dc.contributor.author	Woodward, Frank William
dc.coverage.spatial	Central and North America -- United States	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	2004-2010	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2014-05-28T16:36:31Z
dc.date.available	2014-05-28T16:36:31Z
dc.date.issued	2014-05-18
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/1731
dc.description.abstract	Increasing the effectiveness of higher education institutions has become increasingly important for states in recent decades. During this time, a wide range of performance-based higher education funding initiatives has emerged as a means to improve outcomes in higher education. However, although performance-based funding initiatives continue to take shape in a number of states, only a few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these policies over time. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of performance funding implementation in United States (U.S.) public four- year institutions, by evaluating the relationship between funding amount and program duration with outcomes represented by completion rates and retention rates. This study employs hierarchical linear regression (HLM) methods to evaluate 2,452 four-year public institutions in 50 states from 2004 to 2010, using publicly available data obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) longitudinal Delta Cost Project Database. Additional institution-level control variables are also included from IPEDS data, and state-level control variables are incorporated from the National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL] (2013), Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] (2013) and Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] (2013) datasets. The results of this study’s analyses reveal that neither funding amount nor duration was meaningfully associated with completion rate or retention rate from 2004 to 2010. The institution-level variable faculty-student ratio was found to have a moderately significant association with completion rate, however. An examination of variance at each level of the model showed that the addition of institution-level factors accounted for the greatest proportion of variance reduction. This study recommends that further research should be conducted in order to evaluate individual state-level funding models more thoroughly. In addition, state higher education boards and institutional administrators should clarify funding objectives and outcomes measures in order to improve existing models and enhance the alignment between funding formulae and institutional mission. It is also recommended that states should be willing to revise or cease performance-based funding policies when research reveals implementation to be ineffective. Furthermore, the study recommends that institutional administrators, faculty, and staff give greater attention to the implementation and communication of performance funding policies at the institutional level.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................3 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................4 Research Questions ......................................................................................4 Summary of Methodology ...........................................................................5 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................7 Significance of the Study .............................................................................9 Summary of Chapters ................................................................................12 Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................15 The Historical Context ...............................................................................16 A Developing Understanding of Higher Education Cost Structure ...........17 The National Landscape: Moving Toward Accountability .......................19 Performance Indicators in Education Research .........................................21 Panel Data and Methodology .....................................................................26 Political Forces Driving Performance Funding .........................................28 Challenges to Performance Funding Policy ...............................................33 Summary ....................................................................................................36 Chapter III: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................38 Research Questions ....................................................................................38 Description of the Dataset ..........................................................................40 Sample Size and Reliability of Data Sources ............................................42 Description of Measures ............................................................................45 Dependent Variables. .....................................................................45 Independent Variables. ..................................................................46 Institution-Level Control Variables. ..............................................47 State-Level Control Variables. .......................................................52 Collinearity Analysis .................................................................................53 Analytic Strategy .......................................................................................54 Level One: Observation-level. .......................................................57 Level Two: Institution-level. .........................................................57 Level Three: State-level. ................................................................58 Methodological Limitations of the Study ..................................................59 Chapter IV: FINDINGS ....................................................................................................61 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis .........................................62 Pooled OLS Models ...................................................................................64 Three-Level Hierarchical Linear Regression Model .................................66 Intraclass Correlation (ICC). ..........................................................66 Results for the Full HLM Model for Completion ......................................68 Proportion Reduction of Variance for the HLM Completion Model. ............................................................................................71 Results for the Full HLM Model for Retention. ............................71 Proportion Reduction of Variance for the HLM Retention Model. ............................................................................................72 Evaluation of Hypotheses ..........................................................................73 Chapter V: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................79 Applying the Results of Analysis: The Political Context ..........................80 Implications of Independent Variable Analysis .........................................81 Implications of Control Variable Analysis ................................................86 Recommendations ......................................................................................89 1. Further Research is Necessary to Enhance State-Level Funding Models............................................................................................90 2. Restructure Performance Funding Policies Where Appropriate. ...................................................................................92 3. Improve Institutional Implementation Processes. ......................94 4. Redirect the Political Rhetoric. ..................................................98 Limitations of Applicability and Directions for Further Research ..........101 Summary ..................................................................................................105 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................108 APPENDIX A: Tables 6-16 .............................................................................................124 APPENDIX B: Figures 1-2 ..............................................................................................135 APPENDIX C: Institutional Review Board Exemption Form ........................................137	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Performanced-Based Funding	en_US
dc.subject	IPEDS	en_US
dc.subject	Outcomes	en_US
dc.subject	Higher Education	en_US
dc.title	State Level Funding Policy in Higher Education: An Evaluation of the Relationship between Performance-Based Funding and Outcomes in Public Four-Year Institutions	en_US
dc.type	Thesis	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Political Science	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Peterson, James W.
dc.description.committee	Neena, Banjeree
dc.description.committee	Archibald, James G.
dc.description.degree	Ed.D	en_US
dc.description.major	Public Administration	en_US