State funding for public higher education institutions is crucial in supporting college access and completion, particularly among students from historically under-represented groups, yet little is known about the mechanisms that states use to allocate funds and how they are affected by financial challenges. This article provides the first detailed…

Performance-based funding (PBF) policies that closely link higher education funding to performance metrics are common in the United States. Similar to other performance management systems, evidence suggests PBF policies have unintended impacts, such as cream-skimming. More specifically, evidence shows the fiscal incentives of PBF encourage…

A.C.A. §6-61-234 (Act 148 of 2017) directs the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) to adopt polices developed by the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE) necessary to implement a productivity-based funding model for state-supported institutions of higher education. At its October 27, 2017 meeting, the AHECB approved the…

This chapter describes a comprehensive set of best practices for the evaluation of state formula funding models and state higher education funding in general, based on existing practices within the United States. It represents a review of practices that lead to stakeholder engagement as an objective, collaborative process.

Performance-funding for higher education diffused across the U.S. following the Great Recession that led to funding cuts for the system. Postsecondary funding never returned to pre-Recession levels, and public colleges are held to higher expectations even as the funding they might use to meet these expectations has diminished. This is a challenge…

This paper examined how performance-based funding (PBF) policies shape institutional performance and student outcomes for public four-year or above historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). By conducting a systematic review of the literature, the findings expanded on two main areas, as underscored by the pieces reviewed: (a) how the…

This article examines and interrogates the formulas used to determine funding at both the designation and institutional levels for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the Coronavirus…

While there has been disinvestment into higher education, there is also a significant disparity in state investment for certain types of public institutions, specifically for less-resourced institutions such as HBCUs (Williams, 2020). There is not much literature that examines the relationship of formula funding or state appropriations on…

A.C.A. §6-61-234 (Act 148 of 2017) directs the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) to adopt polices developed by the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE) necessary to implement a productivity-based funding model for state-supported institutions of higher education. At its October 27, 2017 meeting, the AHECB approved the…

This study examined the connection of faculty status and impacts on student success metrics and performance-based funding outcomes. While the topics of adjunct faculty and performance-based funding are well documented in the available literature, there does not seem to be a study that connects the two issues to determine if faculty status impacts…

In 2011, North Carolina implemented a tiered funding model for community colleges in an attempt to address program cost differentiation. In 2014, the funding model changed from a three-tiered model to a four-tiered model with additional funds for courses that address skills gaps and lead to higher-wage jobs. The purpose of this study was to…

Most Americans today need some education beyond high school to secure a well-paying job, and higher education is a key factor in social and economic mobility. But higher education is not accessible to all students. To further equalize opportunity, states must understand options for improving the way they fund higher education. America's public…

The United States cannot meet its higher education goals without changing the way it funds public colleges and universities. Current funding models do not sufficiently advance fully scaled improvements. Instead, today's models create unfunded mandates: Colleges are required to increase completion rates, but they do not receive essential funding…

This publication provides governmental and higher education decision-makers a statewide perspective of Arkansas public higher education finance for the 2021-23 biennium, as well as trends for the past several years. It also contains a detailed financial profile of each institution and presents a basis for comparative assessments of revenue sources…

As part of the national agenda of accountability, state governments established performance funding policy to hold public institutions accountable for their performance. Accountability allows state policymakers to incentivize institutions to address state demands of increasing graduation rates in return for performance allocations. Although the…