Concerns about performance and cost efficiency have taken center stage in discussions about the funding and oversight of public universities in recent years. One of the primary manifestations of these concerns is the rise of performance funding policies, or policies that seek to directly link state appropriations to the outcomes institutions generate for students. Despite the popularity of these policies, relatively little systematic research examines their effect on student outcomes at public colleges and universities. We use data collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to analyze the effectiveness of performance funding policies as a mechanism for improving student graduation, persistence, and degree attainment in more than 500 postsecondary institutions in all fifty states over a span of 18 years. We find that current performance funding policies are not associated with higher levels of student performance and that these policies may in fact contribute to lower performance over a longer period of time. However, more recent policies linked to institutional base funding may produce some likelihood of long-term improvement and require additional research.
AldemanChadCareyKevin. 2009. Ready to assemble: Grading state higher education accountability systems. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
2.
Banaszak-HollJaneZinnJacqueline S.MorVincent. 1996. The impact of market and organizational characteristics on nursing care facility service innovation: A resource dependency perspective. Health Services Research31 (1): 97–117.
3.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.1995. What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. The American Political Science Review89 (3): 634–47.
4.
BehnRobert D.2002. The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon?Public Performance & Management Review26 (1): 5–25.
5.
BerryWilliam D.RingquistEvan J.FordingRichard C.HansonRussell L.1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science42 (1): 327–48.
6.
BohteJohnMeierKenneth J.2000. Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review60 (2): 173–82.
7.
BowenWilliam G.BokDerek Curtis. 1998. The shape of the river. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
BoyneGeorge A.DayPatriciaWalkerRichard. 2002. The evaluation of public service inspection: A theoretical framework. Urban Studies39 (7): 1197–1212.
9.
BrudneyJeffrey L.HebertF. TedWrightDeil S.1999. Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review59 (1): 19–30.
10.
BurkeJoseph C.2005. Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
BurkeJoseph C.MinassiansHenrik P.2003. Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or accountability “lite”?Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute.
DelaneyJennifer A.DoyleWilliam R.2007. The role of higher education in state budgets. In State postsecondary education research: New methods to inform policy and practice, eds. ShawKathleen M.HellerDonald E., 55–76. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
14.
DoughertyKevin J.JonesSosanya M.LahrHanaNatowRebecca S.PheattLaraReddyVikash. 2014. Performance funding for higher education: Forms, origins, impacts, and futures. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
15.
DoughertyKevin J.NatowRebecca S.BlancaVega. 2012. Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record114 (3): 1–42.
16.
DoughertyKevin J.ReddyVikash. 2011. The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations. Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 37, Columbia University, New York, NY.
17.
DoughertyKevin J.ReddyVikash. 2013. Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms? What are the impacts? ASHE Higher Education Report, volume 39, number 2. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
DoyleWilliam R.NolandBrian. 2006. Does performance funding make a difference for students?Paper Presented at the Association for Instituitonal Research Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
19.
DoyleWilliam R.ZumetaWilliam. 2014. State-level response to the access and completion challenge in the new era of austerity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
20.
EwellPeter T.2009. Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension. Washington, DC: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
21.
FriedelJanice NahraThorntonZoë MercedesD’AmicoMark M.KatsinasStephen G.2013. Performance-based funding: The national landscape. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama, Education Policy Center.
22.
GilmourJohn B.LewisDavid E.2006. Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget’s PART scores. Public Administration Review66 (5): 742–52.
23.
GoldenMarissa M.2000. What motivates bureaucrats? Politics and administration during the Reagan years. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
HearnJames C.GriswoldCarolyn P.1994. State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis16 (2): 161–90.
26.
HoodChristopher. 1991. A public management for all seasons?Public Administration69 (1): 3–19.
27.
HuismanJeroenCurrieJan. 2004. Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water?Higher Education48 (4): 529–51.
28.
IPEDS. 2013. Integrated postsecondary education data system. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available from http://nces.ed.gov.
29.
JoycePhillip G.ThompkinsSusan S.2002. Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. In Meeting the challenges of performance-oriented government, eds. NewcomerKathrynJenningsCheryl BoomLomaxAllen, 61–96. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
30.
KellyAndrew PLautzenheiserDaniel K.2013. Taking charge: A state-level agenda for higher education reform. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Available from http://www.aei.org.
31.
KnottJack H.PayneA. Abigail. 2004. The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23 (1): 13–30.
32.
KoppellJonathan GS. 2005. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder.”Public Administration Review65 (1): 94–108.
33.
LaneJason E.2007. The spider web of oversight: An analysis of external oversight of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education78 (6): 615–44.
34.
LangDaniel W.2002. A lexicon of inter-institutional cooperation. Higher Education44 (1): 153–83.
35.
LavertuStéphaneMoynihanDonald P.2013. Agency political ideology and reform implementation: Performance management in the Bush administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23 (3): 521–49.
36.
LeslieDavid W.BerdahlRobert Oliver. 2008. The politics of restructuring higher education in Virginia: A case study. The Review of Higher Education31 (3): 309–28.
37.
LeslieLarry L.SlaughterSheila A.1997. The development and current status of market mechanisms in United States postsecondary education. Higher Education Policy10 (3–4): 3–4.
38.
LowryRobert C.2001. Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science45 (4): 845–61.
39.
McGuinnessAims. 2003. Models of postsecondary education coordination and governance in the states. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
40.
McLendonMichael K.HearnJames C.DeatonSteven B.2006. Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis28 (1): 1–24.
41.
MeierKenneth J.O’TooleLaurence J.2006. Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
MelkersJulia E.WilloughbyKatherine G.2001. Budgeters’ views of state performance-budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review61 (1): 54–64.
43.
MeredithMarc. 2004. Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of theU.S. News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education45 (5): 443–61.
44.
ModellSven. 2001. Performance measurement and institutional processes: A study of managerial responses to public sector reform. Management Accounting Research12 (4): 437–64.
45.
MoeTerry M.1985. Control and feedback in economic regulation: The case of the NLRB. The American Political Science Review79 (4): 1094–1116.
46.
MontgomeryRenéMontgomeryBeronda L.2012. Graduation rates at historically black colleges and universities: An underperforming performance measure for determining institutional funding policies. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education60 (2): 93–109.
47.
MoynihanDonald P.2008. The dynamics of performance management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
48.
MoynihanDonald P.PandeySanjay K.2005. Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15 (3): 421–39.
49.
Nicholson-CrottyJillMeierKenneth J.2003. Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy17 (1): 80–97.
50.
OsborneDavid EGaeblerTed. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
51.
PfefferJeffreySalancikGerald R.1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
52.
RabovskyThomas M.2012. Accountability in higher education: Exploring impacts on state budgets and institutional spending patterns. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22 (4): 675–700.
53.
RadinBeryl A.2006. Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
54.
RhoadesGary. 2012. The incomplete completion agenda: Implications for academe and the academy. Liberal Education98 (1): 18–25.
55.
RyanJohn F.2004. The relationship between institutional expenditures and degree attainment at baccalaureate colleges. Research in Higher Education45 (2): 97–114.
56.
SanfordThomasHunterJames M.2010. Impact of performance funding on retention and graduation rates. Paper Presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
57.
ScottMarcBaileyThomasKienzlGreg. 2006. Relative success? Determinants of college graduation rates in public and private colleges in the U.S. Research in Higher Education47 (3): 249–79.
58.
ScottW. Richard. 2005. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. London: Sage Publications.
59.
ShinJung Cheol. 2010. Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education60 (1): 47–68.
60.
ThackerLloyd. 2005. College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
ThomasVirginia L.2001. Restoring government integrity through performance, results, and accountability. In Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government, ed. ForsytheDan, 113–42. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
62.
ThurmaierKurt M.WilloughbyKatherine G.2001. Policy and politics in state budgeting. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
63.
TitusMarvin A.2006. No college student left behind: the influence of financial aspects of a state’s higher education policy on college completion. The Review of Higher Education29 (3): 293–317.
64.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Performance budgeting: State experiences and implications for the federal government. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
65.
Van DoorenWouter. 2008. Nothing new under the sun? Change and continuity in performance movements. In Performance information in the public sector: How it is used, eds. Van DoorenWouterVan De WalleSteven, 11–23. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
66.
VolkweinJ. FredericksTandbergDavid. 2008. Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education49 (2): 180–97.
67.
WhitfordAndrew B.2005. The pursuit of political control by multiple principals. The Journal of Politics67 (1): 29–49.
68.
WilsonDeborahCroxsonBronwynAtkinsonAdele. 2006. What gets measured gets done: Headteachers’ responses to the English secondary school performance management system. Policy Studies27 (2): 153–71.
69.
ZumetaWilliam. 2001. Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for the new millennium. In The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability, ed. HellerDonald E., 155–97. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
