rfa-logo-white.png

CONTACT US

  • White Facebook Icon
  • White Twitter Icon

Land Title Building
100 South Broad Street, 7th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19110

267-295-7760

Effects on Other Outcomes

Part two of this annotated bibliography offers an overview of literature published since 2014 on the effects of Outcomes-Based Funding (OBF) policies on other OBF-related outcomes, such as changes in enrollment and changes to institutional policies and practice. The literature is presented in two tables:

  1. Literature on OBF’s effects on other outcomes. Table 1 includes literature covering outcomes and effects of OBF other than degrees and attainment.
     

  2. Books that examine OBF implementation and other outcomes. Table 2 includes literature from two preeminent publications on outcomes-based funding. The table presents a summary of each book and identifies key topics covered by the authors.

 

Please note that some studies may not be relevant to current OBF policies given that many states have updated their policies since the studies were conducted.  For example, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee have each updated their OBF formulas at least once since 2009.

NOTE

Ø – No significant effect

↑ – Significant positive effect

↓ – Significant negative effect

⇄ – Mixed effects: a mix of significant positive and negative findings and/or null findings

Study
Treatment Sample
Years Studied
Outcomes
Select Findings (compared to non-OBF states)
Considerations
 

LA

2005 - 2013

Institution finance

↑ In-State tuition and fees

Phase I

AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, UT, VA

2005 - 2015

Enrollment of at-risk students

Ø Enrollment of at-risk students

Phase III

TX, WA

2005 - 2015

Institution finance, Performance metrics

↓ State appropriation per FTE at MSIs in TX

Ø State appropriation per FTE at MSIs in WA

⇄ Performance metrics at MSIs

Phase II

Gándara and Rutherford (2017)

CO, FL, IL, IN, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, VA

1993 - 2014

Enrollment of at-risk students, Admission rates

*The effects of any premium for underserved student populations in P/OBF:

Ø Admission rates

Ø Enrollment of at-risk students

Phase III

AR, AZ, FL, IN, IL, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NV, NM, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, UT

2005 - 2015

Institution finance

Ø State appropriation per FTE in four-year institutions in P/OBF states vs. non-P/OBF states

↓ State appropriation per FTE for MSIs in P/OBF states vs. MSIs in non-P/OBF states

Ø State appropriation per FTE in MSIs vs. non-MSIs in P/OBF states

⇄ Mix results among individual P/OBF states

Phase III

TX

2007 - 2013

Total PBF revenue earned by each student

⇄ State appropriation per metric by student characteristics

Phase I

A northeastern state

2012

Institutional responses

↑Policy encourages diversity

↑Policy promotes evidence-based accountability

↓Limited institutional involvement

↓Data capacity restricts outcomes reporting

Phase I

AR, CO, HI, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, NC, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA

2004 - 2013

Insitution finance

Ø Revenues per FTE

Ø Expenditure per FTE

⇄ Institutional grant aid per FTE

⇄ Institutional financial characteristics

Phase I

OH, PA

2015 - 2016

Institutional response

↑ Funding unpredictability

↑ Shifted focus to retention and completion

↓ Policy do not rewards

⇄ Perceptions of "competition for funding"

Phase I

OH, PA

2015 - 2016

Institutional response

⇄ Faculty and staff support

↑ Institutional mission alignment

⇄ Perceptions of equity in funding levels

Phase I

TN

2013

Institutional response

↑ Completion-related programs and initiatives

⇄ Perceptions of institutional mission alignment to policy

⇄ Perceptions of "collaboration vs. competition" among institutions

↑ Concerns of equity in funding levels

Phase I

TX, NC

2014 - 2015

Institutional responses

↑ Decision making driven by P/OBF

↑ Programming changes of academic programs and student services

↑ Need for more faculty and staff support

⇄ Institutional awareness

⇄ Levels of changes in internal practice and procedures

⇄ Perceptions of emphasis on performance

Phase I

Umbricht, Fernandez, & Ortagus (2015)

IN

2003 - 2012

Admission rates Average ACT scores, Enrollment of at-risk students

↓ Admission rates

↑ Average ACT scores

Ø Enrollment of at-risk students

Phase I

Books

 
Authors and Year
Topics
Book Summary

Implications for racial equity

Book discusses implications of P/OBF for racial equity in states implementing the policy, as well as in states where the adoption of P/OBF was under discussion. These implications include

  1. potential changes in funding for MSIs, which are dependent on formula design (TN, OH & TX), and

  2. challenge to close opportunity gaps and reduce institutional asymmetries if MSIs’ realities are not acknowledged (FL, TX, CA & MD).

Policy implementation and synthesis of research on P/OBF

The book studies the implementation and impact of P/OBF in Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee. Summary of findings:

  1. Three states focused on funding incentives to improve outcomes. Other strategies include assistance to campus leaders, although they varied in terms of campus penetration,

  2. Institutions use a variety of strategies to determine how to respond to the demands of P/OBF. Key to effective deliberative processes are organizational commitment and leadership, effective communication & collaboration, timely relevant data, and time for deliberation,

  3. The most common institutional responses to P/OBF include changes to developmental education, improvements in college articulation and transfer, revamping advising and counseling services, and enhancing tutoring services and supplemental instruction. Authors caution that it is difficult to determine whether these changes respond exclusively to P/OBF are related to other concurring policies,

  4. Obstacles to institutional responsiveness to the policy include: academic and demographic composition of student body, inappropriate performance-funding metrics, and insufficient institutional capacity (e.g. lack of timely and relevant data). Authors found little evidence of systematic state efforts to improve institutional capacity to respond to P/OBF, and

  5. The most common unintended consequences are increased selectivity and weakening of academic standards.