Previous studies have shown that state performance funding policies do not increase baccalaureate degree production, but higher education scholarship lacks a rigorous, quantitative analysis of the unintended consequences of performance funding. In this article, we use difference-in-differences estimation with fixed effects to evaluate performance funding in Indiana. We find that performance funding did not increase the number of graduates and instead led to declining admission rates and increased selectivity at Indiana’s public universities. When compared with surrounding states, we find limited evidence that the effects of performance funding could disproportionately limit college access for Indiana’s low-income and minority applicants.
AshenfelterO. (1978). Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 47-57.
2.
BantaT. W.RudolphL. B.Van DykeJ.FisherH. S. (1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 23-45.
3.
BlankenbergerB.PhillipsA.Performance funding in Illinois higher education: The roles of politics, budget environment, and individual actors in the process. Educational Policy, 30(6):884–915. doi:10.1177/0895904814556748
4.
BogueE. G.JohnsonB. D. (2010). Performance incentives and public college accountability in the United States: A quarter century policy audit. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(2), 9-30.
5.
BrandJ. E.XieY. (2010). Who benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneous economic returns to higher education. American Sociological Review, 75, 273-302.
6.
BurkeJ. C.MinassiansH. P. (2003). Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or accountability “lite”: Seventh annual survey 2003. New York City: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
7.
CarriganS. D. (2008). Formula funding, the Delaware study, and the University of North Carolina. New Directions for Institutional Research, 140, 65-78.
8.
CavanaughJ. C.GarlandP. (2012). Performance funding in Pennsylvania. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 34-39.
9.
ColbeckC. L. (2002). State policies to improve undergraduate teaching: Administrator and faculty responses. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 3-25.
10.
Coordinating Board of Missouri Department of Higher Education. (2012). Performance funding model: Recommendations of the Performance Funding Task Force. Retrieved from http://dhe.mo.gov/documents/PerformanceFundingReport.pdf
11.
CrellinM.AaronD.MabeD.WilkC. (2011). Catalyst for completion: Performance-based funding in higher education. New England Board of Higher Education. Retrieved from www.nebhe.org/info/pdf/PerformanceFunding_NEBHE.pdf
DoughertyK. J.ReddyV. (Eds.). (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms? What are the impacts? (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 39, No. 2). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
15.
FloresS. (2010). The first state dream act: In-state resident tuition and immigration in Texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 435-455.
16.
FordingR. C.SossJ.SchramS. F. (2007). Devolution, discretion, and the effect of local political values on TANF sanctioning. Social Service Review, 81, 285-316.
17.
GarcesL. M. (2012). Racial diversity, legitimacy, and the citizenry: The impact of affirmative action bans on graduate school enrollment. Review of Higher Education, 36, 93-132.
18.
HallC. E. (2011). “Advocacy philanthropy” and the public policy agenda: The role of modern foundations in American higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest. (UMI No. 1500712)
19.
HarnischT. L. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing (Policy brief). American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://aascu.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5062
20.
HeinrichC. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62, 712-725.
21.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.FryarA. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,37(4), 501–519. doi:10.3102/0162373714560224
22.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.GrossJ. P. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions?The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 826-857.
McLendonM. K. (2003). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17, 165-191.
34.
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, 1-24.
35.
MettlerS. (2002). Bringing the state back in to civic engagement: Policy feedback effects of the GI Bill for World War II veterans. American Political Science Review, 96, 351-365.
MoynihanD. P. (2009). The politics measurement makes: Performance management in the Obama era. The Forum, 7(4), 1-21.
38.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2012). Prosocial values and performance management theory: Linking perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance, 25, 463-483.
National Governors Association. (2010). Complete to compete: Common college completion metrics. Washington, DC: Education Division, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
41.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
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, 185-208.
43.
SanfordT.HunterJ. M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1-30.
44.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
45.
SchneiderA.SidneyM. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory?Policy Studies Journal, 37, 103-119.
ShinJ. C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education, 60, 47-68.
48.
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). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/download/177/303
TandbergD. A. (2010). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24, 735-778.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39, 222-243.
53.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W.BarakatM. (2014). State higher education performance funding for community colleges: Diverse effects and policy implications. Teachers College Record, 116, 1-31.
van ThielS.LeeuwF. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 267-281.
56.
VolkweinJ. F.TandbergD. A. (2008). Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education, 49, 180-197.
57.
WaltersG. (2012, Winter). It’s not so easy: The completion agenda. Liberal Education, pp. 34-39.
58.
WichowskyA.MoynihanD. P. (2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management. Public Administration Review, 68, 908-920.
59.
WolfC. (1979). A theory of nonmarket failure: Framework for implementation analysis. Journal of Law & Economics, 22, 107-139.
60.
ZhangL. (2009). Does state funding affect graduation rates at public four-year colleges and universities?Educational Policy, 23, 714-731.
