g
l
a S

f
n
R
o
n
m
f

u
i
f

e
i
e
e
r
o
r
p
t t
o
r
g
r
t
n

r
U

o
o
i
a a
g
a
t
e
a
t
p

f

e
C
e

v

i
n
i
n
a
i
n
H
E

n
o
s
e
n
r r
c
P

t
d
d
x
n
h
t
n
i
o
%
r
c
i

i
d
o
r
i
c
i

g
m
a
l
n n
n
n
s
e

t
a
i
N
a
e
f
o
a
V
t
a
r
n
s
i
o
h
r

p

i

o o
e
u

c
a
r
r t
f
a
i
a
i
f
D
c
u
o
l
t
a

n
o
o
s
p
x
x
n
i

i i
s
w
a
n
t
A
e
r
C
l
n
r i
I

i
t t
a
e
e
c
i
x
&
e
a
m
e
u
l
t
t
i
a a
e
p
t
d

N
a

t
a
a
a
s

h
h
r
e
g
a
h
n
n
u u
m
e
s
s

R

M

P
s
u
u

t
t
r
n

s
t
y
T
e
o
n
f
r
-

i
d d
e
r
D

e
d
i
l

A

U
o

o
n
'

s
t
t
a
s
e
s
a
a a
n
e
A r
s
l
v
a
a
l
N
n
&

o
e
a
r
a
p

n

r r
u
a
R t
-
o
y
r
r
e
e
e
e

a
S
t
g g

t
i
e
n

o
h

g
f
c
e

t
a
R
c
o
g t
y
g
o
g
r
.
y
i
e

i
a
u
a
l
i
t

O
u
s

r r
e
t
a
b

1
r
l
o
a
u
n
r

t

c
y
g

f
t
n
a a
o
l
d
e
a
a
d
g
r
a
t
l
r
n
i
t
i

i
a
i
o
n

e e p
e
m
i
t
r
n
e
t
f
r
a
s
e
r
n
a
F
s
i
s
t
a
s
e
i
o

v
y y
f
i
m
s
v

r
t
y
r
i
o
r
o
o
n
s
n
p
u
s
s
A
e
m
G
a

e
A

R
l
A

s
s
T
i
m
c
s
t
$ #
x x
I
v
E

x
P
i
v
b

r
a

t
a

e
i
r

o
i i
s

%
o n
i
. .

o
%
A

. . .
P
.
E
S S P .
S
1
8
S
.
n
F
.
a
5 6 7
4
C U
3
F
2
0
9

I

1

1 1 1
1

.

1
1
1 s
T
. . .
. . .
.
1
P
4
I
. 2
3
8
6 7 9
1 3 4
5
2
2
1
s
s s s
s s
n
n n n
n n
e
e e o e
e
o o o
s
o o
s s s
i
s
l
i t i i
l l l
i i
l
e
t u t t
e e e
t t
e
u u u
u u

t

,
, , ,
t i t t
,
t t
e
e e e
i t i i
e
i i
t s t l t
t l t l l
l
s s b s
s b s b b
n
b
n n n
n n
a
a a a
i
a
i i i
l
i i
l l l
d
l

i

i i i
d d d
i
a
d d
a a a
n
a
p
n n n
v
n n
v v v
a
v
u
a a a
a
a a
a a a
l
a
l y l l

o
l l

f
y y y
f f f
y y
f
r
r i
i i i
r r r
i
a
r r

G

a a a
,
a a
, , ,
M
,
s
s
s s s
M M M
s s
M M
s s s

r
s s s
r
r r r
r r
n
r r r
e
r r r
e
e e e
e e
e e e
e

e e e
o

e
e
e e e
e e e
e e
e e
e e e
t
e e e
P
P
i
P P P
t a t t
P P
t t
P P P
P P P
s
a a a
a a

i

l
i

l
i r i i
l l l

i i
l l
l l l
a
r
a
r r r
l l l
a a a
p
r r
a a
a a a
a a a
a
p p p
n
n
p p
n n n
o
n n
n n n
n n n
p
o o o
o
o
o o
o o o
r
o o
o o o
o o o
r r r
m
p i
i
r r
i i i
i i
i i i
p p t p
t
i i i
p t p t t
t t
p
t t t
a
a
t t t
a a a
a a
p p p
a a a
o
p p
a a a
A N
N
N N N
N N
N N N
a a a
C
N N N
a a
s
e
s
t
S
e
a
t
u
a
E
d
u
a
N
d
r
a
g
r
I
s
r
g
s
L
e
e
r e
t
d
e
t
a
E
a
n
d
u
u
u
n
d
D
d

u
a
n
a

r
a
n
I
r
g
c
g
U
a
s
r
i
r
e
c
e
r
e
s
t
i
d
e
G
a
r
e
d
m
n
e
u
t
n
a
m
u
d
A
u
u

a
G

y
A
9
d

,
r
n
y
t
9
a
g

i
a
N
n t
r
9
r
r
i
c o
g
a
e
r
1
Y
i
o
n
r
c
d
I
Y
r
e
i
n
i
f
n
D
r
m
d
A
F
T
i
u
f
m
n
A

N
r
e
e e
u
I
a
,
m
m m

,
S
e
e
e
e
'
U
e
m
y
i
m
m
i i
R
t
r
t t

-
- -
i
u
e
F
i
i
l
t
l l
t
t
E
s
l
-
s
l l
-
-
u
s
u u

l
a
a
l
l
l
e
R
f
l
b
l
f f
V
u
e
u
u

r

,
, f
M
u
r
f
,
e f
e
O

e
e

I
t
,
m
m
, ,
i
e
.
m
v
N
e e

d
d
m
F
i
o
m m
i
n
n
i
e
t
t
t

-
-
s
U
I
e
o

d
-
i i
n
t
t
t
u
S
t t
p
t
i
s
s
-
e
- -
o
s

t
r
e
t
x
r

t t
d
a
r
s
i
E
i
i
s s
b
E
e
i
t
r
f
r
f
r
r r
f

c
a

a

l
i

i i
l
f
R
s
e
f
a
f
i
f
p
T
f f
w
w
o
o
t

t
o
f

c
e
f
a
f f

s

a
U
e

o
t
A
a
r
o o
t
r
i
t
r

l
r
p

t
r

r
b

s
o
o
t
g
a
o
t t
t
a

S
e
r
T
n
r r
h
s
s
h
n
h
l
n
o
e
o o
i
e

o
a
o
o
i
A
o
o
r
h
r
h h
S
i
v
o
c
c
e
g
c
d
c
i
o
a
o o
g

t y

e

u
d

E
a
c
a
a
c c
a
a

o
d
N
t
l

n
r

t

f
a
s
o
a
l
f
a
a a

f
M
a
p
o
l
o

d

o
o
p

a
d

A
f
f f
m

s

o h
t
e
e
r
o o
e
e
e
n
t
o

r
t
c
t
e n
c
e

t
G
e
a
p
E
a
e e
t
a
s
c

n
a
c
t
r
f

r
t t

r
e
a
r
b
a

o
a a
l
o

C
e
r
R
n
g
n a
n
r
v

o
r r

d
t
t

o
n
e

o
s
o
a
d
n
j
n
n n

N
O
o
r

i
o
r
i n
i
a
o
h
i
t
u
o o
t
m
t

i

n
i

n
s
n
i
t
s
s
h
i i

h
A

t
M
i
s
e
g
t t
e
e
e
e
a
s
a
w
t
t
a a
a
t
s h
w
t e
n
t
e
i
u
e
u u
p
e
e
w
a
t
M

f
m
i

d
r
n
o
r
r

d d
,
v
o
e
s
I

.
a
o
r
r a a
r

i
r
r
r
I
e
n
2
y
g
g
a
r c
p
a
a

i
R
r r
r
o
S
g
t
u
r

e g g
n

e
e
/

c
i
t
a
i
s
e

I
y
y

y i
n
n
E
t
O
a
r
a
X
m
r r

t
c

a

m
e
t
f
a a
e
a
1
d
d
d
a
n
s
e
L
A
c
m
m
e e
u
F
n
n
f
n
u
i
e
y
r
y y
d
t

s
1
R
o
e
o
o c
l
l
u
B
a
-
l
- -
i
R
A
a
a
P
c x
r
c
t
c
S S
P
x x
r

e a
e
e
r
i
e

A
i i
G

o
E
.
S P S
.
. .
S S S
.
S
S
4
3
0 2
F
1

1
1
. . . .
1 1
1
P
T
. . .
.
.
6 7 8 9
2 4 5
3
I