Performance Funding and Budgeting: Popularity and Volatility--The Third Annual Survey.
Saved in:
| Title: | Performance Funding and Budgeting: Popularity and Volatility--The Third Annual Survey. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Burke, Joseph C., Modarresi, Shahpar, State Univ. of New York, Albany. Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst. of Government. |
| Availability: | Public Higher Education Program, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 411 State Street, Albany, NY 12203-1003; Tel: 518-443-5835; Fax: 518-443-5845; e-mail: burkejo@rockinst.org; Web site: http://rockinst.org/higheduc.htm ($10). |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 26 |
| Publication Date: | 1999 |
| Document Type: | Numerical/Quantitative Data Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Descriptors: | Accountability, Budgeting, College Outcomes Assessment, Educational Finance, Government School Relationship, Higher Education, National Surveys, Performance Factors, Public Colleges, Resource Allocation, State Aid, Tables (Data) |
| Abstract: | This report presents findings of the third annual survey of state programs that link funding to campus performance, either in the form of performance budgeting or performance funding. The survey found that 30 states now have at least one of these two types of programs, up from 26 states the previous year, although some earlier programs have been abandoned. Nine states have both performance budgeting and performance funding, an increase of one. Sixteen states have performance funding, an increase of three; the net result of six new initiatives and three dropped programs. Additionally, 23 states (up from 21) have performance budgeting, the total representing six new initiatives and four dropped programs. The mixed findings suggest that performance budgeting or funding will not replace traditional budgeting for public colleges and universities, although there is a growing belief in state capitols that performance should be related to allocation of resources to public education. Following the introduction and a description of the survey program, individual sections analyze findings on performance budgeting and performance funding, performance budgeting, performance funding, and performance reporting. These sections are followed by a discussion of future trends and a brief conclusion. The survey is appended. (DB) |
| Entry Date: | 2000 |
| Accession Number: | ED432933 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This report presents findings of the third annual survey of state programs that link funding to campus performance, either in the form of performance budgeting or performance funding. The survey found that 30 states now have at least one of these two types of programs, up from 26 states the previous year, although some earlier programs have been abandoned. Nine states have both performance budgeting and performance funding, an increase of one. Sixteen states have performance funding, an increase of three; the net result of six new initiatives and three dropped programs. Additionally, 23 states (up from 21) have performance budgeting, the total representing six new initiatives and four dropped programs. The mixed findings suggest that performance budgeting or funding will not replace traditional budgeting for public colleges and universities, although there is a growing belief in state capitols that performance should be related to allocation of resources to public education. Following the introduction and a description of the survey program, individual sections analyze findings on performance budgeting and performance funding, performance budgeting, performance funding, and performance reporting. These sections are followed by a discussion of future trends and a brief conclusion. The survey is appended. (DB) |
|---|
