The completion agenda is the dominant theme in higher education policy in the United States today, and one of the primary strategies advocated in the agenda is performance funding in budgeting for public institutions. Illinois is one example of a state that has attempted to implement performance funding as a means of directing the behavior of public institutions toward meeting state goals. This study explores lessons and limitations found in performance funding implementation in Illinois through the lens of Rubin’s model of the determinants of budgeting including the roles of environment, budget processes, and the strategies of individuals involved.
AlbrightB. (1998). The transition from business as usual to funding for results: State efforts to integrate performance measures in higher education budgetary process. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
2.
AlexanderF. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411-431.
3.
BardachE. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.
BurkeJ. C. (2002a). Performance funding: Assessing program stability. In BurkeJ. C. (Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 243-264). Albany: State University of New York Press.
6.
BurkeJ. C. (2002b). Performance funding: Easier to start than sustain. In BurkeJ. C. (Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 219-242). Albany: State University of New York Press.
7.
CarnevaleA.SmithN.StrohlJ. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
8.
CasselC.SymonG. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
15.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S. (2009). The demise of higher education performance funding systems in three States. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=693
16.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S. (2010, February). Continuity and change in long-lasting state performance funding systems for higher education: The cases of Tennessee and Florida (CCRC Working Paper No. 18). New York, NY: Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=743
17.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S.VegaB. (2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16313
18.
DoughertyK.NatowR.HareR.JonesS.VegaB. (2011). The politics of performance funding in eight states: Origins, demise, and change. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
19.
DoughertyK.ReddyV. (2011). A review of the literature on the impacts of performance funding on higher education institutions. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
20.
DoughertyK.ReddyV. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms what are the impacts?ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
EveredR.LouisM. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “Inquiry from the outside.”Academy of Management Review, 6, 385-395.
23.
EwellP. T.JonesD. P. (2006). State-level accountability for higher education: On the edge of a transformation. New Directions for Higher Education, 135, 9-16.
24.
HarnischT. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
25.
Illinois Board of Higher Education. (2008). Illinois public agenda for college and career success. Available from http://www.1illinois.org/
JenkinsD.EllweinT.BoswellK. (2009). Formative evaluation of student achievement initiative “learning year” (Report to the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges and College Spark Washington). New York, NY: Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University.
LayzellD. (1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level. Research in Higher Education, 40, 233-246.
40.
LichtenbergerE.WittM. A.BlankenbergerB.FranklinD. (2014). Dual credit/dual enrollment and data driven policy implementation. Journal of Community College Research and Practice, 38(11), 959-979.
41.
LincolnY.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
MazmanianD. A.SabatierP. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
43.
McClendonM. 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, 1-24.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag-2011-en
46.
OrrK.BennettM. (2012). Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research. Public Administration Review, 72, 487-495.
47.
OsborneD.HutchinsonP. (2009). The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis. New York: Basic Books.
48.
PerlmanB. J. (2011). The great recession and compensation practices: New rules for compensation?State and Local Government Review, 43, 205-207.
49.
RubinI. S. (2010). The politics of public budgets. In StilmanR.J.II (Ed.), Public administration: Concepts and cases (9th ed., pp. 345-359). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
50.
RubinI. S. (2013). The politics of public budgets (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.
51.
RuppertS. (1995). Roots and realities of state-level performance indicator systems. New Directions for Higher Education, 91, 11-23.
RutherfordA.RabovskyT. (2014). Evaluating impacts of performance funding policies on student outcomes in higher education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 185-208.
54.
SabloffP. L. W. (1997). Another reason why state legislatures will continue to restrict public university autonomy. Review of Higher Education, 20, 141-162.
55.
ShulockN. (2011). Concerns about performance-based funding and ways that states are addressing the concerns. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, Sacramento State University.
56.
ShulockN.Moore (2002). An accountability framework for California higher education: Informing public policy and improving outcomes. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, Sacramento State University.
57.
TandbergD. A. (2006). State-level higher education interest group alliances. Higher Education in Review, 3, 25-49.
58.
TandbergD. A. (2010). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of higher education. Educational Policy, 24, 735-778.
59.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W. (2013). State performance funding for higher education: Silver bullet or red herring? (WISCAPE Policy Brief). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.wiscape.wisc.edu/docs/WebDispenser/wiscapedocuments/pb018.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
60.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39(3), 222-243.
61.
ThomasC. S.HrebenarR. J. (2004). Interest groups in the states. In GrayV.HansonR. L. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed., pp. 100-128). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
WellmanJ. (2010, July27). Higher education financing trends. Presentation to the Illinois Higher Education Finance Study Commission. Retrieved from http://www.ibhe.org/SJR88/schedule.htm
66.
YinR. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
67.
ZumetaW. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for the new millennium. In HellerD. E. (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 155-197). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
