Denisa Gándara

Exploring the ‘How’ in Policy Diffusion: National Intermediary Organizations’ Roles in Facilitating the Spread of Performance-Based Funding Policies in the States

ABSTRACT 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 “how” of policy diffusion by focusing on college completion policies, especially performance funding. In particular, we examined the roles that intermediaries play in state-level college completion policy diffusion. Data are from 3 states and include observations of policy events, documents, and interviews with 56 participants, including state policy actors and intermediary representatives. This analysis, grounded in conceptual models of policy diffusion, revealed that diffusion occurs at various stages of the policy process, not just adoption. The study also demonstrated the coercive roles that intermediaries can play in promoting policies and revealed how intermediaries facilitate, and sometimes limit, policy learning, which is one of the primary mechanisms by which policies diffuse. By focusing on an underexplored conceptual model of policy diffusion, the national interaction model, this analysis shed light on the role played by intermediaries in state-level college completion policymaking.

Equity or Disparity: Do Performance Funding Policies Disadvantage 2-Year Minority-Serving Institutions?

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.

Policy Actors, Advocates, and Critics: The Promotion and Critique of Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding’s Impact on Equity

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.

Impacting the Whole Community: Two-Year Minority-Serving Institutions and Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding in Texas

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.

Show Me the Outcomes! The Emergence of Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding in Higher Education

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.

Between Words and Action: The Problem with POBF Indictors for Achieving Racial Diversity

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.

Double or Nothing, States Betting It All on Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding and the Implications for Equity

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.

Reparations and Rewards: Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding and De Jure to De Facto Segregation in Higher Education Systems

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.

A Critical Analysis of the Sociopolitical Climate for POBF in Three States

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.

Toward a New Framework for Funding for Equity

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.