Funding Public Colleges and Universities for Performance

Popularity, Problems, and Prospects

By Joseph C. Burke

Subjects: Higher Education
Imprint: Distribution Partners
Paperback : 9780914341963, 323 pages, October 2002

Alternative formats available from:

Table of contents


1. The New Accountability
Assessing Performance
The Financial Crisis of Higher Education
Performance Reporting
Traditional Budgeting
Performance Funding: An Attractive Policy Alternative

2. Performance Funding and Budgeting: Old Differences and New Similarities
Traditional Budgeting
Performance Funding and Performance Budgeting
Current Status and Future Prospects


Performance Funding
Performance Budgeting
Dual Programs


Regional, Economic, and Political Relations
Impact on Institutional Improvement
Merging Models

3. Performance Funding Indicators: Imperfect Necessities
Creating Comparative Core Indicators
Indicator Content
Few Common Funding Indicators
Indicator Types
External or Internal Concerns
Policy Values
Models of Excellence

4. Performance Funding: Campus Reactions
The Survey
Familiarity and Dissemination
Stakeholder Influence
Performance as a Budgeting Factor
Purposes of Performance Funding
Policy Values
Indicator Preferences
Success Standards
Campus Use of Performance Results
Impact on Campus Performance
Achievements of Performance Funding Purposes
Difficulties of Performance Funding
Advantages of Performance Funding
Disadvantages of Performance Funding
Desired Changes
Program Future

5. Twenty Years of Performance Funding in Tennessee: A Case Study of Policy Intent and Effectiveness
Anticipating the Call to Accountability: Policy Heritage
Evolution of Indicators and Standards
Institutional History of Points and Dollars Earned
Evidence of Policy Impact and Effectiveness
Survey and Case Study Evidence
Reconciling Improvement and Accountability: A Summary

6. Integrating Budget, Assessment and Accountability Policies: Missouri’s Experiment with Performance Funding
State Economic Conditions and Revenues
A Commitment to Assessment
Effectiveness Indicators
Performance Funding Emerges as a Major Missouri Initiative
First Performance Funding Budget Recommendation
State Commitment to Fund Results
Withstanding a Change in Leadership
Funding for Results Principles
Increased Attention
A Shift in Dialogue About FFR


FFR Funding
Changes in FFR Elements
Impact of FFR on Institutional Behavior



7. Ready, Fire, Aim: Performance Funding Policies for Public Postsecondary Education in Florida
Florida Background


Demographics and Enrollments
State Economic Conditions and Education Appropriations
Government and Governance


Precursors to Performance Funding


Initiative Funding
Accountability Report


The Government Performance and Accountability Act of 1994: The Arrival of Performance Budgeting


Community Colleges and Performance Budgeting
State University and Performance Budgeting


Workforce Development and Education Fund
The Impact of Performance Funding


Impact on Community Colleges
Impact on State Universities
A Lack of Leadership


The Future: More Changes on the Horizon

8. Ohio’s Challenge: A Clash of Performance Funding and Base Budgeting

Higher Education Governance
Search for a Rational Budgeting Model
Performance Funding


Performance Challenge
Access Challenge
Jobs Challenge
Research Challenge
Success Challenge


Changing Leaders Bring Funding Increases
Preliminary Assessment
Strengths and Weaknesses


Performance Reporting
The Clash of Performance Funding and Base Budgeting


9. Performance Funding in South Carolina: From Fringe to Mainstream
Increased Coordination and New Leadership
A New Leader and A New Commission
The Commission Takes the Challenge
Phase Two: Campus Consultation and Covert Changes
Phase Three: Adjusting the Controls
Phase Four: Radical Revisions
Impact of Performance Funding on Sector Results

10. Performance Funding: Easier to Start Than Sustain
Arkansas: A Collaborative Process Produces a Surprising Product
Productivity Funding in the 1995-97 Biennium
A New Governor And New Priorities
The Demise of Performance Funding
Colorado: Up, Down, and Around Again
Funding Priority Areas
Performance Reporting
A New Performance Funding System
Kentucky: A Tale of Two Governors
Government and Governance
The Jones Commission
Accountability Versus Autonomy
Performance Funding in Minnesota: Hardly A Milestone

11. Performance Funding: Assessing Program Stability
Tentative Assumptions


Data Analysis


Findings and Assumptions
Assessing the Stability of Continuing Programs
South Carolina


South Carolina


Summary: All Three States

12. Arguments About Performance Funding: Rhetoric and Reality
Arguments For and Against Performance Funding
Arguments For Performance Funding
Arguments Against Performance Funding
Some Suggestions

Conclusion: Linking Funding to Performance: A Trend, Not a Fad


Notes on Contributors


Looks at the progress, popularity, and problems related to states linking funding of public colleges and universities to performance.


This is the first comprehensive study of performance funding of public colleges and universities, which directly ties some state allocations to institutional results on designated indicators. The book examines performance funding as a national phenomenon, identifying the champions and critics of the program, the arguments for and against its adoption, the most common performance measures used for funding, the characteristics that separate stable from unstable initiatives, and the inherent possibilities and problems.

The authors include case studies of performance funding in Tennessee, Missouri, Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina, and explore the reasons why Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, and Minnesota first adopted and later abandoned their programs. They examine problems with performance funding, such as the reluctance of the academic community to agree on reasonable goals for undergraduate education or the failure to apply performance funding to the academic departments that are mostly responsible for institutional results on many of the performance indicators. The contributors conclude that although the future of performance funding remains cloudy, one aspect is becoming clear—taxpayers are unlikely to continue to accept the proposition that performance should count in all endeavors except state funding for higher education.

Contributors include E. Grady Brogue, Joseph C. Burke, Juan C. Copa, Patrick Dallet, Terri Lessard, Gary Moden, Dr. Robert B. Stein, Michael Williford, and David J. Wright.

Joseph C. Burke was a campus President, Provost, and Interim Chancellor of the State University of New York system and is currently Director of the Rockefeller Institute's Higher Education Program.