2011 Higher Education Government Relations Conference Performance-Based Funding (PBF): A Re-Emerging Approach to Boosting Institutional Outcomes San Diego, CA December 1, 2011 Thomas L. Harnisch Policy Analyst American Association of State Colleges and Universities Washington, D. C.
Observations • Performance funding is being revisited • A mixed history of success, failure • Approaches vary considerably by state • Has both promise and pitfalls • Process and design are key to successful programs
What is Performance-Based Funding ? • State funding (partially) linked with campus outcomes • Theories: Resource dependency; incentives • Models: Output, Contracts, Set Asides • Components: Goals, Measurements and Incentives • Shifts discussions from inputs to outcomes
Metrics/Outcomes • Variety of metrics and weights in PBF systems – Credit milestones (48, 72, etc. ); retention rates – Graduation Rates – STEM Degrees – Weights applied toward enrolling nontraditional/underserved populations • Some systems allow for a “menu” of metrics
PBF has returned • Not a new solution, but popular again • Lessons learned from previous approaches • Why now? Workforce requires more graduates + less state money=improved performance required • Promotion from major players---Lumina & Gates Foundations, College Board, NGA, ECS, Obama Administration
Promises • Clarifies, reinforces institutional mission • A true statement of priorities • More transparency and accountability • Potential for productivity gains
Pitfalls • Limited portrait of performance • Mission distortion/student access concerns • Threats to quality, objections by faculty • History of program failure, abandonment
Getting Started-Process • • • Establish state goals Look for legislative champions Earn institutional support Stakeholder “Buy In” Commit to PBF for up and down budget cycles
Design • • • Key Issues: Funds, Measures, Performance Consider starting small, yet relevant Ensure institutional flexibility to meet goals Respect institutional differences Anticipate efforts to “game” the system Evaluate outcomes, recognize success
Sources • • Arthur Hauptman, “Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education, ” Financing Reforms for Tertiary Education in the Knowledge Economy (2005), Brenda Norman Albright, “Higher Education Performance Funding 2. 0 Tip Sheet, ” Lumina Foundation for Higher Education (2009), Doug Lederman, “Performance Funding 2. 0, ” Inside Higher Ed, December 17, 2008, http: //www. insidehighered. com/news/2008/12/17/perform (accessed May 9, 2011). Joseph Burke and Associates, Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance Kevin Carey, “Truth without Action: The Myth of Higher Education Accountability, ” Change Magazine (2007), Kevin J. Dougherty and Esther Hong, “Performance Accountability as Imperfect Panacea: The Community College Experience, ” Kevin J. Dougherty and Rebecca S. Natow, “The Demise of Higher Education Performance Funding Systems in Three States, ” Community College Research Center Brief (2009) http: //ccrc. tc. columbia. edu/Publication. asp? UID=693 (accessed May 9, 2011). 23 M. Crellin and others, “Catalyst for Completion: Performance-based Funding in Higher Education” New England Board of Higher Education Policy and Research (2011), http: //www. nebhe. org/info/pdf/Performance. Funding_NEBHE. pdf (accessed April 17, 2011)
Thomas L. Harnisch Policy Analyst American Association of State Colleges and Universities Washington, D. C. harnischt@aascu. org ~ 202. 478. 4660 aascu. org/policy
Скачать презентацию 2011 Higher Education Government Relations Conference Performance-Based Funding
ebe56c29d3ff4aaf955edc141f0170c9.ppt