Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel outlines six‑step enrollment funding redesign as committee debates mission and incentives
Summary
Legislative analysts presented a six‑step enrollment funding model that weights instructional levels and applies cost‑sharing by institution type; lawmakers debated mission differentiation, marginal vs. average costs and how to avoid perverse incentives.
Legislative analysts presented a proposed redesign of Utah’s enrollment funding that aims to align state appropriations with instructional cost differences across institution types and levels.
Joseph described a six‑step approach intended to: calculate average per‑FTE instructional cost by level; use five‑year rolling average FTEs to smooth volatility; compute percentage change by level; apply a 1% threshold before triggering adjustments; multiply FTE change by a state cost‑sharing weight by institution type; and sum level changes to arrive at an adjusted appropriation. He noted levels include CTE (vocational/CTE), lower‑division undergraduate, upper‑division, high‑cost upper‑division, basic graduate and advanced graduate.
The model proposes different state cost‑sharing weights to reflect tuition mixes and statutory missions (presented examples: research 50%, regional 55%, community colleges 70%, technical colleges 90%). Joseph illustrated the model using Utah State University data and explained that ups and downs at different levels can offset one another when aggregated and smoothed across five years.
Lawmakers pressed staff on mission differentiation and unintended incentives. Senator Johnson warned that funding tied to enrollment can push institutions to pursue enrollment growth rather than mission‑aligned outcomes; Representative Walter raised the economic concept of marginal versus average cost and asked whether average total cost is the appropriate basis for funding the next student. Commissioner Jeff Lambert and system staff urged a systemwide view that treats mission‑specific outcomes differently and said the proposal is not intended to incentivize unbounded growth.
Committee members indicated support to continue refining the enrollment model and asked staff and the board to return with implementation details and thresholds before legislation is drafted.
