Policymakers in Texas want to understand the funding levels necessary for community colleges to meet their promise of providing an affordable and accessible pathway to a postsecondary certificate or degree. This study was conducted to help these policymakers better understand the extent to which Texas community colleges had adequate funding to reach desired levels of student success, as measured by success points milestones used in the state's performance-based funding system. The study involved three types of analyses: a needs analysis, an equity analysis, and a cost function analysis. The needs analysis found that community colleges with higher percentages of first-generation college students, students who are economically disadvantaged, students who are academically disadvantaged, students older than 24 years, and English learner students earn fewer success points milestones per full-time equivalent student. The equity analysis found that community colleges with higher percentages of students who are academically disadvantaged spent less per full-time equivalent student, suggesting that there may be resource inequities for these students. The cost function analysis found that spending was not high enough to cover the cost of providing an equal opportunity for first-generation college students, students who are economically disadvantaged, students older than 24 years, and English learner students to achieve the same level of outcomes as students without these needs. The findings from this study were used to inform Texas policymakers' efforts to distribute funding for community colleges to support equitable opportunities for all students to succeed in college. Background/Context: Community colleges in the United States play a critical role in promoting social mobility, as they serve a disproportionate share of first-generation, low-income, and returning adult students (Chetty et al., 2020). Yet, access to equitable, high-quality two-year public colleges remains largely dependent on state- and county-level resources and economic contexts. To wit, community colleges receive significantly less funding per student than their 4-year counterparts, despite serving a student population with the most hardships to overcome (Hillman, 2020). It follows that having a solid understanding of the costs of producing community college outcomes to inform funding policy surrounding the appropriate level of investment in this sector is a worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, there has been a relatively small amount of research on the costs of community college. A comparatively longer history of studies informing elementary and secondary education funding policy have attempted to address the varied costs of achieving common outcome goals and contributed to the development formulaic weighting systems to calculate state aid to local public school districts (Kolbe et al., 2020). K-12 school aid formulas often include weighting adjustments for child poverty, language proficiency, and a range of other specific educational need categories. Purpose/Objective/Research Question: This study applies the equity, need, and cost frameworks used for decades in the K-12 funding adequacy literature to one of the largest community college settings in the United States (e.g., Texas). It represents one of the first investigations to act on recent calls by higher education researchers and policymakers (Kahlenberg, 2018) to provide estimates of funding adequacy in a postsecondary setting. Three primary research questions guide the study: (1) To what extent do institutional resources vary with respect to differences in students served, institutional characteristics, and economic contexts?; (2) Which student background characteristics are most strongly associated with student progress and degree completion?; and (3) What spending levels are associated with student persistence and completion rates for otherwise similar programs, after controlling for the types of students served and institutional context? Setting and Population: The community college district-level analyses focus on 50 districts serving more than 500,000 students in Texas. Community colleges are located in various locales across the state and serve a variety of students including those who are first-generation college attended, from low-income households, are academically disadvantaged, and English learners. Research Design: We apply three regression analyses to these data, which collectively explore the relationships among institutional inputs (expenditures by college), student outcomes (persistence, vertical transfer, and completion), student need characteristics (family income, first-generation enrollment status, etc.), and context (enrollment size, location, economic context). Specifically, the study generated findings that estimated the following: (a) the equity with which community colleges are resourced given their student needs and contexts; (b) the degree to which different types of students face differential risks of achieving important outcomes, including persistence and completion; and (c) the cost of providing equitable opportunity for colleges to produce common levels of persistence and completion for different types of students. While the first two analyses (equity and risk) are merely correlational, the latter involves estimating an educational cost function where college spending per-student is regressed on student outcomes, student need characteristics and institutional context, including measures to account for inefficient spending (i.e., spending that is not related to the outcomes included in the model). An instrumental variables approach using student demographic characteristics from "feeder" K-12 school districts as instruments is used to isolate exogeneous variation in the student outcomes variable, which is assumed to be endogenous in the model. Findings/Results: The study found that Texas's current funding system is progressive in some respects, as demonstrated by higher expected per-student spending in community colleges serving higher percentages of students older than 24 years, first-generation college students, English learner students, and economically disadvantaged students. However, the additional amount of spending for students with these characteristics may not be enough to provide an equal opportunity for them to achieve key outcomes associated with college persistence and completion. The study found that institutions serving the highest shares of first-generation college students, students who are economically disadvantaged, students older than 24 years, and English learner students may not have the funding necessary to support an equal opportunity for success. For example, the models in this study predict that colleges with the highest shares of first-generation college students would need to spend over $1,400 per student more than they currently spend to provide their students an equal opportunity to achieve statewide average performance.