Seeking greater accountability in higher education, many states have adopted performance funding, tying state financial support of colleges and universities directly to institutional performance based on specific outcomes such as student retention, progression, and graduation. Now in place in over thirty states, performance funding for higher education has been endorsed by the US Department of Education and major funders like the Gates and Lumina foundations. Focusing on three states that are regarded as leaders in the movement—Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee— Performance Funding for Higher Education presents the findings of a three-year research study on its implementation and impacts.

Written by leading authorities and drawing on extensive interviews with government officials and college and university staff members, this book · describes the policy instruments states use to implement performance funding; · explores the organizational processes colleges rely on to determine how to respond to performance funding; · analyzes the influence of performance funding on institutional policies and programs; · reviews the impacts of performance funding on student outcomes; · examines the obstacles institutions encounter in responding to performance funding demands;· investigates the unintended impacts of performance funding.

The authors conclude that, while performance funding clearly grabs the attention of colleges and leads them to change their policies and practices, it also encounters major obstacles and has unintended impacts. Colleges subject to performance funding are hindered in posting good results by inappropriate performance measures, insufficient organizational infrastructure, and the commitment to enroll many students who are poorly prepared or not interested in degrees. These obstacles help explain why multivariate statistical studies have failed to date to find a significant impact of performance funding on student outcomes, and why colleges are tempted to resort to weakening academic quality and restricting the admission of less-prepared and less-advantaged students in order to improve their apparent performance.

These findings have wide-ranging implications for policy and research. Ultimately, the authors recommend that states create new ways of helping colleges with many at-risk students, define performance indicators and measures better tailored to institutional missions, and improve the capacity of colleges to engage in organizational learning.

Acknowledgements 1. Introduction Widespread Adoption of Performance Funding The Different Forms of Performance Funding Conceptualizing How Performance Funding Works Chapter Contents and Preview of Findings 2. Research Perspectives, Questions, and Methods Existing Scholarship on the Impacts of Performance Funding and Its Limitations Policy Instruments Organizational Changes Student Outcomes Obstacles to Effective Functioning Unintended Impacts Overall Limitations Enlisting Insights from Other Bodies of Literature Performance Management in Public Agencies Policy Design: Policy Instruments and their Strengths and Weaknesses Data-Driven Decision Making and Organizational Learning in Higher Education Policy Implementation Principal-Agent Theory Conceptual Framework Research Questions Research Methods 3. Policy Instruments and their Immediate Impacts Financial Incentives Little Initial Impact on Institutional Finances Explaining the Low Initial Impact on Institutional Finances Perceived Impact of Financial Incentives on Institutional Behavior Communication of State Program Goals and Methods State Communication College Communication Variations in Awareness of State Goals and Methods Perceived Impact of Awareness of State Goals and Methods on College Efforts Communication of Institutional Performance on the State Metrics State Communication of Institutional Performance College Communication of Institutional Performance Variations in Awareness of Institutional Performance Perceived Impact of Awareness of Institutional Performance Building Up Institutional Capacity to Respond to Performance Funding What State Officials Were Doing Institutional Officials' Assessment of the State Effort to Build Capacity Disaggregating Our Main Patterns Differences by State Differences by Type of Institution: Community Colleges and Universities Differences by Estimated Organizational Capacity of Institutions Summary and Conclusions 4. Organizational Learning in Response to Performance Funding Deliberative Processes Used to Respond to Performance Funding General Administrative Deliberative Processes Special Purpose Deliberative Structures Informal Deliberative Structures Variations in Deliberative Processes Variations by State Variation by Type of Institution Variations by Expected Institutional Capacity Aids and Hindrances to Deliberation Organizational Commitment and Leadership Communication and Collaboration Time and the Opportunity to Deliberate on New Policies and Practices Timely and Relevant Data Variations in Aids and Hindrances Differences by State Differences by Type of Institution Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions 5. Changes to Institutional Policies, Programs, and Practices Perceptions about the Impact of Performance Funding Ratings of the Impact of Performance Funding on Institutional Changes Reasons Given for Not Rating the Impact of Performance Funding ""High"" The Joint Influence of Several Different Factors Changes in Academic Policies, Practices, and Programs Developmental Education Changes STEM-Field Academic Changes General Curricular Changes Changes to Instructional Techniques: Technology/Online Education Student Services Changes Advising and Counseling Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction Orientation and First-Year Programs Tuition and Financial Aid Policies Registration and Graduation Procedures Restructuring Student Services Departments and Staffing Other Student Services Changes Isomorphism and the Institutionalization of Campus Changes Disaggregating Our Main Patterns Differences by State Differences by Institutional Type Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions Chapter 6: Student Outcomes Descriptive Data Indiana Ohio Tennessee Multivariate Study Findings Studies Specific to Our Three States Studies of Performance Funding outside Our Three States U. S. Performance Funding Outcomes Outside of Higher Education Summary and Conclusions Chapter 7: Obstacles to Effective Response Student-Body Composition Inadequate Preparation for College Non-Degree Seekers Lower Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Its Financial Burdens Inappropriate Performance Funding Measures Insufficient Institutional Capacity Insufficient State Funding of Higher Education Institutional Resistance to Performance Funding Insufficient Knowledge of Performance Funding Variations Within Our Main Findings Differences by State Differences by Institutional Type Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions Chapter 8: Unintended Impacts of Performance Funding Restrictions of Student Admission General Restrictions Raising Admission Requirements Selective Student Recruitment Directing Institutional Aid to Better Prepared Students Weakening of Academic Standards Lowering Academic Demands in Class (Grade Inflation) Reducing Degree Requirements Compliance Costs Cost of Improving Institutional Research Capacity Increased Workload Reduced Institutional Cooperation Lower Faculty and Staff Morale Less Faculty Voice in Academic Governance Narrowing of Institutional Mission Variations Within Our Main Findings Differences by State Differences by Institutional Type Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusions Key Findings Policy Instruments Organizational Learning Institutional Changes Student Outcomes Obstacles to Responding to Performance Funding Unintended Impacts Differences within These Main Patterns Implications for Policy Reducing Unintended Negative Impacts Reducing Obstacles to Effectively Responding to Performance Funding The Importance of Extensive Institutional Consultation and Periodic Review Implications for Research Concluding Thoughts Appendixes Appendix A: The Nature and History of Performance Funding in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee Appendix B: Interview Protocol for State Officials Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Community College Administrators and Faculty Appendix D: Interview Protocol for University Administrators and Faculty Notes References Index