Accounting for Higher Education Accountability: Political Origins of State Performance Funding for Higher Education

Abstract

Background/Context

Performance funding finances public higher education institutions based on outcomes such as retention, course and degree completion, and job placement rather than inputs such as enrollments. One of the mysteries of state performance funding for higher education is that despite great interest in it for over 30 years, only half of all states have ever adopted it.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This study examines the political forces that have driven the development of performance funding in some states but not others. To do this, the authors draw on theories of policy origins such as the advocacy coalition framework, the policy entrepreneurship perspective, and policy diffusion theory.

Research Design

This study contrasts the experiences of six states that established performance funding for higher education (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington) and two that have not (California and Nevada). These states differ considerably in their performance funding programs, higher education governance arrangements, and political and socioeconomic characteristics.

Data Collection and Analysis

Our study is qualitative, drawing on documentary records and extensive interviews with higher education officials, legislators and staff, governors and advisors, business leaders, and other actors.

Findings and Results

Our study finds that many of the actors and motives cited by the prevailing perspective on the origins of performance funding did operate in the six states that have established performance funding, including state legislators (particularly Republicans), governors, and business people pursuing performance funding in the name of greater effectiveness and efficiency for higher education. However, the prevailing perspective misses the major role of state higher education coordinating boards and individual higher education institutions (particularly community colleges) that pursued performance funding to secure new funds in an era of greater tax resistance and criticism of higher education. Our findings further move beyond the prevailing explanation by examining how policy entrepreneurs mobilized support for performance funding by finding ideological common ground among different groups, identifying policies that those groups could support, and taking advantage of political openings to put performance funding onto the decision agenda of state elected officials.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This examination of the origins of performance funding policies sheds light on factors that facilitate and frustrate the development of such policies. For example, our research highlights the important role of higher education opposition and the presence of certain political structures and political values in frustrating the development of performance funding.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguillard

(1991a, January 16). State universities panel urges 50% funding increase. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 8D.

Aguillard

(1991b, May 18). Tax hike to go before voters: $385 million plan passed to aid colleges, schools. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 1A.

Aguillard

(1991c, May 19). Education bill goes beyond finances, officials say. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 8A.

Aguillard

(1991d, May 29). “Missions,” money could make colleges model for U.S. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 1C.

Alexander

F. K.

(2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.

Balla

S. J.

(2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 29(3), 221–245.

Banta

T. W.

, Rudolph

L. B.

, Van Dyke

, & Fisher

H. S.

(1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 23–45.

Bell

(2005). Changing organizational stories: The effects of performance-based funding on three community colleges in Florida (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3210509)

Berry

F. S.

, & Berry

W. D.

(2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Sabatier

P. A.

(Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 223–260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

10.

Berry

F. S.

, & Flowers

(1999). Public entrepreneurs in the policy process: Performance-based budgeting reform in Florida. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 11(4), 578–617.

11.

Berry

W. D.

, Ringquist

E. J.

, Fording

R. C.

, & Hanson

R. L.

(1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–1993. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327–348.

12.

Beyle

(2004). The governors. In Gray

& Hanson

R. L.

(Eds.), Politics in the American states (pp. 194–231). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

13.

Bibby

J. F.

, & Holbrook

T. M.

(2004). Parties and elections. In Gray

& Hanson

R. L.

(Eds.), Politics in the American states (pp. 62–99). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

14.

Bogue

E. G.

(1980, March). Recognizing and rewarding instructional performance with state fiscal policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DC.

15.

Bogue

E. G.

(2002). Twenty years of performance funding in Tennessee: A case study of policy intent and effectiveness. In Burke

J. C.

(Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 85–105). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.

16.

Bogue

E. G.

, & Troutt

W. E.

(1977). Allocation of state funds on a performance criterion: Acting on the possible while awaiting perfection. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Forum.

17.

Bradley

R. B.

, & Flowers

(2001). Getting to results in Florida. In Forsythe

D. W.

(Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government (pp. 365–416). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.

18.

Breneman

D. W.

, & Finney

J. E.

(1997). The changing landscape: Higher education finance in the 1990s. In Callan

P. M.

& Finney

J. E.

(Eds., with Bracco

K. R.

& Doyle

W. R.

), Public and private financing of higher education (pp. 30–59). Phoenix, AZ: American Council of Education and Oryx Press.

19.

Burke

J. C.

(Ed.) (2002a). Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

20.

Burke

J. C.

(2002b). Performance funding in South Carolina: From fringe to mainstream. In Burke

J. C.

(Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 195–219). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.

21.

Burke

J. C.

, & Minassians

(2003). Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or “accountability lite”: Seventh annual survey 2003. Albany: State University of New York, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

22.

Business Roundtable. (1999). Transforming education policy: Assessing 10 years of progress in the states. Washington, DC: Author.

23.

California Legislative Counsel. (2010). SB 1143. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1143&sess=PREV&house=B&author=liu

24.

Callan

P. M.

(2002). Coping with recession (Report No. 02-2). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

25.

DiMaggio

P. J.

, & Powell

W. W.

(1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. (Original work published 1983)

26.

Dougherty

K. J.

(1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press.

27.

Dougherty

K. J.

, Hare

, & Natow

R. S.

(2009, November). Performance accountability systems for community colleges: Lessons for the voluntary framework of accountability for community colleges. Report to the College Board. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=728

28.

Dougherty

K. J.

, & Hong

(2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In Bailey

& Morest

V. S.

(Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51–86). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

29.

Dougherty

K. J.

, & Natow

R. S.

(2011). Incremental and non-incremental change in long-lasting systems of performance funding: The cases of Florida and Tennessee. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

30.

Dougherty

K. J.

, Natow

R. S.

, Hare

R. J.

, Jones

, & Vega

B. E.

(2011). The politics of performance funding in eight states: Origins, demise, and change. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=875

31.

Dougherty

K. J.

, Natow

R. S.

, Hare

R. J.

, & Vega

B. E.

(2010). The political origins of state-level performance funding for higher education: The cases of Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington (CCRC Working Paper No. 22). New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

32.

Dougherty

K. J.

, Natow

R. S.

, & Vega

B. E.

(2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record, 114(3). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16313

33.

Dougherty

K. J.

, Nienhusser

H. K.

, & Vega

B. E.

(2010). Undocumented immigrants and state higher education policy: The contrasting politics of in-state tuition eligibility in Texas and Arizona. Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 123–173.

34.

Dougherty

K. J.

, & Reddy

(2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Literature review and policy responses. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=1004

35.

Dougherty

K. J.

, & Reid

(2007). Fifty states of Achieving the Dream: State policies to enhance access to and success in community colleges across the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=504

36.

Douglass

(2010, May). From chaos to order and back? A revisionist reflection on the California master plan for higher education @50 and thoughts about its future (Research and Occasional Paper Series 7.10). Berkeley: University of California, Center for the Study of Higher Education.

37.

Easterling

C. N.

(1999). Performance budgeting in Florida: To muddle or not to muddle, that is the question. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 11(4), 559–577.

38.

Edelman

(1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

39.

Erikson

R. S.

, Wright

G. C.

, & McIver

J. P.

(2005). Public opinion in the states: A quarter century of change and stability. New York, NY: Columbia University, Department of Government.

40.

Florida State Board for Community Colleges. (1998). The Florida community college accountability plan at year four: A report for South Florida Community College. Tallahassee: Author.

41.

Folger

(1989, November). Designing state incentive programs that work in higher education. In Berdahl

R. O.

& Holland

B. A.

(Eds.), Developing state fiscal incentives to improve higher education: Proceedings from a national invitational conference (pp. 44–66). Denver, CO, and College Park, MD: National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance.

42.

Fosler

R. S.

(1990). The business role in state education reform. Washington, DC: Business Roundtable.

43.

Gaventa

(1980). Power and powerlessness in an Appalachian valley. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

44.

Gray

(2004). The socioeconomic and political context of states. In Gray

& Hanson

R. L.

(Eds.), Politics in the American states (8th ed., pp. 1–30). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

45.

Hamm

K. E.

, & Moncrief

G. F.

(2004). Legislative politics in the states. In Gray

& Hanson

R. L.

(Eds.), Politics in the American states (pp. 157–193). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

46.

Harnisch

T. L.

(2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing. Higher Education Policy Brief. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

47.

Hembree

(2004). The Hancock Amendment: Missouri's tax limitation measure. Report 49-2004. Columbia: University of Missouri, Truman School of Public Affairs, Missouri Legislative Academy.

48.

Holcombe

W. N.

(1997). Florida's community colleges: Reflections and projections. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21, 351–363.

49.

Hutchens

(2007). A comparative legal analysis of state constitutional autonomy provisions for public colleges and universities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

50.

Illinois Community College Board. (1998a, May). Report of the advisory committee on a performance based incentive system. Springfield: Author.

51.

Illinois Council of Community College Presidents. (1995). Operational funding of community colleges in Illinois: A new look. Springfield: Illinois Community College Board.

52.

Jenkins-Smith

H. C.

, & Sabatier

P. A.

(1993). The dynamics of policy-oriented learning. In Sabatier

P. A.

& Jenkins-Smith

H. C.

(Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 41–56). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

53.

Kane

T. J.

, Orszag

P. R.

, & Gunter

D. L.

(2003). State fiscal constraints and higher education spending: The role of Medicaid and the business cycle. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

54.

Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. (2002). Enrollment growth and retention program guidelines. Lexington: Author.

55.

Kingdon

(1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

56.

Layzell

(1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 233–246.

57.

Levy

R. A.

(1986). Development of performance funding criteria by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. In Banta

T. W.

(Ed.), Performance funding in higher education: A critical analysis of Tennessee's experience (pp. 13–26). Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED310655)

58.

Lukes

(2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

59.

McGuinness

A. C.

(1994). State postsecondary education structures handbook, 1994. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED375787)

60.

McGuinness

A. C.

(2003). Models of postsecondary education coordination and governance in the States. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

61.

McLendon

M. K.

(2003). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In Smart

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18, pp. 57–144). New York, NY: Kluwer.

62.

McLendon

M. K.

, Hearn

J. C.

, & Deaton

(2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.

63.

McLendon

M. K.

, Heller

D. E.

, & Young

S. P.

(2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.

64.

Meijerink

(2005, December). Understanding policy stability and change. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 1060–1077.

65.

Mintrom

, & Norman

(2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.

66.

Mintrom

, & Vergari

(1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy changes. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.

67.

Missouri Business and Education Partnership Commission. (1991). Report of the Missouri Business and Education Partnership Commission. Jefferson City: Author.

68.

Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, Task Force on Critical Choices for Higher Education. (1992). Suggested statewide public policy initiatives and goals: A report to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Jefferson City: Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education.

69.

Moden

G. O.

, & Williford

A. M.

(2002). Ohio's challenge: A clash of performance funding and base budgeting. In Burke

J. C.

(Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities for performance (pp. 169–194). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

70.

Modie

(1996, November 6). Both houses of the legislature headed for Republican control. Seattle-Post Intelligencer, p. A9.

71.

Murphy

(1982). Power and authority in the sociology of education. Theory and Society, 11, 179–203.

72.

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2004). Report to the Nevada Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs. Boulder, CO: Author.

73.

Naughton

B. A.

(2004). The efficacy of state higher education accountability programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Digital Dissertations AAT 3145567)

74.

Nevada Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education. (2000). Minutes for meeting of June 8, 2000. Carson City, NV: Legislative Counsel Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/Interim/Studies/EdFunding/Minutes/IM-EdFunding-20000608-2384.html

75.

Nevada Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education. (2001). Report (Bulletin No. 01-4). Carson City, NV: Legislative Counsel Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/interim/Studies/EdFunding/Overview.htm

76.

Nevada Legislative Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs. (2004, June 17). Minutes of the Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs (Assembly Bill 203-2003 Session). Carson City, NV: Legislative Counsel Bureau.

77.

Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. (2001). 2001 fiscal report. Carson City: Author. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/fiscal/Fiscal%20Report/2001/2001FiscalReport.cfm

78.

Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (1997). Performance based program budgeting in context: History and comparison (OPPAGA 96-077A). Tallahassee, FL: Author.

79.

Osborne

D. E.

, & Gaebler

(1992). Reinventing government: How entrepreneurial government is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Plume.

80.

Petrick

(2010, February 9). Funding based on course completions: The Ohio model (v. 1.0). Presentation to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Austin, TX.

81.

Pfeiffer

J. J.

(1998). From performance reporting to performance-based funding: Florida's experiences in workforce development performance measurement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 104, 17–28.

82.

Racine

D. P.

(2006). Reliable effectiveness: A theory of sustaining and replicating worthwhile innovation. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 356–387.

83.

Rhoades

, & Sporn

(2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the U.S.: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3), 355–390.

84.

Roberts

N. C.

, & King

P. J.

(1996). Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy entrepreneur-ship and innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

85.

Ruppert

(1995). Roots and realities of state-level performance indicator systems. New Directions for Higher Education, 91, 11–23.

86.

Sabatier

P. A.

(1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In Sabatier

P. A.

& Jenkins-Smith

(Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13–40). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

87.

Sabatier

P. A.

, & Jenkins-Smith

H. C.

(1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Sabatier

P. A.

(Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

88.

Sabatier

P. A.

, & Weible

(2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In Sabatier

P. A.

(Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–222). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

89.

Scheirer

M. A.

(2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 320–347.

90.

Serban

A. M.

(1997). Performance funding for higher education: A comparative analysis (Doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Albany. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9809292)

91.

Shediac-Rizkallah

M. C.

, & Bone

L. R.

(1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice, and policy. Health Education Research, 13(1), 87–108.

92.

Shukovsky

(1997, April 24). State support for schools falls. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. B1.

93.

Slaughter

, & Leslie

(1997). Academic capitalism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

94.

Stein

R. B.

(2002). Integrating budget, assessment and accountability policies: Missouri's experiment with performance funding. In Burke

J. C.

(Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 107–132). Albany: State University of New York Press.

95.

Stein

R. B.

, & Fajen

A. L.

(1995). Missouri's Funding for Results initiative. New Directions for Higher Education, 1995(1), 77–90.

96.

Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (2011). Outcomes based formula explanation. Nashville: Author. Retrieved from http://www.state.tn.us/thec/complete_college_tn/ccta_files/outcomes_based_ff/Outcomes_Based_Formula_Explanation.pdf

97.

Thomson

S. C.

(1991, December 13). Ashcroft still wants parts of Proposition B. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 10A.

98.

Trombley

(1998). Performance-based budgeting: South Carolina's new plan mired in detail and confusion. National Cross Talk, 6(1).

99.

Tyree

L. W.

, & Hellmich

D. M.

(1995). Florida's continuing accountability experiment. Community College Journal, 65(7), 16–20.

100.

United States Bureau of the Census. (2005). Statistical abstract of the United States, 2004-2005. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

101.

Waddock

(1994). Business and education reform: The fourth wave (Report Number 1091-94-RR). New York, NY: The Conference Board.

102.

Walker

J. L.

(1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.

103.

Wright

D. L.

, Dallet

P. H.

, & Copa

J. C.

(2002). Ready, fire, aim: Performance funding policies for postsecondary education in Florida. In Burke

J. C.

(Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 137–168). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

104.

Yancey

G. W.

(2002). Fiscal equity change in the Florida community college system during the first five years after the implementation of performance funding (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3084064)

105.

Yanow

(1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

106.

Zahariadis

(2007). The multiple streams perspective: Structure, limitations, prospects. In Sabatier

(Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

107.

Zumeta

(2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for the new millennium. In Heller

D. E.

(Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 155–197). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.