B5

Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) Funding Model Update

Resolution Adopted at CPE's November 7, 2013 Meeting

The Council on Postsecondary Education expresses its unqualified support for the 2014-2016 Postsecondary Education Budget Recommendation and particularly the development of funding requests for strategic investments in addition to the traditional base funding.

The Council hereby resolves that, as a result of budget deliberations over the past year, it is evident that there is a need for the development of a comprehensive funding model that aligns the Commonwealth's investment in postsecondary education with the Commonwealth's postsecondary education policy objectives. As such, the Council president is hereby directed to establish a working group that, at minimum, includes leadership of each of the public universities and KCTCS and members of this Council, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive model for the allocation of state General Fund appropriations for institutional operations that incorporates elements of campus performance, mission, and enrollment, as well as any other components as determined through the process. The new model shall be developed for implementation in the 2016-2018 biennial budget recommendation.

Make up of Committee

The Funding Model Steering Committee is comprised of fifteen (15) members: CPE Chair, CPE President, three (3) CPE members, nine (9) institutional presidents, and one (1) Governor’s office representative. The committee shall establish the basic principles under which the new funding model approach is to be developed and provide guidance and clarification regarding those principles.

Actions to Date of Committee

  • Working on a set of Goals and Guiding Principles that may address:
  • Mission Sensitivity;
  • Outcomes:
  • Completion Driven Metrics;
  • Easy communication and explanation of funding model;
  • Sustainable – Model will be able to adapt to all funding scenarios;
  • Reasonable Stable – Model will not produce drastic changes in funding from year to year;
  • Flexible – Model will be able to address unique situations that may arise;
  • Allow Appropriate Exclusions – The KSU Land Grant state match allocation would be an example; and
  • Efficient

19