Performance Funding System: Arkansas 2025

2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Funding ◽  
Funding System

scholarly journals The future of social care funding: who pays?

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kenny ◽  
J. Barnfield ◽  
L. Daly ◽  
A. Dunn ◽  
D. Passey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase 1 ◽  
List Type ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Means Testing ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
Funding System ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Care Costs

AbstractWith the UK population ageing, deciding upon a satisfactory and sustainable system for the funding of people’s long-term care (LTC) needs has long been a topic of political debate. Phase 1 of the Care Act 2014 (“the Act”) brought in some of the reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission in 2011. However, the Government announced during 2015 that Phase 2 of “the Act” such as the introduction of a £72,000 cap on Local Authority care costs and a change in the means testing thresholds1 would be deferred until 2020. In addition to this delay, the “freedom and choice” agenda for pensions has come into force. It is therefore timely that the potential market responses to help people pay for their care within the new pensions environment should be considered. In this paper, we analyse whether the proposed reforms meet the policy intention of protecting people from catastrophic care costs, whilst facilitating individual understanding of their potential care funding requirements. In particular, we review a number of financial products and ascertain the extent to which such products might help individuals to fund the LTC costs for which they would be responsible for meeting. We also produce case studies to demonstrate the complexities of the care funding system. Finally, we review the potential impact on incentives for individuals to save for care costs under the proposed new means testing thresholds and compare these with the current thresholds. We conclude that:∙Although it is still too early to understand exactly how individuals will respond to the pensions freedom and choice agenda, there are a number of financial products that might complement the new flexibilities and help people make provision for care costs.∙The new care funding system is complex making it difficult for people to understand their potential care costs.∙The current means testing system causes a disincentive to save. The new means testing thresholds provide a greater level of reward for savers than the existing thresholds and therefore may increase the level of saving for care; however, the new thresholds could still act as a barrier since disincentives still exist.

Equity or Disparity: Do Performance Funding Policies Disadvantage 2-Year Minority-Serving Institutions?

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Y. Li ◽  
Denisa Gándara ◽  
Amanda Assalone
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Education ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Underrepresented Students ◽  
Performance Funding ◽  
State Funding ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Gateway Courses ◽  
Funding Policies ◽  
Funding Formulas ◽  
Minority Serving Institutions

Objective: We investigate whether performance funding—an increasingly prevalent state policy that allocates appropriations based on outcomes that prioritize retention and completion—places minority-serving institutions (MSIs) at a financial disadvantage due to these institutions serving a greater proportion of historically underrepresented students. Method: Using data from 2004-05 to 2014-15 within Texas and Washington, we compare state funding allocations to 2-year institutions designated as MSIs versus non-MSIs, before and after performance funding policies are implemented. We additionally compare funding allocations for each performance metric. Results: On average, MSIs in Texas and Washington are allocated the same or less in per-student state funding after performance funding compared to non-MSIs. MSIs in Texas are advantaged in performance metrics for transfers and for gateway courses in math (credit-bearing courses that serve as a “gateway” to continued study), and MSIs in Washington are advantaged in developmental education courses. However, MSIs are typically disadvantaged in metrics for degree completions. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that MSIs in Texas and Washington are not financially disadvantaged due to performance funding because the funding formulas in both states incentivize milestones in addition to outputs. We recommend that policy makers consider incorporating performance metrics for developmental education and gateway courses in addition to retention rates and degree completions, and tailor metrics to the student population of institutions to mitigate the potentially inequitable funding consequences of performance funding policies.

Modern Methods of Costing Insured Pension Schemes

1970 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-41
Author(s):  
R. E. Snelson
Keyword(s):  
Basic Function ◽  
Cost Estimates ◽  
Professional Advice ◽  
The Past ◽  
Funding System ◽  
Pension Schemes ◽  
Modern Methods ◽  
The Subject

1. In the past, concepts of funding and methods of costing have frequently been discussed in papers submitted to the Institute and the Students' Society usually with particular emphasis on selfadministered funds. There is still scope for further thought on the subject of funding methods and it is hoped that this paper will provide an opportunity for further discussion with particular reference to insured schemes. Life offices are not in the same position as consulting actuaries since their basic function is to insure the benefits required rather than to give professional advice. At the same time they have a responsibility to ensure that their costing methods are basically sound and that the issues involved are not misrepresented to their prospective and current policyholders. In recent years there has been a tremendous demand for final salary arrangements using the controlled funding system of administration but little attempt has been made to codify the principles which ought to be followed in making cost estimates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document