We examined how performance-based funding (PBF) for higher education institutions in Tennessee, Ohio, and Indiana affects bachelor’s degree completion, admission practices, and the enrollment of underserved students. Utilizing data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, we employed an event study analysis, in addition to a canonical difference-in-differences and coarsened exact matching strategy. The event study results revealed no effect in Tennessee, whereas bachelor’s degree completion may have a delayed positive effect in Ohio and Indiana. Interestingly, Indiana institutions funded based on performance increased their institutional selectivity immediately after the funding was enacted, whereas underrepresented students’ enrollment results differed among subgroups across states. We conclude by offering a critical review of the policy regimes and recommending fruitful areas for future research.
AbadieA.AtheyS.ImbensG. W.WooldridgeJ. (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? (No. w24003). National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AndrewsR. J.DesJardinsS.RanchhodV. (2010). The effects of the Kalamazoo Promise on college choice. Economics of Education Review, 29(5), 722–737.
3.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84, 395–415.
4.
BesleyT.CaseA. (2000). Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. The Economic Journal, 110(467), 672–694.
5.
BiewenM.SchwerterJ. (2022). Does more maths and natural sciences in high school increase the share of female STEM workers? Evidence from a curriculum reform. Applied Economics, 54, 1889–1911.
6.
BlackwellM.IacusS.KingG.PorroG. (2009). cem: Coarsened exact matching in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(4), 524–546.
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), 1–22.
9.
BrewerM.CrossleyT. F.JoyceR. (2018). Inference with difference-in-differences revisited. Journal of Econometric Methods, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jem-2017-0005
10.
CallahanK.MeehanK.SlaughterA.ShawK.WainsteinL.StullG.DuffyM. (2017). A mixed methods examination of outcomes-based funding in Tennessee. Annual Conference of the Association of Education and Finance Policy, Washington, DC, United States.
11.
CameronA. C.GelbachJ. B.MillerD. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), 414–427.
12.
CareyJ. (2014). State share of instruction report. Ohio Board of Regents.
13.
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: Center for Post-Secondary and Economic Success.
14.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S. (2015). The politics of performance funding for higher education: Origins, discontinuations, and transformations. JHU Press.
FaveroN.RutherfordA. (2020). Will the tide lift all boats? Examining the equity effects of performance funding policies in U.S. higher education. Research in Higher Education, 61, 1–25.
17.
FirestoneW. A. (1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18–24.
18.
FloresS. (2010). The first state dream act: In-state resident tuition and immigration in Texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 435–455.
19.
FurquimF.CorralD.HillmanN. (2019). A primer for interpreting and designing difference-in-differences studies in higher education research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 35, 1–58.
20.
GándaraD.RutherfordA. (2020). Completion at the expense of access? The relationship between performance-funding policies and access to public 4-year universities. Educational Researcher, 49(5), 321–334.
21.
GarcesL. M. (2012). Racial diversity, legitimacy, and the citizenry: The impact of affirmative action bans on graduate school enrollment. The Review of Higher Education, 36, 93–132.
22.
HagoodL. P. (2019). The financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 189–213.
23.
HartmanE.HidalgoF. D. (2018). An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 1000–1013.
24.
HearnJ. C. (2015). Outcomes-based funding in historical and comparative context. Lumina Issue Papers. Lumina Foundation for Education.
25.
HeckmanJ. J. (2000). Causal parameters and policy analysis in economics: A twentieth century retrospective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 45–97.
HillmanN.CorralD. (2017). The equity implications of paying for performance in higher education. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(14), 1757–1772.
28.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.GrossJ. P. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions?The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826–857.
29.
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.
30.
HollandP. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.
31.
HollyN.FultonM. (2017). Outcomes-based funding: What is the issue and why does it matter?Policy snapshot. Education Commission of the States.
32.
Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2017). Indiana performance funding review.
33.
JohnsonN.YanagiuraT. (2016). Early results of outcome-based funding in Tennessee. Lumina Issue Papers. Lumina Foundation.
34.
JonesT.JonesS.ElliottK. C.Russell OwensL.AssaloneA. E.GándaraD. (2017). Outcomes-based funding and race in higher education. Springer.
35.
KelchenR. (2018). Do performance-based funding policies affect underrepresented student enrollment?The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 702–727.
36.
KelchenR.StedrakL. J. (2016). Does performance-based funding affect colleges’ financial priorities?Journal of Education Finance, 41(3), 302–321.
37.
KeldermanE. (2019). The rise of performance-based funding: How colleges are adapting in the new age of accountability. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
38.
KingG.NielsenR.CoberleyC.PopeJ. E.WellsA. (2011). Comparative effectiveness of matching methods for causal inference. Unpublished Manuscript, 15(1), 41–67.
39.
LongN. E. (1958). The local community as an ecology of games. American Journal of Sociology, 64(3), 251–261.
40.
MacKinnonJ. G.WebbM. D. (2018). The wild bootstrap for few (treated) clusters. The Econometrics Journal, 21(2), 114–135.
41.
MiaoK. (2012). Performance-based funding of higher education: A detailed look at best practices in 6 states. Center for American Progress.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2012). Prosocial values and performance management theory: Linking perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance, 25(3), 463–483.
NessE. C.DeupreeM. M.GándaraD. (2015). Campus responses to outcomes-based funding in Tennessee: Robust, aligned, and contested. Final report to Tennessee Higher Education Commission and Ford Foundation.
47.
NisarM. A. (2015). Higher education governance and performance based funding as an ecology of games. Higher Education, 69(2), 289–302.
48.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.
49.
PorterS. R. (2011). Do college student surveys have any validity?The Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 45–76.
50.
ReddyV. T.LahrH. E.DoughertyK. J.JonesS. M.NatowR. S.PheattL. E. (2014). Policy instruments in service of performance funding: A study of performance funding in three states (CCRC Working Paper No. 75). Columbia University.
51.
RoodmanD.NielsenM. Ø.MacKinnonJ. G.WebbM. D. (2019). Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest. The Stata Journal, 19(1), 4–60.
52.
RorisonJ.VoightM.EngleJ. (2016). Employing postsecondary data for effective state finance policymaking. Lumina Issue Papers. Lumina Foundation.
53.
RubinD. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322–331.
54.
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.
55.
SanfordT.HunterJ. M. (2011). Impact of performance funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1–27.
56.
SelingoJ.Van Der WerfM. (2016). Linking appropriations for the Texas State Technical College System to student employment outcomes. Lumina Foundation.
57.
ShinJ. C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education, 60(1), 47–68.
SnyderM.BoelscherS. (2018). Driving better outcomes: Fiscal year 2016 state status and typology update. HCM Strategists.
60.
SnyderM.FoxB. (2016). Driving better outcomes: Fiscal year 2016 state status and typology update. HCM Strategists.
61.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 222–243.
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.
64.
WardJ.OstB. (2021). The effect of large-scale performance-based funding in higher education. Education Finance and Policy, 16, 92–124.
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.
