This systematic synthesis examines the intended and unintended consequences of performance-based funding (PBF) policies in higher education. Within this synthesis, we focus particularly on evidence from research studies with strong causal inference designs in an effort to understand the impacts of these policies. PBF adoption is generally associated with null or modest positive effects on the intended outcomes of retention and graduation, but there is also compelling evidence that PBF policies lead to unintended outcomes related to restricting access, gaming of the PBF system, and disadvantages for underserved student groups and under-resourced institution types. PBF policies including equity provisions for colleges that enroll or graduate underserved student groups have been found to offset some of these unintended consequences. Based on this synthesis, we offer policy recommendations and directions for future research on PBF policies, including the need to consider variation in policy design and the broader state policy context.
AcemogluD.AutorD. H.LyleD. (2004). Women, war, and wages: The effect of female labor supply on the wage structure at midcentury. Journal of Political Economy, 112(3), 497–551.
2.
AlexanderF. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.
3.
AllenD.DadgarM. (2012). Does dual enrollment increase students’ success in college? Evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis of dual enrollment in New York City. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(158), 11–19.
4.
AnB. P. (2013). The impact of dual enrollment on college degree attainment: Do low-SES students benefit?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 57–75.
5.
AndrewsM.MoynihanD. P. (2002). Why reforms do not always have to “work” to succeed: A tale of two managed competition initiatives. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 282–297.
6.
BelascoA. S.TrivetteM. J. (2015). Aiming low: Estimating the scope and predictors of postsecondary undermatch. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(2), 233–263.
7.
BertrandM.DufloE.MullainathanS. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275.
8.
BirdsallC. (2018). Performance management in public higher education: Unintended consequences and implications of organizational diversity. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(4), 669–695.
9.
BlankenbergerB.PhillipsB. (2016). Performance funding in Illinois higher education: The roles of politics, budget environment, and individual actors in the process. Educational Policy, 30(6), 884–915.
10.
BoelscherS.SnyderM. (2019). Driving better outcomes: Fiscal year 2019 state status & typology update. HCM Strategists.
11.
BogueE. G.JohnsonB. D. (2010). Performance incentives and public college accountability in the United States: A quarter century policy audit. Higher Education Management & Policy, 22(2), 9–30.
12.
BolandW. C. (2018). Performance funding and historically black colleges and universities: An assessment of financial incentives and baccalaureate degree production. Educational Policy. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0895904818802118
13.
BolandW. C.GasmanM. (2014). America’s public HBCUs: A four state comparison of institutional capacity and state funding profiles. Penn Graduate School of Education.
14.
BorJ.VenkataramaniA. S.WilliamsD. R.TsaiA. C. (2018). Police killings and their spillover effects on the mental health of black Americans: A population-based, quasi-experimental study. The Lancet, 392, 302–310.
15.
BurkeJ. C. (1998). Performance funding indicators: Concerns, values, and models for state colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, 97, 49–60.
16.
BurkeJ. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance: Popularity, problems, and prospects. Rockefeller Institute Press.
17.
BurkeJ. C.ModarresiS. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 432–453.
18.
BurkeJ. C.ModarresiS. (2001). Performance funding programs: Assessing their stability. Research in Higher Education, 42(1), 51–70.
19.
BuurmanM.DurR. (2012). Incentives and the sorting of altruistic agents into street-level bureaucracies. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1318–1345.
20.
CardD. (1992). Using regional variation in wages to measure the effects of the federal minimum wage. ILR Review, 46(1), 22–37.
21.
CarruthersC. K.FoxW. F. (2016). Aid for all: College coaching, financial aid, and post-secondary persistence in Tennessee. Economics of Education Review, 51, 97–112.
22.
ChakrabartiR. (2013). Accountability with voucher threats, responses, and the test-taking population: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida. Education Finance and Policy, 8(2), 121–167.
23.
CielinskiA.PhamD. (2017). Equity measures in state outcomes-based funding: Incentives for public colleges to support low-income and underprepared students. Center for Law and Social Policy.
24.
CorneliusL. M.CavanaughT. W. (2016). Grading the metrics: Performance-based funding in the Florida State University System. Journal of Education Finance, 42(2), 153–187.
25.
CornwellC.MustardD.SridharD. (2006). The enrollment effects of merit-based financial aid: Evidence from Georgia’s HOPE program. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 761–786.
26.
CourtyP.KimD. H.MarschkeG. (2011). Curbing cream-skimming: Evidence on enrollment incentives. Labour Economics, 18, 643–655.
27.
CourtyP.MarschkeG. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to explicit performance incentives. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 23–56.
28.
CourtyP.MarschkeG. (2008). A general test for distortions in performance measures. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), 428–441.
29.
CunninghamA.ParkE.EngleJ. (2014). Minority-serving institutions: Doing more with less. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
30.
DadgarM.TrimbleM. J. (2015). Labor market returns to sub-baccalaureate credentials: How much does a community college degree or certificate pay?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 399–418.
31.
DaleS.KruegerA. B. (2011). Estimating the return to college selectivity over the career using administrative earning data (NBER Working Paper 17159). http://www.nber.org/papers/w17159
32.
DaleS. B.KruegerA. B. (2002). Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: An application of selection on observables and unobservables. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1491–1527.
33.
DemingD. J.FiglioD. (2016). Accountability in US education: Applying lessons from K–12 experience to higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 33–56.
34.
DesrochersD. M.HurlburtS. (2016). Trends in college spending: 2003-2013. American Institutes for Research.
35.
DominaT.McEachinA.PennerA.PennerE. (2015). Aiming high and falling short: California’s eight-grade algebra-for-all effort. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 275–295.
36.
DoughertyK. J.JonesS. M.LahrH.NatowR. S.PheattL.ReddyV. (2016a). Looking inside the black box of performance funding for higher education: Policy instruments, organizational obstacles, and intended and unintended impacts. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(1), 147–173.
37.
DoughertyK. J.JonesS. M.LahrH.NatowR. S.PheattL.ReddyV. (2016b). Performance funding for higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
38.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S. (2019). Performance-based funding for higher education: How well does neoliberal theory capture neoliberal practice. Higher Education, 80, 457–478.
39.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S.VegaB. E. (2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1–41.
40.
DoughertyK. J.ReddyV. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms? What are the impacts?ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2), 1–152.
41.
DynarskiS. (2002). The behavioral and distributional implications of aid for college. American Economic Review, 92(2), 279–285.
42.
ErwinC. P.BinderM. (2020). Does broad-based merit aid improve college completion? Evidence from New Mexico’s lottery scholarship. Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 164–190.
43.
FaveroN.RutherfordA. (2019). Will the tide lift all boats? Examining the equity effects of performance funding policies in U.S. higher education. Research in Higher Education, 61(1), 1–25.
44.
FiglioD. N.LaddH. F. (2014). School accountability and student achievement. In LaddH. F.GoertzM. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 194–210). Routledge.
45.
FriedelJ. N.ThorntonZ. M.D’AmicoM. M.KatsinasS. G. (2013). Performance-based funding: The national landscape. University of Alabama Education Policy Center.
46.
FrolichN.SchmidtE. K.RosaM. J. (2010). Funding systems for higher education and their impacts on institutional strategies and academia. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 7–21.
47.
FurquimF.CorralD.HillmanN. (2020). A primer for interpreting and designing difference-in-differences studies in higher education research. In PernaL. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 35, pp. 1–58). Springer.
48.
GándaraD. (2019). Does evidence matter? An analysis of evidence use in performance-funding policy design. The Review of Higher Education, 42(3), 991–1022.
49.
GándaraD.RutherfordA. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9483-x
50.
GarciaS. (2018). Gaps in college spending shortchange students of color. Center for American Progress.
51.
GerrishE. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66.
GopalanM.RosingerK.AhnJ. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in educational research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44, 218–243.
HarbourC. P.NagyP. (2005). Assessing a state-mandated institutional accountability program: The perceptions of selected community college leaders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(6), 445–461.
HillmanN. W. (2016). Why performance-based college funding doesn’t work. The Century Foundation.
58.
HillmanN. W.CorralD. (2018). The equity implications of paying for performance in higher education. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(14), 1557–1572.
59.
HillmanN. W.FryarA. H.Crespín-TrujilloV. (2018). Evaluating the impact of performance funding in Ohio and Tennessee. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 144–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217732951
60.
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.
61.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.GrossJ. P. K. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions?Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826–857.
62.
HoekstraM. (2009). The effect of attending the flagship state university on earnings: A discontinuity-based approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 717–724.
63.
HolmstromB. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 324–340.
64.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
65.
HornA. S.LeeG. (2019). Evaluating the accuracy of productivity indicators in performance funding models. Educational Policy, 33(5), 702–733.
66.
HoxbyC. M.AveryC. (2013). The missing “one-offs”: The hidden supply of high-achieving, low-income students. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–65.
67.
HoxbyC. M.TurnerS. (2013). Expanding college opportunities for high-achieving, low income students. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy.
68.
HoytJ. E. (2001). Performance funding in higher education: The effects of student motivation on the use of outcomes tests to measure institutional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 42(1), 71–85.
69.
HuX. (2019). Efficiency for whom? Varying impact of performance-based funding on community colleges in Louisiana. Community College Review, 47(4), 323–359.
70.
HuX.VillarrealP.III. (2018). Public tuition on the rise: Estimating effects of Louisiana’s performance-based funding policy on institutional tuition levels. Research in Higher Education, 60(5), 636–669.
JacobB. A.LevittS. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.
73.
JakobsenM. L.BaekgaardM.MoynihanD. P.van LoonN. (2017). Making sense of performance regimes: Rebalancing external accountability and internal learning. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx001
74.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
75.
JonesT. (2014). Performance funding at MSIs: Considerations and possible measures for public minority-serving institutions. Southern Education Foundation.
76.
JonesT. (2016). A historical mission in the accountability era: A public HBCU and state performance funding. Educational Policy, 30(7), 999–1041.
77.
JonesT.JonesS.ElliottK.OwensL.AssaloneA.GándaraD. (2017). Outcomes based funding and race in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
KaneT. J.RouseC. E. (1995). Labor-market returns to two- and four-year college.The American Economic Review, 85(3), 600–614.
80.
KelchenR. (2017). A look at Pell Grant recipients’ graduation rates. Brookings.
81.
KelchenR. (2018a). Do performance-based funding policies affect underrepresented student enrollment?The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 702–727.
82.
KelchenR. (2018b). Higher education accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
83.
KelchenR. (2019). Exploring the relationship between performance-based funding design and underrepresented student enrollment at community colleges. Community College Review, 47(4), 382–405.
84.
KelchenR.OrtagusJ.RosignerK. O.BrownL.VoorheesN. (2019). Profiles of state performance-based funding policies: Missouri, New York, and Tennessee. InformEd States.
85.
KelchenR.RosingerK. O.OrtagusJ. (2019). How to create and use state-level policy data sets in education research. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–14.
86.
KelchenR.StedrakL. J. (2016). Does performance-based funding affect colleges’ financial priorities?Journal of Education Finance, 41(3), 302–321.
87.
KingdonJ. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Longman.
88.
KnightW.WesselR. D.MarkleL. (2018). Persistence to graduation for students with disabilities: Implications for performance-based outcomes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(4), 362–380.
89.
KoningP.HeinrichC. (2013). Cream-skimming, parking, and other intended and unintended effects of high-powered, performance-based contracts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 461–483.
90.
LangD. W. (2016). Incentive funding meets incentive-based budgeting: Can they coexist?Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(4), 1–22.
91.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2016). Accountability pressure, academic standards, and triage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 127–147.
92.
LayzellD. T. (1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: Past, present, and future. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 233–246.
93.
LayzellD. T. (2007). State higher education funding models: An assessment of current and emerging approaches. Journal of Education Finance, 33(1), 1–19.
94.
LiA. Y. (2017). The point of the point: Washington’s Student Achievement Initiative through the looking glass of a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(3), 183–202.
95.
LiA. Y. (2019). The weight of the metric: Performance funding the retention of historically underserved students. The Journal of Higher Education, 90, 965–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1602391
96.
LiA. Y. (2020). In high demand: Performance funding policy impacts on STEM degree attainment. Educational Policy, 34(2), 312–349.
97.
LiA. Y.GándaraD.AssaloneA. (2018). Equity or disparity: Do performance funding policies disadvantage 2-year minority-serving institutions?Community College Review, 46(3), 288–315.
98.
LiA. Y.KennedyA. I. (2018). Performance funding policy effects on community college outcomes: Are short-term certificates on the rise?Community College Review, 46(1), 3–39.
99.
LiA. Y.OrtagusJ. C. (2019). Raising the stakes: Impacts of the Complete College Tennessee Act on underserved student enrollment and sub-baccalaureate credentials. Review of Higher Education, 43(1), 295–333.
100.
LiuV. Y. T.BelfieldC. R.TrimbleM. J. (2014). The medium-term labor market returns to community college awards: Evidence from North Carolina. Economics of Education Review, 44, 42–55.
101.
LucasA. M. (2010). Malaria education and educational attainment: Evidence from Paraguay and Sri Lanka. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(2), 46–71.
102.
LucasA. M.MbitiI. M. (2012). Access, sorting, and achievement: The short-run effects of free primary education in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(4), 226–253.
103.
LucasA. M.MbitiI. M. (2014). Effects of school quality on student achievement: Discontinuity evidence from Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(3), 234–263.
104.
MacfadyenL. P.DawsonS. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599.
105.
McDonnellL. M.ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.
106.
McKeown-MoakM. P. (2013). The “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Considerations, 40(2), 3–12.
107.
McKinneyL.HagedornL. S. (2017). Performance-based funding for community colleges in Texas: Are colleges disadvantaged by serving the most disadvantaged students?The Journal of Higher Education, 88, 159–182.
108.
MillerG. N.MorphewC. C. (2017). Merchants of optimism: Agenda-setting organizations and the framing of performance-based funding for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 754–784.
109.
MoeT. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.
110.
MoynihanD. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89.
111.
MullinC. M.HoneymanD. S. (2008). Accounting for equity: Performance-based budgeting and fiscal equity in Florida. Journal of Education Finance, 34, 109–138.
112.
NataleV. C.JonesS. J. (2018). Impact of institutional and student characteristics on Texas community colleges under the state’s performance funding model. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(10), 660–677.
OpoczynskiR. (2016). The creation of performance funding Michigan: Partnerships, promotion, and points. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 1–25.
115.
PernaL. W.SmithE. J. (2020). Improving research-based knowledge of college promise programs. American Educational Research Association.
116.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. Harper and Row.
117.
PolikoffM. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118(3), 341–368.
118.
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.
119.
RosingerK. O.OrtagusJ. C.KelchenR.CassellA.VoorheesN. (2020). The landscape of performance-based funding in 2020. InformED States.
120.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251–281.
121.
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.
122.
SanfordT.HunterJ. M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1–27.
123.
SerbanA. M. (1998). Opinions and attituded of state and campus policymakers. New Directions for Institutional Research, 97, 69–84.
124.
SerbanA. M.BurkeJ. C. (1998). Meeting the performance funding challenge: A nine-state comparative analysis. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(2), 157–176.
125.
ShapiroD.DundarA.HuieF.WakhunguP. K.YuanX.NathanA.BhimdiwaliA. (2018). Completing college: A national view of student completion rates–Fall 2012 cohort. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
126.
ShinJ. C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education, 60, 47–68.
127.
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.
128.
SmithJ.PenderM.HowellJ. (2013). The full extent of student–college academic undermatch. Economics of Education Review, 32, 247–261.
129.
SpenceM.ZeckhauserR. (1971). Insurance, information, and individual action. The American Economic Review, 61(2), 380–387.
130.
SpringerM. G. (2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27(5), 556–563.
131.
StevensA. H.KurlaenderM.GroszM. (2019). Career technical education and labor market outcomes: Evidence from California community colleges. Journal of Human Resources, 54(4), 986–1036.
132.
SunR.Van RyzinG. G. (2014). Are performance management practices associated with better outcomes? Empirical evidence from New York Public Schools. American Review of Public Administration, 44(3), 324–338.
133.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39(3), 222–243.
134.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN.BarakatM. (2014). State higher education performance funding for community colleges: Diverse effects and policy implications. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–31.
135.
ThorntonZ. M.FriedelJ. N. (2016). Performance-based funding: State policy influences on small rural community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(3), 188–203.
136.
UmbrichtM. R.FernandezF.OrtagusJ. C. (2017). An examination of the (un)intended consequences of performance funding in higher education. Educational Policy, 31(5), 643–673.
137.
van ThielS.LeeuwF. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.
138.
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.
139.
WardJ.OstB. (2019). The effect of large-scale performance-based funding in higher education. Education Finance and Policy.
140.
WattC.LancasterC.GilbertJ.HigerdT. (2004). Performance funding and quality enhancement at three research universities in the United States. Tertiary Education & Management, 10(1), 61–72.
141.
WaytL. K.La CostB. Y. (2016). Transitioning to performance-based state funding: Concerns, commitment, and cautious optimism. Educational Considerations, 43(2), 1–6.
WebberD. A.EhrenbergR. G. (2010). Do expenditures other than instructional expenditures affect graduation and persistence rates in American higher education?Economics of Education Review, 29, 947–958.
144.
ZhangL.NessE. C. (2010). Does state merit-based aid stem brain drain?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 143–165.
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.
