Policy Adoption, Innovation, and Performance Management: The Case of Performance-funding Policies in State Postsecondary Education

• Author: Chris Birdsall
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X19861425
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Date: 01 March 2019
• Subject Matter: General Interests

General Interest

Policy Adoption, Innovation, and

Performance Management: The

Case of Performance-funding

Policies in State Postsecondary

Education

Chris Birdsall

1

Abstract

Since the 1980s, nearly every state government has implemented some form of performance

management. This article turns to the context of public higher education where the use of per-

formance management has been popular but highly controversial and unstable. Using the Cox

conditional gap time model for repeating events and state-level panel data, this article investigates

the factors associated with the adoption and readoption of performance-based funding policies for

public higher education. Results indicate that state higher education governing structures, increases

in public tuition, and educational attainment are important predictors of whether a state adopts

performance-based funding.

Keywords

performance management, accountability, higher education, state government, policy adoption

Performance management continues to domi-

nate many of the scholarly and policy-focused

debates over public-sector reform (Moynihan

et al. 2010), and the addition of public higher

education into this space has created new

opportunities for scholarly work. State perfor-

mance–funding policies for public higher edu-

cation allocate a portion of an institution’s

funding on the basis of student achievement,

institution efficiency, and productivity.

The policy signals a dramatic shift in the rela-

tionship between state governments and

public higher education, as the traditional

enrollment-based allocation models afforded

institutions considerable autonomy (Alexan-

der 2000). By tying funding to specific mea-

sures and outcomes, state governments are

reducing university autonomy and asserting

their desire to shift university priorities away

from non-outcome-oriented activities, such

as research, toward outcomes relating to

undergraduate education (Rabovsky 2014).

While performance funding is relatively

popular among the states, with nearly half

adopting and implementing the policy,

its implementation has been volatile and

1

School of Public Service, Boise State University, Boise, ID,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Chris Birdsall, School of Public Service, Boise State Uni-

versity, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725, USA.

Email: chrisbirdsall@boisestate.edu

State and Local GovernmentReview

2019, Vol. 51(1) 34-45

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X19861425

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg