Florida Equity

8/6/2019 Florida Equity

1/31

Accounting for Equity: Performance-based Budgetingand Fiscal Equity in Florida

Christopher M. Mullin and David S. Honeyman

A B S T R A C T

Institutional performance was a topic given considerable attention by theCommission on the Future of Higher Education. Florida's Community CollegeSystem responded to the challenge by committing to increaseperformance-basedfunding allocations from less than 2% to 5% of total state appropriations.Resultsof the analysis indicated that horizontal equity in Florida's performance-basedbudgetingallocation formula increased as appropriations increased.At the same

time, it was observed that the nature of the allocation methodology incentivisedinstitutions offering academic programs focused on the transfer function of thecommunity college as opposed to remedial and adult programs.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Secretary Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher Education focusedon accountability,placing performance-basedaccountability systems under thespotlight. Its recommendationswere clear,

To meet the challenges of the 21st century, higher education must changefrom a system primarily based on reputation to one based on performance...Every one of our goals, from improvingaccess and affordability to enhancingquality and innovation, will be more easily achieved if higher educationinstitutions embrace and implement serious accountability measures(United States Department of Education 2006a, 20).

Christopher M. Mullin is a Post-Doctoral Fellow/AssistantResearch Professorwith the Illinois Educa-tion Research Coundil at Southern Illinois University.David S. Honeyman is a Senior Research Fellowfor the Institute of Higher Education an d Professor for the Department of EducationAdministrationand Policy at the University of Florida.

E li d ft f thi t d t th A i Ed ti Fi A i ti Annual


2/31

11 0 J O U R N A L OF E D U C AT I O N F I N A N C E

Compared to their state college and university counterparts, communitycolleges received a considerable larger percentage of their total revenues viastate funding, 30.7% as compared to 54.8%, respectively for the 2003-2004 fiscalyear (United States Department of Education 2006b). Accordingly, state and

local appropriations constituteda significant source of funding for the publiccommunity college, making themmore responsive to state-funded, performance-based accountability policies adopted by state policy makers (Burke 1997).

The community colleges of Florida responded to the call for an increasedemphasis on accountability by committing to increase the total percentage ofstate appropriations allocated via their performance-based budgeting formulafrom less than 2% to 5% by 2011-12 (Community College Office of Budget andFinancial Services 2007).Whatwas significant about this policy decision was thatthe increase in performance fundswould supplant state funds currentlyallocatedutilizing another funding formula and that the funds were unrestricted-thereby allowing an institution to use them for whichever purpose they deemedappropriate (Bakuzonis 2007).

PERFORMANCE FUNDING

The rationale behind the use of performance-based accountability frameworkswas delineated by Serban and Burke (1998) into three reasons. The firstreason was to create a culture of increased accountability in institutionsof postsecondary education. Second, performance-based accountability

frameworks were implemented to increase the performance of institutions asdetermined by measures developed for institutions. Lastly, the allocation of statefunds according to performance measures encouraged institutions to provideeducational opportunities targeted specifically to state economic an d workforceneeds.

The Prevalence of Performance FundingTennessee was first introduced to accountability-based funding measures in1974, which were formally adopted in 1979 (Serban and Burke 1998). It hasbeen observed that the prevalence of performance-based accountability systemshas increased in use during the period spanning from 1979-2002 (McLendon,Hearn and Deaton 2006).

McLendon, Hearn and Deaton (2006) found the evolution of performance-based accountability frameworks resulted in three distinct types: performance

reporting, performance funding, and performance budgeting. Performancereporting was the least fiscally restrictive, requiring each institution to publicly


3/31

Accounting or Equity ill

report how they measured on a set of performance indicators.Funding was notdirectly associated with performance, rather public pressure was incorporatedas a method to motivate behavior. In 2002, the authors reported 42 states ashaving implemented performance reporting. Performance funding directly

tied an institution's performance on a set of indicators to the appropriation itreceived. Twenty-five states incorporated performance funding by 2002. Finally,performance budgeting associated institutional performance on specifiedindicators, with the ability of appropriators to increase or decrease the finalallocation. Thirty-four states were reported to have implemented performance-based budgeting by 2002-Florida being one of them.

Measure Development

The identification and development of performance measures was an elusiveand difficult task. To assist institutions in defining or redevelopingperformanceindicators, the National Association of College and University Business Officers(NACUBO) developed a "Performance Measurement Toolkit' Albright(2006) also contributed to the dialogue by outlining effective principles in thedevelopment of performance measures.

It has, however, been the case that measures common in performance-based accountability frameworks were categorized into four categories: inputs,

processes, outputs, and outcomes (Serban and Burke 1998). Inputs referred tocharacteristics of individuals entering an institution such as high school gradepoint average or standardized test scores. Processes referred to indicatorsapplicable to the operations of an institution such as facultj-to-student ratios.

Outputs represented the achievement of individuals as may be quantified by thenumber of degrees or certificates program completion rates. Outcomes referred

to satisfaction by the employer, student, or accrediting board after completion

of the degree or certificate. Outputs and outcomes were found to be the most

commonly used in a study by Serban and Burke (1998), and were the focus ofFlorida's performance-basedbudgeting (PBB) formula.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Adequacy,broadly considered,is the fiscal support needed to meet the objectivesof education as required by statutory or constitutional language. Dowd (2003)suggested adequacy should only count when the policy is inclusive of outputand outcomes analysis of all social subsets of individuals such as race, class, orgender.It would therefore hold, that for an allocation framework to be considered

idi d i t k tit ti l t t t il d i d d


4/31

112 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION F I N A N C E

socially-desiredoutputs and outcomesinto account.Aspostsecondary educationis not a constitutionalright of the individual,and outputs andoutcomes inclusivein the PBB formula do not considerall social subsets of individuals,it cannot beargued that adequacy is the proper framework for analysis.As such, a study of

fiscal equitywas most appropriatefor this study.Fiscal equity has been conceptualized in three different ways. First, fiscal

neutralityis a method to examine the relationshipof one or more variablesonanother variable of interest,most often the allocation per student. In essence,itprovidesan explanation towhich factorswere associatedwith thedistribution ofaid. Regressionequationswere a common method utilized to calculate the fiscalneutrality of an allocation.Second,vertical equity has been conceptualizedasthe considerationof"unequals" in thedistribution of an allocation.A method foranalysisof verticalequitywasto utilizeweighting,whereby anindexis determinedfor a baseline population against which weights for populations of interestwere developed as they related to the mean. Forexample, those individuals orprogramsthat were more expensiveor costlyshould receive more resourcesthanthose that are not. In doing so,"unequal"groupswere transformed to be equal tonon-weightedgroups.The result is the third type of equity analysis-horizontalequity, whichis concerned with the equal treatment of equals.Berne and Stiefel(1984) have suggestedthat this approachis appropriatefor analysis becauseeachunit, after weighting,receives the sameallocation on a per unit basis. Horizontalequity is examined through the analysisof distribution patterns via measuresofcentral tendencyor other indices and coefficients.

The purpose of the study was to examine Florida's performance-basedbudgetingallocation formula over three consecutiveyears (2005-2008)in orderto determine if, in a context of increasedfunding, the current allocation formulawould influencethe equitable allocationof funds.To answer this inquiry, tworesearch questionswhere examined. First,how didhorizontal equity change foreach measure,and in total,within Florida's PBB over the last three years data was

available?Second,which,if any,of the seven academicprograms areas offeredbyan institution influencedthe allocation of performance-basedbudgeting funds?

P E R F O R M A N C E B U D G E T I N G IN F L O R I D A

Performance-based budgetingbegan in the FloridaCommunity CollegeSystemwith the 1996-1997 appropriation-where a separate appropriation was specificto performance based budgeting. The Florida Community College System also

received funding from another appropriation, which was distributed utilizingthe Community College Program Fund (Mullin and Honeyman 2007). In


5/31

Accounting or Equity 113

has historically allocated approximately 98% of state funds in comparison tonormally less than 2% of funds being distributed by the PBB allocationformula.The workforce developmentcomponent of the CCPF was external to the PBBfrom 1997-1998 until the 2005-2006appropriation,when it was removedfrom

the CCPFand includedas part of the PBB.This action increasedthe total fundingfor PBB from $7.6 million to $18 million (Community CollegeOffice of Budgetand Financial Services 2006). The increased focus on PBB was to continue asthe Council of Presidents of Florida's community colleges agreed to increaseperformance funding to 5% of state operating revenues (Community CollegeOffice of Budgetand FinancialServices2007).

A committee of college representatives in cooperationwith state officialsrevisited the performance measures utilized in Florida annually. Beginning

with the PBB allocation formula in 2005-2006 three funding foci have beenimplementedwithin the PBB formula:CriticalNeeds,Incentive,and PerformanceFunds. The allocation percentages of these funds remained fairly constantbetween 2005 and 2007 (See Table 1).

Allocation Formula

Allocationswithin the PBB allocation formula were determined by the numberof points an institution accumulated.For both the Critical Needs and Incentive

Funds, points were allocated based upon outputs in the form of unweightedcourse or program completers whereas Performance Funds utilized weightedcompleters(see Table 2).

Critical Needs funds were awarded to institutions that trained nurses andteachers-identified high-need professions in Florida. The amounts of theallocations were determined by the number of program completers.

IncentiveFunds were allocatedwithin two subcategories:time-to-degreeandcollegepreparatory. Time-to-degreewas measuredby the number of individuals

who earned an AA in under 72 credithours, or 84 for those students who took

Table 1.Percentageof PBB AllocationbyMeasure,2005-2007

MeasuresYearIncentive Performance Critical Needs

2005-2006 11.44% 88.56%

2006-2007 11.44% 88.56%


6/31

rCCD

A

C-

.0

u

0

C-S

u

0

0

0

~0

o,

:3

vs

V

N

U,-e

V4

UJ

3-a

U

U,

cz

VPL4

3-4

as

1.4

Cw

E

0

3-

3-4

V0

r-

SEi0u

04

0u

o -

;-4

OD i

0Q)

0

0~

C)

C).

C)

C)

C14

tn

U0&

7Fi.V

Ei

0

.u

(nx 4!

U

U,

W3-

0

U

U,

CC)

CDC=*4

Ei

3-a

0u

00CC)

CDCDC14


7/31


up to 12 hours of English for non-native speakers,with a value of 1point for eachcompleter.Collegepreparatory had two measures: studentspassing the highest-level college preparatory math courses-ahid students passing the highest level ofreading and writing courses. For those who passedthe highest-level math prep

courses,institutions were awarded2 points. Thosepassinghigh level readingandwriting courses earned 1 point for the institution for each coursepassed.

The Performance Fund allocation was determined utilizing weightedcompleter points in three measures. Each measure had a point system and acorrespondingvalue for the points, which whentotaledwith the earnings fromother measure categoriesearnedby an institution, resulted the totalallocationaninstitution was to receive.Performance Fundswere awarded in seven academicprogram areas including the Associatesof ArtsDegree,theAssociatesof Science

Degree, ApprenticeshipPrograms, Postsecondary AdultVocational Programs,Adult HighSchool,General EquivalencyDiplomaPrograms, andAdultLiteracyPrograms. Each of these areas utilized the same three measures-except theApprenticeshipcategory that used only MeasureI points.

Weighted Completers

The Florida Community Colleges Systemdecided to utilizeweighted completers,in the form of completer points, to allocate funds within the Performance

Funds measuresof the performance-based budgetingprocess.The rationale forutilizing weights was to permit the "...comparison and analysis of dissimilarprograms on a 'level playing field".(Community College Office of Budget andFinancialServices2007,47).In terms of traditional school financeexaminations,the actionof weighting againsta standard allowedfor investigations through thelens of horizontal equity-a perspective that treats the units of measure equallyin analysis (Berne and Stiefel 1984).

Weighted completers forall programswere determined relativeto a completer

of the Associates of Arts degree (A.A.).Weighted completerswere determinedby first,multiplying the cost per credit hour in a program by the length of theprogram. Length of the program was considered in an attempt to maintain theintegrity of the programsoffered (Pfeiffer1998).The resultingcost per completerwas then dividedby the costper A.A.completerto arrive at a weighted completer.For example,if a culinary certificatehad a cost in 2005-2006,including tuitionand fees, of $400.00 a credit hour and the program was 40 credit hours, theresulting cost per completer wouldhave been $16,000. This cost per completer

($16,000)was dividedby the costper

A.A.degree completer ($9,820),resulting ina 1.63 cost relationshipto the A.A. degree.So, in 2005-2006,every completer ofli tifi t " th"1 63 i t d t 1 i f A A


8/31

116 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION F I N A N C E

completer. Due to the use of actual data (as opposed to estimated or projected)in the determination of completer points, there was a two-year data delay in thecalculations. For example, the 2007-2008 allocation was calculated using datafor the 2005-2006 academic year.

Measures

Measure I points were awarded for outputs of the various program areas such asdiplomas, certificates,or dual enrollment. All measures in this category providedthe opportunity to earn up to 2 points. Forty percent of Performance Funds wereallocated as a result of an institutions total accumulation of Measure I points acrossall seven academic program areas. Measure II points were awarded to specialpopulations who completed the various programs as quantified by Measure I.

Examples include individuals who required remediation, were economicallydisadvantaged, were a black male or who tested into English for academicpurposes. All measures in this category provided the opportunity to earn up to1 point for each identified classification an individual qualified. For example, aneconomically disadvantaged,black male who earned an A.A. degree resulted inhis institution receiving 2 points-one for being economically disadvantaged, theother for being a black male-in addition to the points received for completingthe degree. Twenty percent of Performance Funds were allocated as a result ofan institution's total accumulation of Measure II points in six academic programareas. Measure III points were awarded for outcomes such as transfer to a four-year instituation or job placement.All measures in this category provided theopportunity to earn up to 1 point. Forty percent of Performance Funds wereallocated as a result of an institutions total accumulation of Measure III pointsin six academic program areas.

M E T H O D O L O G Y

The population for this study includedthe 28 colleges that comprised the FloridaCommunity College System. The unit of analysis was the institution. The studyutilized data files and reports from the Community College Office of Budget andFinancial Services (2005; 2006;2007).

Variable of Interest

Allocations within the PBB were made in relation to completer points earned byan institution in the areas of Critical Need, Incentive, or Performance Funds.For

this study,completer points for each institution per each measure of Critical Need,Incentive, and Performance funding were summed to reach a total of completer


9/31


points earned. This total was divided into the total allocation each institutionreceived to reach an allocation per completer point (ACP). `The resulting ACPfor each institution, by measure,was utilized in the analysis.

Treatment of the DataDescriptive statistics were calculated for the PBB total allocation and for eachmeasure of the PBB. Horizontal equity was examined through measures ofdistribution including the range, restricted range, and McLoone Index (Berneand Stiefel 1984).

The range was calculated by subtracting the lowest appropriation from thehighest ACP to a community college. The restricted range was determined byarranging the ACP in ascending order. Then, the difference between the ACP

student at the 95th percentile was reduced by the ACP at the 5th percentile. TheMcLoone Index depicted the distribution below the median by determining aratio of "...the total dollar inputs for pupils below the median to the dollar inputs

that would be required if all pupils below the median were receiving the per-pupil dollar amount [ACP] atthe median" (Berne and Stiefel 1984,66). Possiblescores ranged from 0.0-1.0,with larger scores indicating increased equity.

The influence of program cost on the measures utilized in the PBB allocationformula were determined by adding the totals for each measure for each year of

interest.Institutional ACPs were placed in descending order for analysis, alongwith their corresponding allocations for each of the seven academic areas foreach year of interest to the study.

Limitations

The PBB has never remained a constant equation, it was however the case thatthe last major change to the formula happened for the 2005-2006 academicyear when the workforce development component was added to the formula.

For this reason, the study started with the 2005-2006 appropriation. It wasalso determined through an analysis of the data that the forthcoming analysis,without the inclusion of Critical Needs measures introduced in 2007-2008, didnot substantially shift the findings.

RESULTS

The purpose of the study was to examine the equity of appropriations to

community colleges in Florida via the PBB allocation formula over threeconsecutive years, and analyze the PBB allocations for the years 2005-2008 in


10/31

118 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FINANCE

The PBB formula was comprised of Critical Needs, Incentive, and PerformanceFunds, each with specific measures of interest. Analyses of the results of the two

research questions directing the study were presented herein.

Equity of AllocationsDescriptive statistics inclusive of the mean, median, and standard deviation were

calculated for each measure based upon allocations per completer point (ACP)

earned by an institution. The equitable distribution of the allocations were

also examined via the range, restricted range, and the McLoone Index, which

is a measure to depict the variation of ACP to institutions in the lower fiftiethpercentile in relation to the median.

2005-2006 Allocation

Results from the analysis of the data for the 2005-2006 allocation were presented

in Table 3. With respect to the PBB total ACP, the mean and standard deviationwere $73.12 and $15.32 respectfully. The median ($77.02) was more than themean, indicating the influence of larger ACPs below the median. The range

($54.56) and restricted range ($50.11) were close indicating that the ACPs at thehigh or low end of the distribution were not extremely different than the rest ofthe population.A McLoone Index of 0.80 supported this finding by indicating, fo rvalues below the median, the pooling of values were not far from the median.

With respect to individual measures, the homogeneous ACPs utilized bythe Incentive measures made them perfectly equitable. As a result, they had anequalizing effect on the PBB formula. The Performance Fund measures, whereweighted completer points were employed, were less equitable in comparison. Itwas observed that in each measure, some institutions earned a great deal morethan others. For example, in Measure III, Lake Sumter Community College

earned $139.24 per ACP, whereas South Florida Community College at $45.59per ACP earned three times less. Similar relationships were observed in Measure

I, where Lake Sumter Community College earned $107.56 and Miami-DadeCollege earned $36.61 per ACP, and Measure II, where Florida Keys CommunityCollege earned $114.43 per ACP and Seminole earned $36.83 per ACP. The largedifferences between the range and the restricted range for all three measuresreflect the large difference between institutional allocations per completer

point.


Results from an analysis of the data for the 2006-2007 allocation were presentedin Table 4. With respect to the PBB total allocation per completer point, the


11/31


Table 3. 2005-2006Allocationper CompleterPoint (ACP),by Individual MeasureandPerformanceBased Budget (PBB) Total.

INCENTIVE FUNDS

INSTITUTION

BrevardBrowardCentral FloridaChipolaDaytona BeachEdisonFCC @JacksonvilleFlorida KeysGulf CoastHillsboroughIndian RiverLake CityLake SumterManateeMiami-DadeNorth Florida,Okaloosa-Walton

Palm BeachPasco-HernandoPensacolaPolkSt. Johns RiverSt. PetersburgSanta FeSeminoleSouth Florida

TallahasseeValencia

T2D*

$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17

$80.17

$80.19$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.18$80.18$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17

$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17$80.17

$80.17$80.17

MedianMeanSt. DeviationRangeRestrictedRangeMcLoone Index

$80.17$80.17$0.00$0.02$0.011.00

$28.84$28.84$0.00$0.01$0.001.00

$87.42 $70.53 $85.59 $77.02$83.70 $70.14 $89.60 $73.12$21.37 $18.74 $22.86 $15.32$70.94 $77.60 $93.64 $54.56$58.53 $55.91 $64.94 $50.110.77 0.79 0.83 0.80

*Time-to-Degreewas included in PerformanceFunds category forthis year.Source: Data file retrieved fromThe Division of Community Colleges of the FloridaState Board of Education

C O L P R E P

$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84

$28.84

$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84

$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84$28.84

$28.84$28.84

PERFORMANCE FUNDS PBB

MEASURES TOTAL

I II III'$101.14 $74.10 $83.31 $80.34$104.29 $92.83 $111.87 $85.46$80.91 $70.20 $105.36 $77.56$82.81 $65.92 $78.48 $69.22$48.46 $51.95 $62.43 $51.89$105.05 $81.68 $123.24 $91.52

'$55.54 $43.68 $70.53 $56.10

$101.90 $114.43 $119.65 $102.81$86.40 $82.00 $99.62 $80.93$101.76 $75.96 $90.62 $80.00$51.53 $38.15 $64.16 $51.10$85.26 $60.41 $74.67 $71.37$107.56 $94.77 $139.24 $102.67$88,18 $82.14 $110.62 $79.42$36.61 $61.05 $76.15 $48.35$75.48 $45.10 $54.14 $55.78$81.08 $69.10 $76.97 $71.73

$103.18 $69.22 $79.01 $74.37$90.75 $81.66 $108.40 $83.43$58.70 $63.22 $84.26 $64.21$102.24 $82.99 $114.99 $80.35$86.65 $70.85 $86.91 $76.48$106.17 $89.46 $114.32 $86.35$92.53 $75.48 $94.16 $79.74$46.60 $36.83 $64.02 $48.25$60.74 $38.22 $45.59 $49.25

$97.49 $69.01 $77.56 $69.49$104.48, $83.46 $98.47 $79.18


12/31

1 2 0 J O U R N A L OF ED U CATI O N FINANCE

mean and standard deviationwere $58.60 and $12.84 respectively.The median($55.76) was less than the mean-indicating the influenceof larger ACPs abovethe median.The range ($47.75) and restricted range ($40.99) suggested thatACPs in the top and bottom 5% were more extreme than the rest of the ACPs.A McLoone Indexof 0.87 suggested that, for the ACPs below the median, thepooling of values werenot far from the median.

With respectto individual measures,itwas againthe casethat the homogeneousACPs utilized bythe Incentive measuresmade them perfectly equitable.As aresult,they had an equalizingeffecton the PBB formula.The weighted completerpoints employed in the PerformanceFund measures resulted in comparablyless equitable ACPs. For MeasureI and II, the range and restricted range haddecreased toa matter of onlya few dollars,$57.87 to $54.63 and $29.90 to $27.64respectively.It was the case, however,that the Measure III distribution had highand low scores as evidenced bya range of $88.16 and a restricted range of $64.74.For this Measure,the high valuewas $111.64 per ACP as compared to thelow of$23.47 per ACP.


Results from an analysisof the data forthe 2007-2008allocationwere presentedin Table5.With respect to the PBB total allocationper completerpoint, the meanand standard deviationwere $75.59 and $8.96 respectively.The median ($74.45)

was less than the mean, indicatingthe influence of larger ACPs above the mean.The range ($38.20) and restrictedrange ($28.19) suggested that ACPs in the topand bottom 5% were more extreme that the rest of the ACPs.A McLoone Indexof 0.47 suggested that, for the ACPs below the median,the pooling values werefarther from themedian than in the two previousyears.

With respectto individual measures,itwas again the casethat the homogeneousACPs utilizedby the IncentiveFund measures made them perfectlyequitable.Inthis year Critical Needs Funds measures were included to the formula.These

ACP for these measureswere also equitable due to their homogeneousnature,albeit significantlyhigher than the other measures at $407.25 and $1,646.79.Again it was the case that the PerformanceFundsmeasureswere less equitableincomparison.In this year's allocation,Measure I ACPswere distributed relativelyclosely as the range ($36.35) and restrictedrange ($31.17)were $5.18 apart. ForMeasure II and Measure III, however,the relationshipof the range to restrictedrange was not as close, indicating a wide distribution of ACP values betweeninstitutions, with those in the top 5% and the lowest 5% far away from eachother.


13/31


14/31

12 2 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FINANCE

Table 5. 2007-2008Allocation per Completer Point(ACP), byIndividual Measure andPerformanceBased Budget (PBB) Total.

INCENTIVEFUNDS

NURSING/

PERFORMANCE FUNDS

MEASURES

I IIIII

BrevardBrowardCentralFlorida

Chipola

Daytona BeachEdison

FCC @JacksonvilleFlorida Keys

Gulf CoastHillsborough

Indian RiverLake CityLake SumterManatee

Miami-Dade

North Florida

Okaloosa-WaltonPalm BeachPasco-Hernando

Pensacola

PolkSt . Johns RiverSt. PetersburgSanta FeSeminole

South Florida

Tallahassee

Valencia

Median

MeanSt. DeviationRange

RestrictedRangeMcLooneIndex* $1,646.79

PBBTOTAL

$407.25$407.25

$407.25

$407.25$407.25

$407.25

$407.25

$407.25

$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25

$407.25

$407.25

$407.25

$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25$407.25

$407.25

$407.25$407.25

$0.00$0.00

$0.00

1.00

INSTITUTION

CRITICALNEEDS

/EPI T2D/

COLPREP$50.97 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27

$50.96 $21.27

$50.96 $21.27$50.96 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27

$50.97 $21.26

$50.97 $21.27$50.97 $21.27

* $50.97 $21.27$50.96 $21.27$50.96 $21.27

* $50.96 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27* $50.96 $21.27

$50.96 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27* $50.97 $21.27* $50.97 $21.27

$50.96 $21.27$50.97 $21.27$50.97 $21.27$50.96 $21.27$50.97 $21.27$50.97 $21.27

$50.97 $21.27* $50.97 $21.27* $50.97 $21.27

0 $0.00 $0.000 $0.01 $0.00

0 $0.00 $0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

$79.14 $53.82$84.96 $58.55

$72.86 $49.43

$77.16 $49.91$58.43 $49.81

$87.14 $60.34

$61.02 $44.28

$87.92 $58.87

$76.86 $53.39$76.75 $53.03$67.29 $40.50$84.22 $48.54$86.62 $60.57$78.31 $57.14$51.57 $45.48$54.43 $35.65

$70.97 $52.39

$83.20 $53.04

$78.89 $52.90

$86.76 $70.10$84.54 $57.00$74.77 $52.35$86.13 $59.81$75.70 $53.48$74.33 $60.52$68.98 $53.07$73.36 $54.27

$85.44 $60.60

$77.01 $53.23$75.99 $53.53$10.10 $6.94$36.35 $34.44

$31.17 $18.76

0.44 0.46

Source: Community CollegeOffice of Budgetan d FinancialServices. (2007,July). Performance Funding Reportfor 2007-2008. Tallahassee,FL: State Board ofEducation.

$98.27 $72.08$105.82 $77.94

$90.17 $70.26

$81.81 $73.78$95.30 $64.42

$107.50 $88.13

$86.25 $65.85

$95.39 $93.16

$94.13 $74.51$98.25 $75.34$99.82 $67.39$75.05 $73.21

$110.04 $93.22$96.90 $84.72$78.20 $55.02$70.50 $74.41

$104.81 $72.86

$90.93 $74.50

$95.96 $74.40

$125.55 $89.03$99.70 $82.14$88.80 $78.38

$110.87 $79.60$96.29 $71.13

$118.63 $79.51$82.00 $67.60$90.36 $63.05

$118.86 $80.80

$96.13 $74.45

$96.65 $75.59$13.20 8.96$55.05 $38.20

$42.63 $28.19

0.45 0.47


15/31

Accountingfor Equity 123

Three-Year Trends

The data were indicativeof trends in the descriptive statisticsand distribution ofACP byfund andmeasure. A llocationper completerpoint forCriticalNeedsFundmeasures did not reveal a trend as they were only implementedin 2007-2008.

Median and mean allocations per completer point for Incentive measureswere observed to decreasebetween 2005-2008(seeFigures 1 and 2). The medianand mean PerformanceFund measures have held fairly constant, save a dropin 2006-2007 dueto holding the total PBB allocation atthe same fiscal levelas in 2005-2006,over the three-year period in the study.It was the case wherethe standard deviations associatedwith the means decreased between2005 and2008-indicating a tighter distribution of ACP values(see Figure 3).

Distribution patterns were not revealed for Incentive Fund measures, as

they were nonexistent due to the homogeneousnature of the allocationspercompleter point. The range (Figure 4) decreased for each Performance Fundmeasure between 2005 and 2008, save Measure IIthat increased in 2007-2008as compared the year prior. With respect to the distribution of ACP valuesbelow the median, it was observed that the trend in the McLoone Index for thePerformanceFund measuresand the PBB formulain total at first increased, thendropped drastically from 0.87 to 0.47 (Figure 5). This suggested a pooling ofACP values farther below the median.

1 M di f APC b I i d P f d M 2005 2008


16/31

1 24 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION F I N A N C E

T2D COLPREP MEASURE I MEASURE MEASURE PBBTOT)I Ill

12005-2006 1 $80.17 $28.84 1-$83.70 $70.14 1 $89.60 1 $77.0212006-2007 1 $71.24 1 $27.17 1$74.99 $43.73 1 $75.70 1 $58.60

12007-2008 $50.97 $21.27 $75.99 $53.53 $96.65 1 $75.59

Figure 2. Mean APC by Incentivean d PerformanceFund Measure,2005-2008

$25.00

$20.00

$15.00

$10.00

$5.00

$0.00

71i.4-

..........

"T2D COLPREP MEASURE I M EA S U RE II MEASURE IIlI PB B TOTAL

Figure 3. St . Dev. APC by Incentive and Performance Fund Measure, 2005-2008

B205-206 $0.00 $0.00 $21.37 $18.74 $22.86 $15.32

0200-2007 $0.00 $0.00 $19.11 $9.49 $22.92 $12.8413200-2008 $0.00 $0.00 $10.10 $6.94 $13.20 $8.96

@


17/31


$100.00

$90.00

$80.00

$70.00

$60.00

$50.00

$40.00

$30.00

$20.00

$10.00

$0.00T2D COLPREP MEASURE I MEASURE II MEASURE III PBB TOTAL

$0.02 $0.01 $70.94 $77.60. $93.64 $54.56

2006-2007 $0.02 $0.01 $57.87 $29.90 $88.16 $47.75

D2007-2008 $0.01 $0.00 $36.35 $34.44 $55.05 $38.20

Figure 4. Rangeof APC by Incentiveand PerformanceFund Measure,2005-2008

Figure 5. McLoone Index byIncentive and PerformanceFund Measure and PBB Total,2005-2008


18/31

12 6 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FINANCE

The Influence of Program on Horizontal Equity

The second question guiding the study examined which, if any, of the sevenacademic programs areas offered by an institution influenced the allocation ofPBB funds.Analysisof the data revealedthe presence of trends.

It was observed that the Critical Needs and Incentive Funds did not exhibittrends in the data,as the ACPswere equal for all institutions. Differencesin ACPsfor Measures I, II, and III of the PerformanceFunds were observed (see tables6-14). For all measures, it was observed that the institutions with the higherACPs did not offer the Adult High School, General EquivalencyDiploma, orAdult Literacy program. It was generally the case that as an institution offeredmore academic programs, they earned less per completer point.

It is important to note that the six,collective institutions consistentlyreceiving

the largest ACP across all three measures did not offer the Adult High School,General Equivalency Diploma, or Adult Literacy program because the K-12school board offered these services. St. Petersburg College was an exception,as it offered the general equivalencyprogram jointly with the Dixie HollinsAdult Education Center,ClearwaterAdult Education Center,and Palm HarborCommunity School (St. Petersburg Collegen.d.). This finding suggested that aninstitution providinga comprehensiveacademicprogram structure was hinderedin the acquisition of PerformanceFunds on an allocation per completer point

basis.

C O N C L U S I O N S

The purpose of the study was to determine the equitable nature of the PBBallocationformulautilizedin Florida's Community CollegeSystem.Two researchquestions examininghorizontal equity and program cost guided the study.

Horizontal Equity

With the policy decision to increase PBB in the state of Florida's CommunityCollege System, an examination of the allocation of these funds was a pressingconcern. The specific question employed to address this inquiry asked ifhorizontal equity changed for each measure, and in total, within Florida's PBBover the last three years data was available.

Results of the data analysis have revealed a formula that has decreased therange of ACP between institutions over a three-year period. One may therefore

conclude thatthe three-year trend in allocations,via the performance-based

budgeting formula, indicated an increasingly equitable allocation pattern ofdi t ib ti b d b d in the range As such it can therefore be


19/31


concluded that the continueduse of the PBB formula,as,currently constructed,would result in a more equitable ACPas determined by the range. This may belargelydue to the homogeneousnature of the ACP for the Incentiveand CriticalNeeds Fund measures.

What has yet to be determined was the influence of the large ACP for CriticalNeeds measures in relation to the Incentive and PerformanceFund measures.Specifically,in 2007-2008 the CriticalNeedsFund measuresawarded $1,646.79to eachcompleterof a teacher educationprogram and $407.25foreach completerof a nursing program. Note these prices in comparison toACPs of $50.97 and$21.27 for the two Incentive Fund measures and $77.01, $53.23,and $96.13 forthe threePerformanceFund measures.The rationale for such a large allocationfor thenursing program was grounded in the cost of the program (CommunityCollege Office

ofBudget

andManagement 2007). Therationale for the large

ACP of the teacher educationprogram was that an institution should earn back10% of the cost of this program (PersonalCommunication, Anonymous,April9,2007).

From a theoretical perspective,an allocation pattern founded largely onthe cost of a program does not completely reflect a measure of performance.Rather,it may be arguedthat such a frameworkreinforced the fiscal returns of aprogram-not the academic performanceof its students.

Program nfluence on Horizontal Equity

The second research question examined which,if any, of the seven academicprogram areas offeredby an institution influenced the allocationofperformance-based budgeting funds. Results of the analysis indicated there were trendsassociatedwith the allocation of funds.

First, institutions that earned a larger ACP were less likely to offer theAdult High School, General Equivalency Diploma, or the Adult Literacyprograms.This finding,in conjunction withboth the commitment to increaseperformance-funding to 5% from less than 2% of total funding and a recentfinding that performance funds inFlorida were allocated to an institutionsgeneral fund-not the academic program area determined to be performing(Bakuzonis,2007)-suggests that institutions in Floridawill need to shift theirfocus away from low-cost, remedialand adult education to maintain currentfundingallocations.

It was also interesting tonote that if institutions begin to shifttheir offeringsto degree production, the formula will become increasingly equitableas theheterogeneousnature of the institutional offeringsbecome more homogeneous.In order to do so it may be that local K-12 education agencies in Florida will


20/31


21/31


or begin to limit the lower-cost, less fiscally rewarding programs such as AHS,GED, and Adult Literacy?

Will the use of program cost,which when calculated included tuition and fees,decrease access and affordability byencouraging institutions to shift their focus

towards more expensive and fiscally rewarding programs?Lastly, a question for further consideration that must be asked is whether

the performance-based funding allocation, with its emphasis on the degree orcertificate, has driven an increase in pressure for community colleges in Floridato offer the baccalaureate degree.

References

Albright, B. N. 2006. Meaningful measures. Business OfficerMagazine. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from www.nacubo.org/x8405.xml.

Alfred,R., Ewell, P., Hudgins, J.,and McClenney,K. 1999. Core Indicators of EffectivenessforCommunity Colleges.

Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.Bakuzonis, K 2007. Performance-Based Budgeting Outcomes in Florida Community Colleges.Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.Berne, R. and Stiefel, L. 1984. The Measurement of Equity in School Finance: Conceptual, Methodological,and

Empirical Dimensions. Baltimore,MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dowd, A.C. 2003. From access to outcome equity: R evitalizing the democratic mission of the communitycollege. TheAnnals of the American Academy,586: 92-118.

Community College Office of Budget and Fiscal ManagemenL 2007. Florida Community College System:Performance unding report 2007-2008. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Board of Education.

Community College Office of Budget and Financial Services. 2006. Florida Community College System:

Performance unding report 2006-2007. Tallahassee,FL: Florida State Board of Education.

Community College Office of Budget and Financial Services. 2005. Florida Community College System:

Performance unding datafile. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Board of Education.Garms,W.I. 1977.Financing Community Colleges.New Yorkl Teachers College Press.

Gleazer,E.J. Jr. 1980. The Community College: Values, Vision & Vitality.Washington, D C: AmericanAssociationof Community and Junior Colleges.

McLendon, M.Kt, Hearn, J.C., and Deaton, R. 2006. Called to Account: Analyzing the Origins and Spread

of State Performance-Accountability Policies for Higher Education.Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 28 (1): 1-24.Mullin, C. M. and Honeyman, D. S. 2007. Th e Funding of Community Colleges:A Tyrpology of State Funding

Formulas. Community CollegeReview,35 (2): 113-127.

National Association of College and University Business Officers. Performance Measurement Toolkit.

Washington, DC. Retrieved April4,2007 from www.nacubo.org/x5685.xml.Pfieffer, 3. J. 1998. From performance reporting to performance-based funding:Florida's experiences in

workforce development performance measurement. In Determine the economic benefits of attending

community college: New directionsor community collegesNo. 104, J.R. Sanchez and F. Santos Laanan (Eds.):17-28. San Jose: Jossey-Bass.

Serban, A. M. and Burke, J. C. 1998. Meeting the Performance Funding Challenge: A Nine-State Comparative

Analysis. Public Productivity and Management Review 22 (2): 157-176.St. Petersburg College. n.d. GED classes on SPC sites. Retrieved November 11 , 2007 from www.spcollege.edu/

b l/ d i / d h


22/31


higher education. Washington, D.C..

U.S. Department of Education.2006b.Table 337. Revenues of public degreegranting institutions, by typeof institution and source of revenue: 2003-2004.In Digestof Education Statistics, 2006. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics.Retrieved November4, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/dO61tables/dtO6_337.asp.

Table 6. 2005-2006Total Allocation per Completer Point(ACP)and AllocationbyProgram Area for Measure I.

INSTITUTION TOTAL AA AS PSAV *APP AHS GED AD LITACP

Lake Sumter $107.56 $32,638.00 $33,939.00

St. Petersburg $106.17 $201,139.00 $157,500.00 $1,271.00

Edison $105.05 $115,558.00 $66,842.00 $815.00

Valencia $104.48 $345,995.00 $225,723.00 $10,015.00

Broward $104.29 $248,192.00 $268,865.00$21,932.00

Palm Beach $103.18 $183,676.00$100,781.00 $21,484.00 $31,770.00

Polk $102.24 $69,058.00 $39,806.00 $4,623.00

FloridaKeys $101.90 $9,471.00 $11,505.00 $1,747.00

Hillsborough $101.76 $173,048.00 $111,596.00$22,573.00 $56,710.00 $608.00 $1,003.00

Brevard $101.14 $200,596.00 $81,683.00 $32,319.00 $41,420.00

Tallahassee $97.49 $180,130.00 $35,435.00 $6,919.00 $1,185.00 $472.00

Santa Fe $92.53 $202,381.00 $112,171.00 $12,720.00 $16,627.00 $1,447.00 $3,218.00

Pasco-Hernando $90.75 $69,627.00 $67,072.00 $10,919.00 $1,248.00 $1,317.00

Manatee $88.18 $93,125.00 $46,594.00 $661.00 $2,036.00

St Johns River $86.65 $60,020.00 $16,222.00 $6,271.00 $22,417.00 $503.00 $1,759.00

GulfCoast $86.40 $74,515.00 $36,700.00 $6,783.00 $1,290.00 $1,504.00

Lake City $85.26 $24,887.00 $20,939.00 $19,278.00 $273.00 $105.00

MEAN $83.70

Chipola $82.21 $31,049.00 $11,390.00 $7,494.00 $94.00 $569.00Okaloosa $81.08 $82,930.00 $51,081.00 $4,962.00 $3,082.00 $2,837.00Walton $

CentralFlorida $80.91 $68,852.00 $33,479.00 $12,852.00 $807.00 $1,894.00

North Florida $75.48 $16,900.00 $3,797.00 $4,640.00 $157.00 $472.00

South Florida $60.74 $27,769.00 $9,319.00 $14,831.00 $8,462.00 $69.00 $1,604.00 $2,814.00

Pensacola $58.70 $125,794.00 $76,506.00 $11,864.00 $13,931.00 $2,684.00 $11,990.00

FCC @Jacksonville $55.54 $221,036.00 $160,261.00 $35,626.00 $41,865.00 $5,078.00 $7,350.00 $32,407.00

Indian River $51.53 $108,285.00 $92,613.00 $27,641.00 $35,036.00 $5,353.00$7,182.00 $21,937.00

DaytonaBeach $48.46 $107,918.00 $85,710.00 $32,739.00 $26,277.00 $5,421.00 $8,723.00 $23,531.00

Seminole $46.60 $101,399.00 $77,887.00 $15,930.00 $35,481.00$16,127.00 $6,773.00 $24,047.00

Miami-Dade $36.61 $426,662.00 $275,653.00 $21,232.00 $7,381.00 $120,735.00

"ApprenticeshipData source: Data file from theCommunity CollegeOffice of Budgetand Financial Servicesat the FloridaBoard of Education.


23/31


Table 7. 2005-2006Total Allocationper CompleterPoint (ACP) and AllocationbyProgram Area for Measure II.

INSTITUTION

FloridaKeys

Lake Sumter

Broward

St. Petersburg

Valencia

Polk

Manatee

GulfCoast

Edison

Pasco-Hernando

Hillsborough

Santa Fe

Brevard

St. Johns River

CentralFlorida

MEAN

Palm Beach

Okaloosa-Walton

Tallahassee

Chipola

Pensacola

Miami-Dade

Lake City

Daytona Beach

North Florida

FCC@Jacksonville

South Florida

Indian River

Seminole,

AA AS PSAV AHS GED AD LITOTALACP

$114.43

$94.77

$92.83

$89.46

$83.46

$82.99

$82.14

$82.00

$81.68

$81.66

$75.96

$75.48

$74.10

$70.85

$76.20

$70.14

$69.22

$69.10

$69.01

$65.92

$63.22

$61.05

$60.41

$51.95

$45.10

$43.68

$38.22

$38.15

$36.83

Data source:Data file from theCommunity College Officeof

Budgetand

FinancialServicesatthe

FloridaBoard of Education.

$3,705.00

$10,868.00

$164,077.00

$99,360.00

$181,800.00

$27,356.00

$51,502.00

$26,677.00

$44,215.00

$30,568.00

$78,611.00

$87,812.00

$77,623.00

$18,588.00

$28,468.00

$98,866.00

$27,789.00

$113,316.00

$11,362.00

$46,808.00

$304,626.00

$9,448.00

$55,083.00

$7,163.00

$101,274.00

$10,930.00

$35,323.00

$48,105.00

$6,080.00 $170.00

$8,844.00

$147,585.00 $8,894.00

$66,331.00 $170.00

$94,245.00 $1,290.00

$15,477.00 $984.00

$30,678.00

$25,427.00 $2,987.00

$20,452.00 $102.00

$35,376.00 $6,212.00

$44,220.00 $7,774.00

$58,868.00 $10,150.00

$33,718.00 $7,740.00

$12,713.00 $2,207.00

$19,899.00 $5,364.00

$36,758.00 $15,005.00

$22,110.00 $2,071.00

$28,190.00 $3,123.00

$8,291.00 $4,854.00

$58,039.00 $4,753.00

$167,485.00 $10,660.00

$11,884.00 $11,474.00

$53,064.00 $6,654.00 $2,600.00 $4,129.00$11,972.00

$1,935.00 $7,332.00 $90.00 $347.00

$77,662.00 $18,569.00 $3,968.00 $3,307.00 $31,510.00

$3,593.00 $8,045.00 $752.00 $2,325.00

$35,376.00 $28,176.00 $1,368.00 $3,429.00 $16,287.00

$31,231.00 $9,980.00 $8,210.00 $2,940.00 $22,163.00

$297.00 $567.00

$700.00 $382.00

$525.00 $729.00

$437.00 $521.00

$787.00 $1,492.00

$210.00 $717.00

$332.00 $833.00

$1,452.00 $1,377.00

$997.00 $335.00

$17.00 $197.00

$6,842.00 $1,347.00 $8,895.00

$4,655.00 $26,617.00

$122.00 $58.00


24/31


Table 8. 2005-2006 Total Allocation per Completer Point (ACP) and Allocation byProgram Area for Measure III.

INSTITUTION TOTAL ACP AA

Lake Sumter

Edison

Florida Keys

Polk

St. Petersburg

Broward

Manatee

Pasco-Hernando

Central Florida

GulfCoast

Valencia

Santa Fe

Hillsborough

MEAN

St. Johns River

Pensacola

Brevard

Palm Beach

Chipola

Tallahassee

Okaloosa-Walton

Miami Dade

Lake City

FC C @JacksonvilleIndian River

Seminole

DaytonaBeach

North Florida

South Florida

$139.24

$123.24

$119.65

$114.99

$114.32

$111.87

$110.62

$108.40

$105.36

$99.62

$98.47

$94.16

$90.62

$89.60

$86.91

$84.26

$83.31

$79.01

$78.48

$77.56

$76.97

$76.15

$74.67

$70.53

$64.16

$64.02

$63.43

$54.14

$45.59

$21,153.00

$62,603.00

$4,073.00

$38,805.00

$147,502.00

$274,851.00

$70,464.00

$29,729.00

$31,587.00

$42,736.00

$280,425.00

$134,710.00

$153,291.00

$22,797.00

$84,685.00

$119,559.00

$216,179.00

$18,509.00

$114,700.00

$57,743.00

$374,615.00

$8,504.00

$162,081.00

$68,820.00

$74,680.00

$68,391.00

$6,932.00

$11,863.00

AS

$31,061.00

$66,446.00

$7,470.00

$60,155.00

$133,679.00

$251,630.00

$66,053.00

$71,164.00

$53,078.00

$48,753.00

$154,910.00

$97,114.00

$115,200.00

$31,847.00

$96,327.00

$80,207.00

$97,507.00

$13,368.00

$27,522.00

$36,565.00

$273,648.00

$22,018.00

PSAV AHS GED AD LIT

$107.00

$1,020.00

$8,554.00

$2,908.00

$11,605.00

$11,391.00

$4,939.00 $307.00

$4,528.00

$5,789.00

$8,116.00

$28,382.00

$7,445.00

$8,080.00 $13,740.00

$32,677.00

$45,634.00

$5,923.00

$5,601.00

$1,494.00

$27,083.00

$13,771.00

$402.00

$996.00

$900.00

$900.00

$1,908.00

$2,385.00

$2,957.00

$2,409.00

$1,284.00 $4,340.00

$326.00 $1,025.00

$422.00 $2,933.00

$3,180.00$14,762.00

$115.00

$786.00

$3,085.00

$7,970.00

$364.00

$620.00

$1,479.00

$6,248.00

$64,678.00

$668.00

$195,800.00 $53,794.00 $3,684.00 $9,465.00 $43,665.00

$92,396.00

$83,353.00

$89,250.00

$2,359.00

$12,188.00

$19,032.00 $5,527.00

$16,330.00 $16,810.00

$18,110.00 $5,680.00

$4,135.00

$23,032.00 $230.00

$7,338.00 $31,312.00

$6,093.00$31,598.00

$7,989.00$32,910.00

$96.00 $1,095.00

$1,341.00 $7,655.00

Data source: Data file from the Community College Officeof Budgetand Financial Servicesat the FloridaBoard of Education.


25/31


26/31


27/31


Table 11. 2006-2007Total Allocation per CompleterPoint (ACP) and AllocationbyProgram Area forMeasure III.

INSTITUTION

Valencia

St. Petersburg

Edison

Lake Sumter

Broward

Polk

FloridaKeysBrevard

Pasco-Hernando

Hillsborough

Palm Beach

Santa Fe

Manatee

Tallahassee

MEAN

Lake City

GulfCoast

Chipola

Central Florida

Okaloosa-Walton

Miami-Dade

North Florida

Pensacola

Indian River

FCC @ acksonville

Seminole

SouthFlorida

Daytona Beach

St. Johns River

TOTAL

ACP

$111.64

$108.90

$107.31

$104.67

$101.18

$96.36

$94.96$91.50

$90.41

$87.91

$86.11

$83.29

$81.76

$77.07

$75.70

$75.56

$72.05

$71.14

$70.37

$67.68

$60.83

$60.44

$58.18

$51.47

$51.04

$46.06

$45.98

$42.33

$23.47

AA AS PSAV AHS GED AD LIT

$303,933.00 $377,634.00

$178,007.00 $172,236.00

$84,613.00 $73,270.00

$20,971.00 $15,453.00

$344,880.00 $262,694.00

$51,636.00

$5,212.00$156,327.00

$41,110.00

$187,053.00

$253,129.00

$156,347.00

$93,658.00

$149,736.00

$11,317.00

$53,360.00

$21,924.00

$41,232.00

$67,354.00

$472,226.00

$8,640.00

$103,373.00

$94,997.00

$205,164.00

$96,741.00

$16,245.00

$83,355.00

$32,430.00

$11,252.00

$1,844.00

$397.00

$15,683.00

$40,802.00 $5,849.00

$8,160.00 $2,012.00$84,729.00 $15,326.00

$80,736.00 $9,537.00

$124,315.00 $26,549.00

$86,986.00 $24,130.00

$85,597.00 $9,646.00

$32,121.00

$27,433.00 $7,475.00

$37,677.00

$28,474.00

$11,633.00

$27,606.00

$38,545.00

$192,550.00

$4,341.00

$48,615.00

$99,487.00

$134,906.00

$85,250.00

$11,286.00

$67,540.00

$13,716.00

$21,334.00

$6,523.00

$7,871.00

$8,288.00

$4,451.00

$21,850.00

$4,045.00

$6,969.00 $15,922.00

$22,752.00 $8,641.00

$61,187.00 $6,893.00

$16,823.00 $19,223.00

$6,811.00 $97.00

$21,175.00 $6,408.00

$6,979.00

$1,167.00 $2,348.00

$549.00 $1,658.00

$1,442.00

$714.00

$1,249.00

$3,824.00

$2,203.00

$1,840.00

$233.00 $315.00

$1,195.00 $2,457.00

$69.00 $617.00

$618.00 $2,687.00

$2,842.00 $4,442.00

$7,442.00 $51,170.00

$151.00 $593.00

$2,060.00 $15,237.00

$5,808.00 $26,444.00

$6,934.00 $42,952.00

$6,220.00 $34,638.00

$1,428.00 $3,909.00

$7,387.00 $31,116.00

$412.00 $1,719.00

Data source:Community College Office of Budget and FinancialServices2006,April.PerformanceFundingReportfor2006-2007. Tallahassee,FL: State Board of Education.


28/31

136 J O U R N A L OF E D U C AT I O N F I N A N C E

Table 12.2007-2008 Total Allocation per CompleterPoint (ACP)and Allocation byProgram Area for MeasureI.

AA AS PSAV *APP AHS GED AD LITNSTITUTION

Florida Keys

Edison

Pensacola

Lake Sumter

St. Petersburg

Valencia

Broward

Polk

Lake City

Palm Beach

Brevard

Pasco-Hernando

Manatee

Chipola

Gulf Coast

Hillsborough

MEAN

Santa Fe

St. JohnsRiver

Seminole

Tallahassee

CentralFloridaOkaloosa-Walton

South Florida

IndianRiver

FCC@JacksonvilleDaytonaBeach

North Florida

Miami-Dade

$110,941.00 $23,453.00 $23,867.00

TOTALACP

$87.92

$87.14

$86.76

$86.62

$86.13

$85.44

$84.96

$84.54

$84.22

$83.20

$79.14

$78.89

$78.31

$77.16

$76.86

$76.75

$75.99

$75.70

$74.77

$74.33

$73.36

$72.86

$121,024.00

$23,016.00

$1,359.00

$33,207.00

$183,294.00 $73,902.00 $11,051.00 $2,718.00

$34,221.00

$79,332.00

$44,552.00

$37,372.00

$5,383.00

$9,717.00

$12,158.00

$14,317.00

$70.97 $79,841.00 $61,646.00 $3,767.00

$20,893.00

$7,629.00

$100,473.00

$120,769.00

$30,129.00

$206,204.00

$316,035.00

$314,244.00

$65,775.00

$24,247.00

$214,860.00

$185,148.00

$66,798.00

$104,166.00

$28,864.00

$73,707.00

$178,695.00

$8,162.00 $562.00

$88,440.00

$89,156.00 $11,302.00

$25,220.00

$163,860.00 $1,077.00

$245,257.00 $11,257.00

$226,416.00 $8,452.00

$49,028.00 $4,738.00

$37,926.00 $17,532.00

$149,552.00 $36,173.00

$71,072.00 $30,104.00

$69,136.00 $11,153.00

$58,987.00

$19,390.00 $9,309.00

$40,029.00 $9,994.00

$116,347.00 $16,947.00

$11,802.00 $5,505.00

$2,875.00 $4,332.00

$6,370.00 $100,511.00 $39,870.00

$255.00 $11,878.00

$6,638.00 $7,187.00

$39,964.00

$4,948.00

$6,419.00

$20,805.00 $9,936.00

$68.98 $22,719.00 $9,968.00 $18,818.00 $7,898.00 $2,371.00 $10,062.00 $3,279.00

$67.29 $113,601.00 $104,741.00 $23,929.00 $10,956.00 $72,539.00 $44,939.00 $49,801.00

$61.02 $220,830.00 $165,473.00 $37,172.00

$97,630.00

$2,876.00

$294,142.00

$31,198.00

$5,129.00

$35,701.00

$12,801.00 $51,747.00 $64,924.00

$16,306.00 $70,642.00 $68,316.00

$832.00

$13,334.00 $44,636.00

$78,577.00

$3,637.00

$203,636.00

$8,473.00

$4,842.00

$378.00

$8,852.00

$6,809.00

$4,034.00

$3,358.00

$855.00

$2,325.00

$9,479.00

$1,059.00

$41,089.00

$95,429.00

$156,133.00

$62,203.00

$58.43

$54.43

$51.57

$102,934.00

$15,123.00

$476,738.00

*ApprenticeshipData source:Community College Office of Budgetand Financial Services2007, July. Performance Funding

Reportfor2007-2008. Tallahassee,FL: State Board of Education.


29/31


Table 13.2007-2008Total Allocationper CompleterPoint (ACP) and Allocation byProgram Area for Measure II.

INSTITUTION

Pensacola

Valencia

Lake Sumter

Seminole

Edison

St. Petersburg

FloridaKeysBroward

Manatee

Polk

Tallahassee

Brevard

MEAN

Santa Fe

Gulf CoastSouth Florida

Palm Beach

Hilsborough

Pasco-Hernando

Okaloosa-Walton

St. Johns River

Chipola

DaytonaBeach

CentralFlorida

Lake City

Miami-DadeFCC @Jacksonville

Indian River

North Florida

AA AS PSAV AHS GED AD LITOTALACP

$70.10

$60.60

$60.57

$60.52

$60.34

$59.81

$58.87$58.55

$57.14

$57.00

$54.27

$53.82

$53.53

$53.48

$53.39

$53.07

$53.04

$53.03

$52.90

$52.39

$52.35

$49.91

$49.81

$49.43

$48.54

$45.48

$44.28

$40.50

$35.65

$7,890.00 $63,959.00 $12,051.00 $14,341.00

$3,711.00

$5,502.00 $56,649.00 $13,181.00 $23,041.00

$856.00

$78.00$3,763.00

$1,632.00 $1,256.00

$42,166.00

$166,695.00

$10,282.00

$49,276.00

$38,228.00

$100,575.00

$4,321.00$159,968.00

$51,245.00

$28,931.00

$111,239.00

$68,034.00

$93,192.00

$23,517.00

$10,719.00

$98,770.00

$77,714.00

$38,939.00

$27,290.00

$14,548.00

$11,977.00

$51,354.00

$29,095.00

$10,172.00

$357,180.00

$87,395.00

$34,455.00

$6,563.00

$57,183.00 $12,613.00

$2,624.00 $3,244.00

$41,920.00

$187,571.00

$8,978.00

$36,948.00

$31,285.00

$78,661.00

$2,901.00$105,181.00

$23,688.00

$18,025.00

$22,514.00

$36,879.00

$31,423.00

$20,511.00

$4,006.00

$53,246.00

$56,561.00

$45,511.00

$25,760.00

$17,058.00

$10,221.00

$50,277.00

$22,583.00

$15,677.00

$152,073.00

$72,653.00

$6,151.00

$5,147.00

$3,655.00 $4,896.00

$4,143.00

$3,264.00

$7,281.00

$1,381.00

$377.00

$31,066.00 $31,885.00

$2,636.00

$377.00

$28,496.00

$21,929.00 $26,111.00

$10,964.00 $21,717.00

S$753.00

$3,458.00

$892.00

$1,147.00

$5,223.00

$1,693.00

$5,460.00

$1,456.00

$419.00

$32,123.00

$2,730.00

$76,039.00

$42,005.00

$41,568.00

$3,003.00

Data source:Community College Office of Budget and FinancialServices2007,July.Performance FundingReport or 2007-2008. Tallahassee,FL State Board of Education.

$1,609.00

$5,424.00

$8,590.00

$5,632.00

$6,099.00

$5,191.00

$14,689.00

$7,552.00

$10,200.00

$1,324.00

$2,777.00

$3,659.00

$13,340.00

$6,774.00

$6,929.00

$21,567.00

$29,457.00

$12,930.00 $3,585.00


30/31

138 J O U R N A L OF E D U C AT I O N F I N A N C E

Table 14 . 2007-2008 Total Allocation per Completer Point (ACP) and Allocation byProgram Area for Measure III.

INSTITUTION

Pensacola

Valencia

Seminole

St. Petersburg

Lake Sumter

Edison

Broward

Okaloosa-Walton

Indian River

Polk

Brevard

Hillsborough

Manatee

MEAN

SantaFe

Pasco-HernandoFlorida Keys

Daytona Beach

GulfCoast

Palm Beach

Tallahassee

Central Florida

St. Johns River

FC C @JacksonvilleSouth Florida

Chipola

Miami-Dade

Lake City

North Florida

TOTALACP

$125.55

$118.86

$118.63

$110.87

$110.04

$107.50

$105.82

$104.81

$99.82

$99.70

$98.27

$98.25

$96.90

$96.65

$96.29

$95.96

$95.39

$95.30

$94.13

$90.93

$90.36

$90.17

$88.80

$86.25

$82.00

$81.81

$78.20

$75.05

$70.50

AA AS PSAV AHS GED AD LIT

$111,456.00

$323,351.00

$99,776.00

$211,346.00

$24,755.00

$97,924.00

$348,427.00

$71,089.00

$107,068.00

$60,917.00

$166,956.00

$205,518.00

$101,399.00

$177,036.00

$45,351.00$3,840.00

$90,198.00

$63,706.00

$248,468.00

$162,841.00

$37,213.00

$30,881.00

$237,542.00$15,886.00

$26,378.00

$518,811.00

$9,943.00

$9,600.00

$63,032.00

$494,811.00

$76,506.00

$164,937.00

$17,500.00

$57,457.00

$209,385.00

$73,254.00

$105,157.00

$36,395.00

$77,435.00

$132,414.00

$30,509.00

$8,322.00 $92,172.00 $16,502.00 $16,231.00

$11,466.00

$16,598.00 $141,274.00 $44,658.00 $43,884.00

$1,341.00

$277.00

$8,877.00

$3,098.00

$22,793.00

$6,473.00

$14,055.00

$23,579.00

$70,931.00 $10,772.00

$54,824.00 $12,529.00$9,137.00 $3,144.00

$120,644.00 $20,389.00

$32,833.00 $7,166.00

$108,719.00 $47,805.00

$32,523.00 $8,230.00

$35,310.00 $7,813.00

$21,682.00 $6,334.00

$128,078.00 $60,011.00$13,629.00 $9,154.00

$9,137.00 $7,582.00

$254,297.00 $24,365.00

$29,425.00 $27,694.00

$3,872.00 $7,074.00

$20,421.00 $6,226.00

$41,348.00 $40,636.00 $29,456.00

$5,776.00 $5,282.00

$6,085.00 $4,552.00

$12,686.00 $5,324.00

$9,282.00 $4,680.00

$39,626.00 $62,500.00 $49,938.00

$11,551.00 $3,822.00

$7,220.00 $7,686.00

$5,260.00 $7,729.00

$3,507.00 $4,466.00

$56,854.00 $55,590.00 $77,892.00

$5,169.00 $8,560.00 $8,115.00

$722.00 $1,503.00

$55,075.00 $240,416.00

$1,444.00 $86.00

$1,341.00 $1,589.00

Data source: Community CollegeOffice of Budget and Financial Services 2007,July.PerformanceFunding Report or 2007-2008. Tallahassee,FL: State Board of Education.


31/31

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Accounting for Equity: Performance-based Budgeting andFiscal Equity in Florida

SOURCE: J Educ Finance 34 no2 Fall 2008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.asbointl.org/

Documents

Florida Equity