Suchergebnisse

This study examines the primary policy instruments through which state performance funding systems influence higher education institutions in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors interviewed personnel at nine community colleges and nine universities about the use of four policy instruments: (1) financial incentives, (2) communication of program goals and methods, (3) communication about institutional performance, and (4) enhancement of colleges' capacities to improve student outcomes. The authors examine the immediate impacts of these instruments on college budgets, campus awareness of performance funding goals and institutional performance, and institutional capacity, as well as their impacts on efforts to improve student outcomes. In all three states, policymakers relied mainly on financial incentives to induce change at community college and university campuses. State officials also made efforts to communicate with campus leaders and staff about performance funding and institutional performance, though these efforts varied in their intensity and their level of campus penetration. The authors find very limited evidence of state efforts to build campus-level capacity for organizational learning and change. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution.

A new form of performance funding often called performance funding 2.0 (PF 2.0) represents a major shift in performance funding. Unlike earlier forms of performance funding that took the form of a bonus on top of the base state funding for higher education, PF 2.0 is embedded into the base funding itself. PF 2.0 programs are seen as promising means to significantly improve institutional performance due to the fact that they typically tie a larger portion of state funding to performance indicators than do PF 1.0 programs. Additionally, PF 2.0 programs aim to be more stable than PF 1.0 programs, as PF 2.0 performance indicators are written into the regular state funding formula itself and are not separate programs that can be easily dropped. Using three perspectives within policy theory—the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy Entrepreneurship theory, and policy diffusion theory—this paper examines the political forces supporting the enactment of PF 2.0 in three leading states and compares these forces with those involved in the enactment of PF 1.0 performance funding programs.

This study reviews the theories of action espoused by state-level performance funding advocates and implementers in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The study found that these espoused theories of action are incompletely articulated, with significant gaps in the specification of policy instruments, desired institutional changes, and possible obstacles and unintended impacts that need to be countered. Performance funding is conceived largely as stimulating changes in institutional behavior and student outcomes by providing financial inducements and securing institutional buy-in. Less attention is paid to other policy instruments, such as providing information on institutional performance to the colleges and building up the capacity of institutions to engage in organizational learning and change. The states' espoused theories of action for performance funding are, thus, narrower than those for state and federal K-12 accountability programs, which put much more emphasis on information provision and capacity building. Moreover, the espoused theories of action for performance funding in the three states miss important possible obstacles to and unintended impacts of performance funding. This report argues that insufficiently articulating the theories of action for performance funding makes it less likely that it will be successful and avoid undue harm.