Objective: This study of higher education governance had three questions: (a) How does higher education attainment policy vary in type, quantity, and focus across state governance arrangements? (b) How do per capita income, population, educational development, and higher education regional compact combine with state-level higher education governance to influence attainment policy production? and (c) How does the arrangement of higher education governance shape the contribution of community colleges to foster improved state educational attainment? Method: The study employed a mixed-methods case-based research design utilizing data from the Boosting College Completion data set and McGuinness’s classification of community college governance to calculate descriptive statistics. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) compared the 50 states, with each case having five conditions previously found to be critical in policy formation. Results: The study found that the absence of a governing board was most influential in attainment policy outputs. State contextual conditions previously found to influence higher education policy production were not critical. The study’s findings suggest that governing board states may underutilize community colleges in raising overall college completion and educational attainment through a mismatched policy environment. Contributions: These findings are foundational for an expanded research agenda focused on community college governance, leadership, and advocacy practices. Future research should examine the policy environment mismatch of governing board arrangements and how to expand the role of community colleges in the college completion agenda.
AltbachP. G. (2011). Patterns of higher education development. In AltbachP. G.GumportP. J.BerdahlR. O. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (3rd ed., pp. 15-36). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aspen Institute. (2013). Crisis and opportunity: Aligning the community college presidency with student success. Retrieved from www.aspeninstitute.org/cep
CarnevaleA. P.StrohlJ.RidleyN.GulishA. (2018). Three educational pathways to good jobs: High school, middle skills, and bachelor’s degree. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/3pathways/
11.
ChristensenR. K.TschirhartM. (2011). Organization theory. In BevirM. (Ed.), SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 65-77). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
12.
FerlieE.MusselinC.AndresaniG. (2008). The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, 56, 325-348. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5
13.
GeigerR. L. (2011). The ten generations of American higher education. In AltbachP. G.GumportP. J.BerdahlR. O. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (3rd ed., pp. 37-68). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
GlennyL. A.SchmidtleinF. A. (1983). The role of the state in the governance of higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5(2), 133-153. doi: 10.3102/01623737005002133
15.
GrofmanB.SchneiderC. Q. (2009). An introduction to Crisp Set QCA, with a comparison to binary logistic regression. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 662-672. doi:10.1177/1065912909338464
16.
HauptmanA. M. (2012). Increasing higher education attainment in the United States. In KellyA. P.SchneiderM. (Eds.), Getting to graduation: The completion agenda in higher education (pp. 17-47). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17.
HearnJ. C.GriswoldC. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 161-190. doi:10.3102/01623737016002161
18.
HearnJ. C.GriswoldC. P.MarineG. M. (1996). Region, resources, and reason: A contextual analysis of state tuition and student aid policies. Research in Higher Education, 37, 241-278. doi:10.1007/BF01730117
19.
HowlettM.McConnellA.PerlA. (2014). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54, 419-434. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12064
20.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Longman.
21.
KingdonJ. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Longman.
22.
KnottJ. H.PayneA. (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 Management, 23, 13-30. doi:10.1002/pam.10176
23.
LegewieN. (2013). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3), Article 15. doi:10.17169/fqs-14.3.1961
24.
LevinB. (2008). Does politics help or hinder education change?Journal of Educational Change, 10, 69-72. doi:10.1007/s10833-008-9092-8
25.
LewisJ. (2003). Design issues. In RitchieJ.LewisJ.McNaugton NichollsC.OrmstonR. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 47-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
LongestK.VaiseyS. (2008). Fuzzy : A program for performing qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) in Stata. The Stata Journal, 8, 79-104. doi:10.1177/1536867X0800800106
27.
LynnL. E.HeinrichC. J.HillC. J. (2000a). Studying governance and public management. In HeinrichC. J.LynnL. E. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 1-33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
28.
LynnL. E.HeinrichC. J.HillC. J. (2000b). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 233-261. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024269
29.
LynnL. E.HeinrichC. J.HillC. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
30.
MahroumS. (2013). Policy innovations: Towards an analytic framework. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15, 182-197. doi:10.1080/13876988.2012.762269
31.
MarcusL. R. (1997). Restructuring higher education governance patterns. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 399-418. doi:10.1353/rhe.1997.0010
32.
MarxA. (2010). Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) and model specification : Benchmarks for future csQCA applications. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4, 138-158. doi:10.5172/mra.2010.4.2.138
McGuinnessA. C. (2011). The states and higher education. In AltbachP. G.GumportP. J.BerdahlR. O. (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (3rd ed., pp. 139-169). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
McLendonM. K. (2003a). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17, 165-191. doi:10.1177/0895904802239291
38.
McLendonM. K. (2003b). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 57-144). London, England: Kluwer Academic.
39.
McLendonM. K.DeatonS. B.HearnJ. C. (2007). The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political instability hypothesis. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 645-675. doi:10.1353/jhe.2007.0041
40.
McLendonM. K.HellerD. E.YoungS. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 363-400. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0029
41.
McLendonM. K.NessE. C. (2003). The politics of state higher education governance reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 66-88. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_05
42.
McLendonM. K.PernaL. W. (2014). State policies and higher education attainment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655, 6-15. doi:10.1177/0002716214541234
43.
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (n.d.). Postsecondary governance structures database. Retrieved from https://nchems.org/projects/
44.
OstermanP. (2012). The promise, performance, and policies of community colleges. In WildavskyB.KellyA.CareyK. (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 129-158). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
45.
PernaL. W.FinneyJ. E. (2014a). Improving higher education attainment for all students. In PernaL. W.FinneyJ. E. (Eds.), The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education (pp. 1-25). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
PernaL. W.FinneyJ. E. (2014b). Lessons learned. In PernaL. W.FinneyJ. E. (Eds.), The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education (pp. 200-239). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
47.
PfefferJ.Salancik GeraldR. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
PhillipeK.TekleR. (2019). AACC fast facts. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
49.
RaginC. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
50.
RaginC. (1998). The logic of qualitative comparative analysis. International Review of Social History, 43, 105-124. doi:10.1017/S0020859000115111
51.
RichardsonR. C.BlockerC. E.BenderL. W. (1972). Governance for the two-year college. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
52.
RichardsonR. C.BraccoK. R.CallanP. M.FinneyJ. E. (1999). Designing state higher education systems for a new century: Series on higher education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
53.
RichardsonR. C.de los SantosG. E. (2001). Statewide governance structures and two-year colleges. In TownsendB. K.TwomblyS. B. (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 39-56). Westport, CT: Ablex.
54.
RihouxB.RaginC. (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
SmelserN. J. (2009). Changing constituencies of higher education: Implications for visibility, politics, and governance. In OlsonG.PresleyJ. (Eds.), The future of higher education: Perspectives from America’s academic leaders (pp. 63-72). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
57.
TandbergD. A. (2010). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51, 416-450. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5
58.
TandbergD. A. (2013). The conditioning role of state higher education governance structures. The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 506-543. doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0026
59.
ThelinJ. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
VolkweinJ. F.TandbergD. A. (2007). Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education, 49, 180-197. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9066-3
63.
YoungT. V.ShepleyT. V.SongM. (2010). Understanding agenda setting in state educational policy: An application of Kingdon’s multiple streams model to the formation of state reading policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1-23. doi:10.14507/epaa.v18n15.2010
64.
ZhangL. (2008). Does state funding affect graduation rates at public four-year colleges and universities?Educational Policy, 23, 714-731. doi:10.1177/0895904808321270
