Community colleges are central to the United States’ college completion goals. A popular strategy pushed by a number of influential policy organizations and foundations is a policy of tying state funding to community college completions, otherwise known simply as performance funding. This is happening despite little to no evidence that such a strategy actually increases institutional performance.
Purpose
This study asks: To what extent does the introduction of performance funding programs impact two-year degree completion among participating states?
Population/Participants
We created a unique panel data set for the period 1990 through 2010, using states as our primary unit of analysis. The data set contains 1,050 total observations, drawing from a range of postsecondary data sources.
Research Design
We used a quasi-experimental regression technique called difference-indifferences regression technique. We also included in our model multiple control variables and year and state fixed effects.
Findings/Results
We find that the program had no effect on average and mixed results for the individual states where performance funding was associated with lower completions in six states, greater completions in four states, and inconclusive patterns in nine states.
Conclusions
We conclude that performance funding is no “silver bullet” for improving community college completions; rather, in some cases, it may interfere with national completion goals. We recommend that state policy makers seek out evidence-based alternatives for improving community college completions.
BaumS., & MaJ. (2007). Education pays: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. New York, NY: College Board.
6.
BettsJ. R., & McFarlandL. L. (1995). Safe port in a storm: The impact of labor market conditions on community college enrollments. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 741–765.
BirnbaumR. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 1–16.
9.
BoggsG. R. (2011). Community colleges in the spotlight and under the microscope. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(156), 3–22.
10.
BrewerD., GatesS., & GoldmanC. (2004). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
11.
BurkeJ. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
12.
BurkeJ. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In BurkeJ. C. (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands (pp. 1–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
BurkeJ. C., & MinassiansH. P. (2003). Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or accountability “lite.” The seventh annual survey 2003. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute.
14.
ClarkB. R. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65, 569–576.
15.
ClarkB. R. (1980). The “cooling out” function revisited. New Directions for Community Colleges, 32, 15–31.
16.
CohenA. M., & BrawerF. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Delta Cost Project. (2012). Spending: Where does the money go?Washington, DC: Author.
19.
DoughertyK. J. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 188–214.
20.
DoughertyK. J., & HongE. (2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In BaileyT. & MorestV. S. (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51–86). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21.
DoughertyK. J., NatowR. S., BorkR. J. H., JonesS. M., & VegaB. E. (2011). The politics of performance funding in eight states: Origins, demise, and change. Community College Research Center, Columbia University, New York, NY.
22.
DoughertyK. J., NatowR. S., BorkR. H., JonesS. M., & VegaB. E. (2013). Accounting for higher education accountability: Political origins of state performance funding for higher education. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–50.
23.
DoughertyK. J., & ReddyV. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations (CCRC Working Paper No. 37). Community College Research Center, Columbia University, New York, NY.
24.
DrukkerD. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 168–177.
25.
FryarA. H. (2011, June). The disparate impacts of accountability–searching for causal mechanisms. Paper presented at the 11th Public Management Research Conference, Syracuse, NY.
26.
Goldrick-RabS. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469.
27.
GorbunovA. (2004). Performance funding: Policy innovations in the era of accountability. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
28.
GoreA. (2003). Creating a government that works better and costs less: A report of the National Performance Review.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
HarnischT. L. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing.Washington, DC: AASCU.
30.
HillmanN. W., & OriansE. L. (2013). Community colleges and labor market conditions: How does enrollment demand change relative to local unemployment rates?Research in Higher Education, 54, 1–16.
31.
HillsJ. R. (1965). Transfer shock: The academic performance of the junior college transfer. Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3), 201–215.
32.
JonesD. (2012a). Performance funding: From idea to action.Washington, DC: Complete College America.
33.
JonesD. (2012b). Value-added funding: A simple, easy-to-understand model to reward performance. Washington, DC: Complete College America.
34.
LaananF. S. (1996). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of community college transfer students. Community College Review, 23(4), 69–84.
35.
LaananF. S. (2004). Studying transfer students: Part I: Instrument design and implications. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(4), 331–351.
36.
LaneJ. E., & KivistoJ. A. (2008). Interests, information, and incentives in higher education: Principal-agent theory and its potential applications to the study of higher education governance. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education (pp. 141–179). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
37.
LevinJ. S. (2000). The revised institution: The community college mission at the end of the twentieth century. Community College Review, 28(2), 1–25.
38.
LucasC. J. (2006). American higher education: A history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
McDonnellL. M., & ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.
40.
McGuinnessA. C. (1995). Prospects for state—higher education relations: A decade of grinding tensions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 85, 33–45.
41.
McKeown-MoakM. P., ZakenO., OlsonJ., VeselyR. S., Jimenez-CastellanosO., OkhremtchoukI., & Della SalaM. R. (2013). The “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Considerations, 40(2), 3–12.
42.
McLendonM. K. (2003a). 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 (pp. 57–143). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
43.
McLendonM. K. (2003b). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165–191.
44.
McLendonM. K., HearnJ. C., & DeatonR. (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.
45.
MelguizoT., KienzlG. S., & AlfonsoM. (2011). Comparing the educational attainment of community college transfer students and four-year college rising juniors using propensity score matching methods. Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 265–291.
46.
MeyerB. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161.
47.
MoeT. M. (1987). An assessment of the positive theory of “congressional dominance.”Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12, 475–520.
48.
MullinC. M. (2010). Rebalancing the mission: The community college completion challenge (AACC Policy Brief 2010-02PBL). American Association of Community Colleges.
OsborneD., & GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
51.
RabovskyT. M. (2012). Accountability in higher education: Exploring impacts on state budgets and institutional spending patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 675–700.
52.
SanfordT., & HunterJ. (2011). Impact of performance funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33).
53.
ShadishW. R., CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
54.
ShinJ. C., & MiltonS. (2004). The effects of performance budgeting and funding programs on graduation rate in public four-year colleges and universities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(22), 1–26.
55.
SnyderT. D., & DillowS. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
56.
TintoV. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
ToutkoushianR. K., & DanielsonC. (2002). Using performance indicators to evaluate decentralized budgeting systems and institutional performance. In PriestD., BeckerW., HosslerD., & St. JohnE. (Eds.), Incentive-based budgeting systems in public universities (pp. 205–226). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
VolkweinJ. F. (2007). Assessing institutional effectiveness and connecting the pieces of a fragmented university. In BurkeJ. (Ed.), Fixing the fragmented university (pp. 145–180). Bolton, MA: Anker.
60.
VolkweinJ. F., & TandbergD. A. (2008). Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education, 49(2), 180–197.
61.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62.
ZumetaW. (1998). Public university accountability to the state in the late twentieth century: Time for a re-thinking?Policy Studies Review, 15(4), 5–22.
