1. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER September 18, 2014 Centre for Global Higher Education, UCL Institute of Education University of London April 21, 2016 Kevin J. Dougherty Fulbright Scholar, Birkbeck College, University of London and Associate Professor, Teachers College, Columbia University Performance Funding for Higher Education in the United States: Origins, Discontinuations, Transformations

2. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Forms and Extent of State Performance Funding in the United States Conundrums of Performance Funding Development Research Data and Theoretical Perspectives Origins: Socio-Political Causes Discontinuations: Socio-Political Causes Transformations: Possible Futures for US Performance Funding Topics

3. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Over 30 states operate performance funding (PF) programs now Base state appropriations for public HE on performance metrics – graduation and transfer numbers – retention rates – credit progression rates e.g. number reaching 30 or 60 credits – completion of remedial education – job placement Share of state HE funding: average is 5-10% but as high as 90% PF1.0 and 2.0 –PF 1.0: bonus over and above base state funding; typically, small amount of funding: 1-5% of state appropriations – PF 2.0: Indicators embedded in base state funding; proportion of state appropriations usually much higher: 25-90% Sources: Dougherty & Natow (2015); National Conference of State Legislatures (2016); Snyder (2015) Forms and Extent

4. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Origins: –Why has it spread so far? Over 30 states now have it. –Who has been behind it and why? Is it simply business and its governmental adherents? Discontinuations: 2/3 of adopting states –Why does this occur given the popularity of PF? –Is it because PF does not work? Transformations: How will PF change in the future –Will PF growth be affected by evidence about its impacts (intended and unintended)? –What new performance metrics might be added? Conundrums of Performance Funding

5. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Data –Qualitative research in 8 states: FL, IL, IN, MO, OH, SC, TN, WA 173 interviews with HE officials (state and institutional), state elected officials and staff, business leaders, researchers –Multivariate statistical analyses of performance funding adoption Theoretical Perspectives –Generally: accountability in education; performance management in government –Origins: Advocacy coalition, policy entrepreneurship, and policy diffusion perspectives; theory of the state and institutional theory –Discontinuation: theories of policy demise and program sustainability in policy studies –Policy futures: policy implementation and policy incrementalism Data and Perspectives

6. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Wave 1: 1979-2000 –21 states establish PF programs for first time –All but three of these take PF 1.0 form (bonus funding) Interregnum: 2001-2006: 4 states adopt PF for first time Wave 2: 2007-present –13 states adopt PF programs for first time –3/4 of these take PF2.0 form (base embedded funding) Origins – Two Waves

7. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Supporters –State elected officials (especially GOP legislators) –Business (direct and indirect power) –State HE boards and HE institutions Supporters’ Motives –Increase efficiency and effectiveness of higher education institutions. Market-oriented methods seen as key means. Strong element of symbolic politics. –Find new means of securing more funds for higher education in time of fiscal stringency. Source: Burke (2002); Dougherty & Natow (2015) Wave 1 Origins - Support

8. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Policy windows –Spread of neo-liberal policy discourse –Growing importance of HE but concern about its effectiveness and efficiency –State budget squeeze and anti-tax mood –Change in party control, particularly GOP –Policy spillover from K-12 education Policy learning: internal and external sources Wave 1 Origins – Facilitating Conditions

9. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Opponents: –State universities: mostly passive resistance –Community colleges (SC only) Motives –PF provides state officials with excuse to restrict state funding of higher education. –PF intrudes on autonomy of higher education institutions. –PF programs fail to tailor performance indicators to differing institutional missions and student bodies. Wave 1 Origins - Opposition

10. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Differences from Wave 1 origins –Greater impact of the economy (Great Recession) –Greater role of governors –Greater role of external policy actors e.g. Gates and Lumina foundations, Complete College America –Changed motivation of state higher education boards Source: Dougherty & Natow (2015) Wave 2 Origins

11. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Little evidence that PF has signif. impact (Dougherty et al., in press; Hillman et al., 2015; Tandberg & Hillman, 2014). However, lack of PF impact has not played role in PF discontinuation. Sharp drop in state HE funding  protect base funds Higher education institution unhappiness: –Hold back system for PF –Perception that PF used inappropriate indicators –Perception of insufficient consultation with HE institutions –Perception of erosion of HE institutional autonomy Loss of key government supporters Weakening of business interest in PF Sources: Burke (2002); Dougherty & Natow (2015) Discontinuation: Causes

12. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Continuing Spread or Stalling and Decline? –Continuing spread of PF Continuing rise both in HE importance and in concern about its effectiveness and efficiency Continuation of fiscal pressure on government –Stalling and decline of PF Negative data on intended impacts and unintended impacts Loss of policy champions Rising institutional opposition due to cuts in HE funding, etc. Addition of New Performance Metrics? –Job placement and income attainment? –Learning outcomes assessment? [akin to TEF] Source: Dougherty & Natow (2015); Dougherty et al. (in press); Hillman et al. (2015) Transformations: Possible Futures

13. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Burke, J. (2002). Financing Public Colleges and Universities for Performance. Albany: SUNY, Rockefeller Institute. Dougherty, K.J., Jones, S., Lahr, H., Natow, R., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (in press 2016). Performance Funding for Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Dougherty, K. J., & Natow, R. S. (2015). The Politics of Performance Funding: Origins, Discontinuations, and Transformations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance Funding for Higher Education: What are the mechanisms? What are the impacts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37 (4), 501-519. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2016). Performance funding for higher education. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/issues- research/educ/performance-funding.aspx Snyder, M.J. (2015). Driving Better Outcomes: Typology and Principles to Inform Outcomes-Based Funding Models. Washington, DC: HCM Strategists. Tandberg, D. A, & Hillman, N. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and causal relationships. Journal of Education Finance, 39(3), 222-243. Sources

14. PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER PRESENTATION TITLE IN HEADER / MONTH XX, 2012 COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER Please visit us on the web at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu where you can download presentations, reports, and briefs, and sign-up for news announcements. We’re also on Facebook and Twitter. Community College Research Center Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University 525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY 10027 E-mail: ccrc@columbia.edu Telephone: 212.678.3091 For more information