Higher Education Funding in Connecticut: What Policymakers Should Know and Do Dennis Zeveloff, Connecticut Policy Institute Research Fellow December

Transcription

1 Higher Education Funding in Connecticut: What Policymakers Should Know and Do Dennis Zeveloff, Connecticut Policy Institute Research Fellow December 6,

2 Executive Summary & Proposal: Instead of distributing money in block-grants to higher education institutions, we propose that Connecticut establish a core funding payment and performance funding payment to the state s public universities: 1. Core funding would account for 80 percent of the state s allocation. Core funding would be centered around a weighted student credit hour. Courses would receive different weights based on their level (basic courses, advanced courses, masters courses, and doctoral courses), as well as their cost to teach (e.g., engineering courses might receive higher weight than introductory writing courses). Funding would not be provided for dropped or failed courses. The total number of weighted student credit hours would be multiplied by a price per weighted student credit hour. In Nevada, this price was the previous year s total higher education appropriation divided by the system s total weighted student credit hours. The other factors that contribute to core funding include research funding (e.g., in Nevada, this is calculated by using the square feet for building space dedicated solely to research and not instruction) and fixed administrative costs. For small schools without a set amount of student credit hours, additional funding may be necessary to pay for building maintenance and employee salaries. North Dakota s proposed formula includes an institutional size factor for this reason. Performance funding would account for no more than 20 percent of a state s allocation. Based on the goals state policymakers have for the state s public universities, institutions would receive additional funds for student progress (as measured by student credits attained), degrees and certificates awarded, and efficiency (degrees per full-time equivalent students). Extra weighting would be provided for student progress and completion from under-represented or Pell-eligible groups, as well as the state s workforce development goals (e.g., STEM graduates). Core Funding (Based on weighted student credit hours, with supplementary funding for research and fixed costs) Performance- Based Funding Note: This funding proposal accounts only for state funding to public institutions, and does not include tuition fees or other potential revenue streams (e.g., research grants). 2

3 Introduction: Part I- The State of Connecticut s Higher Education System This report aims to encourage policymakers to rethink how Connecticut funds higher education. The first part provides descriptive data on Connecticut s higher education system. It focuses on enrollment, state spending, student costs, and graduation rates. These measures were chosen because they show where the state can improve. The enrollment metrics illustrate how the student population is growing and how the types of institutions that students attend are changing. The state should be aiming to make college more accessible, but if it continues to pay institutions based on enrollment, spending will likely increase with little likelihood of improved results. The spending numbers show where and how Connecticut invests state funds into higher education. One of the key points of this report is that state spending could be significantly better organized and more outcomes-focused. The metrics on debt and graduation rates reflect the value for Connecticut college students. Research repeatedly demonstrates that a college degree is a worthwhile investment. 1 But that proposition is contingent on graduation; the return on investment looks much more precarious when students are borrowing heavily to attend an institution where less than half the students graduate in six years. It is difficult to define the perfect college system. The Obama Administration s College Scorecard which similarly focuses on costs, graduation rates, borrowing, loan defaults, and employment hopes to help families compare schools based on a simple criteria where you can get the most bang for your educational buck. 2 This does not encompass all of higher education s benefits (e.g., exposure to new ideas, meaningful relationships). By focusing on these metrics, though, we hope to ensure that policy makers and higher education leaders strive to make college a possibility for any interested student; that students earn degrees that are worth their time and money; and that the state s workforce becomes better-educated and higher-skilled. Enrollment: Almost 160,000 students attend college in Connecticut. The state hosts the University of Connecticut (which includes five regional campuses), four other state universities, 12 community and technical colleges, one public online school, 20 independent non-profit institutions, and four for-profit schools. Enrollment in the Connecticut institutions of higher education (both public and private) has steadily increased since 2005; enrollment at public institutions, specifically, however, has decreased from its peak in Fifty-six percent of Connecticut college students 3 attend a public institution, and 44 percent attend some type of independent institution I.e., students who attend institutions of higher education in Connecticut. See the next page for data on college students who are Connecticut residents

4 Enrollment Over Time ,454 86, ,897 72, Total Public Enrollment Total Independent Enrollment One question to ask (especially as we hope to expand higher education access) is how many of Connecticut s high school students stay in state for college. Part of the overall enrollment increase is due to Connecticut s increasing high school graduation rate. 5 In 2004, 57.4 percent of high school students enrolled in college. This percentage grew to approximately two-thirds of high-school students by Overall, 69 percent of total Connecticut college students are state residents. It is worth noting that many high school graduates 41 percent leave the state for college. 7 With the exception of Vermont and New Hampshire, more high school students leave Connecticut than leave any other state. In 2012, the most recent year with available data, 15,534 high school students left while 9,964 students moved to Connecticut. Only 10 other states had negative net migration numbers. 8 While this high school brain drain is not necessarily surprising (Connecticut is a small state), students who stay in-state are more likely to work and live in Connecticut in the future. Figure 2 shows the type of institutions that college students in Connecticut attend. Connecticut public institutions are divided into the University of Connecticut campuses (UConn), Connecticut State Universities (CSUs), and Community and Technical Colleges (CTCs). Private institutions are divided into for-profit universities and independent non-profit universities. Out of these five categories, independent non-profit institutions, including national (e.g., Yale, Wesleyan) and regional schools (e.g., Albertus Magnus, Sacred Heart), educate the most students. The current distribution has not changed much in the past decade, except for the rise in for-profit schools. Although only four percent of enrolled students in Connecticut attended for-profit universities, the number of students attending for-profits has increased 129 percent since

5 Change in Enrollment by Institution Type Spending and Costs: In 2015, the Connecticut state government appropriated $682.5 million to higher education (3.9 percent of the total state budget). In 2014, $630.4 million was appropriated (3.6 percent of the budget). 10 The vast majority of that funding goes directly to institutions rather than to resident students. The below chart demonstrates the distribution of Connecticut s largest education expenditures in 2015: UCHC Expenses, $135,415,234 Governor's Scholarship, $43,623,498 UConn Expenses, $229,098,979 CSUs, $155,542,999 CTCs, $155,900, Budgetary information from _FY%2014%20and%20FY%2015%20Connecticut%20Budget.pdf. We have included funding for the Office of Higher Education in our graphics, although they are not included in the above, government-reported total. 5

6 After the funds distributed via the block grants and scholarship program illustrated in the pie chart above, the next 10 most significant state expenditures for higher education are as follows: Charter Oak State College $2,475,851 Minority Advancement Program $2,181,737 Personal Services (For OHE) $1,724,650 Board of Regents $668,841 Area Health Education Center $480,422 CommPACT Schools $475,000 Minority Teacher Incentive Program $447,806 Kirklyn M. Kerr Grant Program $400,000 National Service Act $325,210 Other Expenses $106,911 One could look at this list and wonder why Connecticut needs Charter Oak State College (instead of potentially providing aid for students receiving credit from pre-approved online schools) or the justification for the Kerr Grant Program, which subsidizes UConn students interested in veterinary medicine, but these are ultimately minor expenses. It is also worth noting that the Board of Regents (BOR) distributes funding to the CSUs and CTCs. The Board of Regents expense in the above table appears to be money directly given to the board, likely for salary and operating purposes. Grapevine, which monitors higher education spending in each of the 50 states, provides the following data for Connecticut s appropriations to higher education activities 11 : CT State Support For Higher Ed $1,150,000,000 $1,117,135,194 $1,100,000,000 $1,050,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $950,000,000 $1,064,475,670 $1,076,131,375 $949,946,216 $1,018,691,658 $900,000,000 $850,000,000 $887,708,438 $800,000,000 $750,000,000 $700,000, Note that this does not include one-time federal Government Services Funds received in

7 Spending in Connecticut is currently on the rise, although the state significantly cut funding during the recession. According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), Connecticut has cut appropriations per full-time enrolled student (FTE) by 21.8 percent since This was the fifteenth-largest cut in the country. The following charts compare Connecticut s spending per FTE with that of neighboring states. Since 2009, Connecticut has gone from spending the most per student to spending less than New York. In 2014, Connecticut spent $7,192 per student while New York spent $8,454. Northeast State Higher Education Spending for 2008 and 2009 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 $9,763 $9, Northeast State Higher Education Spending for 2013 and 2014 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 $7,192 $6, As the state has decreased funding, public school tuition has increased significantly. In 2004, UConn s in-state tuition was $6,800 and the average tuition for the Connecticut State Universities was $5,054. In 2013, these tuitions cost $11,242 and $8,561 respectively. 13 Even when adjusting for inflation between the and school years, Connecticut s public four-year tuition increased from $7,970 to $10,620, or by about one-third p

8 Average Public Tuition and Fees Over Time UConn Average CSU Average CCC Connecticut s most recent higher education report notes, average tuition and fees at public institutions has risen at a higher rate over 10 years than at the independent non-profit institutions. The rates of increase were: 69 percent for the CSUs, 65 percent for UConn, 57 percent for the CCCs, 57 percent for the regional non-profits, and 51 percent for the national non-profits. 15 To fully understand the costs of college, it helps to look at the total cost of attendance in addition to tuition fees. The total cost of attendance, including tuition and other expenses, for in-state students at UConn is now $27,244 and is $23,490 for the averaged CSUs. 31,000 26,000 21,000 16,000 Total Cost of Attendance UConn Average CSU While tuition fees have been increasing, financial aid has helped make college more affordable for many students. But the net price of college (average total cost of attendance minus scholarships and grant funding) has increased over time as well. The current net price for in-state students at UConn is $18,411 and the average CSU net price is 14,670. There is a wide range of net prices at the CSUs. On the high end is Eastern (Net price: $16,333) and on the low-end is Southern ($12,673) ,000 Average Net Price 15,000 10, UConn Average CSU 15 p Both Total Cost of Attendance and Net Price data are from IPEDS. 8

9 Graduation, Debt, and Employment UConn currently has the highest graduation rate out of neighboring states flagship schools, as the figure below details. UConn s graduation rate has also increased in recent years. It rose by 12 percentage points in nine years, from 71 percent in 2004 to 83 percent in Northeast Flagship Graduation Rates UConn s graduation rate is significantly higher than that of the CSUs. Their average graduation rate was 49 percent in In 2005, Western had a graduation rate of 25 percent. Eastern s 2012 graduation rate of 53 percent is the current high among these institutions. Graduation Rates at CT Publics Uconn (Main) Central Eastern Southern Western 9

10 The average national community college graduation rate is 21 percent. 17 In Connecticut, the average for the 12 CTCs in 2013 was 12.7 percent. Asnuntuck Community College graduated 25 percent of its students within three years, while Gateway, Housatonic, and Norwalk Community Colleges had graduation rates of 8 percent. It is also worth noting that Connecticut has the third-highest college attainment disparity between white and minority students, behind only Colorado and California. 18 Connecticut students contend with significant debt. The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) found that Connecticut had the fifth-highest average loan debt of any state for 2011 ($28,783). 19 Approximately two-thirds of Connecticut public-school students graduate with debt, up from 54 percent in % of Students with Debt The average debt for Connecticut students increased 62 percent between and Average Debt of Grads $15,619 $25, This number is from the Department of Education s National Center for Education Statistics their graduation rate metric has been disputed because the graduation rate applies only to students who enroll in the fall, are firsttime degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, attend full time and complete within 150% of normal program completion time at the institution in which they first enrolled. The CT OHE used the NCES numbers, though, in its Trends report, and those numbers are used here as well. See here for more on metrics: 18 Figure 6, /Draft%20Final%20Strategic%20Master%20Plan.pdf 19 Figure 15, Id. 10

11 One important debt metric is the loan default rate. Debt is not necessarily a problem if students are able to pay it off. In 2014, the national loan default rate (using the 2011 cohort) was 13.7 percent. Below is how Connecticut s four-year institutions compare: Higher Ed Loan Default Rates % 12 National Average % 8% 5.8% 5.6% 6.8% Uconn Central Eastern Southern Western 2 0 The average loan default rate for the 12 community colleges is 11.2 percent. The lowest rate was at Northwestern Connecticut Community College (4 percent) and the highest was at Capital Community College (17.5 percent). It is worth noting that significantly fewer students take out loans to attend community college. 20 One area for improvement is employment statistics. Although many factors outside of a college or university s control influence employment, education leaders would benefit from knowing which cities attract graduates, how many are employed, and which occupations are most popular. The University of Connecticut s Office of Institutional Research found through alumni surveys that 89 percent of its alumni are either employed or have entered graduate school. 21 Payscale.com also surveys graduates while its information about salaries and top employers and cities for schools is interesting, the response rates are too low for the Connecticut State Universities to provide comprehensive information. 22 A number of states have developed their own data systems. The University of Texas System, for example, created a website that links with records from the Texas Workforce Commission to track 68,000 alumni of the system's 15 universities into the work force, providing earnings and loan debt levels one year and five years after graduation by institution and major All loan data from: For more on Payscale s flaws, see:

12 The Connecticut Board of Regents is developing something similar through its Preschool through Twenty and Workforce Information Network (P20 Win). Their 2014 report provides information at a system level for the CSUs, Connecticut Community Colleges, and Charter Oak. 24 The report provides information about the average quarterly wages, employment rates, and percentage employed in the state for these non-university of Connecticut schools. 25 The following chart shows average quarterly wages for graduates of the CSUs and community colleges one quarter before graduation, and one, three, and eight quarters after: Quarterly Earnings for CT Graduates 12,000 $11,308 10,000 $9,052 8,000 6,000 $6,656 $6,081 Pre Q1 Post Q1 4,000 Post Q3 Post Q8 2,000 0 CSUs CCCs Hopefully this reporting will become even more robust over time. In conclusion, Connecticut, like other states, is increasing its funding for higher education while student enrollment increases, costs and debt loads rise, and there continue to be large graduation rate disparities among institutions. 24 This 2010 report on how higher education contributes to Connecticut s workforce is a good model for compiling and presenting employment metrics for all state institutions: grads.pdf 25 Full report here: 12

13 Part II- Reforming Connecticut s Higher Education Funding System Connecticut has attempted to improve its higher education system in recent years one of the most notable funding changes was Governor Malloy s 2013 consolidation of student aid programs into the Governor s Scholarship Program. 26 The current funding system, though, is old and difficult to explain. The state seems to distribute two block grants one to the UConn Board of Trustees and one for the Board of Regents (BOR). The total allocation for the three sectors overseen by the Board of Regents (state universities, community colleges, and Charter Oak) is specified in legislation. 27 States traditionally base higher education funding on inputs either using historic trends (base-plus) or enrollment to determine allocations. 28 This traditional funding system encourages enrollment, but in Connecticut s case it also creates unnecessary divides between public schools, tolerates middling graduation rates and rising debt-loads for students, and ignores data. This report recommends that Connecticut abandon its current funding scheme and instead base its support for public universities on outcomes. Connecticut has some history with outcome (also called performance) based funding. In 1985, it followed Tennessee as the second state to institute an incentive program for increased graduation. 29 This program did not appear to be particularly influential and is currently defunct. In a January 2015 report, the National Conference of State Legislatures noted that Connecticut was one of 16 states that neither has a formula in place nor is transitioning to some type of performance-based funding system. 30 This will likely change soon. HB 6919 ( An Act Establishing A Task Force Concerning Outcomes-Based Financing ) was signed by the governor in July of The bill establishes a task force whose report will discuss base funding of public institutions of higher education, an investment fund for public institutions of higher education and performance-based funding of public and independent institutions of higher education. The performance-based funding models must consider the following objectives: (1) Rewarding public and independent institutions of higher education for (A) increasing the number of degrees awarded to residents of the state, including, but not limited to, degrees awarded (i) in areas with workforce shortages, and (ii) to students from underrepresented populations, and (B) increasing business activity in the state through research; and (2) rewarding public institutions of higher education for improving their productivity, which may be measured in part by decreasing the cost of earning a degree. 31 After examining other states reformed funding models, we recommend that Connecticut re-evaluate its core funding methodology and reserve 20 percent of funding to incentivize the above performance goals Driving Outcomes, P p. 15. See also:

14 Core Funding and Weighted Credit Hours One sensible suggestion for core-funding comes from Dr. Michael Gargano, a former provost of Connecticut State Colleges and Universities. Instead of basing funding off of enrollments, he suggests that the state formula primarily consider completed courses (as measured by student hours). 32 These courses are weighted; freshman and sophomore courses would receive a lower value than junior and senior courses, which would receive lower values than masters and doctoral courses. High-cost programs, like engineering and nursing would also receive more weight to compensate for the expense. Gargano recommends that different types of campuses receive the same weight for the same program (e.g., nursing at UConn and nursing at CSCU) to normalize funding between UConn and the BOR. UConn would still receive more funding overall due to higher weighting for graduate programs (as well as greater fixed costs and its ability to attract out-of-state students). One model state for this weighted credit hour system is Nevada, whose Board of Regents adopted it in It is worth noting that Nevada only counts state residents in the tally, and does not fund non-residents. This state explained that this decision permits public institutions to collect out-of-state tuition without affecting their appropriations funding. 33 Connecticut may want to include this provision so that institutions continue to advertise nationally (and globally) to increase revenue and attract talent to the state. Gargano would add a number of other factors to core funding these could include supporting institutions academic spaces (e.g., libraries and computer labs) and instructional spaces. Gargano recommends funding the latter on a square foot average. Connecticut could also fund the physical plant and utilities for all institutions on a normalized rate based on their size. The core funding formula may also include expenditures for research (and graduate students stipends). Nevada accounts for research funding by calculating the square footage for building space dedicated solely to research and not instruction. In North Dakota s proposed formula, they include an institutional size factor to provide funds for institutions with larger physical plants. 34 Nevada has also added funding for small institutions fixed administrative costs if they do not offer a certain number of weighted credit hours. A reformed core funding system would have a number of advantages. The normalized rates based on credit hour would reduce the unnecessary divisions between UConn and CSCU. This may encourage UConn and CSCU to compete to lower costs, increasing institutional efficiency. It also reduces the need for Board of Regents administrators. As one 2015 Connecticut Mirror op-ed notes, legislators are leery of giving more money to a central office that can t seem to do anything other than increase administrative costs, grow an already bloated management core, raise tuition rates, and continually demonstrate the debilitating results of bureaucratic paralysis. Jon Brammer, the op-ed author and community college instructor, adds that colleges need to be funded directly in response to their local needs and enrollments p Status-and-Proposed-Changes.pdf

15 Performance Funding After an unsuccessful spate of performance-based funding reforms in the 1980s, higher education analysts call our current era performance funding 2.0. The majority of states are currently developing or implementing outcomes-based funding systems, and best-practice research is increasingly available. A state s first goal is determining what it wants to incentivize if the legislation discussed above were to be enacted, Connecticut policymakers would be directed to focus on degree completion, research, and productivity. Research on performance-based funding recommends the following: Incentivize progress along with completion. Completion should be the top priority for a performance-based system. College can be tremendously expensive, and it may not be financially worthwhile for a student to take on significant debt if they do not graduate. At the same time, it is too simplistic to just focus on completion. As the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) notes, progress points are especially important when introducing a new funding system because it is easier for an institution to focus on course completion than degree completion in the early years. 36 A National Governor s Association report lists the following progress metric examples: enrollment in remedial education, success beyond remedial education, success in first-year college courses, credit accumulation (incentives for students after 24, 48 credits, etc.), annual retention rates, and course completion. 37 Disincentivize exclusion. One of the great successes of higher education in the past 50 years is the opening of the ivory tower. It would be tragic to see institutions turn away students they fear will decrease their completion rates. There are a number of ways to maintain focus on completion for groups such as low-income students (typically defined by Pell grant eligibility or a state-created metric), first-generation students, adult students, and those considered academically at-risk. 38 Pennsylvania, for example, has both a closing the achievement gap category (which looks at Pell recipients and under-represented minorities) and a closing the access gap category for the same groups. Limit the categories. States should use performance-based funding to achieve a set number of goals, and state these goals clearly. In Tennessee, the university formula s outcomes include: Students accumulating 24/48/72 hours this is a good proxy for student progress. Research and service expenditures Transfers out with at least 12 credits Degrees (bachelor, associate, masters/ed specialist, doctoral, law) granted Degrees per 100 FTE this is a popular metric for institutional productivity The six-year graduation rate p One example of at-risk student weighting can be found in Ohio, which identified four risk factors (age, financial, race, and academic). See p. 8 of this memo: Evaluation-Report_Dec2014.pdf 15

16 The community college formula includes: Students accumulating 12/24/36 hours Work force training Dual enrollment Associates degrees and certificates granted Awards per 100 FTE Job placements Transfers out with at least 12 credits Remedial and developmental success. Categories should be comprehensive and changeable. In Tennessee, the three most recent years of data are analyzed and a three-year average for each outcome for each institution is calculated. States could also change their valuation for certain workforce training programs based on state employment needs. Allow Institutions to Succeed as Themselves. Connecticut must conduct a balancing act between encouraging different types of institutions (UConn, CSUs, and Community Colleges) to collaborate and compete on the one hand, and permitting each institution to play to its own strengths on the other. Best-practice research encourages multiple approaches to outcomesbased funding for different schools. This mitigates the complaints of research institutions (that student success is overwhelming their other objectives) and discourages mission creep from smaller schools. The Center for American Progress notes that states apply different methods to making the process a fair representation of this diversity in mission and student body. States such as Ohio use different funding formulas for community colleges and universities. Others, including Pennsylvania and Tennessee, adjust their metrics based on institutional differences or weigh certain factors differently. 39 Mission differentiation may also necessitate special performance metrics, like workforce training for community colleges. Tennessee s model, which weights criteria based on school types, is complicated but worth exploring. 40 The state records different institutional outcomes for community colleges and universities. Then, institutions report the number of adults and students from low-income families who meet the progression and undergraduate degree completion metrics during the academic year. A 40 percent premium is applied to these outcomes as a way to recognize the added assistance provided to these populations and the importance of success for these populations to state goals. After this initial modification, the outcome data is then weighted to reflect institutional mission, indicating both the priority of that outcome at a particular institution and in the case of universities an institution s Carnegie Classification. For Connecticut s Carnegie Classifications, UConn is labeled as Research Universities (very high research activity). The CSUs are all Master s Colleges and Universities though Southern and Central are labeled larger programs while Western is medium and Eastern is smaller p This paragraph summarizes this document: Outcomes%20Based%20Formula%20Narrative%20-%20for%20website.pdf 16

17 Tennessee multiplies this outcomes-based performance value by the Southern Regional Education Board s average faculty salary of similar Carnegie Classification institutions to determine performance-funds. It then adds on fixed costs, which include funding for maintenance and operation, utilities, rent and equipment replacement for each institution. Institutions can also earn quality assurance scores (an extra 5.45 percent of the earlier subtotal) this is based on other performance-based funding metrics, such as general education course assessments, job placement rates and student satisfaction studies. The following graph is a recreation (edited for visual clarity) of one from the Lumina Foundation s brief about Outcomes-Based Funding in Tennessee % 90% 80% 70% Proportion of Institutional Funds (by Outcome Category) 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 12% 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% 13% 14% 12% 7% 60% 7% Degree Rates 50% Quality Assurance Measures Non- degree Related Measures 40% 30% 20% 68% 59% 66% Progress & Transfer Fixed Cost & Non- Recurring Approps Degree & Credential Completion 10% Tuition 0% Universities Community Colleges Total 41 p. 2 17

18 To encourage collaboration between state institutions, states develop specific funding metrics. Hawaii, for example, includes the number of transfers from the community colleges to the baccalaureate campuses. Success on this metric rewards community colleges for providing education at a lower cost instead of penalizing them for what appears on the surface as non-completions. It may also encourage states to implement 2+2 degree programs. 42 A performance based funding system makes intuitive sense for too long states have encouraged increased enrollment, even if the majority of students never graduate and take on significant loans. Performance-based funding, when done correctly, can be an important driver of student success. As Chancellor John Morgan of Tennessee s Board of Regents noted, "This has indeed changed the way we do business. It is fair to say that each of our institutions is looking at how they allocate financial resources and assessing how those allocations will contribute to outcomes Since the outcomes under the formula are heavily weighted toward student progression and program completion, there is an intense focus on spending money in a way that will promote student success." 43 Performance-based funding also has other advantages. A focus on results would improve the state s data collection and allow Connecticut citizens to see what the state s higher education expenditures are achieving. Performance-based funding is still in its early stages. Data points supporting the system include: Pennsylvania s public colleges have experienced a 10 percent increase in overall graduation rates and a 15 percent increase in retention rates for Hispanic students [since the approach was adopted in 2000]. Many college officials have also noted a positive change in institutional culture one that is more clearly focused on solving issues and increasing efficiency. 44 In Texas, institutions increased degree production by 9.3 percent over baseline levels. The number of at-risk students graduated increased by 17.6 percent. 45 Washington s community colleges boosted the number of momentum points achieved by 12 percent. 46 Although a number of factors are needed for the system to succeed in Connecticut, a new core funding system enhanced by performance-based incentives could provide a more effective education for Connecticut s students CAP report 45 NCHEMS report, p HCM s Driving Outcomes, p