Linking State Resources to Campus Results: From Fad to Trend--The Fifth Annual Survey.
Saved in:
| Title: | Linking State Resources to Campus Results: From Fad to Trend--The Fifth Annual Survey. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Burke, Joseph C., Minassians, Henrik, State Univ. of New York, Albany. Nelson A. Rockefeller Inst. of Government. |
| Availability: | Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York, 411 State Street, Albany, NY 12203-1003 ($10). Tel: 518-443-5835; Fax: 518-443-5845; Web site: http://www.rockinst.org/higheduc.htm. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 34 |
| Publication Date: | 2001 |
| Document Type: | Numerical/Quantitative Data Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Descriptors: | Budgets, Educational Finance, Higher Education, Public Colleges, Questionnaires, School Effectiveness, State Government, State Legislation, Surveys |
| Abstract: | This report represents the fifth annual survey of programs linking state budgeting to public college and university performance. The 2001 survey once again obtained replies from all 50 states, and focused on performance funding and performance budgeting. After 5 years of surveys, some conclusions are clear, while others remain cloudy. The surveys over time show that the move to relate state resources to campus results represents a trend, not a fad, although the form of that linking remains in doubt. The return of bad budgets for higher education seems to be reviving performance funding and diminishing interest in performance budgeting. At the same time, the new programs in performance funding are much less ambitious and much more cautious than the radical reforms launched in the early and mid 1990s. The State Report Cards issued by the National Policy Center for Higher Education have spurred a resurgence of state performance reporting. A lingering issue is how to provide the missing link between the statewide focus of the State Report Cards and the institutional emphasis of the State Performance Reports. Whatever the preferences among performance funding, budgeting, and reporting, there is no doubt that the demand for accountability from public colleges has clearly swept the country. The real question for the future is whether campus officials will begin to lead, or leave the action to outsiders. One appendix contains a table summarizing survey findings, and the other contains the survey. (Contains 15 tables and 16 references.) (SLD) |
| Entry Date: | 2002 |
| Accession Number: | ED456781 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This report represents the fifth annual survey of programs linking state budgeting to public college and university performance. The 2001 survey once again obtained replies from all 50 states, and focused on performance funding and performance budgeting. After 5 years of surveys, some conclusions are clear, while others remain cloudy. The surveys over time show that the move to relate state resources to campus results represents a trend, not a fad, although the form of that linking remains in doubt. The return of bad budgets for higher education seems to be reviving performance funding and diminishing interest in performance budgeting. At the same time, the new programs in performance funding are much less ambitious and much more cautious than the radical reforms launched in the early and mid 1990s. The State Report Cards issued by the National Policy Center for Higher Education have spurred a resurgence of state performance reporting. A lingering issue is how to provide the missing link between the statewide focus of the State Report Cards and the institutional emphasis of the State Performance Reports. Whatever the preferences among performance funding, budgeting, and reporting, there is no doubt that the demand for accountability from public colleges has clearly swept the country. The real question for the future is whether campus officials will begin to lead, or leave the action to outsiders. One appendix contains a table summarizing survey findings, and the other contains the survey. (Contains 15 tables and 16 references.) (SLD) |
|---|
