Search

States provide substantial support for higher education through appropriations to public colleges and universities that can be used to maintain relatively low tuition levels and funds for financial aid. Higher education often receives disproportionate cuts during recessionary periods, and it faces potentially unprecedented reductions in coming years amid a pandemic that has left some states with revenue shortfalls. How states approach higher education cuts has the potential to exacerbate existing inequities among racially minoritized and low-income students and historically underfunded institution types. In this study, we document trends in higher education funding over time and use latent profile analysis to identify distinct approaches states have taken to higher education funding. We then examine the trajectories of higher education funding within each approach over time, particularly during prior recessions. We conclude by discussing the implications of each approach for equity, particularly in light of states' early responses to the current economic downturn.

Performance-based funding (PBF) policies with research incentives have grown in popularity over the years despite little understanding regarding whether they actually work. This study leverages a novel national data set to examine the impact of PBF research incentives on the research expenditures and total state appropriations among public 4-year institutions, with a particular focus on minority-serving institutions. We find that PBF research incentives had no impact on the total amount or relative share of total research expenditures or the total amount of state appropriations allocated to treated institutions, regardless of minority-serving institution status. PBF policies that allowed institutions to self-select or opt into including research incentives as part of their PBF formula had a positive impact on the relative share of expenditures allocated to research and total state appropriations.

Parent PLUS loans are a growing concern due to their limited income-driven repayment protections and their potential to maintain longstanding racial wealth gaps. Previous research has examined factors associated with student debt burdens of college graduates, but no research has examined factors related to parent borrowing for college. In this brief, I use newly-released College Scorecard data to explore student and institutional characteristics associated with federal student loans and Parent PLUS loans of two recent bachelor's degree cohorts. I find meaningful differences in how certain characteristics are associated with student and parent debt, particularly gender, family income, and institutional selectivity.

The study examines the impact of various types of performance-based funding (PBF) policies on institutional resources across postsecondary institution types. Although 41 states have implemented PBF over time, the design and dosage of PBF policies look very different across PBF-adopting states. We leverage multiple quasi-experimental approaches and find that high-dosage PBF policies had a negative impact on state funding for four-year historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and four-year institutions serving an above-average share of racially minoritized students. We also show that sporadic positive effects of PBF policies on state funding are concentrated primarily among non-minority serving institutions (non-MSIs) and institutions serving below-average shares of racially minoritized or low-income students. Taken together, our findings reveal the unequal impacts of PBF policies and suggest that PBF policy design is an important consideration with critical implications for under-resourced institutions and the underserved students they educate.

While previous research on higher education policy diffusion often conceptualizes diffusion as occuring across neighboring governments, we conceptualize policy diffusion as also occuring across pairs of governments (dyads) regardless of geographic proximity. We apply both conceptualizations and use survival analysis techniques to examine factors associated with state adoption of performance funding equity metrics. Results show that the proportion of neighbors with equity metrics is unrelated to the likelihood of adopting a metric for either the 2- or 4-year sector, suggesting no evidence of policy diffusion across borders. The directed dyad analysis reveals that states are less likely to adopt a 4-year metric when the other state in the pair already operates a 4-year metric, indicating that states look beyond neighbors in policy avoidance behaviors. Internal state factors such as higher levels of legislative professionalism and greater enrollment of underrepresented minority and low-income students increase the likelihood of policy adoption. A state is less likely to imitate the adoption of 2-year equity metrics in another state when the pair show greater differences in legislative professionalism, minority and low-income student enrollment, income per capita, and income inequality. Our research highlights the utility of quantitatively modeling policy diffusion across governmental units that are distantly located, especially for higher education policy components that are nationally visible.

In this study, we examine whether institutional-level characteristics, student demographics, and state conditions are associated with student loan repayment rates and cohort-level loan default rates. We separately explore these characteristics for each of four higher education sectors: public 2-year colleges, for-profit colleges, public 4-year colleges, and private 4-year colleges. We conduct a series of multiple linear regressions on a sample of 2,375 colleges. Estimates suggest that across all sectors except at for-profits, colleges enrolling a higher percentage of historically underrepresented students, including first-generation and African American/Black students, report lower repayment rates. Additionally, a higher percentage of students enrolled who file as independents for tax purposes, as well as lower levels of family incomes among independent students, and lower graduation rates are all associated with lower repayment rates, across all four sectors. With the exception of for-profit colleges, the factors associated with higher cohort default rates include a smaller percentage of Asian students, a larger percentage of first-generation students, and lower median household incomes at the state level. Factors related to one-year and five-year loan repayment rates are similar, indicating that students who struggle to make progress on repaying their loans soon after leaving college continue to struggle in the future.

This study draws on a comprehensive performance-based funding (PBF) dataset and up-to-date difference-in-differences econometrics to examine the impacts of specific policy features (e.g., share of institutional revenue at stake and equity metrics) on college access and selectivity. We find suggestive evidence that increases in the share of revenue at stake are associated with decreases in racially minoritized student enrollment. Meanwhile, equity metrics may not be enough to boost enrollment among underserved students. Ultimately, however, our conclusions are limited due to various potential sources of bias, unconvincing pre-trends, and wide confidence intervals. While findings offer limited insight into the impacts of specific design features, they point to limitations of PBF--regardless of design--in expanding access and reducing inequities at 4-year colleges.

The majority of states in the U.S. have adopted a performance-based funding (PBF) policy, but we know very little about how PBF adoption affects completion outcomes among underserved subgroups of students or whether specific design elements of PBF policies exacerbate inequities facing traditionally disadvantaged students. In this study, we show that high-dosage PBF policies had a negative impact on bachelor's degree production among racially minoritized students but a positive impact on bachelor's degree production among white students. We also report a positive impact on bachelor's degree production among adult students when the PBF policy included a targeted incentive for graduating adult students, suggesting that PBF policy design represents a critical but understudied area of study with implications for underserved students.

Postsecondary institutions' responses to COVID-19 are a topic of immediate relevance. Emergent research suggests that partisanship was more strongly linked to institutions offering in-person instruction for Fall 2020 than was COVID-19. Using data from the College Crisis Initiative and a multiple group structural equation modeling approach, we tested the relationships between our outcome of interest (in-person instruction in Fall 2020) and state and county sociopolitical features, state and county COVID-19 rates, and state revenue losses. Our full-sample model suggested that County Political Preferences had the strongest association with in-person instruction, followed by "Pandemic Severity" and "State Sociopolitical Features." Because institutional sectors may be uniquely sensitive to these factors, we tested our models separately on 4-year public, 4-year private, and 2-year public and 2-year private institutions. "State Sociopolitical Features" were significantly related to in-person instruction for 4-year private and 2-year public institutions but were strongest for 4-year public institutions. For 4-year private and 2-year public institutions, County Political Preferences' effect sizes were 2-3 times stronger than effects from "State Sociopolitical Features." "Pandemic Severity" was significantly, negatively related to in-person instruction for 4-year private and 2-year public institutions--similar in magnitude to "State Sociopolitical Features." Our analysis revealed that COVID-19 played a stronger role in determining in-person instruction in Fall 2020 than initial research using less sophisticated methods suggested--and while "State Sociopolitical Features" may have played a role in the decision, 4-year private and 2-year public institutions were more sensitive to county-level preferences.

As state governments seek to improve the performance of institutions of K-12 and higher education, they often adopt educational policies that have similar names but different characteristics across states and with variations over time within states. Yet quantitative analyses generally examine the absence or presence of an educational policy instead of diving into details such as the dosage or percentage of funding tied to a policy or the specific groups being targeted by the implementation of the policy. The aim of this article is to provide guidance for education policy researchers in constructing and analyzing detailed data that can inform the design of state-level policies, using state performance-based funding policies in public higher education as an example. We also show how to conduct difference-in-differences analyses with continuous treatment variables in order to take advantage of more-nuanced data and better understand the context in which policies are effective (or ineffective).

This study draws upon the first detailed longitudinal dataset on performance-based funding (PBF) to document the evolution and current landscape of PBF in American higher education. We show that while PBF has become increasingly common, states have experimented with adopting, abandoning, and re-adopting PBF over time. We also find a new wave of PBF adoption occurring in the 2010s following the Great Recession. However, PBF remains a relatively weak policy lever with a small share of funds at stake in most states and some states not funding PBF even when it exists in legislation. Equity considerations vary in the student groups they include and less than half of two-year and three-quarters of four-year PBF systems include race when allocating performance funds. Our findings complicate some common characterizations of PBF and offer new insight for researchers examining how PBF policy design shapes student and institutional outcomes.

For decades, the federal government has expected vocationally focused programs in higher education, especially among for-profit colleges, to lead to gainful employment in a profession. In the mid-2010s, the U.S. Department of Education developed gainful employment (GE) regulations that sought to tie a program's federal financial aid eligibility to graduates' debt-to-earnings ratios. We use a regression discontinuity design to examine whether for-profit programs' performance on GE was associated with the likelihood of closing the program or college. Although the regulations were repealed before any program lost federal funding, we find that passing GE regulations was associated with a lower likelihood of program and college closures.

Context: In athletic training education, the first-time Board of Certification (BOC) pass rate is a significant marker of a program's success, and the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE) and requires programs to maintain a first-time 3-year aggregate BOC examination pass rate over 70% (Standard 11). Published research on BOC pass rates on professional master's (PM) programs is limited. Therefore, it is essential to identify modifiable factors that have a relationship with first-time pass rates. Objective: The aim of this study aim was to investigate the relationships between programmatic factors and the first-time BOC pass rate for PM athletic training students while controlling for student and institutional factors. This study is necessary to fill the literature gap and identify PM programmatic factors that may be significant in predicting student success in PM athletic training programs. Design: Cross-section study. Setting: A multiple regression analysis of program-level data that captured student, programmatic, and institutional factors obtained from the deidentified CAATE data was conducted on 77 PM athletic training programs in the 2018-2019 reporting year. Main Outcome Measure(s): Independent variables included in the study were institutional type, admissions selectivity, cohort diversity, clinical immersion hours per week, students per core faculty member, students per lab faculty member, percent doctoral faculty, and total spending on professional development. The dependent variable was the programmatic 1-year, first-time BOC pass rate. Results: A significant positive relationship was found between admissions selectivity, clinical immersion hours per week, percentage of doctoral faculty, and total amount spent on professional development and 1-year, first-time BOC program pass rates. These results suggest that increased programmatic investments into development of faculty and the evaluation of the clinical immersive experience may help programs increase their first-time BOC pass rate.

Eligibility for many federal, state, and institutional financial aid programs is determined by the expected family contribution (EFC) from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which functions as a tool to ration scarce aid dollars. The lowest possible EFC under current rules is zero, but this obscures a wider distribution of family resources that would be partially uncovered if the EFC formula were not truncated at zero and negative values were allowed. In this paper, I estimate negative EFCs using student-level data from nine colleges and universities between the 2007-08 and 2011-12 academic year. I find a large amount of dispersion in the distribution of negative EFCs for dependent students and that between 20% and 90% of students (varying by whether the student files the full FAFSA or qualifies for a Simplified FAFSA or an automatic zero EFC) would qualify for a larger Pell Grant award if negative EFCs were allowed. Additional costs of funding a negative EFC could range from $1.6 billion to $7.2 billion per year, depending on assumptions regarding generosity.

This systematic synthesis examines the intended and unintended consequences of performance-based funding (PBF) policies in higher education. Within this synthesis, we focus particularly on evidence from research studies with strong causal inference designs in an effort to understand the impacts of these policies. PBF adoption is generally associated with null or modest positive effects on the intended outcomes of retention and graduation, but there is also compelling evidence that PBF policies lead to unintended outcomes related to restricting access, gaming of the PBF system, and disadvantages for underserved student groups and under-resourced institution types. PBF policies including equity provisions for colleges that enroll or graduate underserved student groups have been found to offset some of these unintended consequences. Based on this synthesis, we offer policy recommendations and directions for future research on PBF policies, including the need to consider variation in policy design and the broader state policy context.

Policymakers have been debating the Bennett Hypothesis--whether colleges increase tuition after the federal government increases access to student loans--for decades. Yet most of the prior research has focused on studying small changes to loan limits or Pell Grants for undergraduate students. In this study, I examine whether business schools (the most popular master's program) and medical schools (one of the most-indebted programs) responded to a large increase in federal student loan limits in 2006 following the creation of the Grad PLUS program by raising tuition or living expenses as well as examining whether student debt burdens also increased. Using two quasi-experimental estimation strategies and program-level data from 2001 to 2016, I find little consistent evidence to support the Bennett Hypothesis in either medical or business schools.

The federal government currently provides more than $150 billion each year to students and their families in the form of grants, loans, work-study funds, and tax credits to help make college more affordable. This sizable public investment in higher education has indeed made college attendance possible for a larger share of Americans. However, there is growing concern in Congress on both sides of the aisle over whether these funds are being used effectively to help students receive a high-quality education at an affordable price tag. Washington policymakers who are frustrated by minimal accountability standards for colleges can turn to the laboratories of democracy--the states--for other ideas. One policy that has been adopted in nearly 40 states is performance-based funding, which ties at least a portion of state appropriations for public colleges to student outcomes such as degree or certificate completion. Should Congress also use degree completion as an accountability metric, including such a provision when reauthorizing the Higher Education Act? While the idea has promise, it also presents potential pitfalls. In this article, Robert Kelchen of Seton Hall University sees both promise and pitfalls in tying federal funding to such outcomes, even as he doubts that a new Higher Education Act is on the near horizon. [For "Should Congress Link Higher-Ed Funding to Graduation Rates? Debating the Use of Degree Completion as an Accountability Metric," see EJ1235168.]

After decades of slow growth, the share of young Americans completing college has increased to 48 percent in 2019, from 39 percent 10 years earlier. What accounts for the rise? Are more students clearing a meaningful bar for graduation, or are colleges and universities engaging in credential inflation and lowering their academic standards? This question could be central as Congress prepares to reauthorize the Higher Education Act--given the current interest in using degree completion as an accountability metric linked to the disbursement of federal funds. Are there problems in setting forth higher graduation rates as a federal goal? And more specifically, should policymakers embrace or reject the idea of linking funding to such outcomes in a new Higher Education Act? In this forum, Lanae Erickson of the think tank Third Way lays out the case for using federal leverage and other means to get institutions to boost their completion rates. Robert Kelchen of Seton Hall University sees both promise and pitfalls in tying federal funding to such outcomes, even as he doubts that a new Higher Education Act is on the near horizon. [For Kelchen's "Performance-Based Funding Produces Mixed Results," see EJ1235174. For Erickson's "Congress Must Address Dismal Dropout Rates," see EJ1235176.]

We conduct the first long-term experimental evaluation of a need-based financial aid program, the privately funded Wisconsin Scholars Grant. Over multiple cohorts, the program failed to increase degree completion and graduate school enrollment up to 10 years after matriculation. The program did reduce time-to-degree for some students and modestly increased the number of STEM degrees earned. The lack of robust effects raises important questions about the conditions necessary for financial aid to benefit students.