University of Maine System Peer Identification. November 2017

Similar documents

The American Legion NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP RECORD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PEER INSTITUTION ANALYSIS February 27, 2004

TABLE 3c: Congressional Districts with Number and Percent of Hispanics* Living in Hard-to-Count (HTC) Census Tracts**

TABLE 3b: Congressional Districts Ranked by Percent of Hispanics* Living in Hard-to- Count (HTC) Census Tracts**

River Use Update Oct by Steve Sullivan

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Rutgers Revenue Sources

Index of religiosity, by state

2015 State Hospice Report 2013 Medicare Information 1/1/15

Date: 5/25/2012. To: Chuck Wyatt, DCR, Virginia. From: Christos Siderelis

How North Carolina Compares

5 x 7 Notecards $1.50 with Envelopes - MOQ - 12

How North Carolina Compares

MAP 1: Seriously Delinquent Rate by State for Q3, 2008

Interstate Pay Differential

Current Medicare Advantage Enrollment Penetration: State and County-Level Tabulations

ON THE GLOBAL, REGIONAL & LOCAL ECONOMIC CLIMATE

TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS

FY 2014 Per Capita Federal Spending on Major Grant Programs Curtis Smith, Nick Jacobs, and Trinity Tomsic

Voter Registration and Absentee Ballot Deadlines by State 2018 General Election: Tuesday, November 6. Saturday, Oct 27 (postal ballot)

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION FACULTY SALARIES

Exempt Staff Salary Study FY

HOPE NOW State Loss Mitigation Data December 2016

The Regional Economic Outlook

Estimated Economic Impacts of the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act National Report

Utilizing Grants to Achieve Your Farm Objectives

Appendix A: Carnegie 2010 Classifications and SHEEO Groupings 2010 Carnegie Classification

Interstate Turbine Advisory Council (CESA-ITAC)

STATE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS $ - LISTED NEXT PAGE. TOTAL $ 88,000 * for each contribution of $500 for Board Meeting sponsorship

PRESS RELEASE Media Contact: Joseph Stefko, Director of Public Finance, ;

HOME HEALTH AIDE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS, DECEMBER 2016

How. January. Prepared by

STATE AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING S. 744 AS APPROVED BY THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Weights and Measures Training Registration

national assembly of state arts agencies

Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018

Senior American Access to Care Grant

Sentinel Event Data. General Information Copyright, The Joint Commission

STATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDEX

STATE ARTS AGENCY GRANT MAKING AND FUNDING

Sentinel Event Data. General Information Q Copyright, The Joint Commission

HOPE NOW State Loss Mitigation Data September 2014

Maine s Economic Outlook: 2009 and Beyond

Child & Adult Care Food Program: Participation Trends 2014

REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT MAY 2013

Revenues, Expenses, and Operating Profits of U. S. Lotteries, FY 2002

THE METHODIST CHURCH (U.S.)

2016 INCOME EARNED BY STATE INFORMATION

Is this consistent with other jurisdictions or do you allow some mechanism to reinstate?

CRMRI White Paper #3 August 2017 State Refugee Services Indicators of Integration: How are the states doing?

Fiscal Year 1999 Comparisons. State by State Rankings of Revenues and Spending. Includes Fiscal Year 2000 Rankings for State Taxes Only

Pipeline Safety Regulations and the Effects on Operator Qualification Programs. March 28, 2017


Table 6 Medicaid Eligibility Systems for Children, Pregnant Women, Parents, and Expansion Adults, January Share of Determinations

THE STATE OF GRANTSEEKING FACT SHEET

States Ranked by Annual Nonagricultural Employment Change October 2017, Seasonally Adjusted

Child & Adult Care Food Program: Participation Trends 2017

Child & Adult Care Food Program: Participation Trends 2016

Percent of Population Under Age 65 Uninsured, 2013, 2014, and 2015

Introduction. Current Law Distribution of Funds. MEMORANDUM May 8, Subject:

Fiscal Research Center

Critical Access Hospitals and HCAHPS

The Job Market Experiences of Gulf War II Era Veterans

Colorado River Basin. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Percentage of Enrolled Students by Program Type, 2016

Fiscal Research Center

ANCHOR INSTITUTION STRATEGIES IN THE SOUTHEAST

State Authority for Hazardous Materials Transportation

Statutory change to name availability standard. Jurisdiction. Date: April 8, [Statutory change to name availability standard] [April 8, 2015]

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH IS WORSENING AND ACCESS TO CARE IS LIMITED THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF PROVIDERS HEALTHCARE REFORM IS HELPING

Appalachian State University L500030AppStUBlkVinyl. University of Alabama L500030AlabmaBlkVinyl. Arizona State University L500030ArizStBlkVinyl

Sujit M. CanagaRetna Senior Fiscal Analyst The Council of State Governments Southern Legislative Conference (SLC)

Washburn University. Faculty Salary Analysis

Name: Date: Albany: Jefferson City: Annapolis: Juneau: Atlanta: Lansing: Augusta: Lincoln: Austin: Little Rock: Baton Rouge: Madison: Bismarck:

*ALWAYS KEEP A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE FOR YOUR RECORDS IN CASE OF AUDIT

N A S S G A P Academic Year. 43rd Annual Survey Report on State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid

Table of Contents Introduction... 2

HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS PARTICIPATION SURVEY

Fiscal Research Center

U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association

Weekly Market Demand Index (MDI)

DOCTORAL/RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING FULBRIGHT AWARDS FOR

International Treaty Law, decrees, & rulings

CONNECTICUT: ECONOMIC FUTURE WITH EDUCATIONAL REFORM

Table 8 Online and Telephone Medicaid Applications for Children, Pregnant Women, Parents, and Expansion Adults, January 2017

Louisville Cardinal Editors. Dr. James Ramsey, President, University of Louisville

FORTIETH TRIENNIAL ASSEMBLY

efiling for Self Represented Litigants (SRL s) A Practical Perspective

CAIR Conference Anaheim, CA, Nov. 6-9, 2012

Transcription:

University of Maine System Peer Identification November 2017

Overview Why are we selecting peers? How could institutions envision using peers? Custom Hanover Research Model 2017 Campus Peers 2

Why are we selecting peers? Benchmark Performance Enable data-driven policy and decision making *Specifically, UMS will use peer groups to inform resource allocations in a new Mission Resource Requirement (MRR) funding process. For more about this new UMS funding model, view a fifteen minute presentation at https://thinkmissionexcellence.maine.edu/unified-finance/ 3

UMS Allocation Model - Timeline 2017 Meet with campus Presidents and leadership teams to develop a draft set of peers. 10/13: Draft peers by campus due to UMS 10/16: Draft peers posted for each campus. Survey tool available July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 9/11 Campus access to Hanover model 11/10 Comment period closes 11/13-17 Respond to campus feedback 11/19-20 Peers for each campus finalized 4

UMS Allocation Model - Timeline 2018 Dec-Feb Populate model with peer data BOT final approval Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Campus review of model and provide feedback Make any adjustments necessary to allocation model based on campus feedback 5

Why are we selecting peers? How could institutions envision using peers? Custom Hanover Research Model 2017 Campus Peers 6

Institutional-research officers acknowledge that their institutions' comparison groups often include desired peers that are not true peers. Colleges want to receive data reports on enrollments, graduation rates, student costs, faculty, and budgets for institutions they aspire to be more like. The 107 most intensive research universities, as classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, also tended to choose one another as peers. Among them they selected only 65 institutions outside their number as peers, while 234 other colleges chose one of those intensive-research institutions. 7

Using a custom research model, UMS institutions will be able to benchmark their performance and establish priorities and goals based on statistically similar and/or aspirational peers. 8

Why are we selecting peers? How could institutions envision using peers? Custom Hanover Research Model 2017 Campus Peers 9

Hanover research created a custom research tool for selecting institutional peers. 10

All Higher Ed Institutions IPEDS Nat l Student Loan Data System American Community Survey (Household Income) COPLAC Full list of continuous variables on slide 22 Full list of continuous variables on slide 22 Median household income % of total enrollment First-time degree seeking enrollment Student faculty ratios Student staff ratios % of non-tenure track faculty # of degrees conferred Carnegie Classification: Basic Carnegie Sort CUMU % of distance edu programs offered Breakdown of types of degrees received Endowment assets Discounts applied Revenue & Expenditure Student background data Tuition pricing 11

For illustration purposes, USM will be used for a high level look at the custom research tool. 12

13

Filters set to Hanover defaults 14

Filters and weights can be adjusted to reflect the selection criteria most relevant to each institution. 15

Campus leadership teams used the modeling tool to review and recommend adjustments to initially proposed peer groups. 16

Why are we selecting peers? How could institutions envision using peers? Custom Hanover Research Model 2017 Campus Peers 17

Draft Peers: Similarity Scores A peer list is generated by computing a singular measure of similarity between the UMS Institution and each prospective peer institution, which then creates a Similarity Score Similarity Score The Similarity Score is based on the distance between the UMS institution and each peer institution along each of the input variables. 18

Draft Peers 1. University of Idaho.06091 2. University of Wyoming.08048 3. University of Rhode Island.08083 4. South Dakota State University.08166 5. University of New Hampshire.09643 6. North Dakota State University.10651 7. University of Vermont.12484 Similarity Score 1 23 4 5 6 7.0.1.2 19

Draft Peers 1. Rogers State University 0.11246 2. Bluefield State College 0.11716 3. Lewis-Clark State College 0.12292 4. Montana State University-Northern 0.12947 5. Indiana University Kokomo 0.14850 6. Dickinson State University 0.17640 7. University of Hawaii-West Oahu 0.18418 Similarity Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.0.1.2 20

Draft Peers 1. SUNY College at Potsdam 0.0666 2. Western State Colorado University 0.0720 3. SUNY College at Fredonia 0.0749 4. Western Oregon University 0.0770 5. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts 0.0805 6. Eastern Connecticut State University 0.0938 7. Keene State University (COPLAC School) 0.0960 Similarity Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.0.1.2 21

Draft Peers 1. Black Hills State University 0.0873 2. Eastern Oregon State University 0.0939 3. Dickinson State University 0.0989 4. Oklahoma Panhandle State University 0.1029 5. Lewis-Clark State College 0.1114 6. Montana State University-Northern 0.1214 7. Northwestern Oklahoma State University 0.1239 8. The University of Virginia s College at Wise 0.1278 9. Rogers State University 0.1285 10. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts 0.1299 Similarity Score 2 5 1 3 4 6 7 89 10.0.1.2 22

Draft Peers 1. The University of Virginia at Wise 0.0667 2. Oklahoma Panhandle State University 0.1156 3. Kentucky State University 0.1259 4. Dickinson State University 0.1277 5. Montana State University-Northern 0.1414 6. The University of Montana-Western 0.1457 Similarity Score 1 2 3 4 6 5.0.1.2 23

Draft Peers 1. Oklahoma Panhandle State University 0.0645 2. The University of Virginia at Wise 0.0647 3. Glenville State College 0.0719 4. University of Maine at Fort Kent 0.0721 5. Dickinson State University 0.0915 6. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts 0.1063 7. Montana State University-Northern 0.1065 8. Rogers State University 0.1103 9. West Liberty University 0.1109 2 1 3 4 Similarity Score 5 9 7 6 8.0.1.2 24

Draft Peers 1. University of Arkansas at Little Rock 0.0745 2. Salem State University 0.0838 3. Murray State 0.0864 4. University of Michigan-Flint 0.1001 5. Texas Women s University 0.1252 6. North Carolina Central University 0.1415 7. California State University-Dominguez Hills 0.1487 8. Fayetteville State University 0.1529 Similarity Score 1 3 2 4 5 7 6 8.0.1.2 25

Thank you! 26