Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Efforts to improve college-completion rates have dominated higher education policy agendas. Performance-based funding (PBF) intends to improve college completion and links state funding for public colleges and universities to performance measures. One critique of PBF policies is that institutions might restrict student access. This study uses a difference-in-differences design and institution-level data from 2001 to 2014 to examine whether 4-year, public institutions become more selective or enroll fewer underrepresented students under PBF. Our findings, supported by various robustness checks, suggest that institutions subject to PBF enroll students with higher standardized test scores and enroll fewer first-generation students. PBF models tied to institutions’ base funding are more strongly associated with increased standardized test scores and enrollment of Pell students.

Keywords

access equity higher education state educational policies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(2015). College policy focus moves over time from access to completion. Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2015/04/college_conversation_shifts_from_access_to_completion.html

American Institutes for Research. (2013). Predictors of postsecondary success. American Institutes for Research. http://www.ccrscenter.org/sites/default/files/CCRS%20Center_Predictors%20of%20Postsecondary%20Success_final_0.pdf

Bell

Fryar

A. H.

Hillman

(2018). When intuition misfires: A meta-analysis of research on performance-based funding in higher education. In Hazelkorn

Coates

McCormick

A. C.

(Eds.), Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education (pp. 108–124). Edward Elgar.

Berry

F. S.

Berry

W. D.

(1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.

Bettinger

E. P.

Long

B. T.

Oreopoulos

Sanbonmatsu

(2012). The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1205–1242.

Birdsall

(2018). Performance management in public higher education: Unintended consequences and the implications of organizational diversity. Public Performance and Management Review, 41(4), 669–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1481116

Birnbaum

(1988). Problems of governance, management, and leadership in academic institutions. In How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership (pp. 27–29). Jossey-Bass.

Bowen

H. W.

(1977). Investment in learning. In Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. Jossey-Bass.

Brewer

D. J.

Gates

S. M.

Goldman

C. A.

(2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. Transaction.

10.

Cahalan

Perna

L. W.

Yamashita

Wright

Santillan

(2018). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States: Historical trend report. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD).

11.

Cataldi

E. F.

Bennett

Chen

(2018). First-generation students college access, persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/B&B/

12.

Cheon

S. H.

(2017). Blowing in the wind: A study for Granger causality between managerial strategy and organizational performance. Public Management Review, 19(5), 686–704.

13.

Chetty

Friedman

J. N.

Saez

Turner

Yagan

(2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). National Bureau of Economic Research.

14.

Desrochers

D. M.

Hurlburt

(2016). Trends in college spending: 2003–2013. American Institutes for Research.

15.

Dougherty

K. J.

Natow

R. S.

(2015). The politics of performance funding for higher education: Origins, discontinuations, and transformations. JHU Press.

16.

Dougherty

K. J.

Natow

R. S.

(2019). Analysing neoliberalism in theory and practice: The case of performance-based funding for higher education (Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper Series No. 44). www.researchcghe.org

17.

Dougherty

K. J.

Pheatt

Natow

R. S.

Reddy

(2016). Performance funding for higher education. JHU Press.

18.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

19.

Fiorina

(1982). Divided government. Longman.

20.

Gándara

(2020). How the sausage is made: An examination of a state funding model design process. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(2), 192–221.

21.

Gándara

Rutherford

(2018). Mitigating unintended impacts? The effects of premiums for underserved populations in performance-funding policies for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 59(6), 681–703.

22.

Goodman-Bacon

(2019). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing (No. w25018). National Bureau of Economic Research.

23.

Hagood

L. P.

(2019). The financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 189–213.

24.

Hillman

N. W.

Tandberg

D. A.

Gross

J. P. K.

(2014a). Market-based higher education: Does Colorado’s voucher model improve higher education access and efficiency? Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9326-3

25.

Hillman

Tandberg

Gross

(2014b). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions? Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826–857. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0031

26.

Hillman

Tandberg

Fryar

(2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 501–519.

27.

Hillman

N. W.

Hicklin Fryar

Crespín-Trujillo

(2018). Evaluating the impact of performance funding in Ohio and Tennessee. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 144–170.

28.

Hoxby

C. M.

(2009). The changing selectivity of American colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 95–118.

29.

Jacobson

L. S.

LaLonde

R. J.

Sullivan

D. G.

(1993). Earnings losses of displaced workers. American Economic Review, 83(4), 685–709.

30.

Jones

Elliott

K. C.

Owens

L. T. R.

Assalone

A. E.

Gándara

(2017). Outcomes based funding and race in higher education: Can equity be bought? https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49436-4

31.

Kantrowitz

(2012). The college completion agenda may sacrifice college access for low-income, minority and other at-risk students. http://www.finaid.org/educators/20120910completionagenda.pdf

32.

Kelchen

(2018a). Do performance-based funding policies affect underrepresented student enrollment? Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 702–727.

33.

Kelchen

(2018b). Higher education accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.

34.

Kelchen

(2019). Exploring the relationship between performance-based funding design and underrepresented student enrollment at community colleges. Community College Review, 47(4), 382–405.

35.

Kelchen

Rosinger

K. O.

Ortagus

J. C.

(2019). How to create and use state-level policy data sets in education research. AERA Open, 5(3), 233285841987361. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419873619

36.

Kelchen

Stedrak

L. J.

(2016). Does performance-based funding affect colleges’ financial priorities? Journal of Education Finance, 41(3), 302–321.

37.

Lahr

Pheatt

Dougherty

K. J.

Jones

S. M.

Natow

R. S.

Reddy

(2014). Unintended impacts of performance funding on community colleges and universities in three states (CCRC Working Paper No. 78). Community College Research Center. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Performance-Funding.html

38.

Lane

J. E.

Kivisto

J. A.

(2008). Interests, information, and incentives in higher education: Principal-agent theory and its potential applications to the study of higher education governance. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18, pp. 141–179). Agathon Press.

39.

Lester

(2014). The completion agenda: The unintended consequences for equity in community colleges. In Paulsen

M. B.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 423–466). Springer Netherlands.

40.

(2018a). Lessons learned: A case study of performance funding in higher education. Third Way. https://www.thirdway.org/report/lessons-learned-a-case-study-of-performance-funding-in-higher-education

41.

A. Y.

(2018b). Performance funding policy impacts on STEM degree attainment. Educational Policy, 34(2), 312–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818755455

42.

A. Y.

Zumeta

(2016). Performance funding on the ground: Campus responses and perspectives in two states. TIAA Institute. https://www.tiaainstitute.org/publication/performance-funding-ground-campus-responses

43.

Lohfink

M. M.

Paulsen

M. B.

(2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 409–428.

44.

McLendon

M. K.

Hearn

J. C.

Mokher

(2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713.

45.

Moe

T. M.

(1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739–777.

46.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Percentage of recent high school completers enrolled in 2-year and 4-year colleges, by income level: 1975 through 2014 [Table]. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_302.30.asp

47.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). Number and percentage distribution of first-time postsecondary students starting at 2- and 4-year institutions during the 2011–12 academic year, by attainment and enrollment status and selected characteristics: Spring 2014 [Table]. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_326.50.asp

48.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). Percent of undergraduate students receiving Pell grants. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/answer/8/35

49.

Ness

E. C.

Deupree

M. M.

Gándara

(2015). Campus responses to outcomes-based funding in Tennessee: Robust, aligned, and contested. Tennessee Higher Education Commission.

50.

Rabovsky

(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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur069

51.

Redford

Hoyer

K. M.

(2017). First-generation and continuing-generation college students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences. U.S. Department of Education.

52.

Reeves

Halikias

(2017). Race gaps in SAT score highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility. Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

53.

Rutherford

Rabovsky

(2014). Evaluating impacts of performance funding policies on student outcomes in higher education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 185–208.

54.

Sanford

Hunter

J. M.

(2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 33. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/949

55.

Tandberg

D. A.

(2010). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416–450.

56.

Tandberg

D. A.

Hillman

N. W.

(2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39(1), 222–243.

57.

Toutkoushian

R. K.

Hillman

N. W.

(2012). The impact of state appropriations and grants on access to higher education and outmigration. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 51–90.

58.

Umbricht

M. R.

Fernandez

Ortagus

J. C.

(2017). An examination of the (un)intended consequences of performance funding in higher education. Educational Policy, 31(5), 643–673.

59.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.11 MB

Completion at the Expense of Access? The Relationship Between Performance-Funding Policies and Access to Public 4-Year Universities

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material