Four major OBF versions are listed by THEC: three used through FY2026–27, and a fourth revision recommended for the FY2027–28 appropriation request.
A model label is not its fiscal-year range.
“2015–20” names a review/model period. It does not mean the model stopped in FY2019–20. The fiscal year identifies the funding request; the underlying outcome data generally come from earlier years. Annual workbooks update the inputs without necessarily introducing a new model.
QUICK LOOKUP
Find a fiscal year’s model
THE TIMELINE
Four major versions, at a glance
This counts the modern outcomes-based system introduced after the Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010. It does not count earlier enrollment-based formulas or every annual adjustment as a separate version.
Recommended for the FY2027–28 request cycle; later annual files not yet available here
Revised metrics and workforce premium eligibility
Definitions and review documents; no numerical breakdown yet
OBF was first used for the FY2011–12 budget cycle. Annual review continues even though larger revisions generally follow a five-year cycle. THEC’s introduction and review history ↗
VERSION 1 / INITIAL OUTCOMES MODEL
2010–15 model · FY2011–12 to FY2015–16
The first OBF model moved the funding calculation toward student progression, completion and other outcomes. It recognized institutional missions through different outcome weights.
The FY2015–16 university workbook available here scales outcomes, adds adult and low-income premiums, and applies mission weights. It converts weighted outcomes into dollars using a salary benchmark, then adds fixed costs. Subsidy policy, an out-of-state tuition deduction, quality assurance and legislative initiatives complete the formula need calculation.
Reading the result: dollar-based formula need is not the amount enacted by the legislature. This app does not reconstruct every earlier annual workbook from this period.
This version uses combined and scaled outcomes with institution-specific mission weights to produce weighted outcome points. Fixed costs are converted into points using the institution’s share of system fixed-cost dollars and a system point pool. Quality assurance adds points based on the institution’s score.
In the annual workbooks here, the fixed-cost pool uses approximately 21.83% of system weighted outcomes. The QA constant is 5.45%. Point growth adjusts prior funding shares, which are normalized across institutions before applying the available budget.
Why did it last beyond 2020? The pandemic postponed the planned 2020 five-year review to 2021. THEC explicitly retained this model for the FY2021–22 and FY2022–23 recommendations. Annual refinements can still occur within a model period.
THEC’s review summary identifies FY2023–24 as the first appropriation request cycle for this revision. The available annual files continue through FY2026–27.
The model keeps weighted outcomes, fixed-cost points and QA points, while adding a workforce investment premium for qualifying undergraduate awards and including eligible out-of-state low-income students. It simplifies fixed-cost inputs and reduces the fixed-cost pool to 15% of weighted outcomes; the QA constant remains 5.45%. Mission weights and scales are also reviewed.
Comparison caution: the change in fixed costs and other model inputs can reset point levels. A fall in total points at the model boundary does not by itself establish a fall in student performance or state funding. The growth chart uses each workbook’s own prior-year baseline.
The July 2026 recommendation document calls for implementation in the FY2027–28 appropriation request cycle. Its model name should not be used to relabel the FY2026–27 workbook.
Recommended changes replace the six-year university graduation rate with a four-year, on-time rate; remove awards/degrees per 100 FTE; revise community college dual enrollment to reflect completed credit hours; and refine workforce investment premium eligibility.
What can be shown now? THEC publishes definitions, the recommendation document and workforce premium resources. This app has no institution-level numerical workbook for this revision, so it does not invent university point totals or future funding amounts. The recommendation document establishes intended timing; it is not evidence of an enacted appropriation.
Reported outcomes combined over the workbook’s specified data window, often a three-year average. Annual inputs can already include focus-population premiums.
Scaled outcomes
Combined outcomes divided by a scale divisor so measures with very different magnitudes can contribute comparably.
Mission weights
Institution-specific priorities applied to scaled outcomes. The weights sum to 100% for each university.
Weighted outcomes
Scaled outcomes multiplied by mission weights, with relevant degree outcomes combined as specified in that year’s workbook.
Fixed costs
A formula allowance based on specified facilities and equipment cost inputs. Later models convert the institution’s cost share into points.
Quality assurance / QA / QAF
A separate quality score used to calculate an addition to the subtotal. In the point models shown here, QA points = subtotal × 5.45% × score ÷ 100.
Total points and point growth
Total points combine weighted outcomes, fixed-cost points and QA points. Growth compares that total with the prior-year baseline carried in the same workbook, which may have been revised.
Recommendation versus appropriation
A recommendation is a proposed distribution. An appropriation is a legislative funding amount. Neither should be confused with the model’s formula need or with actual cash expenditure.
Try a future mission-weight review
The simulation page lets you propose university mission weights, add outcome changes, and model performance changes across all 22 institutions while holding the funding pool fixed. Its default rebase treatment keeps weights alone from transferring funding. It is an exploratory policy model, not an official THEC forecast.
Page 1 has appropriation history through FY2025–26 and recommendation estimates through FY2026–27. Page 2 starts its numerical breakdowns with the FY2015–16 workbook; its point-growth chart starts with FY2016–17 because the legacy dollar model is different. The older fiscal years in the historical timeline are documented policy history, not additional calculation workbooks loaded into the app.