1. Performance Incentives to Improve Community College Completion: Lessons from Washington State Davis Jenkins, Community College Research Center Nancy Shulock, Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy June 2011

2. Project Description  Washington State’s Student Achievement Initiative, a performance funding policy for 2-year colleges, is attracting national attention thanks to innovative features designed to address shortcomings of previous policies: Rewards colleges for increasing student attainment of intermediate milestones toward completion as well as final outcomes Colleges receive quarterly data for use in identifying and evaluating systemic reforms  Our project (2010–2012) is assessing whether the SAI model is motivating WA community and technical colleges to redesign policies and practices to improve student outcomes. We will draw lessons from the WA experience for policy makers in other states seeking to enact similar policies © 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 2 February 25, 2016

3. How are we exploring this issue?  Quantitative analysis Analysis of trends in student progression and college performance using the SAI data reported to colleges by the state Focus on correlation between college performance on SAI measures and other measures of student progression and success  Field Research Tel. interviews and site visits with 17 colleges (spring 2010) Follow-up field research with comparison sets of high-performing and low-performing colleges (spring 2012)  Interviews with policy makers in other states Telephone interviews with policy makers in other states that have adopted performance incentive policies based on the WA model (OH) or are considering doing so (CA, TX, NC) February 25, 2016© 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 3

4. What are we learning?  Key policy decisions confronting WA policy makers in developing/implementing SAI (which are also relevant to policy makers in other states): Simplicity vs. comprehensiveness in measurement framework? Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal student attainment data? Proportion of total budget that is performance- based (vs. enrollment based)? Performance funds from new appropriations or reallocated base budgets? Performance funding allocated via factors in base funding formulas vs. bonus on top of regular funding? State role in offering TA to colleges on using data for continuous improvement?  See our recent policy brief with more details: http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=880 http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=880 February 25, 2016© 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 4

5. How are we sharing our work?  Products Internal formative reports for WA SBCTC and Gates Policy briefs (1 published 2011; 1 planned 2012)  Dissemination Plan Presentation of findings and recommendations to WA college leaders (summer 2010) and WA state policy makers and advisors (2010) Conference presentations (e.g., AACC 2011) Testimony to legislators and higher education policy groups (e.g., TX Higher Education Coordinating Board 2010; CA CC Chancellor’s Student Success Task Force 2011) February 25, 2016© 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 5

6. Who will use the information we generate and how will they use it?  Audiences/Users Policy makers in WA and other states College leaders in WA and other states  Policy and Practice Implications  How to measure college performance to ensure accountability while also motivating/guiding improvements in practice?  How to reward college performance and encourage improvement in difficult fiscal environment?  How can colleges use performance data and other information to make systemic changes in practice to improve student outcomes?  Add to the evidence base, nationally, about the impact of performance funding on student outcomes © 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 6