Institutional Effectiveness Measures (IEM)

Process

Mineral Area College identifies seven key measures for Institutional Effectiveness to assist with planning, the identification of AQIP Action Projects and other (non-AQIP action project) improvement initiatives.  The IEMs originated in 2008 when the College, along with the 11 other Missouri Community Colleges, focused efforts on creating a performance funding mechanism to satisfy elected officials.   At that time, the College internally identified five measures to consider and the first IEM were developed.  At their time of development, the College wanted to establish IEMs that relied on existing and externally validated data which are also straightforward in nature and easily understood.  The College had representatives on the formation committee and updated the faculty and staff during the development and implementation stages.

Over the past decade, three measurements of the initial state performance funding have changed.   However, the College identifies the initial five measures as well as two additional measures as items of focus for institutional effectiveness.   The College did change the financial measures in FY2014 and this past year due to the change in KPI formula from the Missouri Department of Higher Education.  The College’s goal is to keep the IEMs consistent for the years leading up to the portfolio and revise them at the conclusion of the portfolio cycle to mirror recent changes in the performance funding by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education.  The only exception to this goal was the two changes to the financial KPI.

Most IEMs are evaluated based on a three-year rolling average with success being defined as improvement over performance from the previous year. The base year for each measure is also a three-year average, and all numbers are reported in tenths.

The final component of successful performance for an IEM is “Sustained Excellence”, which is measured compared to an established benchmark rather than improvement over the previous year. By achieving “Sustained Excellence” acknowledges that the College has little room for improvement but is expected to sustain at or above this level over time.  Performance in the top third of the National Community College Benchmarking Project is the threshold for sustained excellence for four of the seven IEMs. However, for the “Improvements on professional/occupational licensure tests” measure, sustained excellence is considered to have been met with a passage rate of 90 percent or above.

Success for most IEMs is achieved either by improvement from the prior year (using a three-year rolling average) or by reaching a defined "sustained excellence" measure.  Two IEMs (#6 and #7) do not have defined “sustained excellence” measures, therefore, success is only achieved by reaching a defined standard.

The comparator group is the National Community College Benchmarking Project – a comprehensive national data collection and reporting consortium designed for two-year colleges with over 280 colleges participating nationwide, including all Missouri community colleges.


 

The following table describes the evaluation criterion for IEMs #1-#5.  The evaluation criterion for IEMs #6 and #7 are listed in the table following the results section.

KPI Met?

Estimate Met?

Color Key - Performance

Yes

Yes

 

Yes

No

 

No

Yes

 

No

No

 

 

The following questions comprise the foundation for the IEMs:

1)              Are students completing their certificate or degrees and/or transferring to a four-year college/university as successful completers?

2)              Are unprepared students in Mathematics successfully transitioning into college-level coursework?

3)              Are unprepared students in English successfully transitioning into college-level coursework?

4)              Are graduates of career/technical programs prepared to secure employment in their chosen field?

5)              Is state funding for community colleges appropriate for the total number of credit hours of instruction provided?

6)              Is the cost of education for students remaining affordable?

7)              Is the College sustaining revenues (tuition and state appropriations) to match inflation?

Future IEMs

The College will revise its Institutional Effectiveness Measures to match those in the performance funding model that was adjusted in December 2017 by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education.  The College had representation on the Committee that led the Charge by the Commissioner of Higher Education and by Governor Eric Greitens.  A Task force comprised of presidents/chancellors, Chief Financial Officers, Institutional Researchers, staff of the Missouri Department of Higher Education, legislative research and others worked together over a time period of nine months to revise the performance funding model.  Two of the College’s IEMs remain in the new model (* items). 

The new performance funding model, effective November 2017, answers the following questions pertaining to higher education:

1)              Are students completing their certificate or degrees and/or transferring to a four-year college/university as successful completers?*

2)              Are students successfully completing credit hour courses?

3)              Are in district tuition rates in line with household median incomes?

4)              Are “non-core” expenditures in check relative to the total budget?

5)              Are graduates of career/technical programs prepared to secure employment in their chose field?*

6)              Are graduates either securing employment or continuing their higher education after graduation?

 

Results

Student Success and Progress

1.              Three-year completion rate and transfer rate for first-time, full-time entering students. This measure includes students who successfully complete a certificate or degree of at least one year or longer or who successfully transfer to a four-year institution. IEM#1

NCCBP Form 2

Results

Estimate

Benchmark – NCCBP 66.67%

Performance

FY2013

49.2%

47%%

39.6%

 

FY2014

49.7%

48%

41.1%

 

FY2015

43.7%

49%

43.4%

 

FY2016

37.9%

48%

42.6%

 

FY2017

39.8

40%

43.9

 

 

2.              Percentage of developmental students who successfully complete their last developmental Mathematics course who then successfully complete their first college-level English course. IEM#2

NCCBP Form 9, Row 4 – adjusted

Results

Estimate

Benchmark

NCCBP 66.67%

Performance

FY2013

75.6%

70.9%

70.9%

 

FY2014

65.6%

71.0%

71.8%

 

FY2015

71.3%

72.0%

73.4%

 

FY2016

70.9%

72%

*

n/a

 

3.              Percentage of developmental students who successfully complete their last developmental English course, who then successfully complete their first college-level math course. IEM#3

NCCBP From 9, Row 4 - adjusted

Results

Estimate

Benchmark

NCCBP 66.67%

Performance

FY2013

72.6%

72.0%

75.0%

 

FY2014

74.6%

73.0%

73.9%

 

FY2015

76.5%

74.0%

76.3%

 

FY2016

69.6%

74.0%

77.8%

 

 


 

Increased Degree Attainment and Quality of Student Learning

4.              Percentage of career/technical graduates who pass their required licensure/certification examination. IEM#4

Data Reported to MDHE

Results

Estimate

Benchmark

Performance

FY2013

93.7%

93.9%

> 90%

 

FY2014

93.4%

93.8%

> 90%

 

FY2015

94.4%

93.5

> 90%

 

FY2016

94.9%

94.5%

> 90%

 

FY2017

95.2%

94%

> 90%

 

 

Financial Responsibility and Efficiency

5.              The effort of the College to serve more students and maintain low tuition relative to peer colleges. IEM#5 (FY2014-FY2016)

Tuition & Fee Revenue per FTE and State Appropriation per FTE

Results

Estimate

Benchmark – NCCBP 66.67%

Performance

FY2014

$4,010

$4,179

$5,383

 

FY2015

$4,307

$4,009

$5,337

 

FY2016

$4,064

$4,306

$5,960

 

 

6.              The percentage of the budget that is expended on “non-core” line items. IEM#5 (FY2017 forward)

IPEDS - Non Core Expenditures as a Percent of Total Expenditures (preference for a lower ratio)

Results

Estimate

Benchmarck –IPEDS 66.67%

Performance

FY2012-14

18.2%

N/A

N/A

N/A

FY2013-15

16.8%

New IEM

17.7%

 

 


 

Student Affordability

7.              Are tuition increases exceeding the consumer price index? IEM#6

Year

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

Affordability Index

335

152

152

0

653

Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affordability Index

Color Key - Performance

Under 25

 

25-100

 

100-125

 

Over 125

 

 

Revenue and Appropriation Sustainability

8.              Is total tuition and state appropriations keeping up with the higher education price index? (% Change in Operating and Non-Operating Revenue divided by the % Change in the Higher Education Price Index) IEM#7

Year

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

FY2017

Sustainability Index

0

0

66

0

0

Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sustainability Index

Color Key - Performance

Over 100

 

50-75

 

10-49

 

Under 10