Performance-based funding to determine MUSC's share

"We did well this year," said associate provost for institutional assessment Dr. John Cormier. He and MUSC controller and assistant treasurer Howard Lundy are concerned about the unique situation of MUSC as a free-standing medical research university with most of its academic programs at the graduate level.

In their first of a three-year adjustment period, during which the state's 33 colleges and universities are phasing in their compliance to the system's 37 performance indicators, each institution has negotiated its own benchmark, or standard. It's against this self-imposed benchmark that each institution has had its performance measured in 14 indicators, or categories of performance. Eight more indicators will be added in next year's performance evaluation, and 15 more will be added to include the full 37 indicators by the third year the system is in force.

In implementing these indicators, the Commission on Higher Education has had to deal with the ambiguity of some indicators, apparent conflicts of indicator goals in some areas, and MUSC's unique role in the state's higher education system that makes some indicators impossible to apply. For example, general annual overhead costs per student for other institutions average $3,078, but MUSC overhead costs run $12,143 due to the extensive infrastructure required to educate students in the health professions.

Lundy explained that a fair comparison of MUSC's performance to that of undergraduate institutions and technical schools in South Carolina is difficult. For that reason, MUSC has the permission of the S.C. Commission on Higher Education (CHE) to compare itself to "aspirant peer institutions" in some areas, such as faculty compensation and the costs of educating a student in the health sciences.

Faculty-to-student ratios are skewed in comparison to other South Carolina institutions, because in clinical settings, there may be as few as two students to one faculty member. By comparing MUSC to "aspirant peer institutions," the CHE will be looking at nine other medical research universities outside the state. "These are institutions we want to be like," Lundy said. He said that among them are UNC-Chapel Hill, University of California San Francisco, University of Florida, Medical College of Virginia and Medical College of Georgia.

MUSC's raw performance score was set at 97 percent this year. "We're in fairly good shape, and this institution is going in the right directions," Lundy said. Cormier added that among South Carolina's other research institutions, Clemson and USC, MUSC is on top. But because this year is associated with a relatively small amount of money, the real effect of the performance-based funding system won't kick in until next year and the year after.

"Three years from now all 33 institutions will derive 100 percent of their state-appropriated funding from this performance-based system," Cormier said.

Meanwhile, as another eight indicators are being added, MUSC will be explaining its position to the CHE's Planning and Assessment Committee, Cormier said. Adapting MUSC to a standard set of indicators will continue to be a challenge. "We do feel fortunate, however, that everyone at the committee has reaffirmed how unique MUSC is among the other South Carolina institutions. They will just have to separate us from the others when it comes time to set benchmarks and assess performance."

At stake are millions of dollars in annual fund allocations for higher education. Institutions with scores indicating performance beyond their goals will receive added funding taken from institutions whose scores indicate poor performance. "A few points one way or another can mean thousands -- even millions -- of dollars," Lundy said.