Search

Promise programs, or place-based tuition-free college policies, have become increasingly popular among policymakers looking to expand postsecondary attainment. In this article, we examine Tulsa Achieves, a widespread, albeit understudied type of promise program that covers the balance of students’ tuition and fees after other aid is exhausted at a single community college. Utilizing a difference-in-differences and event-study design, we investigate the role Tulsa Achieves eligibility plays in promoting or hindering vertical transfer and bachelor's degree attainment across racial/ethnic groups. We find that Tulsa Achieves eligibility is associated with increases in bachelor's degree attainment within 5 years among Native American and Hispanic students and an increased likelihood of transfer within 4 years for Hispanic students.

We examine the impact of the Texas Research Incentive Program (TRIP), a state policy that offers matching funds to incentivize private-sector donations to certain public universities. We use a national dataset and employ a generalized difference-in-differences approach with matching procedures to estimate the treatment effect of TRIP on revenues at eligible institutions. Results show that TRIP is associated with increases in revenue from private gifts and state grants/contracts, which suggests that policymakers can leverage public investment to incentivize private donations. We do not detect a statistically significant relationship between TRIP and endowments, so donations are likely used for short-term funding and do not create long-term dividends. We consider potential social consequences of selecting certain universities to benefit from incentive policies.

Promise programs are proliferating across the United States, with wide variation in their design. Using national data on 33 Promise programs affecting single, 2-year colleges, this study examines program effects on first-time, full-time college enrollments of students by race/ethnicity and gender classification. Results suggest Promise programs are associated with large percent increases in enrollments of Black and Hispanic students, especially students classified as females, at eligible colleges. Promise programs with merit requirements are associated with higher enrollment of White and Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander female students; those with income requirements are negatively associated with enrollment of most demographic groups. More generous Promise programs are associated with greater enrollment increases among demographic groups with historically higher levels of postsecondary attainment.

Efforts to improve college-completion rates have dominated higher education policy agendas. Performance-based funding (PBF) intends to improve college completion and links state funding for public colleges and universities to performance measures. One critique of PBF policies is that institutions might restrict student access. This study uses a difference-in-differences design and institution-level data from 2001 to 2014 to examine whether 4-year, public institutions become more selective or enroll fewer underrepresented students under PBF. Our findings, supported by various robustness checks, suggest that institutions subject to PBF enroll students with higher standardized test scores and enroll fewer first-generation students. PBF models tied to institutions’ base funding are more strongly associated with increased standardized test scores and enrollment of Pell students.

Extant research neglects to examine how policymakers make decisions regarding funding allocations to higher education institutions. This case study analyzed the policy process surrounding t...

The 2020 health pandemic and high-profile police murders of Black people inspired national conversations about racism and police brutality. This study examined how Intermediary Public Policy Organizations (IPPOs) discursively engaged with the racialized nature of the pandemic and the police murder of George Floyd, which have increased awareness of systemic racism in society. Our discursive analysis of IPPO statements published during these events revealed a pattern of humanizing higher education institutions, race evasive policy proposals, and a lack of policy action addressing systemic racism. IPPO evasion of race is consequential because it has the potential to limit the ability of public policy to dismantle systems of oppression and highlights the need for race-conscious policies to support Black, Indigenous, and people of color students and communities.

Building on research examining state financing for higher education, our qualitative comparative case study investigates state policymakers’ decisions for funding public higher education during the COVID-19 crisis in California and Texas. These states were purposively selected based on the size of their postsecondary sector, state partisanship, and higher education funding responses during the pandemic. Moreover, these states represent two of the largest public postsecondary enrollments nationally and serve a racially and ethnically diverse student population. Guiding our study is the Hearn and Ness (2018) framework investigating the ecology of state higher education policymaking, which offers four contextual categories that influence state policy decisions: socioeconomic context, organizational and policy context, politico-institutional context, and external context. This framework suggests underlying factors influencing the state funding process, while also providing an opportunity to expand on this theory through the unique COVID-19 context. We used deductive and inductive techniques to analyze 28 interviews with a range of actors, including state elected officials, state government staff, and higher education officials. We also examined 69 documents (state budgets, news articles, and state executive orders) to triangulate and verify our interview data. Two areas served as key events that ultimately influenced higher education funding decisions in California and Texas: (1) the preference of certain higher education institutions and (2) the availability and application of federal dollars. Furthermore, the organizational and policy context and the politico-institutional context, as defined by the Hearn and Ness framework, provided additional state-level factors that resulted in distinct responses. This study offers practical and theoretical contributions to higher education policy and practice, including highlighting the decision-making and prioritization processes of state policymakers when facing an unprecedented pandemic and crisis, and discussing common and unique factors influencing higher education policymaking in two different state contexts.

Americans are increasingly divided in their views on higher education, often in alignment with their political affiliations. This study examines how perspectives on one of the most pressing issues ...

BackgroundCollege-completion policies dominate state higher education policy agendas. Yet we know little about how policy actors make decisions—and what sources of evidence they use—within this policy domain.Focus of StudyThis study explores the use of evidence in college-completion policymaking in depth, focusing on Texas. In addition to exploring policymakers’ use of different types of information, this study examines the role played by intermediaries.Research DesignWe employed a qualitative case study design drawing on interviews with 32 policy actors engaged in college-completion policy in Texas. Our analysis consisted of both deductive coding (based on our a priori coding scheme) and inductive coding (based on emerging themes) to arrive at our four major findings.Findings/ResultsThe analysis revealed four primary findings. The first theme suggests an insular culture of college-completion policymaking: Policymakers at various levels preferred Texas-based data and rejected the notion that external groups contributed to setting the college completion agenda in Texas. Second, business groups and a business ethos permeated college-completion policymaking in Texas. Third, research evidence was seldom employed in this policy process, partly because policymakers prefer concise and timely information. Finally, the study uncovered a new tactic for supplying research employed by certain intermediaries: punchy messaging, which was effective at garnering attention but also yielded unintended consequences.Conclusions/RecommendationsOverwhelmingly, higher education policy actors tended to prefer Texas-based data. Respondents cited three major reasons for this preference: the high quality of the state higher education coordinating board's data, Texas's unique demographics, and the accessibility of statewide data. These findings reflect the mediating role that is played not only by state structural characteristics, but also by culture. Perceptions of Texas's distinctive inward-looking nature permeated our interviews and set the stage for the role that intermediaries played in the state and the preferences for information. Intermediaries wishing to inform college-completion policy activity at the state level should consider the uniqueness of the state context in supplying information. For states that are more insular, like Texas, working through internal (in-state) intermediaries may be an effective strategy. In light of our findings of preferred types of information, those intending to influence policymaking should consider making information—especially research evidence—concise and easily accessible and establish relationships with policymakers and their staff members.

Objective: We investigate whether performance funding—an increasingly prevalent state policy that allocates appropriations based on outcomes that prioritize retention and completion—places minority-serving institutions (MSIs) at a financial disadvantage due to these institutions serving a greater proportion of historically underrepresented students. Method: Using data from 2004-05 to 2014-15 within Texas and Washington, we compare state funding allocations to 2-year institutions designated as MSIs versus non-MSIs, before and after performance funding policies are implemented. We additionally compare funding allocations for each performance metric. Results: On average, MSIs in Texas and Washington are allocated the same or less in per-student state funding after performance funding compared to non-MSIs. MSIs in Texas are advantaged in performance metrics for transfers and for gateway courses in math (credit-bearing courses that serve as a “gateway” to continued study), and MSIs in Washington are advantaged in developmental education courses. However, MSIs are typically disadvantaged in metrics for degree completions. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that MSIs in Texas and Washington are not financially disadvantaged due to performance funding because the funding formulas in both states incentivize milestones in addition to outputs. We recommend that policy makers consider incorporating performance metrics for developmental education and gateway courses in addition to retention rates and degree completions, and tailor metrics to the student population of institutions to mitigate the potentially inequitable funding consequences of performance funding policies.

Performance funding is an increasingly prevalent policy state officials use to allocate a portion of state funds to public colleges and universities. Researchers have begun to evaluate the effect of these policies, finding bleak evidence of their effectiveness in yielding intended outputs and suggesting the policies may even result in limited college access for underserved students. There may also be differences in policy effects depending on performance-funding policy designs, which vary considerably across states. Of particular interest to this study are premiums—financial bonuses to institutions—for promoting access and success for specified underserved student groups. Using difference-in-differences models and an original dataset on premiums in funding models, this study evaluates the impact of premiums for underserved students in performance-funding models on selectivity and the enrollment of minority and low-income students at 4-year universities from 1993 to 2014. We find that the share of both low-income and Hispanic students increases in institutions with performance-funding premiums for underserved students compared to institutions subject to performance funding without such premiums. Effects vary depending on premium type and longevity. The findings also reveal unexpected, negative effects of premiums on Black student enrollments. Our findings suggest that, by incorporating premiums, performance-funding model designers might prevent, minimize, or reverse the negative consequences of performance funding on vulnerable student groups. However, given variation in premium effects across student groups, performance- funding model designs should be tailored to local contexts.

Numerous studies have examined “whether” and “why” policies diffuse, or the reasons for the adoption in a given government of a policy that exists in another government. This study explored the “ho...

This study takes an inventory of a particular type of intermediary organization ascendant within the state-level higher education policy: ideological think tanks. Our inventory identifies 99 think tanks: 59 affiliated with the conservative State Policy Network and 40 with the Progressive States Network. The analysis shows that state-level conservative think tanks (CTTs) are more tightly connected to national networks than are progressive think tanks (PTTs). By narrow margins, CTTs are also better funded and have more robust higher education policy activity than PTTs. The two most common policy issues—state funding and costs and affordability—represent higher education issues of equal salience to conservative and progressive organizations but from contrasting ideological perspectives. This inventory of the landscape of ideological think tanks’ activity and their supply of information has implications for future research that might examine policymakers’ demand for and utilization of ideological think tank information and services.

In this chapter, the authors use the case study method to explore how POBF policies in Florida are either a departure from or an extension of legal segregation. In order to understand the social implications of these policies, the authors first review the history of the once legally enforced segregation experienced by HBCUs, the desegregation cases that acted as legal interventions to help create equality, and the de facto segregation that often resulted from those interventions. Finally, this chapter explores whether POBF policies and resulting resource allocations work to support the mission of desegregation cases, or whether these policies are, in fact, another example of de jure segregation that ultimately results in separate and unequal institutions of higher education.

In this chapter, the authors propose a new framework for using higher education funding and policy to advance equity issues. This new framework challenges the existing framework that focuses on inputs and outputs, ignores issues of institutional capacity, and rarely involves campus leaders in policy development and implementation. This chapter also addresses how POBF in particular is changing the purposes/goals of higher education. Finally, it provides recommendations for policymakers advancing equity within existing policy structures.

This chapter addresses the effects of POBF measures on four-year MSIs in states that have made a significant investment in performance-based funding measures. Two states, Ohio and Tennessee, serve as the focus of this chapter, and their POBF data are analyzed in depth. In both states, a significant amount of school funding is dependent on performance measures, and HBCUs are faring seemingly well. Considering these outcomes, it is imperative to understand how states are accounting for equity in their policy to ensure MSIs are not disadvantaged. Thus, this chapter gives a detailed overview of factors considered in both Ohio’s and Tennessee’s funding formulas and how those factors specifically affect MSIs in those states.

This chapter examines the discourse of diversity as it is framed by POBF models. Using critical discourse analysis, we map the prevalence and parameters of the discourse of diversity within POBF models. Our findings will illustrate the limits and potential negative implications of the framing within POBF models for racial diversity and equity. Recommendations for policymakers, institutional leaders, and researchers about how POBF can be more reflective and purposeful towards supporting institutional racial diversity and inclusion goals will be offered.

This chapter explains the evolution and characteristics of performance and outcomes-based funding (POBF) and why it matters to achieving equity in higher education. It also describes the research questions, methods, and theoretical frameworks guiding the book.

This chapter includes an overview of POBF policies in Texas and discusses how these policies affect the distribution of state resources to two-year MSIs in the state. Texas uses the Student Success Points model for incorporating POBF into the community college instructional appropriation. In addition to examining the components of the Student Success Points model, the chapter includes an analysis of funding trends before and after POBF and of MSI and non-MSI’s performance on each Student Success Points funding metric. The chapter concludes with recommendations for model design.

This chapter reviews data from a qualitative interview study conducted with POBF advocates and critics from various organizations focused on higher education, campus leaders, and academic researchers. As more states move toward substantial POBF formulas, it is crucial to understand how these policies work to advantage or disadvantage our most vulnerable student populations. In this chapter, we explore higher education leaders’ insights and experiences with POBF, specifically targeting leaders who have been publicly vocal about the ways the policies have helped or inhibited equity.

In this chapter, the authors use a critical policy framework to examine the sociopolitical climate of three states with rapidly increasing populations of color—Texas, California, and Maryland. These states are examples of active, failed, and proposed legislation for performance-based funding designed to increase accountability for better outcomes in higher education. The authors’ examination offers a critical perspective on how different factors within a state context may shape the ways in which differently resourced institutions are considered in the creation and adoption of POBF policy.