This book examines how Performance or Outcomes Based Funding (POBF) policies impact racial equity in higher education. Over the last decade, higher education has become entrenched in a movement that holds colleges and universities more accountable to its supporters. There are pressures to answer questions about student outcomes and performance, the value of education, the effectiveness of instructors, and the ability of existing leaders to manage efficiently and effectively. It is within this climate that states have adopted POBF policies. Through POBF, public colleges and universities receive state funding through formulas that no longer rely solely on student enrollment, but are instead based on student outcomes. This book provides an overview for policymakers of how racial equity has been addressed, the impact of these approaches, and recommendations for moving forward.

Ultimately, the authors recommend that states create new ways of helping colleges with many at-risk students, define performance indicators and measures better tailored to institutional missions, and improve the capacity of colleges to engage in organizational learning.

After first appearing in 1979 in Tennessee, performance funding for higher education went on to be adopted by another 26 states. This monograph reviews research on a multitude of states to address these questions: • What impacts does performance funding have on institutional practices and, ultimately, student outcomes? • What obstacles and unintended effects do performance funding encounter? This monograph finds considerable impacts on institutional practices, weak impacts on student outcomes, substantial obstacles, and sizable unintended impacts. Given this, the monograph closes with a discussion of the implications for future research and for public policymaking on performance funding. This is the 2nd issue of the 39th volume of the Jossey-Bass series ASHE Higher Education Report. Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education issue, based on thorough research of pertinent literature and institutional experiences. Topics are identified by a national survey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissioned to write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of each manuscript before publication.

Education has always been a key driver in our nation's struggle to promote social mobility and widen the circle of people who can enjoy the American Dream. No set of educational institutions better embodies the promise of equal opportunity than community colleges. Two-year colleges have opened the doors of higher education for low-income and working-class students as never before, and yet, community colleges often lack the resources to provide the conditions for student success. Furthermore, there is a growing racial and economic stratification between two- and four-year colleges, producing harmful consequences. Bridging the Higher Education Divide faces those grave realities in unblinking fashion. Led by co-chairs Anthony Marx, the president of the New York Public Library and former president of Amherst College, and Eduardo Padron, the president of Miami Dade College, the task force recommends ways to reduce the racial and economic stratification and create new outcomes-based funding in higher education, with a much greater emphasis on providing additional public supports based on student needs.The report also contains three background papers: "Community Colleges in Context: Exploring Financing of Two- and Four-Year Institutions" by Sandy Baum of George Washington University and Charles Kurose, an independent consultant for the College Board; "School Integration and the Open Door Philosophy: Rethinking the Economic and Racial Composition of Community Colleges" by Sara Goldrick-Rab and Peter Kinsley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and "The Role of the Race, Income, and Funding on Student Success: An Institutional-Level Analysis of California Community Colleges" by Tatiana Melguizo and Holly Kosiewicz of the University of Southern California.

"One of the striking ways in which state governments have pursued better performance in public higher education is through the use of performance funding. Performance funding involves tying state support directly to institutional performance on specific outcomes such as rates of graduation and job placement. The principal rationale for performance funding has been that the introduction of market-like forces will prod institutions to become more efficient, delivering "more bang for the buck." Kevin Dougherty, an expert on state performance funding, finds its development puzzling. First, despite the great interest in it, only half the states have ever adopted performance funding for higher education. Moreover, of the states that did adopt performance funding, over half later dropped it. Finally, in the states that have retained performance funding over a long period of time, their programs have undergone considerable changes in the amount of state funding they devote to performance funding and in the content of the indicators they use to allocate that funding. In spite of this, performance funding continues to attract interest as a way of improving educational outcomes. This book, based on an extensive ten-state study, aims to shed light on the social and political factors affecting the origins, evolution, and demise of these programs"--

What does it take to make it successfully through college? For a growing proportion of the nation's students--many of whom are racial and ethnic minorities, from low-income families, or the first in their families to enroll in higher education--the answer encompasses far more than affordable tuition and decent grades. As access to higher education has expanded to embrace these historically underrepresented groups, the formula for student success is increasingly understood to include a mix of programs and incentives tailored to their needs. Legislators are taking notice. Their primary policy objective in financing higher education was once to increase student enrollments. As their focus shifts beyond enrollment to attainment levels and gaps among underrepresented populations, states are developing outcomes-based funding models, which recognize that underrepresented students may require additional academic, financial, and social support to achieve success, and which allocate funding to institutions as a way to further promote a culture of student progression and success. As participation rates in higher education have increased across social and economic groups and non-traditional students have become the norm, the hurdles to success have multiplied for the students themselves and for the institutions that serve them. Outcomes-based funding is a relatively new approach to higher education financing based on the idea that colleges and universities should be supported to do more to foster student success. As public funding has become more constrained and attainment rates have fallen, the question of whether higher education is providing appropriate returns on public investment has become increasingly urgent. As more and more students fail to make timely progress toward a degree, drop out altogether, or do not succeed in finding jobs that leverage their degrees, attention has focused on tools policymakers can use to encourage those outcomes. Outcomes-based funding models are increasingly seen as an effective way to foster the efforts of colleges and universities to assist students once they are enrolled and to help them progress toward graduation. Such funding allocation models have been embraced by a growing number of states, with varied levels of investment and design. In contrast with a traditional funding model based on enrollments, or even a model that allocates a portion of funding based on key performance indicators, outcomes-based funding is a comprehensive model in which all or a substantial part of an institution's funding allocation is oriented toward achieving the state's desired outcome. Experts agree that while it's too early to assess the effectiveness of the state's outcomes-based funding model at increasing attainment, the changes it has ushered in have led to meaningful achievements.

The Condition of Education 2020 summarizes important developments and trends in education using the latest available data. The report presentsnumerous indicators on the status and condition of education. The indicators represent a consensus of professional judgment on the most significant national measures of the condition and progress of education for which accurate data are available. The Condition of Education includes an "At a Glance" section, which allows readers to quickly make comparisons across indicators, and a "Highlights" section, which captures key findings from each indicator. In addition, The Condition of Education contains a Reader's Guide, a Glossary, and a Guide to Sources that provide additional background information. Each indicator provides links to the source data tables used to produce the analyses.