More States Attaching Strings to College Aid

A raft of incentive programs in states across the country have failed to produce hoped-for results.

Focus of states: College students.  
National Journal
Sophie Quinton
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sophie Quinton
Dec. 5, 2013, 4 p.m.

Aware that a grow­ing num­ber of jobs re­quire a col­lege de­gree, more states are ty­ing their fund­ing levels for state col­leges and uni­versit­ies to wheth­er stu­dents com­plete courses and gradu­ate. Six­teen states base at least some of their high­er-edu­ca­tion al­loc­a­tions on per­form­ance, and nine oth­ers are mov­ing in that dir­ec­tion, ac­cord­ing to Com­plete Col­lege Amer­ica, a non­profit group.

This fall, Ohio began link­ing 50 per­cent of its fund­ing of four-year col­leges to the num­ber of stu­dents they gradu­ate. Next year, 100 per­cent of state fund­ing for two-year col­leges will hinge on a set of per­form­ance meas­ures, in­clud­ing course com­ple­tion.

On the sur­face, the tough-love re­quire­ments make per­fect sense. When stu­dents flounder, they waste both their own time and fin­an­cial-aid dol­lars. When they drop out, they lose earn­ing po­ten­tial, and their states lose po­ten­tial eco­nom­ic growth. The pub­lic money in­ves­ted in their edu­ca­tion goes down the drain.

The prob­lem is, in­de­pend­ent stud­ies that try to isol­ate the ef­fects of per­form­ance fund­ing on out­comes, such as de­gree com­ple­tion, have found little evid­ence that the pro­grams ac­tu­ally work. A re­cent stat­ist­ic­al ana­lys­is by re­search­ers at Flor­ida State Uni­versity and the Uni­versity of Wis­con­sin (Madis­on) ex­amined data from 1990 to 2010, and it con­cluded that the ex­ist­ence of a per­form­ance fund­ing pro­gram had, on av­er­age, no sig­ni­fic­ant ef­fect on stu­dents’ de­gree com­ple­tion. In fact, after five years, states with per­form­ance fund­ing ac­tu­ally ex­per­i­enced a de­crease in as­so­ci­ate-de­gree com­ple­tion.

Two-year col­leges would seem to be prime tar­gets for per­form­ance for­mu­las, be­cause they of­ten at­tract stu­dents at risk of drop­ping out — and, in­deed, many who en­roll fail to com­plete their de­gree. Four-year state uni­versit­ies serve high­er num­bers of af­flu­ent and white stu­dents who, stat­ist­ics show, are more likely to gradu­ate than the low-in­come, first-gen­er­a­tion, and minor­ity stu­dents who tend to be dis­pro­por­tion­ately rep­res­en­ted at com­munity col­leges.

But many com­munity col­leges aren’t able to in­vest in the tools, such as ad­visers and tu­tor­ing pro­grams, that can keep stu­dents on track to gradu­ate. “They can’t real­loc­ate re­sources in the way that a flush re­search uni­versity can,” says Dav­id Tand­berg, an as­sist­ant pro­fess­or at Flor­ida State Uni­versity and a coau­thor of the ana­lys­is. Pub­lic re­search uni­versit­ies spend about three times as much per stu­dent as com­munity col­leges do and can draw on mul­tiple rev­en­ue streams, from alumni dona­tions to re­search grants.

Pro­ponents of per­form­ance-based fund­ing say states are get­ting sav­vi­er about us­ing fin­an­cial in­cent­ives to change the way col­leges serve stu­dents. The policies that Tand­berg and his col­leagues re­viewed re­flec­ted the ef­forts of 25 states, many of which ad­op­ted and then dropped — and in some cases later re­vived — per­form­ance-fund­ing policies dur­ing the peri­od. States most of­ten offered bo­nuses to in­sti­tu­tions on top of reg­u­lar, en­roll­ment-based ap­pro­pri­ations.

Ohio star­ted ty­ing a por­tion of its base ap­pro­pri­ations to per­form­ance fund­ing in the late 1990s. From 2002 to 2009, re­wards for spe­cif­ic suc­cesses — such as award­ing more de­grees, at­tract­ing re­search dol­lars, and provid­ing job train­ing — ac­coun­ted for 8 to 10 per­cent of high­er-edu­ca­tion fund­ing in the state. Ohio’s new pro­gram links more money to per­form­ance and of­fers a nu­anced set of met­rics. “If you’ve de­clared that you’re no longer fund­ing en­roll­ments and are only fund­ing course and de­gree com­ple­tions, that is much more likely to change cam­pus activ­ity,” says Richard Pet­rick, a former vice chan­cel­lor of the Ohio Board of Re­gents.

Yet the Ohio As­so­ci­ation of Com­munity Col­leges wor­ries that per­form­ance in­cent­ives will send some col­leges in­to a death spir­al in which poor ini­tial per­form­ance means less fund­ing, and less fund­ing fur­ther di­min­ishes a col­lege’s abil­ity to serve stu­dents. Ac­cord­ing to the as­so­ci­ation’s cur­rent mod­els, a small col­lege that has worked with a na­tion­al non­profit on per­form­ance-based mech­an­isms for years will likely see a 25 per­cent in­crease in fund­ing next year. A large urb­an cam­pus will likely see a 12.5 per­cent cut.

The as­so­ci­ation helped design the met­rics, which are still be­ing tweaked, for two-year schools. It will likely re­com­mend that the state set aside ad­di­tion­al money to help schools im­prove. The cur­rent struc­ture has col­leges fight­ing for a share of a fixed pot of money. “By nature, if you have a fi­nite pot, there will al­ways be win­ners and losers,” says Kar­en Raf­in­ski, in­ter­im pres­id­ent of the as­so­ci­ation.

Crit­ics say it’s not enough to pre­sume that put­ting more money at stake will force col­leges to do a bet­ter job edu­cat­ing their stu­dents. “That as­sumes that the fun­da­ment­al obstacle to re­sponse is simply kind of an in­sti­tu­tion­al in­at­ten­tion or lack of mo­tiv­a­tion. But a lot more could be in­volved,” says Kev­in Dougherty, an as­so­ci­ate pro­fess­or of high­er edu­ca­tion and edu­ca­tion policy at Columbia Uni­versity’s Teach­ers Col­lege.

For am­bi­tious per­form­ance-fund­ing pro­grams to work, states need to make sure col­leges have the ca­pa­city to re­spond. In­sti­tu­tions that don’t know how, or can’t af­ford, to le­git­im­ately im­prove stu­dent out­comes could eas­ily turn to quick fixes: lower­ing de­gree re­quire­ments, be­com­ing more se­lect­ive in their ad­mis­sions, or pres­sur­ing fac­ulty to give every­one a passing grade. The pur­suit of more out­come-based money might in­deed change cam­pus activ­ity, but it might also drive big­ger un­in­ten­ded con­sequences.

Des­pite Ohio’s long-stand­ing com­mit­ment to per­form­ance fund­ing, today just 53 per­cent of stu­dents in state-fun­ded four-year col­leges and uni­versit­ies earn bach­el­or’s de­grees in six years, be­low the 59 per­cent na­tion­al av­er­age. For state-fun­ded com­munity col­leges, the rate for two-year de­gree com­ple­tion for first-time, full-time stu­dents — ad­mit­tedly a minor­ity of the stu­dent pop­u­la­tion — is 13 per­cent, also be­low the na­tion­al av­er­age. In this case, the re­cord of gov­ern­ments try­ing to af­fect be­ha­vi­or sug­gests that money, re­gard­less of wheth­er it’s spent or with­held, is rarely the only an­swer.

UP­DATE: Richard Pet­rick notes that Ohio’s old per­form­ance fund­ing for­mula didn’t ex­pli­citly re­ward col­leges for in­creas­ing the num­ber of bac­ca­laur­eate or as­so­ci­ates de­grees. Ac­cord­ing to Ohio Board of Re­gents data, Ohio saw gains in what it did in­centiv­ize: de­creas­ing time to de­gree for uni­versity stu­dents, in­creas­ing de­gree com­ple­tion for at-risk uni­versity stu­dents, in­creas­ing third-party-fun­ded re­search activ­ity, in­creas­ing non­cred­it re­lated job train­ing, and in­creas­ing en­roll­ment at com­munity col­leges. Tand­berg’s team didn’t ac­count for the dif­fer­ences between state for­mu­las; it simply looked for a re­la­tion­ship between the ex­ist­ence of a per­form­ance-fund­ing pro­gram and de­gree com­ple­tion. Re­gard­less of a state’s stated goals, Tand­berg says, it’s hard to be­lieve that poli­cy­makers wouldn’t want more stu­dents to gradu­ate. 

What We're Following See More »
Trump Goes After Germany In Tweet
0 minute ago
Cohn Rules Out Easing Russian Sanctions
0 minute ago
MAY 18
Trump Comms Director Resigns
7 minutes ago

Mike Dubke, Donald Trump's communications director, has resigned his post in the White House. Dubke offered his resignation on May 18, but offered to stay on through the completion of Trump's first foreign trip to allow for a smoother transition. Trump immediately accepted Dubke's resignation when it was offered. There have been weeks of rumblings that Trump was considering a major shakeup to his advisers, specifically citing Trump's discontent with his communications shop.

Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
4 days ago
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.