Publications

This article discusses the origins, implementation, and impacts of neoliberal policies by examining the case of performance-based funding for higher education in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. It provides recommendations for how to improve performance funding and how to construct policy models that go behind the narrow imaginings of neoliberal theory.

This book is the culmination of a three-year study of performance funding in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Based on interviews with state officials and staff at 18 public institutions, the book delves into the policy implications of performance funding, which ties state financial support of colleges and universities to institutional performance.

In addition to drawing on the existing body of research on performance funding, this journal article reports data from a study of the implementation of performance funding in three leading states (Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee) and its impacts on three universities and three community colleges in each state.

In this book, the authors explore the various forces, actors, and motivations behind the adoption, discontinuation, and transformation of performance funding systems.

Based on interviews with over 200 college personnel in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee, this paper identifies and analyzes the deliberative structures used by colleges and universities to respond to performance funding demands.

This brief reviews what states can do to support public colleges and universities so they can effectively respond to the new demands placed on them by performance funding policies.

This paper identifies and analyzes the types and numbers of unintended impacts—actual or potential—of state performance funding policies on higher education institutions in three states: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.

This paper examines the major obstacles that hinder higher education institutions from responding effectively to the demands of performance funding programs in three states: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.

This paper examines the ways that universities and community colleges in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee have altered their policies, practices, and programs to respond to the demands of performance funding programs.

This study examines the primary policy instruments through which state performance funding systems influence higher education institutions in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.

This paper summarizes findings from a large study on the implementation and impacts of performance funding in three states that are regarded as leaders in that movement: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.

This article reviews the forms, extent, origins, implementation, impacts (intended and unintended), and policy prospects of performance funding.

This paper examines the political forces supporting the enactment of performance funding 2.0 programs—in which performance funding is embedded into base state funding for higher education—in three leading states.

This brief summarizes the research on the impacts of performance funding and suggests ways policymakers implementing performance funding programs can address obstacles and avoid unexpected outcomes.

This study reviews the theories of action that advocates of performance funding have espoused for higher education in three states that are leaders in performance funding: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee.

This monograph reviews the national and state literature on the forms and impacts of performance funding, and it includes policy recommendations and suggestions for further research.

Based on findings from a three-year study of Washington State’s Student Achievement Initiative, this policy brief offers lessons for state leaders seeking to design effective higher education performance funding systems.

This article discusses political forces that shaped performance funding policies in eight states: Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, California, and Nevada.

This report assesses how and to what extent the Student Achievement Initiative has encouraged two-year public colleges in Washington State to take steps to improve student achievement.

This paper examines the performance of Washington State’s two-year colleges under the Student Achievement Initiative, a policy to reward colleges for improvements in student achievement.

Over the past three decades, almost half of all states have implemented some form of performance funding in an effort ...

This policy brief examines key issues raised by Washington State's experience with the Student Achievement Initiative model of performance funding for community and technical colleges.

This report discusses political forces that shaped performance funding policies in eight states: Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, California, and Nevada.

The experiences of three states that dropped performance funding (Missouri, Washington, and Florida) are contrasted with those of a fourth (Tennessee) that has retained it more than 30 years.

This report examines the origins of state performance funding in six states and concludes by drawing lessons for policymakers.

This paper examines how performance funding systems in two states with long-lasting systems have changed over time and what political and social conditions explain the changes.

This report discusses findings and implications of a study commissioned by the College Board to inform the development of the Voluntary Framework of Accountability for Community Colleges.

To investigate the unstable institutionalization of performance funding in higher education, this paper examines the cessation of performance funding programs in Illinois, Washington, and Florida.

This report presents findings from an independent qualitative review of Washington State's Student Achievement Initiative, which rewards colleges for improvements in student outcomes.

This policy brief contains an analysis of the impacts of performance accountability on community colleges in six states.

This paper addresses the issue of performance funding and its implications for California's community colleges. It was prepared for the State Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges.