Agenda item no. ??: REPORT ON intercollegiate ATHLETIC REVENUES & EXPENDITURES

AHECB MeetingOctober 30, 2015Agenda item no. 8:operating needs and recommendations for the 2016-17 fiscal yearTara SmithSenior Associate Director, Institutional Finance

Institutional NeedModel was run using AY 2015 dataSSCH decreased 11.6% for Colleges and decreased 0.4% for Universities over the last model run (CY2013 vs. AY2015)Faculty Salaries in the Need models were updated to the latest available figures from SREB and inflated to the 2016-17 level using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) Tuition Rates used in the Need models were approved by AHECB in April 2012. FY17 Need for Higher Education is approximately $966.5 million for Universities/Colleges/Technical Centers and $239.2 million for non-formula institutions

ADHE RecommendationADHE recommends an increase of $170,050,492 (20.6%) in funding for FY17This recommendation will bring all College, Universities & Technical Centers to 75% of Need and bring Non-Formula Entities up to recommended funding levelsOperating Recommendations Table A. Summary of Operating Needs & Recommendations for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year

Operating Recommendations

Table B. 2016-17 Four-Year Universities Recommendations

Operating Recommendations Table C. 2016-17 Two-Year Colleges Recommendations

Operating RecommendationsTable D. 2016-17 Technical Center Recommendations

Operating Recommendations Table E. 2016-17 Non-Formula Entities Recommendations

Agenda item no. 9:personal services recommendations for the 2016-17 fiscal yearTara SmithSenior Associate Director, Institutional Finance

Summary of RecommendationsLine-item maximum salary increases were considered for the fiscal year, and all line-item maximums were adjusted by 3 percent per year for the biennium.

Salary recommendations for new positions were based on salaries for similar positions previously established at comparable institutions.

Summary of RecommendationsThe following variables were used when considering request for additional positions:Enrollment increases/decreases vs. position growthPositions directly tied to student support/successKeep position changes minimal for the Fiscal SessionADHE Staff recommend a net increase of 24 non-classified positionsIncrease of 0.1 percent for a total of 19,987 non-classified positions (apart from UAMS)UAMS requested no increases and currently has 8,801 authorized non-classified positions12Agenda item no. 10:REPORT ON intercollegiate ATHLETIC REVENUES & EXPENDITURESJake EddingtonFiscal Support Manager, Institutional Finance

Athletic ReportA.C.A. 6-62-106 directs AHECB to develop and establish uniform accounting standards and procedures for reporting revenues and expenditures.

Athletic ReportThe 2014-15 Athletic actual expenditures for state-supported universities was $154.8 million and $528,386 for two-year colleges.

This represents an increase of 9.53 percent over 2013-14

History of Athletic Expenditures15University Athletic Revenue2014-2015

University Athletic Expenditures2014-2015

Two-Year College Athletic Revenues and Expenditures2014-2015

Revenues by Source

Athletic Revenues by Source 2014-15for Universities

Athletic Revenues by Source 2009-10% of Athletic Revenues By Source 2014-15 for UniversitiesAgenda item no. 11:Bond and loan feasibility updatesChandra RobinsonProgram Coordinator, Institutional Finance

Bond & Loan Feasibility UpdatesThis update consists of the actual terms for bond and loan issues receiving AHECB approval that occurred from October 2014 through October 2015.

Report includes the actual date of bond/loan issue, amount of bond/loan issue and actual bond/loan terms for bond and loans approved during the reporting period.Agenda item no. 12:Maintenance ReportChandra RobinsonProgram Coordinator, Institutional Finance

Maintenance of New Facilities ReportThe AHECB policy for maintenance of new facilities states that a report on the amount transferred to plant funds will be presented annually at the October AHECB meeting Ensures all newly constructed or purchased facilities will have a source of funding for maintenanceInstitutions seeking approval of a loan or a bond issue for the construction or purchase of a new facility must provide for the maintenance of that facility by transferring annually to plant funds Current rates: $2.50 per gross square foot for an educational and general facility $1.25 per gross square foot for an auxiliary facilityReport includes the status of the maintenance transfer for each new facility for which a loan or bond issue was approved for the construction or purchase of that facility

ACADEMIC COMMITTEEConsent Agenda Items

Agenda Item No. 13: Institutional Certification Advisory Committee (ICAC)

Agenda Item No. 14: Letters of Notification

Agenda Item No. 15: Letters of Intent

2016 Meeting Schedule January 29, 2016ADHE, Little Rock

April 21 22, 2016National Park College, Hot SpringsJuly 29, 2016ADHE, Little RockOctober 28, 2016ADHE, Little Rock

Agency UPDATEsDr. Brett PowellDirector

Institutional LeadershipUniversity of Arkansas at Monticello Dr. Karla Hughes, ChancellorWill begin on January 15, 2016

University of Arkansas, FayettevilleDr. Joseph E. SteinmetzWill begin on January 1, 2016

Institutional LeadershipArkansas State University Beebe Dr. Eugene McKay, ChancellorLast day January 15, 2016

Personnel Changes

Delores LoganAcademic Affairs Program Specialist Retiring after 40 plus years with the state Last day is November 13, 2015

Rick JenkinsResearch and Technology Department Transferred to UAMS Last day was September 29, 2015

2015 Annual Trustees Conference 32SpeakersDr. Kevin ReillyPresident Emeritus, University of Wisconsin SystemDr. Sheila StearnsCommissioner Emerita, Montana University SystemMartha Snyder, Senior AssociateJimmy Clarke, Senior Associate HCM StrategistsTopics Fiduciary Principles and Habits of Effective BoardsBoard Responsibility for Oversight of Completion and AttainmentOutcomes-Based FundingConsequential BoardsMonitoring and Oversight

32Workforce Grants21 Planning Grants awardedBudgets totaling $1,427,657Funding disbursed in mid-OctoberImplementation grant proposals due June 1

ASU MidSouth (ADTEC)Adv. Manufacturing/Logistics/CDLASU Mt. Home (2)Adv. Manufacturing/ProgrammingASU NewportAgricultureATU OzarkAutomation TechnologyBlack River Food Manuf./Healthcare/ManufacturingUA MonticelloElectromech./Diesel/WeldingCollege of the OuachitasApprenticeships, Construction TradesNorth ArkAdv. Manufacturing/HealthcareNational ParkIT, Advanced TechnologiesNWACCConstructionPhilander SmithMultipleUACC-MorriltonWelding/RoboticsSAU TechAdv. Manufacturing/Production Tech.SouthArkITCossatotAdv. Manufacturing/EngineeringUA FayettevilleITUA Ft. Smith (2)Data Analytics/ AutomationUA Pine BluffSTEMRich MountainAdv. Manuf. (Elec-Mech,Elec, Indust)ADHE Regional Workforce GrantsStrategic Partnership

WRF, Walton Family Foundation, ADEJared Henderson35Overview of Vision and RecommendationsFall 2015 Topics for discussion today Draftfor discussion only1ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxOur starting pointPreview of ForwARd's strategic plan, focusing on teacher pipeline What happens nextForwARd is a partnership to enhance educational achievement in Arkansas Draftfor discussion only2ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxThe partnership will develop a comprehensive strategicplan to improve student achievement across ARDraftfor discussion only3ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxVision: Every Arkansas student will graduate prepared for success incollege and the workplace

Mission: To help Arkansas create one of the finest public education systems in the nation

Goal: To create a comprehensive strategic plan for P-16 education in Arkansas, with specific recommendations for academically distressed schools and schools districts, that will provide actionable recommendations to shape and guide the states time and resources to realize this vision and mission Our timeline and process Baseline current state"The Report"Published Jan 2015Createa plan"The Plan"Set vision Set areas of focus Set strategic goals Engage diverse setof stakeholders Draft ideas for eachfocus area Agree on the planPublish in late spring / early summerImplement and assess progressOngoing after release of "The Plan"Draftfor discussion only4ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxOur baseline: Arkansas ranks 36th or below on all ranked achievement measures Elementary schoolMiddle schoolHigh schoolHigher EdPre-K and KindergartenPost secondary attainment2012 % FRLafter Pre-K "developed"2013 Rank:4th grade reading NAEP2013 Rank:8th grade math NAEP2012 Rank: % AP exams scoring 3+2010 Rank:6 year grad rate2012 Rank:25-64attainment36425148514850111N/ANote: The NAEP Mathematics and Reading scales ranges from 0 to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant.Source: Arkansas Research Center, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 Mathematics and Reading Assessments. College Board National AP report. NCHEMS Information Center, which relies on information from Tom MortensonPostsecondary Education Opportunity http://www.postsecondary.org. Lumina Foundation for Higher Education, April 2014Draftfor discussion only5ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxArkansas20%21927832%39%29%US avg.n/a22228559%57%39%ImprovedSameDeclineDesirableNeutralUndesirableEveryArkansas student will graduateprepared for success in college and the workplaceTo date, the Steering Committee has approved a vision, strategic goal, and recommendations MetricsBecoming a leading state in education by improving studentachievement at a historically ambitious yet achievable rate and closing the achievement gap within a generationPre-KSupport outside theclassroomHigh qualityclassroom instructionEffective leadershipTeacher pipelineTurn- aroundof schools policies inacademicdistressSystems andKindergarten Middle schoolreadiness Avg QELIscore for Free Lunch students attending ABC/HSreadiness 4th grade NAEPreading national rankHigh school readiness 8thgrade NAEPmath national rankCollege readiness ACTscore rank in states w/>50%participationPost-secondary success College graduationrate national rankThere are 2-4 metrics to measure progress vs. each focus areaDraftfor discussion only6ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxForwARd developed a statement of aspiration and recommendations for each focus area Note: complete set of recommendations in the appendixPre-KAll students, starting with those in highest need, have access to high quality early childhood learning opportunities so they arrive at Kindergarten ready to learn

Support outside the classroomAll students and families, starting with those in highest need, have access to and support in accessing the nutritional and health resources needed to come to school ready to learn

High quality classroom instructionEach student is supported in developing the full range of knowledge and skills s/he needs to be successful in college and careerAll schools have a culture of mutual respect, high expectations for all, teamwork, and continuous growth

Effective leadershipAll education leaders put students at the center of their decisions, work tirelessly to build and support a team, deploy resources effectively, and hold themselves and their team accountable for enabling all children to be successfulAll schools, especially those in high need areas, have access to talented educators who have been rigorously prepared

Turnaround of schools in academic distressAll school in academic distress and pre-academic distress receive support and interventions that enable them to transform their school cultures, dramatically improve student achievement, and sustain their improvement over time

Systems and policiesAll school districts have adequate funding and use resources in a way that most effectively supports student successPolicies enable the implementation of recommendations needed for Arkansas to become a leading state in educationTeacher pipelineDeep dive on this topic todayDraftfor discussion only7ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Complete recommendations: Teacher pipeline 1/2 Draftfor discussion only8ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxT1. Support the introduction and expansion of programs that encourage local high school students to enter the teaching profession (e.g., Teacher Cadet Program)

T2. Attract top talent to teach in high-need subjects (e.g., STEM, special ed, ESL) and high-need schools by offering districts flexibility to pay these teachers more than stipulated by the salary schedule and by improving the incentives offered. Ensure high-need subjects can be defined locally to account for geographical variation

T3. Support expansion of effective alternative teacher pathways and subject expert pathways without sacrificing quality. Explore additional innovative models from traditional and alternative providers to address the need for talent in high need subjects and high need schools

T4. Enable both traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs to innovate and improve by reviewing and streamlining regulations that do not drive outcomes. More regulatory flexibility could allow, for example, programs with experiential / competency-based learning elements, and 3+1 programs where teachers have paid yearlong internships

T5. Support state efforts to measure and report the performance of teacher preparation programs including the inclusion of multiple outcome measures such as the student growth of graduates. In addition, encourage the state to hold traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs accountable for outcomes

T6. Establish centralized educator recruitment resources for potential teachers across Arkansas. Develop astate-of-the-art website in order to attract and recruit potential teachers from across the state and beyondFoundationalQuick wins Complete recommendations: Teacher pipeline 2/2 Draftfor discussion only9ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxT7. Develop teacher leader roles (especially roles allowing teachers to maintain time in the classroom) to allow effective teachers to take on more responsibility, support school leadership, and be compensated more. Teacher leaders should be selected based on rigorous, objective criteria

T8. In the long term, support substantial additional investment to pay teachers more

T9. Offer funding for teacher prep program proposals to offer support to graduates in their first year ofteaching

T10. Enable teacher preparation programs to learn from the most highly-rated programs on the teacher preparation report card by systematically recognizing, sharing, and learning from excellent teacher preparation practices. This could be supported by activities at an Arkansas-wide teaching and learning summit

T11. Support ongoing implementation of a rigorous teacher support and accountability system (e.g., TESS). Monitor policies and implementation to maintain evaluation accuracy, rigor, and fairness and offer continued administrator PD

T12. Recognize, celebrate, and systematically learn from excellent teaching and excellent teachers (e.g., Arkansas-wide teaching and learning summit, public marketing campaign showcasing excellent teachers and their impact)

T13. Offer competitive funding for district proposals to implement teacher leader roles in their schoolsOtherWhat might ForwARd mean for the ADE? Potential areas of focus Build, support, and assess effectiveness of support infrastructure across the stateSupport attracting, developing, and retaining top talent in ArkansasStreamline regulations, paperwork, and processes that do not add value Differentiate based onrisk; no one-size-fits-allImprove testing to inform teaching and continuous learning, and measure student progress holistically (including "21st century" skills)Invest in a single, empowered, ADE unit staffed by highest-quality talent to manage the entire academic distress process and be held accountable forschool outcomesCreate a clear and consistent process for academic distressSupport schools & communities in academic distressEnable educators to focus on teaching & learningProvide targeted, valuable support to schools and districtsDraftfor discussion only10ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxRedefine the goals, capabilities, structure, and culture of the ADEShift balance of resources from compliance to supportChange policies needed to attract top talentBuild a support-oriented cultureA plan is only the beginning; ForwARd will continue toDraftfor discussion only11ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx support implementation ForwARd is setting up a "steering committee" for implementation, called theImplementation Working Group (IWG)

The IWG's primary role will be to:Drive implementation of the planChampion the plan and the implementation processGuide strategy of and participate in public roll-out of the planGive guidance to staff supporting implementationMonitor progress toward implementation milestones and strategic targets; report publicly

The IWG will have additional support for its activities; one of its early roles is to identify what is needed (capabilities, structures, resources)Other short-term priorities include providing guidance on the plan's public release, sequencing initiatives and establishing concrete short term goals , and creating a process for publicly reporting on progress What's happening next Draftfor discussion only12ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxSharing and discussing a public document that shares our research andrecommended vision, goals, focus areas, and actions (by late spring / summer)

Staffing for and beginning implementation

Expanding networks of partner organizations and individuals to driveimplementation of individual initiativesAppendix: Summary slides and focus pagesSupport students outside the classroom aspiration statement and select recommendations Outside the classroom aspirationSelect recommendationsAll students and families, starting with those in highest need, have access to and support in accessing the nutritional and health resources needed to come to school ready to learnImprove access to nutrition: Implement healthy breakfast as part of school day and provide all children nutritious snacks/dinner at afterschool and summer programs in high-need schoolsEnable funding of nutritional access: Encourage all eligible schools and districts to sign-up for Community Eligibility Program which provides all students in a school free breakfast and lunchProvide support for accessing resources: Coordinate school-based resources information so high-risk children and families receive support, access to quality health care resources, and the effective communication they needDraftfor discussion only14ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxHigh quality classroom instruction aspiration statement and select recommendations Classroom instruction aspirationSelect recommendationsEach student is supported in developing the full range of knowledge and skills s/he needs to be successful in college and careerAll schools have a culture of mutual respect, high expectations for all, teamwork, and continuous growthSupport effective professional development: Districts should assess effectiveness of current PD; For less effective PD, reinvest time and funds toward more district teacher-driven PD, observations, and coachingImprove testing: Improve testing for students, teachers, and schools. The emerging assessment approach should maintain academic rigor, use classroom time thoughtfully, inform teaching and continuous learning, and measure student progress holisticallyEstablish workforce education pathways across the state that enable students to earn college credit in high school and pursue career opportunities while preserving options to pursue higher education.Pathways should be developed with consideration of job opportunities in the state and beyondDraftfor discussion only15ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxEffective leadership aspiration statement and select recommendations Effective leadership aspirationSelect recommendationsAll education leaders put students at the center of their decisions, work tirelessly to build and support a team, deploy resources effectively, and hold themselves and their team accountable for enabling all children to be successful Empower principals to partner with school staff in developing a shared vision for instruction in their school and to manage resources important to achieving this vision, including the ability to 1) hire and place staff, 2) remove low-performing staff while ensuring due process, and 3) deploy instructional support resources to meet the school's unique needsSupport LEADS: Support the ongoing implementation of a rigorous administrator evaluation system (e.g., the Leader Excellence and Development System).Prepare principals to be effective in their role by establishing and supporting existing highly rigorous principal preparation programs and by ensuring novice principals are mentored by highly effective principalsDraftfor discussion only16ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxSystems and policies aspiration statement and select recommendations Systems and policies aspirationSelect recommendationsAll school districts have adequate funding and use resources in a way that most effectively supports student successPolicies enable the implementation of recommendations needed for Arkansas to become a leading state in educationStreamline regulation: Streamline the regulatory burden for educators at all levels (including ADE).Drive greater efficiency of district spending without compromising outcomes. Form regional and/or state-wide 'communities of practice' around resource use in specific, high opportunity areas.Improve funding adequacy: The current funding matrix budgets for less than research-based expert recommendations on adequacy (e.g., Picus Odden and Associates' 2014 desk audit). While implementing ForwARd's recommendations and improving the overall effectiveness of the system, increase funding to better match research (e.g., Picus recommends an incremental~$2.1k / pupil / yr increase in overall funding levels). Increase funding in increments and tie additional funding to evidence of effective use of existing resourcesDraftfor discussion only17ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Pre-K aspiration statement and select recommendations Pre-K aspirationSelect recommendationsAll students, starting with those in highest need, have access to high quality early childhood learning opportunities so they arrive at Kindergarten ready to learnHigh quality: Set clear standard for what high quality means in Arkansas based on established research and improve all AR Pre-K seats to meet new high-quality standardsAccess: After all current seats meet high quality standards, increase number of seats in areas with shortages so all eligible students can attend ABC or Head Start (maximizing use of federal funds e.g., Head Start, funds allocated to daycare, etc)Measuring progress: Improve longitudinal tracking of student performance, trace outcomes back to specific programs, and actively collect data on barriers faced by families preventing higher enrollmentDraftfor discussion only18ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxStrong leadership that raises expectations Development of a positive school culture Commitment to parent and community engagement Wraparound services available to all studentsStrong instructional program and collaborative instructional communityEmpowered teachers and high-quality instructionHigh expectations for all studentsCreative use of time (e.g., extended learning time) Effective use of data to drive instructional decisionsFor Academic Distress, we started in the classroom by understanding successful turnarounds Fact baseSelect elements in place in successful turnaround schools (non-exhaustive)Schools "beating the odds" in Arkansas1ESEAturnaround principles2International case studies11. Detailed materials focused on Arkansas schools "beating the odds" and International turnaround case studies were shared in Steering Committee 4 2. ESEA = Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gbY2mvgv1pMJ:https://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved- requests/flexrequest.doc+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us:Draftfor discussion only19ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxTurnaround of schools in academic distress aspiration statement and recommendation themes Turnaround of schools in academic distressAll school in academic distress and pre-academic distress receive support and interventions that enable them to transform their school cultures, dramatically improve student achievement, and sustain their improvement over time

Create a clear, consistent, and transparent process for all stakeholders of academically distressed (AD) schools including new resources for community involvement

Take a proactive approach by identifying and evaluating schools on the pathway to AD and surrounding them with tailored-intensive support to keep from ever entering AD

Attract and develop talent in AD schools by training the best teachers and leaders to succeed in turnaround environments and incentivizing them to work in AD schoolsThemesDedicate more high-quality resources for providing tailored support to teachers, leaders, districts, school boards, and communities of schools in academic distress

Compel action in AD schools through evidenced-based binding recommendations, escalating interventions, and comprehensive ongoing evaluation

Invest in a single, empowered, ADE unit staffed by highest-quality talent that will manage the entire AD process and be held accountable for school outcomesDraftfor discussion only20ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxThe recommendations for supporting turnaround of schools in academic distress span several categories Draftfor discussion only21ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxThe process by which schools are classified as in academic distressThe supports and interventions needed for turnaroundThe evaluation of progress during the turnaround processThe engagement and support of the communityThe capacity needed at the ADE to support the recommendations Proposed recommendations: Process (1 of 3) CategoryProposed recommendationBefore ADThe state should clearly explain how the "A-F report card" and ESEA "focus" and "priority" schools relate to AD classifications in order to communicate more clearly with districts and communitiesThe state should create a Pre-Academic Distress (Pre-AD") zone to identify schools and districts that are on a path to academic distressThe Pre-AD zone should be composed of schools in the lowest-performing 5% not already in academic distress in order to concentrate focus and resourcesProcess: Before ADTurnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only22ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Proposed recommendations: Process (2 of 3) Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only23ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationAll Pre-AD and AD schools should participate in a comprehensiveevaluation processEach comprehensive evaluation should provide Pre-AD and AD schools with specific recommendations of programs, interventions, and strategies that improve student outcomes particularly those necessary to increase performance in the areas causing the Pre-AD and AD designationsProcess: BeforeThe comprehensive evaluation process, should result in "bindingADrecommendations" (i.e., mandated actions) created with significant input from school leadersThe results of the comprehensive evaluation and "binding recommendations" should be shared with school and district leadership, the school board, and the communityPre-AD schools that do not follow "binding recommendations" and do not demonstrate student achievement gains can be moved to AD classification Proposed recommendations: Process (3 of 3) Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only24ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationExiting ADThe "academic distress" label should just be a classification and should end as soon as a school rises above the agreed-upon performance threshold signaling academic distress (e.g. a school should not continue to be considered academically distressed after its performance has risen above the original threshold)Support and binding recommendations associated with academic distress should continue until a school demonstrates that it can sustain turnaroundProcess: Exiting(i.e., support associated with academic distress should not necessarily ADend as soon as a school rises above the agreed-upon performancethreshold)The decision to "exit" schools from state control should be made on a "case by case" basis but should occur as soon as the school has met the agreed-upon performance threshold and demonstrated sustained progress implementing the recommendations in its comprehensive evaluation Proposed recommendations: Support CategoryProposed recommendationSupport during ADIn order to fund the specific supports recommended to schools in their comprehensive evaluation, the state should work with AD and Pre-AD schools to:Supplement existing funds from a dedicated state funding pool for AD school support, when current sources (including districts, co-ops, and ADE) are insufficient to fund recommendationsReallocate existing funds from lower impact programs where possibleLeverage all additional funds available to AD schools (e.g. 1003g grants)Create a turnaround academy" to train teachers and leaders (including those currently in AD schools) in specific skills needed to be successful in turnaround environments and provide financial and non-financial incentives to graduates who work in academically distressed schoolsThe "turnaround academy" should be made accessible to participants livingthroughout the stateThe "turnaround academy" should include a track for school-support personnel including those in ADE, districts, and co-opsThe "turnaround academy" curriculum should be built from national best practices and include application of theory in the classroom in addition to theory-based learning

School boards of districts with schools in AD or Pre-AD must participate in special trainings on the academic distress processSupport during ADTurnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only25ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Proposed recommendations: Interventions Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only26ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationInterventions during ADDecisions to remove leadership and/or assume state control should be "case dependent" and should be made if t leadership (including principal, superintendent, and/or board) demonstrates an inability to implement the plan and make improvements (as evidenced by changes in students actions)The state should consider removal of leadership and/or assuming control if in-depth evaluation finds leadership does not have reasonable probability of implementing the plan and improving if given supportAfter initial evaluation, leadership should continue to lead turnaround process if they consistently demonstrate progress implementing their plan and improvement in the classroom throughout their time in academic distress Proposed recommendations: Evaluation Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only27ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationProgress in AD and Pre-AD schools should be measured using a balanced set of metrics, not just test scores. Specifically evaluation should include:Progress implementing recommendations following timeline outlined in initial comprehensive evaluation (assessed through site visits)Student achievement growthLeading indicators of achievement (e.g. attendance, tardiness, retention)Educator and community input (e.g. survey, focus groups, interviews)Analysis of contextual factors which may be contributing to or inhibiting progress, including:Academic supports available as compared with high-achieving schoolsEvaluation(see example of academic supports in appendix)Other important context including but not limited to demographic and enrollment trends and external risk factors (e.g. safety, housing, healthy food options, public transportation, green spaces)

The results of ongoing evaluation should be clearly communicated to families and the community

A new ADE team will be created to support the creation and implementation of the evaluation process (see ADE capacity). This team will be distinct from the team providing support to schools Proposed recommendations: Community Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only28ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationFamily and community members are an important part of whatever happens in each AD and Pre-AD school, and should have a say in a school's overall direction. During the AD and Pre-AD process, communities need relevant and frequent communications and engagement such that they are well- informed about the situation and plan to improve. Specifically:AD and Pre-AD schools should be required to have a community-chosen community advisory body which will take an active role advising the management of AD and Pre-AD schoolsStruggling schools' academic standing (Pre-AD and AD) should be clearly communicated to the communityAD and Pre-AD schools' ongoing evaluation results (e.g. quarterly reports)Communityshould be shared with community in a public-friendly formatRegular and effective parent and community engagement should be part of the accountability framework for AD and Pre-AD schoolsCommunity input should be part of AD and Pre-AD schools' evaluation processCommunity input should be part of AD and Pre-AD school leaders evaluation process

A new ADE team will be created to empower schools to build their own capacity to support their communities and hold schools accountable for effectively engaging with their communities in partnership with the evaluation teams (see ADE capacity recommendation) Proposed recommendations: ADE Capacity (1 of 3) CategoryProposed recommendationCommunity engagement team (2-4 incremental FTE): Made up of "community-engagement specialists" and designed to empower schools to build their own capacity to support their communities and to hold schools accountable for effectively engaging their communitiesOngoing evaluation team (1-2 incremental FTE): designed to create, pilot,and implement the new AD evaluation process (proposed on page 22)Interventions during ADADE Capacity: Management of AD processThere should be a single unit, internal to the ADE, responsible for managing the entire AD and Pre-AD ProcessThe unit should be responsible for providing or coordinating the provision of the comprehensive evaluation, support, accountability, intervention and all other actions outlined in prior AD process, support, and intervention recommendationsThe single unit should be led by a direct report to the Commissioner

School-support personnel should maintain a 3:1 ratio of AD and Pre-AD schools to support personnelNew teams with specialized capabilities (incremental to school-support personnel), should be created inside the ADE unitADE Capacity: Size and organization of ADE UnitTurnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only29ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Proposed recommendations: ADE Capacity (2 of 3) Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only30ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationSchool-support personnel should have experience leading in turnaround ADE Capacity:environments and demonstrate the ability to coach leaders in developmentSkills andof turnaround skills (e.g. competencies for turnaround success) incapabilitiesaddition to existing job descriptionRecruiting highly-skilled, highly-qualified personnel to internal ADE unitmust be a top priority for ADEADE should be allowed hiring flexibility to staff team more efficiently (including waivers from mandated salary ranges, job posting durationADE Capacity:requirements, and hiring timeline)Recruiting andretentionSalaries for school-support positions must be competitive withcomparable positions in school districts

"Turnaround Academy" should include a track for school-support personnel including those in ADE, districts, and co-ops Proposed recommendations: ADE Capacity (3 of 3) Turnaround of schools in academic distressDraftfor discussion only31ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxCategoryProposed recommendationADE unit should be held accountable for the success of schools in AD and Pre-ADEvaluations of school-support personnel should be aligned with the way in which schools are evaluated (see page 22). The team evaluating schoolsADE Capacity:should be separate from the school-support teamEmpowermentand accountabilityThe State Board of Education should continually evaluate theeffectiveness of the internal ADE unit and after five years should conduct a formal review to decide if it should continue, end, or change this approach to school turnaroundThe results of the Board's evaluations and reviews should be presented to the Joint Legislative Committee on EducationBack-up: Examples of academic supports that could beDraftfor discussion only32ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx used as part of proposed evaluation recommendation The AD evaluation recommendation includes tracking the academic supports available to schools in AD and comparisons of how the availability of those supports compares to high-achieving schools in the state

The final list of academic supports tracked should be determined during the creation of the comprehensive evaluation. Examples of the types of academic supports that could be measured as part of the evaluation include:Highly Qualified Teachers including teachers certified by National Board, certified to teach GT classes, certified to teach Advanced Placement or Pre-AP courses (not excluding other measures of highly-qualified teachers)Instructional Coaches/Facilitators including math and literacy coaches, interventionists, and other certified staff who are not assigned a class-load of studentsBuilding Administrators including Assistant Principals and PrincipalsRigorous Classes including GT pull-out classes for elementary schools, GT classes (including seminar classes) for secondary schools, Pre-AP classes for secondary schools and AP classes for secondary schools, EAST lab classes for elementary and secondary schools,Average class sizesTechnology Resources including number of computers (desktop, laptop and iPads) assigned to the school, number of SMART boards, number of computer labs, number of computer lab attendants and teachers employed to run the computer labsSchool Partners and Volunteers including the number of community organizations, local businesses engaged informal partnerships with each school, the number of volunteer hours logged at each schoolGrants, Awards and Other Supplemental Funding including the name of each grant and the amount of the grant (all federal, state and local grants and gifts including PTA funding of given to schools for activities and programs)Out-of-School Learning Opportunities including number of student field trips, trips for school clubs/organizations/teams, workshops/classes for students held in the evenings and on weekendsFacilities including the number of gymnasiums, auditoriums, science labs, outdoor classrooms, portable classrooms, nurse offices, counselor offices, square footage of facilityBackupAppendix: Complete set of recommendationsDraftfor discussion only33ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Complete recommendations: Pre-K Draftfor discussion only34ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxP1. Set clear standard for what high quality means in Arkansas based on established research and improve all AR Pre-K seats to meet new high-quality standardsP2. Improve longitudinal tracking of student performance, trace outcomes back to specific programs, and actively collect data on barriers faced by families preventing higher enrollmentP3. After all current seats meet high quality standards, increase number of seats in areas with shortages so all eligible students can attend ABC or Head Start (maximizing use of federal funds e.g., Head Start , funds allocated to daycare, TANF...)

P4. Develop or select strong K-readiness indicatorsP5. Tightly align ABC and Head Start curricula with strategic goal of kindergarten readiness P6. Develop marketing program to educate and communicate value of Pre-K to parents

P7. Move towards goal of ensuring all Pre-K teachers have a BA degree and specialized ECE trainingP8. Conduct analysis to determine if there is need to expand 200% FPL threshold for guaranteed pre-K seatsFoundationalQuick winsOtherComplete recommendations: Support students outsideDraftfor discussion only35ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx the classroom O1. Implement healthy breakfast as part of school day and provide all children nutritious snacks/dinner at afterschool and summer programs in high-need schoolsO2. Coordinate school-based resources information so high-risk children and families receive support, access to quality health care resources, and the effective communication they needO3. Expand high quality afterschool and summer programs for all children P-12 by securing dedicated revenue stream including state support

O4. Encourage all eligible schools and districts to sign-up for Community Eligibility Programwhich provides all students in a school free breakfast and lunchO5. Encourage regular, convenient, two-way parental and caregiver communication during and out of the school year. To achieve this, schools and districts should rigorously implement best practices highlighted by leading advocacy organizations (e.g., providing ESL parents night classes on English, coaching parents to assist their children at home with class assignments...)O6. Use telemedicine to cost-effectively deliver common health services to studentsFoundationalQuick winsOther Complete recommendations: Classroom instruction 1/2 Draftfor discussion only36ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxC1. Schools should embed meaningful teacher collaboration time into the school day (e.g., 3 hours / week) andprovide support to teachers to use effectively

C2. Districts should assess effectiveness of current PD; For less effective PD, reinvest time and funds toward more district teacher-driven PD, observations, and coaching

C3. Improve testing for students, teachers, and schools. The emerging assessment approach should maintain academic rigor, use classroom time thoughtfully (by eliminating redundant or low priority tests), inform teaching and continuous learning, and measure student progress holistically (including "21st century" higher order cognitive skills and non-cognitive skills)

C4. Establish workforce education pathways across the state that enable students to earn college credit in high school and pursue career opportunities while preserving options to pursue higher education. Pathways should be developed with consideration of job opportunities in the state and beyond

C5. Offer adequate broadband access for all schools, meeting national standards for throughput (e.g., 100 kbps / student as of 2015). Adequate broadband will enable students and teachers to access online resources and improve teaching and learning

C6. School performance should be evaluated based on both absolute performance and student growth measures (i.e. student achievement growth from the beginning to the end of the school year). Determine where student growth measures should be added

C7. Introduce more flexibility at state and district levels for what can count toward PD hours (e.g., allow National Board certified teachers to reallocate assessment PD hours)

C8. Reduce and streamline teachers' tasks to enable them to focus on instruction. (Quick win would be to conduct a review of current teacher tasks and identify streamlining opportunities.)FoundationalQuick wins Complete recommendations: Classroom instruction 2/2 Draftfor discussion only37ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxC9. Support the rigorous implementation of standards (e.g., Common Core State Standards) through continued professional development provided by the state, co-ops, and districts

C10. Offering competitive funding for school and district proposals to implement structural innovations. Research-based structural innovations to consider include implementing a year-round calendar, extending learning time (school day and/or year, with a proportional increase in staff pay), and looping classrooms (having same teacher teach same students for more than one school year)OtherComplete recommendations: Leadership effectivenessDraftfor discussion only38ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx 1/2 L1. In the long term, support additional investment to pay school leaders more. Align compensation increases with evidence of effectiveness

L2. Develop alternative pathways that will enable effective educators to become effective school leaders

L3. Prepare principals to be effective in their role by establishing and supporting existing highly rigorous principal preparation programs and by ensuring novice principals are mentored by highly effective principals

L4. Implement principal support strategies by providing incentives and support for interested schools. Strategies may include 1) creating a school administration manager role to support operations, 2) creating a principal supervisor role to support principals with external needs, and/or 3) developing teacher leader positions for teachers to share leadership responsibilities

L5. Empower principals to partner with school staff in developing a shared vision for instruction in their school and to manage resources important to achieving this vision, including the ability to 1) hire and place staff, 2) remove low-performing staff while ensuring due process, and 3) deploy instructional support resources to meet the school's unique needs

L6. Support the ongoing implementation of a rigorous administrator evaluation system (e.g., the Leader Excellence and Development System). Monitor the implementation to make sure system leaders use the evaluation system effectively to provide developmental support and hold administrators accountable for their effectiveness and outcomes

L7. Expose Arkansas's education leaders to the highest performing schools inside and outside the state and provide them a clear point of reference for what outstanding schools look like

L8. Streamline current paperwork and regulatory requirements for administrators. Begin with an investigation of current practicesFoundationalQuick winsComplete recommendations: Leadership effectivenessDraftfor discussion only39ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx 2/2 L9. Attract and retain top leadership talent to work in high need schools by offering districts flexibility to pay school leaders more and by improving the incentives offered1

L10. Support state efforts to measure administrator preparation program effectiveness. In addition, encourage the state to hold programs accountable for outcomes

L11. Establish new and support existing highly effective administrator professional development programs (e.g., programs that emphasize ongoing, job-embedded, cohort-based, and/or school team-based PD)

L12. Change the timing of school board elections to coincide with state or district elections

L13. Revamp current school board training and offer high quality PD focused on how to govern instead ofmicromanage, on hiring, supporting, and evaluating superintendents, and on budget

L14. Invest in a state-funded mentor to support superintendents and school boards in districts with priority schools on effective board governanceOtherNote: For consistency, combined two previous recommendations on attracting and retaining leadership in high needs schools. Complete recommendations: Systems and Policies (1/5) Prioritize ForwARd's recommendations when increasing funding or reallocating fundsFunding ForwARd's foundational and quick win recommendations is estimated to cost ~$250-650M1The current funding matrix budgets for less than research-based expert recommendations on adequacy (e.g., Picus Odden and Associates' 2014 desk audit). While implementing ForwARd's recommendations and improving the overall effectiveness of the system, increase funding to better match research (e.g., Picus recommends an incremental ~$2.1k / pupil / yr increase in overall funding levels). Increase funding in increments and tie additional funding to evidence of effective use of existing resourcesCurrently NSL funding is provided to districts based on tiers of % FRL, so that a district with 69% FRL students gets roughly half the funds of a 70% FRL district. Smooth out the step-wise function used for NSL to reduce funding differences between similar % FRL districtsCurrent ELL funding is inadequate compared to the need (~$300 / ELL student / yr) invest in greater categorical funding for ELL students (e.g., Picus recommends ~$630 / ELL student / yr). Funding should be used in ways that best provide additional support to ELL students (e.g., additional high quality academic support)1234Draftfor discussion only40ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Complete recommendations: Systems and Policies (2/5) Tie a portion of ELL and NSL funding to evidence of district effectiveness in supporting ELL and NSL studentsCurrent Pre-K funding is inadequate compared to the need invest in greater funding for Pre- K; improving quality will require ~$70-100M / yr, then subsequently increasing access will require an incremental ~$20-80M / yrNote: This recommendation originally comes from the Pre-K working group. It is included in the funding adequacy recommendations to make sure Pre-K receives the funding needed, given Pre-K is not included in the funding matrixCurrent staffing and budget rules governing ADE constrain ADE from hiring the best personnel for the job (e.g., each ADE division is required to have a specified number of personnel from each salary schedule). Revise staffing and budget rules to offer more hiring autonomy to ADE leadershipIncrease compensation in ADE staff salary schedule to be at least as competitive as districts, in order to attract strong educator talent to ADE5786Draftfor discussion only41ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Complete recommendations: Systems and Policies (3/5) Drive greater efficiency of district spending without compromising outcomes. Form regional and/or state-wide 'communities of practice' around resource use in specific, high-value / high- inefficiency areas (e.g., school staffing/class size, use of instructional coaches, purchasing, special education). Create or leverage an existing state-wide public-private partnership to oversee these 'communities of practice'Enable best practice sharing, collective problem solving, and drive long term improvementIdentify metrics to measure improvement and successBuild political will by convening key stakeholders from multiple sectors and across the state (e.g., districts, co-ops, industry leaders)In areas where clear best practices are established, the state may then codify the practices into law or regulation (e.g., state-wide purchasing practices)ADE should hold each co-op accountable for providing high-quality services that support student achievement and effective use of resources at the school and district levelsThis effort should build and improve upon ADE's existing evaluation of co-ops as required by legislation in 2012. Refinements to consider include introducing greater rigor, requiring an independent evaluator, making formal evaluations more frequent, and introducing yearly reporting on progressThe state should also consider structural changes (e.g., governance, funding, support) for underperforming co-ops to ensure all districts have access to a consistent set of high-quality services910Draftfor discussion only42ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Complete recommendations: Systems and Policies (4/5) Streamline the regulatory burden for educators at all levels (including ADE) to reduce complexity, encourage a shift from a compliance to a performance-driven mindset, and enable educators to focus on their most important roles. Gather input from educators to inform specific changes. Focus regulations and related support on the highest risk situations where compliance activities could be most helpful (e.g., struggling schools)Develop state-wide district efficiency metrics to support spending transparency. For districts that are underperforming (e.g., classified as Pre-Academically Distressed or Academically Distressed), efficiency targets should be set and intensive support should be provided to improve how funds are spentMetrics should be carefully developed with input from districts to mitigate unintended consequences (e.g., sending misleading messages, adding bureaucratic requirements, encouraging changes not in best interest of student achievement)Consider implementing as part of current performance measurements and action plans so this does not add a new burden for districtsWhile any metrics should be the product of a fresh review, they might build on existing law established in Act 35 of the 2nd Extraordinary Session of 2003Districts, co-ops, ADE, and other education stakeholders should make decisions based on educational value (i.e. how much student impact is achieved with funds). Support districts and other entities in building this capability121311Draftfor discussion only43ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptx Complete recommendations: Systems and Policies (5/5) A school's effectiveness should be evaluated based on both absolute performance and student growth (i.e. student achievement growth from the beginning to the end of the school year)Continue to build alignment across Arkansas's school performance designations to enhance clarity. Furthermore, improve communication of the designations to educators and communities1415Draftfor discussion only44ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxBack-up: We created a set of guiding principles to inform the decision-making process Schools should enter/exit AD and state control on a timeline that maximizes their ability to turn aroundProcessThe state should allocate funding fairly to all actors - ADE, school district, optional third party providers avoiding creating an undue fiscal burden for AD-related responsibilitiesThe state's definitions of adequacy and equity should include providing sufficient resources to meet the needs of Academically Distressed schoolsFinanceProgress in AD schools should be measured using a balanced set of metrics (e.g. attendance, growthmodel, tardiness, retention, site visit reviews, parent interviews), not just test scoresEvaluationWe should do what we can to ensure AD schools have highly effective teacher and administrative leadershipWe should do what we can to help AD schools attract, develop and retain talented staffHuman capitalLeadership/ School leaders should be supported (and not unduly micro-managed) by their governing body School leaders should be empowered to shape their school's culture and focusGovernance Family and community members are an important part of whatever happens in each AD school, and should have a say in a school's overall directionCommunities need relevant and frequent communications and engagement during the AD process, suchthat they are well-informed about the situation and plan to improveCommunityADE needs to be resourced and structured to effectively support AD schoolsADE capacityWe should pursue the approach that gives the best chance of making the changes needed and addressing the root causes of Academic Distress in schools and classroomsThe solution must be commensurate with the magnitude and urgency of the need. Accordingly, ADschools require an approach different than other schoolsIntervention in AD schools is intended to support substantial growth and build capacity for sustainability not merely an exit from Academic DistressThe current approach for AD schools is not sufficient in a number of the categories below something more is needed to compel action1Support/ Intervention2462a2b35Over-arching PrinciplesDraftfor discussion only45ForwARd update for Commissioner - vS.pptxBackupAgency ProjectsPolicy ReviewRemediation ModelsRemedial PlacementCollege ReadinessPlacement Exams (Compass)Need-based AidFunding ModelStudent Loan DebtCost of Attendance

CTE Course Transfer SystemGuided PathwaysPrior Learning AssessmentACTS ReviewADE Data Sharing - HS SeniorsCooperative Purchasing Agreement ReportingCredentials-to-Careers Mapping

Agenda item no. 5:PREVENTION OF UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES ON CAMPUSES

Dr. Brett Powell

83Unplanned PregnanciesAct 943 of 2015 directs the AHECB to develop an action plan to address the prevention of unplanned pregnancy on campuses.

Relevant InformationA work group comprised of ADHE staff, presidents, chancellors, legislators, professors, faculty, student affairs officers, nurses, college students, along with the Executive Director of the Womens Foundation of Arkansas, developed the action plan. Relevant InformationThe work group surveyed Arkansas institutions, looked at neighboring states and national groups, and identified the following:The benefit of incorporating unplanned pregnancy prevention information for students into student orientation and with student advisors. Opportunities for current students to reach out to younger teens to serve as mentors or role models of successful behaviors and healthy choicesPrivate or federal grants available to address the prevention of unplanned pregnancy and promote student success, including any partnerships necessary to compete for such grants.Collaborations with the Department of Health or federally qualified health centers to promote access to care.

1. What is the projected date the bonds will be sold?

2. Please provide a detailed description of the new facility facilities. Please include the square feet, type of space that will make up the facility and location of the facility on the campus as well as any other relevant information. 3.Will the bond issue include furnishings?4. What is the projected start date and completion date for facility? 5.Please list a few programs that will be housed in the facility. 6.Are there any other sources of income being used for this project? (i.e. private gifts)

7.What is the total project cost including all funding sources? Does this include all sources?

86Unplanned PregnanciesThe action plan will be presented to the Legislative Council no later than November 3, 2015.

Agenda item no. 6:HIGHER EDUCATION MASTER PLAN

Dr. Brett Powell

88Arkansas Department of Higher Education

Planning Framework

Educational AttainmentLumina Foundation goal 60% of adults with at least an Associates Degree by 2025Luminas goal is not necessarily our state goal but if other states follow, we fall farther behind91State Comparative Data

Almost 49th no more 92

Arkansas DemographicsArkansas 35% and 23% - 58% totalMississippi 30% and 24% - 54% totalLouisiana 33% and 22% - 55% totalAlabama 30% and 23% - 53% totalTexas 25% and 24% - 49% total93

Looking at matriculation rates of students coming out of high school, Arkansas compares well with surrounding states higher than all except Mississippi and higher than the national averageOpportunities to increase enrollment among specific minority groups

94Attainment Gap

95Arkansas Remediation Rates

Remediation Success Rates

Governors PrioritiesFocus on closing the educational attainment gapImprove college readiness of studentsReduce remedial education enrollmentsRole of concurrent credit in affordability and time to degreeConcentrate efforts on adults and underserved populationsImprove college affordability through reduced time to degree and institutional efficienciesDirect state resources toward achievement of these goals

Planning EffortsAdult LearnersCollege ReadinessRemediation/Developmental EducationInnovations in Student SuccessCollege AffordabilityCommunication StrategiesInstitutional FundingObjective

Supporting GoalsGOAL 1: Raise completion and graduation rates of colleges and universities by 10%.GOAL 2: By fall 2018, increase the enrollment of adult students, age 25 to 54, by 50%.GOAL 3: Raise the attainment rates of underserved student groups in the state by 10%.GOAL 4: Improve College Affordability through Effective Resource Allocation

Planning Efforts

http://www.adhe.edu/institutions/higher-education-master-plan/Program DeletionsAHECB Meeting of October 30, 2015Tim Atkinson, Ed.D.Senior Associate Director, Research and TechnologyProgram Deletions by Academic Year

Program Deletions by Institution Type

Program Deletions by Degree Level

4-Year Universities

2-Year Colleges

SummaryTable A. Summary of Operating Needs & Recommendations for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year

.FY2016-17AHECB RecommendationsFiscal Year 2015-16 Base100% ModelCalculated NeedInstitution Type90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% IncUniversities363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,239565,763,354124,969,72628.4%Colleges127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,495181,136,6249,264,6805.4%Subtotal490,732,02754,525,781545,257,80844,818,31422,589,450612,665,572954,147,734746,899,978134,234,40621.9%Technical Centers5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52910,393,8602,963,44039.9% Total550,530,61844,818,31424,747,060620,095,992966,531,263757,293,838137,197,84622.1%

.FY2016-17Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseAHECB Recommendation100% AHECBRecommendationNon-Formula Entity TypeTotal Current RSA BaseEETFTotal Fiscal Year BaseNew Funds% IncNon-Formula Entities87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550124,309,08822,848,53822.5%Health Care-Related UAMS95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893114,881,00110,004,1089.5% Total183,031,78723,305,656206,337,443239,190,08932,852,64615.9%

Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseFY2016-17 AHECB RecommendationAll Institution Types90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% Inc Total490,732,02754,525,781733,562,40568,123,97024,747,060826,433,435996,483,927170,050,49220.6%

4yrTable B. 2014-15 Four-Year Universities Recommendations

FY2015-16FY2016-17Inst90% Needs-based RSA Base10% Outcomes-based RSA BaseTotal RSAEETFTotal Base (RSA & EETF)Total Need% of Need2.1% Continuing Level on RSA (90% Needs-Based)Adjustment to Reach 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedASUJ50,740,4805,637,83156,378,3116,078,91662,457,227110,326,41656.6%1,065,55019,222,03520,287,58582,744,81275.0%ATU26,839,7462,982,19429,821,9402,086,50131,908,44158,365,62654.7%563,63511,302,14311,865,77843,774,21975.0%HSU16,916,5921,879,62118,796,2132,158,38720,954,60023,940,22387.5%355,2480.0355,24821,309,84889.0%SAUM14,026,4791,558,49815,584,9761,276,08616,861,06227,034,35962.4%294,5563,120,1513,414,70720,275,77075.0%UAF105,782,84111,753,649117,536,4909,452,865126,989,355255,058,40249.8%2,221,44062,083,00764,304,447191,293,80275.0%UAFS18,535,1542,059,46220,594,6153,162,64423,757,25935,501,05166.9%389,2382,479,2902,868,52826,625,78875.0%UALR51,000,5355,666,72656,667,2615,481,23962,148,50090,056,73169.0%1,071,0114,323,0375,394,04867,542,54875.0%UAM11,761,0411,306,78213,067,8231,101,30214,169,12519,048,42974.4%246,9820.0246,98214,416,10775.7%UAPB19,594,1642,177,12921,771,2941,911,83723,683,13125,916,19991.4%411,4770.0411,47724,094,60893.0%UCA47,803,2355,311,47153,114,7054,750,22257,864,92798,247,80258.9%1,003,86814,817,05615,820,92473,685,85175.0%Total363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,23959.3%7,623,006117,346,720124,969,726565,763,35476.1%

2yrTable C. 2016-17 Two Year Colleges Recommendations

FY2015-16FY2016-17Inst90% Needs-based RSA Base10% Outcomes-based RSA BaseTotal RSA BaseEETFWF2000Total Base (RSA, EETF & WF2000)Total Need% of Need Met2.1% Continuing Level on RSA (90% Needs-Based)Adjustment to Reach 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedANC7,719,347857,7058,577,052744,458730,95410,052,46410,052,464100.0%162,1060.0162,10610,214,570100.0%ASUB10,652,1541,183,57311,835,7271,485,055801,94514,122,72714,259,28699.0%223,6950.0223,69514,346,422100.0%ASUMH3,283,299364,8113,648,1100.0823,9294,472,0396,691,47666.8%68,949477,618.72546,5685,018,60775.0%ASUMS3,472,206385,8013,858,0070.02,190,9146,048,9217,474,16280.9%72,9160.072,9166,121,83781.9%ASUN5,393,064599,2295,992,2930.01,417,6287,409,92111,369,39065.2%113,2541,003,8671,117,1228,527,04375.0%BRTC5,502,164611,3526,113,5160.02,245,2098,358,7259,707,33386.1%115,5450.0115,5458,474,27087.3%CCCUA3,056,222339,5803,395,8020.01,350,3374,746,1397,132,12666.5%64,181538,775602,9565,349,09575.0%CotO3,174,535352,7263,527,2610.01,156,3864,683,6475,966,99178.5%66,6650.066,6654,750,31279.6%EACC5,209,252578,8065,788,058777,1660.06,565,2246,565,224100.0%109,3940.0109,3946,674,618100.0%NAC7,170,268796,6967,966,964458,985575,1779,001,1269,082,50999.1%150,5760.0150,5769,151,702100.0%NPCC8,141,840904,6499,046,4891,162,362668,02110,876,87211,198,38697.1%170,9790.0170,97911,047,85198.7%NWACC9,557,2821,061,92010,619,2021,027,2280.011,646,43020,574,38656.6%200,7033,583,6573,784,36015,430,79075.0%OZC2,813,828312,6483,126,4750.01,271,8414,398,3166,537,40367.3%59,090445,646504,7364,903,05275.0%PCCUA8,156,779906,3099,063,088756,855529,85610,349,79910,349,799100.0%171,2920.0171,29210,521,091100.0%PTC13,623,6931,513,74415,137,4370.02,273,77217,411,20923,524,89774.0%286,0980.0286,09817,697,30775.2%RMCC2,886,182320,6873,206,869205,1440.03,412,0134,201,88081.2%60,6100.060,6103,472,62382.6%SACC5,430,876603,4316,034,307531,526461,3897,027,2228,187,43985.8%114,0480.0114,0487,141,27087.2%SAUT5,134,960570,5515,705,511209,5360.05,915,0478,659,27068.3%107,834471,571579,4066,494,45375.0%SEAC5,073,118563,6805,636,7980.01,975,1997,611,9977,611,997100.0%106,5350.0106,5357,718,532100.0%UACCB3,717,955413,1064,131,0610.0866,7604,997,8216,227,46180.3%78,0770.078,0775,075,89881.5%UACCH4,042,797449,2004,491,9970.01,958,9476,450,9446,652,69897.0%84,8990.084,8996,535,84398.2%UACCM4,519,940502,2165,022,1550.01,291,1866,313,3418,625,91873.2%94,91961,179156,0986,469,43975.0%Total127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,49581.6%2,682,3676,582,3139,264,680181,136,62486.0%

Tech ctrTable D. 2016-17 Technical Centers Recommendations

InstitutionFY2015-16FY2016-17RSA Workforce 2000Total Base100% Model Calculated Need% of Need Met2.1% Continuing Level on RSAAdjustment to 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedATU-Ozark2,394,591794,4903,189,0818,122,77139.3%50,2862,852,7112,902,9976,092,07875.0%UAM-Crossett1,154,300657,0241,811,3241,830,74398.9%24,2400.024,2401,835,564100.0%UAM-McGehee1,723,919706,0962,430,0152,430,015100.0%36,2020.036,2022,466,217100.0%Total5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52960.0%110,7292,852,7112,963,44010,393,86083.9%

NonformulaTable E. 2016-17 Non-Formula Entities Recommendations

Institution/EntityFY2015-16FY 2016-17RSAEETFTotal BaseFY 2015-16 AHECB Recommendation3.0% Increase on RSA for 2015-162.1% Continuing Level of RSANew Program EnhancementsTotal New Funds over 2015-16 RecsTotal RecommendationADTEC/ADWIRED1,500,0000.01,500,0002,045,00045,00032,4450.032,4452,077,445AREON0.00.00.01,365,00000.01,432,5001,432,5002,797,500ASU-System Office2,362,680145,6052,508,2852,764,36070,88051,10514,22465,3292,829,689ASU-Heritage350,0000.0350,0002,360,50010,5007,57160,00067,5712,428,071HSU-CEC79,7980.079,7981,216,9032,3941,7260.01,7261,218,629NWACC-CPTC0.00.00.0118,28200.00.00.0118,282SACC-Arboretum0.00.00.075,00000.00.00.075,000SAUT-ETA368,40435,015403,419614,22411,0527,9690.07,969622,193SAUT-FTA1,651,22188,6221,739,8432,346,11949,53735,7160.035,7162,381,835UA-SYS3,417,950271,8453,689,7954,033,351102,53973,9306,91280,8424,114,193UA-AS2,327,380134,3782,461,7582,706,47169,82150,3415,27655,6172,762,088UA-DivAgri62,800,1385,586,76868,386,90671,888,0971,884,0041,358,367443,4001,801,76773,689,864UA-ASMSA1,113,0157,370,9608,483,9758,965,36433,39024,0750.024,0758,989,439UA-CS2,295,5750.02,295,5752,454,44268,86749,6532,70052,3532,506,795UA-CJI1,825,7690.01,825,7692,740,54254,77339,49125,80065,2912,805,833UAF-ARTP0.00.00.0250,00000.00.00.0250,000UAF-Autism0.00.00.02,500,00000.00.00.02,500,000UAF-GWG0.00.00.0500,00000.00.00.0500,000UAF-Pryor Center0.00.00.0250,00000.00.00.0250,000UAF-WTC AR0.00.00.0250,00000.02,5882,588252,588UALR-RAPS4,087,8360.04,087,8366,399,471122,63588,42065,670154,0906,553,561UAPB-Nonformula*3,647,5910.03,647,5914,491,757844,16694,3270.094,3274,586,084Total87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550120,334,8833,369,5591,915,1352,059,0703,974,205124,309,088*UAPB's Recommendation for RSA funding is for federal matching purposes.

Health-Related Non-Formula Entity - UAMSFY2015-16FY 2016-17RSAEETFTotal BaseFY 2015-16 AHECB Recommendation3.0% Increase on RSA for 2015-162.1% Continuing Level of RSANew Program EnhancementsTotal New Funds over 2015-16 RecsTotal RecommendationUAMS86,456,6619,437,61995,894,280102,186,9192,593,7001,870,0581,391,4203,261,478105,448,397UAMS-ABUSE/RAPE/DV735,000735,000757,05022,05015,8980.015,898772,948UAMS-Child Safety720,588720,588742,20621,61815,5860.015,586757,792UAMS-Ped/Pysch/Res.1,950,0001,950,0002,008,50058,50042,1790.042,1792,050,679UAMS-IC5,342,181234,8445,577,0255,735,634160,265115,5510.0115,5515,851,185Total95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893111,430,3092,856,1332,059,2721,391,4203,450,692114,881,001

SummaryTable A. Summary of Operating Needs & Recommendations for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year

.FY2016-17AHECB RecommendationsFiscal Year 2015-16 Base100% ModelCalculated NeedInstitution Type90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% IncUniversities363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,239565,763,354124,969,72628.4%Colleges127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,495181,136,6249,264,6805.4%Subtotal490,732,02754,525,781545,257,80844,818,31422,589,450612,665,572954,147,734746,899,978134,234,40621.9%Technical Centers5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52910,393,8602,963,44039.9% Total550,530,61844,818,31424,747,060620,095,992966,531,263757,293,838137,197,84622.1%

.FY2016-17Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseAHECB Recommendation100% AHECBRecommendationNon-Formula Entity TypeTotal Current RSA BaseEETFTotal Fiscal Year BaseNew Funds% IncNon-Formula Entities87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550124,309,08822,848,53822.5%Health Care-Related UAMS95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893114,881,00110,004,1089.5% Total183,031,78723,305,656206,337,443239,190,08932,852,64615.9%

Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseFY2016-17 AHECB RecommendationAll Institution Types90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% Inc Total490,732,02754,525,781733,562,40568,123,97024,747,060826,433,435996,483,927170,050,49220.6%

4yrTable B. 2014-15 Four-Year Universities Recommendations

FY2015-16FY2016-17Inst90% Needs-based RSA Base10% Outcomes-based RSA BaseTotal RSAEETFTotal Base (RSA & EETF)Total Need% of Need2.1% Continuing Level on RSA (90% Needs-Based)Adjustment to Reach 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedASUJ50,740,4805,637,83156,378,3116,078,91662,457,227110,326,41656.6%1,065,55019,222,03520,287,58582,744,81275.0%ATU26,839,7462,982,19429,821,9402,086,50131,908,44158,365,62654.7%563,63511,302,14311,865,77843,774,21975.0%HSU16,916,5921,879,62118,796,2132,158,38720,954,60023,940,22387.5%355,2480.0355,24821,309,84889.0%SAUM14,026,4791,558,49815,584,9761,276,08616,861,06227,034,35962.4%294,5563,120,1513,414,70720,275,77075.0%UAF105,782,84111,753,649117,536,4909,452,865126,989,355255,058,40249.8%2,221,44062,083,00764,304,447191,293,80275.0%UAFS18,535,1542,059,46220,594,6153,162,64423,757,25935,501,05166.9%389,2382,479,2902,868,52826,625,78875.0%UALR51,000,5355,666,72656,667,2615,481,23962,148,50090,056,73169.0%1,071,0114,323,0375,394,04867,542,54875.0%UAM11,761,0411,306,78213,067,8231,101,30214,169,12519,048,42974.4%246,9820.0246,98214,416,10775.7%UAPB19,594,1642,177,12921,771,2941,911,83723,683,13125,916,19991.4%411,4770.0411,47724,094,60893.0%UCA47,803,2355,311,47153,114,7054,750,22257,864,92798,247,80258.9%1,003,86814,817,05615,820,92473,685,85175.0%Total363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,23959.3%7,623,006117,346,720124,969,726565,763,35476.1%

2yrTable C. 2016-17 Two Year Colleges Recommendations

FY2015-16FY2016-17Inst90% Needs-based RSA Base10% Outcomes-based RSA BaseTotal RSA BaseEETFWF2000Total Base (RSA, EETF & WF2000)Total Need% of Need Met2.1% Continuing Level on RSA (90% Needs-Based)Adjustment to Reach 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedANC7,719,347857,7058,577,052744,458730,95410,052,46410,052,464100.0%162,1060.0162,10610,214,570100.0%ASUB10,652,1541,183,57311,835,7271,485,055801,94514,122,72714,259,28699.0%223,6950.0223,69514,346,422100.0%ASUMH3,283,299364,8113,648,1100.0823,9294,472,0396,691,47666.8%68,949477,618.72546,5685,018,60775.0%ASUMS3,472,206385,8013,858,0070.02,190,9146,048,9217,474,16280.9%72,9160.072,9166,121,83781.9%ASUN5,393,064599,2295,992,2930.01,417,6287,409,92111,369,39065.2%113,2541,003,8671,117,1228,527,04375.0%BRTC5,502,164611,3526,113,5160.02,245,2098,358,7259,707,33386.1%115,5450.0115,5458,474,27087.3%CCCUA3,056,222339,5803,395,8020.01,350,3374,746,1397,132,12666.5%64,181538,775602,9565,349,09575.0%CotO3,174,535352,7263,527,2610.01,156,3864,683,6475,966,99178.5%66,6650.066,6654,750,31279.6%EACC5,209,252578,8065,788,058777,1660.06,565,2246,565,224100.0%109,3940.0109,3946,674,618100.0%NAC7,170,268796,6967,966,964458,985575,1779,001,1269,082,50999.1%150,5760.0150,5769,151,702100.0%NPCC8,141,840904,6499,046,4891,162,362668,02110,876,87211,198,38697.1%170,9790.0170,97911,047,85198.7%NWACC9,557,2821,061,92010,619,2021,027,2280.011,646,43020,574,38656.6%200,7033,583,6573,784,36015,430,79075.0%OZC2,813,828312,6483,126,4750.01,271,8414,398,3166,537,40367.3%59,090445,646504,7364,903,05275.0%PCCUA8,156,779906,3099,063,088756,855529,85610,349,79910,349,799100.0%171,2920.0171,29210,521,091100.0%PTC13,623,6931,513,74415,137,4370.02,273,77217,411,20923,524,89774.0%286,0980.0286,09817,697,30775.2%RMCC2,886,182320,6873,206,869205,1440.03,412,0134,201,88081.2%60,6100.060,6103,472,62382.6%SACC5,430,876603,4316,034,307531,526461,3897,027,2228,187,43985.8%114,0480.0114,0487,141,27087.2%SAUT5,134,960570,5515,705,511209,5360.05,915,0478,659,27068.3%107,834471,571579,4066,494,45375.0%SEAC5,073,118563,6805,636,7980.01,975,1997,611,9977,611,997100.0%106,5350.0106,5357,718,532100.0%UACCB3,717,955413,1064,131,0610.0866,7604,997,8216,227,46180.3%78,0770.078,0775,075,89881.5%UACCH4,042,797449,2004,491,9970.01,958,9476,450,9446,652,69897.0%84,8990.084,8996,535,84398.2%UACCM4,519,940502,2165,022,1550.01,291,1866,313,3418,625,91873.2%94,91961,179156,0986,469,43975.0%Total127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,49581.6%2,682,3676,582,3139,264,680181,136,62486.0%

Tech ctrTable D. 2016-17 Technical Centers Recommendations

InstitutionFY2015-16FY2016-17RSA Workforce 2000Total Base100% Model Calculated Need% of Need Met2.1% Continuing Level on RSAAdjustment to 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedATU-Ozark2,394,591794,4903,189,0818,122,77139.3%50,2862,852,7112,902,9976,092,07875.0%UAM-Crossett1,154,300657,0241,811,3241,830,74398.9%24,2400.024,2401,835,564100.0%UAM-McGehee1,723,919706,0962,430,0152,430,015100.0%36,2020.036,2022,466,217100.0%Total5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52960.0%110,7292,852,7112,963,44010,393,86083.9%

NonformulaTable E. 2016-17 Non-Formula Entities Recommendations

Institution/EntityFY2015-16FY 2016-17RSAEETFTotal BaseFY 2015-16 AHECB Recommendation3.0% Increase on RSA for 2015-162.1% Continuing Level of RSANew Program EnhancementsTotal New Funds over 2015-16 RecsTotal RecommendationADTEC/ADWIRED1,500,0000.01,500,0002,045,00045,00032,4450.032,4452,077,445AREON0.00.00.01,365,00000.01,432,5001,432,5002,797,500ASU-System Office2,362,680145,6052,508,2852,764,36070,88051,10514,22465,3292,829,689ASU-Heritage350,0000.0350,0002,360,50010,5007,57160,00067,5712,428,071HSU-CEC79,7980.079,7981,216,9032,3941,7260.01,7261,218,629NWACC-CPTC0.00.00.0118,28200.00.00.0118,282SACC-Arboretum0.00.00.075,00000.00.00.075,000SAUT-ETA368,40435,015403,419614,22411,0527,9690.07,969622,193SAUT-FTA1,651,22188,6221,739,8432,346,11949,53735,7160.035,7162,381,835UA-SYS3,417,950271,8453,689,7954,033,351102,53973,9306,91280,8424,114,193UA-AS2,327,380134,3782,461,7582,706,47169,82150,3415,27655,6172,762,088UA-DivAgri62,800,1385,586,76868,386,90671,888,0971,884,0041,358,367443,4001,801,76773,689,864UA-ASMSA1,113,0157,370,9608,483,9758,965,36433,39024,0750.024,0758,989,439UA-CS2,295,5750.02,295,5752,454,44268,86749,6532,70052,3532,506,795UA-CJI1,825,7690.01,825,7692,740,54254,77339,49125,80065,2912,805,833UAF-ARTP0.00.00.0250,00000.00.00.0250,000UAF-Autism0.00.00.02,500,00000.00.00.02,500,000UAF-GWG0.00.00.0500,00000.00.00.0500,000UAF-Pryor Center0.00.00.0250,00000.00.00.0250,000UAF-WTC AR0.00.00.0250,00000.02,5882,588252,588UALR-RAPS4,087,8360.04,087,8366,399,471122,63588,42065,670154,0906,553,561UAPB-Nonformula*3,647,5910.03,647,5914,491,757844,16694,3270.094,3274,586,084Total87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550120,334,8833,369,5591,915,1352,059,0703,974,205124,309,088*UAPB's Recommendation for RSA funding is for federal matching purposes.

Health-Related Non-Formula Entity - UAMSFY2015-16FY 2016-17RSAEETFTotal BaseFY 2015-16 AHECB Recommendation3.0% Increase on RSA for 2015-162.1% Continuing Level of RSANew Program EnhancementsTotal New Funds over 2015-16 RecsTotal RecommendationUAMS86,456,6619,437,61995,894,280102,186,9192,593,7001,870,0581,391,4203,261,478105,448,397UAMS-ABUSE/RAPE/DV735,000735,000757,05022,05015,8980.015,898772,948UAMS-Child Safety720,588720,588742,20621,61815,5860.015,586757,792UAMS-Ped/Pysch/Res.1,950,0001,950,0002,008,50058,50042,1790.042,1792,050,679UAMS-IC5,342,181234,8445,577,0255,735,634160,265115,5510.0115,5515,851,185Total95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893111,430,3092,856,1332,059,2721,391,4203,450,692114,881,001

SummaryTable A. Summary of Operating Needs & Recommendations for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year

.FY2016-17AHECB RecommendationsFiscal Year 2015-16 Base100% ModelCalculated NeedInstitution Type90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% IncUniversities363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,239565,763,354124,969,72628.4%Colleges127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,495181,136,6249,264,6805.4%Subtotal490,732,02754,525,781545,257,80844,818,31422,589,450612,665,572954,147,734746,899,978134,234,40621.9%Technical Centers5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52910,393,8602,963,44039.9% Total550,530,61844,818,31424,747,060620,095,992966,531,263757,293,838137,197,84622.1%

.FY2016-17Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseAHECB Recommendation100% AHECBRecommendationNon-Formula Entity TypeTotal Current RSA BaseEETFTotal Fiscal Year BaseNew Funds% IncNon-Formula Entities87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550124,309,08822,848,53822.5%Health Care-Related UAMS95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893114,881,00110,004,1089.5% Total183,031,78723,305,656206,337,443239,190,08932,852,64615.9%

Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseFY2016-17 AHECB RecommendationAll Institution Types90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% Inc Total490,732,02754,525,781733,562,40568,123,97024,747,060826,433,435996,483,927170,050,49220.6%

4yrTable B. 2014-15 Four-Year Universities Recommendations

FY2015-16FY2016-17Inst90% Needs-based RSA Base10% Outcomes-based RSA BaseTotal RSAEETFTotal Base (RSA & EETF)Total Need% of Need2.1% Continuing Level on RSA (90% Needs-Based)Adjustment to Reach 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedASUJ50,740,4805,637,83156,378,3116,078,91662,457,227110,326,41656.6%1,065,55019,222,03520,287,58582,744,81275.0%ATU26,839,7462,982,19429,821,9402,086,50131,908,44158,365,62654.7%563,63511,302,14311,865,77843,774,21975.0%HSU16,916,5921,879,62118,796,2132,158,38720,954,60023,940,22387.5%355,2480.0355,24821,309,84889.0%SAUM14,026,4791,558,49815,584,9761,276,08616,861,06227,034,35962.4%294,5563,120,1513,414,70720,275,77075.0%UAF105,782,84111,753,649117,536,4909,452,865126,989,355255,058,40249.8%2,221,44062,083,00764,304,447191,293,80275.0%UAFS18,535,1542,059,46220,594,6153,162,64423,757,25935,501,05166.9%389,2382,479,2902,868,52826,625,78875.0%UALR51,000,5355,666,72656,667,2615,481,23962,148,50090,056,73169.0%1,071,0114,323,0375,394,04867,542,54875.0%UAM11,761,0411,306,78213,067,8231,101,30214,169,12519,048,42974.4%246,9820.0246,98214,416,10775.7%UAPB19,594,1642,177,12921,771,2941,911,83723,683,13125,916,19991.4%411,4770.0411,47724,094,60893.0%UCA47,803,2355,311,47153,114,7054,750,22257,864,92798,247,80258.9%1,003,86814,817,05615,820,92473,685,85175.0%Total363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,23959.3%7,623,006117,346,720124,969,726565,763,35476.1%

2yrTable C. 2016-17 Two Year Colleges Recommendations

FY2015-16FY2016-17Inst90% Needs-based RSA Base10% Outcomes-based RSA BaseTotal RSA BaseEETFWF2000Total Base (RSA, EETF & WF2000)Total Need% of Need Met2.1% Continuing Level on RSA (90% Needs-Based)Adjustment to Reach 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedANC7,719,347857,7058,577,052744,458730,95410,052,46410,052,464100.0%162,1060.0162,10610,214,570100.0%ASUB10,652,1541,183,57311,835,7271,485,055801,94514,122,72714,259,28699.0%223,6950.0223,69514,346,422100.0%ASUMH3,283,299364,8113,648,1100.0823,9294,472,0396,691,47666.8%68,949477,618.72546,5685,018,60775.0%ASUMS3,472,206385,8013,858,0070.02,190,9146,048,9217,474,16280.9%72,9160.072,9166,121,83781.9%ASUN5,393,064599,2295,992,2930.01,417,6287,409,92111,369,39065.2%113,2541,003,8671,117,1228,527,04375.0%BRTC5,502,164611,3526,113,5160.02,245,2098,358,7259,707,33386.1%115,5450.0115,5458,474,27087.3%CCCUA3,056,222339,5803,395,8020.01,350,3374,746,1397,132,12666.5%64,181538,775602,9565,349,09575.0%CotO3,174,535352,7263,527,2610.01,156,3864,683,6475,966,99178.5%66,6650.066,6654,750,31279.6%EACC5,209,252578,8065,788,058777,1660.06,565,2246,565,224100.0%109,3940.0109,3946,674,618100.0%NAC7,170,268796,6967,966,964458,985575,1779,001,1269,082,50999.1%150,5760.0150,5769,151,702100.0%NPCC8,141,840904,6499,046,4891,162,362668,02110,876,87211,198,38697.1%170,9790.0170,97911,047,85198.7%NWACC9,557,2821,061,92010,619,2021,027,2280.011,646,43020,574,38656.6%200,7033,583,6573,784,36015,430,79075.0%OZC2,813,828312,6483,126,4750.01,271,8414,398,3166,537,40367.3%59,090445,646504,7364,903,05275.0%PCCUA8,156,779906,3099,063,088756,855529,85610,349,79910,349,799100.0%171,2920.0171,29210,521,091100.0%PTC13,623,6931,513,74415,137,4370.02,273,77217,411,20923,524,89774.0%286,0980.0286,09817,697,30775.2%RMCC2,886,182320,6873,206,869205,1440.03,412,0134,201,88081.2%60,6100.060,6103,472,62382.6%SACC5,430,876603,4316,034,307531,526461,3897,027,2228,187,43985.8%114,0480.0114,0487,141,27087.2%SAUT5,134,960570,5515,705,511209,5360.05,915,0478,659,27068.3%107,834471,571579,4066,494,45375.0%SEAC5,073,118563,6805,636,7980.01,975,1997,611,9977,611,997100.0%106,5350.0106,5357,718,532100.0%UACCB3,717,955413,1064,131,0610.0866,7604,997,8216,227,46180.3%78,0770.078,0775,075,89881.5%UACCH4,042,797449,2004,491,9970.01,958,9476,450,9446,652,69897.0%84,8990.084,8996,535,84398.2%UACCM4,519,940502,2165,022,1550.01,291,1866,313,3418,625,91873.2%94,91961,179156,0986,469,43975.0%Total127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,49581.6%2,682,3676,582,3139,264,680181,136,62486.0%

Tech ctrTable D. 2016-17 Technical Centers Recommendations

InstitutionFY2015-16FY2016-17RSA Workforce 2000Total Base100% Model Calculated Need% of Need Met2.1% Continuing Level on RSAAdjustment to 75% of NeedNew FundsTotal Recommendation% of NeedATU-Ozark2,394,591794,4903,189,0818,122,77139.3%50,2862,852,7112,902,9976,092,07875.0%UAM-Crossett1,154,300657,0241,811,3241,830,74398.9%24,2400.024,2401,835,564100.0%UAM-McGehee1,723,919706,0962,430,0152,430,015100.0%36,2020.036,2022,466,217100.0%Total5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52960.0%110,7292,852,7112,963,44010,393,86083.9%

NonformulaTable E. 2016-17 Non-Formula Entities Recommendations

Institution/EntityFY2015-16FY 2016-17RSAEETFTotal BaseFY 2015-16 AHECB Recommendation3.0% Increase on RSA for 2015-162.1% Continuing Level of RSANew Program EnhancementsTotal New Funds over 2015-16 RecsTotal RecommendationADTEC/ADWIRED1,500,0000.01,500,0002,045,00045,00032,4450.032,4452,077,445AREON0.00.00.01,365,00000.01,432,5001,432,5002,797,500ASU-System Office2,362,680145,6052,508,2852,764,36070,88051,10514,22465,3292,829,689ASU-Heritage350,0000.0350,0002,360,50010,5007,57160,00067,5712,428,071HSU-CEC79,7980.079,7981,216,9032,3941,7260.01,7261,218,629NWACC-CPTC0.00.00.0118,28200.00.00.0118,282SACC-Arboretum0.00.00.075,00000.00.00.075,000SAUT-ETA368,40435,015403,419614,22411,0527,9690.07,969622,193SAUT-FTA1,651,22188,6221,739,8432,346,11949,53735,7160.035,7162,381,835UA-SYS3,417,950271,8453,689,7954,033,351102,53973,9306,91280,8424,114,193UA-AS2,327,380134,3782,461,7582,706,47169,82150,3415,27655,6172,762,088UA-DivAgri62,800,1385,586,76868,386,90671,888,0971,884,0041,358,367443,4001,801,76773,689,864UA-ASMSA1,113,0157,370,9608,483,9758,965,36433,39024,0750.024,0758,989,439UA-CS2,295,5750.02,295,5752,454,44268,86749,6532,70052,3532,506,795UA-CJI1,825,7690.01,825,7692,740,54254,77339,49125,80065,2912,805,833UAF-ARTP0.00.00.0250,00000.00.00.0250,000UAF-Autism0.00.00.02,500,00000.00.00.02,500,000UAF-GWG0.00.00.0500,00000.00.00.0500,000UAF-Pryor Center0.00.00.0250,00000.00.00.0250,000UAF-WTC AR0.00.00.0250,00000.02,5882,588252,588UALR-RAPS4,087,8360.04,087,8366,399,471122,63588,42065,670154,0906,553,561UAPB-Nonformula*3,647,5910.03,647,5914,491,757844,16694,3270.094,3274,586,084Total87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550120,334,8833,369,5591,915,1352,059,0703,974,205124,309,088*UAPB's Recommendation for RSA funding is for federal matching purposes.

Health-Related Non-Formula Entity - UAMSFY2015-16FY 2016-17RSAEETFTotal BaseFY 2015-16 AHECB Recommendation3.0% Increase on RSA for 2015-162.1% Continuing Level of RSANew Program EnhancementsTotal New Funds over 2015-16 RecsTotal RecommendationUAMS86,456,6619,437,61995,894,280102,186,9192,593,7001,870,0581,391,4203,261,478105,448,397UAMS-ABUSE/RAPE/DV735,000735,000757,05022,05015,8980.015,898772,948UAMS-Child Safety720,588720,588742,20621,61815,5860.015,586757,792UAMS-Ped/Pysch/Res.1,950,0001,950,0002,008,50058,50042,1790.042,1792,050,679UAMS-IC5,342,181234,8445,577,0255,735,634160,265115,5510.0115,5515,851,185Total95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893111,430,3092,856,1332,059,2721,391,4203,450,692114,881,001

SummaryTable A. Summary of Operating Needs & Recommendations for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year

.FY2016-17AHECB RecommendationsFiscal Year 2015-16 Base100% ModelCalculated NeedInstitution Type90% Current RSA Base10% Performance FundingTotal Current RSA BaseEETF WF2000Total Fiscal Year BaseTotal Recommendation New Funds% IncUniversities363,000,26640,333,363403,333,62937,459,999440,793,628743,495,239565,763,354124,969,72628.4%Colleges127,731,76114,192,418141,924,1797,358,31522,589,450171,871,944210,652,495181,136,6249,264,6805.4%Subtotal490,732,02754,525,781545,257,80844,818,31422,589,450612,665,572954,147,734746,899,978134,234,40621.9%Technical Centers5,272,8102,157,6107,430,42012,383,52910,393,8602,963,44039.9% Total550,530,61844,818,31424,747,060620,095,992966,531,263757,293,838137,197,84622.1%

.FY2016-17Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseAHECB Recommendation100% AHECBRecommendationNon-Formula Entity TypeTotal Current RSA BaseEETFTotal Fiscal Year BaseNew Funds% IncNon-Formula Entities87,827,35713,633,193101,460,550124,309,08822,848,53822.5%Health Care-Related UAMS95,204,4309,672,463104,876,893114,881,00110,004,1089.5% Total183,031,78723,305,656206,337,443239,190,08932,852,64615.9%

Fiscal Year 2015-16 BaseFY2016-17 AHECB RecommendationAll Institution Types90